I'm asking for some insight into Acts 8:15. The fact that these people were baptized into Jesus but did not receive the HS seems inconsistant with Acts 2:38 and seems to indicate the receiveing the HS was a "second work."

Any insight.

Thanks,

Lee Giermann (doulos@LSCC.org)

-- Anonymous, September 15, 2000

Answers

AKelley....

That was the most glaring example of modern day Gnosticism I have ever read.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Yes Brother John....

As Lee asked...Who is the "Who" on "this forum?"

And exactly where did they say what they said...the way you stated it??

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Lee....

John's problem is the confusion of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the apostles with the Holy Spirit's work in the life of the believer. He sees it as one and the same.

John believes in the Augustinian/Calvinistic view of Holy Spirit illumination....i.e., the Holy Spirit enlightens and teaches us the meaning of Scripture....and i.e., we cannot understand the Scripture unless the Spirit reveals it to us.

This is based on his assumption that all Scriptures spoken to the apostles are equally applicable to us.

Unfortunately, the sarcasm doesn't work for him, for as you rightly stated.....he mispresensented my views.

The nature of sarcasm is such, that it only works when there is a grain of truth to what is said.

Hope that helps clarify your understanding of John's statement.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Trust me Link....I've forgotten more about Gnosticism than you remember.

The essence of Gnosticism is...."I've got something you don't."

Now.....re-read A Kelley's remarks again.

Also Gnosticism carried with it an aire of "I'm more spiritual than you are."

Now read.....A. Kelley's remarks again.

And Link....if would take time to read people's remarks rather than be in a hurry to defend your charismatic agenda....you would see I said..."modern day Gnosticism."

"Thank you very much Miss Lippy!!!"

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

I wish I could "cut and paste" because this is hard....but let me try....

AKelley.....here are two of your "gnostic" type statements....

"Those who honestly seek the Lord in a closer intimate relationship can receive the gifts of the Spirit as the grace of our Lord enables."

(Am I to understand then.....that Lee or myself does not have a "close intimate relationship" with the Lord because we take the position we do?? If you are saying that....then that is "neo- gnosticism.") (By the way Link....I'm not the first one to suggest the "charismatic movement" as modern day gnosticism.)

Then you say to Lee...."Maybe the Lord will reveal that to you in time." (Are you suggesting that the Lord has revealed Himself to you beyond the written word?? If so....that is gnosticism or at the very least....Augustinian/Cavinism.)

And....if the Lord revealed it to you....then none of us has the right to question you or argue with you!! Why?? Because it's the revealed truth of God!!!

When a man claims he speaks for God outside the bounds of the written word....not only is it scary....it is cultic!!

In fact, that's how we ended up with the Book of Mormon, the Watchtower, et. al.

AKelley....believe me when I say....if that is your position fine. But I do not think you should be passing yourself of as a part of the heritage of the Restoration Movment because the only thing you are seeking to restore is the dead bones of Augustinian/Calvinism. And if that is your desire....then leave the Christian Churches and join the Assmblies of God since your thinking is much closer in line to their theology than the historic position of the Christian Churches.

Trust me....and I'm sure I speak for Lee.....our relationship with Jesus is every bit as cozy and intimate as yours is. We take God at His word!! He didn't need to prove anything to us.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

D.Lee....

No.

For all the reasons Lee has laid out very clearly concerning the issue of "the laying on of the Apostles hand"....and the lack of necessity for "miraculous gifts" in light of the completed revelation of God (i.e., the N.T.).

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2000

Robin......

I see the Holy Spirit's role outlined for the general believer in two Scriptures......

1) Galatians 5, of course, speaks of the fruit of the Spirit....which is love. Love then manifest itself in a number of ways....peace, patience, joy, etc. (By the way.....Galatians 5 is very similar in wording to I Cor. 13....."love is patient, kind, etc.") The role of the Spirit is to work through the Word (i.e., the Sword of the Spirit) convicting me in the areas I need to come more in line with the word of God and thus "walk by the Spirit" as opposed to to "walking by the flesh" (the contrast outlined in Galatians 5).

2) Ephesians 1:13-14 is a passage that everyone seems to miss (except me...:)) in discussing the role of the Spirit. Allow me to quote it...."And you also were included in Christ, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession."

From this passage, we see the gift of the Spirit is two fold.....

First, He is a seal. The seal spoken here of is what an official would do to a document that he wanted to put his stamp on. He would place a piece of wax on the parcel....then take a signet ring and press into the wax....indicating that it was sent with his authority....and was his possession. The Holy Spirit is God's sign of ownership on us. Interestingly, Revelation points out that those who belong to Satan are marked with a sign. Here we see God's people are marked with a sign....i.e., the Holy Spirit.

Second, the Holy Spirit is a "guarantee" of our inheritance to come. The Greek word for "guarantee" is a very interesting word. It was a banking term used to denote someone who gave a pledge guranteeing they would pay a loan.

Isn't that neat?!?!? God gave us His Holy Spirit as a pledge that He will finish what He started.....namely our resurrection and completion of the redemption process!!!!

This, to the best of my knowledge, is the only scripturally defined role of the Holy Spirit to those who were not apostles.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2000

Link,

I think I have made my position clear.....no miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

As per the casting out of demons.....I believe any committed Christian can do such by the power of the Word.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2000

AKelley....

Therefore, are we to assume that everything in the Pentecostal churches is "hunkey dory?" Is there perfect union because of the belief in "the gifts?" Are they all "one in the Spirit" with no dissension or strife??

Baloney!!! Go into any town and find you will find your basic "variety pack" of Pentecostal churches all pointing at themselves and saying...."No...OURS....is the later day outpouring."

Connie.....SHOW ME ONE PLACE WHERE ANYONE BLASPHEMED THE HOLY SPIRIT. Connie you are demonstrating PERFECTLY the only reason you have ever been around this forum.....and that is to cause strive and division. If memory serves me correctly....Proverbs 6 has something to say about that.

Link.....it may have been a miracle when Jesus did it.....but....did you notice it was not even listed as a gift "among the gifts?" Did you notice none of the biblical authors give...."exorcism 101 instructions??"

Why?? I assume John knew what he meant when he wrote....."Greater is He who is in us....than he who is in the world."

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2000

Link....

What epistle list "casting out demons" as "operation of powers?"

In fact, what epistle mentions "casting out demons?"

Also....did I not say that I do not view casting out demons as "a miracle?"

Now, not just are you twisting the scripture to fit your preconceived views.....you are twisting others words.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2000

In response to Alan's suggestion that "baptism was only required of the Jews"......

Matthew 28:19...."Therefore, go and make disciples of all the NATIONS....baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..."

The Greek word for "nations" is the word "ethos"....from which we get our word..."ethnic." Thus Jesus is commanding the spreading of the gospel, including baptism, to all ethnic groups....not just Jews.

Of course, Alan will probably suggest this was added by an overzealous redactor in order to spread his "Christian agenda."

I would remind everyone, however, that better men than Alan throughout history have tried to disprove the N.T.....abolish it...critique it....blah, blah, blah.....and it still stands today.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2000

Alan....

Just curious....do you place the Torah over let's say....the Prophets....(either former or latter)??

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2000

Question Alan....

Why did the Jews, at the hands of the Romans, put to death a "Rabbi" who simply enforced the Torah??

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Lee, I understand Luke to be using an elipsis, i.e., the omission of a word or phrase that is obviously understood (by the original readers), but that must be supplied for a complete sense. In Acts 2, Luke supplies us with a more complete conversion story to which all others must refer. Most scholars acknowledge this characteristic of Acts. So when Luke says they were baptized, he assumes we know they also received the gift of the Spirit, his indwelling presence. That the receiving of the Spirit is actually the receiving of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit may be understood, since Simon saw a visible demonstration of it. This would disqualify the spiritual, invisible indwelling Christians receive today.

This assumption on Luke's part and his use of ellipsis is reinforced when we remember that these documents were originally written to be read in the Christians' meetings, and, thus, a more continual flow could be maintained that our pick-and-choose readings.

Another example of such assumptions is that Luke also does not mention repentance in this story. Since they were under the saw of Simon's magic, we may certainly infer, from the prior evidence of Acts 2:38 and other passages, that indeed they did repent. Luke means us to understand that.

Randal
FORTHRIGHT Magazine
From once a week to once a day


-- Anonymous, September 15, 2000

The Hoy spirit that they received in Acts 8 must have been the "miraculous" gift of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles had (notice Peter and John placed their hands on them to receive it) and not the indwelling as those in Acts 2 received.

The reason I say this is because it was obvious that they received it... how else would Simon see this and desire to buy this gift?

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2000

I posted something on this subject on another thread. There was a discussion going on an EDG I participate in a while back. An author, Menzies, I think, had written a scholarly work examining how Luke and Paul deal with the Holy Spirit.

His view, or the view of those who read his book, was that Luke does not refer to the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation, but rather of empowering encounters with the Holy Ghost. Many Old Testament books mention the Spirit coming on people in power. The Spirit of the Lord came upon the judges, and upon David, in power. We see a similar thing in the Prophets where the Spirit of the Lord would come on prophets, and they would prophecy, or see visions, etc.

Luke uses 'receive' 'filled with' 'baptized with',etc. the Holy Spirit. He also writes of the Holy Ghost falling on or coming on people. People who experience this in Lukes writings, speak in tongues, prophecy, etc. Even in the gospel of Luke, we see that Zecharias prophesied when he was filled with the Holy Ghost. Luke's treatment of being filled with the Spirit deals with this type of empowerment.

Paul focuses a lot on the soteriological role of the Holy Spirit. As such, Luke and Paul are seen as using different terminology and focusing on different things. Luke and Paul's writings are contradictory.

One way of interpreting Acts 2:38 is to see Peter telling the crowd that they can experience the same empowerment they witnessed on the day of Pentecost if they would repent and be baptized. Carefully studied what occured. The crowd saw the 120 speaking in tongues. Peter told them of a prophecy of Joel about God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh, and told about prophesying, visions, dreams- 'Spirit empowerment' type things.

When we read Acts 2:38, why should we interpret into the verse the idea of the soteriological reception of the Spirit? (That is the receiving of the Spirit or the seal of the Spirit that accompanies salvation that Paul mentions.) Peter's sermon deals with empowerment.

The Holy Spirit came on people apart from the laying on of the apostles hands. There are numerous examples of this in the Old Testament. Certain judges and prophets ahd the Spirit come on them. Joel's prophecy had to do with God pouring out His Spirit on 'all flesh.' Compare this to the story of the Spirit being put ont he elders, and the elders prophesying. Moses comments that he would that all God's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit on all of them.

Prior to this, a few had experienced empowerment. In the book of Acts, the Spirit came on Cornelius without apostles laying hands on him. The church was filled in Acts 4 while they prayed. There is no mention of the apostles laying hands on everone. The Spirit just fell on the saints where they were praying. Compare this to Pentecost.

Not only after Pentecost was there a more universal distribution of the Spirit on the people followig the Lord, but I believe there was another difference. Jesus told the aposltes that the Spirit was with them and would be in them.

The Bible never teaches that having the Holy Spirit would not 'come on' believers as in the book of Acts was temporary and for the first century. Neither does it say that the Spirit could only come on saints through the laying on of the hands of the apostles. The Spirit had come on people even in the Old Testament before the apostles, and He came on belivers in the very book of Acts without an apostle laying hands on them.

Paul may mention being filled with the Holy Spirit in an 'empowering' sense when he writes to be filled with the Spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. I received a group email message once from a Greek scholar who believed that 'speaking to yourself' here did not refer to congregational singing, but rather to one erson singing solos to the group. (That fits well with I Corinthians 14:26 as well.) Later, I read a quote from Tertullian's Apology that the early believers, after the supper, would sing a song from the scriptures, or their hearts to the Lord. Perhaps some of the believers Paul is speaking of sang new songs from the Spirit.

It would not be accurate to say that Paul's treatment of the Spirit only deals with the soteriological reception of the Spirit. When he exhorts believers to be filled with the Spirit, these people were already believers. Believers can have the Spirit, but they need to be filled with the Spirit, and have the Spirit constantly leading them in their daily lives, giving them power over sin. The Spirit is called the Spirit of grace, after all.

If Acts 2:38 is talking about the 'reception of the Spirit' or 'the baptism of the Holy Ghost' related to empowerment, notice that the verse does not say one receives this at baptism. Rather, Peter told the crowd they could receive the Holy Spirit if they repented and were baptized. Even in Acts 19, there was a short delay between the believers being baptized, and receiving the Holy Ghost, even if it were a few moments.

And Peter's promise here to the crowd that they could receive the Holy Ghost if they repented and were baptized in Jesus' name does not preclude the idea that one could receive this before baptism with water either. Cornelius had not been baptized with water yet, yet he received the Holy Ghost, 'the same as we' Peter told the Jews.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2000

It would take someone who thinks Luke and Paul are contradictory to come up with such conclusions. Go back and read the text again. Nowhere does it say the Spirit fell upon the group praying in Acts 4. You read that into the text. It says: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit . . ." (Acts 4:31). Apparently by that Luke means to indicate a new manifestation was evident among those who had already received the miraculous gift of the Spirit.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2000

How exactly does our view on this differ? Aside from the fact that I believe the Holy Spirit can 'fall upon' people today as in the book of Acts. Does are view of the difference between reception of the Spirit in regeneration, and the reception of the Spirit of Acts 8, where the Holy Spirit falls on people very different, except in terminology?

Odd that you would pick out that detail out of the entire post. Sorry if I used the wrong terminology not in that particular text. Luke seems to use 'fallen upon' and 'receiving the Spirit' to refer to the same thing later in Acts, so I used the terms interchangeably.

I presented the idea that Luke and Paul use different terminology, not that they contradict. James uses the term 'Law' in his epistle in ways Paul does not. He writes about the 'perfect law of liberty' and there is other emphasis on obeying the law. James has a different perspective, but his theology is not contradictory to Paul's.

What exactly do you mean by the following? "Apparently by that Luke means to indicate a new manifestation was evident among those who had already received the miraculous gift of the Spirit. "

I don't like using the term 'miraculously' loosely. There are certain categories of things called 'miracles' in the Bible. Speaking in tongues is not called a miracle, for example. It is listed as a separate gift. Acts 4 does not indicate that all there exercised some new spiritual gift. They were filled with the Spirit. The apostles, after this, went out and preached boldly.

And the apostles righteous request for signs and wonders to be done was granted, as we can read later on

If we look at the Old Testament. we can find many examples where the Spirit of the Lord came on someone and empowered him. The Spirit of the Lord came on David in power. The Spirit of the Lord would come on Samsom. No wonder the apostles asked if it were time to restore the kingdom to Israel. I wonder if they thought they would be like twelve Samson/David types. In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord would come on prophets, and they would prophesy, see visions, etc.

In Acts 2, when the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, Peter quoted a passage about God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh, and talked about people prophesying, dreaming dreams, and seeing visions. In Luke 1:67, Zecharias was filled with the Spirit and prophesied about his son John the baptist. He was filled with the Spirit before Pentecost. (An interesting note on Luke's terminology.)

In Acts, mention of being filled with the Spirit or the Spirit coming on someone often is followed by a manifestation of gifting. Luke's usage is similar to the idea we see in the Old Testament of the Holy Spirit coming on judges to empower them or on prophets before they prophesied.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

It sounds then, like some of you are saying that there are two HS "experiences. We are saved and receive the HS, then, perhaps at some later date we are baptized with the HS which is accompanied by some overt demonstration.

This sounds like a Pentecostal view of the HS. Perhaps this is right. If that si correct, then we can look at John 20:22 as their "first" reception and what happened at Pentecost as their second.

My only problem with that is that it seems to contradict Jesus in John 7:39. The HS could not be given until Jesus had been glorified.

I'm still not satisfied. More help?

Lee Giermann (doulos@lscc.org)

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

First of all, I think you need to understand what baptism is. In Judaism, the word for it is mikvah...it is a purification rite that is from the Talmud, or the Oral Law. It was to purify women after their periods, to cleanse cooking apparatus that was made by non- Jews, and for proselytes when they convert to Judaism. It was also often used to spiritually purify Jews before holidays and the Sabbath. The Laws of the Mikvah were complex, and well-known by the Jews of Jesus' time, since the mikvahs at Masada were done according to Jewish Law... ...the problem with baptism and Christianity is that it was meant for Jews, not Gentiles. This explains Paul's reluctance to baptize Gentiles (1Cor. 1:14-17). It also explains why Paul baptized Timothy, since Timothy was Jewish (Acts 16:1-3). As far as a "spiritual" baptism is concerned, that is more of a theological concept, not a legal one. The problems with understanding the concept of the mikvah goes deep into the realm of Jewish mysticism...

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

Apparently, according to some in this forum, we do not receive the Holy Spirit at all ... except when we go to the local bookstore and buy a Bible.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

Brother John:

You have said:

"Apparently, according to some in this forum, we do not receive the Holy Spirit at all ... except when we go to the local bookstore and buy a Bible."

I know of no one in this forum that has said anything remotely indicating that one would receive the Holy Spirit upon buying a Bible in the book store, do you? Could you tell us just who this person is and what exactly he or she said that caused you to draw such an absurd conclusion? Even those who believe that the Holy Spirit operates in both conversion and sanctification only through the word of God would not contend that one receives the Holy Spirit when they "buy a Bible" or even when they read the Bible. Though I am convinced that the reception of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is miraculous and that it was received by the laying on of the apostles hands after being baptized for everyone except the house of Cornelius and the apostles themselves who were the only two groups that were "baptized" in the Holy Spirit. And this includes the promise in Acts 2:38. I have actually spoken nothing about my own beliefs concerning how the Holy Spirit influences us in either conversion or sanctification in this forum though I have argued about the idea of our being endowed with miraculous powers from the Holy Spirit today. But, when I have more time, I would enjoy discussing that subject. But thus far no one has claimed, least of all me, that on receives the Holy Spirit when he purchases a bible in a book store.

But I will make it clear that I do not believe in any "non- miraculous" measure of the Holy Spirit given "automatically" upon our being baptized. I cannot see any passage in the scriptures that speak of the gift of the Holy Spirit that is not a reference to the miraculous reception of the Holy spirit that was given through the laying on of the apostles hands and this includes Acts 2:38; and Acts 5:32. I cannot imagine how anyone who was present on the day of Pentecost and heard the sound of a rushing mighty wind, and saw the "cloven tongues as of fire" upon the heads of the apostles and heard foriegn men from Galillee speaking in "our own tongues wherein we were born". And then hearing Peter speak the gospel for the first time and listening to him speak of that promise made by Joel and the promise of the father and the fulfillment of those promises and seeing these miraculous things occuring before their very eyes and when told them to repent and be baptised for the remission of their sins. It is hard for me to imagine how anyone could have possibly perceived of his promise "and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" as being a reference to anything other than something miraculous. He does not take the time to stop and explain to them that what they had been witnessing was indeed miraculous but this promise of the Holy Spirit is going to actually be "non miraculous" and invisible and hardly even noticable. I just cannot see it. I am convinced that Peter was promising them the same thing that we see him actually doing upon hearing that the Samaritans had received the word of God when,in company with John, he went to the samaritans. Who because they had only been baptized in the name of Christ but had not yet received the Holy Spirit as Peter had promised those in Acts 2:38,Peter and John went to them that they may receive the Holy Spirit. And they laid their hands upon the samaritans and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-24). This seems to be an example of how that promise that Peter made was fulfilled. And this would also explain Paul's question of the Ephesians in Acts 19:1-6 where he asked "have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" What an ignorant question that would be if one received the Holy Spirit in some non miraculous way automatically upon being baptized, now wouldn't it? I do not believe, though I have been acused of it in this forum, in any non-miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit received automatically upon being baptised into Christ. I believe that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" promised in Acts 2:38 to be the Holy Spirit himself which was imparted through the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). And I believe that all of the passages dealing with the Holy Spirit are written to those who reeived the Holy Spirit in this way and must be understood in that light. This concept of a non-miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit received automatically upon being baptized is not taught in the scriptures though many of my good and honest Brethern believe such. I know of no reception of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament that was not miraculous though I am open to be taught if you know of any.

I cannot imagine that anyone receives the Holy Spirit when they buy, own or even read a bible.

If you are going to discuss a serious subject it is not wise to begin by deliberate misrepresentations of the truth concerning those who hold views opposite of your own.

So, do tell us John, who in this forum said that we receive the Holy Spirit when we buy a Bible at the book store? Do tell us just how you draw the conclusion that anyone in our brotherhood actually holds such an absurd view? Are you trying to prejudice this discussion before anyone who holds a view opposite of yours even begins to make their case? This is not like you Brother John. I have always thought that you were willing to be fair and listen to others before drawing conclusions concerning the things that they believe. I have never heard anyone teach that they receive the Holy Spirit when buying a bible in a bookstore and I sincerely doubt if you have heard anyone assert any such view and I am certian that no one has made any such assertion in this forum.

The contention that the Holy Spirit influences our lives today through the teaching of the word of God which was once in inspiried men who delivered those words to us is far from claiming that the Holy Spirit himself is received through his words. The Holy Spirit influenced the world with his revealed and confirmed word in inspired men during the infancy of the church. This is no different from his influencing us today through those same inspired men through their revealed and confirmed words which are in the New Testament. But those that hold this view do not believe that we receive the Holy Spirit through reading those words. There is a vast difference between being influenced by the Holy Spirit through his word and RECEIVING the Holy Spirit himself through His written word. Anyone can see the difference if they really are sincere about the discussion of this subject. If none are sincere then the discussion is useless.

Misrepresentation is a great tactic if you are trying to prevent your own view from recieiving serious scrutiny. But it is hardly a way to arrive at the truth on any subject and it is far from being conducive to a genuine and reasonable dialog on any subject.

You Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

Alan,

You said, "the problem with baptism and Christianity is that it was meant for Jews, not Gentiles."

If this is the case, then why did Peter say that baptism was for all who were far off (Gentiles) in Acts 2:39? Why was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized (Acts 8)? Or the Phillipian jailer or Cornelius? Why did Paul say in Gal.3:27-28 that ALL who are baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ and there is neither Jew or Gentile...?

These are just a few cases where "Christian baptism" was and still is today for EVERYONE.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2000

Alan,

Paul was happy that he had not personally baptized the Corinthains, lest any should say that he had baptized in his own name. That does not mean they were not to be baptized. Paul baptized Gentiles.

He did say that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. That doesn't mean people that repented were not to be baptized. Paul's purpose for being sent was to preach, however. Baptism could be performed by regular Christians, whether by the people in the communities he founded, Paul's travelling companions, or Paul himself.

Btw, Paul _circumcised_ Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman, but not Titus a Gentile.

Marc, Were the Gentiles refered to as 'as many as are afar off?' Could it be that this refers to the Dispersion, Jews who lived afar off? Would the events of Acts 10 have been such a surprise if Peter were already preaching the converstion of the Gentiles.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2000

Link,

You said, "Marc, Were the Gentiles refered to as 'as many as are afar off?' Could it be that this refers to the Dispersion, Jews who lived afar off? Would the events of Acts 10 have been such a surprise if Peter were already preaching the converstion of the Gentiles." Let me respond quickly.

First, we see in Eph.2:11-13 (NASB) that the Gentiles are refered to those who were once far off, but have been brought near through the blood of Christ. Certainly this lines up with Acts 2.

Second, Peter was told by Jesus to preach to the Gentiles (Mt.28:19- 20; Mk.16:15), yet he forgot by Acts 10. Then after the episode in Acts 10 we see that once again Peter forgot (see Gal.2). Peter was a Jew of Jews and it was hard for him to accept the Gentiles and Paul repremends him for this.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2000

Brother Marc:

I just want to say AMEN AND AMEN to your comments in your last post. Excellent and accurate and I greatly appreciate you for making the point so clear.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2000

Not only is the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to receive the "miraclulous gifts" for those within the first century, but of every century. THose who honestly seek the Lord in a closer more intimate relationship, can receive the gifts of the Spirit as the grace of our Lord enables.

What John, I think, meant by his statement, that the Holy Spirit works not only through scripture but in the lives of each believer as they mature in Christ. But, there are some within the forum who beleive that the Spirit can only work through the ready of the scripture. Do I gotch'a right John?

If the Lord, still imparts the gifts, and I believe He does... then Lord give me all of them!!!

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2000

AKelley;

That is exactly what I was trying to say ... in my usual biting manner. Sometimes my sarcasm is misunderstood.

I have more to say on the subject, and answer Danny in the other thread ... but I intend to do a thorough job in my next post and at the moment I am too busy with life's troubles tying up my time.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have said:

Not only is the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to receive the "miraculous gifts" for those within the first century, but of every century.

That is a fine assertion and a very clearly stated proposition. The only thing missing, which is usually missing in your comments, is the scriptural proof that your assertion is the truth. You claim that these miraculous gifts were not only for those of the first century but for every century. Tell us just where the scriptures teach such a doctrine. Are you expecting us to believe you just because you assert something to be true? Tell us just where the scriptures teach that these miraculous gifts are for every Christian in every century. The fact is that you assertion cannot be considered true until you prove it to be true. This you most assuredly have not even attempted to do.

Then you make another assertion without offering any proof as follows:

THose who honestly seek the Lord in a closer more intimate relationship, can receive the gifts of the Spirit as the grace of our Lord enables.

Now do tell us, Brother Kelley, just where do you read in the scriptures that those who honestly seek the Lord in a closer, intimate relationship can receive the gifts of the Spirit as the grace of the Lord enables? Are you implying that those who do not have these miraculous gifts do not have them because they are not honestly seeking the Lord in a closer and more intimate relationship?

Then you seek to speak for John:

What John, I think, meant by his statement, that the Holy Spirit works not only through scripture but in the lives of each believer as they mature in Christ. But, there are some within the forum who believe that the Spirit can only work through the ready of the scripture. Do I gotch'a right John?

No one in this forum thinks that the Holy Spirit can only work through the ready, I think you meant to say reading, of the scripture. God is able and can do anything that he wants to do. And, because he is sovereign he will do exactly what he wants to do. And he will not give you these miraculous gifts if he has chosen not to give them to you. He is able to deny you and me and anyone else these gifts and that he has done. I have asserted and will continue to assert that the Holy Spirit operates today in both conversion and sanctification through the influence of the word of God. (Acts 20:28- 32; John 12:48; 1 Cor. 1:18; Romans 1:16; 1 Peter 1:22,25). Now, this particular subject is one that requires a diligent study of many passages of scripture in both the old and New Testaments in their context and it will not be understood with short quaint statements without evidence. If we are willing to do the work to investigate this matter we can learn much. But if all that we want to do is assert without attempting to give evidence of our assertions the entire discussion is vain and foolish. Brother John asserted unjustly that some thought that we receive the Holy Spirit when we buy a Bible in the bookstore. Those kinds of silly and inaccurate comments are not helpful in the search for the truth on this subject. For no one actually believes such a thing and no ones belief on this matter would logically lead to such a conclusion. That statement was a deliberate misrepresentation of those who believe that the Holy Spirit works only through the word in Conversion of sinners and the sanctification of saints. Deliberate misrepresentation will not lead to anything other than frustration and unnecessary angry words. Is that what you seek? Those who hold this view do not believe that the Holy Spirit is restricted in all of his activities to the word of God. But in these two departments, the conversion of sinners and the sanctification of saints he has provided the gospel of Christ revealed in the word of God for that purpose. (Romans 1:16; Peter 1:18-25; 2 Peter 1: 3; 1 Timothy 3:15- 17).

Then you sate, with what appears to be some doubt, the following:

If the Lord, still imparts the gifts, and I believe He does... then Lord give me all of them!!!

Just here you seem to doubt that the lord still imparts the gifts because even though you say, I believe that he does you begin with if as if you are not sure. You may even wonder just why God has not given you any of these miraculous gifts? I believe that every Christian in this forum would be happy to have miraculous gifts from the Lord. I do not believe that anyone would not be ready to accept the gift of the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands just as their brethren in the first century received. I am sure that they are seeking the Lord just as honestly and sincerely as you claim to be seeking him so that they too would readily say, Lord give me all of them. But the problem is that the Lord did not give all of the gifts to the all of the Christians in the first century and he has not given ANY of these miraculous gifts to the Christians of this century. THe Miraculous gift that we have today is the word of God which was received through and confirmed by the gift of the Holy Spirit in the apostles and inspired Christians of the first century. (Heb. 2:3,4; Mark 16:15-20).

To use your language, if the Lord still imparts the gifts then why has he not given any of them to you, Brother Kelley? Why has he left you and thousands the many devout Christians in this forum without these miraculous gifts? Why has he not given any to John and why would he leave poor Lee Saffold in the dark when he could easily give him the Holy Spirit as he did to Cornelius and his household and end this controversy once and for all. The fact is that he has not given these gifts to you or anyone else in or out of this forum. And none of these gifts are being exercised in any of the Churches of the saints today.

I repeat that this is a matter of demonstration as much as it is of argumentation. Anyone with these gifts who would demonstrate them as Paul did (1 Cor. 2:1-4) would certainly be able to show that they exist today. But no one, least of all you are able to demonstrate that they have these gifts. You thought that you had the gift of tongues until you were asked for a demonstration and then deliberately backed away from that assertion. So since you claim that you would like to have the Lord to give you ALL of these gifts why are you being left out? Why do not you have these gifts, Brother Kelley? Is it because, as you imply, that you are not honestly seeking the Lord and a more intimate relationship with him? I do not think so. For I have no doubts that you are honestly seeking a more intimate relationship with the Lord, but you do not have the gifts, now do you? You are evidence that your statement is not true. The Lord has not given you any miraculous gifts, now has he? Since that is true then either your statement that if one honestly seeks a more intimate relationship with the Lord can receive the gifts of the Spirit has not worked too well for you, now has it? So, unless you can prove from the scriptures that your statement is the truth we have no alternative but to doubt it.

But do let us know if you ever "receive" any or "all" of these miraculous gifts! For then, at least your words will be able to be verified by actual demonstrations of these powers. (1 Cor. 2:1-4). Just think what a great service you could provide the Church by ending this controversy with an undeniable demonstration of these miraculous gifts should you EVER receive ANY of them! Ha!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

JUst for your info, the Lord HAS given me several gifts to enable me to use them in the Church to build and edify the body of Christ.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Lee,

Since the Bible says concerning gifts of the Spirit, 'for to one is given...' the burden of proof is on you that the gifts are not given today.

The Bible does not say 'to the one was given...'

You believe that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, right? Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would convict of sin, righteousness and judgement. If I want to prove that he Holy Spirit convicts of sin, I just have to show you that verse, right?

Suppose someone said to you that the Holy Spirit didn't convict the world of sin anymore,a nd that He stoppoed doing that in 90AD, and then asked you to PROVE from scripture that the conviction of the Holy Ghost was for the centuries following. That isn't a fair thing to ask of you, is it? Since the Bible says that the Holy Ghost would convict the world of sin, it would be up to this person to show a verse indicating that the Holy Spirit would stop convicting the world of sin, right?

The burden of proof is on you to show that these gifts of the Spirit would cease in the first century. So far you have tried to do so but failed.

Btw, let us use Bible names for Bible things. The Bible does not call the 9 gifts of I Corinthians 12 'miraculous gifts.' Only one of those gifts is the operation of miracles. To call the other gifts 'miraculous' may lead to confusion.

Lee, if God doesn't give you the 9 gifts of I Corinthians 12, that doesn't mean they don't exist. The Bible doesn't say that all these gifts were given to every gift in the first century. The Corinthians had a wealth of spiritual gifts. The gifts of the Romans included leadership, teaching, and showing mercy. Someone might have had these gifts, but not prophecy, another gift in the list.

It doesn't sound to me that you are really eager to prophecy. Paul said covert to prophesy. If the Bible indicates that this is proper attitude in regard to prophecy, should we be surprised if God does not give the gift of prophecy to an individual who does not desire it? If Jesus could not do many mighty miracles in His own hometown because of their unbelief, should we be surprised if God doesn't give the gift of miracles to someone who does not believe in miracles occuring today?

If you want one of these gifts, first read about them in the Bible, believe based on the word of God, and then ask for the gift in faith.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Brother Kelley:

Again you make claims that you are not willing or able to prove as follows:

JUst for your info, the Lord HAS given me several gifts to enable me to use them in the Church to build and edify the body of Christ.

Since you are giving us information why do not you tell us specifically which of the miraculous gifts the Holy Spirit has given to you? Just which of these miraculous gifts do you possess? Do tell us Brother Kelley. We know that it is not the gift of tongues for you have already denied that you have that gift. You say you want all of these gifts so which of these miraculous gifts do you have and what proof do you offer that you have them? You say you have several gifts but I notice that you are very careful not to say that you have several MIRACULOUS GIFTS which is the very thing in question in our discussion Brother Kelley. Do you have ANY miraculous gifts? If so which ones and what proof can you offer that you actually have them? And be careful when you answer so that you do not deliberately lie to us again as you did when you claimed to have experienced the gift of tongues within yourself. Tell us the truth, and be prepare to prove that it is true that you have any miraculous gifts from the Holy Spirit.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Lee, I do not have to prove anything to you at all period. But, for your information... the Lord has given me several gifts; He has given me teaching, encouraging, and prophesy (preaching)and hospitality. I believe you will find these gifts listed in Romans 12. The Lord has blessed me with the gift of discernment, which the NIV states, "distinguishing between spirits" I Cor. 12:10- although the Lord has blessed me with this gift, it is still growing within me. My father really has the gift of discernment in force, along with prophecy.

Maybe that has clarified the issue for you Lee. As for my previous statements (you like to bring up the past), I still stand by my words that I expereinced "tongues within myself"- perhaps you will never understand me because you have never experienced that. Maybe the Lord will reveal that to you in due time.

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

Lee, Since the Bible says concerning gifts of the Spirit, 'for to one is given...' the burden of proof is on you that the gifts are not given today.

Nonsense! He who affirms must accept the burden of proof. I have affirmed that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit have ceased and have at least attempted to prove it. It is my belief that I have proven it but I accept the fact that you and Brother Kelley are not convinced that I have proven my assertion in that regard. However I continue to accept my responsibility to carry the burden of proof for that assertion. But he who asserts anything must accept the burden of proving his assertions to be true. Brother Kelley asserted that these gifts continue today and therefore he should bear the burden of proving that assertion.

You say that since the scriptures say, for to one is given that we must prove that it is not given today. But it does not say, everyone was given for all time until Christ returns now does it. At the time that Paul wrote that passage it was true that through the lying on of the apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given. (Acts 8:14-24). And once a person received the Holy Spirit in this way the Spirit gave gifts to them as he willed (1 Cor. 12:11) but there is no promise in the entire scriptures that the Holy Spirit would give these miraculous gifts to all Christians in this way for all time to come. And if you assert that it was his plan to so give these miraculous gifts to all Christians in every age it is most certainly your burden and your responsibility to PROVE it from the scriptures. I can certainly understand your constant efforts to avoid this responsibility because it is clear that you cannot bear the burden of proving that for which you know there is no evidence in the scriptures that will sustain such an affirmation. Yes he who affirms must bear the burden of Proof. I will bear the burden of proving my affirmation that these miraculous gifts existed for the purpose of revealing the word of God and confirming the word of God as well as edifying the church during the period when they had no complete revelation of Gods will. And that they ceased once that purpose was completed in fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel and other promises made in the scriptures. But I am not unreasonable in expecting you and Brother Kelley to shoulder the burden of proving your affirmation that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were intended for all Christians of all time and that they therefore exist within Christians and are operating among us even to this day.

You then asked:

You believe that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, right? Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would convict of sin, righteousness and judgement. If I want to prove that he Holy Spirit convicts of sin, I just have to show you that verse, right?

Suppose someone said to you that the Holy Spirit didn't convict the world of sin anymore, and that He stopped doing that in 90AD, and then asked you to PROVE from scripture that the conviction of the Holy Ghost was for the centuries following. That isn't a fair thing to ask of you, is it? Since the Bible says that the Holy Ghost would convict the world of sin, it would be up to this person to show a verse indicating that the Holy Spirit would stop convicting the world of sin, right?

Well now this is correct since (if I believed such a thing) I would be the one affirming that the Holy Spirit stopped convicting the world of sin and therefore must bear the burden of proving my affirmation. But if you argued that the Holy Spirit would always until the end of time convict the world of sin then the burden of proof would shift to you to show that the scriptures in fact support your affirmation. On any question both sides have positive affirmations that it is there responsibility to prove. If you make no assertions or affirmations you will not have any responsibility to bear any burden of proof. But the moment you make any assertion or affirmation the burden of proving that affirmation becomes your responsibility. If you wish to simply respond to my efforts to prove my affirmation that is fine I will then bear the entire burden of proof but when you shift, as Brother Kelley has done, to affirming you must be willing to accept the burden of proving your affirmations. Since you appear to be unwilling to affirm that miraculous gifts continue to this day you certainly have no burden to prove that it is true. All you need to do is deny the things that I have affirmed and the evidence that I offer to support my affirmation. But the moment that you actually stand up and affirm that miraculous gifts continue to this day it becomes your responsibility to prove that assertion if you can.

I know that it would be more convenient and certainly much easier for you if you could simply avoid all responsibility to carry any burden of proving your affirmation but that is just not the way logic and argumentation works. He who affirms must prove his affirmation. I will affirm that miraculous gifts have ceased and therefore will assume the responsibility to prove that assertion. But if you assert that they continue you must assume responsibility to prove that assertion.

And the Holy Spirit, who through inspired men convicted the world of sin, continues to do that job through the words of those very same inspired men, which are written in the miraculously inspired and confirmed word of God. For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword piercing the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and the joints and the marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb. 4:12). He does not, according to the scriptures, do it in any other way.

Then you continue to seek to avoid proving your assertion that the miraculous gifts continue with these words:

The burden of proof is on you to show that these gifts of the Spirit would cease in the first century. So far you have tried to do so but failed.

Now inasmuch as I have asserted that these miraculous gifts ceased it is without doubt my responsibility to prove that it is true and I have never sought to avoid that responsibility as you admit when you state that I have tried to prove it. But this does not absolve you from your responsibility to prove any affirmations or assertions that you have made. You affirm that these gifts continue to this day and you have not even tried to prove that assertion and even until now you are trying to avoid accepting the burden of prove for that affirmation. Now just because you think I have not proven my assertion does not make it the truth, now does it? I believe that I have without doubt proven that these miraculous gifts have ceased. And you are not competent to judge whether I have proven it or not because you are one of the disputants. Your wishful thinking concerning this matter is understandable but it is not sufficient to show that I have failed in my arguments to prove my point. I will admit that I have not proven it to your satisfaction but just because you are incapable of understanding it or unwilling to accept it does not mean that I have not proven it. I have not failed in the least to prove my affirmation and you have never shown by any evidence that I have failed; but you have not even attempted to prove yours, now have you?

You affirm that the miraculous gifts continue to this day. But you are even now seeking to avoid any responsibility to prove that assertion. I do not blame you. I suppose that is all that you are able to do since your assertion cannot be proven. At least I have shouldered my responsibility to carry the burden of proof of my affirmations. I will continue carry that burden gladly as I have time and opportunity to write but your assertion that I have failed to prove my case is nothing more than an assertion without proof. You are not my only audience, now are you? There are some in this forum who have already accepted the evidence that I have presented as conclusive proof of the affirmation that I have made and they have said as much. But you have yet to even attempt and therefore have failed miserably to prove your assertion that miraculous gifts continue to this day.

Now, I am happy that you have finally agreed that we should use scriptural names for scriptural things though you continue to use the term Bible which is not found in the scriptures at all. But I am so glad to see that you have accepted that principal which you and I debated about in another thread. Nevertheless you say:

Btw, let us use Bible names for Bible things. The Bible does not call the 9 gifts of I Corinthians 12 'miraculous gifts.'

Well let us just read about a few of them, For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same spirit; to another faith by the same spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same spirit; to another the working of MIRACLES; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kind of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: (1 Cor.12: 8-10). The actual name given by the Holy Spirit for these gifts is interesting in this passage. They are referred to as manifestation of the Spirit and all of these manifestations are miraculous in nature. Now just tell us brother Link, is it not true that the working of miracles is a miraculous gift? Is it not true that divers kinds of tongues and the interpretation of tongues is a miraculous manifestation of the Spirit? Is it not true that the gifts of healing is a miraculous manifestation of the Spirit? Why dont we just use the scriptural term manifestations of the Spirit? You do not like those words now do you? For this word requires that these gifts be manifest. The Greek term for this word is phanerosis is from the root word phaneroo which means, to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way. To make actual and visible, realized. Now this is actually what these gifts were. They were manifestations of the Spirit. Now this is the very thing that we see Paul doing when he demonstrated the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2: 1-4) and it is the very thing that you refuse to even attempt to do. You do not want any demonstration and every time it is mentioned you simply make excuses and avoid it. But this was not the case in the New Testament. These gifts were a deliberate manifestation or showing of the Holy Spirit. By these miraculous gifts the Holy Spirit gave witness to the truth taught by the apostles and early Christians. (Mark 16;17-20; Acts 5:32; Heb 2:3,4). So lets do use the scriptural term manifestations of the Spirit and since all of them were miraculous let us see a manifestation of the working of miracles!

Now just watch, brethren, how Brother Link will run away from all attempts to manifest these manifestations of the Spirit. Now I do notice just here that he is claiming that miracles continue today but now he wants us to avoid the use of the term miraculous. Is not that just a little bit odd for one who claims that we do in fact have miracles today? He sure seems to be afraid of that word now, doesnt he? Well, even Brother Kelley is not afraid of the word miracle. He just cannot prove his assertion, nor can Brother Link, that these things continue to this day.

But Brother Link does not want to confuse us:

 Only one of those gifts is the operation of miracles. To call the other gifts 'miraculous' may lead to confusion.

Well, it seems that he would like to make us think that these other gifts are not miraculous in any way! Lets read and learn. What about the gift of divers kinds of tongues, read Acts 2:1-4 and ask yourselves is this a miraculous gift? What about prophecy, was it a natural gift or is predicting the future and revealing the will and mind of God to man miraculous? How about the gift of healing. Is healing the sick miraculous in the New Testament?

Then Brother Link tries to help Brother Kelley with these words: Lee, if God doesn't give you the 9 gifts of I Corinthians 12, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

No one has said they do not exist, Brother Link. I have said that they exist with the Holy Spirit and he has not given them to anyone today. He has not given them to Brother Kelley or you or me or anyone else. Now if he has not given them to anyone at all today it does not matter if they exist or not. If no one has them they may as well not exist for all practical purposes. Now all of these things certainly exist with the Holy Spirit. And he has as much power now to distribute those gifts to whomsoever he wills as he ever had. But the fact is that he has chosen to not distribute them to anyone since they have accomplished their intended purpose of revealing, confirming the word of God and edifying the Church until the word of God was completely revealed and all truth was delivered. (1 Cor. 13:8- 13; Eph. 4:11; Heb 2:3,4; Mark 16:17-20; Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:18-25; James 1:25; Heb. 4:12).

The Bible doesn't say that all these gifts were given to every gift in the first century.

If you meant to say that the bible does not say that all these gifts were given to every Christian" in the first century, that is true. And it also does not promise any miraculous gifts to any Christian in this century. Therefore Brother Kelleys wish for all of these gifts will never be realized, will it? In fact, his desire for ANY of them is sure to be frustrated. All he will ever be able to do is imagine that he has them but he will never be able to manifestly have them. Neither will Brother Link. None have these gifts today and it is evident. All one need do is travel around and look long and hard and he will know that no such gifts are being demonstrated in this world. Many claims are being made but the claims dwindle when someone is coming to examine those claims. None have ever been verified. Brother Links and Brother Kelleys claims are interesting but there is no genuine verification of their claims. They may chose self -delusion and may even have been sent a strong delusion from God (2 Thess. 2:9-11) but those who are seeking truth will demand evidence and proof of the assertions and testimonies given in this forum or anywhere else.

Then he continues with these words:

The Corinthians had a wealth of spiritual gifts. The gifts of the Romans included leadership, teaching, and showing mercy. Someone might have had these gifts, but not prophecy, another gift in the list.

This is true, these churches had the manifestations of the Holy Spirit and they manifested them to all. There was not pretense or sham about it. It is without doubt. And we must keep this in mind when we read letters written to them. We cannot pretend that we have these gifts simply because the early Christians in Rome and Corinth had these gifts. No apostle has laid his hands upon us and therefore we are not endowed with the gifts that the Holy Spirit had given them after having received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of an apostles hands. (Romans 1:11; Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6; 1 Cor. 12:12).

Now Brother Link wants me to prophesy:

It doesn't sound to me that you are really eager to prophecy. Paul said covert to prophesy. If the Bible indicates that this is proper attitude in regard to prophecy, should we be surprised if God does not give the gift of prophecy to an individual who does not desire it?

Now this is the proper attitude for those who lived during the time that prophecies were being used to reveal and confirm the word of God. And to edify the Body when it did not have the complete word of God to show them how to worship, pray and sing and serve. This was the right attitude for those who had received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands. But it is not the right attitude for those who have not received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands and for those who live in a time when prophesies have been sealed up! (Daniel 9:20-27) and prophesies have failed (1 Cor. 13:8-13) and the unclean spirits and prophets have passed out of the land. (Zechariah 13:1-6). And it is a foolish idea for those who have the revelations that were received from the Holy Spirit and the prophesies that were delivered to us once for all (Jude 3) for our conversion, sanctification and edification. (2 Peter 1:3).

Surely I would be more than happy to prophesy if it were not for the fact that prophecy has ended. (1 Cor. 13:8,9; Zechariah 13:1-6; Joel 2:28) Paul wrote this to those who had the manifestations of the Spirit. I do not have any such thing and neither do you.

You are not so eager to prophesy either, now are you? In fact, we would like to hear some of your prophecy. Why do not you prophesy to us Brother Link? I am willing to listen to you prophesy. Now watch Brethren and we will see just how eager Brother Link is to prophesy! Ha! We wait for one of your prophecies and we will compare it to the prophecies of the New Testament and examine it in the light of the teaching of Gods word concerning prophecy.

Then notice how Brother Link is willing to trifle with the precious word of God to make it appear that God is not doing miracles among us simply because of our unbelief"! This is typical Pentecostalism! Ha! They cannot do ANY miracles because God has given them no such powers and in order to prevent their pious fraud from being discovered they blame it on their victims! Such nonsense is criminal! And were it not for the freedom of religion in this country there would be no legal protection for these deceivers who steal money from innocent people promising miracles of healing. And play upon their misfortunes and sufferings and then have the unmitigated gall to blame their failures upon the very people that they victimize! But listen brethren and learn how these men work their deception!

Notice that he says:

 If Jesus could not do many mighty miracles in His own hometown because of their unbelief, should we be surprised if God doesn't give the gift of miracles to someone who does not believe in miracles occuring today?

Jesus was not disabled from doing miracles because of unbelief in miracles. He had the power to do the miracles and the unbelief of his countrymen did not in any way take away his ability. He simply chose not to do any miracles because of their unbelief in his teachings and his divinity not because of their doubt about his miracles! And one who claims to have the Holy Spirit as you do should know better than to interpret the word of God in this foolish way.

Just read these words,  And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples followed him. And when the Sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished saying from whence hath this man these things? And what wisdom is this, which is given unto him, that EVEN SUCH MIGHTY WORKS ARE WROUGHT BY HIS HANDS? Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. But Jesus said unto them, a prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, SAVE THAT HE LAID HIS HANDS ON A FEW SICK POEOPLE, AND HEALED THEM. (Mark 6:1-5). Now it is obvious from this passage that it was the teaching of Jesus that they did not believe and they rejected his being the son of God because they knew him only as a man, a carpenter, a relative and kinsman. They even mention his mighty works without that were done by His hands without doubting any of those mighty works" that they said were done by his hands. Because they rejected his teaching and his divinity he could not do a mighty work but he did do some miracles even among those who did not believe. He laid his hands upon a FEW SICK PEOPLE AND THEY WERE HEALED. If anyone did even that much today it would be considered a mighty work because we are not accustomed to seeing ANY miracles! Ha! So it is not true that he did not do ANY miracles among people who doubted his miracles. The truth is that he did not do many mighty works among those who rejected his teachings and His divinity despite their admitting that he had done many mighty works. Yet even among those who doubted his divinity he did a few miracles in that he healed some that were sick simply by laying His hands upon them. So, what about that Brother Link? Even among those who doubted Christ without doubting any of his miracles he did at least do a few miraculous healing through the laying on of his hands! In fact, there was no need to do many mighty works for these people doubted his teaching even though they DID NOT DOUBT that MIGHTY WORKS HAD BEEN WROUGHT BY HIS HANDS. Therefore more mighty works" done in their town would have had no effect upon them. They just could not believe that the very Son of God could have been the one whom they grew up with and knew as a mere carpenter and mighty works would not change them. Regardless of this situation, however, we are clearly told that HE actually did do a FEW miracles even in this place. But Brother Link would have you to believe that he did not do ANYTHING miraculous because these people did not believe in MIRACLES. What a pathetic interpretation and deliberate twisting of the very word of God! Just to maintain a favorite view at all cost.

But Brother Link and Brother Kelley can not do ANY miracles even among those who believe the teaching of Christ and all of the miracles of Christ.

I am not one who does not believe in miracles. In fact I believe all of the miracles of Jesus that I read about in the New Testament. These were written that I might believe. (John 20:30,31). Since these are written that we might believe I have no need to see any to cause me to believe that Christ is the Son of God. I am convinced by the word of God that Christ is the Son of God. I am among those who believe without having ever seen Christ with my own eyes or any miracles. But I very much believe in Him as Gods son. In fact I am expecting the miracle of the resurrection and the coming of Christ our Lord. In fact I pray that he will come quickly! I simply doubt the fraudulent claims of Brother Link and Brother Kelley and I should doubt them until they prove their assertion that miracles continue today. The word of God makes no such claim.

This is very different from those in this passage that rejected our Lord's teaching and saw him only as a man, a mere kinsman. So this argument is pure nonsense, Brother Link. Yet even among these unbelievers he healed a few sick folk. You cannot even do that much. This is pure nonsense to contend that these gifts would be withheld form those who did not believe they are for us today. The bible does not teach any such thing. If they were for us today soon after we were baptized an apostle would come to us as happened with the Samaritans and lay hands upon us and we would receive the Holy Spirit. Then the Holy Spirit would distribute gifts to each of us as he willed. (Acts 8:14-24) and should there be any among us who were as ignorant as those found in Acts the 19th Chapter who had not even heard that there was even a Holy Spirit an apostle would lay hands upon us and we would receive the Holy Spirit. Unbelief in the miraculous has nothing to do with this matter. Unbelief in Christ and the precious gospel of Christ which is the power of God to say is necessary to all of this and so is obedience to the gospel in Baptism (Acts 19:1-6; Acts 8:14-24). But we have not "apostles of Christ today, now do we? And do not play silly games with the word apostles. I am talking about those who were chosen of Christ to be his apostles as described in (Acts 1:1-8). THose who saw him alive after his passion. Now if these things continue to this day why do we not have apostles chosen by Christ today, Brother Link? Where and who are these apostles? Do tell us or at least admit that the gift of the apostles has not continued except that we have the same apostles today that they had back then because we have their inspired word to teach us! There is no other way to continue steadfastly in the apostles doctrine (Acts 2:42) except through following their teaching in the word of God. I can see why you seem to feel the need to claim that we have "apostles" today and tried to do it until Brother Ben called your hand on it. You do have a problem with the fact that we have no living apostles of Christ who have seen Christ after his passion. I can see why! If you want one of these gifts, first read about them in the Bible, believe based on the word of God, and then ask for the gift in faith.

Now, this is a fine assertion for which you offer no scriptural proof. But I do not suppose you will feel any obligation to prove such an assertion since it is ever you desire to avoid assuming any burden of proof while discussing this issue. But I will still call for you to accept the burden of proving your assertions instead of constantly avoiding it. Show us from the scriptures that this is the way were is to receive these gifts or manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Where are we taught in the scriptures to, 1) read about the gifts 2). Where are we even taught to believe in these gifts in order to receive them and where are we taught to pray for the gifts in faith? This is Brother Links way of helping you delude yourself into believing that God gave you some special gift or you are lacking in faith. Notice that with Brother Link and Brother Kelley belief in these manifestations of the Holy Spirit are equated with belief in Christ. I have faith in Christ and his word and every miracle done by Him and every miracle done by the Holy Spirit through his chosen apostles and the miracles done by those upon whom the apostles laid their hands. So it is not possible to say that I do not believe in miracles. I also believe, after reading what the word of God says about miracles that they are not for us today. So if I am convinced of that by reading the word of God how could I ask in faith for that which the word of God teaches was designed to reveal and confirm the word of God and ended when the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled. (Joel 2:28; Acts 2; 1 Cor. 13:8-13; Eph. 4:11; Heb. 2;3,4).

Do tell us Brother Link, have you followed the above procedures that you recommend to everyone else? If so which of these miraculous gifts have you been received from the Holy Spirit? I can assure everyone that he will not claim any gift that he considers to be something that could be tested! Ha! How different from what we witness in the reading of the New Testament. The apostles hear that Samaria had received the word of God and they sent Peter and John to them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Why? Why did not they just read the word of God (O, sorry, they did not have a written New Testament to read)? Why did not they just pray for these gifts? Especially since they had received the word of God through the revelation of that word to Phillip and his preaching of it? Surely they would have learn what Brother Link is trying to teach us. But instead the apostles come all the way to Samaria, it did not even enter Phillips mind to tell them in advance to believe in these gifts so that they could all pray and receive them. And after they received the Holy Spirit Simon noticed that it was through the lying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given. I suppose that none of these characters took the time to use the gift of prophecy and consult Brother Link and learn that they did it all wrong. It never crossed their minds that the apostles had nothing to do with this matter. Ha! Read Acts 8:14-24 and notice that it was trough the lying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given. Notice that Acts 19:1-6 after Paul had spent a year in Corinth he comes upon these Ephesians and they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit and therefore could not believe in Him. Notice that Paul did not teach them about the Holy Spirit. He taught them to be baptized in the name of Christ and then he laid his hands upon them and the received the Holy Spirit. The operative word here is receive the Holy Spirit. You will not get these gifts without the Holy Spirit giving them to you and no one received these gifts unless they had first received the Holy Spirit. No one received the Holy Spirit without the laying on of the apostles hands except the apostles themselves and the house of Cornelius, which are the only two groups that ever received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have already explained this numerous times and the explanation has simply been ignored. The apostles received power after the holy Spirit came upon them according to the promise of Christ (Acts 1:8) and the House of Cornelius received the like gift as the apostles did at the beginning in order to demonstrate that the gentiles were accepted under the gospel. (Acts 11:14-18). After all of this no one received the Holy Spirit except through the lying on of an apostles hands. Brother Link has tried to find someone who received the Holy Spirit without the lying on of the apostles hands but he has failed in his effort. Now he wants us to think that the Holy Spirit is simply by prayer. He fails to prove it from the scriptures and we are wise to doubt it until proof can be given. I have seen my aunt, who has prayed for most of her entire life for these gifts and she firmly believes that they are for us today as does brother Link. And she has prayed and prayed and prayed and prayed and prayed and has yet to have received on single gift that is remotely similar to anything in the New Testament though she has followed Brother Links advice to the letter for years. Now Brother Kelley no doubt has been praying to have all of the gifts and we have asked him to tell us when he receives them all. Notice that we are waiting! Ha! We will wait for a long time. He has no such gifts and he tried to pretend to have the gift of tongues but that effort failed him miserably. We wait for more antics and absurd assertions without proof but we will not hear of Brother Kelley or Brother Link actually having a miraculou8s gift from the Holy Spirit. If they come back and claim to have such we will not find them eager to demonstrate or manifest these things to us. Much unlike the great apostle Paul who did not hesitate to demonstrate these things (1 Cor. 2:1-4).

All it takes is a causal reading of the New Testament to see the vast difference between these pretenders and those who actually had the Holy Spirit and the manifestations of His powers. The comparison shows the pathetic and helpless nature of those who seek miraculous gifts because of their lack of faith in the word of God the Lord Jesus Christ. The word of God is not sufficient for them. They need MORE. A scriptural relationship with Christ is just not enough. They want a special and intimate relationship with the HOLY SPIRIT. It is not enough that Christ abides with us and that the entire Godhead has arranged for our faith to come by the word of God. (Romans 10:17) they want these powers that make them feel special. They cannot be special simply because Christ died for them. No, this is just not enough. They have to be the spiritual elite even if it means that they must fabricate an illusion of Gods Spirit working through them in some way that he does not work through their poor ordinary brethren. This is carnal mindedness at its highest and it is hidden and cloaked under the guise of some superior piety. It is a shame indeed that you cannot accept things as God has delivered them to us.

What a shame indeed!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You say:

Lee, I do not have to prove anything to you at all period.

Maybe that explains why you never prove anything that you say, Brother Kelley. You are convinced that you are under no obligation to prove your assertions and affirmations. You just expect us to believe you because you say it is true. Well, that just does not work with those who love the truth! You will have to prove anything that you say from the scriptures if you expect those who love the truth to accept it. Otherwise it is just worthless information.

But you continue to offer more worthless information as follows:

But, for your information... the Lord has given me several gifts; He has given me teaching, encouraging, and prophesy (preaching)and hospitality.

Now I would like to see evidence of this. You cannot even keep your stories straight much less be able to preach. But let me ask you, are these gifts miraculous?

Then you say:

I believe you will find these gifts listed in Romans 12. 

Ok, since you are gifted to preach could you tell us if these gifts in your life are miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit? I would like to see your inspired and gifted exposition of this passage and we will see just how gifted you are in this area!

Then you say:

The Lord has blessed me with the gift of discernment, which the NIV states, "distinguishing between spirits" I Cor. 12:10- although the Lord has blessed me with this gift, it is still growing within me. My father really has the gift of discernment in force, along with prophecy.

Well, let us see the proof Brother Kelley. You cannot even discern when you contradict yourself how in the world would you be able to discern between the contradictory spirit of falsehood and truth? Ha! This one is funny to me. You have the gift of discernment but you cannot discern when you have erred until someone points it out to you. Now if you want evidence of that I will have to bring up your past record in this forum which you dislike my doing but if it becomes necessary I will.

Then you say:

Maybe that has clarified the issue for you Lee.

Brother Kelley, until you learn to speak the truth you will never be clear on anything and your clarifications" are nothing more than elaborate "fabrications and you cannot be trusted by anyone who is able to reason. So, no you have not clarified anything. You have simply cautiously worded things so as to maintain deniability at a later date. So I will continue with a few questions for more clarification and this time Brother Kelley, when you hang yourself you will hang. No, this time if you hang yourself as you invariably do I will watch you swing in the wind. So, do tell us about these gifts that you "claim" to have received form the Holy Spirit. Are they miraculous?

Then you are standing by your deliberate lie, which you told when you claimed to have experienced the gift of tongues within yourself, is really evidence that you have no gift of discernment at all. These are you words:

 As for my previous statements (you like to bring up the past), I still stand by my words that I expereinced "tongues within myself"- perhaps you will never understand me because you have never experienced that. Maybe the Lord will reveal that to you in due time.

You are a whited wall arent you? You wish to bring up the past also and you have done so often. I have never objected to it. Just as you call others liars but go crying to everyone that Brother Saffold is so mean when he called you a liar. But Brother Kelley has never called anyone a liar, now has he? What a hypocrite you are.

None who is honest can read your diametrically opposite statements concerning this matter and find any way extricate you from the deliberate lie that you told. Some have tried and many excuses have been offered but if you were in a court of Law you would have surely gone to jail for perjury.

No, Brother Kelley, I understand you all too well. I have met your kind of false teacher many times and you are not the first nor will you be the last. But do tell us just which of these gifts that you have are miraculous?

Let us have the benefit of some of your gifts. How about prophesy? Is that miraculous? Do tell us clearly. There is a test of prophecy in the scriptures. Are you willing to take that test?

I wait for you to answer that question. Do use your gift of discernment now and do not fall into any more of those embarrassing situations where you are contradicting yourself so miserably that no one can save you. If you have the gift of discernment you should be able to discern when you are in danger of such things.

Is your experience of tongues just a small but growing gift of tongues as you claim is the case with you gift of discerning of spirits? Can you show us from the scriptures that these gifts were given in such feeble weak condition and gradually grew stronger over a large number of years? I would like to see you use this gift of preaching you claim to have to explain those things. Ha! This discussion is ridiculous! But you have set yourself up nicely for us to observe your powers of discernment. So I await your discerning answers to my questions, Brother Kelley?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2000

Danny, why don't you get a good church history book and look at the explanation of what Gnosticism actually was. Sounds like you haven't read many clear examples of Gnosticism.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

" Nonsense! He who affirms must accept the burden of proof. I have affirmed that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit have ceased and have at least attempted to prove it."

Lee, there is something else in the equation- that fact that we all affirm that the scriptures are inspired by God. The teaches that God gives gifts to His church, and lists gifts of miracles, healing, teaching, tongues, words of knowledge, etc. among the gifts given to the church. You are the one asserting that God has changed His way of operating in this regard from what we see in the Bible. The burden of proof is on you to prove from scripture that God does not operate now the way he did in the New Testament.

Lee, it has been clearly demonstrated to you that he Bible does not teach that these gifts were only given through the apostle's hands. To recap there is an example of gifts being given without the laying on of an apostles hands- Cornelius, etc. There is a reference to a gift being given with prophecy through the laying on of hands of the elders. Paul and Barnabas were separated to the work through the laying on of hands of prophets and teachers. After this, they went out as apostles and laid hands on appointed elders. Paul teaches that the gifts are given as the Spirit wills, and indicates that the gift of interpretation can be received through prayer (I Corinthians 14:13.) While Paul did want to impart a gift to the Romans, the Bible shows us that they already had the gift of prophecy among them.

The laying on of hands is associated with receiving the Spirit/the Holy Ghost falling upon/coming upon people in the book of Acts. Gifts like tongues may have shown up as a result of this, but Acts does not say that the apostles laid hands on people so that they might have charismata per se.

So what are the other proofs that you supposedly give to support the idea that the gifts have ceased: That the gifts were given to fulfill the Joel prophecy?

1. If the Joel prophecy were fulfilled, that would not prove that God was not willing to give gifts later. 2. If the Joel prophecy were fulfilled at Pentecost, we can see from other Scripture that God still gave gifts out anyway. 3. The prophecy was about the 'last days' and we are still in the 'last days.'

This argument proves nothing.

What other 'proofs?' That the gifts were given to confirm the word of God?

1. The way the gifts confirmed the word was right before people's eyes. The Bible says nothing about this confirming being a historical matter, done once, and finished. The gifts confirmed the word among the Hebrews, but continued to be done in city after city among the Gentiles. 2. There are other purposes for the gifts given in scripture (edification of the saints. Christ did miracles when moved with compassion for people as well.)

What other evidence do you have? By reading in an idea related to complete revelation into I Corinthians 13? The text does not say that this is what 'the perfect' is. You can try to eisegete and idea in, but eisegesis is not a basis for sound doctrine. The Bible is not mad libs.

The Bible contains information on salvation to teach us about salvation. The New Testament teaches about sanctification to teach us about sanctification. The teachings in the Bible on spiritual gifts are there for what? So they can be explained away? No, they are written to teach us. The Bible shows us the way God operates. It shows us the kinds of gifts He gives and the way he uses people to accomplish His plans. If you think God works differently now in the church than the way we see Him working in the Bible, you have to prove that.

The Bible teaches 'forbid not to speak with tongues.' The Bible teaches 'despise not prophesyings. Prove all things.'

The burden of proof is on you to show from the scriptures that the gifts have ceased. Otherwise, the default, null hypothesis is that giving such gifts to His church is part of the way God operates, just as we see in the Bible.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

Lee,

If you would sit down and write and outline, or at least do some brainstorming, maybe you could hone down your messages to about 25% of the size.

You can say what you want, and throw around all the negative rhetoric. The fact remains that Jesus did not do many mighty works in Nazareth because of their unbelief. Sure, He healed a few sick folk. But if their unbelief effected how He did miracles, is it any surprise if you never see miracles if you do not believe that God is willing to do what He did in the New Testament. Repeatedly we see that Jesus healed people who believed, and let it be done to them according to their faith. Sure, some people blame others for lack of faith as a cop out.

You write, >>>They need MORE. A scriptural relationship with Christ is just not enough. They want a special and intimate relationship with the HOLY SPIRIT. It is not enough that Christ abides with us and that the entire Godhead has arranged for our faith to come by the word of God.<<<<

Paul writes of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit at the end of II Corinthians, btw. But fellowship has different nuances in Greek, I've read.

The early believers could have a scriptural relationship with Christ, and still exercise whatever gifts they had. Receiving God's gifts thankfully, and seeking to edify the body of Christ is not a threat to a scriptural relationship with Christ, and can enhance that relationship, and the relationship with others.

You are fond of turning things around and trying to accuse people.

Lee, I can do without the antagonistic comments like: "Now just watch, brethren, how Brother Link will run away from all attempts to manifest these manifestations of the Spirit. "

I have not problem with that term. It is long to type, and 'gifts of the Spirit' is a lot shorter.

If you use a SECULAR definition of miracles, then the gifts of I Corinthians 9 can be called miracles. But let's not do that. If we define miracles as 'dunamis', the word translated inthe passage, Paul seems to make some kind of distinction between operation of dunamis and healing. So why not stick with Paul. On the other hand, the gospels translate a different Greek word as 'miracle' as well.

Lee, I never claimed to be a prophet or miracle worker. I have seen the gift of teaching at work in my life, as well a some other gifts. Not every believer that believes what the Bible has to say about gifts raises the dead.

Do you believe that casting out demons can still be done today, Lee, or do you believe that was a thing of the past?

Your lack of experience and ignorance of things that go on in the world does not negate the fact that miracles sometimes happen.

You wrote a lot about proving assertions. Quite a lot, with a lot of repetition of the same ideas over and over again. Using Aristotelian logic, it is not possible to prove the gospel, unless the other person accepts certain sets of premises. But the early church did not always try to 'prove' using Aristotilian proofs. The Old Testament talks about the testimony of witnesses.

Bible interpretations aren't always going to fit into a Greek Aristotilian logical proof. The apostles interpretations of the Old Testament don't always fit well with a Greek paradigm. Keep in mind that this is a Greek philosophical paradigm.

The Bible shows us that God gives gifts to the church. The Bible does not teach us that the gifts were only given through the apostles hands. The Bible does not teach, as you do, that the gifts were given as the Spirit wills on on those on whom the apostles had laid their hands.

The Bible does not teach that Cornelius' experience was an exception to the rule. Rather, Paul writes that all scripture is profitable for doctrine. So the occasion with Corenlius is profitable for doctrine, not an 'exception' to be explained away from doctrinal rules you make up without including all the cases found in scripture.

Acts 4 also shows people being filled with the Spirit with no mention of the apostles laying hands on anyone. Read the Old Testament. It's good. You can see plenty examples of God working through people after the Spirit was on them. That was even before the apostles came around. Christians are promised greater things. There is a discussion on this topic in another thread.

Even if I did go around raising dead bodies (which I don't) why would I want to cheapen that by putting on a show for a scoffer. The Bible should be enough for you. If someone did do a miracle in front of you, I wouldn't be surprised if you did not believe it and found some way to say it wasn't real. You need to just learn to set down your prejudices and preconceived doctrinal notions, and believe the Bible.

I believe God does miracles through regular people. Doing miracles or exercising the 9 gifts at the beginning of I Cor. 12 doesn't make one superior to one who has the gifts in Romans 12. God uses regular 'lay people' in these gifts, not just super 'anointed' preachers with funny hairdo's.

I don't believe everyone talking about miracles actually does miracles. I don't even claim they are as frequent as they were in some parts of the Bible. (It seems that they didn't happen all the time in Paul's ministry since the scripture takes note of when they happen, and the 12 had to pray for them.)

On apostles, Paul didn't fit into your explanation of apostles who could give out the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Go back and study.

God does miracles and works through regular people through the gifts of the Spirit. You may not believe that. You may not have seen that. But all your huffing and puffing and explaining why the Bible doesn't apply doesn't change the facts.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

Danny, you can call it gnosticism all you want. But, you cheapen yourself. I never stated that I am better than Lee. I just listed to him the gifts that the Lord has blessed me with and then I refered to my statement which I still stand by... that is "I expereinced tongues within myself"- I am trying to establish that Lee will not be able to understand what that means until he goes through that experience. Danny can you understand what I mean? Lee instead of understanding me, falsely labled me a liar. For that he slandered a brother in CHrist- and he needs to repent of that sin. He cannot understand that I can experience the tongues without speaking them. But, Danny, can you understand? If you read in my posts in the emotions thread before, that I experienced tongues "within myself" without speaking tongues, due to the overwhelming feeling of love, joy, peace, and spiritual power I recieved as I listend to someone speaking in tongues. Can you at least understand that until someone experiences that they may never really understand?

I wonder will you scoff like Lee, or try to understand.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

Brother Link:

I have not much time at the moment but I will respond briefly to something that you have said:

You said:

Lee, it has been clearly demonstrated to you that he Bible does not teach that these gifts were only given through the apostle's hands.

Now this is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. For you have not clearly demonstrated anything in this discussion except the fact that you have a strong aversion to demonstrations of the spirit similar to those described by Paul. (1 Cor. 2:1-4). You have tried but failed to show that the Holy Spirit was ever given to anyone except the only two groups who were ever baptized in the Holy Spirit (the apostles and the house of Cornelius) by any means other than through the lying on of the apostles hands. Your first attempt was to indicate that Ananias had imparted the Holy Spirit to the apostle Paul in Acts 9. But after being shown the facts found in Acts nine you rightly conceded that you were wrong about it. And now you repeat you other feeble attempts as follows:

To recap there is an example of gifts being given without the laying on of an apostles hands- Cornelius, etc.

We have repeatedly shown you in reference to Cornelius that his house was the only group of people that were baptized in the Holy Spirit and received the like gift as the apostles received on Pentecost. And we correctly demonstrated to you from the scriptures that this was for the purpose of showing that the gentiles were also granted repentance unto life as well as the Jews. (Acts 11:15-18). Peter made it abundantly clear that this was not a usual occurrence but so much out of the ordinary as to make it abundantly clear that God had accepted the gentiles. He even uses this as an argument to justify the reception of the gentiles into the kingdom of God. No one else in the entire New Testament received this baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I notice that you say Cornelius, etc. It is the etc that you have been unable to find! But you do try another feeble attempt as follows:

There is a reference to a gift being given with prophecy through the laying on of hands of the elders.

Yes there is a reference to a gift being given with prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the elders. And since you do not seem to know just where this reference is found any more than you know what it says I will quote it for you and give the reference. (1 Timothy 4:14). You will notice when you read it that it does not say that this gift was given through the lying on of the hands of the presbytery as you inaccurately state but rather that it was given by prophecy WITH the lying on of the hands of the presbytery. And you also neglect to notice that Paul interprets this for us and explains it in another place. I will quote both of those passages and it will be quite apparent that you have been FAR FROM clear. In fact you have been absolutely wrong. Let us read the scriptures:

Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. (1 Timothy 4:14).

Now just where does this verse say that this gift was given through the laying on of the hands of the elders as you claim? Instead it states unequivocally that it was given by prophecy WITH the lying on of the hands of the presbytery. So you have inaccurately reflected what is stated in this verse. But then Paul speaks to Timothy again about this gift and again encourages him to stir up this gift and in doing so he makes it clear how this gift was transferred to Timothy. Let us read that verse.

Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. (1 Timothy 1:6). The word by in this passage is from the Greek term dia which is a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act. So the channel of the act of transmitting this gift to Timothy was Pauls hands. The term putting here is from the term epithesis that means imposition. So according to the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 4:14 Timothy received this gift by prophecy WITH the lying on of the hands of the elders. But according to the same apostle Paul discussing the same gift in the context of the same admonition to stir up or neglect not this gift, it was through (dia the channel of) the putting on or the imposition (epithesis) of Pauls hands that it was given. So, Brother Link, you were not very clear in this point because you left out this imposition of the apostle Pauls hands along WITH the hands of the elders when this gift was given to Timothy. So you have not been as clear as you claim to have been. And you have not yet found ANYONE other than those baptized in the Holy Spirit, though you have tried very hard, that received the Holy Spirit by any means other than through the lying on of the apostles hands. And you are welcome to keep on trying but they just are not there to be found, now are they?

Then you try to imply that Paul and Barnabas are your long sought after answer as follows:

Paul and Barnabas were separated to the work through the laying on of hands of prophets and teachers. After this, they went out as apostles and laid hands on appointed elders.

Well you and I would surely argue about whether Barnabas was an apostle in the same sense and with the same authority as the apostle Paul. I will tell you that he most certainly was not but reserve that for another day. However, this is not a case of Paul and Barnabas receiving the Holy Spirit, or even the gifts of the Spirit, through the lying on of the hands of prophets and teachers. In fact, you are not clear on this either because you do not give a reference so that the people in this forum can check the things that you claim the word of God says. If you will read the account you will find that you are in error on many particulars. But in any case you willfully neglect to mention the fact that the lying on of hands had many other uses among the Jews and the early Christians not related to the reception of the Holy Spirit. But this far fetched, grasping at straws example does not represent a case where the apostle Paul and his companion Barnabas received the Holy Spirit or even the gifts of the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the hands of prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch. You would like for it to be helpful to your argument but it just is not helpful at all and it most certainly does not demonstrate anything CLEARLY except your dire need for a return to basic Bible study!

Then you make another assertion

Paul teaches that the gifts are given as the Spirit wills, and indicates that the gift of interpretation can be received through prayer (I Corinthians 14:13.)

Yes Paul does teach this and it does not help your case in the least. He does not teach that these gifts were given to anyone who had not first become Christians and received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands. There is no doubt that it was the will of the Holy Spirit to impart gifts after he ascended upon those whom the apostles had laid their hands. We have a clear example of this happening. Read this verse:

When Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:6).

So it was obviously the will of the Spirit to impart gifts to those upon whom the apostles had laid their hands. Now you have been searching for a long time for anyone (that had not been baptized in the Holy Spirit) who received the Holy Spirit without the lying on of the apostles hands but you have failed and failed miserably to find any. Acts 19:6 is an action done by the very inspired man who wrote 1 Corinthians 14:13 and is a divine commentary upon it. Yes Paul does talk about the gift of interpretation being received by Prayer but he says nothing about the Holy Spirit being received by prayer nor does he say anything about any gift being received by prayer ALONE. This verse was written to those who had already received the Holy Spirit in the very place where Paul had worked for a year before he met the Ephesians of Acts 19:6. These received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of his hands and we have every reason to believe that Paul did similar things in Corinth. (1 Cor. 12:12). We also must notice that when Peter and John went to Samaria they laid hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit and before they laid hands upon the Samaritans they prayed. But when it was all finished the scripture says that it was through the lying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given. (Acts 8:14-24). Thus it would not be improper to tell those who had already received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the apostles hands to pray for the gift of interpretation. For once the Holy Spirit had been received he distributed gifts according to his will. But we have no record of his distributing gifts to anyone upon whom he had not yet fallen. (Acts 8:14). In fact, it is notable that the Samaritans did not have the Holy Spirit until the apostles Peter and John came to lay hands upon them. It was obviously not the Holy Spirits will to come upon the Samaritans until the apostles came to Samaria and laid their hands upon the Samaritans. So your idea that the gifts of the Holy Spirit can come upon anyone and any Christian at any time just by prayer alone is far from being taught in the scriptures. At least you have not made it clear that such is taught in the scriptures and I doubt very seriously that you will ever make it clear for such is just not taught there.

Then you imply that the Romans received gifts without ever meeting an apostle as follows:

 While Paul did want to impart a gift to the Romans, the Bible shows us that they already had the gift of prophecy among them.

Now Paul most certainly did say that he wanted to come to them that he might impart unto them a spiritual gift. For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end that ye may be established. (Romans 1:11). Now, one who holds your position on spiritual gifts might well ponder just why these Roman Christians were lacking in spiritual gifts and why Paul would have to wait until he came to them in order to impart some spiritual gift. If Paul thought anything like Brother Link he would have simply admonished them to pray for these gifts. There would be no need for Paul to long to come to them for that purpose. And the importance of this need for those gifts is clear when he says to the end that ye may be established. So this was not just a personal desire of Paul but rather a desperate need of the church at Rome. There is no doubt that the Church at Rome had spiritual gifts and there is also no doubt that they were lacking in them as well. They had these miraculous gifts of prophecy, teaching, exhortation and ruling (Romans 12: 6-8). But the notion that they never had any contact with any apostles is without any merit whatsoever. It is very likely that the Roman Church was planted by some of those strangers of Rome that was present on the day of Pentecost and heard the preaching of the first gospel sermon by the apostle Peter. (Acts 2:10). And since Peter was sent along with John to ensure that the new converts in Samaria received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of their hands it is very unlikely that these apostles would neglect to do in Jerusalem what they were so diligent to do in Samaria. Thus it is without doubt that these strangers of Rome had contact with apostles and most likely received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands just as the Samaritans did. We know that there were such men in Jerusalem and in fact Phillip and Stephen were men who were full of the Holy Spirit. And it is Phillip that we find in Samaria when the apostle Peter came to lay hands upon the Samaritans. And this seems to have been a well established practice in Jerusalem and it is therefore very likely that these Romans received the Holy Spirit in this way and then went back to Rome and planted the Church in that place. But they, like Phillip, who was full of the Holy Spirit, could not impart gifts. And the impartation of these gifts was not simply through prayer, as Paul knew so well and for that reason he LONGS to come to them that he may impart some spiritual gift that they may be established. And Brother Links theory leaves out the distinct possibility that some of these Roman Christians may have met apostles in their own travels which would explain their having spiritual gifts without an apostle having ever visited Rome. But there is no other explanation for Paul longing to COME TO THEM in order to impart some spiritual gift. His coming to them in this passage is imperative and essential to their receiving such a gift. But if Brother Links unclear and unproven theory were true Pauls coming to them would not in any way be so urgent and essential to their receiving a spiritual gift. If Paul thought like Brother Link he would have simply instructed them as Link instructed us in his previous post to simply pray for spiritual gifts that they might be established. But it is interesting indeed that he did not say such thing! This does not bode well for Brother links position and it definitely shows how he has not clearly demonstrated his case. In fact it is demonstrations of miraculous powers that he is afraid to face. Even though the Scriptures use terms like manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11) and demonstrations of the spirit and of power (1 Cor. 2:1- 4). He does not want to manifest his claimed gifts to us. He does not want to demonstrate his so-called gifts to us. He is avoiding all of the very things that were common among those who had the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands.

Well Brother Link, keep trying. I am sure that you can improve your clarity but you will never demonstrate the truthfulness of your false doctrine that the miraculous gifts continue to this day. You will most certainly not find anyone who was not baptized in the Holy Spirit that received the Holy Spirit by any means other than the lying on of the apostles hands. In fact, the church at Rome had spiritual gifts but they also needed them. And Paul wanted to come to them that he might impart some spiritual gift to them that they might be established. All of which would be absolutely unnecessary if your doctrine were the truth!

I have more to say to you but I do not have time now.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

Brother Danny:

I want to say a hearty AMEN AND AMEN to the things that you have said.

You have said:

Trust me....and I'm sure I speak for Lee.....our relationship with Jesus is every bit as cozy and intimate as yours is. We take God at His word!! He didn't need to prove anything to us.

You have most assuredly spoke for me as well in this matter. If one examines Pentecostalism closely one will readily see that they want these gifts that were never promised or intended for them so that they can claim some special relationship [to the Lord that others do not have and you have so accurately demonstrated this from Brother Kelleys own words.

You are also very much one the mark when you said:

Then you say to Lee...."Maybe the Lord will reveal that to you in time." (Are you suggesting that the Lord has revealed Himself to you beyond the written word?? If so....that is gnosticism or at the very least....Augustinian/Cavinism.)

And....if the Lord revealed it to you....then none of us has the right to question you or argue with you!! Why?? Because it's the revealed truth of God!!!

You see clearly that Brother Kelley is saying that God has revealed things to him that he has not revealed to others, making God a respecter of persons unless he can show that God has a purpose beyond merely giving revelations just to make people feel special. Now I would like to also notice that he claims the REVELATION but he has very little interest in the CONFIRMATION that God has in fact revealed anything to him! But the Hebrew writer states clearly that the things revealed to the apostles were CONFIRMED unto us by signs, wonders and manifold powers and gifts of the Holy Spirit. (Heb. 2:3,4). But Brother Kelley has no interest in CONFIRMING that anything has been revealed to him by the demonstration of the Spirit and of Power as Paul did in Corinth. (1 Cor. 2:1-4). If there is no confirmation there is any proof of revelation. In fact if it is a revelation from God it will be accompanied by sufficient confirmation to establish that God has revealed it. (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4). Even the very Son of God performed miracles and demonstrated his power in order to confirm to us that he is the Son of God. (John 20:30,31; Romans 1:4). But Brother Kelley feels no need to prove or confirm anything to anyone that God has revealed anything to him or given him any of these miraculous gifts. He must consider that he has less need for prove of his claims than the very Son of God!

I appreciate your remarks.

May God bless you and Jenny and your entire family and the work that you do.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

>>You have tried but failed to show that the Holy Spirit was ever given to anyone except the only two groups who were ever baptized in the Holy Spirit (the apostles and the house of Cornelius) by any means other than through the lying on of the apostle's hands.<<

This is an example of your eisegesis. The Bible does not TEACH that the Holy Spirit was only given through the laying on of hands of the apostles. It is not right to INVENT a doctrine that says that the Holy Spirit is given ONLY through the laying on of hands of the apostles, and then say that the scriptures that CONTRADICT your view are exceptions. Since the Bible does not teach that the Holy Spirit was not given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands, we must include the incident with Cornelius into our understanding of how God gives the Holy Spirit.

You take a couple of examples of where the Holy Spirit came on people after the laying on of the apostles hands, and- ignoring the examples where the Holy Spirit was given without the laying on of hands of the apostles- you come up with a teaching that the Holy Spirit was ONLY given through the laying on of the apostles' hands. Then, you take a passage which contradicts your view that the Holy Spirit was ONLY given through the apostles hands (the one about Cornelius) and make it out to be an EXCEPTION. You are eisegeting. You get our understanding of doctrine from the Bible, not try to interpret the Bible around your own understanding of doctrine.

Nothing in Peter's words indicate that the Holy Spirit was only for the Gentiles in Cornelius house. This passage is 'profitable for doctrine.' What seemed unusual about this occasion was that God had granted the Gentiles repentence unto life. Nowhere do we see Peter indicating that the fact that the Spirit came on Cornelius and that this could not occur again. Peter remembered the words of John, who had spoken to a crowd of people, not just the apostles, that Jesus would baptize them with the Holy Ghost. These words were spoken to Jews. Peter now saw that the same gift was being given to the Gentiles. If all scripture is profitable for doctrine, then this passage is also profitable for doctrine in regard to how God operates and pours out His Spirit on the Gentiles also.

In Acts 2, we see that what happened to the 120, is that they were filled with the Holy Spirit. We see again in Acts 2, that the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit in response to prayer. But I suppose you will see that as an exception as well.

Paul wrote the Galatians to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Hmmm.

"I notice that you say "Cornelius, etc." It is the "etc" that you have been unable to find!"

Actually, by 'ect.' I meant those with Cornelius on that day.

Lee, I typed that letter off quickly yesterday. As for the 'through' the laying on of hands comment- the use of 'through' wasn't my major point. I didn't have a Bible on me at the time to give the exact quote. It would be interesting to look up the Greek for 'with' and see if it is also translated as 'through' elsewhere.

"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." (1 Timothy 4:14).

"Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." (1 Timothy 1:6).

The Bible does not say that these two passages refer to the same gift. To make a doctrine out of such an idea and to read this into scripture is eisegesis.

In one case, the gift was given BY prophecy and in the other, the gift was given BY the putting on of Paul's hands.

We also see Paul and Barnabas being separated to the work with the laying on of hands of the prophets and teachers. These men were not even called elders, much less apostles. Yet they could be used by God to separate these men, who then had the authority to appoint elders as the Lord led! Paul and Barnabas were gifted by God. God was able to make apostles out of them.

You write, "that received the Holy Spirit by any means other than through the lying on of the apostles hands."

What do you do with Acts 2:38? Peter didn't say anything about needing the laying on of hands of the apostles to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost there.

>>>Paul teaches that the gifts are given as the Spirit wills, and indicates that the gift of interpretation can be received through prayer (I Corinthians 14:13.)"

Yes Paul does teach this and it does not help your case in the least. He does not teach that these gifts were given to anyone who had not first become Christians and received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostle's hands.<<<

The idea that these gifts were only present only in those in whom he had laid his hands is not found in Corinthians. I Corinthians 12 talks about gifts being given to every man in the context of talking about those who had been baptized by one Spirit into one body. Do you believe people baptized by one Spirit into one body exist today?

A few cases of the Holy Spirit being given through the laying on of hands of the apostles (and seeing the cases where the Spirit came upon people without the laying on of the apostles' hands as exceptions) does not prove that this was the exclusive way the gifts (or the gifts you don't believe are given today) were given out. We have to actually read the teaching of Paul on how gifts were given out. his teaching on how the gifts were distributed is that they were given as the Spirit wills. That is what he taught. You can insist that they were ONLY given by the laying on of the apostles hands all day long. But that is your idea. It does not come from the Bible. Let's talk about what the Bible teaches, not what Lee wants it to mean.

>>>>Yes Paul does talk about the gift of interpretation being received by Prayer but he says nothing about the Holy Spirit being received by prayer nor does he say anything about any gift being received by prayer ALONE.<<<<

Acts 4 shows the Holy Spirit filling believers as they prayed. God did not limit Himself to operating according to your views in Acts 4. Why should he do so today?

If you skim through the Old Testament long enough, you can find some examples of the Spirit of God coming upon people. The Spirit came on Elisha when he heard instrumental music one time, and he prophesied. (The double whammy.) The Spirit of the Lord came on Samson. Zecharias' was filled with the Spirit and he prophesied about his son, John. We see that even before Pentecost, the Spirit could come upon people. We see nowhere where in scripture where the Spirit is limited to only coming on people one whom the apostles had laid their hands. We do see that the Spirit came on people upon whom the apostles had laid their hands.

Furthermore, we see that John predicted baptism with the Holy Spirit. He told a crowd of Jews that Jesus would baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire. The Bible does not say that he said this only to the 12 apostles. Peter recalled John's saying when he realized that God was reaching out to the Gentiles also, and not just to the Jews.

Your teaching limits the way God will operate in ways the scripture does not. You can read as many of your own ideas into scripture as you want, but that still does not limit the way God operates.

>>>But when it was all finished the scripture says that it was through the lying on of the apostle's hands that the Holy Spirit was given. (Acts 8:14-24).<<<<

Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles hands. But the scripture does not teach that the Spirit was limited in this way. When Simon offered to buy the power that the Holy Spirit be received by those on whom he laid his hands, Peter did not say that he didn't have any part or lot in this matter because Simon wasn't an apostle. No. He said he had no part or lot in this matter because his heart was not right.

No one here is debating that the Holy Spirit was given out through the laying on of the apostles hands. That is an established fact. Acts 8 demonstrates this. What you are teaching is that the Holy Spirit was given out ONLY through the laying on of hands of the apostles. You assert this, even though there are examples of the Holy Spirit coming on people without the laying on of the apostles hands. See Acts 4, Acts 10, and compare to various occurences in the Old Testament of the Spirit coming on people.

>>>But we have no record of his distributing gifts to anyone upon whom he had not yet fallen. (Acts 8:14).<<<

Let me ask you, do you believe you are teaching these teachings about the Spirit not being given except through the laying on of hands of the apostles without the help of the charisma of the Holy Spirit?

Paul wanted to go to the Romans that he might impart unto them some spiritual gift. The ministry of the apostle is given till we all come to the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man, to the full measure of the stature of Christ. God works through one body part to minister to another. The apostles are body parts, too. The Romans had some gifts, but they could still benefit from Paul's apostolic ministry. But to infer from this that the Holy Spirit could or would not fill anyone on whom the apostles had not laid their hands is not scriptural.

Link Hudson

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

Danny,

Naturally, I interpreted 'modern day gnosticism' to refer to a revival of gnosticism in modern times. There are gnostic groups here today.

Gnostic groups believed various false teachings about matter being corrupted, and the idea that Christ did not come in the flesh and die for our sins. The Gnostics may have gotten their name because they claimed 'secret knowledge,' but to insinuate that someone is a Gnostic just because you think they claim to know something by spiritual means is a low blow. What if a guest felt that you were not kind to strangers in your city, and accused you of being a 'Sodomite' because of that? How would you feel? That wouldn't be fair, would it. Though the Sodomites were unkind towards strangers in their city, the word 'Sodomite' is a loaded term, which has a really nasty implications.

As for Kelley's post, I don't see anything Gnostic or even exclusivist about it. The Holy Spirit leads mature believers. There is nothing in Kelley's statements about that that indicate that he has some secret doctrine that the regular church doesn't know about. And there is certainly nothing about that that indicates that he held to the erroneous beliefs of the Gnostics.

Link

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

Brother Danny:

I hope you will be able to compare what Brother Kelley has just told you with what he actually said in the emotions in worship thread and see the truth.

Brother Kelley said:

If you read in my posts in the emotions thread before, that I experienced tongues "within myself" without speaking tongues, due to the overwhelming feeling of love, joy, peace, and spiritual power I recieved as I listend to someone speaking in tongues.

Now he did not say any such thing in the emotions thread. Just ask him to find where he said any such thing and have him paste it into this thread for all to see! He cannot do it for he did not say such a thing. But let us compare what he actually said originally with what he is now saying and see what it looks like.

Compare these words with the actual words of Brother Kelley in the emotions thread:

This is what he said:

I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well.

He said that he experienced the gift of tongues not only within people I know personally but within myself as well. Then he explains how he did this through the overwhelming feeling of love, joy, peace, and spiritual power he received as he listened to someone speaking in tongues. But he claimed to have experienced the gift of tongues not only within others but within himself also. Yet when one ask how he experienced it within himself without having the gift within himself he refers to what he experienced within others. Besides this overwhelming feeling of love joy, peace, and spiritual power is not the gift of speaking in other languages which one has not studied. One could have understood if he said that he experienced a feeling of love, joy, peace, and spiritual power when he heard someone speaking in tongues. But he did not say that, now did he? He said that he experienced the gift of tongues within himself. The gift of tongues is the supernatural ability to speak in languages that one has never studied or learned in any human way. This is not what he experienced according to his present version of the story. According to his present version of the story he experienced feeling of love, Joy, peace, etc. but he did not experience the actual gift of tongues within himself. So do tell us Brother Kelley, which is it? Did you experience the speaking of a foreign language within yourself and not only within others or did you experience these emotional feelings within yourself when you heard someone speaking in tongues? Your deliberate lie gets worse every time you tell it!

Then of course three days after making his original statement he denied having made it as follows:

First concerning the first charge, I never stated that have the gift of speaking in tongues (read my earlier post), I just stated that I have personally experienced them.

He has never told us just how one could experience the gift of tongues within himself and not only through hearing those that he knew personally speaking them without having the gift of tongues within himself? He is claiming to have experienced something within himself that he is also claiming never actually was within him at all. For he says he did not have the gift of tongues. Then how on earth did he experience such a gift, WITHIN HIMSELF without possessing it at least long enough to experience it? He does not know how to get out of this mess, now does he?

I will forever be convinced that he deliberately lied to us and I will never repent for having exposed that lie. It was the right thing to do and I will do it every time I see anyone do such a thing. I am certain of one thing. He will be more careful in the future when he is bent upon deceiving us!

But his story is very different now, isnt it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000

Danny and E. Lee,

Do you believe that there are any gifts of the Spirit for Christians today?

If yes, what gifts and why?

If no, why not?

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2000

Sister Lee:

As always I am happy to see one who loves the truth as much as you have shown your love for it in this forum. You have asked me a question that should I give a sufficient answer would require volumes to be written. The study of the Holy Spirit and His work is a complex study requiring a great deal of focus and diligence that is not conducive to a forum like this. But I will try to give a brief answer.

You have asked:

Danny and E. Lee, Do you believe that there are any gifts of the Spirit for Christians today? If yes, what gifts and why? If no, why not?

My brief answer is no. The reasons are that these gifts were given to those who had received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6) and those who had been baptized in the Holy Spirit (the apostles and the house of Cornelius Acts 2 & 10). No one else, even during the lives of the apostles, had these gifts. For this very reason Paul wanted to go to Rome that he might impart some spiritual gift unto them (Romans 1:11). Because though some in Rome had these gifts (Romans 12:8-12) there was a sufficient deficiency for Paul to have concern that they should have these gifts to the end that they might be established. This is evidence that those who had not received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands or had not been baptized in the Holy Spirit would not have these gifts. Remember that there were some in Rome who had been present on the day of Pentecost and would have received the Spirit through the apostles. (Acts 2:10). So not everyone had these gifts in the New Testament Church and we should therefore have no concern that not anyone today has them because they have not been baptized in the Holy Spirit nor have they received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostles hands. These gifts accomplished their purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God and that word is a wonderful and miraculously confirmed gift from the Holy Spirit to us for our guidance. Those words are sufficient and all that is essential to our eternal salvation. In fact, were it not for those words we would not even know that there was a Holy Spirit, now would we? Temporary miraculous gifts were the scaffolding essential to the establishment of the church. The scaffolding is no longer needed and God, as all good workmen would do, has removed the scaffolding since it accomplished its purpose and it is not essential to the structure or foundation of the building. These gifts were miraculous in nature and are not essential to faithful living of the Christian life and finding eternal salvation in Christ our Lord when he returns.

The purpose of all of these gifts was the revelation and confirmation of the word of God. (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4). When these gifts completed their function of revealing and confirming the word of God they ceased. (1 Cor. 13:8-13; Eph. 4:7-11).

We are now influenced by the words of those that had the Holy Spirit and received the word of God, confirmed it and delivered it to us. (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3,4; Jude 3). The Holy Spirit continues to guide the church through those miraculously endowed Apostles and inspired Christians through their inspired words recorded in the New Testament. And for that reason we must continue in the apostles doctrine and fellowship (Acts 2:42). We do not have any living apostles like Peter, James, John, and Paul today. Those who received the word of God with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven and revealed it to us and confirmed it with signs, wonders and manifold gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his will. (Heb. 2:3,4). And how shall we be saved if we neglect such a salvation that was delivered to us in such a way?

In other words we have the same apostles today that the Church had in the first century. We have no others with similar authority from God and Christ and endowments from the Holy Spirit. And for that reason we must continue in the apostles doctrine and fellowship (Acts 2:42). We do not have any living apostles today. But we are still guided by their words, which they received from the Holy Spirit and were confirmed by the Holy Spirit as I have shown above. Thus, we could say that the only gift that we have from the Holy Spirit today is the WORD OF GOD, which is without doubt a gift from Him. And unfortunately those who do not appreciate that gift and are not satisfied with it seek more tangible gifts that they can in some way physically see or sense within themselves for they lack faith. They want miraculous gifts or some nebulous non miraculous gift so that they can FEEL something special! If we do not appreciate the gift of the word of God we are very likely to seek counterfeit gifts that will delude us. Those who do not love the truth (2 Thess. 2 8- 11) will receive a strong delusion. I cannot think of one more deceptive than these pretentious gifts of the Holy Spirit that people claim today. With these imaginary gifts, men are more easily mislead by their subjective feelings than lead by the Holy Spirit through His revealed, inspired and confirmed word.

Now this statement is very brief but it answers your question put to me without going into all of the many details which unfortunately I do not have time to express at the moment.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2000

Lee and Danny,

What is the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives today? (You may have answered this previously... as there has been A LOT written.)

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2000

Brother Robin:

You have asked:

Lee and Danny, What is the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives today? (You may have answered this previously... as there has been A LOT written.) Thanks!

Brother Robin;

This is an excellent question and it is one that often arises when we discuss this subject. We all know that Christ died for us to redeem us from our sins. (Romans 5:8,9). We know that he died once. He did not return to the earth in every generation and suffer death on a cross for our redemption. He became the propitiation of our sins and the sins of the whole world on the day that he died. (1 John 2:1,2). His role in our lives is to be the propitiation of our sins. The fact that he accomplished this with his death on the cross 2000 years ago and is not now dying for us in each generation does not change his role in any way whatsoever. And we have absolutely no problem understanding this, now do we?

Then why do we have a problem with the fact that the Holy Spirit accomplished his work in the first century? Why can we not see that he continues to fill his role even though he only miraculously endowed the church once and through those miraculous endowments finished his work and through it continues to function in his role as our advocate or comforter, the paraclete? He did these things in order to reveal and confirm the word of God that was to guide us into all of the truth throught all time until our Lord returns. He continues to serve that role through his finished work of the revelation and confirmation of the word of God just as Christ serves as our savior through His finished work on the cross. All that the Holy Spirit accomplished through the inspired men of the New Testament he continues to accomplish through those inspired men in the word of God. His role has not changed though the work he did to provide for our guidance and to convict the world of sin has been finished for a long time. Why would anyone think that his role has changed because he finished his work any more than Christs role as our savior has changed because He finished his work of redemption when he died on the cross?

Were it not for that inspired word of God we would not even know that Christ died to redeem us and we would have no guidance from the Holy Spirit today. The role of the Holy Spirit in our lives today is the same as it was in the first century. It was to convict the world of sin and to provide the revealed and confirmed word of God for our edification and guidance. Just as Christ functions in his role as our savior through his finished work upon the Cross. So the Holy Spirit functions in his role as the comforter or more properly advocate through his finished work of revealing and confirming the word of God, which is the source of our faith. (Romans 10:17). The Holy Spirit guides, strengthens, teaches, convicts and edifies the church through his finished work in revealing, inspiring and confirming the word of God. This word is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword piercing the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit and the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb. 4:12). Through his finished work we are able to be built up and gain an inheritance among all them that are sanctified. (Acts 20:32). This is the Word of His Grace and it is all-sufficient and thoroughly furnishes the man of God to all good works. (1 Tim. 3:16,17) And provides us with all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). And this word is the means of our conversion and sanctification (1 Peter 1:18-23; John 17:17). Our Lord prayed, Sanctify them through the truth, thy word is truth.(John 17:17). If one is ever converted to Christ it will be because he heard the gospel, believed it and obeyed it. It will not be because he had some mystical and magnificent experience of grace from the direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon his heart and in his life. If after he is converted he is sanctified or set apart from the world in service to God it will not be through any special operations of the Holy Spirit upon his soul apart from the truth. It will be from his reading, understanding and obeying the revealed and confirmed word of God that has been given for that very purpose. Jesus said, if ye continue in my word then are ye my disciples indeed and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31,32). If the Holy Spirit had not been poured out upon the first converts and dwelt within them inspiring them and revealing the word of God to them and confirming that those words were from God. Then you and I would not be able to continue in the words of Christ for we would not know what his words actually were. Imagine how much Christianity would exist today if we did not have the word of God to lead and guide us.

This is the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives. And the fact that he completed this task in the first century does not change his role any more than the fact that Christ finished his work of redemption when he died on the cross means that he has no role to fulfill among us today. His redemption is found in the gospel (Romans 1:16) and God has determined to save the world through the foolishness of preaching (1 Cor. 1:18). Christ is not dying for us today he died for us long before we were born. Does that mean he no longer serves in the role of our savior today? The Holy Spirit is not giving gifts unto men today to reveal and confirm the word of God. He has finished that work. Does that mean that he no longer functions in his role as our paraclete or advocate? Does it mean that he no longer convicts the world of sin? Does it mean that he no longer guides and leads the church into the truth? The answers are obvious to these questions. The Holy Spirit's role of convicting the world of sin and guiding the church into the truth has not changed though that work was finished when the WORD OF GOD was revealed and confirmed. That word does all of those things and it is the Spirit that provided the word for that purpose. Were it not for the revealed word of God you and I would not know that there was a Holy Spirit to serve in any role today.

Now I have given this answer briefly because I am on my lunch break at work. But when I have time I will give you a more detailed explanation and substantiation of this position. I hope that for the time being this will suffice to edify you on this subject.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2000

YIKES!!!

I just noticed a MAJOR mistype in something I wrote. No wonder someone said I thought Luke and Paul were contradictory. I was confused about that.

On September 16, I mistakenly wrote,

>>>Paul focuses a lot on the soteriological role of the Holy Spirit. As such, Luke and Paul are seen as using different terminology and focusing on different things. Luke and Paul's writings are contradictory.<<<

I meant to put COMPLEMENTARY not CONTRADICTORY. I probably had in mind 'Paul and Luke's statements are not contradictory. They are complementary.' or words to that effect that I had read earlier.

Sorry about that. How do you edit an earlier post?

Anyway, for the record, Paul and Luke are complementary, not contradictory.

[Btw, I believe in the inspiration of scripture, including Paul and Luke's writings.]

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

Some people, if they can't contradict another person's argument by any other means, resort to an 'ad homenem' (sp?) attack. That means attacking the other person, instead of his arguments. I saw how, in the emotions thread, you focused on attacking bro. Kelley, focusing more on that than dealing with the arguments from the scriptures and reason.

This thread is starting to get big already. Instead of posting ad homenem attacks in this thread, making it hard for us to sort through what to skip over, and what to read, why don't we do something else. We can start a thread entitled 'Ad Homenem Attacks by E. Lee Saffold.' You can put any such attacks in that thread, and that way we won't have to sort through all the ad homenem attacks to find the posts that deal with the issues. Consider doing that if you feel you must make ad homenem attacks.

And something else. I cut you some slack. You wrote that I believed that that which is perfect referred to Christ's coming, when actually that was Bro. Kelley's view. Although you were wrong, I didn't write 150 pages of text arguing that you were a liar, and that I couldn't be convinced otherwise. Bro. Kelley isn't required to word things the way you would. Other people are reasonable enough to realize that there were not valid grounds for accusing Bro. Kelley of lying he said he experienced tongues 'within himself' and later explained that he experienced a sense of peace, etc. when he heard tongues. At the most, one could accuse him of sloppy wording. You should listen to the wisdom in a multitude of council, and realize that you cannot 'know' what is in someone's heart just because you think you can. You've said some nasty things about brother Kelley.

It is Satan's job to be the accuser of the brethren. Let us behave as Christians should on his board.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2000

Danny,

Do you think that there are no gifts (charismata) at all left these days? What about the Romans 12 gifts, and some of the gifts at the end of I Corinthians 12?

Do you believe that the Spirit does not work the 'gracelets' of the Spirit in Romans 12?

Also, do you believe that demons can be cast out today?

-- Anonymous, September 21, 2000

Danny and Lee,

Your conclusions are primarily man made assumptions and theological viewpoints that you cannot sufficiently prove from the scripture. The argument that the "miraculous gifts" were given by the laying of the Apostle's hands is indeed weak and flimsy. Plus, you lump 'tongues' and healing into a catagory that is not scriptural. The working of miracles according to Paul is a different gift all together (I Cor 212:28). Tongues is not a miracle, according to Paul, nor is healing. Infact in the scripture healing is the norm and so are tongues. Healings are natural occurances among believers, look into James 5:14- I do not see any Apostolic laying on of hands, but what I see is that the Elders are to lay hands. And in James we cannot assume that those elders were given their ministerial duties by the apostle's (if so where is the verse to back that up?).

Lee, I would like to personally chat with you for a moment... stop this insaine slander. You personally need to repent!!! Your arguments that I have lied has no grounds. If you read ( you can read cann't you?) my post during the emotions thread, you will find that I explained that a person CAN experiece "tongues within" and not speak them without. I personally experienced this. If you refuse to except my personal experience, that is one thing. But, to diliberatly slander me and attack me personally for my belief is quite another. It shows the condition of your heart to do what you have done toward me. You have a critical,and mean spirit. All you have shown is a cold heart and a lack of understanding. I say this out of love and fustration. Everytime I try to debate you continue to sin by slandering a Christian brother. You may not personally agree with me or even like me... that is fine. But, to claim to be a Christian and yet slander a brother and treat me in that fashion is sin. John wrote this in his gospel... "Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth" (I John 3:18). I will repeat that I have NOT LIED IN ANY WAY TO ANYONE IN THIS FORUM! If you read my post then you will see this. Link and others do not see where I have lied. The only one seems to be you.

Danny, you speak the truth when you suggest that I should remove myself from the movement. I have been brought up in the RM all my life. I have preached in RM churches throughout my ministry career. I have graduated from a RM Bible college and I am near completion of my Masters from a RM Semenary. I have many ties to the RM and many close dear friends are reading this foum and reading my words now. But, I feel that we are losing our first love. In MY OPINION our movement is dying from a lack of spiritual ferverentness. We have quenched the Spirit too long! Yes, there are pockets of growth and renweal or revival, but overall our movement is dying. Oh, how I wish things would change. We are divided and we constantly bicker. The acapella fight the nonacapella over the use of piano. The Disciples are becoming more liberal and we no longer are a Restoration Movement but one that is filled with sects. How can we restore Christianity when we have lost it ourselves?

I feel we are grieving the Lord. And when someone wants to raise their hands or clap during worship or ever shout mightily to the Lord- then they are labeled Pentacostal. Danny you may label me that but I much rather be that than DEAD!

Does it mean that I have gone Pentacostal to think the Lord can bless someone with the gifts of the Spirit today? If so then I am a Pentecostal! Does it mean that I am Charismatic to believe the gifts can be given freely by the Lord and are alive today as the Lord allows and that those who claim to have them are not decieved or liars... then I am Charismatic! And if that means I will lose my Church and my friends and my RM ties then so be it!

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2000

Yes, when the Holy Spirit and His work are not only ignored, but blasphemed, then there is no hope for that organization. He just quietly gets up and leaves.

Sad.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

E. Lee Saffold, Some people, if they can't contradict another person's argument by any other means, resort to an 'ad homenem' (sp?) attack. That means attacking the other person, instead of his arguments. I saw how, in the emotions thread, you focused on attacking bro. Kelley, focusing more on that than dealing with the arguments from the scriptures and reason.

Well, Brother Link, you are right when you say that some people cant contradict another persons arguments by any other means, resort to ad hominem attack. You even provide an excellent example of it with your post that is nothing more than an ad homenem attack against me. It does surely appear that you have resorted to it because you cant contradict my argument by any other means as you say. However, I do not criticize your ad homonym attack because sometimes it is necessary and right to make such attacks. Even our Lord did this himself. Which is proof that doing such is not always because of an inability to contradict a persons argument by any other means. Notice our Lords ad homenim attack wherein he called the Jews who rejected Him LIARS and CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL. Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lust of your father it is your will to do. He was a muderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: For he is a liar and the father thereof. But because I say the truth ye believe me not. (John 8:44, 45) So, if Brother Link had heard the Lord attack these men and calling them children of the Devil and LIARS he would have corrected him by saying, Lord, some people, if they cant contradict another persons arguments by any other means, resort to ad homenem attack. That means attacking the other person, instead of their arguments. And I am sure that our Lord would have said, Oh, Brother Link, you are so right! And you are so wise and your wisdom is infinitely superior to mine maybe you should become the savior of man since I cannot resist these ad hominem attacks!

It is clear to any thinking person that when an argument is based upon one's personal experience that it is impossible to attack the argument without attacking the person upon whom the argument is based. If you argue from personal experience then your personal integrity and truthfulness becomes crucial to the credibility of your argument. So, if you and brother Kelley do not like ad hominem attacks then do not make ad hominem arguments that is arguments based upon the mans credibility as a witness. In a court of law, when one testifies as a witness against the accused and the argument is based upon his personal observations then attacking that persons credibility is not only acceptable and expected it is right and necessary. If you argue against what the scriptures teach. And your argument is based upon your personal experience then your credibility as a person must be examined and the consistency and truthfulness of your statements must be examined and therefore an ad homenim is necessary and unavoidable if one is to get to the truth of the matter. So, just because you do not like the fact that I have pointed to clear inconsistencies in Brother Kelleys statements which prove to those willing to admit the truth that Brother Kelley has lied does not change my determination to expose that lie. Nor does it change my perception that I have done the right thing. No one has even come close to reconciling Brother Kelleys diametrically opposite and contradictory statements. Therefore I am fully convinced that he is a liar and will continue say so as often as he brings the matter up. And your complaints against ad homenim attacks are selective. You only complain of these when someone with whom you disagree makes them. Brother Kelley himself has called others liars in this forum, without even the slightest evidence or reasons to justify his accusations and has received no condemnation or criticism for having done so. But he does not like it when he is called a liar even though there is good reasons for his being called such. I do not mind being called anything and am only concerned about it if the accusation is true.

Then you want me to put my ad homenims in another place where they can be ignored according to your following words:

This thread is starting to get big already. Instead of posting ad homenem attacks in this thread, making it hard for us to sort through what to skip over, and what to read, why don't we do something else. We can start a thread entitled 'Ad Homenem Attacks by E. Lee Saffold.' You can put any such attacks in that thread, and that way we won't have to sort through all the ad homenem attacks to find the posts that deal with the issues.

You complain of ONE ad homenim attack and then suggest that I have made many such attacks. But you do not prove that they are numerous or that any of them is unjustified or wrong. So I see no reason to accept your suggestion. If the thread is too long to include ad homenims then why have you added yours to the list? Why did not you put this recent ad homenim on a thread entitled Ad Homenim Attacks by Link Hudson? It must be because of your Gnosticism that causes you to feel superior spiritually to the rest of us. For it is E. Lee Scaffolds ad homenims that bother you. Yours seem to please you and you do not want them to be placed in a thread specially designed to have them ignored, now do you? Therefore I will just continue my present course which has proven to be quite effective though it is extremely frustrating to you. In fact, if I were to put them in a special thread dedicated solely to my own ad homenim attacks, I can assure you that you and the other hypocrites in this forum would go there to see just what I was saying about them personally! And I do not doubt that you would be responding to many things found there for you cannot resist reading my ad homenims now can you? Ha! I know that you respond often to things that you call ad homenims and that is strange for someone who claims to skip over them and ignore them. Ha! The legs of the lame are seldom equal.

You ask me to consider your suggestion:

Consider doing that if you feel you must make ad homenem attacks.

Well, I have considered it and hereby inform you that your suggestion has been justly rejected. You are welcome to present other suggestions and I will give them serious consideration but do try to offer some that are sensible other wise they too will be rejected.

Then we see your sense of superiority coming through again with these words:

And something else. I cut you some slack. You wrote that I believed that that which is perfect referred to Christ's coming, when actually that was Bro. Kelley's view. Although you were wrong, I didn't write 150 pages of text arguing that you were a liar, and that I couldn't be convinced otherwise.

Well, I would have preferred that you write a 150 pages to explain that I had misunderstood you so that I could correct my error. But instead you cut me some slack when I needed to be drawn up tight and brought back into line and corrected. But you were more concerned with how that would make you appear to others in this forum than your were about my correction. So you have hypocritically pretended that you were interested in the truth when in reality you avoided your responsibility because of your interest in appearances. I would say that I appreciate you kindness in giving me some slack but you were not motivated by kindness, now were you? And when your Brother needed correction you showed no concern for it. Rather you wanted to make the impression that you had been gracious to me. I do not need any slack and have never asked for any to be given and I do not give any myself. For I am interested in the truth, not slackness. But it does appear that you are more interested in making an appearance of superior spirituality by giving me slack when I needed correction. I have not given you any slack nor have I given Brother Kelley any slack and I have no intent upon giving anyone any slack. I seek the truth and I will confront error and there will be no quarter given. If you find error in me I do not want or expect you to give that error any slack. If you care about the truth you would not offer slack either. But you are concerned with appearances instead of truth. So you offer people slack but do not expect such from me for I have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. I despise lies and deception and am repulsed when I find error wherever I find it. And I am the most concerned when I find error in myself. I will give it no quarter either. So, in the future Brother Link, do not worry about appearances. Be kind enough to correct my error even if everyone in this forum perceives that you are being unkind to me. That I would greatly appreciate. But this hypocritical giving of slack does nothing more than disgust me.

Then you continue your defense of our deliberate liar, Brother Kelley:

 Bro. Kelley isn't required to word things the way you would.

No one has suggested that he should be required to do any such thing. But he is required to speak the truth and he has so contradicted himself that he cannot be speaking the truth. Now he is required to not deliberately lie and this I have already proven that he has done by quoting his statements that no one, including yourself, has even come close to reconciling them so that Brother Kelley could have even remotely been telling the truth.

Then you say:

 Other people are reasonable enough to realize that there were not valid grounds for accusing Bro. Kelley of lying he said he experienced tongues 'within himself' and later explained that he experienced a sense of peace, etc. when he heard tongues.

This is no way to prove that the man has told the truth. Anyone who believes that Brother Kelley has told the truth when he made these two diametrically opposite statements is wrong and it does not matter how many may think so. I am the one you are trying to convince and you and all of these so-called other people have failed to even make one single reasonable attempt to reconcile these two statements. His statements were:

I have personally experienced the gift of tongues, not only within people I personally know, but myself as well.

Then, after being challenged, three days later he said:

First concerning the first charge, I never stated that have the gift of speaking in tongues (read my earlier post), I just stated that I have personally experienced them.

Now to any thinking person the sense of peace is not the gift of tongues, which is the supernatural ability to speak in foreign languages that one has never studied. He did not say, in his original statement that he experienced a sense of peace when he heard others speaking in tongues. He said that he experienced the gift of tongues not only within people he knew personally but HIMSELF AS WELL. So with his recent attempt at explaining himself he again proves that he lied to us. He now claims that it was not the gift of tongues that he experienced within himself after all. It was a sense of peace that he experienced within himself as he heard others speak in tongues. Now anyone reading his original statement can tell that this is not what he said. He said he experienced the gift of tongues within himself. But now he tells us that he experienced a sense of peace within himself. Now I have asked him and he has not answered, which is the truth? Did he experience the gift of tongues within himself as he first claimed or did he experience nothing more than a sense of peace as he is now claiming? Which is the truth? It is not possible to experience something within yourself unless the thing that you experience is within you at least long enough for you to experience it. But Brother Kelley claims that he does not have the gift of tongues within himself. Then how did he experience it within himself if he at least did not have the gift within him during the time that he experienced it? Is he going to tell us that he had it within himself only for a brief time? If he does, then all of the stories that he has told in his attempts to explain this matter become lies. This man has gotten himself into a position from which he cannot extricate himself and it seems that he has so hemmed himself in that no one else can save him from it. But you have tried hard but failed miserably in your efforts. No one else has even tried to explain his contradiction. They have only wanted to leave the matter because it is so unpleasant to examine such things.

Thus Brother Kelleys lie has now become worse and the more he tries to get out of it the more certain it becomes that he has in fact told us a lie and is lying even now to make it appear that he did not lie then. I have no respect for liars and will not back away from exposing their deliberate lies.

But all you can do is admit that he is guilty of sloppy wording:

 At the most, one could accuse him of sloppy wording.

You have done nothing more than assert that the most he can be accused of is sloppy wording. You have never proven this to be true. He has been sloppy in his wording and this is the reason that he was caught in a deliberate lie. I admit that he is not a skillful liar but a liar he is until his contractions are explained. Thus far none have given a satisfactory explanation of them, least of all you.

 You should listen to the wisdom in a multitude of council, and realize that you cannot 'know' what is in someone's heart just because you think you can. You've said some nasty things about Brother Kelley.

There is no multitude of counsel that has sought to convince me that Brother Kelley has not lied. There are a few that merely claimed that I should not have called him a liar even if he were one. But NONE other than you have sought to explain Brother Kelleys severe self- contradiction. An all you do is seek to explain it away rather than truly explain it. So there is no multitude of counsel that has dealt with this matter. But even if everyone claims that Brother Kelley has not lied I will not stop calling him a liar until someone demonstrates that he has been truthful in these contradictions. So, you want Brother Kelley to be more skillful in his choice of words. I am interested in his speaking the truth regardless of his choice of words. His contradiction is unexplainable and no one has been able to show any consistency in it yet. Thus he is still a liar and I continue to call him just what he is.

Then you want to tell me what Satans job is with these words:

It is Satan's job to be the accuser of the brethren.

Our Lord accused his Jewish brethren of being LIARS. (John 8:44,45). Are you saying that because he accused them of lying that he was doing Satans Job? The truth is that the Devil is a LIAR AND THE FATHER THEREOF. Brother Kelley is a LIAR and a child of the father of all liars. And this will be the case until he repents of his lie, which he has without question told in this forum. Your feeble attempts to defend him in his deliberate lie will not change the facts in this case. Nor will they change my condemnation of such lying among those who would serve the Lord Jesus Christ who is the way the truth and the life.

I do agree however with your following suggestion:

Let us behave as Christians should on his board.

Better yet lets actually BE Christians in this forum, instead of pretending to behave as Christians. This suggestion that we behave in a fashion that fits the modern perception of Christian behavior rather than the scriptural teaching concerning Christian behavior is nothing more than a desire to foster hypocrisy. Toleration of lies in a spirit of feigned love and respect for the Brethren is nothing more than a sham!

But if you mean by your above statement that we should actually be Christians in this forum I agree.

We have been told lie not to one another, Brethren. Christians do not lie nor tolerate those who do. I urge the brethren in this forum to join with me in admonishing Brother Kelley to behave as a Christian by ceasing from telling deliberate lies. And inasmuch as the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and inasmuch as we are to be set for the defense of the gospel (Philippians 1:17) let us expose every lie that is spoken in this forum. For it is the Christian thing to do. Let us follow the example of our Lord who exposed the lies of the Jews and cared enough about them to tell them that they were liars and children of the Devil. (John 8:44,45). Let us put on the new man that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth. Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak ye the truth each one with his neighbor: for we are members one of another. (Eph. 4:24, 25). Exposing a lie is a Christian thing to do. Telling lies is the behavior of the children of the Devil. Toleration of lies in sweet soothing tones is a deception in itself and contrary to even the spirit of Christ our Lord who had no toleration for such things.

Your pretense to superior spirituality as demonstrated in your post is far from the Christian behavior that you that you admonish us to have on this board. But then among the neo-Gnostics this superiority is essential to Christian behavior.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2000

Danny and E. Lee,

Thanks for your responses... they were helpful.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have said:

Lee, I would like to personally chat with you for a moment...

OK. Lets chat!

Then you say:

stop this insaine slander.

I will not stop telling the simple truth that you have lied to us until you are able to stop lying about what you said and sufficiently show that these two diametrically opposite statements made by you are both true. Which means that I will never stop because you will never be able to escape the simple fact that you have lied in this matter. It is not in the least insane to call someone a liar when they are in fact lying. Our Lord Jesus called the Jews who rejected him liars and he was not insane to do so. (John 8:44,45). He simply told the truth. They were liars and he cared enough about them to tell them so. And it is true that you have lied about this matter as your most recent explanation wherein you claim that it was a sense of peace that you experienced instead of the gift of tongues that you originally claimed to have experienced within yourself. This proves that you have not been slandered in the least. Do tell us Brother Kelley, was it the gift of tongues that you experienced within yourself as you originally claimed or was it a sense of peace that you experienced within your self? Which is the truth? You claimed to have experienced the gift of tongues NOT ONLY WITHIN OTHERS but also within yourself. But you admit that you do not have the gift of tongues within yourself. How then did you experience the gift of speaking in languages by the power of God when you have never had that gift residing within you? Your statements cannot be reconciled and the more you talk about it the more you demonstrate the truthfulness of my claim that you lied to us about this experience that you claim to have had.

Then you say:

You personally need to repent!!!

No I have no need of repentance for exposing your deliberate lie so do not be holding your breath waiting for me to repent for doing the right thing. You, on the other hand have lied and are in great need of repentance. You claimed to have experienced the gift of tongues within yourself. Then you later admit that you did not have the gift of tongues. Now it is obvious to any thinking person that one who has never had the gift of tongues within themselves could not have experienced the gift of tongues within themselves. And your only explanation has been to tell us how you experience this through others. But you told us in your original statement that you NOT ONLY EXPERIENCED IT THROUGH OTHERS BUT WITHIN YOURSELF AS WELL. This you have never tried to explain. Then more recently you tell us that it was not the gift of tongues that you experienced within your self but an "overwhelming" feeling. You now say, I experienced tongues "within myself" without speaking tongues, due to the overwhelming feeling of love, joy, peace, and spiritual power I received as I listend to someone speaking in tongues. But before you said that you experienced the gift of tongues within yourself. The gift of tongues is the ability to speak in foreign languages that you have never learned or studied by the power of the Holy Spirit. The gift of tongues is not some overwhelming feeling of love, joy, peace, spiritual power. Now one might have such a feeling if he actually possess within himself the gift of tongues but you admit that you do not possess that gift in your denial of having spoken in tongues. So you did not have the gift of tongues within you and you claim now to have experienced a sense of peace, which is not the gift of tongues. So, which is it Brother Kelley? Is it the gift of tongues that was within you that you experienced (without actually having the gift of tongues within you) or an overwhelming feeling of love, joy, peace, and spiritual power that you now claim to have experienced? Do tell us because you have told us that you experienced the gift of tongues now you tell us that you experienced something else entirely.

Then you say:

 Your arguments that I have lied has no grounds.

Oh, yes they do. You claimed in one place to have experienced the gift of tongues" within yourself and not only through others. And then in another place you claimed that you did not have the gift of tongues. Now you come in here and tell us that it was not the gift of tongues that you experienced but an overwhelming sense of love, joy, peace, and spiritual power that you experienced while some one else were speaking in tongues. You just cannot get your story straight, now can you? Now you either lied when you said that you experienced the gift of tongues or you lied when you said that you did not have the gift of tongues. Or you are lying now when you say that all you experienced was an overwhelming sense of love, joy, peace and spiritual power. It is not a matter of if you lied but when did you lie. Did you lie when you said that you experienced the gift of tongues within yourself and not through others? Did you lie when you said that you did not have the gift of tongues within yourself? Did you lie when you said that you experienced this sense of joy peace and spiritual power? But one thing is certain you lied in one of these three places because all of these stories cannot be true. If it is true that you experienced the gift of tongues within yourself then it is not true that you did not have the gift of tongues within yourself at least for the period of time that you experienced it within yourself. If it is true that you did not have the gift of tongues within yourself then it is not true that you experienced the gift of tongues within yourself. If it is true that all you experienced was a sense of joy, peace, and spiritual power while someone else was speaking in tongues then it is not true that you experienced the gift of tongues within yourself. Now you tell us Brother Kelley, which of the above three statements from you are true and which are NOT TRUE? We are waiting for YOUR answer. But until you are able to reconcile all of these statements as being true we have more than sufficient grounds for our contention that you have lied in at least one of these statements that you have made.

Then you imply that I cannot read as follows:

If you read ( you can read cann't you?) my post during the emotions thread, you will find that I explained that a person CAN experiece "tongues within" and not speak them without. I personally experienced this.

Well, as my favorite President would say, there you go again! You claim to have explained how one can experience the gift of tongues within and not speak them without. You did not show from the scriptures that one could do such a thing and you did not explain it so that anyone with a brain could believe it. But the one thing you have never even attempted to explain is how anyone who DOES NOT have the gift of tongues within them could experience the gift of tongues within and not speak them without. But you told us that you do not have the gift of tongues. So you either had the gift of tongues within you when you experienced the gift of tongues within or you did not have the gift of tongues within you and could not have experienced something within you that never existed within you at all. So tell us, did you actually have the gift of tongues? If yes then tell us why you claimed not to have the gift? If no then tell us how you experienced something within you that you admit was never within you at all?

Yes we can read, Brother Kelley, but we can also distinguish truth from lies. All of the things that you have said about this mater cannot be true and therefore you have without question lied to us. And your inability to clear this matter up by showing us how all of your contradictory claims about this experience can be true is sufficient grounds to call you a liar.

Then you say:

If you refuse to except my personal experience, that is one thing. But, to deliberately slander me and attack me personally for my belief is quite another.

No one has slandered you deliberately or otherwise. And it is not your experience or your beliefs that I am concerned with in this matter. If you base an argument upon your personal experience then your personal expereince must be tested and if you have lied you will personally feel the full impact of the attack upon your argument that was based upon you personally and your credibility as a witness giving testimony. If you do not like that then do not make arguments that are based solely upon your "personal experiences.

Nevertheless, it is your deliberate lie about your experience as is evidenced by your severe and extremely diametrically opposite statements concerning this experience that is the issue. If you had simply stated that you had experienced a sense of joy peace and spiritual power while hearing someone supposedly speaking in tongues I would not have accepted it. I would have questioned it and possibly expressed much doubts and asked many questions about it. But I would not have called you a liar. I may have even thought you were deluded or deceived. But I would not have called you a liar. However this is not what you claimed. You claimed to have experienced the gift of tongues not only within others but yourself as well. Then three days later you claimed that you did not have the gift of tongues within yourself. You contradicted yourself so badly that I knew that you had lied in one of the two statements that you made. I still know it and you do also. What is most important is God knows it and he will judge you for lying if you do not repent of having lied.

Then you say that my exposing your lie shows the condition of my heart as follows:

It shows the condition of your heart to do what you have done toward me.

Yes it does show the condition of my heart. It shows that deep down in my heart I despise lies and I do not tolerate those who tell lies. It also shows that I care enough about your eternal soul to point out to you that you have lied and to warn you against it so that you could repent and be forgiven for doing this thing. What I have done toward you is scriptural and right. It is what Jesus did toward the Jews whom he called liars. (John 8:44,45). He knew that they were liars and he told them so. I know that you have lied and I have told you as much. You have lied publicly and I have publicly exposed that lie because it is the condition of my heart to keep us in the truth and not allow others to be deceived by a deliberate liar that will not repent.

Then you begin whining:

You have a critical,and mean spirit.

Now you say this because I called you a liar. But when you called someone a liar in this forum you did not perceive that you were being mean spirited in doing so, now did you? I suppose that you would think that our Lord was critical and mean spirited" when he called those Jews liars and children of the Devil in John 8:44,45, dont you? It is not mean spirited to tell the truth even if that truth exposes someone who has deliberately lied to his brethren.

Then you say:

 All you have shown is a cold heart and a lack of understanding.

Now I would like to see you prove that I have a cold heart. And your problem is not that I do not understand. Your problem is that I understand all too well what you were trying to do and I stood in your way. I guess that would make you think of me as cold hearted! I am just too cold hearted to allow Brother Kelley to lie and get by with it. I am just too cold hearted to allow you to deliberately deceive the brethren into believing your false doctrine on the basis of your ad hominem arguments based upon your personal experiences that are nothing more than pure and deliberate fabrications. I am just too cold hearted to allow you to prove anything by personal experience over the word of God.

And now let us notice your attempt at superior spirituality. For you cannot criticize without making it appear that you are loving now can you?

 I say this out of love and fustration.

Well I am glad that you love me enough to make that clear even though you did not love me or anyone else in this forum enough to tell us the truth. You loved us all so much that you claimed that we were all dead because we did not allow our emotions to be manipulated in the worship. You are so full of love when you unjustly called someone a liar in this forum but now that you have been justly called a liar you feel frustrated and speak from love"! Such hypocrisy is pathetic and sickening.

Then you say:

Everytime I try to debate you continue to sin by slandering a Christian brother.

Brother Kelley, you contradict yourself too much to even try to debate. But that is fine so long as you contradictions are simple mistakes rather than the unwitting result of deliberate lying. In this particular case you have lied and your severe contradictions make it abundantly clear that you have done so. But I have not slandered you because I have spoken the truth to you and about you in this matter.

Then you say:

You may not personally agree with me or even like me... that is fine.

Brother Kelley this is not about whether I like you or whether I agree with you. Even if I did agree with you and despite the fact that I like you I would still call you a liar simply because you have lied to us and it is an unavoidable fact that no one yet has been able to successfully deny. It is true that I do not agree with you. But that does not cause me to call you a liar. I disagreed with you for months on other subjects but never called you a liar. And you contradicted yourself often during those days and I pointed it out but did not call you a liar. It was not until you so diametrically opposed your own words and that it became obvious that you had lied that I accused you of such a thing. I was right in doing so and will continue in my course.

Then you quote a passage that if you took its meaning to heart you would not have lied to us:

But, to claim to be a Christian and yet slander a brother and treat me in that fashion is sin."

Again, I have not slandered you. I have only exposed your lie and you have yet to explain the contradiction that is irrefutable evidence of your lie. It is not a sin to call someone who lies a liar. (John 8:44,45).

Then you say:

John wrote this in his gospel... "Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth" (I John 3:18).

DO keep this verse in mind, Brother Kelley, the next time you contemplate lying to your Brethren in this forum. For he who lies to his brethren does not love them in either word or deed. The eternal destiny of the souls of men are at stake and you deliberately lie to them about your personal experiences with the intent to deceive them into believing a pernicious false doctrine. This is not love this is the work of Satan who is a liar and the father thereof. (John 8:44,45). You may want to also keep this verse in mind, And that ye put on the new man, which after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth. Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak ye the truth each one with his neighbor: For ye are members of one another. (Eph. 4: 24,25).

Then you repeat:

I will repeat that I have NOT LIED IN ANY WAY TO ANYONE IN THIS FORUM! If you read my post then you will see this. Link and others do not see where I have lied. The only one seems to be you.

I repeat as well that you have in fact DELBERATELY LIED TO ALL OF US IN THIS FORUM! I have given the evidence from your own words and neither you nor anyone else has ever even come close to explaining your diametrically opposite and contradictory statements wherein if one is true the others are false. This you have never dealt with nor has anyone else. Now I do not care if the entire world fails to see where you have lied. Until someone in this world can explain your self-contradictions and diametrically opposite statements, you have lied. Then you say it seems that I am the only one to see that you have lied. Even if that were true it does not explain your diametrically opposite and contradictory statements, now does it? This is all you have to do Brother Kelley is give one single decent explanation of how all of your contradictory statements can be true. But that no one has been able to do. And I am not the only one that sees this, Brother Kelley. You need to keep in mind that God sees it and he knows that you have lied and will judge you for having done so. I therefore urge you to repent.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2000

Brother Cornell:

I respond to your following post:

Danny and E. Lee, Thanks for your responses... they were helpful.

I appreciate your kindness in saying these words and I am very thankful that we have been helpful to you. I pray that we will all return to the scriptures and examine then daily in search of the precious truth. You strike me as one who is diligent to search for truth and I fervently pray that our Lord will abundantly bless you with the knowledge of it.

I ask that you will pray the same thing for me.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

Usually an ad homenem attack is used to refer to an attack on someone that serves _in lieu of contradicting his arguments._

Also, when Christ accused the Jews of lying HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.

I am NOT a Gnostic. You use the term with a capital G, which has a specific meaning. This is just slander, plain and simple. I dont' know if you are ignorant of what a Gnostic is, or if you know and you are just slandering on purpose, but either way it is slander.

I believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. I believe that Christ Jesus is a Man. I believe that He is the Word of God incarnate, and that his identitiy is described in John 1:1, that He is the Begotten of the Father. I believe that He died on the cross and rose from the dead. I do NOT believe that Christ was merely a spirit and not a man, and I do NOT believe that there is some secret knowledge for salvation that has been withheld from the church since the beginning.

You might be able to come up with some lopsided argument trying to twist reason to make me a gnostic by your own definition, since gnostic comes from gnosis. But you can't get away with such sophistry, because you accused me of being a Gnostic with a capital G. And that is just slander plain and simple.

You need to repent of your slander.

You also accuse me of thinking I am spiritual superior to others on this board- a prime example of an ad homenem attack. This attack is not based on any kind of evidence. You made up this idea because YOU associate that idea with Pentecostalism or Charismaticism, and try to pin that on me because I believe in the Biblical gifts. You should make such false accusations against people. And to think you accuse other people of being liars. You accuse AKelly of being a liar because he said he experienced tongues within himself to refer to the experience he had internally whenhe had someone else speak in tongues, and then said that he did not have the gift of tongues. Then you start making false accussations against others, accusing me of being a Gnostic, and of thinking I am spiritually superior to everyone else.

You need to repent.

I read part of your message, and just scanned over bits of the rest. I just want you to know I didn't read all of your message back in the emotions thread. I read some at first. But in fact, even when I was answering your ad homenem attacks later on down in emotions in order to try to correct you, I did not read all of your messages. I read bits and pieces. Why should I waste my time reading repetitive false accusations in detail?

You write: >>>Therefore I will just continue my present course which has proven to be quite effective though it is extremely frustrating to you. <<<

Maybe your course of writing long messages throwing slanderous accusations around has been quite 'effective' if by 'effective' you mean they were effective at entertaining youself. You may get a kick out of twisting an argument around to make someone else look bad, or thinking up an unreasonable accusation to accuse someone of something.

If you mean your messages have been effective at convincing others, I dont' see where they have. No one seems to agree with you that AKelley is a liar. All the comments I've read seem to indicate that other posters don't see evidence for it. I seriously doubt anyone but yourself has read all of your long accusations. Maybe the people you slanderously accuse read some of them, but judging by the comments of others on these threads, I doubt they read all of your messages either. Maybe that's why there were so few comments. I doubt anyone but you read all of my comments either. Remember Paul's comments about 'speaking into the air?' Probably a lot of your massive volumes of attacks never really get read by anyone at all except by yourself as your write them. Maybe they are effective at keeping you entertained and busy by attacking other people for whom Christ died.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2000

Danny,

If Jesus called casting out a demon a miracle, and you believe that Christians can cast out miracles today, how can you say that there are no miracles today?

Mark 9:38-39 38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Can you show a verse in the entire New Testament that would indicate that _miracles_ will cease?

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2000

Danny,

If casting out demons is included in 'operation of powers' then it doesn't need to be listed as a separate gift.

Hmm... The idea of regular Christians being able to do miracles by the power and grace of God...

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

On Daniel 9:20-27, sealed up can refer to the idea of being authorized. Besides 'prophecy' in 'seal up vision and prophecy' is actually 'prophet.' Look at 'wnaabiy' below, which means 'and prohpet.'

Daniel 9:24 shaabu`iym shib`iym nextak `al-`amkaa w`al-`iyr qaadshekaa lkalee' hapesha` uulhaateem* xaTaa't* uulkapeer `aawon uulhaabiy' tsedeq `olaamiym wlaxtom xaazown wnaabiy' wlimshoxa qodesh qaadaashiym.

I am glad to see in your writings that you believe that the coming of the Lord is a _real_ future event. You refered to Zechariah 13, which speaks of prophets and the spirit of uncleaness being removed from the land.

Notice that the chapter begins with 'on that day.' If you look at the verses previous to this, in chapter 12, you can see that the context relates to when the Jews mourn concerning after they _look on Him whom they have pierced._ Now compare this to the wailing and looking on Him Whom they have pierced in Revelation 1:7.

Some take Zechariah 13:1 and the fountain being opened up to the crucifiction of Christ, but after that time, there were still prophets.

Secondly, 'prophet' is used in the Old Testament to refer to both true prophets and false prophets. The passage talks about prophets putting on a garmet _to deceive._ It also mentions the spirit of uncleaness. Israel had suffered from prophets who were really false prophets before this.

Btw, how do you interpret the book of Revelation? Do you believe it refers to future events?

-- Anonymous, September 23, 2000

Alan, You said, "the problem with baptism and Christianity is that it was meant for Jews, not Gentiles." If this is the case, then why did Peter say that baptism was for all who were far off (Gentiles) in Acts 2:39? Why was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized (Acts 8)? Or the Phillipian jailer or Cornelius? Why did Paul say in Gal.3:27-28 that ALL who are baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ and there is neither Jew or Gentile...? These are just a few cases where "Christian baptism" was and still is today for EVERYONE. -- Marc Grindle (mgrindle@ll.net), September 17, 2000. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Alan, Paul was happy that he had not personally baptized the Corinthains, lest any should say that he had baptized in his own name. That does not mean they were not to be baptized. Paul baptized Gentiles. He did say that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. That doesn't mean people that repented were not to be baptized. Paul's purpose for being sent was to preach, however. Baptism could be performed by regular Christians, whether by the people in the communities he founded, Paul's travelling companions, or Paul himself. Btw, Paul _circumcised_ Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman, but not Titus a Gentile. Marc, Were the Gentiles refered to as 'as many as are afar off?' Could it be that this refers to the Dispersion, Jews who lived afar off? Would the events of Acts 10 have been such a surprise if Peter were already preaching the converstion of the Gentiles. -- Link Hudson (LinkH@bigfoot.com), September 18, 2000. In response to Marc and Link's replies:

If this is the case, then why did Peter say that baptism was for all who were far off (Gentiles) in Acts 2:39?
First of all, keep in mind that Peter, at this time, was not talking about Gentiles. He was speaking of Jews. The "church" at this time was simply a Jewish sect.

Why was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized (Acts 8)? Or the Phillipian jailer or Cornelius?
Again: The Ethiopian was Jewish. Isaiah 56:4 For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-- 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.
As far as the Phillipian jailer or Cornelius are concerned; these two were Noahides, or Righteous Gentiles. According to Judaism, a non-Jew is only obligated to keep the Seven Laws of Noah (San. 56b), not the entire Jewish Torah. [cf. Acts 15:19-21].

As for Paul's comment in Gal.3:27-28, again, Paul was using a rabbinic teaching here, quoting from the Midrash. Paul knew well the differences in the Law for Jews and Gentiles; he was not saying that the Jews and Gentiles were no longer under the Law, merely that, spiritually, a Gentile can rise to the same heights as a Jew. This too is a rabbinic teaching...remember Paul's background...

Btw, Paul _circumcised_ Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman, but not Titus a Gentile
This is a most excellent point, backing up what I have just said about Paul understanding the differences in the Law for Jews and Gentiles....

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2000

Jesus commanded that the nations be baptized, btw. I don't recall having pointed that out earlier in the discussion.

In response to the last post,

In the first century, there were Jews not eating with Gentiles. I'm not sure on the details, but a friend of mine in an RM Messianic church in Israel who is a grad student in the field, told me that in the first century, the issue of what was required of gentiels was still being debated by the rabbis, and that the 7 principles of the Noachide covenant were formulated later. Acts 15 has some similarities to this type of reasoning. It would seem that James may be refering to the fact that the Old Testament prophecy that the name of the Lord would be called upon the nations, ethnos- as an argument in favor of the idea that the Gentiles did not have to join the nation of Israel through circumcision to be righteous. After all, the name of the Lord would be called upon the other ethnos as well. Interesting to see what is happening being referred to in the Old Testament scriptures.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2000

You are quite correct...the Oral Law (Talmud) was being debated at this time, and was in a state of flux...the argument of whether or not a Noahide could enter the World to Come was a hotly debated topic during this time. Many, if not most, Jews did not like Gentiles (because of Greek, then Roman persecutions). This "hatered without cause" is the main reason the Temple was destroyed and the Diaspora happened, according to the rabbis...

It seems that this was a major point of contention between Paul and the other Jews ...1Thess. 2:14-16 14 For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last


-- Anonymous, September 24, 2000

Alan,

There were Jews in the first century keeping the Torah who were Christians, we agree. But I'd like to go back to your comment about Christian baptism being for Jews. What do you say ot the fact that Jesus told the apostles to baptize all nations, and the fact that Paul, Peter, and others baptized Gentile converts just as Jews were baptized? Paul seems Israel as being baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Other scripture shows us that Moses was a type of Christ.

To comment on that last message, my missionary/student friend in Israel went to the same state school I went to in college. One professor we both had (though not at the same time) had converted to Judaism, and become a rabbi. He didn't believe the Bible was the word of God, and was really liberal. In one class on Judaism, he was talking about the ideas some had for the reason for the Holocaust.

My friend Mike told the professor during a break that he believed there was another reason for the holocaust. He showed the professor the list of blessings and curses in Deuteronomy, and how that fit the holocaust (I've read there is a Bible code for the word for Holocaust in these passage, at the interval of 40.) The professor answered that if someone believed the Bible was the word of God, he didn't see how he could come to any other conclusion.

When the class resumed, the teacher put my friend on the spot. Mike is a fairly bold person, but this is a sensitive issue. Mike pointed out the scripture about the curses for disobeying the Torah. This is a very sensitive issue, and for the rest of the semester, many Jews in the class avoided him, thinking he was anti-Semetic. These werethe people he was wanting to reach.

Later, in Israel not to long ago, a top Sephardic rabbi suggested in a synagogue message that the reason for the holocaust was disobedience to the covenant. This idea was so SHOCKING that it made the front page of the newpaper. This is truly a sensitive issue.

later, Mike was on a park bench discussing this issue with a Jewish woman he knew. She was disgusted by the rabbi idea, and asked Mike what he thought of it. The woman said that even if the Torah itself said that he Holocaust was because of sin, she would not accept it. Mike, realizing that this was a serious issue, proceeded very carefully. First, he talked about the captivity, with Israel adn Judah being taken away by Assyria and Babylon, and the reason being their disobedience to the covenant, and then idolatry. The jews were in captivity for several generations before they were allowed to return to their homelad. But in 70 AD, the temple was destroyed, and a few generations later, the Jews were scattered, not only for a few generations, but for many, many centuries. Why would God allow this to happen? The Jewish woman was uncomfortable with this idea.

-- Anonymous, September 24, 2000

Danny,

Just because others have accused brothers in Christ for being Gnostics, although they did not hold to Gnostic doctrines, that doesn't mean it is right for you to do it. If these other accusers jumped off a bridge, would you do it?

The early church was charismatic- and I mean that in the literal sense. I don't mean they had Praise bands playing Hosanna music and all the cultural trappings. But there were people with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including such gifts as prophecy. Yet the church in Jerusalem was not a Gnostic church. Paul didn't plant Gnostic churches. They didn't hold to Gnostic doctrines. They held to Christian doctrine.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2000

The point I am making is that the "Church" described in Acts was a Jewish sect. "Christianity", as we know it now, did not exist. It took hundreds of years for the theology to develop...
....the Gentiles who believed in Jesus were considered Noahides...ger toshavs. A ger toshav was a "righteous Gentile"; a non-Jew who kept the Seven Laws of Noah. The debate over "baptisim" was whether or not a ger toshav should be baptized...

As far as Matt. 28:19, yes, Jesus told the disciples to go and teach what he had taught. The problem is, Jesus taught the Torah, not Christian theology...

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2000

Alan,

Where are you getting your information?... try as I might, I cannot find what you are saying in my Bible.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2000

I find it interesting that in one thread, Alan says that the New Testament is corrupted and cannot be trusted, and in this thread he uses it to support his views. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Cecil.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2000

Where are you getting your information?... try as I might, I cannot find what you are saying in my Bible.
Marc

Marc: I get my information from sources such as the Talmud.

I find it interesting that in one thread, Alan says that the New Testament is corrupted and cannot be trusted, and in this thread he uses it to support his views. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Cecil.
John Wilson

I draw the line as far as looking at the NT as being "Scripture". The books of the NT were not written as Scripture, nor looked at as such in the early church. As far as a record of what was taught, it is useful. But to use the NT to overrule the Torah; no way.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2000

Peter considered Paul's writings as Scripture, on the level with the Tanakh, as I have shown. Paul considered his own writing to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, a direct revelation from Jesus Himself, as brother Saffold has shown. These were men of the first century, as well as the early church's foremost leaders, which puts the final nail in the coffin of your unsupported claim that the early church did not consider these writings as Scripture. If the leaders of the first century church believed their writings were Scripture, then most certainly the rank-and-file believers did also. To even suggest otherwise is ridiculous on the face of it.

Further, I would like to submit the following paragraph into evidence, which you may find interesting since it was written by a Messianic Jewish scholar to his own people:

At Messianic Jews [Hebrews] 8:6 most translations inform us that the New Covenant "has been enacted" on the basis of better promises. This would be an adequate translation were the subject mere Athenian legislation or Roman decrees. But the Greek word used here, nenomothetjtai, is a compound of nomos, which can mean "law" generally but in the book of Messianic Jews always means the Torah specifically, and tithjmi, a common word meaning "put" or "place". The only other appearance of nenomothetjtai in the New Testament is a few verses earlier, at 7:11, where all agree that it refers to the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai ... Therefore ... the New Covenant "has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises." This ... makes the New Covenant given through Yeshua Torah in the same sense as is the Sinaitic Covenant given through Moshe.

Dr. David H. Stern, PhD, The Jewish New Testament, Introduction, p. xxiv

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Just curious....do you place the Torah over let's say....the Prophets....(either former or latter)??

Of course I do! G-d does, certainly. All the Tanach, the Prophets and the Writings, point back to the Torah. It is the foundation of the entire Bible....

Peter considered Paul's writings as Scripture, on the level with the Tanakh, as I have shown. Paul considered his own writing to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.... Peter did not say that. And Paul said that he had no commmandment from the L-rd. 1Cor. 7:25.

As far as the quote from the Min; Heb. 8 is speaking of the Moabic covenant, which is found in Deut. 29-30. It has nothing to do with Christianity. A point to ponder: Heb. 8:5 shows that Moses looked into Heaven, and copied what he was shown was in Heaven. What's in Heaven then? St. Peter's Basillica? The Apostle's Creed? The Westminister Confession of Faith? Nope. Moses copied the Torah, and the Tabernacle....The Torah is the Word of G-d. The Torah is what Jesus taught. Jesus and Moses are on the same team, on the same side. Why is this concept so hard to grasp? Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, not a Christian preacher....

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

You wrote, "Peter did not say [he considered Paul's writings as Scripture]. Peter did indeed, and said as much in as many words. What else could his words mean, when he wrote very plainly, "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). You would do well to heed Peter's solemn words.

You further wrote, "And Paul said that he had no commmandment from the L-rd. 1Cor. 7:25." This is just flat out deception on your part. It is obvious from the context of the verse you point to that Paul said he had no commmandment from the L-rd on that particular issue. Not that he had never had one. And any honest reading of Paul's writings clearly shows he often says that his words are not his owns but have been received from the L-rd.

Since the entire context of the book of Hebrews, especially this and the preceding chapter, concerns the Mosaic covenant, the burden of proof that Hebrews 8 speaks of a Moabite covenant and not the Mosaic covenant is on you, all New Testament scholars (including the one I quoted) to the contrary.

Jesus Himself overruled the Torah on many occasions. In the Sermon on the Mount, he quoted again and again from the Torah, using the words, "you have heard that it was said". But then he goes on and says, "But I say unto you." This was totally unlike the Prophets or Rebbes, who always said, "Thus saith the L-rd." In saying "This is what I say," Jesus put his own words above the Torah, elevating his own words to the very words of G-d. (Which did not go unnoticed by the Jewish leaders of the day, as both the Gospels and Talmud attest).

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Methinks we need a new thread...this one is really getting long...and taking forever to load...

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Alan,

I Corinthians 7 relates contains commandments of the Lord given through Paul. On that one issue, Paul gave his advice as a faithful servant though he did not have a commandment from the Lord. We have to take these things into account when interpreting the passage.

You make it sound as if Paul was saying he didn't have any commandments of the Lord. that is a misleading statement. I can think of two things in I Corinthians that are specifically called commandments of the Lord.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Methinks you're avoiding the questions and ducking responsibility for your deceitful rhetoric.

(There's an old saying we have out here in the West: Mess with the bull, you'll get the horns.)

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

You make it sound as if Paul was saying he didn't have any commandments of the Lord. that is a misleading statement. I can think of two things in I Corinthians that are specifically called commandments of the Lord.

Link: WHY do you believe that Paul recieved commandments from the L-rd? G-d gave out his commandments in the Torah...period. Paul was basing his teaching on that...not on much-later developed theology.

Methinks you're avoiding the questions and ducking responsibility for your deceitful rhetoric.

I'm being as straightforward as I can be.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

WHY do we believe that Paul received commandments from the Lord? Alan, I will tell you why: Because Paul himself says so. Paul does not say "I am basing my teaching on the Torah." No, he said, "I give this command (not I, but the Lord)" (1 Corinthians 7:12).

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it [i.e. I didn't learn it in Torah school]; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11- 12)

"However, as it is written: 'No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him' -- but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit." (1 Corinthians 2:9-10)

"In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations [i.e. in the Torah] as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets." Ephesians 3:4-5

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

Alan,

Jesus is the Messiah. He was prophesied of in the Tanach. Christ promised to send forth prophets, wise men, and scribes. He also sent forth apostles. The Messiah told of the church that He would establish.

Paul was one of the Messiah's messengers. He had a special role in bringing the Messiah's message to the Gentiles.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

For those lurkers who are confused with the terminology: The Torah refers to the first five books of the Old Testament, also known as the Pentateuch. The Tanakh is the entirety of the Old Testament, including the Torah.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

Although I usually like to write my own stuff, this is too good to pass up. It is from the B'nai Noah website, at
http://www.noahide.com/flier.htm
Who is the Son of G-d?

This "Suffering Servant" Holds the Key to Your Salvation

You were created so that you could recognize your Creator, love Him, and serve Him here on earth. But do you know Who G-d really is? The answer to this question surprises many people.
It is an easy mistake to think that one is worshipping the one, true G-d, while actually serving a false one. To help prevent this mistake, G-d described Himself in the Bible, warning us to remember how He appeared when He gave the Ten Commandments:
And the Eternal spoke to you from the middle of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form, only a voice.... And guard your souls carefully, for you did not see any form on the day the Eternal spoke to you in Horev from the middle of the fire, lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any physical shape, the form of a man or woman (1).
In other words, G-d has no physical shape. He is infinite and unlimited, and never appears in the form of any human.
Nor does G-d have any "partners." He alone is the only One Who brings us eternal salvation, as He says in the Bible:
Am I not the Eternal? And there is no other god besides Me -- a just G-d and Savior; there is none else. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am G-d and there is none else (2).
Anyone who makes the mistake of worshipping a man for spiritual salvation will be betrayed (3). Eternal life comes directly from G-d, Who is One and infinite, and not through any mediator.
G-d's Firstborn Son

So how has G-d brought His message of truth to the world? According to the Bible, G-d declares that He does have a special son whose mission is to bring His blessings and His salvation to the entire world.
Who is this son? Many religious leaders have offered their opinions on the identity of His son, but really we should find out G- d's "opinion" on this matter.
In the book of Exodus, G-d openly proclaims His son to the world: "Thus says the L-rd: My firstborn son is Israel" (4).
"Israel" is the Jewish people -- all of them. The Jews were chosen by G-d to be His special "son," to be, in the words of the Bible, "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" for the whole world (5).
All people are G-d's children, of course, but the Jews are like a "firstborn son" who brings G-d's Word to his younger brothers. Every person who learns from the Jews, and helps them fulfill their special role, becomes a part of G-d's kingdom.
Unfortunately, many times people have not listened to the Jews. For many centuries, the Christian church killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews -- men, women, and children -- to prevent their holy message from reaching the rest of the world. Today, church leaders still try to silence the Jewish message by sending missionaries to convert Jews to Christianity!
The Bible tells us that the Jews would suffer greatly, not just for their own sins, but also for the sake of bringing G-d's Word to a rebellious world:
"Comfort, comfort my people," says your G-d. "Persuade Jerusalem and call to her, for her time is full, for her sins have been repaid; for she has received from the hand of the L-rd double for all her sins" (6).
Salvation Through the Law
The Jewish people have been taught the secret to eternal life and blessings for all people, and now they finally have the freedom to reveal G-d's message.
According to that message, the key that unlocks the door to a personal relationship with G-d is His Law -- one part for the Jews, the other part for the rest of the world.
At Mount Sinai, G-d gave the Ten Commandments (and hundreds of others) to the Jewish people. These laws apply only to the Jews in their special role as the world's spiritual leaders. But for everyone else, G-d gave the Seven Commandments (and dozens of other laws). These commandments were given to Noah, after he left the ark that saved his family from the great flood, as an eternal covenant with all the peoples of the earth (7). Since Mount Sinai, the Jews have carried the message of these seven laws to all the peoples. A non-Jew who follows these commandments is called a Child of Noah, and he receives both eternal life and G-d's blessings in his earthly life. By doing good works exactly as G-d commands, he earns a close relationship with his Creator. A Child of Noah celebrates certain "Old Testament" holidays, not Christian holidays. He prays to G-d in the proper way, according to G- d's instructions. He also helps the poor, and he guides his fellow humans -- including non-religious Jews -- back to G-d's Law. A Child of Noah learns how to redeem every part of his life from the emptiness of modern existence, becoming a "soldier" in G-d's spiritual army.

The Messiah's Message to the World

By asking the Jews for spiritual guidance and turning back to "Old Testament" Law, a Child of Noah also accomplishes the most important task of all: He helps bring the Messiah to redeem the entire world. The Messiah is a Jewish king who will gather all the Jewish people to Israel, destroy all evil, rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, and bring true freedom to the world by returning everyone to the Law. He will institute G-d's eternal kingdom here on earth. The Messiah will teach the Word of G-d to all nations, causing Christianity and all other religions to disappear. The Bible says that everyone will become a Child of Noah, thirsting for the ancient Truth:
O L-rd, my strength and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of distress, gentiles will come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'We have inherited only lies from our fathers, vanity and things which are not useful. Can a man make gods for himself, and they are not gods?' Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this time I will let them know My hand and My strength, and they will know that My Name is Hashem (8). An Urgent Call to Action In the book of Genesis, G-d told Abraham that his descendants, the Jewish people, would bless the world with the light of G-d's Word. Only by turning to the Jews can anyone join G-d's holy kingdom: And I will bless those who bless you, but I will curse those who curse you; and through you all the families of the earth will be blessed (9). G-d promised Abraham that this covenant of priesthood would apply to all the Jews, forever: And I establish my covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you, throughout their generations, for an eternal covenant (10). Regardless of your race, religious background, or nationality, G-d is calling on you to help the Jewish people bring the Messiah. You don't have to be Jewish to help; in fact, the Children of Noah can serve G- d in special ways that Jews cannot, since G-d's Law is stricter for Jews. You can start today, simply by asking for more details. Don't miss this exciting opportunity!
References:
1) Deuteronomy 4:12, 15-16.
2) Isaiah 45:21-22.
3) Psalms 146:3.
4) Exodus 4:22.
5) Exodus 19:6.
6) Isaiah 40:1-2.
7) Genesis 8:20 - 9:17.
8) Jeremiah 16:19-21.
9) Genesis 12:3.
10) Genesis 17:7.


-- Anonymous, October 03, 2000

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6, NASB)

Just a thought!

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2000