I, for one, was getting ready to start a new thread and even stated so in my last post. Now my information is lost, I don't even know if there was any response to my questions. Is it possible for those deleted posts to be reposted on this thread so that we can get to the bottom of the matter? As someone who was told they taught false doctrine and was trying to ascertain the validity of this, it is rather important to me to be able to read what is now deleted.

God bless, Scott

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Answers

E. Lee saves all of his stuff....so e-mail him and ask to repost to this thread.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Uh...Kevin....

Since Jesus IS the "author of salvation"....if He says to the thief on the cross..."today...you shall be with me in paradise"...or he says to the woman caught in adultery..."Your sins are forgiven".....who are you...John....Scott....or anyone else to tell Him who He can or cannot save???

By the way....when Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery..."Your sins are forgiven".....do He do that by immersion??

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Kevin....you asked..."Is there any other way to be saved today other than being baptized for the remission of sins?"

The answer is....."No!!"...however...we are not talking about TODAY.....we are talking about....when Jesus was alive....before the institution of the New Covenant...which did not occur until the Day of Pentecost...as evidence by Peter's claims of what constitutes salvation under the New Covenant. (The writer of Hebrews also makes it clear that a new covenant cannot be instituted until the shedding of blood.)

Therefore, again...we are talking...while Jesus was alive and before the new covenant.

So...I assume you are going to tell us that Jesus immersed the woman caught in adultery...and that's how her sins were forgiven?? If so...chapter and verse....(not that you people in the non- instrumental have let that stop you from conjecture before.)

You also asked..."Are you going to delete this post also?"

This one...no. If you don't stick to the subject...yes.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Kevin...you asked..."Please tell me what this has to do with the thief on the cross?"

The thief on the cross became the focal point of discussion on the X- mas thread. John....was trying to reconstruct the discussion.

In fact....E. Lee's final post was almost entirely about the thief on the cross....in response to Scott who originally brought it up....which all has to do with the topic of "death bed conversions."

As per my feeling about "death bed conversions" John....I'm happy to leave that up to God who as Abraham said...."Will not the righteous Judge of all the earth...do what is right?"

What a sad commentary on us....if we allow people to try to prepare for an eternity....in just a few moments.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Kevin....are you dense...or just contentious by nature??

John appeared, in response to Scott's request....trying to reconstruct the discussion from the X-mas thread.

You asked me a question about salvation...I answered it.

Now...if you want to continue to be contentious about, what in my mind, appeared to be honest attempts to pick up the discussion from the X-mas thread...then I'll start deleting your posts.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Kevin...you state...."but you seem to continue to go back and forth and make it appear that it was my fault."

Where did I ever do that??? Cut and paste please.

Here is what John said..."In the Christmas thread, Kevin stated (pardon me if I misunderstood) that deathbed confessions were always invalid, for there was absolutely no way one could be saved unless they were immersed in water as well as having believed the message.""

Again...John appears to be trying to reconstruct the discussion.....notice the "pardon me if I misunderstood." That whole discussion was based upon Scott's reference to the theif on the cross. John did not need to discuss the thief on the cross....that topic was seminal to the discussion.

I really don't know what is so hard about this Kevin.

Scott started another thread based upon the thief on the cross discussin from the X-mas thread. John tried to reconstruct some of the discussion and add his two cents worth.

It's up to you....if you got time to post...I got time to delete.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

No John you are not....and there is no problem.

Scott brought up both the subject of deathdead conversions...and the example of the thief on the cross in the X-mas thread. Again...the two are tied together....by Scott....and in E. Lee's response to him....regardless of what the rest of us have to contribute to the discussion.

And I agree...the thief was a bad example.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Kevin...I will give you that it was not your intention to discuss the thief....if you will give me....that the two (i.e., deathbed conversions and the thief).....are related discussions in the X-mas thread.

I understand your point.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

I do understand Kevin's point....biblical truth should not be based on "hypotheticals."

On the other hand Kevin....I really don't think anyone here is doing that. I don't know John...but I do know Darrell VERY WELL as Darrell and I went to the same college....and served in a church together. Darrell's theology of baptism is as sound as anyones in the Church of Christ.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

In the Christmas thread, Kevin stated (pardon me if I misunderstood) that deathbed confessions were always invalid, for there was absolutely no way one could be saved unless they were immersed in water as well as having believed the message. So if there isn't time to do so or if it is medically inadvisable or impossible - such as the guy is on life support - we might as well not even waste our breath telling the person of the forgiveness offered in Christ for they cannot be saved anyway?

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

John,

Is Jesus the author of eternal salvation to all who DO NOT obey him? Please review and comment on Hebrews 5:9 when you give your reply.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Uh Danny,

Is there any other way to be saved today other than being baptized for the remission of sins? Am I missing something here? Are you going to delete this post also? If there is another way to be saved, please enlighten me.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Danny,

In my reply to John, he made the statement that I did not believe in deathbed repentance. Which is true. The response that I gave him concerning his statement was that Jesus was the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him. Not to those who DO NOT obey him.

How you got the thief confused in that is beyond me. And yes, we were talking about TODAY.

Once again, John made the comment, and I responded to it.

If you say this is getting off track again, then you should have deleted John's post.

For John specifically said: " In the Christmas thread, Kevin stated (pardon me if I misunderstood) that deathbed confessions were always invalid, for there was absolutely no way one could be saved unless they were immersed in water as well as having believed the message. So if there isn't time to do so or if it is medically inadvisable or impossible - such as the guy is on life support - we might as well not even waste our breath telling the person of the forgiveness offered in Christ for they cannot be saved anyway?"

Please tell me what this has to do with the thief on the cross?

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

I pity the poor people then who must lie there on their deathbed, sometimes for days, finally knowing the truth, finally believing in the Lord Jesus and wanting to give Him their whole heart, but knowing they are destined for HELL anyway because God is so merciless that He will not allow them into paradise under any circumstances without their first having been submersed in HշO.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Danny,

I know the thief on the cross was the focal point of the discussion on the X-Mas thread but nowhere in John's post was anything remotely tied to the thief on the cross mentioned at all.

And I didn't respond to anything but John's post which most definitely was speaking of events of today (deathbed repentance) and not events of over 2000 years ago.

Which you seemed to suggest in your reply to my post to John.

My question to you is where did you get the notion that I was speaking about the thief on the cross when John didn't even bring it up? Nor did I in any of my replies on this thread?

Since you made the following comment: "we are not talking about TODAY.....we are talking about....when Jesus was alive....before the institution of the New Covenant...which did not occur until the Day of Pentecost...as evidence by Peter's claims of what constitutes salvation under the New Covenant. (The writer of Hebrews also makes it clear that a new covenant cannot be instituted until the shedding of blood.) Therefore, again...we are talking...while Jesus was alive and before the new covenant."

Please show me where John or I said anything about what you commented on in your reply?

Then you continued with, "So...I assume you are going to tell us that Jesus immersed the woman caught in adultery...and that's how her sins were forgiven?? If so...chapter and verse....(not that you people in the non- instrumental have let that stop you from conjecture before.)"

Now, who is the one doing the conjecturing here?

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

It appears that John doesn't believe that baptism is required for salvation either, because he states: "I pity the poor people then who must lie there on their deathbed, sometimes for days, finally knowing the truth, finally believing in the Lord Jesus and wanting to give Him their whole heart, but knowing they are destined for HELL anyway because God is so merciless that He will not allow them into paradise under any circumstances without their first having been submersed in HշO."

If he truly believed that the Bible means what it says, then he wouldn't have made that statement.

By his own words posted above, John is basically saying that "He who believes and IS NOT baptized will be saved." That isn't what Mark 16:16 states now does it?

Who are we to believe, John or the Bible?

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Danny,

The following comment wasn't necessary now was it? "Kevin....are you dense...or just contentious by nature??"

And no, I am not dense, I am just trying to get you to answer my question, which you seem to be doing a good job of avoiding.

Then you said: "John appeared, in response to Scott's request....trying to reconstruct the discussion from the X-mas thread."

I know that, and even agreed with you. Where I disagreed with you was the fact that you mistakenly thought that John was speaking about the thief on the cross which he did no such thing and you targeted your response to me as if I didn't know what I was talking about, when in fact, you were the one who misunderstood. So, who is the one who is dense?

Then you said: "You asked me a question about salvation...I answered it."

I only asked you that question, because it had no bearing whatsoever on what I was responding to John now did it?

All you have to do is say that you made a mistake, and it would be over, but you seem to continue to go back and forth and make it appear that it was my fault when in fact, you were the one who made the mistake of thinking that I was talking about the thief on the cross when I did no such thing. I am still waiting for you to say that in any of my posts above I did any such thing?

Then you ended with: "Now...if you want to continue to be contentious about, what in my mind, appeared to be honest attempts to pick up the discussion from the X-mas thread...then I'll start deleting your posts."

Go right ahead and delete them, because you will be one busy man if I have to keep putting them in now won't you. I hope it won't come to that, but I can be just as determined as you are.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

I believe in the Word of God ... but I also believe in the grace of God. And that Jesus is able to "save to the uttermost" those that come to God through Him, and His almighty hand is not constrained by anything man can or cannot do, nor is it constrained by water nor by rituals, else He would not be Almighty nor would He be Gracious.

If Mark 16:16 is all you have to hang a doctrine on that a man cannot possibly be saved on his deathbed the grace of God notwithstanding, it's very shaky ground, considering it is a scholarly-disputed passage.

Sorry Danny if I'm getting off the original subject. But I think you have it the wrong way around: I believe in the other thread they were discussing deathbed conversions and someone trotted out the thief on the cross as an example. (Not that it was a particularly good example...)

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Danny,

John's use of the words "(pardon me if I misunderstood)" was to make sure that he was quoting me correctly, in that he stated what he believed to be what he gathered from my posts to say from the X-mas thread that "(in fact that deathbed confessions were always invalid)" and not as you say that he was trying to speak of the thief on the cross issue also.

What I am saying is that you completely misunderstood that I was responding to his post which ONLY spoke of deathbed confessions and NOT the thief on the cross.

I didn't understand why you responded with: "Since Jesus IS the "author of salvation"....if He says to the thief on the cross..."today...you shall be with me in paradise"...or he says to the woman caught in adultery..."Your sins are forgiven".....who are you...John....Scott....or anyone else to tell Him who He can or cannot save??? By the way....when Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery..."Your sins are forgiven".....do He do that by immersion?? "

So, this is why I asked you the following question: "Is there any other way to be saved today other than being baptized for the remission of sins? Am I missing something here? Are you going to delete this post also? If there is another way to be saved, please enlighten me."

It seems to me that you were under the mistaken impression that the thief on the cross had something to do with my response, and it did not in the least.

You said: "Kevin...you state...."but you seem to continue to go back and forth and make it appear that it was my fault." Where did I ever do that??? Cut and paste please."

Here is the cut and paste: "Now...if you want to continue to be contentious about, what in my mind, appeared to be honest attempts to pick up the discussion from the X-mas thread...then I'll start deleting your posts."

Ok, so I used the wrong wording, but that is why I made the statement above.

Then you said: "John tried to reconstruct some of the discussion and add his two cents worth."

I realize this however, you were the one who made the mistake of thinking that I was talking about the thief on the cross when I did no such thing.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Danny,

I do agree with you concerning the deathbed conversions and the thief on the other thread, however, just for future reference, this would have never been a problem if we still had those other posts to refer to. :-)

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

For someone to say: "I believe in the Word of God" and then turn right around and say: "If Mark 16:16 is all you have to hang a doctrine on that a man cannot possibly be saved on his deathbed the grace of God notwithstanding, it's very shaky ground, considering it is a scholarly-disputed passage."

I really begin to wonder if he even believes what God says is true. And no, this isn't the only verse in the Bible that speaks on this subject. How about the following verses: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-5, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21.

Then he says: "but I also believe in the grace of God. And that Jesus is able to "save to the uttermost" those that come to God through Him, and His almighty hand is not constrained by anything man can or cannot do, nor is it constrained by water nor by rituals, else He would not be Almighty nor would He be Gracious."

I too believe in the grace of God, but God's grace teaches us that: "denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works." (Titus 2:12-15) How can this be done on someone's deathbed?

How can someone on their deathbed comply with this Bible teaching in that we are to: "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;"? (Philippians 2:12)

I also wonder how someone on their deathbed can do the following: "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby," (1 Peter 2:2)

The Bible says that, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, I know Him, and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:3-4)

Now, since Jesus has commanded baptism (Matthew 28:19), can anyone truthfully say that anyone who dies without obeying the gospel of Christ be saved?

Remember, the Bible also says: "and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes," (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

It MIGHT be one thing for someone who has rejected the Good News all their life, and then makes a "deathbed conversion." But what about a person who was never presented the Gospel, and is presented the Gospel on their deathbed. just before their time to die? They believe, but can't be immersed due to time contraints (they die right afterwards), medical constraints (hooked up to all sorts of machines, etc.).

Along the same line, while not a deathbed conversion: A young man or woman reaches their age of accountabilty, comes forward, makes the good confession, and prior to being immersed, dies. Might happen walking from the front of the auditorium to the baptistry. Maybe the congregation is meeting somewhere where they don't have a baptistry, and driving to a pool or another building, there is a car accident. This young man or woman hasn't been rejecting the gospel up to this point ... they are just now "old enough" to make a decision to follow Jesus as Lord and Savior. What happens to them.

Yes, we can certainly say that without immersion they don't have the promise of salvation. But can the grace of the Almighty go far enough to include these folks in the Lambs Book of Life?

It is interesting that we are discussing deathbed conversions. Our college ministry is starting a worship service for folks at a personal care home here in Indiana. Most are quite elderly, with some going to the home "to die" as it were. I wonder ... should we even bother sharing the Gospel with those who might die prior to getting them into the water? I think we will ... and we will immerse all we can ... and if any should pass away prior to being immersed, then we'll let God handle it the way He wants to. But we will continue to share the Good News with these folks.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

So therefore anyone who at the last moment of his life sees the error of his ways and repents, is still without hope? At what point does this "point of no return" occur? I thought the Bible said that the offer was open to all who repented "as long as it was still called Today." That there was no second chance after death, but before death God was "the God of Second Chances," as even you have put it, Kevin. Yet here you say that when someone is near death it is too late so they might as well not even bother. This logic is not only confusing - it is disturbing.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

People who refuse to accept God's WORD, are always throwing this type of ridiculous hypothetical situation at us, "What if a person decides to be Baptized into Jesus but are then immediately killed by a speeding camel?" etc..., etc...

Well can I ask you, What about the person who would have 'Prayed Jesus into their heart' but were tragically struck down and killed by that same speeding camel? What about them?

Have you ever known ANYONE who has heard the full gospel and refused to be baptized?

The question has always been "What must I do..." The response has always biblically been baptism.

Acts 4:12 gives us the only name under heaven by which we may be saved.

Don't be fooled by a - deathbed salvation - doctrine, which cannot and DOES NOT accept the truth of God's WORD,

They do not believe God's WORD, Mark 16:16, (or any of the other passages that say that baptism is a requirement for salvation) but instead they perpetrate this LIE, as they defile the WORD of God and change it to say; " Whoever believes is saved, without being baptized because God is so merciful that He will allow them into paradise even though they didn't have a chance to Obey because they were on their deathbed and COULDN'T OBEY Him.

But the God of the universe who says that His Word is PERFECT declares that; "Whoever believes and is baptized, WILL BE SAVED..."

We CANNOT stand upon and formulate a doctrine around Hypothetical Situations.

Doing so is exactly what satan wants, To confuse the world and sabotage eternal souls.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Kevin -- help me out here, as I don't want to misunderstand you. I copy the following from your last post: - - - - -

How can someone on their deathbed comply with this Bible teaching in that we are to: "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;"? (Philippians 2:12)

I also wonder how someone on their deathbed can do the following: "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby," (1 Peter 2:2) - - - - -

I truly don't want to mis-read your intentions, or think you are saying one thing when you are saying another. It APPEARS to me that you are saying that a person must not only believe and be immersed, but have some amount of time left here on this earth to "work out their own salvation" and "crave pure spiritual milk" in order to grow. Certainly a person who makes a deathbed conversion, even if they were immersed, wouldn't have any time left to do those things. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING (and I certainly understand that I might be misunderstanding your view here) then I would have to ask: how much time would a person need to have following their biblical conversion in order to make it to heaven?

Please help me to understand your view here. Thanks!

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

"People who refuse to accept God's WORD, are always throwing this type of ridiculous hypothetical situation at us, "What if a person decides to be Baptized into Jesus but are then immediately killed by a speeding camel?" etc..., etc... "

Kevin, I posed the question, and I am one who accepts God's Word for what it is. I do NOT refuse to acdept God's Word.

"Well can I ask you, What about the person who would have 'Prayed Jesus into their heart' but were tragically struck down and killed by that same speeding camel? What about them?"

A totally different thing altogether, since nowhere in the Scriptures does is say anything about "praying Jesus into our hearts."

"Have you ever known ANYONE who has heard the full gospel and refused to be baptized?"

Yes, I've known plenty of people who have heard the full gospel presented who refused to be immersed ... I would think you do as well. People reject God's Word all the time ... and people reject immersion all the time, even after being presented with the full Gospel.

I do know of an account of an older gentleman (from Georgia) who attended a congregation that did not have a baptistry. Following his decision to accept Christ, he died (I will have to check to see the details of this ... I don't have them in front of me) on the way to being immersed at another location. So yes, it does happen, though I'm sure not all that often. I pray that the grace of our Lord is sufficient to ensure this man's place in the Kingdom of Heaven.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Darrell,

Yes, if someone obeys the gospel, even on their deathbed, they will be saved. And no, I am not placing another requirement that someone who obeys the gospel must have time left on this earth. That was not my intent.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

If someone hears and understands the truth of what God has done for our salvation, and he rejects the truth and continues to live for himself, how sincere can his repentance be when he knows he is about to die and then cries out to God for help?

Should we offer comfort to those who continue to reject God by letting them believe they can ignore God's command to repent or be baptized until the very end, and then, just before they die, call out for salvation and be ushered into heaven?

Is God obligated to save everyone who rejects Him all their lives and then in the end, they see death coming and cry out for salvation? What does God Himself say about this? See the following verses (Proverbs 1:24-31, Proverbs 21:13, Proverbs 28:9, 1 Samuel 8:7-18, Jeremiah 11:9-14, Jeremiah 14:10-12, Ezekiel 8:17-18, Hosea 5:5-6, Zechariah 7:9-13, Isaiah 55:6, Romans 2:4-5, 1 Peter 1:3-4, Psalm 103:8-18, John 12:32)

If the knowledge of what Christ has done did not draw us earlier when we understood it, can we say our repentance is sincere when we are about to die?

Are we really being drawn to Christ or just running scared?

Fear is not true repentance, just as sorrow for getting caught is not true repentance.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 says: "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again."

If we were not willing to live for Him earlier when we had the chance, who do we think we are kidding if we wait until we know we are about to die before we call out to God?

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

"If someone hears and understands the truth of what God has done for our salvation, and he rejects the truth and continues to live for himself, how sincere can his repentance be when he knows he is about to die and then cries out to God for help?"

I certainly understand your point, but there are only two who know how sincere the repentance is ... the person, and God. I know I would be happy to immerse that person into Christ, even if it did take place on their deathbed. If their repentance was not sincere, they can take it up with the Lord when they see Him. Of course, the same can be said of anyone whose repentance is not sincere, be it on their deathbed, or many years prior to their death.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Darrell,

You said: "there are only two who know how sincere the repentance is ... the person, and God."

To which I completely agree.

Then you said: "I know I would be happy to immerse that person into Christ, even if it did take place on their deathbed."

To which I say Amen and Amen.

I was only responding to rebut the fact that someone can be saved on their deathbed without obeying the gospel of Christ. Jesus said, "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge;" (John 5:30), and that is exactly what we are doing because the Bible also says that "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Cor 6:2) and we have the Words of truth in the Bible to help us do just that.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

John,

You said: "So therefore anyone who at the last moment of his life sees the error of his ways and repents, is still without hope? At what point does this "point of no return" occur? I thought the Bible said that the offer was open to all who repented "as long as it was still called Today."

To which you are absolutely correct.

Then you said: "That there was no second chance after death, but before death God was "the God of Second Chances," as even you have put it, Kevin. Yet here you say that when someone is near death it is too late so they might as well not even bother. This logic is not only confusing - it is disturbing."

I never said that if someone was near death that it was TOO LATE. I have said, and continue to say, "if someone obeys the gospel, even on their deathbed, they will be saved."

You were the one who said: "but I also believe in the grace of God. And that Jesus is able to "save to the uttermost" those that come to God through Him, and His almighty hand is not constrained by anything man can or cannot do, nor is it constrained by water nor by rituals, else He would not be Almighty nor would He be Gracious."

And you also said: "I pity the poor people then who must lie there on their deathbed, sometimes for days, finally knowing the truth, finally believing in the Lord Jesus and wanting to give Him their whole heart, but knowing they are destined for HELL anyway because God is so merciless that He will not allow them into paradise under any circumstances without their first having been submersed in H?O."

So, this leads me to believe that you don't believe that baptism is required for salvation except in this instance (i.e. deathbed). Please show me where there were any exceptions in the Bible for Obedience? This also leads me back to my initial question to you which was: "Is Jesus the author of eternal salvation to all who DO NOT obey him? Please review and comment on Hebrews 5:9 when you give your reply."

While you are at it, please show me an example of where someone was saved in this way in the NT.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Danny,

I never questioned Darrell's theology on baptism. What I did question was what John was saying in that someone on their deathbed who doesn't obey the gospel (i.e. being baptized) will be saved, which is contrary to what the NT says about salvation.

BTW, John was trying to use Hypotheticals such as: "So if there isn't time to do so or if it is medically inadvisable or impossible - such as the guy is on life support - we might as well not even waste our breath telling the person of the forgiveness offered in Christ for they cannot be saved anyway?"

And there were more...Now tell me that isn't a Hypothetical situation?

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Brother John:

“If Mark 16:16 is all you have to hang a doctrine on that a man cannot possibly be saved on his deathbed the grace of God notwithstanding, it's very shaky ground, considering it is a scholarly-disputed passage.”

There is simply NOTHING “shaky” about the ground upon which the authenticity, genuineness, and credibility of the Last Twelve verses of the book of Mark stand. It is as solid as the rock of Gibraltar!

The evidence in support of the authenticity and credibility of Mark 16:9-20 is overwhelming and I am willing to discuss that issue with you Brother John anytime you want. I have challenged you to discuss this matter numerous times over the past two years but you are pathetically incapable of discussing it and seem to be miserably unwilling to do so. Those verses are the inspired word of God as much as the rest of the Scriptures and I defy anyone to prove conclusively that such is not the case.

Mark 16:16 says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned”.

And men, like Brother John, do not like what Jesus had to say in that passage. And they cannot answer it so they try to make it go away by falsely asserting without any credible evidence to support their assertion that it is not a part of the inspired text. Well, assertions are just not good enough Brother John. WE want PROOF. We want conclusive and undeniable proof of your assertion. WE will in return give ample proof to demonstrate that the evidence in support of these last twelve verses of the book of Mark belong in the Holy Scriptures. In fact, they are there in our Bibles because they belong there. And few, if any, generally accepted and reliable translations in any language have removed them and this tells any thinking persons that the scholarship of the world has not been sufficiently convinced that these verses are spurious that they actually have confidence that they should remove them from the text. So, Brother John’s claim that these verses have sufficient scholarly doubt concerning them that one cannot make and argument from them without being on “shaky ground is based upon nothing short of absolute ignorance of the ground upon which they stand. Are you willing to debate this subject with us?

Indeed there are scholars that doubt them, as there are scholars that doubt the inspiration of the scriptures, but they do not make a very good case in support of their doubt. One can find scholars that doubt anything. But one must examine the arguments of scholars and determine from examination whether there is any reason to accept their assertions as true. But to argue that we should doubt these verses because some scholars doubt them is just pathetic. Give us the arguments and reasons why they should be doubted and let us examine those reasons to see if these scholars have not made a serious mistake. And Brother John conveniently ignores the fact that there are many Scholars that accept that Mark 16:16 is genuine. He did not want you to know that was the case, did he? So, he should tell us why he believes the group of Scholars that reject the credibility of Mark 16:16 over the one’s that believe firmly and confidently in the credibility of the last twelve verse of the book of Mark. And we suspect that his reasons are based more upon his “prejudice” against what these verses say than any arguments that has been very convincing to him. I do doubt that he has even examined the arguments fairly and objectively from the opposite side of his favored position. He just hopes that Mark 16:16 is not actually what Jesus said because he does not want to believe it even if Jesus did say it. For that reason all he can do is say that it is a “scholarly disputed passage”. The entire word of God is “scholarly disputed” issue. WE can find scholars who dispute the inspiration of the entire word of God. And if the fact that last twelve verses in the last chapter of Mark is disputed among scholars proves that it is not genuine then what does the fact that the entire word of God is disputed among some scholars prove? There are scholars who are atheist and they dispute with Scholars who are Christians. Does that mean that our faith in God is on “shaky ground” because our faith is “disputed” among scholars? Hogwash! That is all Brother John has presented here simply pure hogwash! That which proves too much, proves too little doesn’t it, Brethren?

WE are told, “prove all things hold fast to that which is good.” So, why not give us the arguments of these scholars Brother John and let us examine them for ourselves to see if their arguments against this verse have any strength or credibility. And let us hear the arguments of the scholars who support these verses for it is hard to have a “dispute among scholars” unless there are scholars with arguments on both sides of the issue. And let us determine which one’s are right and which ones have in fact failed miserably to prove their case. Can you even engage in such a discussion?

So, we say to Brother John that he has made a fine assertion now where is the PROOF of it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Lee, I may engage in such a discussion in the future. But I think not with you. For here you claim you "have challenged you to discuss this matter numerous times over the past two years", to which I cannot recall one such challenge. And then you go on to say, "but you are pathetically incapable of discussing it and seem to be miserably unwilling to do so." I will not have any discussions whatsoever with someone displaying such a lack of Christian grace, so willing to cast aspersions and namecall. Where do you get off calling me "pathetic", "incapable" and "miserable"? You know both my capabilities and my heart before God, and these kind of inflammatory remarks are just plain rude and insulting.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

So Kevin,

I think I'm beginning to understand your point, but need a little more clarification. What would constitute obedience to the gospel for someone who finds himself on his deathbed and learning for the first time the good news of Jesus Christ? Has this person disobeyed Christ if they were not able to be baptized before their death? I'm asking only for understanding.

God bless, Scott

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2002

Scott,

You asked: "What would constitute obedience to the gospel for someone who finds himself on his deathbed and learning for the first time the good news of Jesus Christ?"

The question I must ask you is, What does the Bible say?

Does the Bible say that there are special circumstances for salvation for someone who is on their deathbed? I haven't seen any in my Bible? If you have them in yours, please quote them to me?

Our salvation IS dependent upon whether we obey God. Obedience is essential to salvation.

Then you ask: "Has this person disobeyed Christ if they were not able to be baptized before their death? I'm asking only for understanding."

Absolutely. Remember, the Pharisees rejected baptism and rejected the will of God for themselves because they weren't baptized by John (Luke 7:30). And what about this verse, "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, and if first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:17-18)?

The apostle Peter described Christians as "obedient children." (1 Peter 1:14.)

Jesus was obedient also, "Though He were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and being made perfect He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him." (Heb. 5:8-9).

Since we are to OBEY the gospel, what will be the end of those who do not OBEY? 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 gives us our answer.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

Now anyone able to read can see that I called your ARGUMENT pathetic because it was a pathetic argument. But I did not call you a “pathetic” person as you falsely claim.

Then my words concerning your capabilities and your willingness to discuss this matter were just that. They were a comment concerning your capabilities and your will to discuss this matter. Thus I did not say that you as a person was “pathetic” but that your arguments was pathetic. And I said that you were not capable or willing to discuss the matter. I did not say that you as a person are incapable. By this I meant that you appear to me from what you have said to have not sufficiently studied both sides of the issue to be able to make the statements that you have made.

And I do know your capabilities in other matters and highly respect them as I have said on many other occasions when you and I were fighting false doctrines of British Israelism etc together. And I do not and cannot know your heart before God. That is more than any man can know. The only thing I can know of your heart is the samples of it that you provide from your mouth. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh”

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

Brother John:

You have said:

“Lee, I may engage in such a discussion in the future.”

I do doubt it because we asked you since September of 1999 to discuss it and you have not gotten around to it yet, now have you?

Then you say:

“ But I think not with you. For here you claim you "have challenged you to discuss this matter numerous times over the past two years", to which I cannot recall one such challenge.”

Well, let me refresh your memory of the challenge that I made to you concerning this matter. And you did not have any excuse at that time that I had said anything to you that you could even falsely claim was lacking in Christian grace.

The following from the tread entitled “Is Baptism essential to Salvation in the Archieves is an example of what I said to you before when you made this same ignorant and pathetic argument. And if you will but read it you can see that I did challenge you to discuss this issue with me. So, you cannot say that I have not challenged you to discuss it for the evidence is her in plain sight for all to see. Incidentally you did not ever respond to that post in that thread at all. All you did was to completely ignore it. And that, Brother John, was pathetic.

I now quote this post to remind you of what I had said previously concerning it way back in September of 1999 as follows:

“Mr. Wilson: I have much to say to you concerning your post but for now I only want to refer to what you say in the following quote: _Using Mark 16:16, as an earlier poster did, to pin a doctrine on, is dangerous ground, as Bible scholars (no, not just "liberal" scholars) now know that these words were additions to the original text and do not appear in the most reliable manuscripts._ In this quote from you it is clear that you are trying to claim that Bible scholars now know that these words-Mark 16:16- were additions to the text and do not appear in the most reliable manuscripts._ For this reason you say that it is _dangerous ground_ on which to stand concerning the doctrine of baptism being essential to salvation. Now you seem to be trying to leave us with the impression that ALL Biblical scholars agree with this position. This is definitely not true. I refer you to a book entitled, _ The last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objections and Established_ written by the eminent Biblical scholar John William Burgon. It has 350 pages of excellent refutation of the contention that because these verses are not in our most _ reliable_ manuscripts that they do not belong in the text. In fact, in those same so called _reliable_ manuscripts the latter part of the book of Hebrews, from the 9th chapter to the end of the book, are not found, but no one has argued that they should not be in the text. In fact, if you were to remove everything not found in those _reliable_ manuscripts, you would not have much of the New Testament left. The fact that no one has been so convinced that these verses were additions to the text as to remove them entirely is evidence that the issue is not settled or it is evidence that the translators do not have the courage of their convictions. All any of the most reputable translations have mustered the courage to do is to put a footnote in the margin stating that these words are not found in two of our _most reliable_ manuscripts. They then leave it to us to research the matter and decide on the evidence whether we should regard these verses as the inspired word of God. I wonder if you are just accepting your favorite scholar_s word on this or have you examined all of the evidence related to this issue. I have examined the evidence from the scholars on this issue, including Metzger and I am willing to affirm that the evidence and arguments in favor of the inclusion of Mark 16: 9-20 into the text of Holy Scripture is overwhelming and unanswerable. In fact, the arguments of Mr. Burgon have never been answered. Just telling us that the scholars now know that these verses do not belong in the text is not sufficient. Scholars often say things that prove to be in error. In fact, not all scholars agree with what you have said as is demonstrated by the 350 pages of arguments I have referred to you from John William Burgon. Your assumption that this issue is settled beyond doubt or controversy is far from the truth. Even a causal reading of what the majority of reputable scholars both in and out of the restoration movement say on this subject would have made you less confident of your assertion. Read brother J. W. McGarvey_s Commentary on Mark and see some excellent refutation of the arguments relating to Mark_s style. It is possible that most of the brethren where you live have accepted these conclusions of yours but I do not and there are many others, who are indeed scholars among us who do not agree with you. But why, exchange quotes from scholars. I would like to discuss what arguments the scholars have made that has so bewitched you as to cause you to accept such unfounded conclusions? Which arguments have they made that have been so convincing to you that you sense that this matter has been settled against the inclusion of these verses in the text beyond all controversy? If you are really interested in an honest discussion of this issue, and have the time to enter into it, contact me at my e-mail address. Then we will try to arrange for a fair and reasonable forum and set some guidelines for this issue to be discussed in an open and honest way so that all can determine for themselves whether the last twelve verses of Mark belong in the text. I am sure that you will find this to be work because it is by no means a settled issue in favor of the exclusion of these words of our Lord from the text. We shall test your _knowledge_ of these matters to the very limits of what you have learned should you chose to enter into this discussion. I pray for you Brother Wilson. If indeed these verses are not from God, the arguments establishing the essentiality of Baptism for salvation without the verse are sufficient. But we do not relegate these verses to the trash heap on your words or the words of some scholar alone. There must be proof. This we would like to hear and examine. Contact me about discussing this issue. I will enter into it if you are interested and with a Christian spirit that we may establish the truth about this matter.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

“-- E. Lee Saffold (gdragon@mindspring.com), September 02, 1999.”

Then you accurately quote my words as follows:

“And then you go on to say, "but you are pathetically incapable of discussing it and seem to be miserably unwilling to do so."

TO which you reply:

“I will not have any discussions whatsoever with someone displaying such a lack of Christian grace, so willing to cast aspersions and namecall.”

But what was your excuse for not discussing it back in September of 1999? Anyone reading the words that I said to you back then can see that I did not say you were incapable of discussing it. I assumed that you were and you simply ignored what I said to you about it, didn’t you?

Then you say:

“ Where do you get off calling me "pathetic" "incapable" and "miserable"? You know both my capabilities and my heart before God, and these kind of inflammatory remarks are just plain rude and insulting.”

My exact words were concerning how pathetic your argument was as the following quotation shows:

“But one must examine the arguments of scholars and determine from examination whether there is any reason to accept their assertions as true. But to argue that we should doubt these verses because some scholars doubt them is just pathetic.”

Now anyone able to read can see that I called your ARGUMENT pathetic because it was a pathetic argument. But I did not call you a “pathetic” person as you falsely claim.

Then my words concerning your capabilities and your willingness to discuss this matter were just that. They were a comment concerning your capabilities and your will to discuss this matter. Thus I did not say that you as a person was “pathetic” but that your arguments was pathetic. And I said that you were not capable or willing to discuss the matter. I did not say that you as a person are incapable. By this I meant that you appear to me from what you have said to have not sufficiently studied both sides of the issue to be able to make the statements that you have made.

And I do know your capabilities in other matters and highly respect them as I have said on many other occasions when you and I were fighting false doctrines of British Israelism etc together. And I do not and cannot know your heart before God. That is more than any man can know. The only thing I can know of your heart is the samples of it that you provide from your mouth. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh”

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

Brother Jewell:

Let me try again to repost the post that was deleted in the Christmas thread wherein I responded to your words. My last post left our almost half of it. It seems that I made a mistake when I copied it to paste into this thread. I am doing this in this thread because you have requested it. I have also done it in your thread on the bpatism of John because this response that I gave you was related to both subjects. The following is the entire response as you have requested:

Brother Jewell:

You have accurately quoted my words as follows:

“E. Lee, You write: "You are completely unable to prove that the Thief on the cross was “saved” in his “last dying moments."”

To which you reply as follows:

“To which I ask: Did not Christ promise him that he would be in paradise?”

Yes, he did. But can you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the promise that Christ made solely upon the basis of his immediate request to be “remembered when Christ came into his Kingdom”? Or can you prove that there could not have been other factors involved in this man’s salvation, which are not recorded in this place? Can you show that Christ did not require that this man repent of his sins? Can you show that Christ definitely made an exception to the “counsel of God” at that time which was than men should be baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29;30)? For repentance and baptism for the remission of sins were two things that both Christ and John the Baptist had been preaching throughout all Judea and God required it of all men and any who rejected his “council against themselves” (Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29,30).

Then you again accurately quoted my words as follows:

“Then you write: "And you cannot prove that the thief was saved without having obeyed the commands of God essential at that time for him to be saved which was that men had to be baptized at the baptism of John (Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29,30)."

To which you respond:

“To which I write: I have never heard this teaching before.”

It has been in your Bible for a long time so if you have not heard it before then you have not paid too much attention while reading your Bible. But, this is not uncommon. WE all miss something as we read the word of God and have to be reminded to go give it another look.

Then you say:

“ My understanding of Scripture was that salvation came through obedience to the Law before Christ and adherence to Christ after.”

Well, The Law was in effect at that time but few, if any were actually obeying it. And John the Baptist, in fulfillment of prophecy came “preaching in the wilderness” saying “Prepare ye the way of the Lord and make his paths straight"“ Therefore what John the Baptist commanded others to do was what God commanded men to do. For we are told, “

Then you say:

“ Never before had I heard that John's role and baptism was anything more than a preparing of the people before Christ.”

Now, have you ever stopped to think about HOW they were being prepared? And for what they were being prepared. They were being prepared by having their sins remitted or forgiven. For this is what the scriptures say about the Baptism of John.

First of all there is a significant fact stated at the birth of John the Baptist when his father, by the direction of the Angel of God gave him the name, “John”. At that time his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied saying:

“And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,” (Luke 1:76,77).

Now notice that Zacharias by inspiration of the Holy Spirit tells us that John was going to:

1. Be a prophet of the Highest 2. That he would go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways

And that the purpose of his doing this would be to “give KNOWLEDGE OF SALVATION unto his people BY THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS”. SO, john’s purpose as a prophet of the highest was to prepare the way of the Lord to give knowledge of SALVATION unto his people by the REMISSION OF THEIR SINS. So, it would perfectly be in harmony with John’s purpose and mission for him to preach a “baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4).

So, in fulfillment of the Prophecy of Zacharias it is said, “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). And again Luke records, “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;” (luke 3:2,3).

Now, if these scriptures do not prove, beyond the possibility of even respectable quibble, that John’s Baptism came from GOD and that it was a “baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins, then we do not know how language can be shaped capable of proving that fact!

Notice that it Luke says that the “WORD OF THE LORD” came to John and then John “came into all the region around Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And according to Zachrias’ prophecy this is what he would do and that it would be connected with giving the people knowledge of SALVATION. And this makes good sense because when one receives the remission of sins he is then saved from the consequence of sin isn’t he?

And the Phrase “for the remission of sins” in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 is the same Greek word that is found in Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38. That Phrase is “eis aphesin harmartion” in all four places. The word “eis” is a preposition that always looks forward and never looks back. It means, according to Thayer’s Greek English lexicon, as well as all other reputable and accepted Greek Lexicons of the New Testament, “for, unto or inorder to obtain”. Now let us read them beginning with Matthew where Christ is talking about the purpose of his shed blood in relation to the Lord’s Supper.

“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:28). There it is folks that same Phrase “eis aphesin harmartion”. Here Jesus is saying that his blood was shed for many “eis” in order to obtain the remission of sins.

Now let us read Acts 2:38 concerning Baptism in the name of Christ. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38). Now here again we have the phrase, “eis aphesin harmation” In order to the remission of sins. So, baptism in the name of Chrst was as much in order to the remission of sins as was the blood of Christ.

Then we have Mark 1:4, ““John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). And again we see this same phrase in the Greek, as well as the English, “eis apesin harmartion” for or in order to obtain the remission of sins. So John’s baptism was as much in order to obtain remission of sins as was the blood of Christ, and baptism in the name of Christ. If not why not?

Now let us read Luke 3:3 “And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;” (Luke 3:3). Again we have exactly the same Phrase “eis aphesin harmation” For or in order to obtain remission of sins”. And again John’s baptism was as much for the remission of sins as was the blood of Christ and baptism in the name of Christ after Christ raised from the dead and began to be preached to the world. So, the baptism of John was “for the remission of sins”. And no one who believes the word of God can doubt it. That is a fact.

Then the apostle Paul, on giving a brief overview of the history of Isreal and the prophecies that were being fulfilled among them spoke of baptism of John in these words. “ Of this man's seed hath God according to [his] promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not [he]. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of [his] feet I am not worthy to loose. Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.” (Acts 13:23-26).

And thus John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance “eis aphesin harmation” in order to obtain the remissionof sisns. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). And let us not forget that sin is what men needed to be saved from and the phrase “remission of sin” and “Salvation from sin” are speaking of the same thing. And this is what Paul also said concerning the Baptism of John. He said, “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” (Acts 19:4). Therefore the Baptism of John was a “baptism of repentance” and it was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). And thus when John was “preparing a people for the Lord he was baptizing them for the remission of sins so that these people could be pure and clean from sin in preparation for the time when the gospel would go forth from Jerusalem on their lips. (Acts 1:8).

And the apostles were taken from this class as is seen from the following passage concerning the selection of one to take the place of Judas who betrayed the Lord. “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:20-26). So, these were the “people prepared for the Lord”. But what was involved in their preparation. The forgiveness of their sins was a part of their preparation. They were a people who had been cleansed of their sins by repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4). That is how they were prepared for the Lord. Sinful men who were yet in their sins could not have been a people properly prepared for the Lord and ready to preach the gospel of Christ which also required of men that they “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38).

Then you asked:

“ And if John's baptism did "save" people, why did Paul have to baptize the people in Ephesus in Acts 19. As it is written, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."”

There is no “IF” about the fact that those who repented and were baptized at John’s baptism received the remission of sins. For indeed, the scriptures say that John’s Baptism was a “baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins”. (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). Which would therefore make it abundantly clear to any thinking person that those who were baptized at John’s baptism received the remission of sins doesn’t it? And if they received the remission of their sins they were saved from them then were they not? And if they were “saved” from their sins then it would be true that John’s Baptism, because it was commanded of God procured salvation for them. And this also involved faith in Jesus Christ upon whom they were told to believe. (Acts 19:1-6). And after Christ died and was raised from the dead men were told to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 2:38; 8:35-40). And therefore the Baptism of John was no longer in effect since it had been superceded by baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38).

But there were so many people that had been baptized at the baptism of John that were still teaching the baptism of John after Christ commanded baptism to be done in his name (Mark Matt. 28:19,20). Therefore there were some, who had been baptized in the baptism of John but not in the name of Jesus Christ as Christ commanded. These people had been baptized after the resurrection of Christ without being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. And therefore they needed to be baptized with the baptism of Christ because the baptism of John, which was not in effect anymore, was not in the name of Jesus Christ. And because it had no connection with the promise of the “gift of the Holy Spirit” which the converts would receive after they were baptized in Christ name and the apostles laid their hands upon them (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). And that is the reason they had to be baptized again.

And such were those we read of in Acts 19:1-6. But not all of those who had been baptized in the baptism of John were required to be baptized again such as the apostles of Christ, and Men like Apollus. “And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:24-28). Nothing is said here of this man needing to be baptized again in the name of Jesus Christ. And it is very likely that he did not have to do such because of the same reason that the apostles had not need to do such, such as Mattais. They had been baptized in the baptism of John when it was in effect. And the others such as those in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-6) had been baptized in the baptism of John by men like apollus who were still teaching the baptism of John and administering it after Christ was raised from the dead and baptism in the name of Christ was God’s command. But to assume that because these men had to be baptized again that everyone, even those who had been baptized at the baptism of John when it was doing its authorized work of preparing a people for the Lord, had to be baptized again. And that this is because they did not receive the remission of sins as John the Baptist promised them is just a complete misunderstanding.

“Again, I have never heard of John's baptism being considered an interim mode of salvation.”

Nor have I. And I have never said it was an “interim mode of Salvation”. I have only said what the scriptures say. John’s baptism was a “baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). Which clearly means that those who submitted to it received the remission of their sins. And that is what Salvation is all about. But this does not mean that they received remission of sins without Christ. For when Christ died his death covered all sins from Adam to the cross and from the cross down to E. Lee Saffold and will continue until the end of time. But his blood cleanses only those who obeyed the commands of God applicable at the time in which they lived for obtaining such forgiveness. And after John the Baptist came the way that God commanded for men to receive the remission of their sins in preparation for the coming Messiah was to submit to the baptism of John. And this is what Jesus was telling us when he said, “For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. And all the people that heard [him], and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” (Luke 7:29,30). The Baptism of John was not just something that John the Baptist made up on his own. It was what God had commanded to be done “For the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). And Jesus himself asked the Jews to answer a question that you should answer also. He asked, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.” (Matt. 21:24-26). So, do tell us, Brother Jewell, can you answer this question? Was the Baptism of John from heaven or from men? The passages, which we have shown indicate that it was from heaven, don’t they? And if it was from heaven then it follows that it was from GOD, doesn’t it? And if it was from God and it was for the remission of sins then those who submitted to it received what God promised in connection with such obedience to His will which was the remission of their sins, is that not true? And if they received the remission of their sins then were they not “saved” from their sins? If not why not?

Then you say:

“ Has anyone else or are we being taught a false doctrine here?”

This doctrine is strait from the word of God as we have shown and thus it is not false doctrine in the least. But if you can show from the word of God that it is false doctrine then we will be happy to repent of teaching it and never teach it again. But so far the only reason you have given for thinking that it is false is because you have never “heard” it before. So, I can understand how you might want to question it. But do study these passages of scripture, which we have shown you and think about what they say and decide for yourself if it is false doctrine. And when you prove it to your self please return and prove it to me for I do not want to teach that which is false. But at least you should be able to see that we have many scriptures, which indicate that the baptism of John was indeed a baptism that was for the remission of sins. But remember that we have not said that this was an “interim” anything. You said that. WE believe that it was all a [part of God’s plan as revealed through the prophets. John’s work was not an after thought. It was the fulfillment of prophecy and was therefore very much a part of the plan of God to prepare a people forgiven of their sins who would carry the gospel to the world after the resurrection of Christ. There is nothing “interim” about it.

Then you say:

“I just want to know the truth, as I have been accuse of teaching false doctrine.”

Well, I am very happy to see that you want to know the truth. And I was absolutely correct when I said that your teaching that a person can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ was false doctrine. Look at just how false it is.

Brother Jewell says:

“A man can be saved today without obeying the gospel of Christ”.

And the inspired apostle Paul speaking as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance says:

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;” (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Now, whom shall we believe? Shall we believe the uninspired Brother Jewell or the inspired apostle Paul?

And even Peter asked the following question:

“For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? ” (1 Peter 4:17).

Then you say:

“ I will be glad to apologize if I am wrong in regards to this teaching of John's baptism, but like I said, I have never heard of it before.”

Well, I can understand. It is possible for one to err and I appreciate your willingness to apologize. But I seek no apology only that you study and learn the truth about what the word of God has to say on the matter.

Then you quote my words accurately again as follows:

“Then you write: "And you cannot prove that this thief had never been baptized at Johns Baptism ever in His life."”

“To which I say: The man was a thief. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. If this man had received John's baptism, why did he continue as a thief?”

Now we have answered this in a previous post. I have baptized person who was guilty of being a thief. And shortly after his baptism he went to jail as a thief for crimes he had committed before he was baptized and forgiven. He was forgiven of God but not man. He still had to pay for his crime that he had committed even though he had repented and was baptized for the remission of sins. And if you read the court documents he is called a “Thief” after he had repented of such behavior. And if one were to ask why he went to jail they would be stating the truth if they said it was because he was a thief. Even though he had repented of that behavior and had obeyed the gospel and obtained forgiveness from God. For that was in truth the reason for his punishment. The same could have been the case with this thief also. The word of God does not hide the reason that the civil authorities condemned him. But one cannot know from the fact that he was a thief that he had never in his lifetime obeyed the commands of God by repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins at the baptism of John. And it is possible that he had been baptized at the baptism of John and had backslid and was in fact a thief at the time of his crucifixion. But this would not mean that he had never obeyed God’s command to be baptized of John, now would it. Anyone can see that the fact that he was a thief does not by any means [prove that he could not have been baptized at any time prior to the day of our Lord’s crucifixion, now does it?

Then you say:

“ I have no verse that says he did or he didn't, but considering the character of the man, I don't believe he did and I would like to see you prove otherwise.”

You know very little about the “character” of this man. All you know is that he was capable of doing wrong things such as stealing. But does such make it impossible for him to do anything right? His character did not prevent him from saying” Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom” now did it? So, can you say with certianty that his character would have prevented him from repenting and being baptized at John’s baptism? And then you say you would like to see me prove that he was baptized. Well, I do not believe that I can prove that he was baptized. But I do not have to for I am not the one who is claiming that he was saved without being baptized, now am I? I am not trying to prove that he was saved without being baptized. I am trying to show that no one can say that he was saved without being baptized and use it as a solid excuse for teaching that men can be saved without being baptized today. For if you are going to argue, as you have done, that men can be saved without being baptized because the thief on the cross was saved without it then you must be able to know for a CERTAINTY that he was in fact saved without being baptized. For you cannot expect others souls to depend upon your mere assumptions for their salvation now can you?

Then you quote my words again:

“Then you write: "And also you falsely fail to notice that no one after the death of Christ on the cross could be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ for that is when the New Covenant began. (Heb. 9:15-17)."”

“To which I write: I do not disagree with you there. And I ask you this- what constitutes obedience to the gospel of Christ?”

Romans 6:3-6; 16-18 shows what constitutes obedience to the gospel of Christ. For no one can obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ without being baptized (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

But you say:

“ I think we would both agree that belief, repentance, and baptism.”

Believe (John 3:16), Repent (Act 3:19), be baptized “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).

Then you say:

“ But if you are talking to a nonbeliever and present the gospel to him, he accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior, and as you head to the waters to baptize this man he falls over with a heart attack and dies, is he not "saved" because he did not get baptized?”

Now it is not possible for anyone to “accept Jesus as Lord” until they obey him. For Christ himself said, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things, which I say?” (Luke 6:46). And again he said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt. 7:21). So, it is impossible for any man to accept Christ as their Lord until they SUBMIT to him as their Lord in obedience to his will. So, until one has obeyed the Lord’s Command to be baptized (Mark 16:16) he has not yet “Accepted Christ as Lord” now has he?

And no one can accept Christ, as savior until Christ has become his or her savior. And Christ will only save those who have accepted him as Lord. For we are told, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” (Heb. 5:8,9). And none will be saved until they have been baptized for Jesus said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16).

Thus, until one is baptized he has not accepted Christ as either Lord or savior! Therefore, with this correct scriptural understanding of how one accepts Christ as Lord and savior let us ask your question again substituting the words “accept Christ as Lord and savior” for the word “baptized” for this is what happens in baptism and see if it makes sense to you:

“But if you are talking to a nonbeliever and present the gospel to him, and as you head to the waters for him to accept Christ as Lord and savior” and he falls over with a heart attack and dies, is he not "saved" because he did not accept Christ as his lord and savior”?”

For that is how it would and should read if you accept what the scriptures say about baptism. No man on this earth is able to accept Christ as Lord or savior until he submits to Christ as Lord by obeying him in baptism and Christ becomes his savior. So, if a man dies before he accepts Christ as his Lord and savior he will be lost, will he not? And no man can accept Christ as Lord and savior until he has submitted to the commands of the Lord and Christ grants him forgiveness of his sins and thereby becoming his savior. How can you accept Christ as your savior until he has saved you from your sins? How can you claim him as your Lord if you do not do what he has commanded you to do? (Luke 6:46). You simply cannot do it. And I can tell you this also. I have never seen anyone die while they were trying to obey God’s commands to be baptized, have you? And if they did one would wonder just how many times such a person had the opportunity to obey God and refused to do so. Keep this in mind friends when you spurn the gospel. One day you may want to obey it but it could be too late. So, do not put yourself in a position where you must depend upon the excuses made by preachers for your soul's salvation. Obey the gospel now because there could come a time when you cannot obey it. And if you do not obey it RIGHT now you will have no excuse if your opportunity to do so is suddenly taken from you. It is not a light thing to spur God’s invitation. If you do when you die preachers will all say you have gone to heaven. But you will KNOW BETTER! (read again 2 Thess. 1:8,9).

Then you say:

“I would rather err to the side of God's grace and think that he is.”

This error may make you feel better. And I understand how you may need to feel better and wish sincerely that I could offer you some comfort about this tragedy. But you can err as much as you like but your errors will not save anyone now will they? In fact, if your errors cause others to go out into eternity without obeying the gospel of Christ then your error will cause them to be eternally lost. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). One cannot obtain the grace of God through your errors, my brother. They can only obtain God’s grace in obedience to the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16).

Then you say:

“ That is what I was expressing when I said I do not know my wife's grandfather's fate.”

But you are not being truthful. If he did not obey the gospel of Christ you do know his fate. Read again 2 Thess. 1:8,9 which tell us the fate of every man that does not obey the gospel of Christ. And you are the one who says he was not a Christian and that he did had not obeyed the gospel.

Then you say:

“ Although I had not personally presented the gospel, I know that others had.”

So, the gospel had been presented and he rejected it! Then how is he to be excused?

Then you say:

“ I was expressing a hope that in his final hours, her grandfather turned to Christ in a similar manner to that of the thief on the cross.”

And in doing so in this public forum you were teaching false doctrine for there is no hope for any man to be saved who has not obeyed the gospel of Christ. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And there is not a single passage of scripture that even remotely teaches that anyone can be saved the same way as the “thief on the cross”.

Then you say:

“There is no evidence that this thief was baptized”

This is not true. Read my previous post on this thread wherein I show how it is very possible that he could have been baptized. And there is at least some evidence pointing in that direction. But, if you are going to say that people can be saved after the death of Christ on the cross without being baptized because the thief on the Cross was not baptized. Then you are under OBLIGATION to prove without any shadow of reasonable doubt that the thief was saved without ever in his entire life being baptized at the baptism of John. And you have not only failed to do this but you have also admitted that you cannot do this. And if you cannot prove that he was saved without being baptized then how can you teach that anyone else can be saved without being baptized one the grounds that the you know beyond doubt that the thief was saved in this way?

Then you say:

“ and yet, knowing he was dying, he asked Jesus to remember him”

Does it not strike you as a little bit peculiar that he did not even ask Jesus to “save him”? He said only for Christ to “remember him”. Is it not possible that this thief knew Christ before and had heard his preaching before and that he had believed it? For he does say, “when thou comest into thy Kingdom”. How did this “thief” know that Christ even had a kingdom much less that he was even though dying on the cross “coming into that kingdom? And on what basis does he even think that the Lord would have any reason to remember him? Could it be that he had been obedient to the baptism of John and had long since repented of his sins and was depending upon the things that Christ and John the Baptist had taught him? Now we do not know that this was the case. But the problem is that you do not either. And unless you can prove that this thief was never under any circumstances baptized at the baptism of John you cannot assert and prove that he was saved without being baptized. And even if you could prove such a thing then you would still be a long way from proving that any person today can expect to be saved in exactly the same way. For everything written in the New Testament after the death of Christ on the cross indicated otherwise. EVERYTHING.

Then you say:

“Jesus responded, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:40-43”

“From what I see, I have taught a hope that Christ will save even those who turn to him on their deathbed.”

You have and that is false doctrine unless a person can be baptized into Christ on their deathbed. Now you have taught this false doctrine but you have not proven that it was even remotely true, now have you?

Then you say:

“ You tell me this is a false doctrine.”

Yes it is and if you would like to add this to the list of propositions that we shall discuss in our debate we will be happy to do so. In fact, I highly recommend it.

Then you say:

“You have taught that John's baptism was for salvation, I have never heard of that before and question it's truth.”

I have clearly taught the scriptures say about this matter. We are told, “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). Now, why do you not explain to us just why the scriptures tell us that John’s Baptism was “for the remission of sins” if that was not the truth?

Now, I expect you to question the truthfulness of anything that I have to say. For only God’s word is true. But you have it right there before your eyes. John’s baptism according to the inspired Mark was “for the remission of Sins”. That is what we have shown from the word of God and we are convinced that because God’s word says it that it simply must be truth. But we have not read anything from you yet that would prove otherwise, now have we?

Then you say:

“ Everyone has had opportunity to see what we have written and if our brothers concur that I have erred in my understanding of Scripture, I will gladly recant.”

Well, this sounds very noble but it does not matter if your “brother concur” or not. What matters is if the WORD OF GOD concurs or not. You say that John’s baptism was not for the remission of sins. But the inspired Mark says, “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). Now do tell us just how it is that John’s baptism could be for the remission of sins if it was not “for the remission of sins? And you had best concur with God and not your “brothers” on these matters!

Then you say:

“ I hope that you are willing to do the same, E. Lee.”

Believe me that I will not do the same. For I do not care if any brother concurs with what God’s word says. I am going to believe God over any men or group of men. Now, I will say this. If you can show me that what I have said is out of harmony with what the word of God teaches then I will most assuredly correct any such error and thank you for helping me discover it. But do not expect me to be very much convinced by an appeal to whether my “brothers concur” or not. I trust God and his word. If you wish to convince me of anything you will have to show me what GOD has to say about it. A bunch of speculation and absurd hypothetical situations and appeals to “concurring brethren” are all just plain useless.

So, come back and explain to us why God said in his word, “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4), If John’s baptism was not for the remission of sins. In fact, try to prove to us from the scriptures that John’s baptism was NOT for the remission of sins. For that is what you believe isn’t it? So, where is the proof that John’s baptism was not “for the remission of sins” especially since we are clearly told, “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). I would like to see you do that and you might want to get some of your “concurring brethren” to help you with it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

P. S.

As anyone can see you are a very long way from proving beyond doubt that the thief on the cross was an actual example of a "deathbed conversion" apart from obedience to the commands of God required of men in his time before Christ died, was buried and raised again. And, even if you could prove such, you would be a long way from proving that after the death of CHrist on the cross anyone could be converted on their deathbed without obeying the gospel of CHrist. In fact, no one is "converted to Christ" until they have obeyed the gospel of CHrist by repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. (Acts 2:38) "Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (JOhn 3:5).

ANd you have still not dealt with a very improtant passage which completely denies your notion that one can be converted on his deathbed and be saved from sin without obeying the gospel of Christ. Read it again and ponder it seriously. It says, "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Now that passage makes it abundantly clear that CHrist is returning and he is going to take vengence on those who "obey not the gospel" and punish them with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power. So, the only way any person can be saved on his deathbed is if he can truly believe in Christ (John 3:16) repent of his sins (Acts 2:38) and obey the gospel of CHrist which can only be done by being "buried with Christ in baptism that like as Christ was raised from the dead we also should walk n newness of life" (Rom. 6:3-6) and when he has obeyed that "form of doctrine" he is then, and not one moment before then, "free from sin" (Rom. 6:16- 18; COl 2:11-13. FOr we are told to obey the gospel and the gospel is facts to be bleieved that Christ died, was buried and raised again the third day" (1 Cor. 15:1-4). But one cannot "OBEY" mere facts to be belived, can he? ANd therefore Jesus Christ, when giving the great commission to preach the gospel Christ gave commands to be obeyed (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:15,16). ANd according to the apostle Paul baptism is the command wherein a person actually "obeys" the death burial and resurrection of CHrist as a "FORM OF DOCTRINE". ANd in it a person dies with Christ to the world, is buried with Christ in baptism, and is raised to walk a new life. There is simply no other way given in the New Testament for one to "obey the death, burial and resurrection of CHrist which is the essence of the gospel. SO, we are not told only to "beleive the gospel" we are told that we must OBEY it. So, we are not only to believe that CHrist died, was buried and raised again but we are told also, in obedience to his command, to be baptized (Mark 16:16; MAtt. 28:19,20; Acts 2:38). THus we are to die to sin, be buried with him in baptism and raised with him to walk a new life" (Romans 6:3-6; 16:18). Then we are free from sin and its consequences and not before or without it. So, those who do not obey the gospel will be punished and one cannot obey the gospel until he is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Therefore no one can be converted to CHrist on his deathbed or any other place unless and until he believes the gospel of Christ and obeys it by being baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-6; 16-18). So, I do not doubt that a man can be saved on his deathbed if he can obey the gospel on his deathbed. But, no man, in any place or time before the coming of CHrist, whether on his deathbed or not, is going to be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ as Paul made quite clear in 2 Thess. 1:7- 9 quoted above.

So, if you want to prove that one can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ just because he waited until he was dying to give attention to the gospel which he had heard several times before but spurned the invitation of God. THen you will have to find some scriptures that teach it. For, thus far all you have give us is emotional arguments not based upon scriptures at all and a few "hypothetical situations" which can only be judged after we know what the word of God says. For even your Hypothetical situations are to be judged by God's word and not by your purely emotionally and prejudiced human reason. Let us not interpret the word of God by these hypothetical siutuations but let us judge, if we must, these hypothetical situations in the light of the word of God.

But anyway, you have not shown one single passage of scripture that even remotely indicates that a person can be saved on his deathbed without obeying the gospel of CHrist. Now we do not doubt that a dying man can be saved in his last minutes on earth but we categorically deny that he can be saved at any moment on this earth before or without obeying the gospel of Christ which is the "power of God unto Salvation" (Rom. 1:16).

Friends:

To those of you out there who have never obeyed the gospel let me urge you to do so now. Do not wait and think that you can depend upon God saving you in the last moment without your obedience to the gospel of Christ. It just is not going to happen. ANd if you are reading these words you know what God commands you to do. Do it now. For if you refuse to obey him now what will be your excuse when you are dying and you do not have sufficient time to obey him then? And whose fault will it be?

Brethren:

THose of you who should be preaching the gospel of Christ to lost men. Be diligent and busy and work with the understanding that this matter is an URGENT one. And do not get yourself into the position that one of your loved ones had never heard the gospel from you in his entire life though he saw you every day for years. And then he suddenly dies without obeying the gospel of CHrist. No matter how much you console yourself with the lie that God may have saved him apart from faith in the gospel and his obedience to it it will not save him. Nor will it save you unless you repent and begin to take the command of Christ to preach the gospel seriously and obey it. DO not imagine that You are going to enter heaven with the blood of such persons who could have heard the gospel from you but you refused to tell them the truth on your hands. No one is going to be saved apart from obedience to the gospel, no one.(Rom. 1:16; Romans 6:3-6; 16-18; 1 COr. 15:1-4; 1 Cor. 1:18; 1 Peter 4:16-18; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Heb. 5:8,9; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16 Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3:26,27; MArk 16:15-16; MAtt. 28:19, 20).

Perhaps this is why Peter warned us:

"Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" Oh, my brethren it should send a freezing chill up your spine to contemplate the fact that the "judgement will BEGIN at the house of God (which is the church of the living God) and that even the RIGHTEOUS will SCARCELY be saved! Christianity is not just some lifeless tradition or a game in society which one tem plays against the other. It is the most urgent and the most important business we must be about. Let me urge you all to be about our father's business and take his command to preach the gospel and stop making excuses for those who do not obey it. GO out and preach it and tell those who hear it the truth that God has left them WITHOUT excuse so that if they refuse to obey the gospel and they get in a posisiton where it is finally impossible for them to obey it they will be lost forever without CHrist and without hope for ETERNITY! Nothing could be more serious, true and frightening. But, the great Joy and wonderful hope that resides in the hearts of those who have been reconciled to God in obedience tothe gospel is so beautiful and magnificent that only one who is terribly foolish would shun the first opportunity that God affords him to submit to the Lordship of CHrist in obedience to the gospel and when Christ forgives his sins he can then accept the truth that Christ is his savior and not one moment before then! How wonderful that felling of joy and blessed hope truly is. Take that Joy to your friends, relatives and loved ones while they live. DO not make excuses for them when they die. FOr as much as your excuses may falsely comfort you they will did nothing whatsoever to save the one who did not obey the gospel. ANd do not be so foolish as to offer hope publicly for one that you know has not obeyed the gospel for by doing so you lead men to think that this matter of obeying the gospel of Christ is not really so urgent. That one can just wait until his last breath and call our to CHrist the Lord and be saved without obeying the gospel. And they too will be among those who shall be punished with everlasting destruction because they believed your false hopes!

Your Brother and friend in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

Brother Jewell:

Here is the information concerning the "Thief on the Cross" that Danny deleted from the "Christmas" thread. He has given me permission to put it into this thread since you are asking for it. WIth this post you now have all that Danny deleted of my response to you in that thread. Irealize that you may not have what others said to you or even what you had said that may have been deleted. But I have done all that I can do to restore this information to you of what I had posted to you in that thread.

Brother Jewell:

THis is what I had posted concerning the theif on the cross before it was deleted. As you have asked I am presenting it again in this thread for your consideration. I hope that it dopes not get deleted without warning again for it takes time to find it and copy an paste it. ANd some of the things deleted are things I did not save because I wrote them on my computer at work during my lunch break and I cannot save these things on my work computer. So, I sincerely hope that this will not be deleted AGAIN before you have a chance to read it. ANd I hope that it is not deleted after you have read it. It is not a part directly of the subject of this thread which is John's baptism but it is related to the subject because we are claiming that John's baptism was required of men for them to receive the remission of their sins at that time when CHrist was dying on the cross. So, it is related to this subject and that is the reason that I had posted tem togeter in the previous thread. But, it is brother Danny judgement as to whether he will leave it in this thread or not. But with the hope that it will be left here we give it to you as you have requested as follows:

"Brethren and friends:

Now most of the arguments in this thread designed to prove that it is possible for one to be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ are based upon the unproven assumption that the thief on the cross was never baptized. And that he was saved without even repenting of his sins at the very last moment without his ever having even known anything in his entire life about Christ. And that on the cross he not only learned all that he needed to know but that he did all that was necessary to his salvation in the very “last moment” of his life. They contend that he learned nothing prior to this time and that he did nothing prior to this last moment that in any way prepared him for salvation by Christ.

Thus some here argue that people today can be saved in the same way that the "thief on the Cross" was saved by ignoring all that Christ commanded and simply crying out to him with their last breath. But they do not know for sure if the thief was saved without repenting and being baptized, now are they?

There is as much, if not more, evidence to indicate that the thief may have been baptized at the baptism of John as there is that he had not been baptized ever at all for any reason in his life. But, based upon this assumption these false teachers fallaciously conclude that anyone today can be saved in the same way that the thief on the cross was saved. In order for that argument to have any validity they must prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the thief had never heard John the Baptist, or Christ preach and accepted that baptism which was for the remission of sins. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4), which both Christ and John lead men to obey.

We are told, “And all the people that heard [him], and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.” (Luke 2:29). Now is it possible for anyone to prove that it was absolutely impossible that the thief could have ever been among “all the people that heard him” and were baptized with the baptism of John? Especially in light of the fact that John preached “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” and Christ did as well.

We are told that Christ was preached throughout all Judea as “lord of all”. “But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, [I say], ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;” (Acts 10:35-37). Now all Judea heard these things and it began from Galilee after the baptism that John preached. Is it not at least possible that the thief had the opportunity to hear John the Baptist preaching that Christ was Lord? Furthermore, during the same time we are told that Jesus baptized more disciples than John. “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.” (John 4:1-3). Now, not only did John baptize many of the people of Judea and the region around Jordan but also Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though his disciples actually did the baptizing). Is it not possible with all of this baptizing going on during that time that this thief heard either the teaching of John the Baptist or of even Jesus Christ himself and submitted to the baptism, which they were administering?

Now, there are some things said by the thief on the cross that indicates a certain familiarity with the teachings of both John and Jesus. Listen to his words:

“But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke:23:39-43).

Now notice the thief indicated the justice of his condemnation which could at least imply that he had at some point before his capture and crucifixion come to repentance about what he had done. Notice also that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins”. (Mark 1:4). Then this thief knows for a surety that Christ was innocent. “This man hath done nothing amiss.” Now, those who were evil, sinful, and impenitent men had no such knowledge of Christ. In fact no one can say that a total stranger is innocent! This thief obviously knew enough about Christ to draw the conclusion that he was innocent implying far more than a casual knowledge of this controversial figure! Then he said some very significant words to Christ. He said, “Lord”. Now on what basis did this thief recognize that Christ was not just an ordinary innocent man being crucified unjustly but that he was LORD? Is it not in the least bit likely that he could have heard the teaching of Christ, John, or their disciples who were always teaching that Christ was “LORD”. No band of thieves, who had no knowledge of Christ and had not heard any teaching from Him or about him would have concluded that Christ was “Lord”, now would they? And then he says to Christ, “remember me”. Now on what basis could this thief expect Christ, whom he had learned very likely from the teaching of either John, Jesus or one of their disciples that Christ was Lord for such was the only source of such information, expect that Christ would have any reason to “remember” him? And he says remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom! Now how in the world would this thief have learned that Christ had a Kingdom and that he was, even though hanging upon a cross, coming into it? It was Christ and John the Baptist and their disciples who were preaching “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. Is it not possible that this thief had heard them preach of this coming Kingdom of Christ? And would he make such a request of Christ if he did not believe that Christ was coming to a kingdom as taught by himself and John the Baptist? And if this thief had heard all of this instruction from either John the Baptist, or Jesus and believed it enough to count upon it in the hour of his death that might he not have also believed what they taught about baptism and have submitted to it? It is indeed possible! Is it possible for anyone to prove that nothing like this ever happened? Some might say that he was a thief and justly condemned for it is proof that such could not have happened. But this is not necessarily so. For this thief could have heard the teaching of John the Baptist or Christ and repented of his stealing and was baptized by them and later convicted of Crimes that he had committed in the past for which he had been forgiven by God but not man? And is it not possible that this thief had repented and been baptized at the teaching of either John the Baptist or Christ and then lapsed back into his old habits and sins. And was convicted for them and then repented before Christ and asked to be remembered by him when he came into his kingdom? And indeed, it is at the very least highly unlikely that he had absolutely no knowledge gained from hearing John or Christ or one of their disciples teaching. For he had knowledge of these things that we know he must have known or he could not have said the things that he said while speaking of and to Christ on the cross.

Unless those who seek to be saved as the thief on the cross was saved can prove that it was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that he had been baptized at the baptism of John they cannot with honesty prove conclusively that this thief was saved without being baptized. And even if they could prove such a thing, if they wish to show that one can be saved without being baptized today, they must also prove that Christ will definitely, without any doubt, save anyone else in exactly the same way that he saved the thief. This they also cannot prove.

They must also prove that the New Covenant, which went into effect after the death of Christ, allows one to be saved just as the thief on the cross was saved, however that was. “ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.” (Heb. 9:15-18).

Now this passage makes it abundantly clear that the New Testament or covenant of Christ was “of no strength” or, not in effect, until Christ who is the “mediator” of that new covenant which was of “no effect” while the “testator” (Christ) lived. Which would make it clear that the thief on the Cross, however he was saved, it was not according to the covenant that we are now under for the testator was still alive when he was promised “this day shalt thou be with me in paradise”.

In fact there are some, and I am not one of them, that contend that we cannot even know for sure if this thief was, in fact, saved. While I agree that he was saved we are not certain if he was saved without having been baptized and can never be certain of it. And we are not certain that, even if he were, that Christ would save others in the same way.

But our friends would offer to others the hope of being saved while refusing to obey Christ command to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Even though they are not sure that such is the case nor are they even certain that this thief was saved without having been baptized. Thus on the basis of silence and uncertainty and a complete lack of evidence to support the underlying assumption upon which their argument rests. They yet continue to argue for that which conflicts with the clear teaching of the word of God throughout the New Testament that baptism is in order to the remission of sins and hence necessary to our salvation. (Acts 2:38). For they are certain, without any evidence justify their assumptions that the thief was saved without being baptized! When the truth is that no one, after the death of Christ when he became the “mediator of the New Testament” is going to be saved without being baptized under that New Covenant of Christ. For Christ says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) and “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38). “And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). And again, “the like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21). And numerous other passages, which we recommend that all who are interested in the truth take the time to read. (John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:25,26; Heb. 10:22; Romans 6:3-6, 16-18; Col. 2:11-13; Gal. 3:26,27; Acts 8:8- 40; Acts 19:1-6; Mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 10:47,48; Acts 16:13- 16; Acts 16:30-34; Acts 2:38).

For Christ and those who love the truth in him,

E. Lee Saffold

had posted to you in that thread.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

E. Lee;

This is an excerpt from your post to Brother Jewel:

To which you reply as follows:

“To which I ask: Did not Christ promise him that he would be in paradise?”

Yes, he did. But can you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the promise that Christ made solely upon the basis of his immediate request to be “remembered when Christ came into his Kingdom”? Or can you prove that there could not have been other factors involved in this man’s salvation, which are not recorded in this place? Can you show that Christ did not require that this man repent of his sins? Can you show that Christ definitely made an exception to the “counsel of God” at that time which was than men should be baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29;30)? For repentance and baptism for the remission of sins were two things that both Christ and John the Baptist had been preaching throughout all Judea and God required it of all men and any who rejected his “council against themselves” (Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29,30)."

My response to you is simply this, can't you take it on faith what is written? Meaning, the thief sought Christ's remedy for his life, when he asked Jesus to: remember me when you come into your kingdom. Jesus reply was sufficent, you be with me this day in paradise. Do you remember the lame man lowered on the mat? Jesus said your sins are forgiven. Jesus makes the rules and therefore has the right to make exceptions. He, to me, promised salvation to the thief, and his word was good. Just as his word was good to the lame man. So why do you write so many suppositions?

All your questions to Brother Jewell are moot points, except the repentance question. There is no scripture to give evidence either way, it is all conjecture. Again the exception is the repentence question. When the thief asked for Jesus to remember him, I think Jesus understood this to be his repentence. This is why I take the passage at face value, the man asked, Jesus granted. The case is closed.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2002

Brother Umstetter:

You have accurately quoted my words as follows:

“E. Lee; This is an excerpt from your post to Brother Jewel: To which you reply as follows: “To which I ask: Did not Christ promise him that he would be in paradise?” Yes, he did. But can you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the promise that Christ made solely upon the basis of his immediate request to be “remembered when Christ came into his Kingdom”? Or can you prove that there could not have been other factors involved in this man’s salvation, which are not recorded in this place? Can you show that Christ did not require that this man repent of his sins? Can you show that Christ definitely made an exception to the “counsel of God” at that time which was than men should be baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29;30)? For repentance and baptism for the remission of sins were two things that both Christ and John the Baptist had been preaching throughout all Judea and God required it of all men and any who rejected his “council against themselves” (Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29,30)."”

And then you give YOUR response as follows:

“My response to you is simply this, can't you take it on faith what is written?”

Now that is not a “response” to what I have said. It is a question about why I said it. Now see if you have it in you to actually respond word for word to my arguments. You do nothing but ignore ever argument that I make while I speak to every word that you say.

Who said that I do not take it on faith what is written? In fact I do believe every single word that is written there and not one word of it indicates that a man can be saved without repenting and doing as God commanded him to do. In fact, there is not a single word in that text that gives any indication about WHY Christ saved him or HOW he did so. Therefore if anyone were to take it a face value or “on faith” they would not draw the erroneous conclusion that anyone can be saved after the dead of Christ on the cross apart from obedience to the gospel.

Then you say:

“Meaning, the thief sought Christ's remedy for his life, when he asked Jesus to: remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

How do you know this Brother Umstetter? The text does not say “the thief sought Christ remedy for his life when he ask Christ to “remember him”, now does it? That is not what the text says but rather what you think it implies or infers. It is interesting that the thief did not ask for salvation. He simply asked to be remembered. But you infer, don’t you, that he sought Christ remedy for his life. But if you were to take this “on faith” or at face value without depending the least bit upon anything that was inferred all you can say is that he asked Christ to remember him. Stop there and let that be the end of the discussion. And those who argue that the thief was saved without ever being baptized cannot point to one single thing in the text that they can take at face value which would justify any thinking person to draw that conclusion. Just as you do not know what the thief meant by that question other than what he says. He waned Christ to remember him when he came into his Kingdom. But you take it to mean something that it does not say. You take it to mean that he wanted Christ to SAVE HIM RIGHT THEN AND THERE. But the text says no such thing, does it? That is just pure conjecture on your part for there is nothing in those words that would even imply that such was what he meant by them, is there?

Then you say:

“ Jesus reply was sufficient, you be with me this day in paradise.”

No one said the reply of Christ was insufficient. I believe every word of it. But Jesus did not even remotely imply anything about what was the basis upon which he saved this thief, did he? And when someone tries to use the thief on the cross as PROOF that one can be saved without his ever being baptized THEY MUST PROVE IT. And there is simply nothing in the text that proves any such nonsense, is there?

Then you say:

“ Do you remember the lame man lowered on the mat? Jesus said your sins are forgiven.”

Indeed I do and believe every word of it. And Jesus could have, but we do not know, saved this thief in exactly that way. But there is nothing in the text that would allow anyone to draw that conclusion, is there? The scriptures which Christ gave tot he apostles to express his will to us clearly state that salvation will not be the fate of anyone who does not obey the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:7-9)

Then you say:

“Jesus makes the rules and therefore has the right to make exceptions.”

Indeed. And he also has the right to make NO EXCEPTIONS. And according to the words of the apostle Paul who was sent by Christ to tell us the truth there will be NO EXCEPTIONS to the requirement that one must obey the gospel of Christ (Heb. 5:8,9; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). But you are trying to teach that he will make exceptions when the scriptures plainly state that Christ is taking vengeance on them that do not obey the gospel. Christ can make exceptions but the followers of Christ cannot PROMISE anyone that Christ will make an exception. You do not have any right to do anything other than teach what Christ has taught in his word about the matter if you are a Christian. And Christ has no promised any exceptions and no man has a right to promise such on the behalf of Christ. But this is what you want to do isn’t it?

Then you say:

“ He, to me, promised salvation to the thief, and his word was good.”

No one has said otherwise, now have they? I surely have not. But Brother Jewell said that he believed that men today can be saved without obeying the gospel “like the thief on the cross” when he does not know anything, and neither do you, about how and on what basis Christ saved the thief on the cross. So, anyone wanting to be saved “like the thief on the cross” needs to know how he was saved. But only Jesus knows that. You certainly do not. The text only tells us that Christ promised him that he would be in paradise with him that day. He does not tell him or us how, why and on what basis he granted this blessing to the thief. So, those who jump the gun and say that he was saved without being baptized because the thief was not baptized are saying that which they cannot prove to be the truth. And that is my point.

Then you say:

“ Just as his word was good to the lame man.”

And no one today can be saved like that lame man. Christ, after his resurrection made it clear that the gospel must be obeyed and that, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”? (Mark 16:16).

Then you say:

“So why do you write so many suppositions?”

Simply to prove that there is no way of knowing whether the thief was baptized or not. For those false teachers who teach that a man can be saved without being baptized even though Christ said “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”(Mark 16:16) are teaching that they can do so because the thief was saved without being baptized. But they cannot prove their assumption and there is much more evidence from the text to indicate that he had been baptized than that he had not. I have proven that to be the truth. Now, why do you not take up what you claim to be my “suppositions” and prove that they cannot possibly be true? You only ignore them because that is all you are able to do isn’t it? For in truth they are not mere suppositions but are rather necessary implications from the text itself. But you will not do that, now will you?

Then you say:

“All your questions to Brother Jewell are moot points, except the repentance question.”

That is a fine assertion but what is your proof of it? Not a single one of my questions to Brother Jewell is a moot point. If you are too lazy to take up my arguments and answer my questions why bother with simply excusing yourself upon the unproven assumption that the questions are moot.

Then you say:

“ There is no scripture to give evidence either way, it is all conjecture.”

If you had read my post you would have seen it is not “all conjecture”. I admitted that it couldn’t be conclusively proven that the thief was baptized. But then, I am not trying to tell people that they can be saved without being baptized because the thief was not baptized for that is based solely upon NOTHING but pure conjecture. I stated that I do not know if he was baptized or not but that one must not tell others they can be saved without being baptized because the thief was not baptized unless they CAN PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT HE WASN’T. And this they cannot do and brother Jewell admitted that he could not do. Now it makes no sense to assert that people can be saved without being baptized because the thief was so saved when they admit that they cannot PROVE that he was saved without being baptized. So, my reasons for all of this discussion is to end the long time assumption that had almost became a foregone conclusion with many that the “thief was not baptized”. No one can know that, now can they. Therefore they cannot make that argument justly now can they? And I have proven that point conclusively haven’t I?

And I did so by showing that there are some strong implications, not mere conjecture, from the text that he may have been baptized. I did this just to demonstrate that no one could say that the thief was not baptized. And this they must be able to say with certainty before their argument can have any validity.

Then you say:

“ Again the exception is the repentence question.”

Now you are going to make an “exception”. And on what basis do you make such an “exception”. Are you now about to engage in some “conjecture” of your own?

Then you say:

“ When the thief asked for Jesus to remember him, I think Jesus understood this to be his repentence.”

Well now that is a nice piece of pure conjecture isn’t it? How do you know what Jesus “understood” if the text does not say something that would cause you to know it? The text says not a single word about what Jesus “understood”. Prove to us that this is how Jesus “understood” these words? What even remotely implies that he so “understood” the thief’s words?

My arguments, at least, were based upon the actual words of the thief and necessary implications from them. Yours is not based upon anything but pure conjecture. You simply “think” that you know how Jesus “understood” the word’s of the thief. But there is not a single word in the text that IMPLIES anything concerning how Jesus “understood” the words of the thief. We have his response to them. But nothing in his response even remotely implies that Jesus “understood” the thief to have been “repenting” and seeking to be saved when he asked to be “remembered”!

Then you say:

“This is why I take the passage at face value, the man asked, Jesus granted. The case is closed.”

Even your above shows that you do not take it at face value. For when the thief asked Jesus Christ to “remember him” he did not say a single word about repenting of his sins. He did not mention repentance and he did not ask for salvation. So, if you took it at face value you would not have said that you believe that Jesus “understood” this to be his repentance”. You cannot take it at face value and draw the conclusion that Jesus “understood” the thief to have been “repenting when all he asked for was to be remembered. Now this is surely not established by what is SAID if we take it, as you pretend to take it, “AT FACE VALUE” now is it? And so long as you false teachers try to teach that one can be saved without being baptized “like the thief on the Cross” when you could not prove to save your life that the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized the case will not be “closed”.

Why not go back now and try to answer my questions and show that the things, which I have said, are not at all even remotely possible.

What I have said is correct and you have not even attempted to show otherwise. And your claim that you take this passage at face value is just simply not the truth, now is it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Brother Saffold;

I see you are right in that yes, I have conjectured myself. When the thief said remember me, he did not say I repent. so yes, it is conjecture.

It must be pointed out, that I am not jumping into the salvation without baptism issue. I am pointing out that my POV is that when jesus said you will be with me in paradise, it meant that the man was saved. Special situation, special dispensation, all possible by the power of God. I make no further claims to anybody.

One question, as Acts 2:38 says repent and be baptized for remission of sins, and Rom. 10:9-10 says confess and you will be saved, and II Peter 3:9 says repent so you don't perish, and I peter 3:20-21 says this baptism saves you, and John 3:16 says believe and you will have everlasting life, isn't there a pattern that it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus had to say you are saved, for it to mean he was saved? FOr in only one scripture above are we told of sins forgiven and you cant go to heaven with sin, and only 2 scriptures quoted say you can be saved. Therefore akin to John 3:16, believe and you will have everlasting life, I see the thief's call to remember him as a statement of belief in Him. (again this remedy is for the theif only, not for people in our age) Therefore Jesus saying you will be in paradise means saved, everlasting life, he will not perish, etc.

So yes I conjecture only that far, who is to say all that you conjecture is valid. Actually after 43 years of life, it is the first time, I have ever seen that much conjecture or those issues you bring up, I should say, associated with the theif.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

I have been away for a while, but would like to make a few comments on this thread:

First of all, there are a few things that seem a bit ironic in this "hypothetical" situation. Notice the fellow is both on his deathbed and "life support"

I would think that if I, as an unforgiven, non-immersed soul, had a bunch of tubes in me keeping me alive physically, but a portable baptistry next to the bed waiting to usher me into spiritual life, the choice would be easy. Get four strong guys, lift me up, tubes and all, and drop me under! Let the nurses mop up the floor, and if my "physical health" is now even more in jeopardy, let the doctors and God deal with it.

Now, if the Gospel is presented to a person and that person desires to be immersed but is first hit by a comet (or whatever!) I BELIEVE that God will save that person. That is my opinion. Do I have any Scripture to affirm that opinion? NO. Do I have any Scripture to deny that opinion? No, sort of... In other words, the Bible does not say that "those on the way to the baptistry will not be saved"... but it does give me only ONE way to heaven and that is the ONLY way I can share with others.

If a person asks me if is possible for a non-immersed person(for ANY reason) to be saved, I do not have the AUTHORITY to give my opinion which is "maybe, that's up to God".... I only have the authority to say "There is nothing in my Bible to give any hope to a non-immersed person. Therefore I cannot either." I believe God may be looking down on our hypothetical discussion, sighing, and saying, "Don't worry about the 'what ifs'. You have my Word. Just preach the truth, and let me work out the details on the hypotheticals."

So, is Gramma gonna burn? Maybe. Maybe not. But what about you?

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

"There is nothing in my Bible to give any hope to a non-immersed person"

4 words....thief on the cross. It happens to be in my Bible. Kinda the ultimate in "deathbed conversions".

Please tell me this is not a works-based salvation webboard....baptism=salvation is NOT scriptural; all our works are as used tampons (filthy rags). Nothing is required beyond BELIEF. As we grow in maturity works will certainly follow...if they don't, they evidence that there was no regeneration.

Jesus was baptised....did He have any "sin" to "remiss"? Any neccesity to be "saved"??

I may or may not lurk here any longer, depending on the answers.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Brother Umstetter:

The word Conjecture means:

“Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw -- Date: 14th century 1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : Supposition 2 inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved”.

In this matter of the thief on the cross there is much conjecture being used to cause people to believe, falsely, that they can be “converted on their deathbed” without hearing, believing and obeying the gospel of Christ. Yet there is nothing in the text that is even remotely indicating such a thing.

But, what we have done is to show that there is evidence from facts found in the text that this thief knew much about the teaching of Christ and John the Baptist. That is a fact, it is not conjectured. And then from that fact it is a good deduction that he had heard the teaching of John the Baptist and Christ if not from the Baptist or Christ himself at least from one of their disciples. That is a fact it is not conjecture. And from those facts we conjecture that he MAY have been baptized at the baptism of John. And that is our only conjecture or supposition. The rest we have shown to be facts concerning the truth that he knew the teaching of Jesus and John.

But the subject of this thread is “deathbed conversions” and there is not a single fact in the entire text from which a person could justly conclude that this thief was even converted on the cross much less that he was saved without being baptized. But this is the basis upon which they want people to believe that they can be saved at the last moment on their deathbeds as some kind of “exception to the rule”. Now, it is one thing to “conjecture” and it is an altogether different thing to use conjecture as absolute proof of something. I have not stated that I have proven that the thief was baptized at the baptism of John nor have I said that I have proven he was converted before he was on the cross. But I have clearly shown to the unbiased that such is at the very least a POSSIBILITY that cannot be ruled out simply because some one has not thought about it! But I have shown that I have far more facts upon which to justify that conjecture. Much more than anyone has to justify their mere assumption that this thief was converted on the cross and was saved in the last moment of his life without having complied with God’s requirement that men be baptized at the baptism of John. (Luke 7:29;30; Mark 1:4).

But I now reply to your words as follows:

You say:

“Brother Saffold; I see you are right in that yes, I have conjectured myself. When the thief said remember me, he did not say I repent. so yes, it is conjecture.”

I am pleased to notice that you see this. Brother Umstetter, I am not opposed to conjecture. What I am opposed to is people basing their soul’s salvation on nothing more than pure “conjecture”. Those who contend that the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized or doing any of the things required of everyone else during that time in order to obtain salvation is based completely upon conjecture. And these conjectures, not established facts, are being used to encourage men to ignore the gospel of Christ. And what we have quoted from 2 Thess. 1:8,9 is not conjecture. It is a stated fact that those who do not obey the gospel are going to be punished with everlasting destruction. And to try and teach men the opposite of this FACT with the use of pure conjecture is wrong.

Now I have demonstrated that if we are going to use conjecture that there is far more reason to believe that the thief was baptized at the baptism of John than to believe otherwise. That was my point. If conjecture is going to be how we decide what we are going to believe then I have shown that there are far more and better conjectures upon which one could conclude that the thief was baptized than that he was not. This is my reason for showing that we have facts from which one could reach the conclusions that the thief was baptized at the baptism of John by inference. But those inferences are not necessary ones and therefore cannot be relied upon to PROVE anything.

But think to yourself about the simple truth that there is not a single FACT in the text that would cause anyone to NECESSARILY conclude that the thief was converted on his deathbed. Much less is there anything in the text that would indicate even a respectable conjecture that he was saved without being baptized or complying with anything else that God had required of men at that time for their salvation. All of that is pure conjecture. And I have used conjecture to combat their conjectures. I have overwhelmed their argument with far more reasonable conjectures that they offer for their mere assumption that does not even approach the level of conjecture that the thief was converted on the cross when they cannot prove that he was not converted before the cross.

Then you say:

“It must be pointed out, that I am not jumping into the salvation without baptism issue.”

I understand this Brother Umstetter but those who argue that the thief was not only converted on his deathbed but saved without having to obey God based upon nothing but conjecture have jumped right into the middle of that controversy haven’t they? And they have basically used their conjectures to teach that men can be saved the “Same way as the thief” when they know nothing about how the thief was saved for all that they say about that matter is pure conjecture isn’t it? And I do wonder why you are not opposed to the conjecture that says the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized. For that is pure conjecture, isn’t it? And that is what I sought to establish. The idea that one can know that the thief was never baptized in his entire life and that he was converted only in the last moments of his life. Then from that conclude that people need not worry about their loved ones not obeying the gospel before they died. Because they may have been saved in the last moment like they assume but cannot prove the thief on the cross was saved it a dangerous and evil use of “conjecture”. Why is it that you have registered absolutely NO objection to those “conjectures”?

But I do wonder why one who knows the truth that one must be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) would not jump into the controversy when that truth is being assailed? I am just asking that question of you, Brother, for you to think of how you defend false doctrines of deathbed repentance and salvation without obedience to the gospel but you cannot be persuaded to defend the truth that one must be baptized to be saved. And the simple truth that those who do not obey the gospel are going to be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). It does make me wonder if you are “set for the defense of the gospel” as was the apostle Paul.

Then you say:

“ I am pointing out that my POV is that when Jesus said you will be with me in paradise, it meant that the man was saved.”

That may be true but it does not necessarily mean that he was save at that moment. You just do not know for sure now do you. And if it means that he was saved it does not necessarily mean that he was saved at that moment, does it? He could have been saved before he got to the cross. And Jesus was merely confirming that fact to him. You just do not know, now do you, when Christ saved this thief? That is just another conjecture on your part isn’t it? I believe the thief was saved as do you but I do not have any good reason to believe that he was lost before Jesus said to him, “this day thou shalt be with me in paradise” now do I? For you see he could have been saved before that time and if all we have is conjecture upon which to base our conclusions then one idea is about as good as the other. And I do not have any objections to people entertaining their suppositions about this matter. But to come out and teach people that they can be saved on their deathbeds without obeying the gospel upon the bases of their conjectures and suppositions is wrong. Especially when the clear facts of the word of God are in other places are contrary to those suppositions. To do such a thing is just plain wrong and sinful.

Then you say:

“ Special situation, special dispensation, all possible by the power of God.”

Which is all pure conjecture on your part, which you could not prove to be the truth to save your life. So, why teach such conjectures? And why conclude from them that the thief was converted on his deathbed and was saved as an exception to the requirements that God had placed upon all other men? They do this in order to teach others that they need not worry if they fail to obey the gospel for God WILL surely save them in the last moment it they will but ask the lord in their dying breath “remember me when you come into your kingdom”? My point is, conjecture all you want, but do not teach people anything from your conjectures is contrary to the plain teaching of the word of God elsewhere in the scriptures. And do not let the souls of lost and dying people depend upon your conjectures.

Then you say:

“ I make no further claims to anybody.”

But the claims that you have made are pure conjecture and therefore cannot be stated as established truth.

Then you say:

“One question, as Acts 2:38 says repent and be baptized for remission of sins, and Rom. 10:9-10 says confess and you will be saved, and II Peter 3:9 says repent so you don't perish, and I peter 3:20-21 says this baptism saves you, and John 3:16 says believe and you will have everlasting life, isn't there a pattern that it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus had to say you are saved, for it to mean he was saved?”

No one has said that Jesus must say, “you are saved” for it to mean you are saved. But, sin is what we are being saved from. And when Acts 2:38 says “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” it is abundantly clear that when one receives the remission of sins he would be saved from them wouldn’t it. And thus it is necessarily inferred from such that a person who receives remission of sins has been saved from sin, isn’t it? But such cannot be said of all other statements where the inference is not a necessary one. And if any other inferences could be possible from the same statement then one cannot conclude with certainty that such statements mean, “saved” without saying, “saved”. It must be necessarily inferred in the logic of the statement itself. And there is nothing in the statement “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom” that necessitates a request for salvation from sin. It could just as easily be a statement that was based upon his confidence in the fact that he had already been saved from sin and was depending upon Christ’s promise that he would be in the Kingdom of God when it came. And this other possibility fits far better with what the text actually says. So, it is not a necessary inference that the thief was seeking salvation that he did not already have from Christ, is it? To infer this when it is not necessary is to make yet another mere conjecture, isn’t it?

Then you say:

“FOr in only one scripture above are we told of sins forgiven and you cant go to heaven with sin, and only 2 scriptures quoted say you can be saved. Therefore akin to John 3:16, believe and you will have everlasting life, I see the thief's call to remember him as a statement of belief in Him. (again this remedy is for the thief only, not for people in our age) Therefore Jesus saying you will be in paradise means saved, everlasting life, he will not perish, etc.”

I do not necessarily disagree with what you have said here and did not doubt it in my previous post. And I do know that if the thief was converted at the last moment of his life and was saved at that point and not before he was on the cross it is indeed not something that Christians under the Law of Christ can expect to happen. (Heb. 9:15-17). But my purpose was to show that it is not necessary for anyone to believe that the thief was even converted while on the cross much less that he was saved at that moment. And it is even less conclusive that he was saved without complying with any of the requirements that God had placed upon ALL men at that time. This is all pure conjecture and no man can believe it as a fact without deceiving himself.

Then you say:

“So yes I conjecture only that far, who is to say all that you conjecture is valid.”

I am convinced that you conjecture far more than you admit to conjecturing here, Brother Umstetter. And believe that what I have conjectured is surely as valid than your conjectures. You see Brother Umstetter there is this significant difference. I am not using my conjectures to teach people that they can be saved without obeying the gospel. I have used valid logical reasons to show that there are other possibilities. All of which are just as valid as any of the conjectures offered by those who falsely treat this account as an example of a deathbed conversion. Even though they cannot prove that he was converted while on his deathbed. For they WANT to believe that the thief on the cross was converted on the cross. And they are intending to believe it and teach it as the absolute truth even though it is nothing but pure conjecture on their part. They want so much to believe that he was saved at that moment and not by any means before that moment and then say THEREFORE one can be converted and saved at the last moment on his deathbed under the gospel dispensation without ever obeying the gospel of Christ! Now that, Brother is taking conjecture way TOO FAR. And that is my point.

Then you say:

“ Actually after 43 years of life, it is the first time, I have ever seen that much conjecture or those issues you bring up, I should say, associated with the thief.”

No it isn’t! For those who argue that the thief on the Cross was converted on the cross and saved without being baptized conjecture the opposite of all that I have shown to be possible and they do so without having a single word in the text that even makes their conjecture possible. My conjectures are given to show that there are other possibilities than the conjectures you have heard all of your life about the thief on the cross. And I have not offered any more or less then have been offered up by the opposition.

And our conjectures are far more likely to be the truth because they actually fit with the wording in the text. But it is not the first time you have seen this much conjecture. If one were to consider all of the unmentioned conjectures that one must accept in order to draw the conclusion that the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized it would be far more than you have seen in what I have written.

And why do you not take up each of the things that you claimed were mere conjectures and tell us which one’s they are and prove to us that they are not valid?

No man can prove that the thief on the cross was even converted on the cross much less that he was saved without ever being baptized. That is all human speculation and pure conjecture. There is nothing in the text that necessitates that anyone draws those conclusions. And therefore they cannot be used to controvert the truth as taught in the rest of the New Testament concerning obedience to the gospel. For the New Testament is quite clear that those who do not obey the gospel, which can only be done by repenting and being baptized, can be saved in the last moment on their deathbed as was the thief on the cross. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 6:3-6;16-18; 2 Thess. 1:8,9). For it is not by any means certain that the thief on the cross was even converted on the cross or that he was saved without doing as God had commanded him to do. All of that is PURE CONJECTURE. But you have no objection to those conjectures do you? Can I at least persuade you to admit that using those conjectures to controvert the truth that one must obey the gospel in order to be saved is wrong? I do sincerely hope so. I do pray for you Brother.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Brother Umstetter:

Please correct the following words which have a typographical error in them ass follow:

"For the New Testament is quite clear that those who do not obey the gospel, which can only be done by repenting and being baptized, can be saved in the last moment on their deathbed as was the thief on the cross. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 6:3-6;16-18; 2 Thess. 1:8,9)."

It should have read:

"For the New Testament is quite clear that those who do not obey the gospel, which can only be done by repenting and being baptized, WILL NOT be saved in the last moment on their deathbed as was the thief on the cross. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 6:3-6;16-18; 2 Thess. 1:8,9).

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

"For the New Testament is quite clear that those who do not obey the gospel, which can only be done by repenting and being baptized, WILL NOT be saved in the last moment on their deathbed as was the thief on the cross. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 6:3-6;16-18; 2 Thess. 1:8,9).

E. Lee Saffold

P. S.

And the reason for this is that no one can prove that even the theif on the cross was saved in the last moment on his deathbed.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Brother Saffold;

I apologize to you in advance with the length of your post, you have asked too many questions for me to take each one and respond.

What I will respond to is this. I cannot affirm a deathbed confession salvation. Only God knows the heart. I ask a simple question, which has already been stated, then for a terminally ill person who cannot be immersed due to circumstance, should we not even bother with sharing the gospel as they cannot respond?

Additionally I offer this about the theif. IT is my belief that he was not saved as he was a thief hanging for his crime. I think that is the point of the gospel writer. Remember the other man hanging on the other side did not humble himself in any way. So the point is to show that this man believed on Jesus at that moment. Now one last reaffirmation, Jesus blood had not been spilled and the resurrection had not yet happened for the thief to receive NT salvation.

What this means to me, is the only other way to be saved was through sacrifice. Which this man could not do. So my analysis is, a criminal humbling himself to Jesus is seeking something he doesn't have, salvation. And as we agree, Jesus can save of his own power and authority.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Brother Umstetter: You have said: “Brother Saffold; I apologize to you in advance with the length of your post, you have asked too many questions for me to take each one and respond.” No apologies are necessary, as I understand that we do not always have time to do what we would like to do. Please understand, however, that if you make an argument that is related to something I have already covered. It is better to at least respond to what I said in relation to your argument for then I would know that you had taken it into consideration at least in your response and therefore I would not necessarily feel the need to repeat it because it had been ignored.

Then you say:

“What I will respond to is this. I cannot affirm a deathbed confession salvation. Only God knows the heart.” I am glad indeed that you realize that the scriptures do not teach us anything about deathbed conversions. That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. We cannot teach people about deathbed Conversions wherein God will make exceptions for those who have not ever obeyed the gospel or even heard by saving them apart from the gospel of Christ. God has instead made it clear to all men that those who do not obey the gospel will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And he has not told us anything about making any exceptions for anyone regardless of the condition of their hearts. The passage does not say that Christ is going to take vengeance on those who do not obey the gospel except or unless they happened to have called out for salvation in their last gasping dying breath. No, that is not what he says and we must believe and teach what God said and nothing more. Then you say:

“ I ask a simple question, which has already been stated, then for a terminally ill person who cannot be immersed due to circumstance, should we not even bother with sharing the gospel as they cannot respond?” There is not circumstance that should prevent a terminally ill person from being immersed if he or she chooses to obey the gospel of Christ so that they can be saved from their sins which since they are terminally ill is the most important thing for them to do. And we are very competent to do just about anything we want to do in this country and I can assure you that immersing a terminally ill person in water is not really very difficult, is it? Yes, the person might even die because he was immersed. But he was going to die in any case is it not better to die because you obeyed God. Those who are truly converted to Christ are indeed willing to die for him are they not? And also your “situation” does not take into account how many times this person may have simply turned his or her nose up at the gospel. And refused many opportunities to obey it and now they are dying and are not yet confident enough in Christ to demand that they be allowed to obey the gospel by being immersed even it doing so threatens their life. This idea that one cannot be immersed in water because they are terminally ill is based upon a complete lake of understanding of the urgency of the matter and a complete lack of faith in GOD. No. The excuse that I was terminally ill and could not obey the gospel is not going to work. And that is especially true of one who spurned many opportunities to obey it when family members and Christians from every place had taught them and begged them with tears to obey. Then you say:

“Additionally I offer this about the thief. IT is my belief that he was not saved as he was a thief hanging for his crime.” Now there you go, Brother Umstetter, making an argument that I have already answered in my previous post without mentioning the argument that you appear to have ignored. So, I must now repeat it for the third time. Maybe someone will try to answer it some day. Let me repeat it again: “Now we have answered this in a previous post. I have baptized person who was guilty of being a thief. And shortly after his baptism he went to jail as a thief for crimes he had committed before he was baptized and forgiven. He was forgiven of God but not man. He still had to pay for his crime that he had committed even though he had repented and was baptized for the remission of sins. And if you read the court documents he is called a “Thief” after he had repented of such behavior. And if one were to ask why he went to jail they would be stating the truth if they said it was because he was a thief. Even though he had repented of that behavior and had obeyed the gospel and obtained forgiveness from God. For that was in truth the reason for his punishment. The same could have been the case with this thief also. The word of God does not hide the reason that the civil authorities condemned him. But one cannot know from the fact that he was a thief that he had never in his lifetime obeyed the commands of God by repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins at the baptism of John. And it is possible that he had been baptized at the baptism of John and had backslid and was in fact a thief at the time of his crucifixion. But this would not mean that he had never obeyed God’s command to be baptized of John, now would it. Anyone can see that the fact that he was a thief does not by any means [prove that he could not have been baptized at any time prior to the day of our Lord’s crucifixion, now does it?”

Now you read this but did not take it into consideration at all when you said:

“Additionally I offer this about the thief. IT is my belief that he was not saved as he was a thief hanging for his crime.” I know that this is “your belief” but what evidence do you offer to support your belief. We have shown you that the fact that he was hanging for the crime of stealing is not proof that he had not, before being convicted of the crime his crime repented and was baptized for the remission of sins. And then still had to pay for his crime when the civil authorities found him. And unless you can prove that something like this did not happen you cannot prove that he was “not saved” before. And you do not know when he was saved for the text says nothing about when he repented. You cannot prove any of it. You can only conjecture it. And that is fine provided that no one draws the false conclusion that others can be saved without obeying the gospel because of their suppositions which they cannot prove to be true. Then you say:

“ I think that is the point of the gospel writer.” Well, it is nice to “think” but you need to prove that such was the point of the gospel writer. And you have not done that, now have you?

Then you say:

“Remember the other man hanging on the other side did not humble himself in any way.” This is true but it proves nothing concerning the one we are discussing. The fact that the thief under our consideration in this thread simply asked to be remembered is no reason to conclude that he was asking to be saved from his sins. He could have been saved long before this time, as we have shown, and then all of your suppositions would be completely wrong, wouldn’t they? Then you say:

“So the point is to show that this man believed on Jesus at that moment.” Well, that is a fine assertion but where is the proof of it? What is there in the text that indicates that the gospel writer was trying to “show that this man believed on Jesus at that moment?” Here again we have shown that this thief knew much about Christ and the teaching of Christ that he could not have learned in the last few minutes of his life hanging on the cross. So, it is indeed very possible that this thief could have believed in Christ before he was ever crucified. Let us look at those things again since you ignored them. I said in my original post: “Now, there are some things said by the thief on the cross that indicates a certain familiarity with the teachings of both John and Jesus. Listen to his words:

“But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke:23:39-43). Now notice the thief indicated the justice of his condemnation which could at least imply that he had at some point before his capture and crucifixion come to repentance about what he had done. Notice also that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins”. (Mark 1:4). Then this thief knows for a surety that Christ was innocent. “This man hath done nothing amiss.” Now, those who were evil, sinful, and impenitent men had no such knowledge of Christ. In fact no one can say that a total stranger is innocent! This thief obviously knew enough about Christ to draw the conclusion that he was innocent implying far more than a casual knowledge of this controversial figure! Then he said some very significant words to Christ. He said, “Lord”. Now on what basis did this thief recognize that Christ was not just an ordinary innocent man being crucified unjustly but that he was LORD? Is it not in the least bit likely that he could have heard the teaching of Christ, John, or their disciples who were always teaching that Christ was “LORD”. No band of thieves, who had no knowledge of Christ and had not heard any teaching from Him or about him would have concluded that Christ was “Lord”, now would they? And then he says to Christ, “remember me”. Now on what basis could this thief expect Christ, whom he had learned very likely from the teaching of either John, Jesus or one of their disciples that Christ was Lord for such was the only source of such information, expect that Christ would have any reason to “remember” him? And he says remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom! Now how in the world would this thief have learned that Christ had a Kingdom and that he was, even though hanging upon a cross, coming into it? It was Christ and John the Baptist and their disciples who were preaching “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. Is it not possible that this thief had heard them preach of this coming Kingdom of Christ? And would he make such a request of Christ if he did not believe that Christ was coming to a kingdom as taught by himself and John the Baptist? And if this thief had heard all of this instruction from either John the Baptist, or Jesus and believed it enough to count upon it in the hour of his death that might he not have also believed what they taught about baptism and have submitted to it? It is indeed possible! Is it possible for anyone to prove that nothing like this ever happened? Some might say that he was a thief and justly condemned for it is proof that such could not have happened. But this is not necessarily so. For this thief could have heard the teaching of John the Baptist or Christ and repented of his stealing and was baptized by them and later convicted of Crimes that he had committed in the past for which he had been forgiven by God but not man? And is it not possible that this thief had repented and been baptized at the teaching of either John the Baptist or Christ and then lapsed back into his old habits and sins. And was convicted for them and then repented before Christ and asked to be remembered by him when he came into his kingdom? And indeed, it is at the very least highly unlikely that he had absolutely no knowledge gained from hearing John or Christ or one of their disciples teaching. For he had knowledge of these things that we know he must have known or he could not have said the things that he said while speaking of and to Christ on the cross.”

Now, you ignored all of those things, which show at least the possibility that the thief had come to believe in Christ before his being crucified with Christ. For he surely knew a lot about the teaching of Christ for one who was a regular thief that had never heard the teaching of Christ. He knew that Christ was “Lord”. Did he learn this in the last minutes of his life? He knew that Christ was innocent of the charges against him. Did he learn al of this at the last moments of his life? He knew that Christ had a Kingdom and was coming into it. Did he learn this at the last moment of his life? If he did from whom did he learn it for Christ said nothing on the cross to explain these things to anyone. And not only did he learn that Christ had a Kingdom and was coming in to it. But he obviously believed it so strongly that he expected it to happen even though Christ was dying on the cross right before his eyes! Now, can a man develop this kind of faith in something that he had only just heard about a few minutes before while his life was hanging in the balance? I do doubt it. This thief had a settled and firm belief in Christ and his Kingdom one that could not even be shaken by the fact that he was dying and the very “Lord” that he believed was coming into a kingdom was also dying right in front of his face! No. The evidence is very much against your unsupported assertion that this thief “believed on Jesus at that moment.” In fact, the writer of this gospel could not have given us more reasons to believe that this thief may have believed in Christ and his coming Kingdom for some time before his being crucified short of just saying it outright. If he had told us this thief believed in Christ and because of his faith in the coming kingdom asked to be remembered when Christ came into his Kingdom we would have no more or less evidence than he has given to us in these few words in Luke’s account. In fact, it appears that this thief had more faith in the coming Kingdom than did the other Disciples of Christ at that time. No, Brother Umstetter, this is not the kind of faith that one develops in a brief MOMENT. Then you say: “Now one last reaffirmation, Jesus blood had not been spilled and the resurrection had not yet happened for the thief to receive NT salvation.” I understand. Of course the New Covenant was not under effect and even if this thief was saved without obeying God in any way whatsoever it would not prove that anyone today can be saved without obeying the gospel. Because Christ, who is the mediator of the New Covenant was still living and therefore the New Covenant which requires obedience to the gospel was not yet in effect. A casual reading of Heb. 9:15-17 makes this abundantly clear. And this alone is sufficient to establish that whatever happened to the thief on the cross it WILL NOT happen to anyone who has failed to obey the gospel after the “death of the testator” Jesus Christ. Then you say: “What this means to me, is the only other way to be saved was through sacrifice. “Which this man could not do.” Now this is not the truth. The scriptures plainly teach that the baptism of John was “for the remission of sins”. (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). And it was the way of salvation that God had offered to the people through the work of John the Baptist, which we have established beyond doubt in our response to Brother Jewell. If you wish to discuss that matter then please take up our arguments that we have already made concerning it. And Christ was the “Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world”. This man could not have had a more perfect sacrifice provided for him. And the Priest offered sacrifices every year for the sins of the people but on this occasion God himself offered his only Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the people who had obeyed him from Adam all the way to this thief. And the thief to have been obedient to God’s will would have been required to be baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) and those who refused John’s baptism “rejected the counsel of God against themselves” (Luke 7:29,30). And we have shown that it is indeed possible that this thief could have been so baptized. But you instead do not prove that the ONLY other way for the thief to be saved was through sacrifice. The fact is that the sacrifice of bulls and goats could not take away sins. “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year. For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and [offering] for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein]; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.” (Heb. 10:1-18).

Now, those who had been baptized at the baptism of John received the “remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). And where there is remission of sins there is not more sacrifice for sin. If the thief had been baptized at the baptism of John, which we have show could have happened. He would have received the remission of his sins. And this could explain his great faith in Christ and his coming kingdom in the face of the fact that he was being crucified. But by no other means can we comprehend the faith displayed by this man in the last moment of his life in things he had never heard of before that last moment. So, you assertion that “sacrifice was the only way to get forgiveness of sins after the coming of John the Baptist is simply not the truth. And thus there is absolutely no evidence that this man had any need to offer any sacrifices at the time that he “could not offer them” for if he had been baptized at the baptism of John he received the remission of his sins. Now we do not know that he was or was not baptized in John’s baptism ever in his life. But we cannot say that he was not and therefore he had a need for sacrifice since this was the only way he could find forgiveness but he could not do it. Johns baptism was for the remission of sins and he could have for all that we know been so baptized. And, unless you can prove that the facts are otherwise, you cannot affirm that what you have said above is a certainty, can you?

Then you say:

“ So my analysis is, a criminal humbling himself to Jesus is seeking something he doesn't have, salvation.”

That is a fine assertion but a poor analysis because if you were giving us a good analysis then you would offer proof for your assertions. How do you know that this man was “seeking salvation”? Are you saying that if he had already been saved before being convicted and crucified that he would not “humble himself before Jesus” and seek only to be remember by him when he comes into his Kingdom? There is no indication whatsoever that this thief was seeking salvation. What he asked for was to be remembered. He did not ask to be “saved”. He did not show any great humility but wisdom that comes from a man who had repented at some point prior to his punishment and had consigned himself to the fact that he deserved to be punished for his crimes. There is nothing in the entire text that would cause any thinking person to believe that this thief sought salvation in the last moments of his life while hanging on the cross next to Christ. Not a single word. And you offer no evidence whatsoever that would cause any thinking person to accept your poor analysis.

Then you say:

“ And as we agree, Jesus can save of his own power and authority.”

Indeed Christ had power on earth to forgive sins. But that does not prove that such is what happened in the case of the thief. For there is nothing in the text that has him asking for forgiveness or even repenting while hanging on the cross. There is much indication of a former repentance before he was hanged on the cross. But no evidence of a last minute change for the better. And there is no evidence that the thief suddenly at the last moment came to know that Christ was Lord over a Kingdom and that he was coming into that Kingdom even though he was dying on the cross. And that he had any reason to suspect that he might in any way be benefited by Christ remembering him when he came into that Kingdom. This is just too much knowledge for this thief to have garnered in the last few moments of his life on the cross. It is certainly too much for a man to be persuaded to believe in just a few moments. No. Brother Umstetter, I cannot accept your analysis without some measure of evidence that not only shows it to be sensible but also even remotely believable. And this you have failed to do, haven’t you?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Thank you all for your willingness to dialogue on this. I know that it was made more difficult by the losing of some of the posts. I appreciate that you all stuck with me so I could see the interpretations and viewpoints.

Now, let me see if I understand correctly. The Bible teaches baptism as a part of salvation, therefore, if someone is not baptized, we cannot say that he obeyed the gospel. Since we did not see this obedience, we cannot say this person was saved. There also seems to be a question as to the sincerity of someone confessing Christ on their deathbed, that they would need to arrange a baptism to declare their confession. If this does not happen, to the best of our knowledge, this person is not saved. Am I misunderstanding still?

Scott

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Brother Scott:

You have said:

“Thank you all for your willingness to dialogue on this.”

You are welcome.

“ I know that it was made more difficult by the losing of some of the posts.”

Indeed it was.

Then you say:

“ I appreciate that you all stuck with me so I could see the interpretations and viewpoints.”

WE would never leave you nor forsake you at such an important time when our Brother in Christ is seeking to know the truth on any matter.

Then you ask:

“Now, let me see if I understand correctly. The Bible teaches baptism as a part of salvation, therefore, if someone is not baptized, we cannot say that he obeyed the gospel.”

This is true inasmuch as baptism is commanded of the Lord (Mark 16:16) and it is the point wherein one actually receives the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38;Col. 2:11-13). And it is the only way that any one can obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ or the gospel. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6;16-18). And baptism “doth also now save us” and it gives the answer of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ. (1 Peter 3:21). And if a person has not obeyed the gospel he will be, according to the inspired testimony of the apostle Paul, punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thess. 1:8,9).

Then you say:

“ Since we did not see this obedience, we cannot say this person was saved.”

It does not matter in the least what “we see” but rather what “God commands” and what man “does”. (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46). And we are not commanded, as Christians to “pronounce” that one has obeyed the gospel. We are commanded to preach the gospel of Christ (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:16) and the hearers of that gospel are commanded to obey it. Thus, what we “see” have nothing to do with the person’s salvation. If any person can obey the gospel of Christ at any time that person will obtain salvation from their sins. (Acts 2:38; Romans 1:16). And he will obtain that salvation whether we “see” him obey the gospel or not. For this is what God has commanded him to do and doing what God commanded is the only thing that will effect his salvation. The part we play in it is to preach the gospel to him and, if he needs for us to do it we are to assist him in completing his obedience. For we are commanded to baptize him. Naturally if we baptize him we will know that he has obeyed the gospel. But if he finds a way to obey the gospel without our being around him to help him do it he will have still obeyed the gospel. And he would be saved from his sins whether we knew anything about it or not.

Then you say:

“ There also seems to be a question as to the sincerity of someone confessing Christ on their deathbed, that they would need to arrange a baptism to declare their confession.”

It does not matter if one is “on his deathbed” or not his confession must be sincere. (Romans 10:10) and it is to be made before men (Matt. 10:32,33). But no one is to be baptized to “declare his or her confession”. They are instead to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38). Baptism is not designed to “declare” one’s confession. But, a person must be baptized in order to receive the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Col. 2:11-13). And if one does not receive the “remission of sins” he is not saved from them, now is he?

Then you say:

“ If this does not happen, to the best of our knowledge, this person is not saved. Am I misunderstanding still?”

If by the word “this” you are referring to obeying the gospel by being baptized for the remission of sins then indeed if this does not happen the person will not be saved. (2 Thess. 1:8,9; Rom. 1:16; Romans 6:3-6;16-18; Col. 2:11-13;Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5;25,26; Gal. 3:26,27; Acts 22:16; Heb. 10:22). And this is according to the teaching of the word of God. And that is the only “knowledge” we can have about the matter.

Whether you understand I cannot be sure. But, the scriptures teach that one must obey the gospel or will be lost eternally. (2 Thess. 1:8,9) and that one actually obeys the gospel when he believes the gospel, repents of his sins (acts 3:19) confesses Christ (Rom. 10:10) and is baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). No one can obey the gospel without being baptized. For it is in baptism that one obeys the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. (Rom. 6:3- 6;16-18). And if a person has done this, whether we have “see” him do it or not has no bearing on the case whatsoever. The only thing is whether he has obeyed the gospel. If he does not obey the gospel, which is done in baptism he will be lost. (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Thess. 1:8,9).

Now, if you understand these things then you understand the truth according to God’s word on the matter.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

I find it interesting that Romans 10:9 STILL hasn't been brought up. Each day I do a search on this page to see if it has been used as counterpoint to those that claim we must be baptised to be saved.

I see Romans 6 quoted over and over by E Lee...but never this:

"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10"-NKJV

Today is the first time Romans 10:10 has appeared on the search.

Notice 10:9 ---that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

NOT "you might be saved" or "you must then be baptised as well" only "you will be saved".

Interesting.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

It comes down to works Vs. grace

Either we do something to be saved (besides believe) or God does it all. People need to make a decision...has Christ done a complete work or not? If He has (and He HAS) then there is nothing more for us to add (Eph 2:8-9), and in fact adding to what he has done is very damning (Gal 1:9)...so why would anyone try and make baptism an addition to Salvation? THAT I don't understand.

Deathbed conversions aren't a comfortable thing to discuss in our culture....people think they can deny God and live how they want, then get "fire insurance" at the last minute. While I think most "conversions" are probably bogus from the deathbed, I don't deny that it CAN happen....Who are we to judge who has truly repented or not? Only God may judge in that sense (Matt 7:1,2) I for one will not get involved in "Kree-noh" ing anyone.

Just my two cents.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Hey there "someone"

Isn't "belief" something a person must "do?" It is as much something a person must do as is submitting to the Lord's will in being immersed. So the "works -vs- grace" thing doesn't compute.

And hey -- go ahead and let us know who "someone" is ... I'm fairly sure you aren't ashamed of your views.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Mr. “Someone”

You have said:

“It comes down to works Vs. grace”

And what proof do you have of this assertion from the word of God? Because according to the word of God, “works and grace” are not mutually exclusive. Instead works is the means by which our faith is made alive (James 2: 17-24) and faith is the means by which grace saves us (Eph. 2:8). Read these verses:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Now no one can accurately understand any passage of scripture without looking at the context and paying attention to whom it was written. This passage was written to the Ephesians. And when we read how the Ephesians were saved we can see how they were saved by “grace through faith” which will help us to understand what Paul meant here. Let us read now the account of the initial conversion of the Ephesians.

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

Now, how were these Ephesians saved by grace through faith? Notice that Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. And they confessed that they did not even know there was a Holy Spirit. And notice that Paul immediately realized that something was wrong with their BAPTISM. He did not detect immediately anything wrong with their faith, did he? He asked them, “unto what then were you baptized”? And he reminds them of the fact that John the Baptist had taught them to believe in Christ and they understood and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ on whom they had been told previously to believe. And then when Paul laid his hand s on them they received the Holy Spirit. Now notice just here that this is how they were “saved by grace through faith. They believed in Christ and obeyed his commanded to be baptized in his name (Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19,20) and thus they were saved by grace through faith. It was through their faith in Christ that they willingly obeyed the commands of Christ and God granted them the remission of sins by his grace WHEN they were baptized. For this is what happens WHEN one by faith in Christ repents of his sins and is baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38). Notice what Col. 2:11-13 has to say about what happens WHEN one is baptized.

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (Col. 2:11-13)

Now notice that it is in baptism that the circumcision “made without hands” or the “circumcision of Christ” takes place. The “Circumcision of Christ” is the “putting off the body of sins of the flesh” by Jesus Christ himself. And this is what happens WHEN we are baptized into Christ. It is not the “water” that removes the sins. It is Christ. But he removes our sins when we are “buried with him in baptism” and then, and not one moment before then can we be raised to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-6). Now this verse makes it abundantly clear to any thinking person WHEN our sins are removed. They are removed from our souls at the same time that we receive the remission of them. That is when we by believing with our hearts in Christ (Romans 10:9) having repented of our sins (Acts 3:19; 2:38) and confess with our lips (Romans 10:10) that we obey his command to be baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38; Col. 2:11-13). Then the “Circumcision of Christ” removes our sins, which he performs on us when we are buried with him in baptism. (Col. 2:11- 13).

Now notice also that it is “by grace THROUGH faith” that we are saved. It is not by FAITH ALONE that we are saved. No man can be saved by “FAITH ONLY”. James makes this abundantly clear to all whom are able to read as well as a fifth grader. He says:

“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:17-24). It is clear that faith cannot LIVE or SURVIVE without works. And it is clear that faith without works is “DEAD ON ARRIVAL” and is worth nothing but to be “buried”. It is useless to save anyone! And since it is true that we are saved by GRACE THROUGH FAITH then it is clear that faith must survive or one cannot obtain the grace of God. But faith that does not work is DEAD. And the grace of God cannot be brought to the soul of man by a DEAD FAITH. The grace of God is transferred to us by faith and faith is brought to life and kept alive by works. In fact faith itself is a work. Therefore those who do not obey Christ cannot reach the grace of God because we are saved by GRACE THROUGH FAITH. If you have a dead faith you will not have the grace of God. Therefore if you do not obey the gospel of Christ you will be eternally lost. (2 Thess. 1:8,9) And no man can obey the gospel of Christ without being baptized (Romans 6:3-6; 16:18).

Now, those who teach that one can be saved without obeying Christ are teaching a gospel that is other than the gospel of Christ and that is indeed dangerous. Hear Paul,

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. “ (Gal. 1:8,9).

Now, let us see what was preached when inspired men preached the gospel. Let us take one example.

There was one man named PHILLIP who was “full of the Holy Spirit” meaning that he was inspired of God and he preached the gospel.

“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs, which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:” (Acts 8:12-14).

From this we learn that Phillip preached the word of God concerning the gospel of the Kingdom and the “name” of Jesus Christ. And when these Samaritans heard him preach these things they believed AND WERE BAPTIZED just as Christ had commanded in these words:

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. “ (Mark 16:15).

And this is what Phillip did, isn’t it?

Then Jesus also commanded those who would hear the gospel, which command was transferred to them by those who preached the gospel the following:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. “ (Mark 16:15,16).

And this is what Phillip preached and these Samaritans DID.

But let us continue to see the preaching of the inspired Phillip and notice that this message of Christ, “he that believeth and is baptized was consistently preached by Phillip. “Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on [their] way, they came unto certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea. (Acts 8:35-40).

Now here the only thing we are told that Phillip preached to this eunuch was “JESUS”. And as a result of hearing this inspired preacher preach JESUS the first thing to come to the eunuch’s mind and out of his mouth when they passed a certain water was these words, “SEE HEAR IS WATER WHAT DOETH HINDER ME TO BE BAPTIZED?”! Now, people today could hear many preachers preach about JESUS for years and you could take them out into the OCEAN and the LAST THING that they would EVER ask is “SEE HERE IS WATER WHAT DOETH HINDER ME TO BE BAPTIZED?” And if they ever did ask that question they would not be long in finding out that it is THE MODERN PREACHER that HINDERS them from being baptized because he is not preaching the same gospel that the inspired preachers preached which they received from JESUS CHRSIT HIMSELF!

But we do see here that Christ commanded that the gospel be preached and that it also be obeyed by believing and being baptized and those who did so were saved (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:25,26; Heb. 10:22; Gal. 3:26,27; ROmans 6:3-6;16-18; Col. 2:11-13; Acts 19:1-6; Acts 8:14-40; Acts 16:14,15; Acts 16:30-34;)

Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY him (Heb. 5:8,9). And those who refuse to OBEY the gospel will not be saved (2 Thess. 1:8,9) And it was Christ who said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16). And it is false teachers who want to take away baptism from what Christ said. But when they do they pervert the gospel of Christ and the anathema of God rest upon them.

Then Mr. "Someone" says:

“Either we do something to be saved (besides believe) or God does it all. “

Well, according to the scriptures God and man DO something to save the lost. God sent his son. (John 3:16) and he expects men to “OBEY HIS SON” in order to be saved. “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” (Heb. 5:8,9). And proof that men must “DO SOMETHING” is found in the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost. Now Peter had just told those Jews who had crucified the Lord Jesus Christ that they had crucified their Messiah. He convinced them of it and they had been persuaded to believe that Christ was the Messiah and Savior and they were afraid for their souls and sought salvation with these words:

“Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 8:37).

Now, if Peter had been “Mr. Someone” he would have told these Jews that believed already and because of their faith they wanted to know what they should DO, “Oh, do not worry friends GOD HAS ALREADY FINISHED THAT JOB! There is just NOTHING FOR YOU TO DO! In fact, if you try to DO something to save yourself you will be anathema for perverting the gospel of Christ. Since you believe and we are saved by FAITH ONLY there is just NOTHING for you to do and if you try to do anything you will be trying to be saved by WORKS and WORKS CANNOT SAVE YOU. And if you try to be saved by WORKS you will be lost.” Now that is what Mr. SOMEONE would have said to them when they asked what they should DO to be saved. And let us look at the drastic contrast between what the inspired PETER said in answer to this question and what MR> someone would have said. Listen closely friends to what the inspired Peter said and you will be able, if you are capable of even rudimentary thought to see the vast difference between the gospel that Peter preach and the one that Mr. Someone wants you to believe. Peter answered them as follows:

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls. “ Acts 2:38- 42).

Now notice, friends, that PETER answered their question by telling them WHAT TO DO because there is something that men must DO in order to obtain remission of their sins, isn’t there? Mr. Someone would have lied to them and told them that there is NOTHING for them to do but believe and he is not really sure if “believing is doing something. “ But Peter simply told them what to do and that was for them to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Do you not see that the inspired preachers of the gospel of Christ had more to do with baptism than men, like Mr. "Someone", who teach the false doctrine of "Salvation by faith only"?

And notice also that Peter exhorted them with the words “save yourselves from this untoward generation”! Oh, our friend Mr. Someone would faint to hear those words and he would die before using them in his preaching, wouldn’t he? For those words indicate not only that we must DO something to be saved but that in doing it we are actually doing something to SAVE OURSELVES!

Now, Let us look at another example, which shows that we must DO something to be saved as follows:

“And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” (Acts 16:30-34)

Notice that he said “what must I do to be saved? And if Paul and Silas had been Mr. Someone he would have been told, “there is just nothing that you can do to be saved! Don’t you know that “Christ has finished his work of salvation and that there is just NOTHING left for you to do. Why don’t you understand that either ““Either we do something to be saved (besides believe) or God does it all.”? He would not have told the Jailer to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved thou and all of thy house. For in this context making such a statement would imply that believing was a WORK THAT MAN DOES and Mr. "Someone" would not want anyone to understand that truth now would he? But notice further how this Jailer “believed”. He believed by being baptized he and his entire house. Read it again for yourself. For we are told immediately after he and his entire house was baptized the following:

“And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” (Acts 16:33,34). Now that is HOW men acceptably believe in Christ. They believe in him when they OBEY his commands to be baptized. And no man can claim to have genuinely and acceptably “believed in Christ” without being baptized. For that is HOW one believes. He believes only by obeying. “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36).

Then Mr. "Someone" says:

“People need to make a decision...has Christ done a complete work or not?”

No one has ever doubted that Jesus Christ completed his work. But obedience to Christ Commands is not HIS work. That is OUR work. And the decision that people need to make is whether they are going to COMLETE THEIR OBEDINECE to the Lord, which is the WORK that they must do by faith in order to be saved. And one of those works is to believe in Christ and the other is to obey his commands to be baptized. (Mark 16:16). So, Christ has completed his work in that he has died for our salvation but we must now complete our work of obeying the gospel of Christ and if we do not complete our work of obedience we will be lost. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). For we are told that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.” (Heb. 5:8,9).

Then he says:

“If He has (and He HAS) then there is nothing more for us to add (Eph 2:8-9), and in fact adding to what he has done is very damning (Gal 1:9)...so why would anyone try and make baptism an addition to Salvation? THAT I don't understand. “

Well, I suppose that Mr. Someone is convinced that Peter and Paul who were inspired apostles of Christ did the wrong thing because they both told people what they MUST DO to be saved and one of those things was to be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). And no, the apostles did not “add baptism to salvation” they simply told us what Christ said. He said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16). And Christ did not “Add baptism to salvation. What he did was place baptism between believing and salvation. Now Christ did that and for that reason we do it as well because we are only teaching what Christ said teach.

Christ said:

“He that believeth ands is baptized shall be saved.

Mr. "Someone" has said:

“He that believeth shall be saved whether he is baptized or NOT.

Now, friends who do you believe? Jesus Christ who saves us or Mr. Someone who appears to be terribly confused about what salvation really is? I will believe and therefore obey Jesus Christ.

Then he says:

“Deathbed conversions aren't a comfortable thing to discuss in our culture....people think they can deny God and live how they want, then get "fire insurance" at the last minute.”

It is interesting here that he does not believe in deathbed conversions. Well, we will save the inconsistencies that he may have on this matter for another time. But, we do not believe in deathbed conversions either unless one can obey the gospel sincerely while on his deathbed.

Then he says:

“While I think most "conversions" are probably bogus from the deathbed, I don't deny that it CAN happen....Who are we to judge who has truly repented or not?”

You see, we are not to judge anything before the time but no man is going to be saved, on his deathbed or any other place unless he obeys the gospel of Christ (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And no one can obey the gospel of Christ without being baptized as we have abundantly shown in our previous post. And will not repeat it again here just because Mr. Someone and everyone else for that matter has completely and deliberately ignored most if not all of the conclusive evidence that we have presented to establish these truths from God’s word.

Then he says:

“Only God may judge in that sense (Matt 7:1,2) I for one will not get involved in "Kree-noh" ing anyone.”

When you teach from God’s word that men must obey the gospel or be eternally lost you are allowing GOD through his word to express HIS judgement. And that is what we have done. And it is clear from God’s word that it is HIS judgement that if men do not obey the gospel by being baptized they will be eternally lost. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6; 16-18; 2 These. 1:8,9). And this is true for all men, those who are young and full of life and those who are on their “deathbeds”. The requirement is the same for all.

Then he says:

“Just my two cents.”

And because what he has said is completely contrary to the truth of God’s word his words were not even worth “two cents”.

For Christ and those who love the truth in him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

THIS IS THE LAST POST FOR THIS THREAD.

MOVE TO DEATHBED CONVERSIONS: PART TWO

THIS IS DONE TO SHORTEN LOAD TIMES.

PLEASE DO NOT POST AGAIN ON THIS THREAD.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Interesting. Notice that Romans 10:9 is completly ignored in Lee's diatribe. But then he is too busy picking nits, convoluting words and meaning and basically "making the Word of God to no effect".

DSL is a wonderful thing...this thread loads in a heartbeat. No reason to truncate it, unless you are wanting that swill from lee to be the last post here....

Thanks for answering the "works vs. grace" question...it explains much about the attitude of those on this site (not all). It must be sad to live in such fear of doing wrong and being cut off, and following a set of rules and reg's is just easier for legalistic people to deal with god...or so they think. God is so much bigger than your small minds....

BTW, the letter to Ephesus was not just "for them". Paul tells several churches to read the letter he wrote to ______ and send your letter to them to read.

Anyway, "you can always tell a pharisee....not much, but you can always tell 'em!" Not worth much time debating those that are convinced in their own minds they are right and everyone else better conform to their views (rather than Scriptures)

I would caution those of you who are engaging in this mental masturbation to watch out for these "dogs" preaching another Gospel, which is no Gospel at all. Their words and ways seem right, but in the end, lead to destruction.

If I ever needed someone to type for hours and say nothing to save my life, Lee would be the first person I would call on. beware his nitpicking of words and phrases as he uses them out of context and focus' the reader away from what they should see.....does the man have no time to "go make disciples" because he is so busy trying to dazzle the 1/2 dozen people on this forum with his many words?

It is easy to type for hours, pointing out the sawdust specks. Not so easy to go LIVE as Christ has modeled for us.

Time to go.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Brother Combs:

I have honored your request that we take this discussion to another thread and in fact was the very first one to do so. And then I saw that Mr. Someone did not honor your request. I have waited to reply to his post which was placed here after you started a New Thread thinking that his post would be moved to the appropriate thread and deleted from this one. Therefore, inasmuch as this has not been done it is right for me to assume that it is acceptable for me to respond to his words in this thread.

Brethren:

Mr. “Someone” has said the following:

“Interesting. Notice that Romans 10:9 is completely ignored in Lee's diatribe.”

If anyone will notice, I was responding to every word written in one of Mr. Someone’s post and the reason Romans 10:9 is not mentioned in my response to him is simply because it was not MENTIONED by him in the post to which I was responding! So, it does not take much intelligence to realize that if Mr. Someone did not mention the verse in his post then he should not expect E. Lee Saffold to mention it in his response to that post, now should he? But, if he had gone to the new tread which was started by Brother Darrell he would see our response to his previous post which included our response which makes mention of Romans 10:9. But because we were told to respond in the new thread he was able to pretend that we had not mentioned this verse in response to him. If we are going to start a new thread then let us be consistent and insist that all further responses go to that thread.

Then Mr. Someone says:

“ But then he is too busy picking nits, convoluting words and meaning and basically "making the Word of God to no effect".”

Well, that is a fine assertion but where is the proof of it? It is what we always get from those who cannot answer our arguments, isn’t it? And the word of God can only be made of none effect by those who teach contrary to the truth therein written. And this is what Mr. Someone has sought to do. For Christ said in the word of God:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16)

And Mr. Someone has tried to make that verse have “no effect” by teaching:

“He that believeth and is NOT baptized shall be saved”.

Now we believe what Christ said and that it will have the proper effect if all believe it and obey it. But we do not believe what Mr. Someone said because he has said the direct opposite from what Christ said so that we must chose to either believe him or Christ. We choose to believe Christ and to ignore Mr. Someone’s efforts to make the words of Christ of “none effect”.

Then he says:

“DSL is a wonderful thing...this thread loads in a heartbeat. No reason to truncate it, unless you are wanting that swill from lee to be the last post here....”

Now anyone who knows Brother Combs knows that the last thing he would really want in any case would be for E. Lee Saffold, or anyone else for that matter, to be given any particular advantage by having the “last word” in a thread. And really there is no advantage to having the last word in a thread. For it matters not when you have your say people are going to examine it to see if you offered any evidence to prove that your words were true.

But Mr. Someone wants to appear to be far advanced in his knowledge of internet access and technology so, with a “smirk” he states that DSL is a wonderful thing which allows for lengthy threads to load “in a heartbeat”. And this everyone knows to be the truth. But the facts are that DSL is not available in all areas, which I know because I work in the telecommunications business. I know of many areas where the only thing a person can have is a “dial up” connection to the internet unless they can afford fast access from their cable company even if “cable” is available in their area. And surely few, if any, persons are going to pay for a T-1 to be installed in their home just so they can surf the net! And then you must know that many people cannot afford to pay to DSL and just do not have it. And if all you have at home is a dial up connection then downloading a lengthy thread is “time consuming” as Brother Combs clearly stated was his reason for starting another thread. He was right to do it and Mr. Someone was wrong to deliberately show such disrespect toward his request on behalf of those who do not, for whatever reason, have high-speed access to the internet. I for one believe that he was being respectful and helpful to them.

Then Mr. Someone says:

“Thanks for answering the "works vs. grace" question...it explains much about the attitude of those on this site (not all).”

Why then do you not make some reply to our ANSWER to your false doctrine concerning “works vs grace”? All you can do is complain about the attitude without proving that anything we have said indicates the attitude that you describe.

Then he says:

“ It must be sad to live in such fear of doing wrong and being cut off, and following a set of rules and reg's is just easier for legalistic people to deal with god...or so they think.”

Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). And again, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.” (John 15:10).

And again Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” (John 14:21).

“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (John 14:23).

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” (John 8:51).

“And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” (1 John 3:22).

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. ” (1 John 5:2,3).

“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.” (luke 6:46-49).

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as the scribes.” Matt. 7:21-29).

“Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Rev. 14:12).

And for this reason we are told, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” (Heb. 5:8,9)

Then he says:

“ God is so much bigger than your small minds....”

Well, now isn’t that a startling revelation! My friend, it was GOD who gave us our “small minds” and we simply must work with what he gave us, now don’t we? But to some he gave greater intelligence than he did to others. And we are certain that he did so with the hopes that those with greater mental capacity would have the intelligence to answer the questions and arguments of those like E. Lee Saffold who have far less intelligence than our friend Mr. Someone. But, unfortunately for us men with superior intelligence like Mr. Someone appears to be either unable or deliberately unwilling to answer the arguments made with our “small minds” doesn’t he?

Then he says:

“BTW, the letter to Ephesus was not just "for them". Paul tells several churches to read the letter he wrote to ______ and send your letter to them to read.”

No one said that it was only for the Ephesians and surely Mr. Someone with his superior “mind” could figure that one out couldn’t he? We showed, instead, that Paul had written his letter to the Ephesians. And in that letter he reminded them of how they were saved “by grace through faith” and we showed from the record of their conversion in Acts 19:1-6 that their salvation by grace through faith was accomplished WHEN they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Now what does that do to his false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” his lie that baptism has nothing to do with our salvation? He knows what it does but he wanted to just sidestep the issue for his “superior mind” cannot think of a good answer to that argument, can it?

Then he says:

“Anyway, "you can always tell a Pharisee....not much, but you can always tell 'em!"”

Well, Mr. Someone has not proven that there is a single “Pharisee” in this forum now has he? So, we can see that he is not quite able to recognize one. And it is indeed easy to “tell” anyone including Pharisees anything but it is not so easy to PROVE that what you “told” them was the truth, now is it? Mr. Someone thinks he has found a “Pharisee” but he is not sure because he cannot prove that anyone in this forum is in fact a Pharisee. Nevertheless he has “told” us something that he cannot prove to be the truth and is angered that we refuse to believe it until he can prove it. That may be the reason that he feels he cannot “tell” them much. He is beginning to realize that they are not going to believe anything that he cannot PROVE to be the truth. And since he cannot prove much of what he has said he should he senses that he cannot tell them “much” and expect them to believe it.

Then he says:

“ Not worth much time debating those that are convinced in their own minds they are right and everyone else better conform to their views (rather than Scriptures)”

WE have not seen that Mr. Someone does any debating, have we? For he has not offered any evidence that would support any of his assertions. Indeed, if a person were “convinced” of anything it would be in his or her "OWN MINDS" now would it not? Pray, tell us just where else a person could be convinced? We cannot be convinced of something using anyone else’s minds can we? And we are convinced, by God’s word, in our own minds that we are right about this subject and that any one who contradicts the teaching of God’s word on the matter are wrong. But, our minds can be changed but not until we are COVINCED in them, by evidence from God’s word that we have been wrong. And that takes EVIDENCE which Mr. Someone has not been able to provide us from God’s word. And indeed it is a “waste of time” to try to persuade us to change our simple minds without convincing us in our won minds with evidence form the word of God that we should believe differently! For are we not told that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the WORD OF GOD.” (Romans 10:17).

Then he says:

“I would caution those of you who are engaging in this mental masturbation to watch out for these "dogs" preaching another Gospel, which is no Gospel at all.”

Well, we are happy to be warned of any dangers that we may face Mr. Someone. But you must prove that we are facing them. And that you have not done, have you? And what exactly you mean by charging us with engaging in this activity that you call “Mental masturbation” we cannot tell. You do not even tell us exactly what “mental masturbation is much less do you PROVE that we are “engaging” in such, now do you?

And you accuse us of being “dogs” and if you could prove that we are teach a gospel contrary to the gospel of Christ you would be correct in your accusation for if we were doing such we would be “dogs”. But the problem is that you have yet to establish by any scriptural evidence whatsoever that we are teaching “another gospel”. On the other hand we have proven conclusively from the word of God that you are teaching contrary to the gospel of Christ which states quite clearly by Christ himself, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). SO, this proves that you are in fact the one who is “barking” doesn’t it?

Then you say:

“ Their words and ways seem right, but in the end, lead to destruction.”

You know why our words “seem right”? They seem right because they are not our words but God’s word! And God’s word does not only “seem right” it IS RIGHT! And your words are clearly wrong because they conflict with the words of Christ our Lord. Just look at this example:

Mr. Someone says:

Baptism has nothing to do with out salvation

Jesus Christ said:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16)

Mr. Someone says:

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation:

But the inspired apostle Peter said:

“The like figure whereunto even BAPTISM DOETH ALSO NOW SAVE US…” (1 Peter 3:21).

So, these two examples alone show that Mr. Someone is in direct conflict with Jesus Christ on this matter. And therefore he should not be surprised that what he is hearing “seems right”. And he should stop to consider that the fact that he cannot prove that they are not right might be a strong indication that these words from Christ are in fact very RIGHT.

Then he says:

“If I ever needed someone to type for hours and say nothing to save my life, Lee would be the first person I would call on.”

Well, whatever we have said it surely was not “nothing” to Mr. Someone because it surely has given him much concern hasn’t it? And he has not been able to answer any of the arguments that have been presented. And if he were to call upon us to “type” for hours we would be happy to help him if, and only if, what he was asking us to “type” was the TRUTH OF GOD’S WORD. WE are more than willing to spend hours in that endeavor. But, if we were teaching false doctrine, like Mr. Someone, we would not spend any time with it at all.

Then he says:

“ beware his nitpicking of words and phrases as he uses them out of context and focus' the reader away from what they should see....”

Now we would recommend that everyone beware of anyone who is trying to distract their focus “away” from the facts and the truth. But Mr. Someone has not proven that we have taken a single word “out of context”. And he cannot show that we have done anything other than “focus” everyone’s attention on the word of God and how it contrast with the word’s of men like Mr. Someone who does not want to obey God’s will. And because of that all he can do is talk of things designed to distract our readers away from the arguments that we have made that he cannot answer.

Then he says:

“.does the man have no time to "go make disciples" because he is so busy trying to dazzle the 1/2 dozen people on this forum with his many words?”

How ignorant can a man be? E. Lee Saffold has plenty of time to “go make disciples” as the Lord Commanded and has been doing it. In fact, writing in this forum has been only one of several ways that he does “go make disciples” of Christ by teaching the gospel as Christ commanded. (Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19,20). In fact, several have become “disciples of Christ” by reading this forum including the writing of E. Lee Saffold, among several others concerning the word of God.

And, anyone reading in the archives can see that there are far more than ½ a dozen persons writing in this forum and there may be far more that “lurk”. In fact, the emails that we receive from various persons who “lurk” here is far greater than a mere “1/2 a dozen”. SO, we would like to see him even prove that there is only a ½ dozen people reading and/or responding to this forum. Not that it really matters that much. For would we expend any less energy to save six souls from spiritual death than we would to save hundreds more? Each soul is precious and if there were only one other person in this forum seeking the hope of eternal life through Christ our Lord all of the efforts and energy expended to save that one person would make it all worth it, wouldn’t it? But, Mr. Someone is judging as the world judges such things. But God willingly sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for each and every individual on this earth. And therefore effort spent to save one man should not ever deliberately be less than the effort expended to reach many. For some saints may spend a lifetime just to reach one person. But Christ did not tell us to “convert them all” he commanded us to preach to them all. Whether they will be converted or not is their decision. But our efforts in this forum to teach the truth of God’s word are important and the number of people reading o9r responding in this forum is not a factor that determines the importance of our writing. But the precious souls, who will hear, however many they may be, are what make it important.

Then he says:

“It is easy to type for hours, pointing out the sawdust specks.”

It is not as “easy” as Mr. Someone thinks it is And he clearly cannot tell the difference between “sawdust pecks” and massive PLANKS. For anyone who teaches a gospel other than the gospel of Christ as does Mr. Someone who attempting to lead people away from OBEYING the gospel of Christ by obeying Christ’s commands concerning Baptism has far more than a few “sawdust specks” in his eyes. In fact, he is such persons are suffering from a self-induced blindness. For there are only two reasons a person does not see. He is either blind or he has his eyes closed. We are convinced that Mr. Someone is able to see the truth. But has deliberately closed his eyes to it. And it is not “sawdust specks” we are trying to “remove”. It is his eyelids and his hands with which he has closed his eyes and covered them as a double protection from his ever having to actually come face to face with the truth that is the problem. And therefore we are simply trying to persuade him to remove his hands from in front of his eyes and open his eyes so that he can see clearly what the word of God actually says. Instead he feels safer in the darkness believing that the word of God actually teaches what he has imagined that it says and what others have told him that it says.

Then he says:

“ Not so easy to go LIVE as Christ has modeled for us.”

It is not easy to spend hours teaching the word of God in and out of this forum and into the entire world. But this is a vital part of “living as Christ modeled for us”. For he was constantly teaching the truth to others and making disciples by doing so. And he not only modeled this for us but commanded us to do it (Matt. 28:19,20;” “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” ( 2 Tim 4:2). And again, “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” (Acts 5:42). And again, “And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead.” (Acts 10:42). And again, “For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” (1 Cor. 9:16). And yet again, “And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” (Romans 10:15).

And to spend hours doing these things in this forum and elsewhere is not only to “LIVE as Christ modeled for us” but is to live as he COMMANDED us to live. So, what Mr. Someone sees us doing in this forum is teaching the word of God and by doing so we are making Disciples of Christ. And his arrogant assumption that those who write in this forum teaching God’s word are doing so because they do not have anything else to do and are doing nothing to live as Christ commanded is just plain false to it’s core. He has no way of knowing what any of us might be doing to serve Christ outside of this forum. But, there is no doubt that those who teach the truth of God’s word in this forum are living as Christ told us to live when they do so. And those who “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints in this forum and any other place are doing as Christ commanded.

But those who teach contrary to the doctrine of Christ, as does Mr. Someone, cannot be serving Christ in any place. They are in fact “enemies of the cross of Christ” and should be opposed strongly by all faithful Christians in every place that they meet them.

For Christ and those who love the truth in him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2002