Hello,

As many are aware, posts were deleted in the Christmas thread because they aren't related to that topic. Because of that, I never got an answer regarding the role of John's baptism. I understood E. Lee to be teaching that John's baptism was an interim means of salvation. I've sought clarification as to whether this was truly E. Lee's intent, this is what Scripture teaches, or this is false doctrine. Because of the deletions, I never saw any response other than one brother stating he had never heard this teaching before either. So I ask again in order to be educated, is John's baptism an interim means of salvation linking the old and new covenants?

God bless, Scott

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

Answers

Scott --

That would certainly be a new one on me. It would be hard for me to believe anyone from the church of Christ or Christian Churches to hold that John's immersion was anything other than what Scripture teaches it was ... an immersion unto repentance, laying the way for the New Covenant to come.

I THINK (and I might be wrong here) that when John's immersion is mentioned with regards to the thief on the cross (which I believe it was in lee's post), it is done in a way to say, basically, "The thief may have been immersed under John ... we don't know." This is many times an answer people give to those who say "The thief of the cross went to heaven, and wasn't immersed." First, we don't know if he was immersed or not (under John's baptism). But, even if he was, to use the thief on the cross as an example of how a person gets to heaven is not a good example now. Jesus did what he did for the thief prior to the beginning of the church and the New Covenant. AND ... He is God and can do anything out of the ordinary He chooses ... though in this case I don't believe it was out of the ordinary, again, since the New Covenant didn't being till sometime later on the Day of Pentacost.

All that to say, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that John's immersion was anything other than a baptism of repentance, that and nothing more.

Any other ideas out there?

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

Darrell,

The only thing I would add is Mark 1:4, "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

So often people forget that John linked repentance and forgiveness of sins... not that unlike Christian baptism.

My only question is John saying that baptism (John's) was for repentance AND forgiveness of sins. Or was he saying that the repentance was for the forgiveness of sins?

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

Interesting question, and one I will deal with come next week. I am heading out of town now and won't be back till Sunday.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

Brother Jewell, after much searching we found our reply to your words which had been unjustly deleted before you had any chance to read it. We now give it again for your benefit with the hope that it will not be deleted again. It is as follows:

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

-- 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. 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

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

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

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2002

E. Lee,

I can see from your response that I had misunderstood the point you were making. When you were showing that John's baptism was preparing people for belief in Jesus through the remission of their sins, I thought you were saying that these people were saved even if they didn't later become followers of Jesus. I can see now that this is not what you were saying, but that people who were baptized by John received salvation, yet they were later expected to become Jesus' followers, although another baptism would not be required. I apologize for purporting that you were teaching false doctrine when it was simply a misunderstanding of your words.

God bless, Scott

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

No apologies are necessary Brother Jewell. I am just pleased to see that you accept the truth of God's word on this matter which is that the baptism of John was indeed "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) and that those who were thus baptized actually received the remission of their sins and were thereby saved from them. And none of this would have any meaning if CHrist had not died for them and was raised from the dead. In fact, none of the obedience of man has any meaning whatsoever without the shed blood of CHrist and this covers the obedience of men from Adam to E. Lee Saffold and beyond. WIthout obedience to God no man will be saved and without the shed blood of Christ even obedience to God could not save sinners.

Your Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Brethren:

It has been brought accurately to my attention that I had quoted Brother Jewell in our above discussion concerning John’s baptism as follows:

“Brother Jewell says: “A man can be saved today without obeying the gospel of Christ”.

And I looked and noticed that I had in fact put those words in quotation marks which leaves the impression that I had in fact quoted his own chosen words in this matter. This is not the case for he said not such thing. He did, in much weaker terms imply that such would be his hope but he did not say those exact words. I did not intend to put those words in quotations. It was my intent to state what he believed and not what he SAID in his exact words. But my “habit” of using quotations was stronger than my intention not to use them and I inadvertently misrepresented Brother Jewell as having specifically said words, which he never in any place actually said.

I have expressed my apologies to Brother Jewell via email and I publicly express them now and to the forum as well. For it is not my intention to ever misrepresent a person or any facts in this or any other forum. This was an error and an unintended one. But it left the impression that my Brother had said words which he had not actually said. I ask all to please accept my apologies and especially that Brother Jewell will do so and more importantly that God in heaven who knows my heart will forgive the mistake. For there is not place for error in doing the work of “contending for the faith” and I pray fervently that God will forgive this mistake.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2002

E. Lee,

Thank you for the apology, although it was in no means necessary to be done publicly. I will say that I do appreciate your willingness to bring it before the forum, as it demonstrates your desire to be forthright as we prepare to debate (by the way, I did send an e-mail to say I have the draft and will be looking it over on Tuesday evening).

Brothers in general,

With this instance in mind, may I make a suggestion? It seems to me that many of our squabbles stem from a miscommunication. Sometimes it is a posting that is not stated clearly enough to get the point across. Other times it is a reader putting their interpretation or an unintended implication into what is written. Maybe instead of firing off a response about the errors of the posting, we should first respond with a question like, "When you wrote these words (place words here), I understood you to say (place interpretation here). Is this what you were intending to express?" If the person says it is or they don't answer in a couple days, then proceed to demonstrate the falseness of their statement, but give the person the opportunity to correct their error.

The above example could have been avoided completely with a question like that because my words were only meant to express a hope based on my emotions of the time, not Scripture. When I got corrected for the error, I dug my heels in, not proper on my part because I had miscommunicated the truth, but that is what happened to me. Rather than admitting my mistake, I started grasping for straws to vindicate myself. A response that may have been more effective would have been to ask me if I truly believed that someone could get to heaven without obeying the gospel, because that was the impression I was giving with what I had written. That is not my belief. A part of me always holds out hope that somehow a lost person could have been saved in his dying moments, but that is not a hope based on Scripture and I know in my heart of hearts that it will not happen.

And now that I've rambled on and on, I'll let you all sort it out and consider your approach in the future.

God bless, Scott

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2002