Just wanted you to know that the 2000 Minneapolis PK conference was great. Josh McDowell hit a homerun with his sermons.

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2000

Answers

Oh man.....I missed it!!

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2000

Lee....

Not only is PK un-Christian....it is "anti-Christian."

How?? Any group that dissuades people from being obedient to the gospel by not allowing any of its literature or speakers to even breath the word "baptism"......is "anti"....the gospel.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2000

Jon....

I've never been to a bar either....guess I can't criticize what goes on there??.....never been to a Mormon church, J.W's....etc...etc....etc...

Why can't PK baptize....if they REALLY want to share the gospel? Numerous offers have been made to them for FREE portable baptistries which they have consistently refused. That is FACT Jon....not hearsay.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Michael....

Please explain....how one can be "so doctrinally correct...that they lose their faith?"

How can one have faith without correct doctrine??

It seems to me that you have more "faith in faith."

The Mormons also teach wonderful family values and did long before PK ever showed up. Ever thought about attending one of their family camps???

I know what you are going to say....and all I got to say is...."Ah...ha".....so doctrine DOES make a difference.

Now you get my point.

You simply allow your "foul line marker" to be a little less straight than mine.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Well....

It appears that the "Vineyard Movement" working under the auspices of P.K. again fails to do what it could not do on it's own...i.e., "bring unity through an outpouring of the Holy Spirit."

Rodney King has done more good.

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000

Brethren:

Brother Demastus and many of the rest of us have already discussed this issue of whether a faithful Christian should support the PK organization which clearly is not a Christian organization and is teaching the false doctrine of salvation by faith only without obedience to the gospel of Christ. I refer all those concerned about that subject to the exhaustive discussion of the matter in the archives.

Now we know that those who do not obey the gospel will be lost eternally (2 Thess. 1:8,9). Even though Brother Demastus knows that the PK organization is opposed to the gospel of Christ by promoting the false doctrine of faith only he continues to support and promote those who are under the curse of God because of their false doctrine. I have urged him to try to teach these men in the PK organization the truth of the gospel. But all he does is promote and praise their false teaching at every possible opportunity that he has to do so. For this reason he he just wanted us to know the following:

Just wanted you to know that the 2000 Minneapolis PK conference was great. Josh McDowell hit a homerun with his sermons.

Now, I would be interested to know just what Brother Demastus thinks is a homerun in the spiritual field of play? Paul said, But though we or an angel from heaven (this includes Mr. McDowell) should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if ANY MAN (including Josh McDowell) preacheth unto you any other gospel than that which ye have received let him be anathema. (Gal. 1:8,9). Now, if Mr. McDowell preached the gospel of Christ and called upon his hearers to Believe it (Mark 16:16) Repent of their sins (Acts 2:38; 3:19) confess Christ (Matt. 10:32,33; Romans 10:10) and to obey the gospel of Christ by being baptized for the remission of their sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:10-13; 8: 25- 40; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-6,17; Gal. 3:26,27; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3- 5; Heb 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21) then, though I might use more scriptural terminology to describe it, I could see that such would be a spiritual homerun for a preacher of the gospel. Especially is this true if his hearers were pricked in their hearts and asked men and brethren what shall we do? and upon being instructed to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins they immediately and humbly obeyed. Now that would be something to be excited about and to announce to all faithful Christians in every place!

But when someone preaches an exciting sermon. And that sermon is in support of the agenda and purposes of an organization dedicated to the teaching of the false doctrine of salvation by faith only without obedience to the gospel, he is teaching another gospel than the one given by Christ and that we received from the apostles. This can only be viewed by those faithful to Christ as a terrible tragedy and a promotion of the designs of Satan to lead men away from Christ by deception and guile. Such a preacher should either repent or be anathema. But he certainly should not receive praise and support from one that knows the true gospel of Christ. Now, Mr. McDowell may simply be deceived himself and therefore should be taken aside and taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. But it appears Brother Demastus has failed to teach Mr. McDowell the way of the Lord more perfectly when he could have at least tried to do so. And has instead returned to promote this organization that is teaching a gospel that is contrary to the gospel of Christ among his faithful brethren.

The apostle John told us, whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the teaching the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man (including Mr. McDowell) cometh unto you and bringeth not this teaching, RECEIVE HIM NOT INTO YOUR HOUSE, and GIVE HIM NO GREETING: For he that giveth him greeting PARTAKETH IN HIS EVIL WORKS. (2 John 9-11).

So, I am not impressed by Brother Demastus partaking in the evil works of the PK organization, which promotes actively a gospel contrary to the precious soul saving gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. I encourage all to read the lengthy discussion found in the archives concerning Christians supporting this PK organization which is teaching a gospel other than that which we have received from Christ our Lord through the apostles whom he sent.

Brother Demastus just wanted us to know that the PK Conference- where they teach a gospel other than the gospel of Christ. The PK Conference where they promote actively the false doctrine of salvation by faith only which has deceived thousands into believing that they were saved from their sins when in fact they are yet lost in their sins. He wants us to know just how GREAT it was at this PK Conference to hear another gospel and see thousands be deceived into thinking that they are saved from their sins without obeying the precious gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation. (Rom. 1:16). Ha!

Such a victory for Satan is not great brethren. It is a grave tragedy when men are taught lies in the name of Christ our Lord and a servant of Christ calls it a GREAT event! Instead of being ashamed of working to promote the enemies of Christ and the truth Brother Demastus is proud to promote them. He is a partaker with them in their evil deeds and will be anathema with them if he does not repent. I urge all of you that are faithful to Christ to call upon this brother to repent of partaking in the evil deeds of those who preach another gospel than the gospel of Christ. I surely call upon him to turn from such evil.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2000

You guys are ranting that same old tirade again.

IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO HAVE BEEN AT A PK EVENT, you would have clearly heard the official PK stance. In Oklahoma City, the crowd was CLEARLY told that those who made professions of faith at the meeting were REQUIRED to join with a local church to make a public profession AND TO BE BAPTIZED. It was further explained that it was the LOCAL CHURCHES, not PK's, responsibility to baptize the new believers.

On a different thread, you complained about Christians who repeat rumors and gossip without checking facts. Time to point your finger at yourselves. Plus, once again you would strain out a gnat and miss the camel. For the majority of men who go to these events, it is one of the few (and maybe only) chances to hear the Gospel in one sitting. I doubt that you would rather be so doctrinally correct that you would prefer to see men go to hell. I am getting rather tired of hearing people criticize something that is doing good because it doesn't fit into their narrow doctrinal blinders.

Next time, go yourself, take notes, and hear what the people have to say for themselves.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2000

Amen, Dr. Jon,

If getting out the Gospel were dependent on just CC/CoC people, can you estimate the number of people who would NEVER HEAR the Gospel?

That's why the work of the Gideons is so valuable, also and they, too, state that it is the church's role, not theirs, to baptize.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2000

On the day of Pentecost did Peter send everyone home to be Baptized?

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2000

I can't forget one of E. Lee's postings a month or so ago, where he said one of his most successful 'presenting of the Gospel' episodes was when he just gave some friend or friends the Bible and let them read it for themselves.

I promptly agreed with him, and pointed out that THAT is what we Gideons do. Boy, did that thread disappear fast!

I always wonder why the Holy Spirit would have less power than we do?

;-)

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Lee...

While attending the conference, there were protestors outside. Namely, atheists who held signs that read, "Trust in yourself, not in a god" and "The Bible is a fable." There were also some feminazis...I mean, feminists who held signs that read, "Patriarchy is NOT a family value" and "Promise Keepers hurts children" (one which I can not figure for the life of me.)

You would have counted yourself among them my friend and do. You can take your stand with the atheists and feminazis of this world in completely inconsistent stance for correct doctrine and think all is well with the world. But I had a great time.

I had great fellowship with the guys I went with and we were challenged to be better men of God and better husbands and better fathers. Guess what else...I didn't like everything I saw and heard. But to be honest, I liked more of what I heard attending the PK event than I like watching the local dogmatic pit bulls on this forum.

Your stance is one of impossible consistency. Every hymn you sing was not written by an armenian and every book you read surely has Calvinism sprinkled throughout.

You know what I find as completely humorous, I remember one time being visited by a relative of mine in the ministry when I lived in IL and he didn't want to listen to the Christian radio station because it wasn't RM!!! Come on! We have got to grow up.

You see my relative would rather have listened to pagan music than to be encouraged by some Christian lyrics of praise. The fact of the matter is many in the restoration movement have become so doctrinally correct that they have lost their faith.

Be numbered with the atheists and feminazis Lee, but I am a better man-father-husband as a result of having gone to Minneapolis. Josh McDowell's sermon was a "homerun" because he preached an unswaveringly Bible message about being the kind of dad that turns his heart towards his son. You should have been there, you might have learned something. But if you find the company of atheists and feminazis more acceptable, so be it.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Preach it, Michael!!!

Another inconsistency is that some would rather go to an "R' rated movie, (or watch it on TV), or to Disneyland (I've been there, before it became what it is today), than go to a PK rally or hand out a Gideon Bible, or listen to Christian Praise music on radio. Or watch Blly or Franklin Graham!

I'm still praying that the Spirit will come down with Holy Fire on this forum. Reason doesn't work.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Dr. Jon:

I explained in the very beginning of my post that we had discussed this issue concerning the PK organization at considerable length in this forum and that anyone interested in the details of this matter could go to the archives and read about it. I make that suggestion to you again. The title of the threads wherein this matter is exhaustively discussed is:

What About Promise Keepers and How Does God Work anyway? I think you may not have researched this matter in those threads before writing your present post because I did not give the exact title of the threads where this discussion could be found. If you had you would have seen that we have clearly examined the facts concerning what is taught at a PK Convention concerning how one is to become a Christian. And we have shown that it is opposite to what the Bible teaches about that matter.

Nevertheless you have said:

You guys are ranting that same old tirade again.

It seems here that you have read some of our discussions of this matter but have ignored most of it. For we are not ranting as you claim. We did not bring this subject up. It is a PK supporter who initiated this thread and we are responding to his words. WE will resist anything that opposes the truth at all times, Dr. Jon. For that reason you are likely to meet with consistency such as this. If you are looking for that to change you are doing so in vain. For we will ever contend for the truth when it is opposed and you and the rest of the world can just get used to it. That is the way it is.

But you continue the same old false accusations that we have met and answered numerous times as follows:

IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO HAVE BEEN AT A PK EVENT, you would have clearly heard the official PK stance. In Oklahoma City, the crowd was CLEARLY told that those who made professions of faith at the meeting were REQUIRED to join with a local church to make a public profession AND TO BE BAPTIZED. It was further explained that it was the LOCAL CHURCHES, not PK's, responsibility to baptize the new believers.

No one has denied that the PKs tell their people to join a church any church regardless of what doctrine they teach, whether it is the truth of the word of God or not, matters not to the PK organization. Nor do we deny that they encourage baptism as a rite of admission when joining some denomination but this is contrary to the teaching of Christ through the apostles who never taught anyone to join a church by being baptized as a rite of admission. Instead they taught that baptism was for the Remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and that it was essential to their salvation (1 Peter 3:21). They baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26,27) wherein resides salvation (Acts 4:12). Christ said words that are contrary to the official stance of the PK organization when he said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16). The one thing they will not allow is for a preacher of the Gospel to preach that gospel of Christ and call upon their audience to obey that gospel right then and there before it is everlastingly too late for them to do so.

And your assumption that none of us have ever attended a PK convention is not supported by the facts. I have attended at the request of a friend. And while there contended with the false doctrines that were being taught there and my friend was persuaded afterward to obey the gospel of Christ and is now a faithful Christian. Now, he will attend such events only if he is allowed to tell people the truth about what they must do to be saved from their sins. Please notice that I have never advocated that not any Christian should attend a PK conference. I have only advocated that if they chose to attend they should do so with the purpose of teaching the way of the Lord more perfectly to those who have been taught a gospel that is different than the gospel of Christ. This, any Christian should do regardless of where he might find himself. Rather, we have those who are attending with no such intention to contend for the faith. Then they return to this forum with no better object than to praise" these false teachers for their work and encourage their fellow Christians to support their efforts.

Then you say:

On a different thread, you complained about Christians who repeat rumors and gossip without checking facts. Time to point your finger at yourselves.

We continue to complain about Christians who spread rumors and gossip regardless of whether they have checked out the facts. And if we are guilty of such things ourselves the finger of God is already pointing at us. But there is no such thing happening in this thread where I and others have responded against the PK organization and we have said nothing about them that we have not already proven to be the truth in the threads to which I have referred everyone to read. So this accusation of spreading gossip and rumors" is nothing but a Red Herring and as a teacher you know what that is.

Then you accuse us of straining gnats":

Plus, once again you would strain out a gnat and miss the camel. For the majority of men who go to these events, it is one of the few (and maybe only) chances to hear the Gospel in one sitting.

That is just our Complaint, Dr. Jon. They come this one time in their entire life and this presents a magnificent opportunity for them to hear the gospel in one sitting but instead they hear a false doctrine in the place of the precious gospel of Christ that will save their souls. And, to make matters worse, there are brethren present that could do something about that and instead they rejoice to have it so! I cannot for the life of me determine just how you have concluded that this is staining at a gnat when we are "complaining" about the absence of the CAMEL!

Then you express doubts about us as follows:

 I doubt that you would rather be so doctrinally correct that you would prefer to see men go to hell.

Now that statement just does not make sense to me at all. You are normally a very sensible man and reasonable and I hold you in the highest esteem for your usual unbiased reasoning. Therefore I am fully convinced that you did not mean to imply, as it appears from this statement that men can truly be so doctrinally correct as to actually go to hell" for it! It is false doctrine that will lead men to hell, Dr. Jon. It is not doctrinal correctness that causes men to prefer that their fellow men go to hell. If that is what we preferred, because of our doctrinal correctness, we would simply join with brother Demastus and others in rejoicing. We would rejoice with them that these poor souls who attend the PK meetings have the opportunity to hear the precious gospel of Christ for once in their entire lives are in reality being deceived into believing that they are saved when in fact they are lost. This would cause us great jubilation if this accusation of yours were true. But the fact that we know that a false gospel will not save lost men. And we are not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance and obey the gospel of Christ that they might be saved. We find this deception by the PK organization of these lost souls with a gospel that is other than the gospel of Christ a tragedy! If we did not yearn for them to be saved we would not feel this way at all. In fact, if you read those other threads in the archives you will find that I called upon all of the men in this forum to get with me. And Lets attend these PK conferences to ensure that those who attend once in their entire lives will have the opportunity to hear the truth of the gospel of Christ. I made this offer to Brother Demastus directly but he had no interest and frankly neither did many others who pretend that they care about these lost souls.

Then you say:

I am getting rather tired of hearing people criticize something that is doing good because it doesn't fit into their narrow doctrinal blinders.

No one is criticizing any good done by the Pk organization. No organization that I am aware of is totally evil and productive of absolutely no good whatsoever for anyone in any place at any time. This argument of yours is one of the arguments that I heard years ago in Alabama for joining and supporting the work of the KKK. They were, during that time, very effective against abusive husbands. They would beat them and tar and feather them and I must tell you that there was not much spousal abuse in my neighborhood. But no one who understood right from wrong would have thought that it was acceptable and right to support them because they were in some cases doing good. The "end" dose not justify the "means", Dr. Jon. Satan does not appear to us in his pure form of evil. Rather he appears as an angel of light. Almost anyone can find good things being done by those who are evil. Planned Parenthood does some good things but they fully support the evil of abortion. I am not comparing the Pk organization with the KKK but I am comparing your argument to that of those who did support the KKK in Alabama. But the Pk organization does compare with an organization like planned parenthood in that while they promote good related to parenting they at the exact same time promote the evil of murdering children before they are born which is diametrically opposed to the very idea of parenthood. In like manner, the PK organization promotes good in that they have encouraged men to be honorable and keep their promises and believe in God and Christ. But at the same time they teach a gospel that is contrary to the gospel of Christ and therefore is supportive of spiritual abortion in that they refuse to allow these men to hear the gospel which leads them to be born again in obedience to it. Thus they promote good only to ultimately mislead and destroy the souls of men by deceiving them into believing that they have been born again or saved from their sins when in fact they are yet lost and without Christ or hope in this world.

Then you say:

Next time, go yourself, take notes, and hear what the people have to say for themselves.

Some of us have been and will go next time as well only we will not meekly sit and take notes. Instead we will aggressively preach the true gospel of Christ and lead as many as possible to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 3:19; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Romans 6:3-6,17; Heb. 10:22, and Gal. 3:26,27). We will do this because all who do not obey the gospel will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power. (2 Thess. 1: 7,8).

Now, that the Pk organization teaches salvation by faith only apart from obedience to the gospel of Christ is a fact that we have often proven with their words. I now quote from those words, which I have before quoted in the threads to which I have referred everyone. This quotation, Dr. Jon, is the very result of research, which we have done and you have accused us of failing to do. I now quote from The seven Promises of a Promise Keeper as I did more than once before. That quotation and portions of the context in which I used it follows. This quote gives us the OFFICIAL PK STANCE that you claimed we had not researched as follows:

Therefore I will quote for you from a book entitled  SEVEN PROMISES OF A PROMISE KEEPER Published by Focus on the Family Publishing. Promise Keepers with Bill Bright, Edwin Cole, Dr. James Dobson, Tony Evans, Bill McCartney, Luis Palau, Randy Phillips, and Gary Smalley as contributing editors copyrighted it in 1994. This is a book that most assuredly has the approval of the PK ORGANIZATION for they have the copyright and there is an introduction by Randy Phillips who is the President of Promise Keepers. In his introduction to this book, Randy Phillips, the President of Promise Keepers, ask and answers the question,  ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN? Then, in answer to this question he writes the following, which I now quote in full so that you can have all the documentation that you need about this matter. He writes the following: "ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN?  You need to do five things to become a part of Gods family. If you have not already done these, I urge you, if you are sincerely ready, to do them now: 1. Admit your spiritual need.  I am a sinner. 2. Repent. Be willing to turn from your sin, and with Gods help, start living to please him. 3. Believe that Jesus Christ died for you on the cross and Rose again. 4. Receive, through prayer, Jesus Christ into your heart and life. Pray something like this from the sincerity of your heart: Dear lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner. I believe that you died for my sins and then rose from the grave. Right now, I turn from my sins and open the door of my life. I receive You as my personal Lord and Savior. Thank you for saving me. 5. Then tell a believing friend and a pastor about your commitment." From Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper Copy Wright 1994 by Promise Keepers. Introduction by Randy Phillips, Page 10.

Now, this quotation makes the OFFICIAL STANCE of the PK organization on how to become a Christian abundantly clear. That this official stance is contrary to the scriptures I have made abundantly clear as well in those two threads to which all have been referred. This quotation from official sources supports our claim that they do not teach that we are saved by our obedience to the gospel as the scriptures teach(1 Cor. 15:1-4. instead they teach that we are saved by saying the sinners prayer. They do teach everyone to go and tell a pastor or friend about their belief in Christ so that they can justly say that someone else can teach them what to do to be saved. But they cannot deny leaving these people with the impression that they are saved the moment that they say this humanly devised prayer. Those who follow this plan are not following Gods plan of salvation. This is our concern, Dr. Jon, and this concern is based upon research of the facts in the case and our love for those whom we are convinced are lost in their sins. We do not want anyone to go to hell, Dr. Jon, and for that reason we fight to insist that the truth be taught among those who attend these PK conferences. If you had done your research you would not have falsely accused us of spreading rumors and gossip when we were simply stating the facts and expressing our concerns that the truth be preached at PK conferences.

I again encourage my Brethren who share these concerns to get with me via e-mail and let us organize ourselves and attend these PK meetings with the intent of preaching the gospel of Christ and opposing this false gospel that is taught by the PK organization. Let us do this for the sake of those who will be lost eternally if they fail to hear the truth on this once in a lifetime occasion that they have to hear it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

I can't forget one of E. Lee's postings a month or so ago, where he said one of his most successful 'presenting of the Gospel' episodes was when he just gave some friend or friends the Bible and let them read it for themselves. I promptly agreed with him, and pointed out that THAT is what we Gideons do. Boy, did that thread disappear fast! I always wonder why the Holy Spirit would have less power than we do?

Well, I am glad that you remember something that I have said in this forum. It makes it worth the effort just to know that you heard it! Ha! I think if you were to go back and read that same thread you will find that I had no words of condemnation for the Gideons handing out Bibles around the world. In fact, I had nothing to say about them in the least. My reasons were that I do not know very much about them. But I do know that if any one thinks that they will be saved from their sins simply because they spent their lives handing out Bibles they are sorely mistaken. Unless they obey the gospel of Christ they will not be saved from their sins. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-6,17).

I do however strongly believe that giving one a Bible and allowing them to read it for themselves is very effective in converting men to Christ and I will always hand a Bible to anyone that I believe will read it just because I gave it to them.

But then you say that that particular thread disappeared as if someone deliberately made it go away because I was found agreeing with you that giving Bibles to people is a good thing. Now, you know that nothing could be further from the truth. That tread stayed as long as other threads in this forum and you know it, dont you?

The scriptures assure us, Connie, that the Holy Spirit has much more power that any of us do. So there is no need for you to be confused and wondering about that matter.

For Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Brother Demastus:

You have said:

Lee... While attending the conference, there were protestors outside. Namely, atheists who held signs that read, "Trust in yourself, not in a god" and "The Bible is a fable." There were also some feminazis...I mean, feminists who held signs that read, "Patriarchy is NOT a family value" and "Promise Keepers hurts children" (one which I can not figure for the life of me.) You would have counted yourself among them my friend and do. You can take your stand with the atheists and feminazis of this world in completely inconsistent stance for correct doctrine and think all is well with the world. But I had a great time.

Now, Just how in the world do you determine what I would do if I were at this PK Conference? In fact, you should know because I have told you before that I would attend such a conference in order to teach the truth to those who have never had the opportunity to hear it. So, if I were there I would be inside teaching the truth to those that have never obeyed the gospel even if I had to fight against brethren like you to do it. So I would not have counted myself among the atheist and feminazis as you call them. I may have spent some time trying to convert some of them if time allowed. Which is something you surely did not have the courage to even attempt to do. Those atheist and fiminazes have one thing in common with those who have never obeyed the gospel of Christ. I will read it to you. And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God (your atheist and feminazis as you call them) and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (those poor lost souls inside the PK meeting who have not obeyed the gospel) who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power. (2 Thess. 1:7-9). SO, brother Demastus, you may have found me outside among the atheist and feminazis trying to teach them the gospel of Christ, something you demonstrate that you have not the courage to do. And you would also find me inside with you and the other false teachers trying to teach the gospel of Christ to those in the PK conference that has never obeyed the gospel. But to imply that my being in their company means that I accept what they teach can only be true if I did not resist what they were teaching. In my case, I can assure you that I would resist both the atheist and feminazis as well as the false teachers who are teaching a gospel other than the gospel of Christ inside the PK convention. Yes, those who have not obeyed the gospel have one thing in common with the atheist and feminazis. They both are lost. Those who teach a false gospel also are anathema (Gal. 1:8,9). But what did you do? You left all of those people, the false teachers, the atheist and fiminazis and the poor lost souls who had never heard of the gospel of Christ lost and dying in their sins! You did nothing to help any of them. You did nothing but enjoy yourself. You should be ashamed! Your were surrounded with opportunity and all you can do is return to this forum and praise the speakers who did not teach the lost the truth of the gospel. And condemn the lost protestors without even so much as mentioning a prayer on their behalf that they might learn the truth. You did not oppose them directly and contend with them in any way, now did you? The apostle Paul would have probably went to Jail if he found himself in the same place you were. But you would not have gone to jail with he, now would you? Because you were enjoying yourself, werent you? Yea and all who shall live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

I have more to say, brother Demastus, but for now I must go and take care of my family. Of course you may think that since I am opposed to PK that I am not only a supported of atheist and feminazis as you have falsely accused me in your last post but that I could not by any other means learn to love and care for my family.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

E.Lee, I re-post from above:

Well, I am glad that you remember something that I have said in this forum. It makes it worth the effort just to know that you heard it! Ha! I think if you were to go back and read that same thread you will find that I had no words of condemnation for the Gideons handing out Bibles around the world. In fact, I had nothing to say about them in the least. My reasons were that I do not know very much about them. But I do know that if any one thinks that they will be saved from their sins simply because they spent their lives handing out Bibles they are sorely mistaken. Unless they obey the gospel of Christ they will not be saved from their sins. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-6,17).

No, Lee, I'm the one who believes NO GOOD WORKS can save me. Jesus' shed blood, death and resurrection did that. But i also believe I am to 'walk in good works', among which is getting out the Gospel, and I believe AND KNOW that a Gideon Bible is a very good way to do it.

The reason that thread disappeared was not because anyone made it disappear, but because everyone else was DEAD SILENT on the matter after that, even you, if I recall correctly.

Love in Christ,

Connie

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

The reason that thread disappeared was not because anyone made it disappear, but because everyone else was DEAD SILENT on the matter after that, even you, if I recall correctly.

I explained my silence to you in my last post, Connie. I told you that I do not know anything about the Gideons other than the fact that they hand out Bibles. If I have nothing to say it makes sense to be silent, now doesnt it? But you false implication is that every one was silent because your arguments were so overwhelming that they could not be answered. If you will read the thread again you will find that several people did ask you some very important questions that even you were silent about. But I doubt if anyone was deliberately ignoring you, Connie. I do not know of any case in this forum where you have been ignored because your arguments we so powerful or persuasive.

For Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

If getting out the Gospel were dependent on just CC/CoC people, can you estimate the number of people who would NEVER HEAR the Gospel?

Now this is an assertion, Connie. You expect everyone to believe it just because you say it is true. But we tend, in this forum to believe things that are proven by sufficient evidence to be the truth. Maybe you would like to give evidence to indicate those who are simply Christians and therefore members of the body of Christ, which is the Church of Christ (Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:18,24; Eph. 4:4) will not spread the gospel. The history of the Church of Christ from its beginning on the day of Pentecost until now is one of taking the gospel to the world. In fact, if it were not for the first century Church of Christ we would not know the gospel of Christ at all. There were no denomination backs then to deliver the gospel. The Methodist, Baptist, Catholics, Presbyterians, and other sectarians did not bring the gospel to the world in the first century. There are no denominations now that even knows the gospel much less that can preach it to the world. It was the Church of Christ that did that and it is the Church of Christ that is still doing that today. And if the gospel ever goes out to anyone it will be the church of Christ that will preach it and defend it. Those who do not know the gospel and have never obeyed that gospel cannot spread the gospel. All who have heard that gospel, believed it and obeyed it and remain faithful to it will preach it to the world and defend it against all attacks. And if they do not preach it the world will surely never hear it.

But, I would like to see you tell us just how you know that the Church of Christ will never carry the gospel to the world. We are, even as I write, preaching it in many nations around the world and are especially aggressive in doing so here in our own country. But you have decided, without a shred of evidence, to affirm that we will never do what we have done since the Church began in A. D. 33 on the day of Pentecost and what we are now doing around the world. Such assertions are nothing more than deliberate attempts to insult the body of Christ with false charges just because you do not like the fact that we defend the truth against your false doctrine of salvation by Faith alone. But the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and as such has the obligation of resisting all false doctrine and holding to the faith once delivered to the saints. This we do in every place where false doctrine is taught and Christians are present to meet it. But we would be interested in your estimation that you claim can be made of how many people will NEVER hear the gospel from the church of Christ. We only ask, however, that you prove your estimation to be the truth. If you cannot do this then we will simply accept the fact that it has not been proven and reject it until it is proven.

It seems that you think that no one but the Gideons are giving away Bibles. Yet you appear to have no idea that faithful Christians give many Bibles away every day who know nothing of the Gideons. One does not have to be a Gideon to buy a Bible and give it to someone. It does appear to me, Connie, that you are being a bit self-righteous concerning your work with the Gideons.

I will say this along with Paul, "Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel". This applies to all Christians. If we fail in our duty to obey God in this matter we will be judged for it. I know that not all Christians are faithful in their duty to preach the gospel but I also know hundreds that do it every single day of their lives. They do it at great sacrifice and in many cased serious dangers and in the face of certain persecution. But you speak of these as if they would never carry the gospel to anyone. You make the whole lot of us guilty of failing to obey God in this matter without even one bit of evidence that such is the case with any of us, least of all everyone of us. If you knew some of these that I speak of who are even now preaching Christ inthe face of serious persecution and even death you wopuld be ashamed of the remark that you have made in this matter. These Christians need prayers not insults!

For Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

Mark, you wrote,

On the day of Pentecost did Peter send everyone home to be Baptized?

Well, as good as he may be, to paraphrase a famous Vice-Presidential wannabe, "Josh McDowell is no Peter." ;)

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2000

John, You sure got that right!!

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2000

Brother Demastus:

I now continue my response to your post which, as I told you in my last response that I would do. You have said:

You would have counted yourself among them my friend and do. You can take your stand with the atheists and feminazis of this world in completely inconsistent stance for correct doctrine and think all is well with the world. But I had a great time.

Now, I have already dealt with this but I want all to notice that you rank me and all who oppose the PK organizations teaching the false doctrine of salvation by faith only among the atheists and feminazis. But you do not bother to prove that we are atheists now do you? I do disagree with the teaching of the PK organization concerning how one is to become a Christian as I have shown. The atheist and feminazis disagree with both the PK organization, and myself, and you know it. But you cannot be honest, now can you? If you were honest you would admit that I disagree with the PK organization just as strongly as I disagree with the atheist and feminazis for both of those organizations are causing people to be lost eternally. The atheist for denying the existence of God and the PK organization for rejecting the gospel of Christ and preaching a counterfeit gospel instead. But you seek to put those of us who disagree with you in the camp of supporting atheism.

Then you say:

I had great fellowship with the guys I went with and we were challenged to be better men of God and better husbands and better fathers.

Now, I do not doubt that you had a good time. This seems to have been your primary interest. You speak as if the ONLY way that we can be challenged to be better men of God and better husbands and Better fathers is to go to a PK meeting once a year. And that those who do not go to such cannot gain similar benefits in any other way. Brother Demastus, no yearly PK convention can even begin to compare with a daily scripture convention in the privacy of your own home listening to Gods eternal word as you read and pray and reflect upon His divine precepts.

Then you tell me to guess what else:

Guess what else...I didn't like everything I saw and heard.

Well, now we just could have never guessed that now could we? You certainly did not come in here and tell us anything about the things that you saw and heard that you did not like and why you did not like it. Why dont you just do that, Brother Demastus? Tell us just what you saw and heard at the PK convention that you DID NOT LIKE! Then take some time to tell us just what you actually DID to counter the things that you did not like or were you too cowardly to even attempt to do anything other than give your tacit support to things that you did not like? So far as we have heard from you, it is almost certain that you did nothing!

Then you say:

But to be honest, I liked more of what I heard attending the PK event than I like watching the local dogmatic pit bulls on this forum.

Now, Brother Demastus, you have already demonstrated that honesty is not your strong suit. Why did you not tell the PK organization that there were things that you honestly did not like about their conference? At least, the local dogmatic pit bulls in this forum allow you the freedom to be critical of all that we say and do. But you are not a pit bull now are you? No, when it comes to standing firmly for the truth of the gospel of Christ against false teachers who deliberately teach another gospel you definitely are not a pit bull.

Then you say:

Your stance is one of impossible consistency. Every hymn you sing was not written by an armenian and every book you read surely has Calvinism sprinkled throughout.

Now you do not know much about the hymns I sing. But you will not find me singing any hymns that teach or promote Armenianism or Calvinism though some of them may have been written by either an Armenian or Calvinist. For you see, I will sing hymns that are spiritual hymns that speak the truth. But you on the other hand do not care what hymns you sing and are not in the least concerned if they are spiritual and truthful in what they say. If I detect any false doctrine in a Hymn I do not sing it for it is just as wrong to teach and admonish one another with songs that teach false doctrine as it is to allow preachers like you into the pulpit to teach false doctrine. I have often read books that not only had Calvinism spread throughout but also taught it outright on every page. Unlike you, however, I did not go and highly recommend that book to my brethren because it contained some great things in it. Instead I would, when speaking of the book point out the errors that are in it and in some cases I have even taken the time to write a review of the false doctrines found within those books.

I have not said, and you know this, that we should not attend PK conferences. I have rather said that we should combat false doctrine and preach the true gospel of Christ when we do attend. Just as I do when I read a book. But you on the other hand fully support the PK organization and its goals and its teaching for you have done nothing at any of these meetings to combat the error that is taught there. You will not even tell us just what you found wrong at that meeting and tell us why it was wrong nor have you tell the PK organization that they were wrong. The difference is between seeing and hearing false doctrine and supporting it. We cannot help but see it and hear it in every place that we go but we do not have to support. Promote and condone it. This I will never do.

Then you say:

You know what I find as completely humorous, I remember one time being visited by a relative of mine in the ministry when I lived in IL and he didn't want to listen to the Christian radio station because it wasn't RM!!! Come on! We have got to grow up.

What does that have to do with the subject at hand? We are talking about support of false doctrine and organizations that teach it. As you know, your argument does not apply to me in the least for I am opposed to the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship and I am very consistent in that matter. I do not worship God to mechanical instruments in the assembly, on the radio, at home or any other place. Now my position on that matter is very consistent. And such consistency is a very mature.

Then you unjustly condemn your relative as follows: You see my relative would rather have listened to pagan music than to be encouraged by some Christian lyrics of praise.

I do doubt that one with such aversion to music that is not spiritual in nature would at the very same time fine pagan music acceptable. But this person is your relative and I do not know him or her. But I do know myself and I can tell you that I find little difference between so called Christian Music on the radio and the sounds of what you call pagan music. In fact what I have noticed is that much of the so-called Christian music on the radio is nothing more than Christian words and thoughts put to pagan music and therein I find a great inconsistency!

Then you tell us the facts of the matter as follows:

The fact of the matter is many in the restoration movement have become so doctrinally correct that they have lost their faith.

Now, if this is a fact you have not proven it to be so. You expect us to believe this just because you say it! Do tell us Brother Demastus, as Brother Danny has also asked, how is it that one can become so doctrinally correct as to have lost their faith? I suppose you might also tell us how it is that a measure of doctrinal incorrectness might increase our faith? Now anyone familiar with the scriptures knows that we are taught that if any man hath not the DOCTRINE OF CHRIST he HATH NOT GOD! (2 John 9-11). Tell us just why Paul said, Now I beseech you, brethren, MARK them which cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM.? If one can be so doctrinally correct as to lose his faith then it seems that Paul would have said for us to learn a little false doctrine so that we can remain faithful! Ha! Paul also said, A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:10,11). Paul further states, Now we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from EVERY brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions which he received of us. (2 Thess. 3:6). I suppose that you would have simply informed Paul that it is possible to be so correct in walking after those traditions that one could lose their faith! You no doubt would have made good use of the old worn out pathetic phrase concerning traditional blinders in reference to Paul. I can just hear Brother Demastus now saying, Paul you need to take those traditional blinders off and come to know that a little false doctrine is good for the soul! Ha! There is no doubt in my mind that Paul would have dealt with you according to his very teaching in these passages.

Then you end you ridiculous comments by once again numbering me with the atheist and Feminazis:

Be numbered with the atheists and feminazis Lee, but I am a better man-father-husband as a result of having gone to Minneapolis.

You should be greatly concerned about your manhood, fatherhood, and marital relation if you must run to a PK meeting once a year to shore it up so to speak. It is not occasional emotional conferences that will make one a better man, father and husband, brother Demastus. Rather it is that daily faithful study of and prayerful, humble obedience to the word of God that will do those things. If you had been doing those things daily throughout the year you would not need a Josh McDowell or any other man to shore up you life in these areas. The very fact that you feel such a need is indicative of serious problems that only obedience to Gods word can solve. I do pray for you in this matter.

Then you tell us about the base hit that you call a home run:

Josh McDowell's sermon was a "homerun" because he preached an unswaveringly Bible message about being the kind of dad that turns his heart towards his son. You should have been there, you might have learned something.

When one gets a homerun Brother Demastus, he touches all the bases on the way to home plate. You say he taught a message about being the kind of dad that turns the heart towards his son. But he did not cover the base of how one becomes a Child of God. Becoming a Christian is very important to being a good father that turns his heart towards his son. But did he tell them the truth about how to become a Christian? Or did he tell them the lie that all they had to do was pray the sinners prayer. A father who does not know the truth cannot lead his son to God through Christ. Any man who genuinely cares about his son will care about knowing the truth of the gospel of Christ and teaching it to his son. No man can be a good father that neglects so foolishly the truth of the gospel of Christ and thereby leads not only himself into darkness and confusion but leads his son there as well. I am sure that Mr. McDowell did as good a job as any man who does not know the truth of the gospel can do in reference to turning the hearts of fathers toward their sons. And I appreciate that but I would consider it a base hit and not a homerun. For a homerun would have turned the hearts of these fathers toward their Heavenly father and urged them to obey the gospel so that these fathers could then turn their hearts toward their sons and lead them to their heavenly Father in turn. Now that, Brother Demastus, would have been a Home run. Your problem is that you are so doctrinally incorrect that you do not know the difference between a base hit and a homerun in the spiritual scheme of redemption! The problem is that you are more concerned with earthly relationship between fathers and sons than about heavenly relationships with the Father of us all! I do pray for you.

You conclude with:

But if you find the company of atheists and feminazis more acceptable, so be it.

What do you mean if I find the company of these persons more acceptable? You began your post with these words:

You would have counted yourself among them my friend and do.

Now you express doubt about that matter. This belies your deliberate intent to place me in company of people whom you KNOW I cannot HONESTLY be in placed in company with. This is a case of deliberate dishonesty and that is the same as telling a deliberate lie, now isnt it, Brother Demastus? Would you teach your children to be as dishonest as you have shown yourself to be in this matter? If you would, then I can tell that Joshes homerun did not bring you to the home plate, now did it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

I'm still praying that the Spirit will come down with Holy Fire on this forum. Reason doesn't work.

Now, I want to ask just why it is that the Holy Spirit has thus far denied your request that He come down with Holy Fire on this forum? Is it your desire that he send fire from heaven and consume us all as the Sons of Thunder once requested? Or do you mean that you want the Holy Spirit to baptize us in fire, as John the Baptist spoke about, which is tantamount to calling upon the Holy Spirit to send the entire forum to Hell. (Matt.3: 11,12). Now, I am sure that the Holy Spirit understands your request and I am equally certain that He has thus far denied it.

But the rest of us just do not understand exactly what you mean by this request which you have chosen to tell us about. Are you asking the Holy Spirit to come upon us as he did upon the apostles in the beginning when cloven tongues as of fire appeared sitting upon each of them? (Acts 2:1-4). Have you ever literally seen cloven tongues as of fire sitting upon anyone where you worship? Or are you asking for us to all to be sent to Hell? (Matt.3: 11,12). Or is your request that he should send fire from heaven to consume us all?

It may be that your perception that reason does not work is based more upon the possibility that you have failed to actually reason with us than that you have actually been reasonable and we have rejected it. In fact, it is our perception that we have reasoned with you and you have rejected it. Now you have not proven that we have rejected reason all together. All you have done is state your perception that we have rejected your attempts to reason with us. And even in this case you have not shown that you have in fact been reasonable neither have you shown that you have listened sincerely and genuinely to our reasoning.

The truth is that you have not proven that reason does not work in this forum, now have you? You simply expect everyone to believe this assertion of yours without having offered any reason that we should believe that it is true in the least. And this is an example of what you call reason. Your reasoning takes this form. Connie asserts it and it is therefore reasonable for all to believe it. This is the kind of reasoning that does not work. And the reason that it does not work, Connie, is because it is not genuine reasoning. It is nothing more than mere assertions that you label as reasoning.

Is it possible that even the Holy Spirit rejects your reasons for calling upon Him to come down with Holy Fire on this forum? If it appeared to me that even God, the Holy Spirit, rejected my reasoning I might want to at the very least consider the possibility that there is some flaw in my reasoning.

But I can assure everyone that they will never see the Holy Spirit come down in Holy Fire upon this forum. For he is not doing such things today. And the fact that Connie is persistently calling for Him to do this and the Holy Spirit is persistently refusing to do it is evidence in itself that Connie is expecting things to happen that is contrary to what the Holy Spirit is willing to do. But Connie will probably come back to tell us that the Holy Spirit is not doing this because we do not believe that he will do such things. If that is true then she should wait until she has convinced us by reason to believe such things and then offer her prayers. But then, if reason does not work and she is unable to persuade us to believe such things then this will never happen. Because reason does not work and the Holy Spirit, according to Her, is unable to do these things until we believe. And since we cannot be persuaded by reason to believe such nonsense Connie, by her own words and reasoning, is wasting her time praying for such a thing to happen in this forum. For even according to her thinking he will not do such a thing!

For Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

'Resist not the Holy Spirit of God'....

Where ther's life, there's hope. The question is: "Is there life?"

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

Connie:

I am happy to read your choice to resist not the Holy Spirit as follows:

'Resist not the Holy Spirit of God'.... Where ther's life, there's hope. The question is: "Is there life?"

I am glad to hear that you are no longer going to resist the Holy Spirit in this matter. I suppose that such means that you will accept his obvious will to not come down in Holy Fire upon this forum as you requested and He denied. Indeed where there is life, there is hope and while there is life in you there is always the hope that you will accept the truth of the gospel of Christ and obey it. I am convinced that there is life in you, Connie and you therefore have time and opportunity to accept the gospel of Christ. And this I know is in harmony with the will of God and I will pray for you with the faith that if we ask anything according to his will he heareth us. (1 John 5:13-17).

But we will not expect the Holy Spirit to "come down in Holy Fire upon this forum" since he has denied your request and you have accepted his denial of your request and will not resist His will in the matter.

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

My dearest E Lee:

I re-post:

But we will not expect the Holy Spirit to "come down in Holy Fire upon this forum" since he has denied your request and you have accepted his denial of your request and will not resist His will in the matter.

As some sage said: "It ain't over 'til it's over!" (I hate the word 'ain't').

And actually, I think some are coming to see the error of some of the teaching.

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

Connie:

It would be better for you to follow the scriptures instead of some unknown sage who says such absurd things as the following:

As some sage said: "It ain't over 'til it's over!" (I hate the word 'ain't').

If you hold your breath until the Holy Spirit answers your prayer by descending upon this forum with Holy Fire it will be over for you in a short period of time. And the Holy Spirit will still not have honored your request by coming upon us in this forum with Holy Fire. What do you think is the problem, Connie? What is the Holy Spirit refusing to honor your prayer? Why is he continually day in and day out denying your request to come upon this forum in Holy Fire? Why does He not follow your orders? All of us know that He most certainly has the power to do as you ask but we also know that He is refusing to do it. What do you think is the problem? Is it just possible that Connie is expecting something from the Holy Spirit that He is not willing to do? If he is willing to do this why does He refuse by continuing to deny your request?

It is over Connie. You asked and the Holy Spirit denied your request. It is that simple. But you cannot even comprehend the simple fact that the Holy Spirit has simply said "NO" to your prayer. You do not even consider honoring the will of the Holy Spirit in this matter. The Holy Spirit is able but unwilling to come upon this forum with Holy Fire as you have requested. His answer to you is final and he will not change his mind because He does not support your false doctrine about these things. You could not have received a stronger confirmation that the Holy Spirit is unwilling to do such things than this admission on your part that you have been asking Him to come upon this forum in Holy Fire and he has flatly turned you down! But you learn nothing from the experience, now do you?

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

I will pray and keep on praying. And I hope that others here will join me, for 'Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them'.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Connie:

You will pray and others may join you but it is certian that none of you will hold your breath for this to happen for the Holy Spirit has made it abundantly clear in His inspired word and by His constant refusal to honor your request that it is not His will to come upon this forum in "Holy Fire".

And until he does honor your request we have no reason to believe your false doctrine that it is the "modus operandi" of the Holy Spirit to do such things in any place today.

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

From another RM forum:

Subj: Re: [RM-COUNSEL] Split personalites Date: 10/11/00 5:36:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: dbertram@one.net (Dale E. Bertram) Reply-to: RM-COUNSEL@egroups.com To: RM-COUNSEL@egroups.com

Kelly Jo,

What does SOF stand for?

Dale

----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [RM-COUNSEL] Split personalites

> Harold, > I'm glad you said this...opens the door a bit for me. I grew up in the SOF > CoC (very legalistic) and this is the main reason I am no longer Christian. > In the 25 years I was a member, this is exactly what I saw...abuse. Spouse > and child abuse were the "norm". People in need were told "be warm and be > filled" and turned away without any help. There was no humanity behind those > doors...just book, chapter, verse memorization. Not only did they turn away > nonmembers, I saw 2 employed pastors kicked out the door...cold...for no good > reason other than they had "stayed too long". I have thought about writing a > book on the abuse I saw during those years... but I'm not sure what it would > accomplish, so I just remain silent. I truly believe legalism is spiritual > murder...and once you kill the spirit of the person...all you have left is a > shell...a warm body with no will, no feelings, no desire. I have seen this > same abuse in other churches...but the SOF, CoC does seem to be one of the > worst. > Kelly > > In a message dated 10/11/2000 2:39:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > hmcdonal@onr.com writes: > > Unless those with the compassion of Jesus intervene they are not likely find > HIS healing or release either. > > Kelly, I agree, Those who have suffered the abuse are best equipped to teach, > those who have not been subjected to pain of enslavement of the abuse. > You are also better able to understand the release from suffering and the > joy of knowing there is hope for healing. > You are correct : > > It is up to us to help them... not blame them. > Its up to us to realize, they would do better if they only know and believe > they can > > I pray the day comes when those with a SOF CofC really are a haven for > those > broken by abuse, aptly minister to those with addictive behavior, and > suffer from criminals behavior. > > Sadly that sign often is not a marker for true disciples who have heard > Jesus say > "Come unto me ALL ye that"..... hurt, have no safe home, need hope & healing. > > Most "churches" seem to indeed have split personalities. They want to > portray to the world they are "of christ" yet have no shelter, no trained > pastors to > be true care givers, no provision to minister to the gutter most; and but > proclaim their "christianity" but it is in fact more "be ye warmed & filled" >

> elsewhere). a percrcgoo. > > The collection on the first day of the week also indicates that "split > personality" called "for the saints", but used for structure which is more > vacant than > used.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Connie

How does your last post, (Kelly) strenghten and encourage the Church?

How does it bring Glory to God?

What was your motive behind the post?

Do you accept the opinion of one person as sufficient to condemn a portion of the body?

Is this what you were referring to when you spoke of fire being brought on this forum?

Have you not said in the past, we shall be known by our fruit.

Could this be refered to as an AlGoreisam?

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Connie,

Your last post was sad to say the least. And I can reassure you that this is so far from what I have seen in any Church of Christ I have been a part of.

I have seen nothing but love... yes sometimes people disagree and may even get upset... but love is still shown... a love for the TRUTH!

Because of this kind of love and helping (far from abusive) spirit... I am a Christian and a preacher today... PRAISE GOD!

Let me also let you know that it was some dear lady from the Church of Christ that saw it fitting to send Christian literature to Jeffery Dahlmer (serial killer from WI)... and it was a Church of Christ preacher (non-instumental) that went to see him in prison though he had never done such a thing before.

After sharing and teaching the gospel, Jeffery Dahlmer was baptized into Christ and many changes were said to have taken place in his confussed life before he was killed... Connie, does this sound like the people who were described in your post?

Connie, I know that you do not agree with our doctrine (or should I say the Bible's doctrine as we interpret it)... but that is no reason to try and trash talk us by posting someones experience that you don't even know is true (forgive me if you do know this person personally)... if I looked I could find peole from every religion and denomination that would say similiar things.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Faris,

I do not mean anyone who exhibits the fruit of the spirit.

Bt the way, someone else put the flame on the thread just before my post; I didn't do it. I responded to it.

Faris, unfortunately, there is an awfull lot uf what that woman (Kelly) posted on the other thread evident in the CoC/CC. She was in a CC/CoC church! D. Lee mentioned some incident in the Far East (I've forgotten the country ~ her husband was in the service there ~ where she was treated badly in a CC/CoC church).

I am sad for it. I believe some here are aware of it. I believe some here who have been CoC/CC all their lives are realizing and reacting to it.

There should be NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for the abuse which goes on here in the Name of Christ (supposedly).

If you become 'all things to all men that you might win some' instead of behaving in the abominable way some here do.

Guess what: It's just possible that if there had been a loving, forbearing attitude on the baptism issue that you might have brought me to that position.

I said something very early on to the effect that even though we who might disagree will be driven away, God will send someone else here until some change the unloving way they present their views.

And I do not agree with the politics of the moderator of that board (I guess that was what your reference to Al Gorism was).

He's also RM/CC/CoC.

I am sad at heart for the way a very few here present the Gospel. But too many think the method of those few is O.K.

That is not the only sad, alienated person on that board who is trying to heal from abuse in church situations.

'Brethren, these things ought not to be so!'

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

from above:

I typed that in so fast I didn't 'proof' it:

awfull lot uf

Correction: awful lot of

Marc,

I don't wish to hurt anyone here, but it is far too common to see an attitude which is certainly not from God.

In 42 years of being a Christian, and being involved in three churches and an Inter-Denominational school for 33 years, I have never seen this kind of warfare practiced.

I don't mean anyone who is 'working out their faith with fear and trembling'.

I am praying for eberyone here, and I trust others here are also. Many have indicated a sadness and hurt in their responses here.

God can bring healing and a Oneness of Spirit!

Hope this doesn't post twice.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Connie,

In your last post you said, "I don't wish to hurt anyone here, but it is far too common to see an attitude which is certainly not from God.

In 42 years of being a Christian, and being involved in three churches and an Inter-Denominational school for 33 years, I have never seen this kind of warfare practiced."

Are you saying that it is only in the CofC/CC that these things happen?... forgive me if I am wrong, but this is the impresion that I get from you and I think that this is SO far from the truth!

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

Bt the way, someone else put the flame on the thread just before my post; I didn't do it. I responded to it.

Well, Connie I am glad that you noticed that the Holy Spirit did not put the flame on the thread. You did not do it, I am sure. But most importantly the Holy Spirit did not do it! HA! That is all of the fire you will ever see in this forum Connie and it surely did not come from the Holy Spirit. Probably someone from your camp just cannot bear the fact that the Holy Spirit has denied your request for Him to send fire down upon this forum just had to attempt to do it for the Holy Spirit! Ha! In fact this is exactly what Pentecostals do. The Holy Spirit has denied their request constantly for fire to be sent down from heaven. And they just cannot bear the rejection and therefore they manufacture emotions and stir their people up into a frenzy of emotional fervor and then tell them that such fervor is fire from the Holy Spirit! God denies your request and your friends manufacture a small burning symbol that is far from demonstrating fire from the Holy Spirit. This is the best they can do. God denies them and they reject His will in the matter and seek to pretend that it is so and convince the simple-minded that they have a genuine outpouring of fire from heaven. Such a thing is pathetic and shameful for anyone who claims the name of Christ.

And I do not even now take the time to go into the extreme sacrilegious nature of this response. In fact it appears to have come from an infidel or a complete unbeliever that has no FEAR OF GOD in their hearts. It all borders upon blasphemy of the Holy Spirit doesnt it?

And all you can do is insult every Christian in the entire church of Christ throughout the entire world! Ha! Such bigotry has seldom been found among us. You have no condemnation for this person who has clearly shown a great disrespect for the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. But you can find condemnation for those faithful Christians who serve Christ throughout the world who do not agree with you and have no opportunity to defend themselves from your false charges. This includes those that I mentioned earlier who are even now risking their lives to preach the gospel and are suffering daily serious persecutions simply because they are Christians. Yet you try to leave the impression that you are a loving saint yourself. A greater example of pure hypocrisy could not be found anywhere.

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Does anyone else find this quote disturbing?

"You did not do it, I am sure. But most importantly the Holy Spirit did not do it! HA! That is all of the fire you will ever see in this forum Connie and it surely did not come from the Holy Spirit."

Too make such a statement, and then to gloat about it like that, too. E. Lee Saffold,

You seem very defensive about Connie's post. Don't you recognize that it is possible that there might be congregations of SOF CoC's that fit the description in the post? Don't you think it might be possible that the one who oritinally posted the message actually experienced such things. You take Connie's post as an attack on CoC's worldwide. Think about the Bible for a minute Lee, the 'be ye warmed and filled' is from the Bible. James was writing some believers, or professing believers not to send away the poor with a mere 'be ye warmed and filled. It could take place in James day, but do you not think it could happen in a SOF COC?

A wise man loves rebuke. If this is the impression some people who grew up in SOF CoC's experienced, then this is someting for those in these congregations to consider. Frankly, this seems to be the impression of some portions of the RM that many who are not a part of the movement have. There is no need to be defensive. If this is what people say they experience, then consider the possibility that it is true.

I don't think spiritual abuse an legalism is the exclusive ground of SOF CoC's. There are plenty of other people who profess faiht outside of the RM who are into the letter of the Bible academically, but lack mercy, condemn others, and send the hungry away.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Forgive me for being stupid, but what does the SOF stand for?

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Whoa everybody...

First of all, please re-read your posts and check for spelling (actually typos) before you click submit. Also re-read the posts you are responding to...

For example:

Connie, you said to Faris:

"Bt the way, someone else put the flame on the thread just before my post; I didn't do it."

But Faris was not referring to the actual "flame" picture (Which I posted, by the way, to add a little levity to this thread).

What Faris SAID was:

Is this what you were referring to when you spoke of fire being brought on this forum?

Okay, back to the fray.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Lee,

I just read your post... Sorry about the "flame" pic; it was not intended to be disrespecting the Holy Spirit... If anything it was to make fun of the "Holy Rollers" which is also not very nice.

I believe God has a sense of humor. Therefore, I do not think I have grieved His Spirit by the "flame": perhaps the Spirit got a chuckle over the very idea of someone suggesting that He "enter this Forum" in a fiery way. I certainly did. But I will be careful in the future, (as Algore said recently)

:)



-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

John:

SOF means 'Sign out Front'.

Duane, I thought either you or E.Lee had put the flame there.

I am going to re-post part of that note from Kelly. She was in the CoC for 25 YEARS!!! She claims now to not be a Christian because of the way she was treated in CoC churches!!!

Marc:

No, I have NEVER seen anything like the contentious HATRED I have seen here. I was president of our Mother's Fellowship at our Inter- Denominational School twice and we never had anything like this.

If we disagreed, we spoke the truth IN LOVE, always being careful that we were not guilty of what we were pointing out.

You'd better take it to heart. It is unGodly! It is unChristlike!

Part of my message posted accidenatally, so I'm sorry I'm posting part of it twice.

I do not dislike anyone here. I'm sad for you, that you have been brought up in such a legalistic, unyielding, unloving environment.

There are counsellors all over mopping up after the messes you've made. Please stop it.

In His Holy and Precious Name,

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

I forgot to re-post Kelly's heartfelt statement:

> Harold, > I'm glad you said this...opens the door a bit for me. I grew up in the SOF > CoC (very legalistic) and this is the main reason I am no longer Christian. > In the 25 years I was a member, this is exactly what I saw...abuse. Spouse > and child abuse were the "norm". People in need were told "be warm and be > filled" and turned away without any help. There was no humanity behind those > doors...just book, chapter, verse memorization. Not only did they turn away > nonmembers, I saw 2 employed pastors kicked out the door...cold...for no good > reason other than they had "stayed too long". I have thought about writing a > book on the abuse I saw during those years... but I'm not sure what it would > accomplish, so I just remain silent. I truly believe legalism is spiritual > murder...and once you kill the spirit of the person...all you have left is a > shell...a warm body with no will, no feelings, no desire. I have seen this > same abuse in other churches...but the SOF, CoC does seem to be one of the > worst. > Kelly > > In a message dated 10/11/2000 2:39:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I believe that the intimidating demeanor of some on this forum is a kind of brain-washing. Some people who are not strong in their faith seem to capitulate, just as Patty Hearst did with her captors in the Symbionese Liberation Army. As some 'Prisoners of War' do to their captors. It must work sometimes, or people wouldn't keep doing it. 'Winning Through Intimidation'.

I'll take Vanilla. And Christian behavior ~ love, joy, peace, meekness, forbearance, and all those good things.

I Corinthians 13; Galatians 5; Matthew 5.

In Him and for His Eternal Kingdom,

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Brother Duane:

You have said:

Lee,

I just read your post... Sorry about the "flame" pic; it was not intended to be disrespecting the Holy Spirit... If anything it was to make fun of the "Holy Rollers" which is also not very nice.

I believe God has a sense of humor. Therefore, I do not think I have grieved His Spirit by the "flame": perhaps the Spirit got a chuckle over the very idea of someone suggesting that He "enter this Forum" in a fiery way. I certainly did. But I will be careful in the future, (as Algore said recently)

Duane, these matters that we discuss are serious. And making jokes about the Godhead has no place among Christians. And making fun of the Holy Rollers as you claim to have done is not something that I condone. I believe they are wrong and their souls are in danger because of their errors. The last thing I expected was that someone who knows and understands the truth would be the one doing such a thing as this. Making jokes about those who are lost because of the false doctrine that they believe and taking that joke to the point of using the Name of the Third member of the Godhead in vain. You should apologize to Connie for laughing at her lost condition and ask God to forgive you for making HIM the brunt of your Joke.

Now, I would like to see you prove from the scriptures that God has a sense of humor and if He does have a sense of humor that it is anything like ours. This ignorant way of trying to place God on our level as if he thinks, reasons, and laughs at the same things we would laugh about is absurd and definitely not taught in the scriptures. WE are plainly taught, My thoughts are NOT YOUR THOUGHTS and neither are my ways your ways saith the Lord. AS far as the heavens are above the earth so far are my thoughts from your thoughts and my ways from your ways. (Isa. 55:8,9). Show me from the scriptures where we are taught that God has a sense of humor at all much less that it is anything comparable to our sense of humor. You will find that one hard to prove. One thing you can be sure of is that the Holy Spirit does not get a chuckle out of such a disrespectful way of using His name as a joke! You will never be able to show us a place in the Holy Scriptures that were inspired by the Holy Spirit where anyone spoke jokingly about the Holy Spirit. Never! This is not Christian behavior and it is condemned and we can see the reason that the Holy Spirit warned us against jesting as a work of the flesh. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it NOT BE ONCE NAMED AMONG YOU, as becometh the saints. NEITHER filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor JESTING, which are not convenient: but rather the giving of thanks. (Eph. 5:4). These spiritual matters are not matters to be joking or jesting about. They are serious matters indeed. And the scriptures condemn such foolish jesting as you have displayed. And though you have made an apology you have not repented because your last statement indicates that you see nothing sinful or wrong about such behavior. Well, it is sinful and wrong and you should repent of it. It has no place among Christians. Period.

But none of this justifies laughing at Connie. I have not now nor would I ever make fun of her spiritual condition. I do not agree with her and am convinced that she is in a lost condition, and I say this respectfully as a statement of what I am convinced is a fact in her case. But the one thing I will never do is laugh at her or anyone else who believes as she does. This jesting is wrong and I will have no part in it and do not appreciate it in the least that one whom I know as a faithful Christian would do such a thing. It is disappointing and embarrassing to me as a Christian to know that you were the one to do such a thing. I pray that you will see the wisdom in repenting of such a thing regardless of what you intended in your heart. The act itself shows great disrespect to God and a lack of genuine concern for those who have not obeyed the gospel of Christ that they might be saved.

I do not have a sense of humor, and It may be that I should develop one but if I do I am certain that joking about God will not have a part in it. And if that is necessary to a sense of humor I will just do without it.

If my words seem harsh to you let it be known that they are intended to be a sharp rebuke. If you think I am "unloving" to tell you frankly about these things, you are woefully mistaken. But regardless of what you think your actions in this matter are not justifiable in the sight of God and He will judge you for it. I am simply calling upon you to repent toward God for this sin rather than merely apologize to men for misunderstood intentionsand never do anything like this again for your own sake.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Connie:

You have done nothing more than assert the following:

There are counsellors all over mopping up after the messes you've made.

Prove this statement to be true, Connie.

Your friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Connie,

I did mention a while back about treatment I received while attending a CoC in Japan. I was treated badlybut I do not lump every CoC together and blame them for the actions of the few. I do believe that you can be treated badly by any group of people. The CoC does not have a corner on this market.

You say; There should be NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for the abuse which goes on here in the Name of Christ (supposedly). What abuse??

You say: If you become 'all things to all men that you might win some' instead of behaving in the abominable way some here do. "Some" who are these people? Becoming all things to all men does not mean we are to compromise the truth.

Are you saying by the following that what you perceive to be an attitude is keeping you from obeying the gospel? Guess what: It's just possible that if there had been a loving, forbearing attitude on the baptism issue that you might have brought me to that position. Why would anyone who thinks of herself as mature let the attitude of others keep them her from obeying the gospel?

You say; I said something very early on to the effect that even though we who might disagree will be driven away, God will send someone else here until some change the unloving way they present their views. I am sad at heart for the way a very few here present the Gospel. But too many think the method of those few is O.K. Again with the above words, you accuse they & few. If you must accuse please name names.

You say; I don't wish to hurt anyone here, but it is far too common to see an attitude which is certainly not from God. In 42 years of being a Christian, and being involved in three churches and an Inter- Denominational school for 33 years, I have never seen this kind of warfare practiced. As for the attitude and the warfare practiced AGAIN I will mention Paul and his attitude against false doctrines the warfare he practiced was by far stronger, harsher, and much more blunt than any here have written. This attitude against false doctrine IS scriptural.

God can bring healing and a Oneness of Spirit! NOT if it is not based on truth!

No, I have NEVER seen anything like the contentious HATRED I have seen here. HATRED for false teaching yes. Which is neither unGodly nor unChrist-like. Speaking the TRUTH IN LOVE is also rebuking, and refuting. I'm sad for you, that you have been brought up in such a legalistic, unyielding, unloving environment. You say things like this, and have no idea of what you speak. How do you know youwhoever that ishas been brought up in the environment you speak of? We will not stop no matter how often or loud others claim we are unloving, hateful, or legalistic. As for unyieldingYESwe will not yield to anything false.

There are counsellors all over mopping up after the messes you've made. Please stop it. Often the messes you speak of are the ones who reject the truth and then go around bad mouthing the Church of Christ because they speak the truth, but will not compromise that truth. These people are "messed up" because they reject the truth.

I believe that the intimidating demeanor of some on this forum is a kind of brain-washing. Some againwho is this? If you are bold enough to write accusing some in the forum, be bold enough to name them.

Dont get me wrongI do agree with you that Christians treat one another badly at timesand this should not be so!! But as you can also seeI do not believe this to be the case every time just because someone says it is so.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Duane,

For the record

I too found the post from you with the picture and supposedly signed by the Holy Spirit offensive. I for one do not want to put words so-to-speak in the Holy Spirits mouth.

Also same goes for your latest (it is yours I presume)playing the devils advocate or speaking for him is not something a Christian should do either. I have often wondered why Christians do it. I sure cant see Jesus ever being the devils advocate.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

There are counsellors all over mopping up after the messes you've made. Please stop it. Often the messes you speak of are the ones who reject the truth and then go around bad mouthing the Church of Christ because they speak the truth, but will not compromise that truth. These people are "messed up" because they reject the truth.

No, they are messed up because they KNEW THE TRUTH WAS SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T SEE EXHIBITED IN A CHURCH THEY HAD ATTENDED FOR 25 YEARS! They wanted to be faithful.

There are at least 50 verses which do not mention baptism when mentioning faith and belief resulting in salvation. Most of the verses the CoC uses do not say what you claim. I only found one which does. Since the New Testament HAS BEEN tinkered with by its various translators, I am going to reserve judgment until I ask the Lord at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb.

The message that salvation is by Faith through Grace is there.

In I Corinthians 13, Faith is mentioned; Hope is mentioned; Love is mentioned ~ and the greatest of these is Love. Baptism isn't mentioned, as it is not in many of the most important verses about salvation.

Let's quit arguing about words and GET THE GOSPEL TO ALL THE WORLD!!! They are dying!

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

I don't think Duane did that one, but I could be wrong.

Sounds like Screwtape's advice to Wormwood. (Thanks to C.S. Lewis).

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Connie,

If the Bible said only ONCE..."thou shalt not commit adultery" would you believe it?

Love, Hope, and Faith are not mentioned in all the verses either are they? A subject does not have to be mentioned in all, most, or many of the verses to be truth does it?

You say; "Let's quit arguing about words and GET THE GOSPEL TO ALL THE WORLD!!! They are dying!"

The problem with that is you do not teach the complete gospel. Yes, people are dying...many of them will be eternally lost because they believed a "faith only" gospel, which really is no gospel at all.

"Since the New Testament HAS BEEN tinkered with by its various translators, I am going to reserve judgment until I ask the Lord at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb."

Do you not believe that God can preserve His Word? If you can not trust the N.T. and God's power to keep His word there is little hope and you do not even have assurance of your beliefs and salvation. You are really than no different than Alan who will use certain verses to substantiate his argument, then when we do the same, says that is not inspired and can't be trusted. You are saying basically the same thing when you say the N.T. HAS BEEN tinkered with...

You can know the complete gospel. It is there for you to see, if you would really look instead of always trying to disprove what scriptures say about baptism. BTW...scriptures on love, faith, hope...DO NOT cancel out the ones regarding baptism.

It is late...I see you too are a night owl. I know you won't agree with most of what I have written, but I hope it is readable...no guarantees though...it is so late I can barely think straight.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Lee: You asked to prove from the Scriptures that God had a sense of humor. I can only hope that you were also being humorous. For I see God's mirth throughout the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament. The humorous situations, the biting sarcasm, the wit, the irony; God has a better sense of comic timing than any earthly comic ever could master. Just on a very brief look of the Book,

It was God who inspired Moses to write the following words of Sarah: Sarah said, "God has brought me laughter. (Genesis 21:6). [How could God give something He did not himself possess?]

It was God who inspired David to write the following words: A happy heart makes the face cheerful, but heartache crushes the spirit. All the days of the oppressed are wretched, but the cheerful heart has a continual feast. A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. (Proverbs 15:13,15; 17:22)

It was God who inspired Solomon to write the following words: [There is] a time to laugh ... (Ecclesiastes 3:4)

In other words .... LIGHTEN UP!

When I think of Jesus, I think of a man who loved a hearty laugh, not someone who was a sourpuss all the time and went around looking like he sucked on lemons for a living. Many of Jesus' parables and word pictures, if you get past the serious teachings contained therein, are downright funny. (Take the log out of your own eye .... etc.) Much of God's sarcasm in the Old Testament is also likewise absolutely hilarious. I am reminded of the words of God's prophet Samuel to Saul ("Gee, what is that bleating I hear?"). Of God's prophet Elijah before the prophets of Baal ("Maybe your god is deaf? Maybe he went on vacation?"). Even the death of Ananias and Sapphira, although stone-cold sober on one level, was rife with ironic humor on another. Laughter is a part of a greater attribute of God which He shares with us, that of Joy. (If you never laugh, I would argue you have probably never known Joy either.) In Scripture, God has a keen sense of irony and a biting wit on a par far above mere mortals. Indeed his thoughts are above our thoughts!

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Twernt me on the Satan one... But I did chuckle in spite of myself when I saw it...

However, if it causes a weaker brother to grumble, I'll refrain.

I have a lot of respect for Lee, and he made some valid points.

John, you reminded me of another one... which prophet said, "Is your god on the toilet?"

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Duane,

That would be Elijah again as he dealt with the prophets of Baal, a possible inferrence in the Hebrew that their king was on his "throne".

An example from nature concerning God's humor can be seen in the archer fish. It can easily exist by eating bugs, etc. that are in or on top of the water, yet it chooses to "play" with its food by spitting bugs off of leaves that are above the water's surface. I'm convinced that God wants us to enjoy life - I see that as part of the "life more abundantly".

God has to have some sense of humor if he can make a preacher out of me, evidenced by the fact that most of my old school buddies usually have a good laugh when I tell them I'm a preacher.....Ha!

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

you wrote,

"You should apologize to Connie for laughing at her lost condition and ask God to forgive you for making HIM the brunt of your Joke. "

I may have actually seen more 'Ha's in your posts, Lee, laughing at other people than in all the other Internet writings I've seen on the 'net since 1991 put together. You are always writing 'Ha' in your messages about serious issues.

I found the cartoon offensive, not the cartoon, but the email address labeled as coming from the Holy Spirit.

I also find it disturbing that people on this forum seem to have such a reaction about the idea of the Holy Spirit actually working through people as they type in the forum. It is as though the work of the Hoily Spirit were considered to be something that was just theoretical.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Connie

I have read everything on this forum for a very long time now. The following statement by you concerns me more than any I have ever read.

" Guess what. It's just possible that if there had been a loving, forbearing attitude on the baptism issue that you might have brought me to that position."

Connie, if I have offended you it was not done purposely. And I do apologize if I have done so. But surly you realize that Christ's love and forbearance are all that really matter. I have no doubt that you spend many hours in study because you desire to truly understand the word of God. And I do think you have looked at baptism. But please do not let your feelings for others influence your decision in this eternal matter.I pray that, if you have not done so,both you and your husband will yeild to baptism according to the NT as a part of the plan of salvation. Connie. If am WRONG, and it were true that one can be saved by repenting, without baptism I'll still go to heaven. If I am correct and one MUST be baptized,(immersed)for the forgivness of their sins ????????

I am praying for you.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Brother John:

While I understand the intend of your encouraging words as hoping to get us all to learn to have joy and laughter in our daily lives. And I agree with your intent. I am not convinced that you have proven much about God having a sense of humor and if He has such that it is much like ours.

You say:

It was God who inspired Moses to write the following words of Sarah: Sarah said, "God has brought me laughter. (Genesis 21:6). [How could God give something He did not himself possess?]

Now lets notice this in its context. How did God make Sarah laugh? Did he do it like a comedian makes us laugh? Look at Genesis 18:12, Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, after I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my Lord being old also? Now Sarah found this matter funny. But look at what the Lord said to Abraham about Sarah laughing.  And the LORD said unto Abraham, wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying shall I of a surety bear a Child, which am old? Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. (Genesis 18: 13-14). The Lord was not pleased with Sarahs laughing which is proof that Gods intent to give her a son was not intended as a joke to induce laughter in the least. And the simple fact that it brought laughter to her heart does not in the very least indicate that God has a sense of humor. Naturally, when God kept the promise that she thought was so funny it brought laughter to her but this was Sarahs view not Gods intent. God intended to keep his promise top Abraham and through that promise to bless all nations of the earth with eternal salvation in the Messiah, Christ Jesus our Lord. The fact that all Sarah could see was something that struck her funny does not indicate that God himself was laughing with her and his disapproval of her laughing in the beginning indicates that her laughter was out of place.

And also, you have ignored the second part of my question was that if God does have a sense of humor is it anything like human sense of humor. And you have not dealt with the condemnation provided in the scriptures against jesting. (Eph. 5:4).

Then you say:

It was God who inspired David to write the following words: A happy heart makes the face cheerful, but heartache crushes the spirit. All the days of the oppressed are wretched, but the cheerful heart has a continual feast. A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. (Proverbs 15:13,15; 17:22).

Now this only proves that God encourages us to experience joy and laughter and to have a merry heart. But it is no evidence that God approves of the frivolity concerning serious matters that is often displayed by those who contend that they are justified in doing such things because God has a sense of humor. This verse says nothing about Gods sense of humor. In fact it says nothing about jesting at all. You ignore the fact that there many other ways to have a merry heart than by participating in foolish jesting and displaying a sense of humor. Thus there is no evidence in this that God has a sense of Humor.

Then you say:

It was God who inspired Solomon to write the following words: [There is] a time to laugh ... (Ecclesiastes 3:4)

But it does not say, God has a sense of humor which is what you are trying to prove. Your argument from this verse is based upon the idea that God must have a sense of humor in order for him to encourage laughter. But that is not necessarily true. This same verse implies knowledge of when to laugh rather than HOW to produce laughter. It could be that we just do not see the phrase sense of humor in the same light. If one means by sense of humor the ability to detect humor in certain situations I would agree that God might have such. But if one means that God is a comedian seeking to do nothing more than produce humor in serious situations I deny it and you most certainly have not proven any such thing with this verse.

Then you say:

In other words .... LIGHTEN UP!

You ignore the very teaching of the verse, which you have quoted above. There may be a time to lighten up but it is not in the middle of a serious conversation when false doctrine is being refuted. And there is no time when Foolish jesting is acceptable.

Then you say:

When I think of Jesus, I think of a man who loved a hearty laugh, not someone who was a sourpuss all the time and went around looking like he sucked on lemons for a living.

When I think of Jesus Christ our Lord I think of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me. I think of the Lord of all, the King of Kings, and the prince of peace and God with us. I think of one that was tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. I do not think of a mere MAN who loves a good joke and enjoys the very foolish jesting that He sent the Holy Spirit to inspired the apostle Paul to condemn. (Eph 5:4). When I think of Jesus I think of the author and finisher of our faith and the one that we must worship and adore. His humanity is not humorous as you describe for he was ever about his fathers business. Simply because some of his parable strike you as HUMOROUS does not mean, nor does it prove that HE intended to be humorous when he gave them. When I think of Christ I do not think of the great jolly comedian in the sky. I think of the resurrected Lord who is seated at the right hand of God in the heavens and the one who will return to receive us unto Himself that where he is we may be also. Christianity is not a joke, Brother John. WE are commanded to preach the gospel and defend the gospel and to contend earnestly (Not humorously) for the faith once delivered to the saints. We are not to seek laughter from the teachings of Christ but to seek understanding of the truth. The Bible is not a comic book, as you would have us to believe. It is the word of our salvation. And we are involved in a battle for the souls of men and Satan has many tricks wherein he seeks to deceive us. Yet, all we can do is sit around making each other laugh and justify it on the basis of the imaginary view that our great God has the exact same sense of humor that we have.

Then you try to make the parables of Christ humorous as follows:

 Many of Jesus' parables and word pictures, if you get past the serious teachings contained therein, are downright funny. (Take the log out of your own eye .... etc.)

I see nothing humorous about the parables of Christ but even as you have said one must get past the serious teachings contained therein before they can find the humor. Brother John, that is where the problem lies. Far too many simply skip over the serious teaching contained therein in order to find a little levity and humor and that is all they want to get out of the matter. In fact, foolish jesting has often been used to avoid the serious lessons contained therein. And this teaching that God has a sense of humor is used to support such skipping over these serious lessons that are contained in the parables.

Much of God's sarcasm in the Old Testament is also likewise absolutely hilarious.

Sarcasm is not necessarily humor brother John. It is a very effective rhetorical device. And the accounts to which you refer are not examples of GODS humor but rather of Samuels, and Elijahs and skill in speaking for God.

You say:

 I am reminded of the words of God's prophet Samuel to Saul ("Gee, what is that bleating I hear?"). Of God's prophet Elijah before the prophets of Baal ("Maybe your god is deaf? Maybe he went on vacation?").

Now any first grader can see that this is not an example of GODS humor but of Samuels ability to get straight to the serious point of proving that Saul had disobeyed God. Anyone reading the account to which you refer will see that Samuel was not joking in the least nor was he making the slightest attempt at humor and Saul certainly did not find the humor that you find reading the account thousands of years after the fact.

And anyone trained in the art of oratory can see from reading the full account that the words of Elijah were not intended to produce laughter and entertain those on his side. No a single person in his audience saw even the slightest bit of humor in his words. And we see a great victory after the event and we may see humor upon reading the account but Elijah was not being a stand up comedian". He was fighting a battle with the prophets of Baal. And he was not joking or jesting about this mater in the least. Now, if some Israelite had jumped in the middle of this battle and began to make jokes and foolish jesting I am persuaded that such a fool would have been consumed with the water that was licked up by the flames that came down upon the alter.

Then I am amazed that you find humor in the death of brother and sister Anninas and Saphirra as follows:

 Even the death of Ananias and Sapphira, although stone-cold sober on one level, was rife with ironic humor on another.

Yes, this was stone cold sober as Brother John so aptly describe it. And if you had been there during that time you would have been filled with the same fear that spread throughout the whole church after this event. And I can assure you that you will not find a Christian in the New Testament that saw this even in a humorous light. I find not humor in their lying to the Holy Spirit and Peter found no humor in it and those who carried their dead bodies out of the church found no humor in it. But 2000 years later, after unbelief has had its eroding effect upon faith Brother John can sit comfortably back in his easy chair and read the account as if he is reading the Sunday comics and laugh. I cannot.

Then you say:

 Laughter is a part of a greater attribute of God which He shares with us, that of Joy.

Laughter is not what you set out to prove, Brother John. You set out to prove that God has a sense of humor. Proving that he has arranged for us to enjoy in appropriate ways the emotion of laughter does not prove that God himself has a sense of humor.

As I pointed out before laughter and Joy and what is described as a sense of humor are not the same thing at all. I have no sense of humor yet I laugh often and heartily. But I do not laugh at false doctrine and those who teach it. You act as if laughter can only come in response to some joke or jest. WE are taught to have joy and laughter but we are told to avoid foolish jesting. The differences between the two are clear to all that care about the truth.

Then you say:

"(If you never laugh, I would argue you have probably never known Joy either.)"

I could admit this and and still deny that God has a sense of humor.

"In Scripture, God has a keen sense of irony and a biting wit on a par far above mere mortals. Indeed his thoughts are above our thoughts!"

THis you have stillnot proven. God is without doubt far above us. And you have not dealt with the fact that HIS THOUGHTS ARE NOT OUR THOUGHTS and his was are not our ways. Therefore, we cannot assume that what we find to be humorous is some thing that God would also find humorous.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Faris,

You have not offended me. I think you're SWEET! I am going to ask the Lord at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb about baptism. (Or maybe when 'to teleion' ~ the 'perfect' comes ~ 'face-to-face'. I don't know how we can see the canon face-to-face!)

I am safely in the care of my Lord and know that I will be with him throughout eternity. But I can always use your prayers. Thank you.

And don't forget, Faris, I'VE BEEN IMMERSED TWICE, once before believing and once after believing.

I think someone must be acclimating E. Lee to his future environment.

[That WAS naughty.]

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Connie,

I just don't get it...

How is it that you without end accuse "some" & "they" here in the forum of being judgmental, unloving, hateful, and on and on...

Then turn around and say something like you just did about Lee????

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Thank you Connie for the translation of SOF, but what does Sign our Front mean?

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

That last should have been "Sign out Front" not our.

Link,

You said: "I also find it disturbing that people on this forum seem to have such a reaction about the idea of the Holy Spirit actually working through people as they type in the forum."

Who is it that we are supposed to believe the Holy Spirit working through as they type? Would what they type be inspired?

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Connie,

I too have not tried to be offensive... but I must admit that I have been ofended about some of what you wrote recently because I have seen nothing but love out of the churches that I have been a part of.

I don't want you to feel sorry for me as you indicated in this statement, "I'm sad for you, that you have been brought up in such a legalistic, unyielding, unloving environment. There are counsellors all over mopping up after the messes you've made. Please stop it."

I have not seen the hatred as you see... though I have seen it in many denominational churches (though certainly not all). Just because you think you have seen hatred or heard of it in the CofC/CC and have not seen it in your church or school... don't generalize it.

And BTW... if you want to see "unyeilding" look no farther than God... I don't have the time to look up all the scriptures, but look to the Cain and Abel situation (one sacrifice was not as good as another)... look to Nadab and Abihu (God struck them dead for using strange fire... do you think God wants it exactly as He says?)... look to Uzzah who was struck dead for touching the ark.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

I may have actually seen more 'Ha's in your posts, Lee, laughing at other people than in all the other Internet writings I've seen on the 'net since 1991 put together. You are always writing 'Ha' in your messages about serious issues.

I have explained this to you once before Brother Link when you asked me what I meant by the word Ha! and I told you that it was an interjection designed to express emotion but in my case it is not laughter that it expresses. You kno0w this but act as if you do not. I do not know if you have ever heard anyone say ha! in the sense of disgust rather than laughter. But it is used that way by some who are disgusted with the shallowness of the opponents argument and they say it after they feel they have demonstrated such shallowness or an inconsistency or in some other way made the argument of the opponent appear absurd. That is how I use it and laughter is far from my mind when I write it. And if you read it you will find it in places that are not humorous in the least. The context would give you a hint as to what I mean by its use. But even if it did not my having told you in my own words what I mean by it when you asked me should have made it abundantly clear to any thinking individual that laughter was not what I was signaling by its use.

So much for your deliberate attempt to ascribe to me a sense of humor that all know I do not have.

It is enough that both of us find the cartoon offensive, isnt it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

E. Lee,

Don't worry, Lee, I'm not saying you have a great sense of humor. I just find a sarcastic laugh in a discussion of weighty spiritual matter, more bothersome than a decent joke.

D. Lee Muse,

That is the type of thinking I am talking about. the Holy Spirit did not stop working when the Bible was finished. The Bible itself teaches us a lot about the way the Spirit works (even ways other than inspiring sacred scripture.) It even says that as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2000

Link,

My question is...How do we know which person is being lead by the Holy Spirit in what they are typing? I mean...we sure do not agree on several things including salvation...so which one or ones are we to believe is being lead by the Holy Spirit?

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

E. Lee, Don't worry, Lee, I'm not saying you have a great sense of humor. I just find a sarcastic laugh in a discussion of weighty spiritual matter, more bothersome than a decent joke.

I am not worried Brother Link. I think that this will be the third time that I have told you that this interjection ha! is not an expression of laughter whether sarcastic or not. I have told you that it is an expression in its context of disgust. You therefore have no excuse for deliberately refusing to understand what I have now clearly told you thrice that I mean by the use of the term. Interjections in the English language are used to express emotion or strong feeling. Often the context indicates their meaning. But when the writer tells you in his own words what he means by the use of that interjection then you are without excuse for continuing to misunderstand what he has said. I have been sarcastic on occasion but I have not used this word to express it. I have told you now three times that I am using the word to express disgust rather than laughter or sarcasm. Your willing ignorance of what I mean by the use of this word does not concern me in the least but it should concern all of our readers as to how much you can be trusted to be honest in your communications with them in this forum.

The fact that the use of this interjection to express disgust bothers you gives me no concern at all. It will just have to bother you. But you desperately needed for the word to mean laughter in some sense in order for your contention in your last post to be true. In that post you said, I may have actually seen more 'Ha's in your posts, Lee, laughing at other people than in all the other Internet writings I've seen on the 'net since 1991 put together. You were trying very hard to make it appear that I have been guilty of expressing more laughter than anyone in this forum. But as usual with your attempts to support false doctrine you have failed again. I have made it clear to you that it does not express laughter in any sense. And your only hope to keep your argument alive was to claim that I was expressing sarcastic laughter. You did not say that I merely expressed sarcasm for that would not have helped your argument. But I had already told you that I was not laughing at all but rather expressing disgust. Disgust is quite different than sarcastic laughter Brother Link and you know it.

But that was a nice attempt to save your ridiculous argument that I have been laughing at others but unfortunately for you it is just not the truth. And you have proven in this case that you would rather believe a lie than face the truth. I have told you the truth that I have used the expression Ha! in expressing disgust and you continue to insist that I have used it to express laughter toward others. I have on occassion, in context used it to express laughter with others but never "at" others and certianly not in the middle of a serious discussion. But in this particular thread as well in most of the places where I have used this word I have used it to express disgust as I have explained to you. The context makes my meaning clear for those who have a willingness to read and think but if it did not my clear statement of what I mean when I use this interjection does make it abundantly clear.

Your real problem here in this thread is that you cannot bear the fact that Connie has been praying for the Holy Spirit to come down on this forum in Holy Fire and He has denied her request. I have stated that He will not do what Connie has asked him to do. That bothers you more than my use of the word Ha! and you are prejudiced against anything that I say simply because I have asked some pointed questions about that matter that neither you nor Connie have bothered to answer. You had already asked me once in another thread what I meant when I used the word ha! which indicates that you did not know exactly what I meant and I answered you. But you needed for me to mean something other than what you were told before that I mean when I use this word so you just deliberately forgot what you were told and proceeded as if you now knew that I was expressing laughter. When I told you that I was expressing disgust you simply ignored my words and responded as if I had been expressing sarcastic laughter. You are either deaf or deliberately dishonest. I could be wrong but it does not appear to me that you are deaf in this matter. But I have long sense suspected that you were dishonest. You have now confirmed it for me.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2000

Duane,

About the TWO posts...I thought that the rules of the forum did NOT allow for anonymous posters. Is this true? If it is, why are they allowed in?

If someone one is allowed to post such, they should at least have the guts to sign their own name. We really have no recourse to try to reason with an anonymous poster because we really...even though we may guess as I did and was evidently wrong...do not know who did the posting.

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2000

I haven't had much time to read, much less post, but ~

Faris,

I re-post from above:

But please do not let your feelings for others influence your decision in this eternal matter.I pray that, if you have not done so,both you and your husband will yeild to baptism according to the NT as a part of the plan of salvation. Connie. If am WRONG, and it were true that one can be saved by repenting, without baptism I'll still go to heaven. If I am correct and one MUST be baptized, (immersed)for the forgivness of their sins ????????

I am praying for you.

-- faris (fsweet8@yahoo.com), October 13, 2000.

I haven't let what others have said or done affect what I believe about my salvation in Christ. That was established 42 years ago.

Also ~

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2000

As I said on the 13th:

I am safely in the care of my Lord and know that I will be with him throughout eternity. But I can always use your prayers. Thank you.

And don't forget, Faris, I'VE BEEN IMMERSED TWICE, once before believing and once after believing.

What you are suggesting is that I be immersed a THIRD TIME, when that will have no efficacy WHATSOEVER, BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY repented, believed, confessed, and been immersed.

Just not on the RM/CC/CoC timetable.

The dipping in water DID NOT SAVE ME. THE REPENTING AND BELIEVING in His sacrifice did.

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2000

Connie,

You said, "The dipping in water DID NOT SAVE ME. THE REPENTING AND BELIEVING in His sacrifice did."

My question is, "WHEN" did salvation take place? The moment you said a "sinners prayer?"... I don't find this in the Bible... but I do see that one a person believer and repents (I think you would agree so far) then they are baptized... and it is at that TIME that their sins are washed away (Acts 22:16)... I agree, it is not the water or the act that saves, but the blood of Jesus applied at the TIME of baptism (Rom.6).

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

And don't forget, Faris, I'VE BEEN IMMERSED TWICE, once before believing and once after believing.

And on neither occasion did you do it in the name of or according to the teaching of Jesus Christ our Lord. When were you baptized in order to be saved? (1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16). The fact is that you do not believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. Therefore tell us when were you baptized in order to obtain the remission of your sins? Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). You do not believe that baptism has anything to do with having your sins washed away. When were you baptized to have your sins washed away? And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16).

Now the above are just a few examples that show that you may have been baptized once before believing and once after believing but you have not ever been baptized according to the teaching of Christ through the apostles upon whom you claim to be believing. You cannot believe wrong and obey right, Connie! You cannot believe that baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with your salvation and then claim to have been baptized according to the teaching of Christ who connected baptism with our salvation. (Mark 16:16). You cannot believe that baptism has nothing to do with the remission of our sins and at the same time be baptized in order to have your sins remitted. (Acts 2:38). You cannot refuse to believe that baptism doeth also now save us (1 Peter 3:21 and at the same time claim to have been baptized to enter into a saved state before God. You cannot deny the form of doctrine (Romans 6:17) concerning baptism and at the exact same time claim to have obeyed it from the heart. (Romans 6:3-6, 17). Connie the problem is that baptism alone cannot save us any more than faith alone. The two must be combined and you continue to keep them separate. You could be baptized a hundred times before and after believing in Christ but until you obey from the heart by faith that form of doctrine (Romans 6:17) found in the commands of Christ through the apostles concerning baptism you have not obeyed in faith. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:8,9). He is not the author of eternal salvation to those who pretend to obey him. It is that humble obedience to Christ our Lord to all that he commands us to do that saves us. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17) And without faith it is impossible to please Him (Heb 11:6). But the fact that you yet do not believe the teaching of the word of God concerning baptism is proof that you have never been baptized by faith. For faith comes from the word of God. (Romans 10:17). Though you have been baptized twice you have not once done so by faith in Christ. For you have not been baptized according to the teaching of Christ since you even do this day do not believe the truth about His teaching on the subject of baptism.

I asked you a long time ago Connie and you never answered me. I asked you what command of God, found in His Holy Word, were you obeying when you were baptized? You never answered. Now you tell us that you were baptized twice. So you should be able to tell us. What command of God did you obey that lead you to be baptized? Something must have been wrong with you first baptism in your mind or you would not have bothered to be baptized again. If that were true then if something were wrong with your second baptism would you consider being baptized yet again? I am asking you a specific question here. Do not avoid it Connie by any means. Just answer it.

Your friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2000

Connie

Please reread my post. I am not suggesting a third time but rather asking, because of my concern for you and your family, that you are certain in your own mind that your baptism is in accordance with the will of God. If it should require a third time, so be it.

I am not judging you but trust that with your willingness to study you will come to an honest and correct decision. Still praying for you.

-- Anonymous, October 15, 2000

E Lee Saffold,

I would just like you to know that I did not read the entire message you wrote about 'HA!' Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than to debate with you whether the use of 'HA!' as a sarcastic interjection constitutes a laugh or not. If you don't consider it a laugh, don't. I won't lose any sleep over such a petty issue. I often find your use of a sarcastic 'HA!' about a serious spiritual issue as obnoxious, just as obnoxious as a loud belly laugh over some of these issue.

You are the only person I know who would right a repetitive 100 word essay attacking someone's character over a disagreement on such an issue. Why don't you outline your ideas on a piece of paper before you write them on the 'net, and make sure you write down each idea only once before you post. It would save an incredible amount of bandwidth. If you would try to edify others instead of just being argumentative over every little issue, your posts would be a lot more enjoyable. This threads get really long, and I often skip over posts you make, unless the topic interests me, and then I only skim. You repeat yourself too much, your messages are often needlessly argumentative, and I only have about 24 hours every day.

>> Your real problem here in this thread is that you cannot bear the fact that Connie has been praying for the Holy Spirit to "come down on this forum in Holy Fire" and He has denied her request. I have stated that He will not do what Connie has asked him to do. That bothers you more than my use of the word "Ha!"<<<<<

This is the kind of BS (bad sophistry or bologna sandwich) that you posted in previous threads. Mr. Saffold, you are not omniscient. You do not know everything bothers me. You don't even know how many of Connie's posts that I have read on this topic. I don't need you to tell me what bothers me. You can tell me what bothers you, because you are an authority on that subject. But don't pretend to know what goes on in my mind and heart. If you really believe some of these things you write- guesswork about what goes on in other people's minds and hearts without evidence to back up your assertions- then you may have some mental problems.

Previously, based on your own guesswork, you accused me of thinking I was better than other people. This was based on nothing more than your own ideas. You have the nerve to accuse me of dishonestly.

You also seem to think you know what the Holy Spirit is willing to do, is going to do, and has already done. I don't consider you to be an authority on what the Holy Spirit does. None of us know everything the Spirit does, and it is awfully arrogant of you to post things like that.

I don't know what he outcome of Connie's prayer will be. She didn't pray it to me. But it bothers me that you would gloat about the idea of the Holy Spirit not 'coming down' on this forum. It does bother me that someone would rejoice, gloat, or be sarcastic about the idea of the Holy Spirit not being at work in a great way in a Christian discussion forum. Your attitude about this bothers me. I haven't spent time sitting around worrying and thinking things like 'Oh no, Connie's prayer won't be answered.' Get real.

>>>and you are prejudiced against anything that I say simply because I have asked some pointed questions about that matter that neither you nor Connie have bothered to answer.<<<<<

Since I don't know what questions you are talking about it may be that I haven't answered them because I didn't even read that part of your post! I am under no obligation to read all of your posts. Some of them are long, repetitive, and slander others. Why would I want to read pages of trash like that?

Lee, if you want to write posts about what you think I believe, you can write emails to yourself only, pretend they are from me, and write pretend answers. You can even believe the emails are from me as long as you don't tell anyone about them. But don't come on here and pretend you can know what bothers me, or what I think, just based on your own guesswork, and then have the nerve to insinuate that I am supposed to be the one being dishonest.

It would be better if you would just humble yourself and stop being contentious about every little thing. You can respond to this with a long email to justify yourself and accuse me, you can let the matter die, or you could actually humble yourself and have a normal conversation.

I am not obligated to read your message, answer your questions, or even to use the same terminology as you. If I read a sarcastic 'HA!' and want to call it a sarcastic laugh, that is my prerogative.. There isn't much you can do about it except write long, accusatory, repetitive emails.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

correction,

that last word should be 'posts' not emails.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

Link,

Did you or did you not accuse E. Lee of laughing at Connie and others in using the word Ha?

If you diddont you think that you should at least give him the courtesy of reading his explanation? Of course, it is your prerogative not to read the answers to the questions or accusations you pose.

If you would have read Lee's answer the first time than you would have understood that he meant disgust in using Ha.

Now here I am speaking for Lee, and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong and rightly so butHe does not write in this forum for the enjoyment of other people. In fact, I would venture to say the enjoyment for others does not factor into it at all.

You say that you often skip over his posts, and only skim if the topic interests you. So why the complaints about the length of his posts? Why the instructions to him on what and how he should write. You say your instructions to him if followed would save an incredible amount of bandwidthso what??? Does the length of his posts hurt you?? How can it if you do not read them? Sosince you have only about 24 hours in every dayread what you want, but stop whining about the length of Lees posts. There are others out here who do read ALL of his posts, are encouraged by them because of his love for the truth and his willingness to take the time out of his 24 hours a day to seriously contend (brawl as Danny says) for the faith.

You say: But don't pretend to know what goes on in my mind and heart. If you really believe some of these things you write- guesswork about what goes on in other people's minds and hearts without evidence to back up your assertions- then you may have some mental problems. Evidently here you are accusing Lee of being judgmental believing he has erroneously read someones heart than say the following

If I read a sarcastic 'HA!' and want to call it a sarcastic laugh, that is my prerogative. There isn't much you can do about it except write long, accusatory, repetitive emails. Have you read Lees heart here?? He told you three times it was not a laugh, not even sarcastic laughter. Yet according to youyou can infer it was laughter and call it a sarcastic laugheven though he has told you differently. Nothing like pretending to know what goes on in anothers mind and heart is there, even after he has told you what you believe is not true? You may read it to be a sarcastic Ha! and call it a sarcastic laughbut does that make it so?

As to your being bothered by the idea of a belief that the Holy Spirit is not at work in a great way in a Christian discussion forum concerning the outcome of Connies prayer, I again ask you

How do we know which person is being lead by the Holy Spirit in what they are typing? I mean...we sure do not agree on several things including salvation...so which one or ones are we to believe is being lead by the Holy Spirit?

How are we to determine whose beliefs are of the truth, and whose beliefs are not of the truth and therefore lies?

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

YOu know what some of you display such absolute ignorance and hypocrisy and yet feel quite comfortable living in utter inconsistency. Lee...BACK OFF! You guys can truly get infantile when it comes to your high-browed ideas about who you're sending to Hell this week and who you're sending to heaven the next.

Listen...when you throw out your books with Calvinism...when you quit singing amazing grace...when you quit agreeing with Dobson on some parenting issues...then maybe we talk about your not being a hypocrite on this. But the fact of the matter is...attending PK conferences is the SAME thing as all of the above. PK has some incorrect doctrine in it. So what? SO does your hymnal. Grow up children.

And Lee...your next 75 page diatribe of nonsense that you post in response is a waste of typing if you can't say it in a page. You really truly have dispayed a bitter spirit against Connie...who I don't know from Eve, and to be honest, disagree with about 90% of the things she says. But you can't treat people like jerks and think it is ok. And then when someone criticizes you D. Lee Muse comes to your rescue and it is just silly. Come on. I am not calling you to apologize for you positions on issues (however hypocritical they may be) BUT I am calling on you to apologize for your disposition about matters.

And if it appears that I am mad in this response...well, maybe so. But dont' go getting on me for doing the same exact thing Lee does in a majority of his posts.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

By the way, I meant to include this in my last post...HA!

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

D. Lee Muse,

'Ha!' is a way of spelling laughter on the Internet. If someone writes 'Ha!' on the Internet, they might not be laughing on the other side of the screen literally, but that word 'ha' will generally be read as a laugh.

For me, it is rediculous to see a huge accusatory message over the issue of whether a sarcastic 'HA!' used as a sarcastic interjection is should be called a laugh or not. He insinuates I am dishonest because I used the word 'laugh' to describe the word, and he does not. It is an issue of semantics. I've already read enough of Lee's explanations on this issue. My last message to him was really firm, I realize, and purposefully so. I think the best way to deal with Lee's long accusatory posts is to not pay too much attention to them. So I choose not to waste my time reading over them in detail.

Why am I concerned with the length of the posts? If Lee would post decent messages which were shorter, I might actually read them. But I don't enjoy reading 10 pages of slander which could be written in one page, but said in different ways over and over again ad nauseum. I don't enjoy reading sophistry used to attack another person, and I don't want to encourage that type of behavoir? Why do I even mention it at all? (Whining as you call it.) I believe we need to hold people behaving like this accountable and confront them. But that doesn't mean I'm going to waste my time carefully reading pages of garbage. So I read only a little and reply when necessary.

Michael, I think it is good you were firm in your last post. Maybe if there were some accountability on here we would all behave ourselves better.

On the topic of discerning when the Holy Spirit is working: I don't claim that everything I write on here is under the moving of the Spirit. Moses in the Bible was actually a prophet, and I wouldn't suppose everything he wrote was inspired. (e.g.,a note on his tent to his wife, or his grocery list- manna, manna, more manna. :-) There were prophets who wrote books not recorded in scripture. The Bible seems to speak positively of some of these books- e.g. the book of Iddo the seer.

The Holy Spirit works through Christians and leads them to do certain things at times. One woman I know felt led to go over to visit an aunt in a distant suburn one day. Right when she walked in the door, her aunt was sending someone away to go buy a hugeamount of salt. The woman put two and two together and figured out that my aunt was going to use the salt to take to a witchdoctor to do magic (that adds up in Indonesian culture.) She talked her out of it. Her aunt knows it's wrong to go to the witchdoctor, but she was raised in a culture where that was common, and her husband didn't come home the night before. So she was desparate. The woman encouraged her not to go to the witchdoctor and ministered to her. Her aunt believed God had sent her there right at that moment.

I had a friend who had been witnessing to an Iranian Muslim. He wanted to buy the man a card to go with a copy of the Bible he had bought him. He wanted to be sensitive to the man's conscience and not buy anything with religions images on it the Muslim would associate with idolatry bought a card with a picture of a dragon fly on it. The Persian said when he got the card that the word for dragonfly in his language meant 'key to heaven.' My friend told him that he should consider the Bible he had been given the key to heaven? Coincidence, or was God working through my friend, leading him as he picked out that card? He didn't know Persian.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

Brother Demastus:

You have said:

YOu know what some of you display such absolute ignorance and hypocrisy and yet feel quite comfortable living in utter inconsistency.

Well, Brother Demastus, that is a fine assertion but where is the proof? Demonstrate the inconsistencies of which you speak and we will examine them to see if there is an inconsistency that we should be concerned about. But just because you assert an inconsistency does not prove that one really exist, especially since you do not tell us specifically what you are talking about. Now, by the words absolute ignorance it seems you mean total ignorance. Now, we do not deny the possibility of ignorance. For such a malady seems on occasion to afflict us all. And we are willing to be instructed by one with enough knowledge to correct our ignorance in any case where we are in fact truly so. But one who does nothing more than make assertions without proof is not likely to help very much. Nevertheless you think that we are suffering incurably from absolute ignorance or total ignorance. This seems very much like an over statement of the facts to me. However, if such is the case why dont you just educate us with some of your massive overwhelmingly superior absolute knowledge. One with such knowledge as you sanctimoniously imply that you have should at least be able to do better than merely assert things. You should have the ability to PROVE them by offering evidence in support of the things that you assert.

Then you accuse us of hypocrisy but in your infinite knowledge you cannot find a single shred of evidence to prove that we are hypocritical in any way. We are concerned about hypocrisy and want to avoid it at all cost and you could help us do that if you have detected such in our words or behavior. But you cannot prove that either. You are merely asserting it as well without any evidence.

Then you give me an order as if you have the power and right to do such a thing as follows:

 Lee...BACK OFF!

Well, that is not going to happen in this life, Brother Demastus. So long as there is false doctrine and those who teach it and those who believe it, support it and promote it no faithful Christian will back off from the responsibility to contend earnestly for the faith against those who teach a gospel other than the gospel of Christ. As Paul said,  I am set for the defense of the gospel. He was not a man who was known to back off simply because people did not appreciate or agree with the things that he said. I know you would like to have me to BACK OFF but it aint gonna happen in this life, Brother Demastus. So just get used to it. When you teach or promote false doctrine and organizations like PK that teaches it I will be on it and backing off is not an option. So your orders to back off are being defied and just what do you think you can do to stop it?

Then you pretend that we have sent someone to hell and heaven:

You guys can truly get infantile when it comes to your high-browed ideas about who you're sending to Hell this week and who you're sending to heaven the next.

We have not said anything about who is going to hell or heaven. We have simply quoted the word of God where He has said what will happen to those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:7-9). And He is the one who is sending people to heaven and hell. But we have not the power to condemn anyone to either place and have not condemned anyone to such a fate. In fact, if you are looking for someone in this thread that has consigned with her words someone to hell you will find that it was Connie who did such a thing. But you did not notice that now did you? You see. It is not that you actually care that some one is condemned by the words of another to hell that bothers you. It seems, instead, that when you perceive that someone who agrees with you is so condemned that you are concerned. If they do not agree with you and they are consigned to hell you simply mutter under your breath, for you have not the courage to do so out loud, amen you tell him!

Then you make the following argument, which I have already answered, in my previous response to you:

Listen...when you throw out your books with Calvinism...when you quit singing amazing grace...when you quit agreeing with Dobson on some parenting issues...then maybe we talk about your not being a hypocrite on this. But the fact of the matter is...attending PK conferences is the SAME thing as all of the above. PK has some incorrect doctrine in it. So what? SO does your hymnal.

So I will simply challenge you to deal with the answer that was given to your previous nonsense about this matter. If you were going to ignore that response you would only ignore another one if I gave it. The readers in this forum can see that you are deliberately ignoring my answer to this argument, which you made in your previous post.

Then, with a sanctimonious air, as if you are the father of all little Children, you say:

Grow up children.

This comment alone indicates that you are not mature for it is not only an unproven assertion and it is also the type of remark that teenagers who have not yet grown up are known to make.

Then you tell us that if we write anything that does not suit you it is a waste of time to write it: And Lee...your next 75 page diatribe of nonsense that you post in response is a waste of typing if you can't say it in a page.

You cannot decide for me just what is a waste of time. You are so arrogant that you speak as if what I write is designed solely for your benefit. If I write something, whether it is one page or a hundred it will not be a waste of my time just because the great Brother or should I say father Demastus refuses to read it! Ha! I have said many times and I repeat it now that I am not a good writer and I accept it. I do the best I can with the meager talents that God has granted me in this area. And I am not attempting to be a great writer. I do not write to entertain or please anyone least of all those who promote and teach false doctrine and a gospel other than the gospel of Christ.

Then you falsely, without any evidence charge that I have displayed a bitter spirit toward Connie as follows:

You really truly have displayed a bitter spirit against Connie...who I don't know from Eve, and to be honest, disagree with about 90% of the things she says. But you can't treat people like jerks and think it is ok.

Now again you merely assert without proving anything. Why dont you just quote the statements that I have made that indicated that I considered Connie a jerk? In fact, I have not shown any bitterness toward Connie. Just because I do not agree with her doctrine and attack it upon occasion does not indicate any bitterness. Now why do not you just quote my words that appeared to be bitter toward Connie? Connie said that she prayed for the Holy Spirit to come on this forum in Holy Fire and I pointed out that He obviously has denied her request and asked her some questions about it, which she has chosen not to answer. Those words were not motivated by any bitterness in my heart. Nor did they indicate any such thing. But you assert this without proving it. I respect Connie and Love her and pray for her often and because I care I challenge her beliefs that I believe to be contrary to the teaching of Christ. I challenge them forcefully because I care enough to do so. And, I know my own heart well enough to say that I am not motivated by anything other than the deepest love for one such as her. I firmly believe that she is wrong and that she is not saved from her sins because she has not yet obeyed the gospel of Christ. Believing that to be the truth I cannot just sit here, as some do, and pretend that all is well with her soul. I will not do it no matter how often some of you think that I am being unkind to tell her the truth plainly.

Then you say:

And then when someone criticizes you D. Lee Muse comes to your rescue and it is just silly.

Well now, I did not read anything from Sister Muse indicating that she felt that I had any need to be rescued. She simply loves the truth and is doing her part to speak it as often as she can. She is one to be admired for her desire to know the truth. She was once one of those who had been taught false doctrine and has suffered at the hands of those who lie and speak not the truth. And she received no help from those who fear to tell the truth that they might on occasion offend someone. Those who would not compromise it even if the entire world considered them to be unkind taught her the truth. She did not learn the truth of the gospel from those that supported and promoted organizations that preach another gospel than the gospel of Christ. She knows first hand what it is like to be lost because no one will tell you the truth when they know it.

Now, in order for one to be in need of rescue he must be in some danger. I am not in any danger and the arguments that I have made thus far are not in trouble in the least. In fact they have not been touched. On the other hand youve been asked a very simple question by Danny first and then myself from which you cannot be rescued and therefore none have even attempted to rescue you from it. You were asked the following questions which you wisely chose to ignore:

You made the following statement:

The fact of the matter is many in the restoration movement have become so doctrinally correct that they have lost their faith.

Brother Danny, in response to it, asked you the following and you refused to answer:

Please explain....how one can be "so doctrinally correct...that they lose their faith?"

Then I asked the same question as follows and you still refuse to answer:

Do tell us Brother Demastus, as Brother Danny has also asked, how is it that one can become so doctrinally correct as to have lost their faith? I suppose you might also tell us how it is that a measure of doctrinal incorrectness might increase our faith? Now anyone familiar with the scriptures knows that we are taught that if any man hath not the DOCTRINE OF CHRIST he HATH NOT GOD! (2 John 9-11). Tell us just why Paul said, Now I beseech you, brethren, MARK them which cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM.? If one can be so doctrinally correct as to lose his faith then it seems that Paul would have said for us to learn a little false doctrine so that we can remain faithful! Ha! Paul also said, A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:10,11). Paul further states, Now we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from EVERY brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions which he received of us. (2 Thess. 3:6). I suppose that you would have simply informed Paul that it is possible to be so correct in walking after those traditions that one could lose their faith! You no doubt would have made good use of the old worn out pathetic phrase concerning traditional blinders in reference to Paul. I can just hear Brother Demastus now saying, Paul you need to take those traditional blinders off and come to know that a little false doctrine is good for the soul! Ha! There is no doubt in my mind that Paul would have dealt with you according to his very teaching in these passages.

Now, if someone spoke for you in these matters it would indeed be a rescue attempt. But none have ventured to save you from such ignorance. You have not even attempted to redeem yourself from this extreme error, have you?

Then you tell me the following:

Come on. I am not calling you to apologize for you positions on issues (however hypocritical they may be) BUT I am calling on you to apologize for your disposition about matters.

In the Old Testament, when Nehemiah was asked to come down to the plains of Ono to talk compromise he refused. I have learned the lesson from Nehemiah. If anyone ask you to go to the plains of Ono simply say OH no! Your pleading will not bring about the compromise that you seek with this statement. I have nothing to apologize for. My position is the truth and my disposition is according to the teaching of the word of God. My disposition is the same as that of the apostle Paul who said concerning those that teach another gospel, even if it were an angel from heaven that did so, let him be anathema. (Gal. 1:8.9). My disposition is no different that the disposition of Christ our Lord who ran the moneychangers out of the temple. My disposition toward every false way is the same as Gods disposition toward such when he said, I hate every false way.

You assert that my position is hypocritical and if you are right you have the correct disposition concerning it. And that disposition toward hypocrisy is a correct one and is the exact replica of my disposition toward false doctrine. The problem, however, is that you have not proven that my position is hypocritical now have you?

And you complain of my disposition about matters? What matters are you talking about? You cannot even be specific in your charges can you? This lack of specificity indicates a lack of evidence, doesnt it? Specify which matters and what positions you are talking about and prove them to be hypocritical and requiring an apology. If I took your suggestion just what would I apologize for? Would I simply make a generic apology, which is next to no apology at all or would I apologize for my disposition in ALL matters, some matters, or a specific matter?

Then you say: And if it appears that I am mad in this response...well, maybe so. But dont' go getting on me for doing the same exact thing Lee does in a majority of his posts.

Oh you do appear mad and I am glad to see that you approve of anger when one thinks he is right. At least, if I am mad about something I know that I am made but you are so wishy washy that you say maybe so as if you are not really sure you are mad! This is a cowards way out. If you are mad why not be honest and say so ouright and defend it? Instead you must leave yourself a way of escape dont you? The only problem is that you do not justify your reasons for being mad! Ha! (Disgusting). For you offer no evidence whatsoever to prove that your assertions are the truth. And therefore you are not doing the same thing that "Lee does in the majority of his post. So no one is getting on to you for being mad as you claim to be. Rather we are getting onto you for not proving your charges, and assertions to be the truth.

WE are still waiting for you to tell us just how one can be so doctrinally correct as to lose his faith, Brother Demastus. Why do we not hear from you about that? Is it because you know that statement to be completely false and are unwilling to "Apologize for teaching that which is false? You want us to apologize for our disposition that pointed out your error in this matter? Ha! It will not happen in this lifetime. But we do call upon you to apologize for teaching that which is contrary to the truth when you said that one could be so doctrinally correct as to lose their faith.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

I am not obligated to read your message, answer your questions, or even to use the same terminology as you. If I read a sarcastic 'HA!' and want to call it a sarcastic laugh, that is my prerogative.. There isn't much you can do about it except write long, accusatory, repetitive emails.

Well, Brother Link, it is true that you are not obligated to read my message or answer my questions. It is also true that you are not required to read the word ha! according to the meaning that I have told you that I intended when I used that word. And no one, least of all me, has said that you were so required to read it. You are not obligated by me to be honest in the least. It is your choice whether you will tell the truth and speak honestly in this forum. And you are right, all we can do about your deliberate dishonesty is write about it and point it out. And that is what I have done and will continue to do and there is nothing you can do about it, now is there?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000

Michael,

As you have probably ascertained by now, E. Lee is a big boy, retired from the Navy and not in need of rescue.

It is funny though that you have not mentioned anyone else rescuing another in this forum. According to your idea of rescue it is strange that you have not mentioned Connie and Nelta, Link and Connie, Danny and I, Danny and Lee, Lee and Scott and so on, are they also silly? And what of you and Akelley, it seems both of you tried to rescue the other in the PK thread, how silly of youor does this only apply to me???

I have absolutely no desire to continue in the round of what seems to be for me the development of an apologetic for Promise Keepers. October 15-16 here in Des Moines are eagerly being anticipated by myself and many others in and out of the Restoration Movement. Your contentions, I can say quite clearly, will not change my views because I have talked this issue over until I and the others I have talked with were blue in the face

The above words are part of a post of yours on the first PK thread started in August of last year. If it is true that you had absolutely NO desire to continue in the discussions then, and if as you state you have talked the issue over until you and others were blue in the face, then why have you come back here a year later to start up the discussion again? Was it to cause division?

I asked Duane a question during that discussion a year agoI did not receive an answer. I will ask you the same question:

Now I know that I would not be invited to a meeting (this being for men) but I have to ask anyway. If I had attended a PK rally several years ago (not understanding scriptural salvation) and any of you gentlemen who go to PK rallies had sat next to me...praised the Lord in song, prayed, and worshiped with me...would you have taken the time to teach me the truth or would you have left me sitting ignorantly in my sins?

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000

Link,

The word may generally be read as a laugh, but you are the one who accused E. Lee and then he explained to you EXACTLY what he meant. Yet still you argue about what he meant.

So you dont enjoy reading Lees posts, then dont. You believe we need to hold people accountable and confront them? That sounds familiarbut when others do it they have a wrong attitude?

Michaelwould you notice with Links next words he is defending what you have just written. Michael, I think it is good you were firm in your last post. Maybe if there were some accountability on here we would all behave ourselves better. Or maybe he was trying to rescue you.

On the topic of discerning when the Holy Spirit is working: I don't claim that everything I write on here is under the moving of the Spirit. Moses in the Bible was actually a prophet, and I wouldn't suppose everything he wrote was inspired. Are you saying here that sometimes YOU are inspired?

Your stories about what you believe is the Holy Spirit working through Christians leading them to do certain things at times has NOT answered my questions. Here are the questions again for your consideration:

How do we know which person is being lead by the Holy Spirit in what they are typing? I mean...we sure do not agree on several things including salvation...so which one or ones are we to believe is being lead by the Holy Spirit?

How are we to determine whose beliefs are of the truth, and whose beliefs are not of the truth and therefore lies?

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000

On the discussion of the Holy Spirit working (in my last post), Link those are for you.

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000

Sister Muse:

I have looked back through this thread from top to bottom and it does appear that the fires have been put out! And I think that your pointing out that anonymous postings are not allowed was effective in bringing about that result. I believe that both of us should express our appreciation to Duane for his good spirit in the face of sharp criticism. His mind was not diverted by sharp criticism for he is ever focused upon doing the right thing and follows the rules with integrity and honesty. From this we can see that when he is criticized he listens even when it hurts and takes action to make corrections if he feels the criticism is just. These are admirable traits of character, which makes Duane a trustworthy person to moderate a forum such as this one. He is a wonderful example of how one should handle constructive criticism even when it comes in sharp and harsh tones. May God grant us all the wisdom to follow such an example when faced with criticism no matter how sharp!

I, for one, am thankful for him and the diligent work that he has done in this forum from which all of us benefit. It is without doubt a great labor of love on his part. And we all should be grateful and give thanks to God for him in our prayers.

Duane, we thank you, love you and pray that we will be able to continue to benefit from your spiritual service in this forum.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000

D. Lee, I don't remember that question posed to me...I have not always been able to read every post of every thread...

but I scroll back and see it now... My answer would be...yes! I think if I went to a PK rally, I would wear a T-Shirt with some blatant message like "Be dipped or be damned" (Mark 16:16) and carrying a megaphone shouting "Acts 2:38!"

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000

Duane:

I am not sure of how effective your "t-shirt and megaphone" idea would work. But I am certian that is far better than "no shirt" and sealed lips!

I have always contended that if we attend a PK rally it should be for the purpose of teaching the Gospel of Christ to those attending who have never heard it. Those who attend and lend support to those who teach another gopel other than the gospel of Christ are without doubt traitors to the very cause of Christ. (Romans 16:16,17;Gal. 1:8,9; 2 John 9-11; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His Kingdom; PREACH THE WORD; be INSTANT in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they WILL NOT ENDURE SOUND DOCTRINE; but after their own lust shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH and shall be TURNED UNTO FABLES. But WATCH THOU IN ALL THINGS, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." (Paul to Timothy. 2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

You have a tendency to slander and accuse.

If I call a spelled out 'Ha!' a laugh, and you say it isn't, that doesn't make me a liar. It is foolish to accuse someone of lying over such nonsense.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

Duane,

Mark 16:16 doesn't back up the slogan 'Be dipped or be damned.'

You can back up 'Believe or be damned' from that verse, provided the person you show the verse to accepts the ending of Mark as authentic.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

I've heard of Promise Keeper's, but I've never been to a rally. I've been overseas most of the time since these rallies have started taking place.

How does the Gospel that the Promise Keeper's preach line up with the Gospel Paul preached according to I Corinthians 15? How are they according these tests from I John:

(1 John 2:22-23 KJV) "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. {23} Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

(1 John 5:1 KJV) "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."

(1 John 4:15-16 KJV) "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. {16} And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

Link,

Let's say Danny interjects a "virus" into this Forum so that whoever reads a thread contacts a deadly disease (entering their cognitive nervous system through their eyeballs), which will kill them within 24 hours.

I develop an antidote. It is a special thread that you must read in it's entirety. It is encoded with special html language that, once you eyes have crossed over its contents, Danny's virus is immediately destroyed.

Being the kind fellow that I am, I post this "antidote" thread and announce in the title my wonderful news: "Whoevers trusts me and reads this thread will LIVE! Whoever does not trust me will DIE."

This leaves only two kinds of people. Those who trust me (and LIVE) and those who don't (and DIE).

The question "What about those who TRUST you, but do not read the thread?" is an impossible one, because by definition there cannot be such a person.

Has everybody caught the analogy? Whoever believes Jesus (and therefore obeys his command to be dipped) will LIVE. Whoever does not believe Him will die.

There is no such thing as a person who believes but is not dipped, cuz if ya don't get dipped, YOU DON'T "REALLY" BELIEVE.

And as for those who want to question Mark 16:16, rather, the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament documents, well yes, I would first have to do foundation work. But I would assume anyone at a PK rally already believes the Bible.

After reading this post, I think I will start a new thread with it, as it really branches off into a new discussion.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

Duane,

I too scrolled up and found the "TWO" posts gone. Thank you. You are a Christian man of your word and I have a great respect for that.

Thank you also for your answer to my question posed a year ago. It does my heart good to realize there are Men of God out there who will take a risk in the face of so much opposition. Men who will teach the truth of salvation and stand by it whatever the consequences dished out by others today. With men like you in The Faith, more people like myself will be saved. For that I am eternally grateful!!

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

Link's advantage is that he was memorizing those Bible verses before he went to cemetary.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

E. Lee Saffold, You have a tendency to slander and accuse. If I call a spelled out 'Ha!' a laugh, and you say it isn't, that doesn't make me a liar. It is foolish to accuse someone of lying over such nonsense.

You cannot prove your accusation that I have a tendency to slander" anyone. You have a tendency to make charges that you cannot prove to be true in the least. I have not slandered anyone in this thread. I have justly accused some of supporting false doctrine and organizations that teach it and I have accused some of dishonesty and none have shown that my accusations are unjust, least of all you.

I said that you were dishonest. One can be so eager to make his point that he does something that is not honest without being a deliberate liar. He can deceive himself into thinking that what he has said is the right thing to say. And by doing so he cannot be charged with being a liar. But he can be justly accused of being less than honest. I have charged you with dishonesty because you are talking about what I intended or meant by the use of the word Ha when you accused me of laughing at others in this forum. I can see how you may have misunderstood me if I had not previously told you exactly how I use that word in this forum. And even after my having originally told you I can still see how you may have thought that I had changed my normal use of this word when I spoke of Connie. But after I explained to you that I meant it as an expression of disgust as I had previously explained you were then without excuse to claim that I had intended anything other than that when I used the term.

You can think of it in any way that you like but when you speak of what I intended to convey when I wrote it you are speaking about what was in my mind. The only way you could know that for certain is if I told you what was in my mind when I wrote those words. I did tell you that I had disgust in my mind and intended to express it by the use of the word Ha. But you come back and even though you know, because I told you, that I intended to express disgust instead of laughter and claim that I intended laughter instead of disgust. Now unless you can prove that I am lying to you about what I intended with the use of this term then you are being dishonest to claim that I intended to say something other than what I have now told you four times that I intended to express. This is tantamount to calling me a liar, which is your right. But it is far from me calling you a liar to point out how dishonest it is for you to claim that I intended something other than what I have told you I intended to express. Unless you have proof of what was in my mind when I wrote those words.

So, I have not called you a liar, yet. When I have proof that you have lied I will not hesitate in the least to call you a liar. But for now I have not done any such thing. I do believe that you want to make it appear that I was laughing at others in this forum so badly that you are willing to dishonestly claim that I intended to express laughter even after I have told you four times that I had no such intent. But that is not the same as deliberately lying. It is a simple matter of desiring so much for me to be seen in this light that you ignore deliberately all of the evidence to the contrary. This is dishonest but it is not lying.

It is also appearant that you have a need to make it appear that I am calling you a liar when I have done no such thing. It is easier to do that than to face the issue at hand which is that the Holy Spirit has refused Connie's request to "come down on this forum in Holy Fire".

He has done that and there is nothing you can or will do to change His mind about it. He will not come on this forum in Holy Fire as she has requested and those who wait for that to happen will only be disappointed. I do not expect such a thing to happen but Connie does and you do not know what will happen. But I am as certian as I can be that it will not happen. He request has been and will continue to be denied for the Holy Spirit is not doing such things today nor has he done such things in the past. For if you read Acts 2 you will notice that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them accompanied by the "sound of a rushing mighty wind and there "appeared unto them "claoven tongues "like as of fire" and it sat upon the them. But no meantion can be found in the scriptures of the Holy Spirit coming down upon any "forum" in "Holy Fire". I cannot imagine where she even conjured up this idea that the Holy Spirit operates in such a way. She surely did not read it in her Bible. Now, she was very unclear about exactly what she meant and did not answer my clarifying questions about that matter. And I was disgusted with such nonsense and express my disgust as I have now told you several times.

Now, you accuse me of calling you a liar. Please copy and paste the words wherein I have called you a liar. You are being dishonest again in the very accusation that I have done such a thing. I do not believe that you are necessarily lying when you so accuse me. I think that you assume that because I accuse you of dishonesty that I am calling you a liar. But the truth is that I have not called you a liar in any place in this thread. So your statement implying that I have done such is not the truth. And were it not for the fact that I can see how you may think that my accusing you of dishonesty is the same as calling you a liar I would think that you are deliberately lying when you accuse me falsely of such a thing. But I do not think that such is the case. I could be wrong. I will wait and see. If you are not misunderstanding my words then you are deliberately lying for there is not one place in this thread where I have said that you were a liar. I have said you are dishonest in claiming that I intended something other than what I told you was my intent when I wrote the word, Ha. This is dishonest because you cannot know that I intended to express anything other than what I told you was my intention. But it is not necessarily a deliberate lie.

You are right it would be foolish to accuse someone of lying about such a thing. That is why it would be foolish of you to accuse me of lying about my intended meaning concerning how I used the word ha in this thread. For you see, in order for me to be justly accused of laughing at anyone in this thread I would have to intend to express laughter with the words that I used. But I have told you that I intended disgust and not laughter. I have told you that disgust was my intended meaning. And unless you know what was in my mind and can prove beyond doubt that such was not my intended meaning when I wrote those words you cannot prove that I intended to laugh at anyone.

It is also foolish to accuse someone of having called you a liar when they have not done any such thing. So prove that I called you a liar. If you cannot show that I have called you a liar and if you cannot demonstrate that you simply misunderstood something that I said which may have left you with that impression then you will be guilty of a deliberate liar for having made this false accusation. So, are you lying or can you prove that I called you a liar or that you took something that I said as meaning the same as deliberately calling you a liar?

For that is the situation you have now placed yourself into. Either you can quote my exact explicit words wherein I have called you a liar, or explain that I said something that caused you to get that impression or you are a deliberate liar. We wait for your response to determine which is the case.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

You often make a big argument out of things that don't need to be. I cut and pasted that last message to MSWord, just to see how long it was. It was 5 pages. I decided not to read the whole message to discourage this conversation from growing. I just read a little out of the first couple of paragraphs.

Lee, I acknowledge that there was no way of knowing whether you are literally laughing on the other side of the screen when you write 'ha!' If you say you aren't then you may not be. You should acknowledge my right to call a spelled out 'ha!' a laugh. If I call a spelled out 'ha!' a laugh, please don't be offended by that. The second time I called it a laugh, and you posted your long message in response to this, it looked to me like you were jumping all over me for my choice of words.

I can show evidence to back up what I say, but I prefer not to waste my time watching you argue to try to justify yourself again.

-- Anonymous, October 19, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

You often make a big argument out of things that don't need to be. I cut and pasted that last message to MSWord, just to see how long it was. It was 5 pages. I decided not to read the whole message to discourage this conversation from growing. I just read a little out of the first couple of paragraphs.

I do not know just how long it will take you to determine that I am not in the least concerned about the length of my post in this forum. I suppose that explains why you have not bothered to quote my exact words, which caused you to accuse me of calling you a liar. But you just do not have any words to show that I have, actually said that you were a liar, now do you?

Then you say:

Lee, I acknowledge that there was no way of knowing whether you are literally laughing on the other side of the screen when you write 'ha!' 

Yes there is a way for you to know and only one way for you to know. I told you that I was not laughing on the other side. Now we are not talking about your being wrong to read the word ha as a laugh. It is often and commonly used that way. But when you accused me of laughing at others in this forum you knew, because I had already told you in another threat that I do not use the word in this way. But I accept that you could have forgotten about my having told you that before and thus you believe that you were correct in accusing me of laughing at others in this forum. But when I came back and told you that I was not laughing on this side of the Internet that should have been the end of the matter. For then you knew what I intended to convey with this word because I told you. But you continued to insist that what I intended to convey was laughter. But now you admit that you had no way of knowing whether I was laughing or not. But, even though you have no way of knowing you continue to insist that such was what I was doing and that such was what I was intending to convey with my words. So you prove with your own words that you are being dishonest in accusing me of something that you had no way of knowing that I was in fact guilty of having done, now didnt you? But you did know after I told you what I meant by what I had said but you deliberately ignored my words and even now continue to accuse me falsely and as you admit with out any evidence of laughing at others in this forum.

Then you say:

If you say you aren't then you may not be.

Then why do you continue to insist that I was laughing at others? You just do not know for sure now do you? But even though you do not and cannot know for sure you find no reason to apologize for having accused me of laughing at others in this forum. Even after determining that you are not sure if your charges were true or false.

Then you want me to acknowledge your rights:

You should acknowledge my right to call a spelled out 'ha!' a laugh.

I do acknowledge your right to do just that. And if you had taken the time to read my post you would have seen where I did acknowledge your right to so interpret the word. But you are not right to insist that such was what I intended after I have told you clearly that such was not the way I use the word. And you should acknowledge my right to use this word as I see fit. But you have no excuse for continuing to make that charge after I told you plainly what I meant by the use of that word. It was also something that I have told you before you read that post. You have been dishonest in this mater and I have sufficiently proven that you cannot be trusted to be honest in such matters.

Then you say:

If I call a spelled out 'ha!' a laugh, please don't be offended by that. The second time I called it a laugh, and you posted your long message in response to this, it looked to me like you were jumping all over me for my choice of words.

I am not offended in the least. I am simply pointing out that you have falsely accused me without proof of laughing at others, especially Connie, in this thread. It just is not the truth. I have not called you a liar either so you have falsely accused me in that as well.

Then you say:

I can show evidence to back up what I say, but I prefer not to waste my time watching you argue to try to justify yourself again.

No, you cannot show any evidence to back up what you say. In fact you have even admitted that you do not know what I intended when I used the word Ha. So you cannot back up your charge that I was laughing at others in this forum. You have charged me with calling you a liar. You cannot back that up either. As I have said before, either you can point to something that gave you the impression that I was implying that you were a liar or you can copy and paste my exact words wherein I have called you a liar or you are in fact a liar. We will wait until you back up what you say to determine just what is the truth abut that situation.

Now, I am not writing to justify myself as you claim. I am writing to condemn your making false accusations that you cannot prove to be the truth. I need no justification. Even if I laughed at others it would not be unjustified. But the facts are that I have not done any such thing and you cannot prove that I did but you continue to falsely claim that I did. You therefore are justly condemned for being dishonest about the matter.

So, we wait for you to prove that I called you a liar. You could have given proof in your last post if you had any, but just did not do it, now did you? The reason is most likely that you cannot do it, now isnt it?

I also know another reason for your refusing to read my entire post. You cannot prove what you say and the more you read the more you realize that such is the case and the people in this forum cannot expect you to answer what you have not read, now can they? Now that is a very convenient excuse.

So, do tell us where I called you a liar? And do tell us just why you continue to falsely accuse me of laughing at others after being told that such is not what was happening over here on the other side of the internet and after you admit that you cannot know what was in my heart and mind and what was happening over here on this side of the internet?

You see, Brother Link, my purpose is to make it clear to everyone that you are guilty of the very thing that you condemn in others. And I have made that case very well!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2000

E. Lee, I caught that last paragraph. I may never know if you proved your case well. I could pick holes in your messages just as you do with mine if I wanted to. I'll opt for just not reading your message as that may be the easiest way to prevent going into a useless argument.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

E. Lee, I caught that last paragraph. I may never know if you proved your case well. I could pick holes in your messages just as you do with mine if I wanted to. I'll opt for just not reading your message as that may be the easiest way to prevent going into a useless argument.

You cannot prevent what you have already done, Brother Link. You started this useless argument by falsely charging that I was laughing at others in this thread and continued it by falsely charging that I had called you a liar in this thread. But now you want to avoid the useless argument that you started and perpetuated until you were asked to provide evidence of the truthfulness of your charges made in the course of this useless argument that you started.

Well, Brother Link, you could have written that paragraph days ago if you really wanted to avoid a useless argument. But you wait until you have been asked for proof of your false charges to decide to avoid the useless argument that you started and that you have been involved in for several days now. If you could have picked holes in my messages you would have done so by now. Your opting to not read my messages is indeed an avoidance mechanism but it is not the useless argument that you are trying to avoid. Rather it is the truth that you have falsely charged me with laughing at others in this thread and calling you a liar that you wish to avoid. You have been asked for proof that I have explicitly called you a liar in this thread. You cannot show any place where I have done such a thing and you know it thus you avoid the matter all together. You want to level false charges and avoid being held accountable for either proving that they are true or being condemned for making them. This argument began with your false charge that I was laughing at others in this thread. And you continued the argument after being shown that such was not the truth and added another false charge that I had called you a liar in this thread. And now, after being called upon to prove the truthfulness of your charge you want to avoid the useless and false argument that you started.

Well it is your right to avoid the truth as much as you like. And it is your right to avoid reading my messages. But your charges have been met and you have failed miserably to establish them as being true. There is nothing you can do about that matter and the people who read this thread can see just what it is that you are really avoiding. It is the facts and the truth that you are avoiding. But it is your right to do so though it is by no means right for you to do it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2000

E. Lee,

I apologize that I used 'laugh' to describe your 'ha!'s. I meant no offense. To me, 'ha!' spells a laugh whether in disgust or if you are writing it to indicate a belly-laugh. Personally, I find many of your 'HA!'s no matter what you call them, in bad taste. If you want to keep fighting over this issue, you can fill up pages of accusatory diatribes, but don't expect me to do much more than skim a few lines, if even that.

I caught the last paragraph, and noticed that you were able of writing your last message, perhaps looking for a fight, in less than 500 pages. Maybe you are learning to edit.

Other people know that you slander others in these forums, but I can't tell you how without opening a can of worms again. You have clearly slandered in the past.

You redefine words to fit your own arguments, and insinuate things that are not true a lot. If you want proof go back and read all the past posts you have written in which you accuse others of various things.

You are one of the very few posters in this forum which is from a non- instrumental SOF CoC. If you want to dispell the ideas posted above by another poster in this forum that SOF CoC's are not abusive, you could start by not being abusive and picking arguments with other posters on the forum. I suspect you are blind to how unethical and unChrist-like your behavior is, but your behavior is a bad witness for Christ. Lee, you have some knowledge on different things, and if you would repent and open up your heart to the working of the Lord, you might be able to do a lot of good.

You go to great lengths to try to come out 'on top' during an argument. To me you wrote,

:I said that you were dishonest. One can be so eager to make his point that he does something that is not honest without being a deliberate liar. He can deceive himself into thinking that what he has said is the right thing to say. And by doing so he cannot be charged with being a liar. But he can be justly accused of being less than honest. :

Sophistry. Look up honest in the dictionary. If you call someone 'dishonest' that has bad implications on their character. Unless you say 'not being honest with yourself' or words to that effect, saying someone is dishonest is an attack on the other person's character. You can define words in a way that makes you look good all day long, treating words like puddy in your hands. Why do you want to pick a fight over every small thing? Don't you know that the contentious are listed right up there with homosexuals in Romans 1?

I pray that God will show you just how ridiculous your behavior really is. Apparently, you are either blind to this, or you are willfully behaving in an argumentative, unChrist-like judgemental manner. I suspect the former is the case.

Lee, you could have all the knowledge in the world, but if you don't confess your sins when you commit them, do you think you can really benefit anyone.

John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

You go on justifying yourself as people point out your sin, and then accusing others, whether you have any good basis or not. If you want proof of your sin, go back and look at the past conversations in previous threads this year. Your sin has been clearly pointed out for all to see, but you don't accept the proof.

I am not avoiding the truth. I am avoiding the pages of accusatory excrement you repeatedly excrete on these web pages. Maybe if you and everyone else know I'm going to skip over your long diatribes of accusatory excrement, you won't excrete so much of it. There is a place for you to excrete, and it is not in public forums. Most people at least find a private place to excrete.

Repent of your sin and stop being such a big hypocrite, accusing others when you refuse to admit your own sins.

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2000

Brother Link:

You apologize as follows:

I apologize that I used 'laugh' to describe your 'ha!'s.

I accept your apology. Now the only thing left is for you to either prove that I called you a liar or apologize for having falsely accused me of having done so.

I have reviewed much of what I have said in the past year. I did so every time someone accused me of any wrongdoing and when I found EVIDENCE that I had been guilty his or her charges I apologized promptly. So far I have heard nothing but assertions from you that I have been guilty of the things that you complain about but as yet I have not seen any evidence to support your claims and thus have nothing for which I need to apologize. Just as you have charged me with calling you a liar in this thread and I have now asked you numerous times to point out my exact words wherein you claim that I called you a liar. But still you cannot show any evidence that I have done any such thing. And I have read and reread my post to you in this thread and still I do not find where I have called you a liar. Neither have I found any evidence for the numerous charges that you have leveled in your last post. So, until I have proof that I have called you a liar in this thread I will not apologize for something that I have not done.

It appears also that you have picked up a favorite phrase that does nothing more than demonstrate that you have no idea what the church of Christ really is. You speak of the SOF CHURCH OF CHRIST as if to imply that those who have such a sign out front of their building are not in fact the church of Christ. But are only pretending to be such because they have a sign out front that claims such to be the case.

I am a member of the same body that all Christians are members of. I am in the family of God because I have obeyed the gospel of Christ and the sign out front does state the truth. You see the sign says something about those who meet in that building but it says nothing about those who do not meet there. If those meeting in that building are people who have obeyed the gospel of Christ. And obtained forgiveness of their sins through the blood of Christ. Then the sign out front accurately describes the fact that the people inside of that building belong to Christ and they would be the Church of Christ even if the sign was not out front. But you say this to imply that what is stated by the sign out front is not the truth in our case. You are implying that we are not in fact the church of Christ but that we only call ourselves the church of Christ as if we are the only ones who can justly make that claim. You are, by use of this manufactured terminology, implying that we are not Christians at all. You do this of course because you cannot persuade us to accept the nonsense that you have taught in this forum. If you want to say that we are not Christians at all, then at least have the courage to come right out and say it. If however you admit that we are, in fact, Christians then you must also admit that we are the "church of Christ" meeting in that place because all Christians are members of the church of Christ. And if we are in fact Christians and therefore members of the church of Christ then the words written on the sign out front are true. If those words are true then the sign out front speaks the truth. Maybe that is the thing that bothers you. Now I have told you in the past that I have no concern for the sign out front and would not care if we did not have one. But you on the other hand imply that we are a group of people that only call ourselves the church of Christ but that we are not in reality the church of Christ simply because we put a sign out front stating that we are the church of Christ. Any group of Christians meeting in a given locality is the church of Christ whether they have a sign out front or not. But none that have not obeyed the gospel of Christ and are therefore not Christians are the church of Christ even if they claim to be with a sign out front. So do tell us, Brother Link, which category do you place us in when you refer to us as the SOF Church of Christ? I accept the fact that there are Christians who do not meet in a building that has a sign out front that says Church of Christ. Their sign out front might say church of God or it might say church of the first born or the church. And there are some that have obeyed the gospel and are still given to the use of sectarian names and teaching doctrines of men. They need to be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. But the presence of a sign out front is not an implication of pretense unless the words on that sign are not the truth. In fact it is intended to be just the opposite of that spirit.

So do tell us Brother Link, are you suggesting that we who have a sign out front that say we are the "church of Christ" are not Christians? If not then do tell us why you imply that we are only claiming to be the church of Christ. All who have obeyed the gospel of Christ whether they know us or not are members of the precious body or church of Christ. We are Christians only and we have never claimed to be the only Christians. WE have made it clear from the scriptures that only those who have obeyed the gospel of Christ are Christians. And all who have done so are such whether they meet with us in a building with a sign out front that boldly and truthfully states that we are the church of Christ or not. But your implication appears to be that we are not really the "church of Christ" but that we only call ourselves the church of Christ. This is tantamount to claiming that we are not Christians at all but that we only call ourselves Christians. But you are not bold enough to actually say that we are not Christians now are you? But if we are Christians then we are the "church of Christ" wherever we meet with or without a sign out front, now arent we? So either prove that we are not Christians or accept the truthfulness of the words on the sign out front of the place where we meet.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2000

E. Lee Saffold,

If you need 'proof' of what you have said, go back and read your own posts in the thread. It is right there in black and white (or whatever colors you use) for you.

I did not read your entire message, btw. I did read the following: "You speak of the SOF CHURCH OF CHRIST as if to imply that those who have such a sign out front of their building are not in fact the church of Christ. But are only pretending to be such because they have a sign out front that claims such to be the case. "

Lee, instead of guessing what someone else means when you are not sure, why not just ask? It is a lot easier to do that than to make a negative assumption about what someone means and then write pages based on that negative assumption. Sometimes you write pages based on a string of negative assumptions. In one of the threads, one of your assumptions was that I thought I was more spiritual than other people on the forum. After a while, you started treating this assumption, a product of your own mind, as if it were a fact.

I think SOF CoC is a good term. What does it imply, imo? Not that people who meet in such buildings are not necessarly Christians. But rather that not all true churches of Christ will necessarily have a sign out front of their meeting place called CoC. The building also labeled 'CoC' and, sometimes incorporated legal organization is not the true Church of Christ either. Christ's church is made up of people. I don't believe that only those with this sign out front are the Church of Christ. I don't believe that everyone that attends such a church is necessarily a Christian either. I don't believe most informed people in SOF CoC's would make that claim, either.

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

If you need 'proof' of what you have said, go back and read your own posts in the thread. It is right there in black and white (or whatever colors you use) for you.

You made the charge, Brother Link therefore you give the proof. It is interesting that you do not simply copy what you claim is there in black and white my exact words wherein I called you a liar and paste it into your response. This would be very easy to do if you had such words to copy and paste but it does appear that you cannot do that. Now, doesnt it? So again after being asked about five times to prove that I called you a liar you continue to fail to do so. I think that is sufficient evidence that you cannot prove it. Now isnt it?

Then you say:

Lee, instead of guessing what someone else means when you are not sure, why not just ask?

I did ask and you did not read enough of my post to see the question and therefore ignored it. You have shown that you will not answer questions that are asked of you. SO to ask you is to allow you to escape the issue altogether. It is therefore more reasonable to just tell you how we understood what you said and let you explain otherwise if we are mistaken.

Then you say:

But rather that not all true churches of Christ will necessarily have a sign out front of their meeting place called CoC.

Well, if you had read my last post you would have seen that I said as much as follows:

Any group of Christians meeting in a given locality is the church of Christ whether they have a sign out front or not. But none that have not obeyed the gospel of Christ and are therefore not Christians are the church of Christ even if they claim to be with a sign out front. So do tell us, Brother Link, which category do you place us in when you refer to us as the SOF Church of Christ?

You did not notice this nor did you answer my question. Which category do you put us in, Brother Link? Do you consider us as Christians who simply choose to put a sign out front acknowledging the truth that we are members of the church of Christ or do you consider us non-Christians who are pretending to be the church of Christ by putting a sign out front? It is likely that you will ignore this question, isnt it? Notice that the above quote is proof that you were asked what you meant by this phrase and you refused to answer, now didnt you?

The building also labeled 'CoC' and, sometimes incorporated legal organization is not the true Church of Christ either.

Well I said as much myself in my last post as follows:

I accept the fact that there are Christians who do not meet in a building that has a sign out front that says Church of Christ. Their sign out front might say church of God or it might say church of the first born or the church. And there are some that have obeyed the gospel and are still given to the use of sectarian names and teaching doctrines of men. They need to be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. But the presence of a sign out front is not an implication of pretense unless the words on that sign are not the truth. In fact it is intended to be just the opposite of that spirit. So do tell us Brother Link, are you suggesting that we who have a sign out front that say we are the "church of Christ" are not Christians?

You did not answer that question either. Now did you?

And everyone knows that the brick and mortar building is not the church of Christ and you reference to this matter is just a mere sophistry as you would say.

So do tell are we among those whom you actually consider Christians and members of the body of Christ or do you consider that were are among those who are not true Churches of Christ? For you referred to me using a designation that you admit can be taken to mean two different things. So which is it? Did you refer to me as a member of a SOF CHURCH OF CHRIST because you wanted to leave the implication that I am not a Christian and therefore not a member of the actual body or Church of Christ? Or were you simply trying to tell me that I was a member the true church of Christ that simply has chosen to put a sign up to tell the world that such is the case? I expect that we will see you ignore this question also. You want us to ask you questions just so that you can ignore them, now dont you?

Then you say:

 Christ's church is made up of people. I don't believe that only those with this sign out front are the Church of Christ.

Now you can see that neither do I believe that only those with the sign out front that says Church of Christ are the church of Christ in fact. Notice my words:

Any group of Christians meeting in a given locality is the church of Christ whether they have a sign out front or not. But none that have not obeyed the gospel of Christ and are therefore not Christians are the church of Christ even if they claim to be with a sign out front.

SO what would you mean when you speak of a SOF CHRUCH OF CHRIST other than that you suspect that they are nothing more than a group of people that merely call themselves such but are in reality not the church of Christ. If you knew that they are in fact Christians because they have obeyed the gospel why would you not simply call them the church of Christ, especially if that is how they are accustomed to refer to themselves? Paul had no aversion to simply calling Christians the churches of Christ (Romans 16:16) therefore what is your aversion to Christians being referred to as the church of Christ? Now, I have said in other threads that they can be called by any other scriptural designation but SOF CHURCH OF CHRIST is not one of them, now is it? It is apparent that you despise us because we have the gall to call ourselves something that the scriptures called Christians. Your hatred for the church of Christ is quite obvious. And it is certainly unjustified.

Then you say:

I don't believe that everyone that attends such a church is necessarily a Christian either.

Neither do I but I do not call them pretense Christians unless I can prove such is the case. I do not refer to them as Christians in name only unless I can demonstrate that they are not in fact Christians. But you claim that we only claim to be the church of Christ with a sign out front that says we are. But you cannot prove it. Now can you? If you admit that we are Christians then you cannot deny that we are among the true churches of Christ. Because the church of Christ is not just made up of people as you have claimed. It is made up only of people who have become Christians by obeying the gospel of Christ. So if you think that we are the church of Christ in name ONLY then PROVE IT. In order to do that, Brother Link, you will have to prove that we are NOT CHRISTIANS at all. For the moment that you admit that we are Christians you also admit that we are among the true church of Christ for all that are Christians are members of the family of God or the Church of Christ. So which is it? Are you going to claim that we are not Christians? If so we demand that you prove that we are not. If you are going to claim that we are Christians then you have no choice but to admit that we are the Church of Christ whether we have a sign out front that says such or not. And if we are the church of Christ why is it wrong to say that we are whether in words or on a sign out front? Remember that I am asking you about your specific words in reference to my being a member of a SOF CHURCH OF CHRIST. I am not talking generalities here. I am talking about your specific words. So do show us that you are willing to answer the questions which you have thus far ignored about this matter.

Then you say:

I don't believe most informed people in SOF CoC's would make that claim, either.

No one, especially me have made such a claim! Ha! You would give better answers if you read the post that you are trying to answer. No one has claimed that all that say they are Christians are such nor has anyone claimed that all buildings where the sign out front says church of Christ is necessarily the church. But when you refer to me as belonging to a SOF Church of Christ you are implying that I am a member of the church of Christ in name only which is saying that I am a Christian in name only but not in truth. And this would be ok if you could prove that such is the case. But you do not offer any proof that such is the truth. I am talking about your specific words in reference to me. So answer the questions that were ask of you about it or we have no choice but to conclude that you are doing nothing more than speaking nonsense that you cannot prove to be true in the least.

It is fine to say that there are some people who claim to be Christians who are not Christians. But it is a horse of a different color when you say that any specific person claims to be a Christian but is not really one. This you have done in reference to me. You have said that I am a member of a SOF CHURCH OF CHRIST meaning that I am a member of the church in name only but not in reality. But if you say that then you must claim that I am not a Christian at all for if you admit that I am a Christian you must also admit that I am a genuine member of the very body or Church of Christ. SO do be bold, Brother Link, and tell us all. Am I a Christian or not? Am I actually a member of the church of Christ or not? If I am a Christian in reality and if I am a member of the church of Christ in reality. Then why do you say I am a member of a sign out front Church of Christ when you know that I am in fact an actual member of the body of Christ and the sign out front has nothing to do with the matter in the least?

A more sectarian spirit cannot be found in this forum that the one you display with your use of this terminology. But what can we expect from sectarians. They must insist that we all belong to a denomination. And when anyone tries diligently to avoid belonging to such sectarians just cannot bear it, now can they? They then come up with a denominational designation, which they know you do not accept and place it upon you and thereafter designate you with it thinking that this will pull you against your will into their sin of sectarianism.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2000

E Lee Saffold,

Again, I didn't read your whole message. I don't appreciate your accusatory tone. If you want to pick a fight, write to someone else.

Look at your last paragraph. You write, "A more sectarian spirit cannot be found in this forum that the one you display with your use of this terminology. But what can we expect from sectarians. They must insist that we all belong to a denomination. And when anyone tries diligently to avoid belonging to such sectarians just cannot bear it, now can they? They then come up with a denominational designation, "

First, you imply I am a sectarian, and then paint 'sectarians' with a broad brush.

If you would actually read what I have written on my months on this forums, instead of just making up what you think I might believe and writing it down as if it were fact (e.g. the quoted material above) you might realize that I don't believe a church has to have a sign in front of it.

Some people conceive of 'church' as a building. Others conceive of chruch as an organization, structurally like a social club.

One of the primary meanings of ecclesia is an assembly that is called together. If a group of saints meet in a house, an apartment, a storefront, a steeplehouse, etc. they can still be a church. The group that meets is a church. Church is not a building with a sign out front, and it is not an organizational entity which exists apart from its members- something on paper registered with the IRS.

There are some who are suspicious of the salvation of baptized believers if they have not attended a church meeting in a building with the name 'Church of Christ' written on the front. 'Church of Christ' like it or not, is used as a label to describe church buildings and congregations just as 'Church og God' or 'Baptist' is used to describe other congregations of people.

In a literal sense, of course a church with the label 'Christian Church' can be a Church of Christ. 'SOF Church of Christ' is an effective way of distinguishing between the term 'Church of Christ' used as a label for Christians who meet in a building with that label on it. Not every church of Christ has such a sign out front. Let me ask you Lee, do you think some of the people on here who go to churches labeled 'Christian Church' really go to churches of Christ? But they don't all have a sign out front with 'Church of Christ' written on it do they? They don't go to a 'SoF CoC.'

If you would read my messages, instead of insinuating false things about me, you might realize that I believe that Christians can meet in private homes without denominations, and without holding to such traditions as listening to only one man preaching a sermon The scriptures give instructions for church meetings found in I Corinthains 14 and Hebrews 10:24-25.

Many people have the traditional notion that once a church gets going, it needs a professional clergyman, and a church building with a sign out front. Many SoF CoC's have a building with a sign out front. Since I see in the Bible, and what I know of early church history that the early church met in homes and was able to grow, I am not to keen on encouraging people to build church structures and follow the denominatinal tradition of putting a sign out front. I'm not saying it's a sin. But it is a tradition, it costs money, and it takes the 'main' church meeting out of the home.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2000

E Lee Saffold,

Btw, Lee, why are you so quick to accuse. To say that using the term 'SoF CoC' coupled with my explantion is a flimsy basis for your accusations is a big understatement. Why are you so judgemental? Why do you write long messages hammering whatever arguments and information you can put together to make an accusation? Do you like accusing people and arguing with them? Is this how you get your kicks?

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2000

It's better than it used to be, Link.

Now his treatises are broken into paragraphs.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

Again, I didn't read your whole message. I don't appreciate your accusatory tone. If you want to pick a fight, write to someone else.

Again, I tell you that I am not writing solely for your benefit and I could care less whether you read any of my words. And what you appreciate or do not appreciate has no bearing on what I say in this forum in the least. I will write what I believe is the truth whether you appreciate the tone or not. Anyone reading this thread can see that it was you that wanted to pick a fight with your initial false accusation for which you have now apologized and I have accepted your apology. But now, after picking that fight you have yet other false charges that you have sought to pick a fight about and you do not like how the fight is going so you want me to go away and talk to someone else. If you do not want to be involved in a fight then stay out of the ring. If you want to be in the ring and are throwing punches at others do not be surprised if they seem to be picking a fight with you when they counter your flimsy swipes at them.

Then you offer more evidence in your own words of your sectarianism as follows:

In a literal sense, of course a church with the label 'Christian Church' can be a Church of Christ. 'SOF Church of Christ' is an effective way of distinguishing between the term 'Church of Christ' used as a label for Christians who meet in a building with that label on it. Not every church of Christ has such a sign out front. Let me ask you Lee, do you think some of the people on here who go to churches labeled 'Christian Church' really go to churches of Christ? But they don't all have a sign out front with 'Church of Christ' written on it do they? They don't go to a 'SoF CoC.' 

Now your words quoted above are an example of the exact sectarian spirit that I accused you of having, Brother Link. I have not been talking about a church that we all go to. Instead, I am talking about what we actually are. As Christians we are all members of the family of God or the body or church of Christ. And it matters not if we meet in a building or in houses or under a big oak tree that is what we are. All who have obeyed the gospel of Christ are Christians and are members of the church of Christ and there is no need to make sectarian distinctions between them because we are all one in Christ Jesus. This includes my brethren who worship in a place with a sign out front that says Christian Church instead of the church of Christ. And that sign out front may be a matter of disagreement between us nevertheless it does not change the fact that they are Christians and therefore members of the family of God or church of Christ. I do not make any distinction between them and myself for we are all Christians only and we are not the only Christians. All who have been obedient to the gospel of Christ are Christians regardless of the existence of a sign out front of their place of worship. And there is no need for such distinctions. But you feel the need to distinguish me from them and others who are Christians by the use of the sign out front designation. You do not like the sign out front but you make use of it to maintain your sectarian distinctions between various members of the body of Christ. This is sectarianism at its worst. And by your own words you have proven yourself to be the sectarian that I have accused you of being. There will be no apology from me on that score. If you chose to be sectarian I will simply chose to point out your sectarian spirit and condemn it.

Now, as I said before, the sign out front of our buildings is not designed to say anything about those who do not meet there for worship. Its purpose is to say something about those who DO meet there for worship. And as I told you before, I myself would prefer that we not have signs out front for any reason simply because it gives sectarians such as yourself a means of being sectarian toward us and attempting to draw us into the very sectarian spirit that we deplore. But the sign is there and it will most likely remain and those who wish to be sectarian have a tool that they can use. But those who are not sectarian will not be affected by it in the least.

All who are genuine Christians by having been obedient to the gospel of Christ are members of the church of Christ and that includes those who do not have a sign out front saying as much. But only the most sectarian among us would seek to use the sign out from to make distinctions among us so as to divide and separate the members of the Body of Christ from each other.

So I am not talking about a church but THE CHURCH or the family of God. All who have been born again in obedience to the gospel of Christ are children of God and members of the family or house of God. That thou mightest know how to behave thyself in the house of God which is the church of the living God the pillar and ground of the truth. (2 Tim. 3:15).

I also want to notice that you ignored all of the questions that I predicted that you would ignore. And you also ignored my challenge for you to produce evidence that I have called you a liar. This is now the sixth time that you have deliberately ignored that request. Therefore we will just consider it a settled fact that you are completely unable to support that false charge.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2000

Connie:

You have said, in what appears to be a reference to my previous post and an attempt to insult my work in this forum the following:

It's better than it used to be, Link. Now his treatises are broken into paragraphs.

Now the facts are that you cannot find one single post that I have written in this forum over the last year that was not broken into paragraphs. You may not like the way I divided the matter into paragraphs but your implication that they were not broken at all into paragraphs is simply false. The problem with you making a false statement like that is that it seems that you know that it is false. And if you are not simply speaking from the impressions that my lengthy post made upon your mind instead of the actual facts then you would be guilty of telling a deliberate lie about that matter now wouldnt you? I think however that I know you better than that. Since I know that you are given to letting your imagination run away with you at times I will simply think that you have merely imagined that I did not break my earlier post into paragraphs and have stated your imagination as if it were a fact. Thus I will not charge you with deliberate lying.

But if it is not your imagination running away with you then I cannot see how you would make such a statement without deliberately telling that which you know to be untrue. For if you go back and check through the archives you will not find one single post written by me that is not broken into paragraphs.

But even if such were the truth, why is that important to you? Why do you even say such a thing? Are you trying to pick a fight and after we fight for a while you will then behave like Brother Link and whine about me picking fights with people. The legs of the lame are verily unequal, now arent they?

But I also want to remind you that you have also failed to answer questions that were put to you in this thread. You simply want to insult and then ignore. Just as brother Link does and then you whine that we are all so unloving when we respond to your insults, now dont you?

Well, I guess we cannot expect much more from those who have already decided that they are superior Christians to the rest of us poor ignorant and bigoted souls.

Sincerely,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2000

------------------ Hebrews 12:28-29

Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our "God is a consuming fire."

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2000

E Lee,

I haven't read all your messages, but I did come across these words while looking over the thread. Lee, you need to repent of your false accusations against members of the body of Christ.

>>>>But you claim that we only claim to be the church of Christ with a sign out front that says we are. But you cannot prove it. Now can you? If you admit that we are Christians then you cannot deny that we are among the true churches of Christ.<<<<

Lee, I've met some people with mental problems before. One thing some of them do is draw conclusions based on evidence that does not support their conclusions, and they believe these conclusions no matter what. Lee, your reasoning is similar to that of people with mental problems. I'm not saying your crazy, but it is not reasonable to conclude that people always think what you think they are thinking when you don't have conclusive evidence.

I see you do this repeatedly. You extrapolate on what someone says, and then you start treating those extrapolations, which are often not true, as if they were facts, and accuse people based on those extrapolations.

For example, you asserted that Charismatics thought they were more spiritual, and then accused me of thinking I was more spiritual than others on the forum because I believed in the gifts of the Spirit. After several posts without me correcting this, you started treating it as a fact that I thought I was more spiritual with others. Lee, I shouldn't have to correct you in order to keep you from making false allegations. You shouldn't make the false allegations in the first place.

I didn't say that people who met in buildings with 'Church of Christ' written in front were not meeting in assemblies that were churches of Christ. You can try to write 20 books arguing how the use of 'SOF CoC' naturally means this, but that doesn't make it so.

If you would read and understand my posts, you would see that I believe a church is a gathering of believers or a group of believers that gather (there is also the heavenly reality of the church, but I didn't expand on that earlier.)

>>>> It is apparent that you despise us because we have the gall to call ourselves something that the scriptures called Christians. Your hatred for the church of Christ is quite obvious. And it is certainly unjustified.<<<<

I love the Lord and His church. Your accusations are false and unjustified. You easily make accusations against others with evidence that does not support your charges, and you get all bent out of shape over the slightest offense from another person. Easily offending others, but yet easily offended.

You might scoff at the idea of the Holy Spirit leading someone as they contribute to the forum. You should not scoff at the idea that you could be influenced by Satan or devils to write on this forum. So much of what you right is accusatory false bile.

If you love Jesus, in truth not in word only, repent. If you love Him, you will keep His commandment to love one another. If you loved me the way Jesus commanded, you would not write as you write. If you loved Jesus as you should, you would not write as you write.

Lee, do you rejoice in iniquity? Do you enjoy it when someone makes a point you think is immoral which you can use in an accusatory argument. Do you say to yourself 'HA! I found it. This will prove my point.'

Do you 'believe all things, hope all things, Lee' or do you try to find the most negative way of interpreting things.

Lee, you draw all kinds of negative conclusions about what I and other people write- things that I do not say and do not intend, and then build posts full of accusations based on these things. Is this consistent with love Lee? Is that what Jesus did? Do you think Jesus would do such a thing?

Let me ask you, Lee, do you love me? Do you love me as you love yourself? How do you treat yourself, Lee? Do you take your own words, twist them around to mean what you did not intend, and then accuse yourself. Do you have any kids, Lee? Do you treat your kids as rudely as you treat others in this forum? Do you falsely accuse them of intentions they do not have? If you do treat your children as you treat others in this forum, I feel sorry for your kids.

Jesus accused the Pharisees. He knew their hearts. You don't claim any special revelation from God about other people's hearts. What Jesus did not do is stand around and accuse people of thinking and believing what they did not think or believe. Jesus was right. You are wrong about many things, yet bold enough to accuse others slanderously of your own ideas about them. I've pointed this out many times repeatedly. You ask for proof. It has been presented to you many times, but you do not accept it as proof. Instead, you justify yourself. I haven't seen you take correction from those you disagree with. The only correction I've seen you receive is from those you were on good terms with.

You need to repent and start acting in love toward others. Much of what you are writing is not edifying. You come online and pick arguments with people. You accuse with little evidence.

Take it to the cross, Lee. Confess your sin and repent. Ask for forgiveness. God can change you. He can make your profitable and edifying. He can change the way you write. But if you continue to justify yourself in your sin, don't expect to accomplish much for the kingdom of God. You may write a lot about preaching the Gospel, etc. but you need to learn to show love to others yourself. Obedience is better than sacrifice. It would be better to obey Christ's command to love others than to sacrifice hours of your time writing long messages that are not beneficial because they are full of false accusations. Just repent and obey the Lord.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2000

Amen.

Luke 14:11 NASB:

For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

James 4:6 NASB:

But he gives greater grace. Therefore it says, "GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE". [Capitalized in the NASB].

I Peter 5:6 NASB:

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

BI haven't read all your messages, but I did come across these words while looking over the thread. Lee, you need to repent of your false accusations against members of the body of Christ.B

Now you do not prove that I have falsely accused anyone in the body of Christ of anything. But, if you will notice this is now the seventh time that I have pointed to the fact that you have falsely accused me of calling you a liar in this thread. I have asked you to copy and paste the very words that you believe indicates that I called you a liar in this thread but you have not do so, now have you? And this is just like the rest of the false accusations you have leveled at me in your last post. You simply assert that I have done these things but you do not prove that I have in fact done them. So once again we ask you to produce evidence that I have called you a liar in this thread. I am a member of the body of Christ and you have falsely accused me of calling you a liar in this thread. Thus you should either prove that I have actually done such a thing or follow your own advice and repent of your false accusations against this particular member of the body of Christ.

Then you imply that you believe that I have Bmental problemsB as follows:

BLee, I've met some people with mental problems before. One thing some of them do is draw conclusions based on evidence that does not support their conclusions, and they believe these conclusions no matter what. Lee, your reasoning is similar to that of people with mental problems.B

Now it is obvious just here that you believe that anyone who draws conclusions without evidence to support their conclusions has mental problems. Now I do not agree that such is the case. A person can sincerely make mistakes in his or her reasoning without having Bmental problemsB at all. In fact, most people do this very thing every day. Their mistakes in reasoning cause them trouble and frustrate others but it is not an indication of mental illness. And you do not show that you have any qualifications to diagnose mental illness. In fact, your reasoning on this matter is conclusive proof that you have no such qualifications.

However, on the basis of your own BreasoningB that anyone who Bdraws conclusions without evidence to support their conclusions has mental problemsB you have thereby diagnosed yourself as one who suffers from a similar malady. For you have drawn the conclusion that I have called you a liar in this thread but you have thus far been completely unable to offer any evidence to support that conclusion. Now I have not concluded that such is proof that you are Bmentally illB because I do not agree with your reasoning on that matter. But if your reasoning were true then you would be suffering from Bmental illnessB more so than I would. For I have not drawn conclusions that I have not at least offered evidence that I am convinced supports my conclusions. But you, on the other hand, have drawn the conclusion that I have called you a liar in this forum without even attempting to offer any evidence that you are convinced supports that conclusion. The legs of the lame are indeed unequal!

And until you offer sufficient evidence to convince me that I am indeed guilty of any sin for which I need to repent it is a definite fact that I will not go before God with a pretense of genuine repentance. For it is not my practice to repent of sins for which I know that I am not guilty of having committed.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

E. Lee,

You did it again. Get your facts straight. I did not conclude you were mentally ill because you drew conclusions without good evidence. You write as if this were my conclusion. Maybe if you would actually READ, you could see that I had said earliert that you 'may have' some mental problems. I did NOT say here that you DID have some mental problems. I also told you some things you had in common with the mentally ill.

I wrote the following, "I'm not saying your crazy, but it is not reasonable to conclude that people always think what you think they are thinking when you don't have conclusive evidence. "

Stick with what I say. Don't make stuff up that I didn't say. I've got an idea. If you want to make up stuff that I said, you can have a conversation in email. You can write the messages supposedly from me, and then you can respond with your own messages. That way, instead of making up stuff that I didn't say and putting it here on this webpage, and acting like I said it, and having to read my objections to this practice, you can make the arugment go any way you won't. You should really consider this, Lee. You can argue for both sides, and if you don't want them to, no one in the argument will question your integrity. Just change the name for the imaginary Link to something else so my name won't be floating around in cyberspace with your ideas attached to it.

Lee, you can ignore the evidence all you want. I've already showed you where you made false statements/insinuations about what I believed (e.g. when you indicated I was saying that the SOF CoC's were not really CoC's. You can look up to previous posts for information.)

Lee, you ask where you accused me of being a liar. I didn't say you used the word 'liar' to describe me. Here are my words about that.

" You have a tendency to slander and accuse.

If I call a spelled out 'Ha!' a laugh, and you say it isn't, that doesn't make me a liar. It is foolish to accuse someone of lying over such nonsense. "

Why would I say you accused me of lying. "And you are right, all we can do about your deliberate dishonesty is write about it and point it out. And that is what I have done and will continue to do and there is nothing you can do about it, now is there? "

Now most people who read English and understand the language can see the implications that if someone says someone is deliberately dishonest about what they type to this forum, they are lying. How did you explain yourself?

You, E. Lee Saffold, wrote,

"I said that you were dishonest. One can be so eager to make his point that he does something that is not honest without being a deliberate liar. He can deceive himself into thinking that what he has said is the right thing to say. "

Looks like you were just trying to cover your own posterior here. If I were to follow your example I could write several pages calling you a LIAR over and over again. Look at what you had already written.

"And you are right, all we can do about your deliberate dishonesty is write about it and point it out."

Then you wrote, to justify yourself and try to escape the fact that you were impliating that I were lying:

"I said that you were dishonest. One can be so eager to make his point that he does something that is not honest without being a deliberate liar."

So what is it Lee, do you think i was being deliberately dishonest or not? Did you forget what you had written about 'deliberate dishonesty?' Do you care more about covering your own posterior and justifying yourself before men than you do about being consistent and honest? You have a lot of nerve. You go around accusing people of dishonest when there is a slight bit of what you interpret as a descrepency in their post. You launch an attack without first politely asking for an explanation and waiting. And then you go out and make the same kind of errors, and continually try to justify yourself over and over again.

In your last message, true to form, you continued to justify yourself, and try that old tactic you use of twisting arguments around to try to accuse others. Instead of examining yourself, you lash out at others, looking for any little fault you can contrive. Do you really believe you are just in spite of the fact that you accuse based on flimsy evidence and your own reasoning.

I could bring up other unrepentent sins of yours on this forum Lee. I don't want to open another can of worms, and I have good reason for not opening up that can.

If you want to die without repenting of these sins, I can't do much more than pray and write to you on this forum. You don't seem to be responding well to posts written to show you the error of your ways.

You should be more sensitive to the correction of the Lord. If you can't even receive correction from members of the body of Christ, that the Lord allows to cross your path, what will it take? Don't be like the horse or mule that has to be steered with a bit or bridle or it will not draw near. What is it going to take? Do you have to go through some tragedy before you finally acknowledge your sin? It is a lot easier to receive correction early on than to wait and go through more dramatic chastising from the Lord.

I've run across unbelievers on the Internet who more quickly could receive a legitimate rebuke than you do. You should be ashamed.

If you are to remain true to form, hardened and unrepentant, you may choose to write another message justifying yourself. You could also be humble, repent, and admit your error.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

E. Lee,

You did it again. Get your facts straight. I did not conclude you were mentally ill because you drew conclusions without good evidence. You write as if this were my conclusion. Maybe if you would actually READ, you could see that I had said earliert that you 'may have' some mental problems. I did NOT say here that you DID have some mental problems. I also told you some things you had in common with the mentally ill.

I wrote the following, "I'm not saying your crazy, but it is not reasonable to conclude that people always think what you think they are thinking when you don't have conclusive evidence. "

Stick with what I say. Don't make stuff up that I didn't say. I've got an idea. If you want to make up stuff that I said, you can have a conversation in email. You can write the messages supposedly from me, and then you can respond with your own messages. That way, instead of making up stuff that I didn't say and putting it here on this webpage, and acting like I said it, and having to read my objections to this practice, you can make the arugment go any way you won't. You should really consider this, Lee. You can argue for both sides, and if you don't want them to, no one in the argument will question your integrity. Just change the name for the imaginary Link to something else so my name won't be floating around in cyberspace with your ideas attached to it.

Lee, you can ignore the evidence all you want. I've already showed you where you made false statements/insinuations about what I believed (e.g. when you indicated I was saying that the SOF CoC's were not really CoC's. You can look up to previous posts for information.)

Lee, you ask where you accused me of being a liar. I didn't say you used the word 'liar' to describe me. Here are my words about that.

" You have a tendency to slander and accuse.

If I call a spelled out 'Ha!' a laugh, and you say it isn't, that doesn't make me a liar. It is foolish to accuse someone of lying over such nonsense. "

Why would I say you accused me of lying. "And you are right, all we can do about your deliberate dishonesty is write about it and point it out. And that is what I have done and will continue to do and there is nothing you can do about it, now is there? "

Now most people who read English and understand the language can see the implications that if someone says someone is deliberately dishonest about what they type to this forum, they are lying. How did you explain yourself?

You, E. Lee Saffold, wrote,

"I said that you were dishonest. One can be so eager to make his point that he does something that is not honest without being a deliberate liar. He can deceive himself into thinking that what he has said is the right thing to say. "

Looks like you were just trying to cover your own posterior here. If I were to follow your example I could write several pages calling you a LIAR over and over again. Look at what you had already written.

"And you are right, all we can do about your deliberate dishonesty is write about it and point it out."

Then you wrote, to justify yourself and try to escape the fact that you were impliating that I were lying:

"I said that you were dishonest. One can be so eager to make his point that he does something that is not honest without being a deliberate liar."

So what is it Lee, do you think i was being deliberately dishonest or not? Did you forget what you had written about 'deliberate dishonesty?' Do you care more about covering your own posterior and justifying yourself before men than you do about being consistent and honest? You have a lot of nerve. You go around accusing people of dishonest when there is a slight bit of what you interpret as a descrepency in their post. You launch an attack without first politely asking for an explanation and waiting. And then you go out and make the same kind of errors, and continually try to justify yourself over and over again.

In your last message, true to form, you continued to justify yourself, and try that old tactic you use of twisting arguments around to try to accuse others. Instead of examining yourself, you lash out at others, looking for any little fault you can contrive. Do you really believe you are just in spite of the fact that you accuse based on flimsy evidence and your own reasoning.

I could bring up other unrepentent sins of yours on this forum Lee. I don't want to open another can of worms, and I have good reason for not opening up that can.

If you want to die without repenting of these sins, I can't do much more than pray and write to you on this forum. You don't seem to be responding well to posts written to show you the error of your ways.

You should be more sensitive to the correction of the Lord. If you can't even receive correction from members of the body of Christ, that the Lord allows to cross your path, what will it take? Don't be like the horse or mule that has to be steered with a bit or bridle or it will not draw near. What is it going to take? Do you have to go through some tragedy before you finally acknowledge your sin? It is a lot easier to receive correction early on than to wait and go through more dramatic chastising from the Lord.

I've run across unbelievers on the Internet who more quickly could receive a legitimate rebuke than you do. You should be ashamed.

If you are to remain true to form, hardened and unrepentant, you may choose to write another message justifying yourself. You could also be humble, repent, and admit your error.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

:-):-):-)

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

Brother Link:

It is interesting to see how you do not like to read my "lengthy" post but you really enjoy responding to them.

You have said:

BYou easily make accusations against others with evidence that does not support your charges, and you get all bent out of shape over the slightest offense from another person. Easily offending others, but yet easily offended. B

Now, it is your opinion that the evidence that I have offered in my arguments against the teaching of some in this forum does not support the charges made. You assert this but you have never even thought to offer any evidence to support that charge. At least, when I make a charge I offer what I believe to be evidence to support it. Just because you ignore the evidence offered or think that it does not support my charge is not proof that you are correct. You must prove what you say. But you have failed miserably to do so and thus you do nothing more than repeat your assertions thinking that you will be Bheard for your much speakingB of them.

Then you charge that I get Bbent out of shape over the slightest offenseB but you do not prove that such is true, now do you. I corrected your error concerning my use of the word BHaB in this thread but I said nothing about being BoffendedB by your false charge in the least. I have corrected your egregious error of charging me with calling you a liar simply because it is not true but I am not offended by it in the least and have not said that I am offended by such. These things do not offend me. But they are wrong and should be corrected. It has been my desire to offer correction to these errors and give you opportunity to repent for having made them. It is your business if you do not want to correct those errors or if you do not agree with my position concerning them. But to claim that I am offended when I have said nothing to indicate that I have taken any offense is just another false charge that you cannot prove to be true.

So do quote my exact words where I have claimed to be offended by anything that has been said in this forum other than my taking actual offense at the disrespect shown for the Holy Spirit by the distasteful placing of flames in this thread in His name? That is the only thing for which I have ever stated that offended me. But you speak as if I am always easily offended when you cannot prove that I have ever been offended about anything other than this insult leveled toward the Holy Spirit in this thread! Ha! In fact, during the entire year that I have spent writing in this forum that is the only thing that I have actually said offended me. And that offense did not come easily. Do you honestly think that one who is offended only once in an entire year is easily offended? You and Connie and others have cast hundreds of insults at me and I am not offended by any of them. But I do correct those who speak that which is not the truth. And with every insult and every false charge and every false doctrine that you have expressed in this forum I have offered correction of what I considered to be false and untrue. But I have never stated that any of that offends me personally. So your claim that I am easily offended is just more false accusations that you are unable to prove.

I do not like false doctrine and I write to refute it when I see it but it does not offend me personally at all. It offends God. I have rejected your false doctrine and written against it but I have not taken offense upon myself. I have expressed GodBs objections to such doctrines. I have not taken offense to any of your numerous insults nor the Bloving insultsB of my friend Connie. But you claim that I have been offended. But you do not prove it, now do you. Because I fight against something and reject it, as being true does not mean that I am personally offended by it in the least. So why donBt you just try to prove that I am offended by anything other than the one thing that I have specifically said offended me during this entire year? That one thing was the placing of the "flames" into this thread and anonymously ascribed to the Holy Spirit. And even you claimed to be offended by that act. I am the only one that can know if I have actually been personally offended. You cannot know it unless I tell you that I am offended. And this I did on only one occasion during the past year of writing in this forum. And it was my taking offense at the BflamesB that were ascribed to the Holy Spirit in this very thread. You can search the archives and you will find that I rebuke strongly those who teach false doctrine and the one person that I caught telling a deliberate lie to this forum. But that does not mean that I felt personally offended. For I have no such feelings. You might say words that you intend to insult me and when you read my harsh response you think that I am offended. But unless I claim offense you cannot prove that such is what is in my heart, now can you? So juat becaue you intended to create offense and you receive a response to your words does not mean that you were successful in causing offense.

And it is your choice and right to offer insults and it is my right to point to your hypocrisy in doing so but they do not offend me personally. For actually when you do those things you provide me with some very strong evidence to show your severe inconsistency of talking about speaking Bsweet, loving wordsB out of one side of your mouth and breathing insults out of the other side. You do nothing more than help me prove that you are a hypocrite. This does not frustrate me in the least. It makes my task much easier. You claim that I cannot tell what is in someoneBs heart but you seem to think that you are able to do what none of the rest of us is allowed to do. You just know that I have been often easily offended by others in this forum but you can only show one place where I actually claimed to be offended as I have described above. And it was the very thing that also offended you. So we will just add this to the growing list of false accusations that you have offered not one shred of evidence to prove that they are true. Assertions are not fact, Brother Link. And all we have from you is assertions, which you have been completely unable to establish as true.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

BLee, you ask where you accused me of being a liar. I didn't say you used the word 'liar' to describe me. Here are my words about that. " You have a tendency to slander and accuse.B No Brother Link, you are wrong again. Here are your exact words about that matter and If you had read my initial post you would have seen them and if you read your own writing you would have found your exact words which were:

BYou have a tendency to slander and accuse. If I call a spelled out 'Ha!' a laugh, and you say it isn't, that doesn't make me a liar. It is foolish to accuse someone of lying over such nonsense.

-- Link Hudson (LinkH@bigfoot.com), October 18, 2000. B

Now, that, Brother Link is exactly what you said, now isnBt it? And you cannot prove that it is true because you cannot show where I have called you a liar in this thread, now can you? So you now deny that you accused me of calling you a liar by saying that you did not say that I used the word BliarB to do it. But you sure made it seem, as if I had called you a liar, now didnBt you? And no one reading that statement would have gotten the impression that I simply implied that you were a liar, now would they? In fact, if I had not objected someone who has not read the entire thread would have drawn the conclusion that I called you a liar like most men do by simply saying that you were a liar, now couldnBt they. So with your own words you now admit that I did not use the word BliarB in calling you a liar. Well that is a little bit better. For now we are in a situation where you are not saying that I actually BcalledB you a liar. You are saying that I in some way BimpliedB that you were a liar. Now that is a very different picture than the one you painted now isnBt it?

So, now you need to prove that I clearly IMPLIED that you were a liar because you admit that I never actually BCALLEDB you a liar, now donBt you?

Then you say:

BWhy would I say you accused me of lying. "And you are right, all we can do about your deliberate dishonesty is write about it and point it out. And that is what I have done and will continue to do and there is nothing you can do about it, now is there? "

I told you several post back that I accused you of deliberate dishonesty. But dishonesty takes many forms. Lying is not the only way to be dishonest. A thief steals from others but he is not lying when he steals unless some one ask him if he stole something and he denies it. You were not being honest about the fact that you cannot know what was in my heart when I used the word BhaB. And you were not being honest about the fact that I had already told you what I meant by the use of this word. You were simply ignoring the fact that you had been told. But you did not lie about it and I therefore did not accuse you of lying. I accused you justly of being dishonest by ignoring the facts that I had told you. And I am convinced that you did so deliberately. But that is not lying, now is it?

Then you say:

BNow most people who read English and understand the language can see the implications that if someone says someone is deliberately dishonest about what they type to this forum, they are lying. B

That is not true. One can be dishonest without ever telling a lie.

But you did not say that I BimpliedB that you lied. You said that I BCalledB you a liar. When you Bcall someone a liar you do so explicitly and if you insinuate that someone is a liar you do so implicitly. But I have not done either. But you accused me not of implications that you were a liar. No, you accused me of BcallingB you a liar.

Then you say:

BSo what is it Lee, do you think I was being deliberately dishonest or not? Did you forget what you had written about 'deliberate dishonesty?' Do you care more about covering your own posterior and justifying yourself before men than you do about being consistent and honest? B

Yes, I think you were being deliberately dishonest by ignoring over and over again the fact that I had told you the facts concerning what I intended by the use of these words and refusing to admit that I had done so. But you had not lied about it. You just deliberately ignored it and continued to claim that I meant something other than what I had said. But this is not lying, now is it. You simply thought that you could continue to claim that I meant something other than what I had said and that all would eventually accept your version of things. Now this is dishonest but it is not something that I could prove that you were lying about. Therefore a charge of dishonesty is not a charge of lying and many people who speak the English language know this to be the truth. A thief who admits his crime upon being caught is a very dishonest man because he is a thief but he cannot be called a liar unless he is found telling a lie. You were being deliberately dishonest in that discussion that we had about what I meant by the use of the word BHaB and I said so. But you did not lie and I therefore did not accuse you of lying.

Then you say:

BIf you are to remain true to form, hardened and unrepentant, you may choose to write another message justifying yourself. You could also be humble, repent, and admit your error. B

I am witting another message to correct your error. I have no need to justify myself for I have not been unjust. I am simply waiting for evidence that I have even implied that you were a liar so that if it is true I can correct the error. So far I have seen no such evidence. If I ever find any sufficient evidence to convince me of an error in this matter I will correct that error. But thus far I have not seen any. Your miserable attempt to avoid the facts in this matter is not very convincing.

But as far as BformB is concerned it is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. And we are still waiting for proof that I actually called you a liar as you claimed that I did. In fact, you admit that I did not explicitly call you a liar. And now you must prove that I even implied that you were a liar. For that is not true and you cannot prove it either. Your latest attempt was a miserable failure. So, do try again.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

BI did not conclude you were mentally ill because you drew conclusions without good evidence. B

I know that you would not conclude any such thing because sucha conclusion would leave you open to extreme criticism for reaching a conclusion that you know is not the truth. Therefore, I did not say that you BconcludedB any such thing. I said that you implied it.

This is what I said:

BThen you imply that you believe that I have Bmental problemsBB

And everyone reading your words about that matter could see the clear implication that I have some mental problem. And that is impossible for you to deny. Thus I was dealing with your implication rather than your BconclusionB. If you did not intend to IMPLY that I had mental problems why would you say:

BLee, I've met some people with mental problems before. One thing some of them do is draw conclusions based on evidence that does not support their conclusions, and they believe these conclusions no matter what. Lee, your reasoning is similar to that of people with mental problems.B

Now if you were not implying, without actually drawing a conclusion, that I have some mental problem I cannot understand exactly why you would have said those words. Maybe you will explain it to us all.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Michael,

Are you still there?

I know things get busy, in fact things are very busy for me at the present. I have copied and pasted some questions asked earlier of you in this thread. In such a long thread I know it is easy to overlook or miss things, so I thought I would post them again for your consideration.

1. Please explain....how one can be "so doctrinally correct...that they lose their faith?" from Danny.

2. BI have absolutely no desire to continue in the round of what seems to be for me the development of an apologetic for Promise Keepers. October 15-16 here in Des Moines are eagerly being anticipated by myself and many others in and out of the Restoration Movement. Your contentions, I can say quite clearly, will not change my views because I have talked this issue over until I and the others I have talked with were blue in the faceB The above words are part of a post of yours on the first PK thread started in August of last year. If it is true that you had absolutely NO desire to continue in the discussions then, and if as you state you have talked the issue over until you and others were blue in the face, then why have you come back here a year later to start up the discussion again? Was it to cause division?

3. If I had attended a PK rally several years ago (not understanding scriptural salvation) and any of you gentlemen who go to PK rallies had sat next to me...praised the Lord in song, prayed, and worshiped with me...would you have taken the time to teach me the truth or would you have left me sitting ignorantly in my sins?

Link,

Would you please also consider answering this following question I have posted to you several times. I have looked back and read again to see if you have answered and I might have missed your answer, but can not find an answer to this questionB My question is...How do we know which person is being lead by the Holy Spirit in what they are typing? I mean...we sure do not agree on several things including salvation...so which one or ones are we to believe is being lead by the Holy Spirit? How are we to determine whose beliefs are of the truth, and whose beliefs are not of the truth and therefore lies?

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Connie:

You have quoted a very thought provoking passage of scripture. One that we all should keep very much in our minds as follows:

BTherefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our "God is a consuming fireB

Now, Connie, that is much better. You have finally learned how the Holy Spirit works. He works through the word of God. BAnd take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit which is the WORD OF GODB. (Eph. 6:17). WE are begotten by the word. B Seeing ye have purified your souls in obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently: having been begotten again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God which liveth and abidethB. And this is the word of the good tidings which was preached unto you.B (1Peter 1:22-25)

Thus in much the same way that you have learned that the only way that the Holy Spirit will bring any BfireB into this forum is through the word of God. It is true that the only way that the Holy Spirit will BbegetB anyone is through the truth of the gospel that is preached unto them. BFor the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness but unto us which are saved it is the power of GodB. It pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1 Cor. 1:18-21).

And if you would like to see more BfireB, from the Holy Spirit in this forum you will have to go to the word of God to get it for it will not come in any other way. And if you want BfireB that comes directly from God the only way you will see that is when Christ our Lord returns. Connie you should read and contemplate the meaning of this verse, if you are interested in BfireB coming down upon anyone. BAnd to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power;B (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

This verse describes the only time that God has promised to bring fire upon mankind ever again.

So, your prayers for the Holy Spirit to come upon this forum in Holy Fire have still been denied. And the only way we will receive anything concerning fire from the Holy Spirit is when we read his word, which teaches us about that fire to come and how we can avoid it.

Your friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

D. Lee Muse,

I don't recall every having discussed salvation with you. My views on baptism are probably somewhere on the spectrum between RM views and evangelical views.

On the one hand, I don't endorse the 'come down to the altar and pray this prayer' strategy for leading people to the Lord. In the book of Acts, we see that people were baptized when they received the Gospel. I believe we should do the same here. When someone is ready to receive the Gospel, baptize him.

Here in Indonesia, this can be a bit of a problem since if the person is not baptized by someone authoritzed by a denomination (including the CoC denomination, which has a synod and an elected leader because of the way the government sets things up here) it is difficult for him to get a baptism certificate. Christians need baptism certificates here to get married, get their passports, and maybe to get their ID cards changed from Muslim or whatever other legal religion, to Christian. If they don't change their ID card religion, and they want to get married, they might have to marry in a mosque. It's a sticky issue here. Many denominations only have 'the pastor' baptize, and the CoC/CC denomination here has clergymen as well.

The end of Mark says that he that believes and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believes not will be condemned. It doesn't say what will happen to the one who believes but is not baptized will be condemned, but rather that he that does not believe will be condemned. Some say that being 'born of water' refers to baptism, and that Jesus left that as a requirement for salvation. Yet a year or more, perhaps, after giving this teaching, Jesus offered pardon to the theif on the cross. I see no record of the apostles being baptized into Christ, and Acts 19 seems to make a distinciton between John's baptism and Christian baptism. Paul writes an awful lot about salvation by faith. He does talk about baptism in some places, but there are plenty of promises of salvation through faith.

Some argue from the epistles that New Testament baptism is the equivilent of OT circumcision. But Abraham, the father of them that believe, was justified by faith while he was yet uncircumcised.

The issue of what to do with martyrs who confessed their faith, and were hauled off to be executed before having a chance to be baptized was a difficult one for many in the early church. They spoke of a 'baptism of blood' considering the blood of the martyr to sercve as baptismal water. Perhaps they weren't as hung up on immersion as some are today. I wouldn't encourage someone to be baptized by sprinkling, but from what I have studied about the meaning of Greek words and from what I've heard of the cultural context of the Jewish mikveh, a ritualistic bath, I am not convinced that anyone who is baptized by pouring is necessarily going to hell.

Do I encourage people to remain unbaptized? No, of course not. I know someone who is from a traditional church that baptizes babies. He's been going to our church and has been trying to get out of his sin. My wife and I have tried to persuade him to be baptized. I gave him verses to study, and we've talked about it. He doesn't come to our cell group anymore, and last I heard he didn't have a phone, so we haven't been keeping in touch so much these days. Maybe he will decide to be baptized. I think if he continues to stay in church enough, he may.

Back to the issue of how to know if the Holy Spirit is leading someone. The Bible says to test the spirits to see if they are from God. A test I John gives is whether the spirit confesses that Christ came in the flesh.

The Old Testament gives a test for prophets. If a prophet says to worship other gods, they were not to hear him.

Another way of testing is through gifts of the Spirit. Some people have a gift of discernment of Spirits, and can tell one spirit from another. As we mature spiritually, we can also learn to grow in the type of discernment which involves learning how God operates. The end of Herbews 5 speaks ofthe mature, by reason of use, having their senses exercised to discern good and evil. This type of ability to discern develops over time. Peter and John had an ability to discern grace. They saw they grace of God that was on Paul and Barnabas to minister to the Gentiles.

We can discern some things by the scriptures. If someone says to go worship false gods, or starts preachign that Jesus did not come in the flesh or that Jesu sis not the Son of God, we can discount him as not being moved by the Spirit. But some things are not so easily discerned from the Bible. If someone in the church feels that the church should minister to the poor on the east side of where the church meets, rather than using certain funds to open up a similar ministry on the west side of where the church meets, what Bible verse can you find to support that sort of message? This is where different kinds of discernment come in.

Some believers get spiritual discernment early on in their walk as a gift of the Spirit. Others get this as a gift of the Spirit later in their walk. One of the brothers on here, for example, posted several months ago in another thread that he could sense what cult someone had come from at times without asking because of spiritual discernment. All of us whould be growing and maturing and gaining the ability of discerning good and evil, learing how the Lord works, and recognizing more and more when He is operating and cooperating with what God is doing. Jesus said He did what He saw His Father do, and Christ is our Example.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

BYou should be more sensitive to the correction of the Lord. If you can't even receive correction from members of the body of Christ, that the Lord allows to cross your path, what will it take? Don't be like the horse or mule that has to be steered with a bit or bridle or it will not draw near. What is it going to take? Do you have to go through some tragedy before you finally acknowledge your sin? It is a lot easier to receive correction early on than to wait and go through more dramatic chastising from the Lord.B

It is interesting to note just here that you consider a criticism from you, offered without any evidence to show that it is true, is equivalent to a Bchastisement from the LordB. You even threaten for the Lord as if you know his mind, a BtragedyB, in order to get me to accept your personal view and repent of sins which the Lord knows I have not committed. You say it is easier to Breceive correction early onB than to suffer more Bdramatic chastening from the LordB. But you do not prove that the Lord is presently BchastisingB me at all, now do you? Nor do you prove that your charges are true in the least and even if they were true you do not prove that this BcorrectionB that you think you are offering comes from the Lord. Now, if the Lord Jesus Christ Himself actually even remotely spoke any words of Correction to me I would immediately repent and He would never have to get to the BchastisementB stage. But just because a false teacher who supports organizations that teach the false doctrine of salvation by Bfaith onlyB apart from obedience to the gospel does not like my harsh criticisms. And because of it offers a few unfounded and unsupported charges against me is not reason enough for me to change my course and correct my ways.

For you are, without doubt, not one who is a spokesman for the Lord Jesus Christ. His words are found in the pages of the inspired word of God. There are no such inspired men today to speak the word of God to me. Thus I know that your BcorrectionB which you give in the form of unsupported false charges are not from the Lord. For you have not proven them to be true nor have you shown a single word from the inspired New Testament that condemns what I have said or done in this thread. Just because you say something, Brother Link does not mean that Christ our Lord is speaking through you.

For we are taught in the scriptures how God has spoken unto us. And you are just not in that list at all. For the scriptures tell us: BGod who at summary times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the father through the prophets hath in these last days spoken to us through His son.B (Heb. 1:1,2). Thus GodBs will is revealed through Christ. (Matt. 11:27). Authority was given to Christ (John 5:26-27) And we are governed today by the authority of Christ. (Acts 3:19-23; Mark 9:2-8; Matthew 5:21-22; 5:27-28; 1 Cor. 9:21). And ChristBs authority was executed through his apostles (Matt. 19:27-28; 28:19,20; 16: 17-19; John 20:20-23; 2 Cor. 5:18-20; 1 John 4:6). And the Holy Spirit guided the apostles. (John 14:16-17; John 14:26; John 16:7-15; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4; 37). The preaching of the apostles was confirmed by miracles (Mark 16:17-20; Heb. 2:1-4; 1Cor. 12:28,31; 1 Cor. 2:1-4; 1 Cor. 13:8-10; Eph. 4:11). The apostleBs words are recorded in the inspired word of God and those words are the will of Christ who is the only BmediatorB between God and man.B (1 Tim. 2:5).

Thus your efforts to maintain that your words are actually the same as the very words of Christ and he is speaking through you to Bchastise and correctB me are nothing short of ridiculous. God spoke through Christ and Christ spoke through the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit spoke through the apostles who now speak to us in the inspired word of God which was proven to be such by the miracles given of God for that purpose. But Christ does not speak through you or any other Christian unless that Christian is repeating His words, which were revealed by the Holy Spirit through the apostles in the word of God, and properly applying them. (Heb. 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). He does not speak through anyone who is merely Bleveling chargesB that cannot be proven to be true and that are not directly condemned by His holy word. No one can speak for God or Christ today that does not speak from the word of God that was revealed through the apostles of Christ by the Holy Spirit and confirmed to be from the Holy Spirit by miracles. And this does not describe you in the least.

Therefore, as much as you would like to imagine that God is speaking through you and chastising others through you and threatening BtragedyB upon others through you, it is just simply not true. And just because you assert it does not in the very least prove it to be the truth, now does it?

There is only one mediator between God and man and it is not Link Hudson or E. Lee Saffold or any other man. It is Jesus Christ. And the only thing Christ has to say to us is what Holy Spirit in the New Testament has said through the apostles who spoke Bas they were moved by the Holy SpiritB. Therefore I will look to the word of God to receive the words of Christ and will correct myself by the renewing of my mind to conform to the image of Christ as he has directed in His inspired word. I will not notice any threats offered by a mere uninspired man who cannot prove his assertions to be true and appeals to his own reason instead of the word of God to persuade others.

So much for your feeble attempts to Bspeak for ChristB. The only way you can do that is to speak from his word and prove that your assertions are true and in complete harmony to that word. So do tell us where Christ has threatened in his word to bring some tragedy upon me if I do not accept your assertions without your having proven them to be true according to the facts and in harmony with his word. This you have not done.

So, I daily accept correction from the Lord as I read His word and compare it to my life. Uninspired men who speak not according to the word of God can never correct me, especially with imaginary threats as if God has in some way issued such through them.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

E. Lee,

Over and over again people have shown you where you err. Instead of repenting, you write long messages trying to justify yourself, consider yourself justified, and then claim you have done nothing wrong. If someone proves you are wrong, you write a long message insisting your are not, and keep repeating over and over again that there is no proof you have done nothing wrong. I don't want to have to list everything you have done wrong in every post. I have pointed out several of your sins, and so have several others. It has already been done. You rejected rebukes from several people on this matter. If you want proof that you have done wrong, go back and read previous posts, don't keep playing this game of saying that I have not proven anything.

Here is a piece of typical garbage from you,

"But just because a false teacher who supports organizations that teach the false doctrine of salvation by B faith onlyB apart from obedience to the gospel does not like my harsh criticisms."

Here you just turn guesswork into an accusation. Where have I ever given you any evidence of supporting any religion organization that teaches false doctrine that one does not have to obey the Gospel, or any organization that you consider to teach false doctrine? Do you claim to have some sort of revelation of 'organizations' that I support? Have you seen any evidence that I support Promise Keeper's or denominationalism. For all you know, I might be involved with the organization here that could be called the CC/CoC 'denomination' here now in Indonesia without mentioning it on the forum (and there is one with a synod, and clergymen, and everythingB.) You might be able to figure out that I grew up in a Pentecostal/Charismatic environment, but you shouldn't make guesses about me without evidence. But you have the gall to make assumptions without checking them out, and then turn it into an accusation. I have already shown where you make assumptions about people (me in particular) and treat your assumptions as fact.

Here is another example of your tendency to read your own ideas into other people's words: "Thus your efforts to maintain that your words are actually the same as the very words of Christ and he is speaking through you to B chastise and correctB me are nothing short of ridiculous."

I didn't claim to be prophesying to you, Lee.

I wrote, "Do "Byou have to go through some tragedy before you finally acknowledge your sin? It is a lot easier to receive correction early on than to wait and go through more dramatic chastising from the Lord."

Lee, you need to realize that God is sovereign, and He sometimes uses circumstances and other people to correct people. He can even use a judge, jury, and prison to correct someone. He can use unbelievers or believers or even a donkey if he so chooses, to correct someone. People repeatedly tell you over and over again that the way you accuse others is not godly. You can refuse to listen if you wish. A wise man love rebuke. You should consider what other people tell you, instead of ignoring it. Letting other people cross your path who tell you what you do wrong is one of the ways the Lord allows us to be corrected. It is one of those easy ways to be corrected. If you were wise, you would listen when other people rebuke you, and consider what they have to say.

It would be a lot wiser for you to ASK people what they mean when you are not sure, rather than to misinterpret their words in the way that bolsters your own argument the best, and arguing based on your interpretation of their words, (which sometimes is not a justifiable interpretation based on the words themselves. Take your accusations and assumptions just based on the fact that I used SOF CoC for example.)

When someone misunderstands what someone says in a conversation like this, usually it is no big deal. When someone misinterprets what someone else says, and writes 20 pages of accusations based on the misinterpretation, it makes the accuser look pretty bad.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

Brother Link:

In discussing your BViewsB concerning salvation with Sister Muse you have said the following:

BI don't recall every having discussed salvation with you. My views on salvation are probably somewhere on the spectrum between RM views and evangelical views.B

Now, it would be better if you simply discussed what the scriptures say concerning salvation instead of your views and the BspectrumB where they reside between other differing views of men. When Christ asked the disciples Bwhom do men say that I amB they gave him a range of views. And then when he said whom do ye say that I am Simon Peter answered and said, Bthou art the Christ the son of the living GodB. And Christ said, blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for FLESH AND BLOOD HATH NOT REVEALED this unto thee but my father which is in heavenB. (Matt. 16:13-19). And we notice that the answer given was GodBs word on the matter and that answer was far different than all of the Bviews of menB on the subject. In fact the revealed word of God on this matter did not fall anywhere on the BspectrumB between any set of human views. Such is true also concerning the subject of what one must do in order to be saved from their sins. The human views are wide in range and GodBs word does not give an answer that even takes notice of this divergent BspectrumB. So, while you take the time to explain your views and where they fall among the other views of men, you completely ignore GodBs word and what it says concerning this grave subject which concerns the eternal salvation of lost and dying mankind.

Now, in what appears to be an effort to placate those of us who object to the Bmourners benchB salvation offered by many of the sectarians you say:

BOn the one hand, I don't endorse the 'come down to the altar and pray this prayer' strategy for leading people to the Lord.B

Well, Brother Link if you did BendorseB such we would not believe it for GodBs word teaches no such nonsense. We are not concerned with what you BendorseB but rather what does GOD SAY about the matter. And you have nothing to say about that at all. In fact though you do not BendorseB this BstrategyB neither do you specifically condemn it. Even though such is clearly contrary to the very word of God. You speak of this as a mere Bstrategy for leading people to the LordB that you do not endorse. If this were in fact a Bstrategy of leading people to the LordB as you say and that strategy could actually work for some why would you not endorse it? The fact that it is not GodBs BstrategyB for saving men is sufficient reason to reject it.

Then you tell us:

BIn the book of Acts, we see that people were baptized when they received the Gospel. I believe we should do the same here. When someone is ready to receive the Gospel, baptize him.B

Well now, it seems that you want us to believe that it is a good reason to baptize others because you BbelieveB we BshouldB do the same here that they did in the book of Acts. Well, we care nothing about what you BbelieveB about the matter. The book of Acts is from God and the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit commanded everyone to be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of their sins. None ever became Christians in that book that was not baptized into Christ. And in some places he gave the reason for such through the inspired preaching of the apostles of Christ. Notice that Peter told those who asked BMen and brethren what shall we do?B with these words, BRepent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF YOUR SINSB (Acts 2:38). Two things were required of them to obtain the remission of sins and one was just as important as the other was. Those two things were Brepent and be baptizedB. Then they that gladly received his word Bwere baptizedB and Bthe Lord added to the church daily such as should be savedB. (Acts 2:47) Those who did not gladly receive his inspired word from God were not baptized and were not added to the number of the saved. And the same is true today. Those who gladly receive the word of God will be baptized and added to the number of the saved and those who do not are Brejecting the counsel of God against themselves as those who rejected the baptism of John had done. Are not added to the number of the saved. (Luke 7:29,30).

But you say that Bwhen someone is ready to Breceive the gospel baptism himB. But what if he tells you that his views are different from what he reads in the word of God and he sees no need to be baptized but he is willing to Baccept Jesus as his saviorB, should we Bbaptize him anywayB? Has he, with such an attitude accepted the gospel of Christ? No, with that attitude he is claiming to accept Christ as his savior while at the exact same time rejecting him as Lord! Jesus said, BHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be condemnedB. (Mark 16:16). And it was Christ who sent the Holy Spirit to tell Peter and the other apostles what to preach. Therefore the words of Peter on Pentecost are from Christ and he commanded them to be baptized for the remission of sins. And any person who thinks it is possible to Baccept Christ as their saviorB while at the exact same time rejecting Him as his or her Lord by refusing to obey his clear commands to be baptized is sadly mistaken. For Christ himself said, Bwhy call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things, which I say.B (Luke 6:46). And the scriptures do not say anything about us Baccepting Christ as our saviorB but they say much about Christ saving those who yields to Him as Lord. BNot everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heavenB. (Matt. 7:21). And Christ is the Bauthor of eternal salvation to all them that obey himB. (Heb. 5:8,9). Baptism has, over the last two millenniums, proven to be a test of faith and surrender to Christ as LORD. WE do not read of any place where anyone in the New Testament simply Baccepted Christ as their saviorB. All who came to Him accepted His Lordship and he saved them when they demonstrated that acceptance by obeying His commands given through the apostles including the command to Brepent and be baptizedB.

Then you seek to convince us, not by the teaching of GodBs eternal word, but rather by how denominationalism is practiced by Indonesian BChristiansB by order of the Indonesian government. These are your words:

BHere in Indonesia, this can be a bit of a problem since if the person is not baptized by someone authoritzed by a denomination (including the CoC denomination, which has a synod and an elected leader because of the way the government sets things up here) it is difficult for him to get a baptism certificate.B

Now, a baptism certificate is nothing to God. It is a command of the Indonesian government. And I do not know what you mean by the BCoC denominationB but GodBs word condemns denominationalism as a sin (1 Cor. 1:10). And no one can justify sin on the basis that their government Bmade them do itB. BWe must obey God rather than menB (Acts 5:29). The CoC (Church of Christ) established by God through Christ and the Holy Spirit in the apostles on the day of Pentecost A. D. 33 was not then and is not now a denomination. And any denomination that calls itself the Bchurch of ChristB is not faithful to Christ so long as they are a denomination.

Then you tell us why Christians BneedB to be baptized in Indonesia as follows:

BChristians need baptism certificates here to get married, get their passports, and maybe to get their ID cards changed from Muslim or whatever other legal religion, to Christian. If they don't change their ID card religion, and they want to get married, they might have to marry in a mosque. It's a sticky issue here.B

Now obedience to Christ takes precedence over the obedience to the government when there is a conflict between them. For Bwe must obey God rather than menB (Acts 5:29). Therefore, the requirements of the government are not a justifiable argument that we should not obey God by being baptized according to His commands even if the government should refuse to give us an ID card that allows us to get food to eat. For it is God who will care for us not any human government.

Then you tell us:

BMany denominations only have 'the pastor' baptize, and the CoC/CC denomination here has clergymen as well.B

Well if the BCoCB in Indonesia must be a denomination because the government orders them to so disobey God and they yield to such orders even though they know it to be contrary to the will of God and is therefore sinful. Then they may as well have BclergymenB and all of the other human trappings that come from the creeds and doctrines of men, which rebel against God. But they need not expect God to excuse their deliberate disobedience to His divine will. For God will not spare them on the flimsy excuse that the Bgovernment made me do itB. Especially since the early Christians were expected to sacrifice their lives rather than to yield to the demands of the government to deny Christ. WE can deny Christ not only with our lips but we can deny Him by rejecting His Lordship in disobedience to His commands. For he said, BIf ye love me keep my commandmentsB. He did not say, If ye love me keep my commandments unless the government tells you not to obey meB.

Then you use the often answered and worn out nonsense that the sectarians have always used in their feeble attempts to explain away what Jesus Christ plainly said in Mark 16:16. And I want everyone reading this to ask themselves the question just why Mark 16:16 has come under such intense attack by those who believe in salvation by Bfaith onlyB apart from obedience to the will of Christ? But we address it anyway:

BThe end of Mark says that he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not will be condemned. It doesn't say what will happen to the one who believes but is not baptized will be condemned, but rather that he that does not believe will be condemned.B

Now, if we accept your statement we still can ask the question. If one wants to be saved what does Christ say he must do? He says believe and be baptized. If one wants to be condemned what must one do? He simply need only refuse to believe. But if he wants to NOT KNOW whether he is saved or lost all he need do is believe but stubbornly refuse to be baptized. For if, as you have said, Christ said nothing about what would happen to one who was not baptized then we would not know if that person were saved or lost, now would we? So you would of necessity, therefore, by your own words, admit that no one could be certain of their salvation if they were not baptized. In fact, it is interesting that those who make this argument that you make just here draw the conclusion that since Christ did not say what would happen to those who were not baptized that he therefore implied that they would be saved even though they had not been baptized. But that is irrational. If Christ did not say then we would not know now would we? A person, therefore who believes but has not been baptized must at least admit that he has absolutely no idea what Christ will do with him at the judgement. If not why not? For your argument is that Christ did not say those who believed but were not baptized would be condemned. But neither did he say that they would be saved now did he? This is especially true since he is clearly aware that Christ not only commanded him to believe but also commanded him to be baptized. So he stands as one who knows that he has refused to obey the command of Christ and he does not know if he will be saved or condemned at the judgement according to Byour viewB of this verse. There is no question that Mark 16:16 Jesus promises salvation only to those who believe and are baptized. This is a fact. Thus those who believe and are baptized can be sure of their salvation because it is based upon the clear promise of God. Those who do not believe can be certain of their condemnation for it is also based upon the clear promise of Christ our Lord and he is not slack concerning his promises. But those who believe yet refuse to obey Christ in baptism cannot know anything, if they hold your view of this passage, about whether they will be saved or lost. For you are contending that Christ did not say anything about them. He did not, according to you, say that they were condemned neither did he say they were saved.

And he promises condemnation for those who refuse to believe and, if your argument is correct that he says nothing concerning those who believe but are not baptized then it is clear that he does not promise either condemnation or salvation to them, now does he? So, do we encourage people to believe that they will be saved without being baptized when Christ has clearly promised salvation to those who believe and are baptized but have promised NOTHING to those who merely believe without being baptized?

So, I ask everyone to notice the choices that Brother Link thinks that Christ gave to us in Mark 16:16.

1). You can chose to believe and be baptized and Christ definitely promises to save you.

2.) You can chose to not believe and Christ promises that you will definitely be condemned.

3.) Believe but refuse to be baptized and Christ does not definitely promise you anything, either condemnation or salvation.

Now there are the choices. Which one would you pick? It does seem to me that the intelligent and wise would chose to believe and be baptized especially since being baptized is actually easier to do than to believe. It only takes a few minutes and any thinking person has to wonder just why there is so much controversy around something that everyone admits that Christ commanded and it is so easy to do. Think of how our Badversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour.B And notice how brother LinkBs doctrine is Bthrowing menB to this evil lion that seeks only to consume them.

But let us look at the reality of the teaching of this verse.

Now brother Link has told us that Mark 16:16 falls short of supporting our argument that one must believe and be baptized in order to be saved. But lets see if this verse supports the argument or not.

Once some one else made this same argument to me and he used an Ba&bB device to express it. He said the same as what brother Link has said but he expressed it this way. BJesus in Mark 16:16a said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. And in Mark 16:16b Jesus said he that believeth not shall be condemned. And he said that Mark 16:16a says belief and baptism will save and he said that Mark 16:16b says that he that believeth not will be condemned but he does not say in Mark 16:16b that he that is not baptized shall be condemned. He then said that this therefore meant that we cannot know what will happen to the one who believes but is not baptized.B

I will now quote the entire passage and use his a&b device to examine it and compare it to what both he and brother Link have said.

Jesus said, BGo ye therefore and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemnedB. (Mark 16:15,16). Now you say that the Boperative concept here is faith.B Now can you prove from the scriptures that the operative concept here in this verse is faith? One could just as easily argue that the operative concept here is obedient faith. In fact there is no such thing in the word of God as faith alone being the operative concept. In fact everywhere in the scriptures it is a living active and obedient faith that is the overriding Boperative conceptB. James makes this clear when he tells us that _ Faith with out works is dead being aloneB. And, Bye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLYB. (James 2:24). So faith alone cannot be BoperativeB for it is dead. BFaith without works is deadB Therefore the only kind of faith that could be operative is obedient faith.

Now Jesus told us how to do two things in this verse. If one wants to be saved Jesus said that he must believe and be baptized in Mark 16:16a. If one wants to be condemned he need not do anything. Unbelief is sufficient for condemnation. Mark 16:16b. Now it is obvious to any thinking person that if Jesus meant what he said, _he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved: _ (Mark16: 16a) that he would not then contradict himself by teaching the direct opposite. That he that believes will be saved even if he is not baptized in Mark 16:16b. Notice that the scriptures teach that one who does not believe is condemned already (John 3: 38) and one that believes is has the power to become a Son of God if he obeys. ( John1:12; 3; Heb 5:8,9; Acts 5:32) And that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY him not those who merely believe in their minds the facts concerning Him. Jesus Said why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say?_ Luke 6:46. Also we find that the word _believe_ in the scriptures is often used in the comprehensive sense to include all that one has done to become a Christian. Notice some examples. We are told, B And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house and may of the Corintians hearing believed and were immersed.B Acts 18:8. All we are told in this place is that Crispus did to become a Christian was that he Bbelieved on the LordB. But when we go to 1 Corintians 1:12 ,15 we find Paul condemning division and he reminds them to whom they really belong with these words, Bwas Paul crucified for you or were you baptized into the name of Paul?B then he says that he was glad that he had baptised none of them save Bcrispus and gaiusB lest they should say that he had baptized in his own name. 1Cor. 1:12-15. Now notice that the word used to tell what Crispus did in the book of Acts was that he believed. Then we find in 1Corintians that he was baptized. It is clear that the word BbelievedB in Acts included BbaptismB. Therefore, it is possible that the word believeth in Mark 16:16b could have this comprehensive and inclusive meaning as well. If it does and I believe that I can prove that it does, the word beleiveth encompassed all that the Lord said about baptism in Mark 16:16a and thus would in fact be saying he that is not baptized will be condemned.

Your argument, however is based on what Jesus did not say in Mark 16:16b. Our argument is from what he did say in Mark 16:16a. You cannot prove anything from what Christ did not say. And an argument from silence is hard to make. Concerning what must be done to be saved, Christ is not silent. He said BHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:B that is not silence, brother. That is clear. Now you are the one who is trying to teach that one can possibly be saved without being baptized. And that is some thing that is not taught in the scriptures and it is in direct conflict with the very words of Christ that plainly says that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Now when he clearly told us that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved he, with that very statement excluded all that did not believe and all that were not baptized. If he meant by simply saying _he that believeth not shall be condemned_ the converse of _he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved_ he would have contradicted himself in the same breath. So it is you who are arguing from silence. It is you who say that some may be saved without being baptized because Christ DID NOT say he that is not baptized should be condemned. That is an argument from silence. You are the one who is arguing from what Christ did not say we are clearly arguing from what he did say.

Then you make the ridiculous statement as follows:

B Some say that being 'born of water' refers to baptism, and that Jesus left that as a requirement for salvation. Yet a year or more, perhaps, after giving this teaching, Jesus offered pardon to the theif on the cross.B

Now, just here you claim that some say Bborn of waterB refers to baptism. That is not really true. The fact is that MOST scholars say this about this verse and when Jesus said Bhe that believeth and is baptized he was talking about being Bborn of waterB in the same way that he was speaking of it in John 3:3-5. No scholar of any repute will deny that Christ is talking about baptism in John 3:3-6. In fact Paul is one of those who taught that born of water referred to baptism. He calls this the Bwashing of regenerationB. He was inspired of the Holy Spirit and he would know.

Then you argue that people today can be saved in the same way that the "thief on the Cross" was saved but you do not know for sure if he was saved without being baptized now do you? There is as much evidence to indicate that the thief may have been baptized at the baptism of John as there is that he had not been baptized ever at all for any reason in his life. But, based upon this assumption you gather that anyone today can be saved the same way that the thief on the cross was saved. In order for that argument to have any validity you must prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the thief had never heard John the Baptist preach and accepted that baptism which was for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4). Unless you can prove such a thing you cannot with honesty prove that this thief was saved without being baptized. Then you must also prove that Christ will definitely without any doubt save anyone else in exactly the same way that he saved the thief. This you also cannot prove. You must also prove that the New Covenant which went into effect after the death of Christ allows one to be saved just as the thief on the cross was saved, however that was. In fact there are some, and I am not one of them, that contend that we cannot even know for sure if this thief was, in fact, saved. While I agree that he was saved we are not certain if he was saved without having been baptized and we are not certain that even if he was that Christ would save others in the same way. But you would offer to others the hope of being saved while refusing to obey Christ command to be baptized even though you are not sure that such is the case nor are you even certain that this thief was saved without having been baptized. On the basis of silence and uncertainty again you argue for that which conflicts with the clear teaching of the word of God throughout the New Testament.

Then you are not even sure that the apostles were baptized because you see no record of it. You say:

B I see no record of the apostles being baptized into ChristB

Now, are you claiming that because there is no record of the apostles being baptized that you can be certain beyond all doubt that they were not baptized? Are you claiming that because there is no record of their having been baptized that there is not sufficient evidence in the New Testament to deduce and conclude with certainty that they were baptized? Are you contending that the very ones that insisted that all that obey the gospel of Christ our Lord be baptized were not themselves baptized? And are you claiming that Christ our Lord himself was baptized of John in the river Jordan to Bfulfill all righteousnessB allowed his disciples to ignore his example and their responsibility to fulfill all righteousness and to Breject the counsel of God against themselvesB (Luke 7:30) and to be unrighteous? If the lack of a record of the apostles being baptized proves anything then just what would the record of our LordBs being baptized prove? You have reached the level of pathetic absurdity with this nonsense. Look at the command of Jesus to the disciples to go and baptize all nations (Matt. 28:19,20). Here he tells them to baptize and in doing so he commands them teach those who were baptized to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And one of the things that Christ commanded to observe, by the apostles, is baptism. Is it reasonable to conclude that Christ allowed the apostles themselves to ignore that which he commanded them to teach others to observe? Paul was an apostle and he was definitely baptized. BAnd now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and was away thy sins calling on the name of the LordB was said to the apostle Paul. Thus your statement that there is no record of the apostles being baptized is not exactly accurate now is it?

You forgot about the clear record of the baptism of the apostle Paul when you said that there was no record of the apostles being baptized, now didnBt you? Read the record of the baptism of the apostle Paul brethren and judge for yourselves if there is any validity to this claim that there is no record that the apostles were baptized. BAnd immediately their fell from his eyes as it had been scales and he arose and was baptizedB. (Acts 9:18). Read the entire account in acts 9. Then go and read the account given in PaulBs own words in his defense given in the 22nd chapter of Acts and notice what he tell us that Ananias said to him just before baptizing Saul who became the great APOSTLE PAUL. Ananias said , Band now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and WASH AWY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.B (Acts 22:16). So we do in fact have a record of the baptism of an apostle. And if Christ expected that one of the apostles should be baptized is it reasonable to conclude that he did not expect the same of the others as well? It is also well to ask if the Lord himself was baptized. And he expected the apostle Paul to be baptized and gave us a record of His baptism. And the Baptism of the apostle that the Holy Spirit inspired to write at least 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament would he not require the same of all of the apostles? Especially since the apostles were commanded to baptize all of the rest of the world. Think about it brethren. Brother Link wants you to believe that there is NO RECORD of the apostles being baptized and I have shown you ONE RECORD of one of the apostles being baptized. And it is reasonable to expect that all of the apostles were baptized. If not why not? For we do not have to possess a record of the baptism of each one in order to have enough evidence to convince us that it was expected of all of them and that they complied with that expectation.

Then you tell us:

Band Acts 19 seems to make a distinciton between John's baptism and Christian baptism.B

Now with this statement you deliberately overlook much that is clear from acts 19. It is clear from Acts 19 if something is wrong with apersonBs baptism that they would not be Christians. If this is true then what of those who have not been baptized at all? If these men, who had been baptized were required to be baptized again because they were not baptized in the name of Christ then what can we conclude of those who believe in Christ but have not been baptized in the name of Christ. Acts 19 proves way too much against your argument! Ha!

BPaul writes an awful lot about salvation by faith. He does talk about baptism in some places, but there are plenty of promises of salvation through faith.B

Yes Paul does write a lot about salvation by faith but he says absolutely nothing about salvation by faith only and he also writes NOTHING about your contention of salvation WITHOUT BAPTISM. Yes he does talk about baptism in some places. How many places would he have to talk about baptism before you would be convinced that he taught that it was essential to salvation? One such place Paul speaks of faith and baptism in the same context and he said, BFor ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For (Gar) as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.B (Gal. 3:26, 27) Now here Paul uses the Greek term (gar) with means BbecauseB and he says for (because) as many of you have been baptized into Christ. In other words he said they were children of God by faith BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN BAPTIZED. So, according to Paul, who was inspired of the Holy Spirit Bas many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Now, how many have put on Christ according to the inspired apostle Paul, Brother Link? The answer is clear to all who are able to read, BAS MANY AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRISTB and not any more or less than that.

Then you make an argument that no one in this forum has ever made as follows:

BSome argue from the epistles that New Testament baptism is the equivilent of OT circumcision. But Abraham, the father of them that believe, was justified by faith while he was yet uncircumcised.B

Now you completely misrepresent those of us who believe that baptism is essential to salvation. WE do not believe in the least that baptism is Bthe equivalent of OT circumcisionB. None of us believe any such thing so your argument falls on its face in the very beginning.

Your argument goes like this;

Major premise: baptism is the equivalent of circumcision

Minor Premise; Abraham was justified by faith while he was yet uncircumcised

Conclusion: We too can be saved while we have not as yet been baptized.

But your major Premise is not true. Baptism is not the equivalent of Old Testament circumcision and no one in this forum has ever said it was.

The argument for baptism is that baptism is equivalent to an act of faith in obedience to Gods will

Abraham was justified by faith when he obeyed God

Therefore we are justified by faith when we obey god in baptism.

Then you try to make the truth taught in the scriptures that baptism is Bfor the remission of our sins and that it Bdoeth also now save usB sound ridiculous because of the Bissue of what to do with the martyrsB as follows:

BThe issue of what to do with martyrs who confessed their faith, and were hauled off to be executed before having a chance to be baptized was a difficult one for many in the early church.B

Now the Bissue of what to do with these BmartyrsB is none of our business, now is it? It is obvious that we are not the ones, who will have to BDOB anything about them, now are we? God is the one who justifies and he is the one who condemns and neither the early church nor the modern church should have any concern about that matter at all. Especially we should not use this concern over something that is not our business as an excuse for ignoring the teaching of the very word of God and reject being baptized. And if the Church actually had such concerns over these martyrs it would only prove that they believed that baptism was essential to salvation otherwise why would they be BconcernedB at all about the fact that they were killed before they had the opportunity to be baptized? And you also overlook the distinct difference between those who have every intent to obey God in all that he says and is killed before doing it and those who will use any excuse to avoid doing what God told them to do. The two cannot be classed together by any stretch of the imagination. If the word of God teaches that we must be baptized in order to be saved and obtain the forgiveness of our sins from God then this little BexampleB of the martyrs does not change GodBs word in the least. And if there is ever going to be any exceptions to GodBs will in this matter it will be God and not Link Hudson who will decide when and where and on what basis such exceptions will be made. But as far as what God has revealed to us we cannot expect any such exceptions nor can we use our own reasoning that God might make a few exceptions to justify teaching salvation by faith only without obedience to the will of God. The church has no right to alter the word of God because we are concerned about the BissueB of what to do with any person who has either failed to obey or was denied the opportunity to obey. That is none of our business. Our business is to teach the truth and urge all to obey it. God has told us what he will do with those who do not obey the gospel. BBTaking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus ChristB. (2 Thess. 1:8,9) and if he wants to make any exception to that promise it is His business and not our. Our business is to teach what is taught in His word. And God has not told us in His word what he is going to do about any person whom we consider deserving of being accepted from obeying His commands, now has he?

Then you say:

B They spoke of a 'baptism of blood' considering the blood of the martyr to sercve as baptismal water. Perhaps they weren't as hung up on immersion as some are today.B

Apparently they were just as Bhung up on immersionB as faithful Christians today are because they were very BconcernedB about those who had not been given the opportunity to be immersed and could only rationalize it by viewing the blood as being so much that they were immersed in it. But they did not do as Brother Link would have done. They did not say, BOh well, baptism is not essential to salvation anyway. What are we so worried about in the first place?B Ha! Even your own example proves that the early church had the exact same concerns that people obey the Lord in baptism, otherwise they would not have shown any concern that these martyrs were not baptized before they were killed.

Then he tries to get us to accept pouring as baptism with these words:

B I wouldn't encourage someone to be baptized by sprinkling, but from what I have studied about the meaning of Greek words and from what I've heard of the cultural context of the Jewish mikveh, a ritualistic bath, I am not convinced that anyone who is baptized by pouring is necessarily going to hell.B

Brother Link, Any one who is immersed by pouring will be saved, for it does not mater how one is immersed into Christ, it only matters that he is so immersed. Because the only way one can be immersed by pouring is for one to pour water on them until they are immersed. If he pours water on them but not enough to immerse them then do tell just how they could be Bimmersed by pouringB in the first place. In fact the only difference from pouring and sprinkling is the amount of water used. So, if you do not pour enough water on a person to completely immerse them they have not been immersed, now have they? If they have not been immersed then they have not been baptized. And if you will study the verbs used in connection with this subject you will find that one cannot be BsprinkledB unless he is ground into powder and shaken out like salt. And one cannot be BpouredB unless he is melted down and poured out like water. But he can be immersed in an element like water by simply being placed in it and covered by it. WE are told to Brepent and BE IMMERSEDB. WE can have water sprinkled upon us but I doubt if we would want to Bbe sprinkledB. We can have water BpouredB upon us but I doubt if we would want to be poured. We can and should want very much to be immersed with Christ.

As far as who is going to Hell, I again repeat to you that such is GodBs business not yours. And so is the matter of who is going to heaven. You will have no say in that matter. Our job is to obey God ourselves and teach what His word tells us about baptism. And His word tells us, BHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.B (Mark 16:16). His word tells us Brepent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sinsB (Acts 2:38). And His word tells us, BThe like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Christ.B (1 Peter 3:21). The scriptures tell us, BAnd now why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling upon the name of the Lord.B (Acts 22:16). We need to read all of these other verses in connection with this subject. (Acts 8:14-25; Acts 9:18; Acts 10:48; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Heb. 10:22; Eph. 5:26; Gal. 3:26,27;). And those interested in the truth should read the entire book of Acts taking note of every time one is converted to Christ and how that baptism is always connected with that conversion.

Now, brethren notice how Brother Link wants us to feel better about his false doctrine that he has just sought to deceive us into believing and seeks to sooth us with these words:

BDo I encourage people to remain unbaptized? No, of course not.B

Well do tell us Brother Link, why not? If you do not believe that the word of God teaches that baptism is essential to salvation why would it matter if a person remained BunbaptizedB all of his life? Your inconsistency with all that you have taught in the rest of your post is very obvious. Ha! And those words are not soothing to those who know the truth. You teach that baptism is not important to our salvation. Then try to tell us that it is still important to you that you do not encourage them to remain in a state of disobedience to Christ our Lord. Does that mean that you actively encourage them to be baptized? And if they tell you that they will never be baptized do you still consider them to have received the remission of their sins? Do you consider it perfectly ok for them to refuse to be baptized for their entire lives? Will you let them think that they are saved even if they refuse to ever obey God in baptism? When you answer these questions your BsheepBs clothingB will be stripped from you and the people in this forum will be able to see you as you really are.

Then you say:

B I know someone who is from a traditional church that baptizes babies. He's been going to our church and has been trying to get out of his sin. My wife and I have tried to persuade him to be baptized. I gave him verses to study, and we've talked about it. He doesn't come to our cell group anymore, and last I heard he didn't have a phone, so we haven't been keeping in touch so much these days. Maybe he will decide to be baptized. I think if he continues to stay in church enough, he may.B

After reading your last post about this subject of baptism I can see at least one possible reason why you have not convinced this man to be baptized. So long as you continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth do not be surprised if the people you are trying to teach are not convinced that you are speaking the truth.

Brethren, just read what GodBs word has to say about the subject of baptism and teach it. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

E Lee,

"The human views are wide in range and GodBs word does not give an answer that even takes notice of this divergent BspectrumB. So, while you take the time to explain your views and where they fall among the other views of men, you completely ignore GodBs word and what it says concerning this grave subject which concerns the eternal salvation of lost and dying mankind. "

Didn't your momma teach you how to have a civil conversation? Does everything have to be a fight with you? I typed a quick response to a question, and you try to fault me for not quoting scripture. That doesn't mean I have 'completely ignore God's word and what it says concerning this grace subject...' That is another false allegation. Just because I didn't post scriptures on the subject at that time doesn't mean I ignore the scriptures on the matter. As usual, you twist the facts around to figure out a way to make an attack on someone. Why don't you start treating people with love? Do you like it when people twist facts around like that to take a jab at you? Do you do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Lee wrote Then you tell us why Christians BneedB to be baptized in Indonesia as follows:

Lee quoting me, BChristians need baptism certificates here to get married....,

Lee, your statement is very misleading. That paragraph had to do with why Christians 'need' ID cards, not why Christians need to be baptized.

If someone wants to get paperwork from a denomination to get an ID card, that is an issue for him to deal with between him and God. Christians are not to be divided into denominations. If believers here realized that their meetings and those who attended were 'church' rather than the legal organization registered with the government, this might be possible. If denominations were not denominations but rather baptism and marriage certificate factories to pacify the government, it might be a different situation here. IF and only if IT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE WORD OF GOD, I don't see a problem with it. But a lot of believers think of the legal organization as having authority. For example they start out not believing in having a Pope, but then ten generations later, after years of having synods with one man elected as head, things change. I haven't signed my name on any church-membership roles here. As a foreignor, I don't have any legal pressure on me to do so. Don't blame me for the legal situation in Indonesia.

The president of Indonesia, here in this governmental reformation era, has said tha tin a democracy, there does not need to be a department of religion. That was a contraversial statement. You can pray for the situation with baptism certificates here, and pray for the RM here in relation to this issue as well.

Btw, I know it is easy for you to condemn Chrisitians in this situation, but what do you want them to do when they want to marry? Keep Muslim on their ID cards and get married in a Muslim ceremony at a mosque? Shack up legally, but get married at church? (Keeping in mind that marriage ceremonies in church are not from scripture either.) That would create a big problem of conscience for a lot of people.

Is your church tax-exempt according to the IRS? I hear that there were certain things that cannot be preached from church pulpits in regard to politics if a church wants to keep tax-exempt status. Is that a compromise? Are you a part of a compromising situation, or is your church not tax-exempt?

If people in the US want to have church and gather with other saints and Christ without all the religious trappings- clergy, pews, church buildings, tax exempt status, organs, pianos, sound systems, etc.- I'm behind that.

"There is no question that Mark 16:16 Jesus promises salvation only to those who believe and are baptized. This is a fact. Thus those who believe and are baptized can be sure of their salvation because it is based upon the clear promise of God. Those who do not believe can be certain of their condemnation for it is also based upon the clear promise of Christ our Lord and he is not slack concerning his promises. But those who believe yet refuse to obey Christ in baptism cannot know anything, if they hold your view of this passage, about whether they will be saved or lost."

Still trying to attack, aren't you, Lee? Why don't you just have a conversation like a normal person, instead of all the insinuations and accusatons? If people held what you call 'my view' of the passage, they would believe AND be baptized.

A lot of people believe in infant baptism. They think that is right, and so they feel the meet the requirements for salvation. I haven't met anyone who said they didn't want to be baptized because they didn't want to obey Christ. Most people that are in this situation are convinced of their position.

"Badversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour.B And notice how brother LinkBs doctrine is Bthrowing menB to this evil lion that seeks only to consume them. "

Where do you get this garbage, Lee? I tell people to repent and be baptized. If you want to make up viewpoints from me and post them, post them to yourself by private email. You can send emails pretending to be me (or another me with a different name so my name isn't floating around with your ideas on it in cyberspace.)

"That is clear. Now you are the one who is trying to teach that one can possibly be saved without being baptized. And that is some thing that is not taught in the scriptures and it is in direct conflict with the very words of Christ that plainly says that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. "

Be logical Lee. Read my previous posts. BASED ON MARK 16:16 alone, it is not conclusive what happens to him who believes and is not baptized. No matter how many words you slap on a page, you cannot disprove this. If you want to discuss the issue of baptism, you will have to go into other verses. Teaching that he who believes and is baptized will be saved, and that he that believes not will be condemned, does not prove anything.

"There is as much evidence to indicate that the thief may have been baptized at the baptism of John as there is that he had not been baptized ever at all for any reason in his life. "

That is a possibility. If the theif on the cross had been baptized by John truly repented, would he have been crucified for theft years later?

But here is a big issue: notice that Paul rebaptized men in the name of Jesus who had already been baptized with John's baptism. See Acts 19. If these men were saved through John's baptism, why did they have to be rebaptized? You may conjecture that this was because it occured after Christ died on the cross. Sounds like a reasonable theory, but I don't see how one can prove it from scripture.

It is possible that the 12 had been baptized with John's baptism. The Gospel of John gives a few details about the calling of one of them who was one of John the Baptists disciples.

E. Lee writes,

"The fact is that MOST scholars say this about this verse and when Jesus said Bhe that believeth and is baptized he was talking about being Bborn of waterB in the same way that he was speaking of it in John 3:3-5. No scholar of any repute will deny that Christ is talking about baptism in John 3:3-6."

[Here is an example of your style of arguing.] Your making an assertion here. But I see no proof. You don't prove that MOST scholars say such a thing. You don't offer any proof that no scholar of repute will deny that Christ is talking about baptism in John 3:3-6, not do you? In fact, you can't possibly prove such a thing. Do you expect us to believe this just because you say it, without offering any proof? The only proof you offer is the fact that you say it. [Can you imagine reading 10 pages of stuff like this]

Now for my comments, I don't know all the scholars, but this sounds really fishy to me. There are plenty of views of this verse, and you can find scholars of repute that hold to different views of 'baptism of water' than what you say, especially since the Reformation. I seriously doubt you have read the works of all men reputed of scholars, and so I doubt you are qualified to make such a claim. Your post seems to be picking apart my words that 'Some scholars' hold to a particular view- conservative wording. You go off and make a blanket statement like that that you cannot prove. You can find scholars of repute who say all kinds of things Lee.

"Now, are you claiming that because there is no record of the apostles being baptized that you can be certain beyond all doubt that they were not baptized? "

No. I just pointed out that the scriptures are silent on this matter. Jesus breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Ghost, though. They may have been baptized with John's baptism. It is possible. We know that some disciples of Jesus baptized before His crucifiction because John's Gospel mentions this fact.

What do you think about those who were baptized with John's baptism but believed in Christ before His crucifiction? Did they all have to be rebaptized afterwards?

Btw, I didn't read all of your message. I am just answering a few points now. It is past midnight here.

If you want to continue the conversation, lose the accusatory tone and stop looking for any opportunity to attack. If you have a question about what I mean, just ask, don't assume I mean something bad.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2000

Brother Link you have said:

BDidn't your momma teach you how to have a civil conversation? Does everything have to be a fight with you? I typed a quick response to a question, and you try to fault me for not quoting scripture.B

Well, Brother Link, my mother taught me many good things from the word of God from my childhood. And she did teach me just how to deal with those who teach human opinions as if they were the very word of God. She taught me to hold them to what the scriptures say and she warned me that they would resist by falsely accusing me of not being civil and being unloving etc. But she taught me from the word of God to speak the truth even when it is Bnot in seasonB to do so. (2 Timothy 4:2). You have definitely tried almost every wile of the devil get me to back away from the truth. You have gone from falsely accusing me of laughing at others in this forum, and falsely accusing me of calling you a liar, to implying that I am Bmentally illB and now seeking to Criticize my saintly mother, whom you never knew. Yet now that none of those tactics worked you want to have a Bcivil conversationB. I have spoken reasonably to you and I have rebuked you for not using the scriptures to support your teaching and I will continue to do just that and it matters not to me if you think such is not BcivilB. You can avoid such sharp criticism if you will simply use the word of God to support what you say. If you do not do that then you can only expect more of the exact same responses from me. Now whether you want to be BcivilB is no concern of mine. If you do not speak the truth from the word of God you cannot be BcivilB to those who are faithful to Christ. If you are not going to be BcivilB with the truth of GodBs word then do not cry for civility in response to your false doctrine. It just will not happen.

Then you complain as follows:

BLee, your statement is very misleading. That paragraph had to do with why Christians 'need' ID cards, not why Christians need to be baptized.B

The paragraphs to which I referred were as follows:

BB_Here in Indonesia, this can be a bit of a problem since if the person is not baptized by someone authoritzed by a denomination (including the CoC denomination, which has a synod and an elected leader because of the way the government sets things up here) it is difficult for him to get a baptism certificate.B_

BB_Christians need baptism certificates here to get married, get their passports, and maybe to get their ID cards changed from Muslim or whatever other legal religion, to Christian. If they don't change their ID card religion, and they want to get married, they might have to marry in a mosque. It's a sticky issue here.BB

Now it is clear from these two quotations of your nonsense on this matter that you made it clear that the reason that these people needed to be baptized according to the dictates of the Indonesian government was because they needed baptismal certificates to get ID cards. You said not one single word about the truth of GodBs word concerning why they needed to be baptized, now did you? For you were trying to make it appear that we should not be Bso hung upB on baptism now werenBt you? When your nonsense is called into question then you cry that we have been misleading! We simply responded to your words. The only reason you gave for their need to be baptized was the requirements of the government. If you sought to show that they needed to be baptized in order to be saved you gave no indication of it. And if you were trying to make that clear to us you failed miserably.

Now, if you really want to end this controversy all you have to do is agree that the scriptures teach that baptism is essential to salvation. For it is true, not only from Mark 16:16 but also other passages which I have given in my last post, that one must be baptized in order to obtain the remission of his or her sins. (1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:14-25; Acts 9:18; Acts 10:48; John 3:3- 5; Titus 3:3-5; Heb. 10:22; Eph. 5:26; Gal. 3:26,27). And we also proved in our last post that even if Mark 16:16 were the only passage in the scriptures that taught one must Bbelieve and be baptizedB in order to be saved it would be enough. And you have deliberately failed to even consider the arguments that we have made concerning that verse.

If we have misunderstood you to be teaching that one can be saved without being baptized into Christ then we will apologize to you. But as things appear from your initial post to Sister Muse you attempted to indicate that baptism is not essential to oneBs salvation. If you are trying to teach that baptism is essential to salvation you have a very peculiar way of doing it. In fact, you would be the only person that I know who is claiming that baptism is essential to salvation while arguing that it is not.

Then you give a very limited response to my words concerning your false statement that there was no record of the apostles being baptized and you implication from it that they may have been saved without it. You do this by quoting my words, which were:

"Now, are you claiming that because there is no record of the apostles being baptized that you can be certain beyond all doubt that they were not baptized? "

Then you respond as follows:

No. I just pointed out that the scriptures are silent on this matter. Jesus breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Ghost, though. They may have been baptized with John's baptism. It is possible. We know that some disciples of Jesus baptized before His crucifiction because John's Gospel mentions this fact.B

But you ignore your exact words which were:

B I see no record of the apostles being baptized into ChristB

Now you claimed that there is NO RECORD of the apostles being baptized into Christ. But I have shown you ONE record of an apostle being baptized and make a pretty strong argument from the implications of this fact and itBs bearing upon baptism of the other apostles and you just completely and deliberately skirted that argument now didnBt you?

Now you say that the scriptures are silent on this matter of the apostles being baptized. No, the scriptures are not Bsilent on this matterB as you claim. WE are plainly given a record in Acts 9 and Acts 22 of the baptism of one apostle Paul. That record is not silent. But you said there is NO such record. Now you were obviously wrong about that now werenBt you?

But you ignored the fact that I showed you that the scriptures are not silent on this matter when we are told that the apostle Paul, who was definitely an apostle was baptized. You claimed that there is NO record of the apostles being baptized, now didnBt you? But Acts 9 and Acts 22 is a record of the Apostle PaulBs baptism into Christ. You deliberately ignored to mention this now, didnBt you? The fact that we have a record of one apostle being baptized is proof that your statement that there is no record that the apostles were baptized is false. There is at least one record of the baptism of an apostle.

And you have deliberately ignored the questions that we asked you about this matter, now havenBt you? Therefore we ask them again to see if you are willing to even attempt an answer. They are as follows:

BNow, are you claiming that because there is no record of the apostles being baptized that you can be certain beyond all doubt that they were not baptized? Are you claiming that because there is no record of their having been baptized that there is not sufficient evidence in the New Testament to deduce and conclude with certainty that they were baptized? Are you contending that the very ones that insisted that all that obey the gospel of Christ our Lord be baptized were not themselves baptized? And are you claiming that Christ our Lord himself was baptized of John in the river Jordan to B_fulfill all righteousnessB_ allowed his disciples to ignore his example and their responsibility to fulfill all righteousness and to B_reject the counsel of God against themselvesB_ (Luke 7:30) and to be unrighteous? If the lack of a record of the apostles being baptized proves anything then just what would the record of our LordB_s being baptized prove? You have reached the level of pathetic absurdity with this nonsense. Look at the command of Jesus to the disciples to go and baptize all nations (Matt. 28:19,20). Here he tells them to baptize and in doing so he commands them teach those who were baptized to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And one of the things that Christ commanded to observe, by the apostles, is baptism. Is it reasonable to conclude that Christ allowed the apostles themselves to ignore that which he commanded them to teach others to observe? Paul was an apostle and he was definitely baptized. B_And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and was away thy sins calling on the name of the LordB_ was said to the apostle Paul. Thus your statement that there is no record of the apostles being baptized is not exactly accurate now is it? You forgot about the clear record of the baptism of the apostle Paul when you said that there was no record of the apostles being baptized, now didnB_t you? Read the record of the baptism of the apostle Paul brethren and judge for yourselves if there is any validity to this claim that there is no record that the apostles were baptized. B_And immediately their fell from his eyes as it had been scales and he arose and was baptizedB_. (Acts 9:18). Read the entire account in acts 9. Then go and read the account given in PaulB_s own words in his defense given in the 22nd chapter of Acts and notice what he tell us that Ananias said to him just before baptizing Saul who became the great APOSTLE PAUL. Ananias said , B_and now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and WASH AWY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.B_ (Acts 22:16). So we do in fact have a record of the baptism of an apostle. And if Christ expected that one of the apostles should be baptized is it reasonable to conclude that he did not expect the same of the others as well? It is also well to ask if the Lord himself was baptized. And he expected the apostle Paul to be baptized and gave us a record of His baptism. And the Baptism of the apostle that the Holy Spirit inspired to write at least 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament would he not require the same of all of the apostles? Especially since the apostles were commanded to baptize all of the rest of the world. Think about it brethren. Brother Link wants you to believe that there is NO RECORD of the apostles being baptized and I have shown you ONE RECORD of one of the apostles being baptized. And it is reasonable to expect that all of the apostles were baptized. If not why not? For we do not have to possess a record of the baptism of each one in order to have enough evidence to convince us that it was expected of all of them and that they complied with that expectation.B

Now I want you to notice that you have made me laugh. This is rare indeed that one could do this in a serious conversation such as this one. And notice also that I do not use the word BhaB to indicate that you have said something humorous. When you write a post as lengthy as your last one I am very gratified to see that others can when they are truly interested, write lengthy passages. But when you do so and finish your comments with the statement, BBtw, I didn't read all of your message. I am just answering a few points now.B The laughter is irresistible even to one with such a poor sense of humor as myself!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2000

E. Lee,

I didn't criticize your momma. I asked you if she taught you how to have a civil conversation. If she did, then remember your mother's teaching.

About the baptism of the apostles. No I didn't 'deliberately ignore' that. I told you in my last message that I hadn't read all of your message, and was only responding to a few points. I've told you before why I don't read all of your messages. They are full of inuindo, insinuations, and accusations. I didn't read all of your last post. I'll answer a few points.

When I wrote, 'the apostles' in that previous message, I meant it in a restricted sense to refer to the 12 (Paul not included because Christ appeared to 'the Twelve AFTER the resurrection and BEFORE appearing to Paul.) I didn't make that clear. Paul was baptized. That is a valid point. But whether all of the 12 were baptized, we don't know. They may have received John's baptism, but it is not recorded in scripture.

"Think about it brethren. Brother Link wants you to believe that there is NO RECORD of the apostles being baptized and I have shown you ONE RECORD of one of the apostles being baptized. "

Btw- a techinicality- 'apostles' is plural. If there is a record of one apostle being baptized, that doesn't mean there is a record of 'apostles' being baptized.

-- Anonymous, October 30, 2000

Brother Link:

You have said:

BBtw- a techinicality- 'apostles' is plural. If there is a record of one apostle being baptized, that doesn't mean there is a record of 'apostles' being baptized.B

Technically this is true, But think of what this does to your original intent to show from your argument that there is no record of the apostles being baptized. You intended to leave the impression that baptism may not be important because there is no record of their baptism. But the record not only of the Lord being baptized and His requiring that Paul be baptized is strong evidence that he would not have required any less of the other apostles, now would he? The close connection of our Lord and the apostles to John and his baptism is very powerful suggestion that they were all baptized including our Lord. But you prefer to instead make an argument from silence rather than from the preponderance of the evidence. While there is not specific record of each apostleBs baptism the record of one is sufficient to establish that the Lord expected as much from the apostles as he did of all others who would come to Him. If you were asked to prove that they were not baptized you would not find any evidence that even remotely implied that such was true. Yet you think that the lost should decide from this absence of word from God to conclude that the apostles were not baptized therefore they have no need to believe that they should be concerned or Bhung upB about it. You do not know whether the thief on the cross had ever been baptized but you are willing that others should be saved without obeying the Lords commands concerning baptism because there is no record that the thief had been baptized. Now you asked about how he could have been a thief after being baptized of John as if this militates against the idea that he could have been so baptized. But you overlook the distinct possibility that he could have been punished for some crime committed in his former life for which God had already forgiven him or that he could have simply slid back into his old ways after his baptism. But your assumption was that he could not have been baptized at all. Then you admitted that he could have been but it is not likely because he was crucified as a thief. But if it is even remotely possible that he had actually been baptized at the baptism of John then your argument that you know people can be saved without baptism like the thief on the cross is not certain, now is it? Would you want someone to stake their eternal salvation on your assumptions when you assumptions concerning baptism are contrary to the teaching of the scriptures in these verses? (Mark 16:15; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:14-25; Acts 9:18; Acts 10:48; John 3:3- 5; Titus 3:3-5; Heb. 10:22; Eph. 5:26; Gal. 3:26,27). I sincerely hope not.

Also you failed again to answer these questions that were asked of you about the baptism of the apostles:

BB_Now, are you claiming that because there is no record of the apostles being baptized that you can be certain beyond all doubt that they were not baptized? Are you claiming that because there is no record of their having been baptized that there is not sufficient evidence in the New Testament to deduce and conclude with certainty that they were baptized? Are you contending that the very ones that insisted that all that obey the gospel of Christ our Lord be baptized were not themselves baptized? And are you claiming that Christ our Lord himself was baptized of John in the river Jordan to B_fulfill all righteousnessB_ allowed his disciples to ignore his example. And ignore their responsibility to fulfill all righteousness and to B_reject the counsel of God against themselvesB_ (Luke 7:30) and to be unrighteous? If the lack of a record of the apostles being baptized proves anything then just what would the record of our LordB_s being baptized prove? You have reached the level of pathetic absurdity with this nonsense. Look at the command of Jesus to the disciples to go and baptize all nations (Matt. 28:19,20). Here he tells them to baptize and in doing so he commands them teach those who were baptized to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And one of the things that Christ commanded to observe, by the apostles, is baptism. Is it reasonable to conclude that Christ allowed the apostles themselves to ignore that which he commanded them to teach others to observe?B

No, Brother Link, you tried to make some argument against the fact that baptism is essential to salvation based upon your assumptions that because there is not record of baptism of each individual apostle. That argument has Bfallen and cannot get upB. And you refuse to even attempt to pick it up again, now donBt you?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Link,

You say you donBt recall having discussed salvation with me, but you have posted certain things in this public forum that have led me to draw conclusions on where you stand.

If my conclusions are wrong, than all you need do is answer a simple questionBIs baptism essential to salvation?

I am not concerned about RM views on baptism or evangelical views on baptism, but I am concerned with the biblical views on baptism. You say; BWhen someone is ready to receive the Gospel, baptize him.B Do you believe that baptism is part of the gospel?

BThe end of Mark says that he that believes and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believes not will be condemned. It doesn't say what will happen to the one who believes but is not baptized will be condemned, but rather that he that does not believe will be condemned. Some say that being 'born of water' refers to baptism, and that Jesus left that as a requirement for salvation.B

Does the word AND mean anything? Consider this, if I am written a check that saysBHenry Muse AND Debra MuseBBOTH my husband and I must sign the check in order to cash it. If one of us does not sign the check the promise of the monies the check was written for is not forthcoming. Mark says he that believes AND is baptized shall be saved. If both are not accomplished, we do not have the promise of salvation.

BPaul writes an awful lot about salvation by faith. He does talk about baptism in some places, but there are plenty of promises of salvation through faith.B

I agree with you that Paul writes about salvation by faith; the NT is full of references of salvation by faith. These I believe. But these verses do not negate the ones concerning baptism do they? BThe issue of what to do with martyrs who confessed their faith, and were hauled off to be executed before having a chance to be baptized was a difficult one for many in the early church. They spoke of a 'baptism of blood' considering the blood of the martyr to sercve as baptismal water.B

There is not anything for me to do with these martyrs you speak of. I can not change what has happened to them. I can only point a living person to the scriptures. I can not change the past, but I can make a difference in the future.

BPerhaps they weren't as hung up on immersion as some are today.B

The hang up comes when people do not accept biblical reasons for baptism, not in those who believe the God given reason and have moved on in their walk with Him.

BBack to the issue of how to know if the Holy Spirit is leading someone. The Bible says to test the spirits to see if they are from God. A test I John gives is whether the spirit confesses that Christ came in the flesh.B

Again I agree with you here concerning I Jn 4 we are to test the spirits, but there is more to this than at first meets the eye, we must go a little deeper. Many today confess that Christ came in the flesh. Jesus himself even said: BNot everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.B

I Jn 4:6 says; BWe are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.B

Who are the WE spoken of here? For that answer we have to go back to the first chapterB

I Jn 1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

They proclaim to us what they saw and heard, so that we also may have fellowship with them and with the Father and Jesus Christ His Son. So if we listen to them we are of the Spirit of truth, if any does not listen to them, they are of the spirit of falsehood. If a person says something contrary to what has been handed down by the inspired writers of the word it is false.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

D. Lee Muse,

I just wanted to clarify what I meant by a comment I made about Christians from the Ante-Nicene period.

"Perhaps they weren't as hung up on immersion as some are today."

I mean perhaps they weren't as hung up on complete immerse as the required form for baptism as some are. Christians from that period certainly did consider baptism to be important. Maybe the 'baptism of blood' was an attempt to deal with the difficult issue of people killed for their profession of faith without having been baptized, but it does indicate that people from that period could consider such a situation to be a type of 'baptism.' I don't know if they were using 'baptism' metaphorically as one might say a 'baptism of sorrow'. Perhaps they had a literal idea of 'baptism', or washing with blood. If someone were cut with a sword, or eaten by a lion, he would literally bleed.

If this is what they had in mind, then, in some sense, they could still use the word 'baptism' to refer to something besides a complete immersion. The Gospel of Luke uses a form of the verb baptizo to refer to ceremonial washing before eating. We know from other scripture that Pharaisees washed their hands. Mark uses the term to refer to washing tables, along with bowls which would probably have been submerged.

Many arguments for immersion made nowadays are based on the argument that 'baptizo' MEANS immersion. If there are cases in scripture itself where baptizo does not mean immersion, this doesn't help the strict stance on immersion. The Didache prescribes baptism by immersion in moving water, with non-moving water a second choice if none is available and pouring or sprinkling if there is a lack of water. These others are offered only as a last resort.

Personally, I dont' see any reason why someone would want to be sprinkled or poured for something so important.

One brother who has studied a lot about Judaism says that 'baptism' in Hebrew is mikveh, which refers to a ritualistic bath.

I may comment on the rest of your post later.

And about Acts 16:16, no matter how you slice it, it is just illogical to get from that verse alone that one must be baptized to be saved. The verse says that he that believes and is baptized will be saved. We agree on that. It says that he that believes not will be condemned. But it does not say that he that believes and is not baptized will be condemned. So if someone is martyred after a confession of faith, before being baptized, for example, can you say he went to hell? What if he had confessed that Jesus is Lord, and believed in his heart that God raised Him from the dead?

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Link,

You have said, BAnd about Acts 16:16, no matter how you slice it, it is just illogical to get from that verse alone that one must be baptized to be saved. The verse says that he that believes and is baptized will be saved. We agree on that. It says that he that believes not will be condemned. But it does not say that he that believes and is not baptized will be condemned.B

First, I believe you meant Mark 16:16 and not ActsB second, why should this verse repeat that he who does not believe AND is NOT baptized will be condemned? Why would someone who does NOT believe be baptized?B it would be vain repetition.

Next you stated, BSo if someone is martyred after a confession of faith, before being baptized, for example, can you say he went to hell? What if he had confessed that Jesus is Lord, and believed in his heart that God raised Him from the dead?B

First, when someone come to believe in Jesus as the Christ and confess Him, they are to be immediately baptized for salvationB now if for some reason this is not possible as you inferB then I believe that God would give him an opportunity to do so and if notB who are we to judge?

But by trying to look at the Bwhat ifBsB all we do is give people excuses to believe and do as they pleaseB I hope that GodBs grace extends beyond what we think at judgment timeB but until then we MUST speak the truth in loveB GOD IS THE FINAL JUDGE AND NOT US!

However, did you realize that when we say something like, BI think that God will accept those who are not baptized or baptized incorrectlyBB we have JUDGED them O.K. and if God doesnBt say they are O.K. they are not O.KB no matter what we think. And if God says they are O.KB GREAT!B We have still been faithful to His Word.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Marc wrote, "First, when someone come to believe in Jesus as the Christ and confess Him, they are to be immediately baptized for salvationB now if for some reason this is not possible as you inferB then I believe that God would give him an opportunity to do so and if notB who are we to judge? "

The apostles baptized people who believed. But in the first few hundred years of Christianity, the church did face the situation of people who believed, confessed faith, but were carried away to be martyred before they were baptized, or so I've read. Seeing people like this hold on to their confession of faith and not deny Christ, in spite of facing death must have been quite a difficult situation to face for those in the early church.

Does the Bible teach that God will give everyone who believes in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confesses that Jesus is Lord a chance to be baptized after his confession? Do you have any scripture to back up that belief? Can you give an answer to my hypothecial scenario.

The reason I brought that up is because Paul wrote in Romans 10 that the word which he preached was that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Is this promise of scripture true or not?

The martyr in the scenario above is not condemned by Mark 16:16. (Sorry you were right, I meant Mark rather than Acts.) If he confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and believed with his heart that God raised him from the dead, how is he exempt from the promise of Romans 10:9-10?

Another issue: Do you believe that someone has to be believe he will go to hell if he is not baptized in order for his baptism to be valid?

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Link,

Like I said, we are not the judge... if someone is unable to be baptized... let God judge, not us.

I never attempted to back up my belief that God would give someone a chance to be baptized before being killed by scripture... I simply ment that if it was essential I believe He would or else GOD (not us ) would judge.

However, I don't even like talking of these issues because they are not the norm and I think they are just excuses to avoid the subject.

As far as Romans 10 goes... this is one of the biggest homiletical errors I often see among people... they forget that Paul is righting to the church! These are people that are already IN Christ! They need to continue to confess Jesus.

Your last question was..."Do you believe that someone has to be believe he will go to hell if he is not baptized in order for his baptism to be valid?"

I really am not sure if this is neccessary... that is like asking if someone must believe that you must believe that your baptism was for the forgiveness of sins to be valid... issue I struggle with.

When I was baptized... I did not understand everything involved... I knew I did not want to go to hell and wanted to follow Jesus, so I believed, repented, confessed, and was baptized... I didn't read all of this into it.

John hit this point on the head in another thread (be dipped or damned) with the point that in the NT when one believe they were baptized... the two were not seperated.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Link,

You saidBI mean perhaps they weren't as hung up on complete immerse as the required form for baptism as some are. Christians from that period certainly did consider baptism to be important. Maybe the 'baptism of blood' was an attempt to deal with the difficult issue of people killed for their profession of faith without having been baptized, but it does indicate that people from that period could consider such a situation to be a type of 'baptism.' I don't know if they were using 'baptism' metaphorically as one might say a 'baptism of sorrow'. Perhaps they had a literal idea of 'baptism', or washing with blood. If someone were cut with a sword, or eaten by a lion, he would literally bleed. If this is what they had in mind, then, in some sense, they could still use the word 'baptism' to refer to something besides a complete immersion.

I looked up in four Bible versionsBbaptism of Blood, baptism in blood, baptism by blood, and even just baptism/bloodBno where in these four versions were these words found together. Your point is not scriptural. I didnBt find Bbaptism of sorrowB either. The reason some are hung up as you say about complete immersion is because that is what we see when we are shown the details of baptism in the Word concerning Christian baptism.

You saidBMany arguments for immersion made nowadays are based on the argument that 'baptizo' MEANS immersion. If there are cases in scripture itself where baptizo does not mean immersion, this doesn't help the strict stance on immersion.

Link, please read these verses in the BIBLE where we are shown the details at baptismB

Rom 6:4 We were therefore BURIED with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Matt 3:6-8 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the JORDAN RIVER. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

John 3:23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was PLENTY of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.

Acts 8:36-38 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then BOTH PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH WENT DOWN INTO THE WATER and Philip baptized him.

You saidBAnd about Acts 16:16, no matter how you slice it, it is just illogical to get from that verse alone that one must be baptized to be saved.

Did anyone here say that from that verse and that verse alone one must be baptized to be saved? I donBt recall that. There are other verses that say the same why do you ignore them?

You saidBThe verse says that he that believes and is baptized will be saved. We agree on that. It says that he that believes not will be condemned. But it does not say that he that believes and is not baptized will be condemned.

Come on Link, that is a given. If God says he that believes and is baptized will be savedBthenBisnBt the opposite true? He that does not believe and is not baptized will not be saved?

You saidBSo if someone is martyred after a confession of faith, before being baptized, for example, can you say he went to hell? What if he had confessed that Jesus is Lord, and believed in his heart that God raised Him from the dead?

I have answered these questions already.

Link...DO YOU CONSIDER BAPTISM TO BE IMPORTANT?

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

Someone, I canBt remember whom or even if it was this thread - mentioned the sequence or order of repentance, confession, and baptism and did it really matter.

Consider the following:

Matt 3:6-8 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan river. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Link and others B I ask you - is baptism from heaven or from men?

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

D.Lee,

The baptism of the Spirit (from above) is the one which regenerates; the physical one involving work is demonstrative of the one from above. Sometimes they occur within a short time of each other; sometimes they don't.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

Connie,

Is there one baptism, or is there not?

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Yes, D.Lee, there is one that saves ~ the one from above by the Holy Spirit.

The other two do not save. One is a demonstration and one is a gift of empowerment, neither of which save.

Connie

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2000

I'm way behind in this forum. I would like to respond to Mark,

>>As far as Romans 10 goes... this is one of the biggest homiletical errors I often see among people... they forget that Paul is righting to the church! These are people that are already IN Christ! They need to continue to confess Jesus. <<<<

Romans is written to Christians. But it is an explication of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gospel Paul preached. In chapter 10, paul is talking about how people are saved, and the Gospel he proclaimed. Look at the verses before v. 9 and 10, talking about how Christians are justified, unlike Israel who sought to be justified by the works of the Law. Look at the verses afterward, including the quote about whosoever calling on the Lord being saved. He continues on to say how shall they hear without a preacher. How will they hear this message Paul preached?

So while chapter 10 is written to Christians it is written about the Gospel Paul preached to unbelievers, and the same Godspel these Christians believed. How do you tie baptism into Romans 10:9-10.

>>>I really am not sure if this is neccessary... that is like asking if someone must believe that you must believe that your baptism was for the forgiveness of sins to be valid... issue I struggle with. <<<

We are saved by faith in Christ and in God who raised Him from the dead, not by faith in baptism. The belief that one has to believe in baptism for the remission of sins to be saved causes certain eople to believe that there are very very few Christians (almost RM adherants only.)

I can understand one holding to the idea that one must be baptized to be saved. I can see where one can draw that conclusion from reading scripture (though I would like to read your comments on Romans 10 in relation to baptism.) But to argue that one must believe in baptism for the remission of sins to be forgiven is another issue.

When Peter said, 'Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins...' was his meaning that your baptism must be done with the intent to remit your sins, or was the meaning more like this:

Repent and be baptized because that is how your sins are remitted.

In interpreting Peter's comments, we have to keep the rest of the Bible in mind.

Some people seem to interpret Acts 2:38 as secondary to Romans 10:9- 10. This way of looking at things is to see baptism as the Biblical method for having people express faith in Christ (along with confession.)

Anyway, this is an important issue. You say God is the judge, but I know that people who were baptized in non-RM churches can go around RM people (CoC or ICC) and get the third degree. People question them and look at them as if they are not really Christian. If you do not accept brothers who are indeed pbrothers, then you are not obeying the instructions to receive one another as Christ has received you.

Others treat Acts 2:38 as a verse through which other verses must be interpreted. One RM viewpoint, actully ICC, was that in order to be saved, you need to go though the Bible and do everything promised for salvation.

If believers would just follow the instructions and patterns of scripture, they would preach against sin, bring a sinner's sin to the light of the Law of God, and preach salvation through Christ as the answer. When the sinner is ready to repent and receive the Gospel, let him confess his sin and his new faith and baptize him, instead of telling him he is saved by going through a sinner's prayer ritual.

Just a few quick comments in response to D. Lee, the teaching on baptism in the New Testament is from heaven. 'Baptism of blood' is not a scriptural term. It is something early Christian teachers came up with to explain martyrs who hadn't had the opportunity to be baptized yet. 'Baptism of sorrow' isn't in the scriptures, either. I was just pointing out that 'baptizo' was a real word, and couldbe used metaphorically. It wasn't just a theological term.

In another thread, I pointed out that the root 'baptizo' is used to refer o Jesus not washing himself before he ate (Luke), and the washing of tables (Mark.) If it had references to things other than immersion in the NT itself, then how can we be so die-hard onthe idea that the Greek word MEANS only immersion. Maybe they immersed ables. I doubt it. I would imagine the ceremonial washing the Jews did before eating involved soaking by pouring, but I don't know for sure. Would I suggest that someone be be baptized by anything other than immersion? No. But if a preacher insists that baptizo MEANT ONLY immersion, that doesn't make it so necessarily.

For another reference to baptism, Jesus asked James and John if they could be baptized with the baptism He would be baptized with. Jesus had already been baptized in water and the Holy Spirit had already descended on Him.

There is _one baptism_ that we all participate in. That doesn't mean that the Greek word _baptizo_ could be used metaphorically to refer to other types of immersions. Think about it.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2000