The question is the title. Is President-elect Bush a Christian?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Answers

I do not know what his church affiliation is and/or what his background or religious experience is.

I do know....that in the last 10 years he has gotten serious about his relationship with God.

Whether or not he is according to N.T. standards is beyond my ability to do anything about (as I won't be calling on him any time soon).

That being said....it is obvious....and a breath of fresh air....that he strives to conduct himself with a sense of morality and integrity....seemingly driven by a sincere faith.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

D.Lee.....

At least he ain't leading young interns into the Oral...oopps...I mean....Oval Office!:)

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001

Sam.....Apples and oranges!!!

I made a differentiation between the status of his Christianity.....and the condition of his morals. A person can have Christian morals without necessarily being a Christian.

I do not (and still do not) have enough evidence to make a judgment about the condition of his relationship with God. I do, however, have enough evidence to make a comparison between the morals of Bush and Clinton.

Here's a good question.....is Clinton a Christian?? I would be more inclined to say "No".....based upon the fruit he has produced.

The vast majority of Presidents we have had in the US were not Christians by N.T. standards....and yet.....to one degree or another....they at least seemed "friendly" towards the Christian view of morality. That is the only judgment I am willing to make concerning Bush at this time.

On the other hand......I know full well what the false doctrinal stance of PK is......and what their modus operandi is. It is the promotion of unity at the expense of sound doctrine and that is anti- thetical to biblical Christianity.

Also, on the other hand....I'm stuck with Bush. I can choose not to go to PK.

Apples and oranges.

D. Lee was right in her assessment. I simply do not know enough about Bush's religious experience to see if her correct assessment applies to him.

I do appreciate you pointing me out as one of the staunch defenders of the "faith once delivered."

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Like I said......

I can't avoid the presidency of the United States....but I can chose not to go to a PK rally.

As I've said before.....PK is like fishing with a gold hook....there is more to loose...than there is to gain.

BTW.....the Mormons were pushing "Family Values"....long, long....before PK ever showed up. Should we "join hands" with them too.....just because it's wholesome??

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

"Truthfull, D. Lee, many have, and many do. I didn't say you did. I say Danny did."

Sam......what exactly is it....that "Danny did???"

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Thanks Sam!

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Calvinistic scholars with any scholarly integrity readily admit, however John, that "because of" is not the most consistent translation of that text.

I will look it up for sure....but I believe of the hundreds of times "eis" is used in the N.T.....the number of times it is translated "because of"......is indeed rare....(we are talking 1 or 2 times.)

In fact, the same construct of Acts 2:38 is also used in Matthew 26:28.....where Jesus during the Last Supper said this concerning the cup...."for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

Now is there anyone here who really wants to suggest that the blood of Jesus was poured out BECAUSE OF THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN??

DBVZ....that's the problem with viewing the Bible through Calvinistic eyeglasses. To quote you directly...."that interpretation is consistent with my views."

That's called the false hermeneutic of reading the Bible "apologetically"...i.e., reading the Bible to support ones views....as opposed to reading the Bible to get ones views.

I'll follow up later with the exact numbers on the translation of "eis."

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2001

I think he is a Christian, but it seems he is not an evangelical (i.e., proselyzing) one. There is an interesting article on www.snopes.com about this. Snopes.com is a web site which debunks urban legends, so its definitely of value. Go to the new items, and there is one about G.W. supposedly witnessing to a kid at a dinner. What is interesting there is that they quote G.W. on what he says he actually believes.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

For what it is worth, I believe his background is Catholic - or at least I think I heard that his girls were brought up Catholic.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

I thought I read that he would be the 3rd Methodist president in history....

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

No, George the "Texacutioner" Bush can't be a Christian according to my definition of Christianity. I believe a Christian can't support the death penalty.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001

Chris Hawkins:

Romans 13: 1 - 7, especially v. 4

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001

If the story that is circulating about George W. Bush and the young man is TRUE…then no…he is not a Christian.

To be a Christian one must obey the gospel. According to the story that is being passed around email and posted on the site Jon gave, George W. supposedly led the young person in the sinner’s prayer.

1. There is no sinners prayer in the Bible

2. We are saved when we submit to the gospel

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001

Chris,

I re-post from above:

No, George the "Texacutioner" Bush can't be a Christian according to my definition of Christianity. I believe a Christian can't support the death penalty.

-- Chris Hawkins (peace@clover.net), January 12, 2001.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Have you ever read Genesis? God instituted the death penalty.

It is the New Age philosophy promulgated in the public schools which is anti-death penalty.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001

>>If the story that is circulating about George W. Bush and the young >>man is TRUE…then no…he is not a Christian. >>To be a Christian one must obey the gospel. According to the story >>that is being passed around email and posted on the site Jon gave, >>George W. supposedly led the young person in the sinner’s prayer. >> >>1. There is no sinners prayer in the Bible >> >>2. We are saved when we submit to the gospel >> >>-- D. Lee Muse (dleemuse@yahoo.com), January 13, 2001. >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>------------ >> >>D.Lee..... >>At least he ain't leading young interns into the Oral...oopps...I >>mean....Oval Office!:) >> >>-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), January 13, 2001.

Now, see, here's an interesting exchange. The reason I asked this question is that a number of people here (Danny, you are foremost among them) will have nothing whatsoever to do with Promise Keepers because they don't teach baptism as a part of the salvation "exchange". I was just wondering which of us would give up that standard in order to claim a "Christian" president, or any other "Christian" in a politically powerful position.

Not casting stones here . . . just kinda asking who's on what side.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Danny:

I'm glad you mentioned the "apples and oranges" thing. I expected you would.

When you compare apples to oranges, you get MANY more similarities then differences.

Apples are a fruit; oranges are a fruit.

Apples grow on trees; oranges grow on trees.

Apples are grown in orchards; oranges are grown in oranges.

Apples are harvested by picking them from the tree; so are oranges.

Apples are a good source of vital nutrients and vitamins, so are oranges.

And on, and on.

And so are there similarities between saying that a George W. presidency will be a good thing for this nation and the church, and saying that Promise Keepers is a good thing for this nation and the church. In both cases, families are honored and uplifted, high moral standards are enforced and encouraged, the church is strengthened and defended, and God's name is honored. And on, and on.

I would that GWB is a baptized believer. I would that all members and attenders of Promise Keepers were baptized believers. But I am thankful that they are all, at least, believers.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

"BTW.....the Mormons were pushing "Family Values"....long, long....before PK ever showed up. Should we "join hands" with them too.....just because it's wholesome??"

On issues of faith and salvation, no, of course not. On issues of family matters in society, of course I CAN. Can you not say anything, ever, like "I agree with my Mormon friend here that the family has been under attack, and that needs to be changed"? To agree with someone on one or more issues while strongly disagreeing with them on others -- is that beyond you? I know it isn't.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Brother Sam:

I am happy to see you again in the forum. I hope that all is well with you. You seem to want to make this discussion about whether Bush is a Christian an equal comparison with whether a Christian should attend in a supportive way PK rallies as follows:

“Now, see, here's an interesting exchange. The reason I asked this question is that a number of people here (Danny, you are foremost among them) will have nothing whatsoever to do with Promise Keepers because they don't teach baptism as a part of the salvation "exchange".”

Brother Danny is indeed one of the staunchest defenders of the faith on this forum and I for one am glad that he is among us. But you have clearly forgotten some important things about those numerous discussions that we have had about the PK issue. I have never argued, nor do I believe that anyone else has, that a Christian should not attend PK rallies. Instead I have argued that they should not support the false doctrine taught there but rather they should contend with it. I have argued that we should go to those rallies with the intent of teaching the truth of the gospel to those who give every appearance of desiring to be Christians. WE know that they most of those at the PK rallies have not obeyed the gospel and I have proven conclusively from the PK’s own writings that they do not teach the truth about how one is to become a Christian in obedience to the gospel of Christ. So the issue has never been should we attend a PK rally but should we attend and support the false doctrine of salvation by faith only that is taught there. No Christian should support the teaching of false doctrine in any place and should resist and contend against false doctrine in every place including PK rallies.

Now, I suspect, though I do not have enough information to prove, that President Bush has not been obedient to the gospel of Christ and is therefore not a Christian. But you can bet on one thing. I would not refuse an opportunity to meet with him, if such opportunity ever presented itself to me. And I would not fail to use that opportunity to teach him the truth about how he must obey the gospel or be lost eternally (2 Thess. 1:8-11) and I would teach him what the scriptures say about becoming a Christian. I would not simply refer to him as a “Christian President” simply because he favors Christianity and mistakenly believes that he is a Christian because he thinks he was saved the moment he believed in Christ and without ever being obedient to Christ by humbly obeying the gospel of Christ.

Therefore one should not attend a PK rally, where people seem to be interested in being Christians and stand idly by while they are deliberately deceived by the PK organization into believing that they can become Christians by “faith only” and praying the sinners prayer. Nor should one fail to take the opportunity to tell anyone, including the president of the United States, the true gospel of Christ. This is especially true concerning those that have been so deceived into believing that they are Christians by “faith only” when in fact they are not Christians at all. For if they are not taught the truth they will be lost because they have been deceived by a false doctrine, which has been designed by Satan to deceive people into believing they are Christians when in fact they have never, been obedient to Christ. We must warn them that they must obey the gospel of Christ or be lost eternally. (2thess. 1:8-11; Romans 6:3-6,17; Heb 5:8,9; Mark 16:16). To shirk this responsibility is to place our own souls into jeopardy.

Even though Bush sincerely believes and supports much of what is taught by Christ, I do not support Bush because I am willing to assert that he is a Christian rather I am confident that he is not a liar and a murderer (because of abortion) as was his predecessor. I do not believe that Bush is a Christian though I have heard him claim to be one. I would not miss any opportunity to meet him and show him the “way of the Lord more perfectly" and I am persuaded that he is one that would listen and might even obey the gospel if the truth were explained to him. But I would never do what many of our brethren are doing at PK rallies to President Bush or anyone else. I would not sit there and pretend that he is a Christian when I know that he has never obeyed the gospel of Christ which is essential to one actually becoming a Christian just because I was afraid to “offend” some one in a Politically powerful position. Nor should a Christian attend a PK rally and pretend that all who are there are Christians even though they know that most who attend have never been obedient to the gospel of Christ. And then sit in the audience with their mouths closed and cowardly ignore the false doctrine of salvation by faith only that prevents those honest souls from coming to Christ when it is their hearts desire to do so. Those cowardly brethren that do such things will pay in the day of judgement for their cowardice and standing silently by while hundreds are being lead away from Christ by false teachers at the very time that in their hearts they desire to come to him for salvation.

Those of you Brethren that do this thing should hang your head in shame and repent in bitter tears. For the many people you have stood and watched being lead away from our Lord Jesus Christ because you were too cowardly to stand against the false teachers that so lead them astray. Those of you who care more about your own “excitement” and personal “enjoyment” at being in a rally with large numbers of people and hearing an exciting speaker who is leading the people astray with smooth words and fair speeches! Our Lord is watching this selfish approach to Christianity that cares nothing about the truth, the faith, or the lost! May our Lord forbid it!

Then you say:

“I was just wondering which of us would give up that standard in order to claim a "Christian" president, or any other "Christian" in a politically powerful position.”

I think you already know some of us that would not even think of giving up the standard of teaching the truth and contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints for any reason. This includes the false and foolish perceived need to “claim a Christian” in “politically powerful” positions. Our Lord Jesus Christ does not need a Christian in any place. Men in every place need Christ including those in powerful political positions! If we are Christians let us be such in every place and let the truth be taught in every place from the White House to the PK rallies. But let us not even begin to try to give support to Christ by falsely claiming that Bush is in fact a Christian if we are not sure that he has been obedient to the gospel just in order to “claim him” as one of our own. Let us instead pray that we might have an audience with him so that he can be taught to obey the gospel of Christ so that our Lord Jesus will “claim him” as His own in that last day. (Matt. 10:32,33).

Then you want us to be sure that you are not “casting stones as follows:

“Not casting stones here . . . just kinda asking who's on what side.”

Brother Sam, I am convinced that you know full well who is on what side in this forum. Thus I can only think that you are asking for the benefit of others that have not figured it out yet. I am certain that there is no question as to which “side” brother Danny is on. He is without question on the Lord’s side in this controversy over PK rallys and those who are supporting false doctrine with their enthusiastic support of PK rallies are on the side of the father of all lies and we all know who he is don’t we? Now, Brother Sam, we ask you to tell us which “side” you are on?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Sam,

You said: "I was just wondering which of us would give up that standard in order to claim a "Christian" president, or any other "Christian" in a politically powerful position."

I don’t see where anyone gave up THE standard in order to claim a president as Christian.

Yes, families may be honored and uplifted, if high moral standards are enforced and encouraged through having a moral president. Never will the church be strengthened and defended, and God's name be honored by a LIE. There is a huge difference. And as Danny has said, "A person can have Christian morals without necessarily being a Christian."

You said: "But I am thankful that they are all, at least, believers."

Sam…in the big picture…the eternal picture…where does it get one if they only believe?

This "state" of "belief only" has done tremendous damage, causing people to be eternally condemned. How can anyone who knows better be "thankful that they are all, at least, believers."

Concerning joining hands with the Mormons you say: "On issues of faith and salvation, no, of course not." Let me ask you…do you join hands with Promise Keepers on issues of faith and salvation? If you do not…when or if you go to a meeting are attempting as E. Lee says to tell the truth? Or do you sit by and say nothing? If one sits by and does nothing he is condoning what is done and said there. Those who have not obeyed the gospel are LOST and unless they HEAR the truth and OBEY the gospel they will remain LOST.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Lee:

""You seem to want to make this discussion about whether Bush is a Christian an equal comparison with whether a Christian should attend in a supportive way PK rallies as follows:""

""But you have clearly forgotten some important things about those numerous discussions that we have had about the PK issue. I have never argued, nor do I believe that anyone else has, that a Christian should not attend PK rallies. Instead I have argued that they should not support the false doctrine taught there but rather they should contend with it. I have argued that we should go to those rallies with the intent of teaching the truth of the gospel to those who give every appearance of desiring to be Christians.""

No, i haven't forgotten everything about the previous discussions. I was spurred into this one by an elder at the church which I am serving as worship minister, who thinks that we shouldn't ever use, in the Restoration Movement, a speaker or a teacher or a book or a study curriculum involving anybody other than a Restoration Movement speaker or teacher or writer. And yet his comment about the Bush election win was along the lines of, "We finally have a real Christian in the office of President."

I've heard that comment, or ones almost identical, from a goodly number of Rest. Mov. people, elders, ministers, etc. These people who make this statement and others like it would, for the most part, strongly contest against calling anyone a Christian if that person is not baptised and in line with RM teaching. But as soon as they hear that a celebrity or sports figure or politico or otherwise well-known person is a "Christian", they just DRool to start talking about "Wow didja know that he/she is a Christian isn't that cool see how cool Christians can be", and dropping the standards they have held so high in other areas. The Cult of Celebrity, one writer has called it.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

""Brother Sam, I am convinced that you know full well who is on what side in this forum. Thus I can only think that you are asking for the benefit of others that have not figured it out yet.""

Well, you got me there, Lee. I DO know how many of the folks here stand on many things. Some questions I ask to engender further discussion and clarity of already (at least partially) stated ideas. I wish that one could do so without folks taking it as a personal atteck against the church and the integrity of God.

""I am certain that there is no question as to which “side” brother Danny is on. He is without question on the Lord’s side in this controversy over PK rallys and those who are supporting false doctrine with their enthusiastic support of PK rallies are on the side of the father of all lies and we all know who he is don’t we? Now, Brother Sam, we ask you to tell us which “side” you are on?""

I will tell you exactly what side I am on, Brother Lee. I am on the side which declares that it is not up to me to judge the salvation and standing with the Lord of any person about whom I do not know all the facts. As is written in the Scriptures, they are not my "servants" -- I am commanded by Scripture not to decide or declare their standing with God.

And I am on the side that thinks that you overstep your bounds in declaring that folks involved with PK are servants and offspring of Satan. If Priscilla and Aquilla had taken your attitude, then Apollos would never have become the church leader he became. They could have just shouted, "YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG, YOU SON OF THE DEVIL!" Rather than that, they saw a believer who had some wrong ideas -- some "false doctrine", if you will -- and gently and lovingly and strongly taught him better, and helped him to become a man well known throughout the church.

Do I think that denominational "Christianity" has big time problems? You bet I do. Mostly stemming from the fact that most of them are sold on Calvinism and Reform theology. But I will not simply toss them out with the garbage. I will learn from them in the areas where they are right, and I will endeavor to teach them better in the areas where they are wrong. But I will not consign them to Satan. They believe in my God, and are devoted to my Savior and Lord, Jesus the Christ. They are nearly in the ship. I would keep them on the end of the line, until they can see the life preserver I am trying to throw to them, rather than simply cutting the line and letting them sink to their doom.

THAT's the side I'm on.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

D. Lee:

""You said: "But I am thankful that they are all, at least, believers."

Sam…in the big picture…the eternal picture…where does it get one if they only believe?

This "state" of "belief only" has done tremendous damage, causing people to be eternally condemned. How can anyone who knows better be "thankful that they are all, at least, believers.""

I would refer you to the end of my last statement to Lee, above. No, just believing does not bring one salvation. You and the others here should know by now that I take that stand.

I can be thankful that they are, at least, believers, because as "at least, believers", they have ample opportunity to learn the whole truth. If they were people who had rejected Christ, they would stand with no hope short of God Himself slapping them upside the head, in a figurative sense, and turning them around.

And I can be thankful that they are, at least, believers, because that gives us a great deal of common ground from which to work. As "at least, believers", we share a language, mostly. We share a love of God. We share a devotion to Jesus. We share common goals in spiritual growth and living. There is a place where I can start, without having to cover all the initial ground of basic Christian understanding.

""Let me ask you…do you join hands with Promise Keepers on issues of faith and salvation? If you do not…when or if you go to a meeting are attempting as E. Lee says to tell the truth? Or do you sit by and say nothing? If one sits by and does nothing he is condoning what is done and said there.""

To continue what I was saying above ...

On matters of salvation, you should know by now that I do not stand with the Calvinist point of view.

But let me tell you what frosts my shorts about the last thing you asked, and the way you asked it. Such language is most often used here, in my opinion, to state that you believe that I do NOT do those things you are saying I should do, and to take me to task for not doing so. If that is your presumption, then you presume too much. I am OFTEN in discussions with "non-baptizers" about the issue, and while I have not changed ALL the minds I have worked with, I have been influential in a number of them, through judicious and hopefully Spirit-led exposition of Scripture and logical argument.

I have never been to a PK rally. I HAVE been to other "interdenominational" happenings -- praise services, prayer services, seminars, etc. If there is someone next to me in such a session singing praises to God, my first response is not to ask them if they've been baptised, because that's not why I'm there. My first response is to join in the praise. There have been many, many times when I have been able to have good conversations about the true things of salvation because I have shown thru my actions that I loved the same God they loved.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

D. Lee:

""I don’t see where anyone gave up THE standard in order to claim a president as Christian.""

Truthfull, D. Lee, many have, and many do. I didn't say you did. I say Danny did. I didn't name any particular person here that has. But I know many who have. And I feel pretty certain that you know some as well.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Brother Sam:

You have said:

“And yet his comment about the Bush election win was along the lines of, "We finally have a real Christian in the office of President." I've heard that comment, or ones almost identical, from a goodly number of Rest. Mov. people, elders, ministers, etc. These people who make this statement and others like it would, for the most part, strongly contest against calling anyone a Christian if that person is not baptised and in line with RM teaching.”

It is indeed regrettable to me that some Christians (a word that I prefer over “restoration movement people”) including some elders, should be so excited that they might be able to claim someone of “celebrity status” or “political power” is a Christian. And it is even more regrettable that they would neglect the teaching of the scriptures concerning how one becomes a Christian. It is equally regrettable that any Christian would attend a meeting of non- Christians and consciously and cowardly support their teaching of false doctrine just so that they can give the false appearance that Christianity is being accepted by a large group of people. When in fact large numbers are being lead away from Christ while thinking all along that they are coming to Him. Just think of what a terrible deception this is! To believe a lie that one is saved by faith only and never have anyone to correct you and in the last day hear Christ say “depart from me for I never knew you” (Matt. 7:21-23). And the sad part is that Christians could have prevented this if only they had been faithful to Christ and obeyed His command to preach the gospel to every creature.

It is a shame indeed that we are eager to have the lost preach their false doctrines to us and even write our materials, which we would use in our Bible classes. How ignorant and unconcerned can we become? I can assure you that so long as we have Bibles and competent diligent students and wise teachers we will have no need for materials written by those who are lost and without the hope in Christ. And if we ever reach the point that we do not have men who know the scriptures and are “apt to teach” sound doctrine, materials written by those who are not Christians will most certainly not save us.

It is a shame and my heart grieves over the weak and faithlessness among us. Those who seek every new fad or program that the sectarians conjure up to stimulate the faithless among them and we rush to by the program to do the same for our congregations. We do not see the early Christians calling upon non-Christians to write materials to instruct them in the faith. God has written our materials for our learning. “Whatsoever things are written aforetime are written for our learning that we through the patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Romans 15:4) And Timothy was told that “All scripture inspired of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. 3:16,17) The faith was delivered to us. In the congregation where I worship the elders provide for the teaching of the scriptures and some of our most knowledgeable brethren assist in the teaching of the scriptures. And we learn things that no one who is not a Christian could or would ever teach us. If you want the church to be the “pillar and ground of the truth” as God intend for it to be you must keep all false teachers out of the church. And when they manage to creep in the elders must be able to “convict and convince them” and they must be able to “stop their mouths” by powerful and reasoned argument from the word of God. But instead many are searching for the latest fad spreading through the sectarian world and actually pay these false teachers to come in and conduct seminars to help the “church grow”! What a shame! May our Lord make us aware that His divine word is sufficient? Let us know that in that inspired word we have “all things that pertain to life and godliness” and we need no help from the sectarians, or the false teachings of the “promise keepers” organization. We need only to study the word of God and faithfully follow the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Then you say:

“These people who make this statement and others like it would, for the most part, strongly contest against calling anyone a Christian if that person is not baptised and in line with RM teaching.”

While I do agree with your observation of their inconsistency in this matter, I cannot agree that this would justify Christians in supporting the false doctrine of “faith only” by attending PK meetings and treating every one there as if they are just Christians of a different persuasion. When we all know that most that attend are not Christians of any persuasion because they have never obeyed the gospel and are therefore not Christians at all.

If we were only talking about being “in line with RM teaching” I would not care about this matter at all. But we are talking about being in line with the teaching of Christ our Lord. Now anyone who is not in line with the doctrine of Christ is severely out of line. And the scripture teach without any doubt that one must obey the gospel to become a Christian. And that the only way one can by faith obey the gospel of Christ is to be baptized in obedience to that form of doctrine delivered to us by Christ through the Holy spirit speaking in the apostles of Christ. (2 Thess. 1:8-11; Heb. 5:8,9; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-5, 17; Col. 3:11-12; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22; Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:35-40; Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). All of the above scriptures are related to one another in that they are discussing the same subject and these are verses that are neglected by false teachers who teach the doctrine of salvation by faith only. No Christian can support any doctrine that is not in line with the doctrine of Christ. And so long as those in the “Restoration Movement” themselves keep their teaching in line with His doctrine they will achieve their objective of restoring first century Christianity in the 21st century. But if they continue to drift away by claiming that celebrities are Christians when they know these men have never obeyed the gospel of Christ. If they continue to support those who teach the false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” just because they happen to agree on family values or other political issues of the day. If they continue to pursue the latest craze exciting among the sectarians by bringing their teaching into the church through adopting their various programs and teaching “materials” instead of teaching from the pure word of God. Then there will be no hope of restoring New Testament Christianity in our day. In fact, if we fail there will be no Christians until some honest soul ignores all of this nonsense and returns to the scriptures and has the faith and courage to obey God. And go forth yet again with the blessed gospel of Christ and preach it without any compromise or apology to restore New Testament Christianity, which is the only faith that can save anyone! May our Lord grant us the wisdom and strength to spread his word and confront evil, lies and deception wherever we find it. May we stop seeking to be “respected” among the sects and seek instead the praise that comes from God alone? For those who are ever faithful to Him in all things even if they stand alone and are ridiculed by those who judge themselves by themselves and take great comfort in large crowds and vast numbers to make them feel secure that they are “right”. Let us have faith in God rather than faith in the programs, creeds, doctrines, fads and frivolities of men! We are not here to “help people lose weight” or to provide social programs doe our society in which we live. Our mission is the same as our Lord’s mission which was to “seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). He came to restore man to his former sinless state before God. Thus our Lord was the one to begin a restoration and we are to continue until all men are reconciled to God. Let us continue faithfully to do just that and let us begin by restoring ourselves to the teaching of Christ and lead all of our sectarian friends to do the same.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Sam,

I am glad I got that straight¡Kthat you do not believe that just believing brings salvation. And maybe you are correct in stating that I and the others here should know that by now. But¡Kmaybe it was the way you presented your question, and then brought up the following¡K"The reason I asked this question is that a number of people here (Danny, you are foremost among them) will have nothing whatsoever to do with Promise Keepers because they don't teach baptism as a part of the salvation "exchange". I was just wondering which of us would give up that standard in order to claim a "Christian" president, or any other "Christian" in a politically powerful position. Not casting stones here . . . just kinda asking who's on what side."

I disagree that "at least, believers" have ample opportunity to hear the truth. I don't see it, but that may be perspective. I don't know what it is like where you live, but where I live the majority of "at least, believers" have never heard the truth of salvation. We have people we disciple that are anywhere from 20-40 years old on the average. And you know what? For most of them this is the first time they have ever heard of baptism being part of salvation. Just this past couple of weeks we had a gentleman probably in his mid to late 50's that heard for the 1st time in his life that baptism was part of salvation. I've been to several places around the globe including the United States, and didn't hear this teaching until I was 30 years old.

I do understand your point about people who have already rejected Christ.

Sam, if your shorts are frosted¡Kcome in out of the coldƒº Did you notice the little word if used a couple of times? It was not my presumption¡KI asked you a true and honest question¡Kone very similar to the one I asked Duane over a year ago, and the same question I asked Michael D. not so very long ago. It is a question seeking a clear and honest answer. It was not my intent to assume anything¡KIf I did as we all sometimes do I did not mean to. I have been trying very hard¡Kas I believe Benjamin cautioned us all to do¡Kto ask questions first before assuming too much. And that Brother Sam was no taking to task.

Am very glad to hear you have been influential in changing a number of minds on the issue of baptism! I am also happy to see that you have had many good conversations about true salvation.

The question I now ask¡Kand please keep in mind this is an honest question seeking the same in an answer¡KWhy do you go to "interdenominational happenings" (I am assuming here that most of these denominations¡Kif history holds true¡Kdo not teach the truth) to join in the praise when in all probability most of these people are not Christian?

In general I ask¡Kcan anything built upon a faulty foundation stand firm? I mean¡Kwhat does it matter what good a person teaches or believes when the very foundation is false? The rest will not matter in the end unless one comes to a true understanding of what it is to be "in Christ".

If you and others have not noticed, the apostasy in The Church is great. And that I will fight until the day I die.

And for my last question, and then it is off to bed...

I would like to know how many of you have done a serious study on false: teaching, brothers, teachers, etc.?

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Sam,

Truthfully, you are right, many do. And I know you didn't say I did. Your certainty is correct I do know people who do such…something I am trying to fight against. I meant I didn't see any here on this thread who had.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Duane,

Something wierd is happening to my posts again, and I turned off the "smart quotes". Any idea?

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Sorry, Danny. Typing oversight. That line was supposed to read just as did the one about D. Lee -- "I didn't say that Danny did."

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Brother Sam:

You say:

“Do I think that denominational "Christianity" has big time problems? You bet I do.”

I do not know of anything such as “denominational Christianity”. And it seems that you also have a problem with the idea of associating Christianity with the evil of denominationalism inasmuch as you used quotation marks around the word “Christian” seemingly to indicate that there is something very different from genuine Christianity and the false pretense of denominationalism. The only way that I can find any Christianity in the denominations is to find some unfaithful Christians who have forsaken the truth worshiping among them or to find some honest soul who follows his Bible and has obeyed the gospel without being misled by his preacher. But those who have left the faith for sectarianism are hardly to be considered faithful to Christ. And those who have learned the truth on their own despite the constant teaching of false doctrine among the denominations are rare indeed. This is the problem that I am pointing to, Sam. If one has never obeyed the gospel of Christ he is not a Christian in any sense, with or without quotation marks. He is LOST and this is not my judgement concerning the mater but rather it is God’s judgement concerning it as he has so plainly stated in his divinely inspired word. Men are lost because of sin. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23). And they will die because of their sins. “For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23). Men are therefore not lost simply because I have determined that they are lost but they are lost because God has said that they are lost because of their sins. “The Lord’s hands are not shortened that they cannot save, neither is His ear heavy that he cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated between you and your God and SINS have hid his face from you that he WILL NOT HEAR.” (Isa. 59:1,2). Jesus came to seek and save that which was LOST. (Luke 19:10). He died, was buried and raised again the third day that we might be saved (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and we are saved from our sins by this gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and all who have not obeyed that gospel remain in their lost state (2 Thess. 1: 8-11). I cannot therefore change their condition before God just by convincing myself that I have no “right to judge” and therefore have no responsibility to inform them that God has offered them salvation from their sins in obedience to the gospel of Christ (Heb. 5:8,9; Icor. 15:1-4; Romans 6; 3-6,17). Thus, while I cannot judge them to be saved or lost, I can and must accept God’s judgement and believe His word that tells me that any and all who have not obeyed the gospel are LOST. This includes those among us who have never obeyed the gospel. And it certainly included all men who have never obeyed that blessed gospel, even those in the denominations that have been deceived into believing that they are “saved” by some other way apart from obedience to the gospel of Christ. Their opinion, and your opinion and my opinion of their condition before God are meaningless. Only God’s word which plainly states that those who do not obey the gospel will be “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power” (2 Thess. 1:8-11). Now, that is God’s judgement and His final word on the matter. And we had better know that God intends for us to preach the gospel to those who have never obeyed it. And tell them that God has said if they do not obey they will remain in their sins and their LOST condition will not be changed without their willing surrender to Christ. This applies to all sinners where ever they are that have not obeyed the gospel of Christ.

To leave the impression, as you do, that these people who are not Christians are in some way safer because they “at least believe in Christ” is to mislead one’s self and fail to even remotely recognize the URGENCY of this situation. The truth of the matter is stated by James when he said, “The devils also believe and TREMBLE” (James 2:19). But Brother Sam would say, “well at least they believe”. But they have no opportunity to obey the gospel and therefore they can only tremble at their certain doom before God’s Judgement. But what is the difference between those who have no opportunity to obey the gospel and those who have been deprived of that opportunity by false teachers and faithless Christians. The only difference is that there is yet hope that someone will tell them about the salvation that is in Christ before they “die in their sins” while the devils have no hope that such might happen. But so long as there are disobedient Christians who are more concerned with their superior “piety and spirituality” than the simple fact that their fellow men are eternally lost because of their sins and have no hope without their obeying the gospel of Christ. Just so long there will be this danger of men confusing denominationalism with genuine Christianity and thousands of otherwise sincere people will “die in their sins” and be eternally separated from God because they have never heard or obeyed the gospel of Christ (Romans 10:13-17; 2 Thess. 1:8-11).

Then you correctly point out the false doctrine that denominations have substituted Calvinism for the soul saving gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8-11) as follows:

“ Mostly stemming from the fact that most of them are sold on Calvinism and Reform theology.”

Indeed Calvinism has been substituted for the gospel and what does Sam do? He wants to meet with the teachers of Calvinism but not tell them the truth and confront their errors. He does not want to “judge them” for such would be “overstepping his bounds”. But, when he begins to tell them that their doctrine is false and he begins to make it clear they will condemn him for “judging” them to be following false doctrine and will misapply the passages of scripture concerning judging to defend their cherished “Calvinism”. No, Brother Sam, we will not rid this world of the pernicious doctrine of Calvinism that is deceiving millions into thinking they are saved without being obedient to the gospel simply by “joining hands” with the Calvinist and referring to them as “Christians” in quotation marks. And it most certainly does not help to be denying God’s word that plainly tells us God’s judgement that such men are lost because they are in their sins and have never obeyed the gospel so that their sins might be removed. ( 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6, 17; 2 Thess. 1:8-11). These men are just as lost as their fellowmen who have never even contemplated being reconciled to God. But who cares that they are LOST? We only care that they are offended when they are told the truth that they are lost, which God revealed in his word. If they are not lost then they are saved without the gospel and God’s word has made it abundantly clear that they will not be saved without obedience to the gospel of Christ. (2 Thess. 1:8-11). And no man can appreciate the value of the sacrifice of Christ and the reason that the gospel is “good news” until he understands that he is in fact LOST IN HIS SINS without Christ. Then the gospel becomes our precious hope. But the devil is shrewd in that he has managed to use man’s pride to move him to be insulted rather than warned when he hears the truth.

Then Brother Sam tells us:

“ But I will not simply toss them out with the garbage.”

Brother Sam, neither YOU not I have the power to do anything directly with our fellowmen concerning their salvation or condemnation. We can tell them the truth and of the gospel and that is all we can do. Those who are lost in their sins are already in the “garbage can”. And we are trying to help them be removed from it. We have no power to do it except to offer them the gospel of Christ which will lift them out of the garbage can of sin and cleanse them and set make the a smell of sweet savor to God. So, I do not doubt for one moment that you will not throw them in the “garbage can” brother Sam. You do not have to do that for they are already there as are all other men who have sinned against God and have never obeyed the gospel. They are all in the garbage can and I am calling upon us to go to them with the gospel that they might be removed from that awful condition. Yet you are calling for us to “go back into the garbage can with them”. And find whatever might still be useful in the garbage can and take it home to the church that is to be “without spot or blemish or any such thing” and display it for all to enjoy. You are claiming that we should let those who are in the garbage can think that they are really in the “house of God” because it would be too “judgmental” to inform them of the very truth that they are living in the filth of their sins. And just because someone has dressed the garbage can up like a “churchhouse” does not change the filth that resides within those who have not have their sins washed away in the precious blood of Christ when they obeyed the gospel (Col 2; 11,12; 1 Cor. 15:1-4).

Then you say:

“ I will learn from them in the areas where they are right, and I will endeavor to teach them better in the areas where they are wrong. But I will not consign them to Satan.”

You would do better to be “taught of God” through His holy word than to learn anything from those who are not Christians. I am encouraged to hear you say that you will teach them better in areas where they are wrong. I sincerely hope that this means that you will teach them that if they have never obeyed the gospel they are LOST and without Christ and hope in this world since that is what the scriptures tell us. But they are confused and believe instead that simply believing alone saves them. (2 Thess. 1:8-11; James 2:19-24). And I know that you will not consign them directly to Satan for neither you nor I have that power and I also know that you will not grant them a place in heaven for neither do you have that power. But, if you are the only Christian that they will ever meet and you fail to tell them they are lost and yet in their sins because they have not obeyed the gospel then you will be indirectly consigning them to hell. For if they never hear the gospel and never perceive that they are lost without obeying the gospel then they will die in their sins. And the fact that you were there and could have done something about it but you were too “pious” and filled with your sense of superior spirituality that you could never tell the truth. You were too “pious” to ever say anything that might offend them even though it could have saved their souls. Then you will have indirectly consigned them to Satan because you never introduced them to Christ and their need for obedience to the gospel. And by the way, no one who tells them the truth of the gospel is consigning them to Satan by so doing and your implication that such is what one would do if he taught the truth to them is ridiculous. But those who deny them the opportunity to hear the truth are indirectly consigning them to Satan.

Then you speak of these who have never obeyed the gospel as if all is well with them. And there is no sense of urgency to do anything to help them obey the gospel that they might be saved from their sins which they are yet living in. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1; 8-11) as follows:

“They believe in my God, and are devoted to my Savior and Lord, Jesus the Christ.”

You say they believe but you have told us that they believe “Calvinism”. Therefore they do not believe the truth about our Savior, now do they? Then you say they are “devoted to my savior and Lord Jesus Christ”. If only you were as devoted as they you might find the strength to tell them that their “devotion” to Christ is meaningless unless they are obedient to him. For He is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9). And one just might wonder how can one be devoted to Christ and at the same time believes teach, and practice a doctrine that is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of Christ. And it is surely true that until they become devoted to Christ as THEIR Lord and savior their devotion to Him as “YOUR” Lord and savior is meaningless.

Then you say:

“ They are nearly in the ship.”

You think that “Calvinist” is “nearly in the ship? But near of far they are not IN THE SHIP.

Then your illustration continues:

“ I would keep them on the end of the line, until they can see the life preserver I am trying to throw to them, rather than simply cutting the line and letting them sink to their doom.”

Now with this you imply that those who would tell them the truth of the gospel are thereby “cutting the line and letting them sink to their doom”. Then do tell us just what life saver preserver do you have other than the gospel of Christ? When we approach these men with the gospel of Christ we are actually throwing a lifeline to them. And you are standing on the bridge telling us that by doing so we are “cutting the line”.

But those who are joining with the sects in their services without telling them the truth of the gospel and urging them to obey it and refusing to confront false doctrine are not “throwing a life preserver” as you say. Instead they are jumping into the water with them and leaving the life preserver on the ship because they do not want to frighten those poor drowning souls with the bright red and white life preserver. Yes, they are all huddled together and in reality they have not even a line attached to the ship. And yo0u are in the water with them shouting curses at anyone that even appears to be ready to cast the life preserver over the side and pull them in. You will drown with them most assuredly until you give up and allow the gospel to be “sent down” to save them and bring them aboard the ship. The situation with those in the water whether near the ship are far off from it is a desperate one that requires diligent and immediate action rather than absurd discussions over just what to do. TO pretend that those in the water are safe enough and we can just get to them with the gospel anytime is dangerous and I will hear none of it. Let us seek and save those who are lost in their sins and offer them the gospel life preserver and stop pretending that they are just fine out their in the cold dark water and we have no right to “judge” their condition for the captain of the ship. Ha!

Then you say:

“THAT's the side I'm on.”

Yes Brother Sam you have made it abundantly clear whose “side you are on”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

""To leave the impression, as you do, that these people who are not Christians are in some way safer because they “at least believe in Christ” is to mislead one’s self and fail to even remotely recognize the URGENCY of this situation.""

Are you just not paying attention, Lee? Did I SAY that they are safer? No, I did not. Did I IMPLY that they are safer? No, I did not. So, what did I say, and what did I mean, based on the context around what I said?

I said, implied, and generally gave the impression that they are easier to talk to about spiritual matters and biblical matters because we have much more in common than a Christian and a pagan do. They are TRYING to be Christians; they think they ARE Christians; they believe in God; they love Jesus; they understand what I am saying when I talk of such matters. Since those things are true, they are much easier to talk to about spiritual and biblical truths than are people who have nothing to do with any of it, because they WANT to know. Do not read any more into what I said than that.

""Indeed Calvinism has been substituted for the gospel and what does Sam do? He wants to meet with the teachers of Calvinism but not tell them the truth and confront their errors. He does not want to “judge them” for such would be “overstepping his bounds”. But, when he begins to tell them that their doctrine is false and he begins to make it clear they will condemn him for “judging” them to be following false doctrine and will misapply the passages of scripture concerning judging to defend their cherished “Calvinism”. No, Brother Sam, we will not rid this world of the pernicious doctrine of Calvinism that is deceiving millions into thinking they are saved without being obedient to the gospel simply by “joining hands” with the Calvinist and referring to them as “Christians” in quotation marks. And it most certainly does not help to be denying God’s word that plainly tells us God’s judgement that such men are lost because they are in their sins and have never obeyed the gospel so that their sins might be removed. ( 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6, 17; 2 Thess. 1:8-11). These men are just as lost as their fellowmen who have never even contemplated being reconciled to God. But who cares that they are LOST? We only care that they are offended when they are told the truth that they are lost, which God revealed in his word.""

Lee, listen to this very carefully. I print in all caps so you can hear. YOU ARE COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTING EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID IN THIS THREAD. YOU HAVE ASSUMED WHAT MY MOTIVATIONS ARE, AND YOU HAVE SARCASTICALLY ASSIGNED TO ME POSITIONS AND ATTITUDES THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IN ANYTHING I WROTE, UNLESS YOU TAKE LITTLE BITS OUT OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY WERE WRITTEN. Stop it. Argue honestly.

""Brother Sam, neither YOU not I have the power to do anything directly with our fellowmen concerning their salvation or condemnation. We can tell them the truth and of the gospel and that is all we can do. Those who are lost in their sins are already in the “garbage can”. And we are trying to help them be removed from it.""

Lee, I just can't see at all where you are trying to help them. You don't seem to want to associate with them. You don't seem to want me to have anything to do with them. How are they going to hear the truth from you, Lee? You won't talk to them in any way that they'll listen to.

""Yet you are calling for us to “go back into the garbage can with them”. And find whatever might still be useful in the garbage can and take it home to the church that is to be “without spot or blemish or any such thing” and display it for all to enjoy. You are claiming that we should let those who are in the garbage can think that they are really in the “house of God” because it would be too “judgmental” to inform them of the very truth that they are living in the filth of their sins.""

Show where I said such a thing, lee. Quote me.

"". And the fact that you were there and could have done something about it but you were too “pious” and filled with your sense of superior spirituality that you could never tell the truth. You were too “pious” to ever say anything that might offend them even though it could have saved their souls. Then you will have indirectly consigned them to Satan because you never introduced them to Christ and their need for obedience to the gospel. And by the way, no one who tells them the truth of the gospel is consigning them to Satan by so doing and your implication that such is what one would do if he taught the truth to them is ridiculous. But those who deny them the opportunity to hear the truth are indirectly consigning them to Satan.""

Ok. So, according to this paragraph, I go in amongst them and never say anything to any of them about truth or salvation. And yet, in the posting to which you are replying, I very clearly and very definately said that I had done that very thing, with some success. You might try reading what is written before you give answers and assign false motives and false actions against me.

""Now with this you imply that those who would tell them the truth of the gospel are thereby “cutting the line and letting them sink to their doom”.""

Lee, this is just stupid. That's not what I said or implied. It's not there. The ones cutting the line and letting them sink to their doom are those who REFUSE to have anything to do with them. If I do not go among them, I can't very well tell them the truth, can I? But you would have me avoid them altogether.

""And you are in the water with them shouting curses at anyone that even appears to be ready to cast the life preserver over the side and pull them in.""

Nope. I'm in the water, shouting curses at those who say, "Those people aren't really Christians, so I can't have anything to do with them." I'm shouting, "Give me some help here. These people are close to being saved, but they don't even know there is help available! Stop turning your back on them!"

Perhaps you could be bothered to actually read and think through things that other people write. You clearly didn't read mine.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

D. Lee:

""The question I now ask (and please keep in mind this is an honest question seeking the same in an answer) Why do you go to "interdenominational happenings" (I am assuming here that most of these denominations (if history holds true, do not teach the truth) to join in the praise when in all probability most of these people are not Christian?

I reject the notion that those who haven't walked all the way the salvation door are incapable of praising God. You don't have to be a Christian to praise God. In both the Old and New Testaments, there are people who are described as giving praise and glory to God, even when those people were not of God's people and didn't intend to be. They were still able to recognize and acknowledge what God did and, to some extent, who He was.

If a pagan can do that, according to biblical stories, then I think that probably a person can who is trying to be true to God can , too. And wherever praise is being lifted to God, I am happy to join, unless unscriptural activity is happening. Do you not listen to any Christian music? Do you only listen to music written and performed by Restoration Movement people? Surely not. But if you sing songs that were written by unbaptized people, how is that different than being AROUND unbaptized people when they are singing the same song?

As I said before, I have made many friendships in such settings. And in all of those friendships, the discussions eventually went to baptism -- some sooner, some later, but all the discussions eventually got there. Some of the people have responded positively, and been baptized. Some have not. But I have reached many, many more by joining in praise than by standing off to the side, saying, "But you people aren't really Christians."

""In general I ask, can anything built upon a faulty foundation stand firm? I mean, what does it matter what good a person teaches or believes when the very foundation is false? The rest will not matter in the end unless one comes to a true understanding of what it is to be "in Christ".""

It depends on from which point you're looking at it. You are right to say that good teaching and proper ideas will not, in the end, save that person. But good teaching and proper ideas build ME up. For instance, if I can learn good discipling ideas from the Navigators -- ideas that will help me to bring along spiritually those people with whom I am working -- then I would be a fool to toss those ideas out simply because the Navigators don't teach baptism. My use of those ideas does NOT mean that I think Navigators is all they should or could be. It just means that I've found something that is helping me bring along some young Christians.

Do you see the difference?

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Brother Sam:

You have said:

“Lee, I just can't see at all where you are trying to help them. You don't seem to want to associate with them. You don't seem to want me to have anything to do with them. How are they going to hear the truth from you, Lee? You won't talk to them in any way that they'll listen to.”

And you also said:

“I'm in the water, shouting curses at those who say, "Those people aren't really Christians, so I can't have anything to do with them." I'm shouting, "Give me some help here. These people are close to being saved, but they don't even know there is help available! Stop turning your back on them!" Perhaps you could be bothered to actually read and think through things that other people write. You clearly didn't read mine.”

Now, with these two statements you prove conclusively that you are the one who has not “READ” what I have said about this subject and you demonstrate that you are the one that is misrepresenting what has been said about PK meetings. To show that such is the case I now quote my previous words one more time where I made it abundantly clear that I have never said that we should not ATTEND PK meetings. Rather I have plainly said that if we do attend we should not support any false doctrine that is being taught there. And that we should take the opportunity to tell the truth of the gospel of Christ instead of idly sitting there with our mouths shut tight while they are being taught salvation by “faith only” and that they can be saved by saying the sinners prayer. READ THESE WORDS AGAIN SAM. And then explain just how you drew the conclusion from these words that I was recommending that we “turn our backs on these lost souls” and that I “won’t talk to them” And that I will not “associate with them”. I would really like to understand just how you drew the conclusion from anything that I have written about this matter that I do not want to associate with people at PK meetings. I cannot think of any place that I would not go if there were opportunities for me to tell them the truth of the gospel. What I plainly said was that we should not attend such meetings and listen to false doctrine being taught and do nothing to combat it. We should not neglect our responsibility to be the “pillar and ground of the truth". How can you ever give them the gospel if all you do is associate with them and never tell them the truth? Now read this passage from my previous post and explain just where I have ever said that we should have no association with those at PK or any of the other lost people in the world. These were my words:

“Brother Danny is indeed one of the staunchest defenders of the faith on this forum and I for one am glad that he is among us. But you have clearly forgotten some important things about those numerous discussions that we have had about the PK issue. I have never argued, nor do I believe that anyone else has, that a Christian should not attend PK rallies. Instead I have argued that they should not support the false doctrine taught there but rather they should contend with it. I have argued that we should go to those rallies with the intent of teaching the truth of the gospel to those who give every appearance of desiring to be Christians. WE know that they most of those at the PK rallies have not obeyed the gospel and I have proven conclusively from the PK’s own writings that they do not teach the truth about how one is to become a Christian in obedience to the gospel of Christ. So the issue has never been should we attend a PK rally but should we attend and support the false doctrine of salvation by faith only that is taught there. No Christian should support the teaching of false doctrine in any place and should resist and contend against false doctrine in every place including PK rallies.”

Now, do tell us, does that sound like I was recommending that we have “no association” with those in PK meetings? Does it sound like that I was saying that we not even “talk to them”? It is obvious to anyone that is able to read that I have said no such thing and your implication that I have said such is nothing short of ridiculous and borders upon deliberate misrepresentation.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

Brother Sam:

You have said:

"Lee, this is just stupid. That's not what I said or implied. It's not there. The ones cutting the line and letting them sink to their doom are those who REFUSE to have anything to do with them. If I do not go among them, I can't very well tell them the truth, can I? But you would have me avoid them altogether."

Now why do not you just show me where I ever said that I would have you to "AVOID THEM ALTOGETHER". SHow me where I have ever said that we are to "REFUSE TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM". You most certianly cannot tell them the truth without going "among them" but you also cannot tell them the truth even if you go "among them" unless you OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND TELL THEM THE TRUTH WHILE YOU ARE THERE.

Now this is what I have been consistantly advocating in this forum concerning this issue for months. I have even asked the brethren in this forum to agree to go with me as a group to PK meetings with the intent of telling those at those meetings the truth of the gospel while we are there. I have asked others in this forum, including you, because you were in this forum when I asked everyone to do this. I have called for us to attend PK rallies and evangelize among them and teach the truth of the gospel to them. But, none accepted my offer, not even those who attend pk rallies regularly and praise them highly.

Now, I will make that offer again to everyone. Let us attend PK meetings with the intent of evangelizing among them. I predict that none will accept this offer, including you. For many who attend only do so to associate with them but they have no intent to confront false doctrine while they are there nor do they intend to ever speak up when people are being told that they can be saved by faith only and saying the sinners prayer and tell them that this is not the truth and tell them of the gospel.

You have again misrepresented what I have said about this subject and all who can read are able to see it. I cannot prove that you are doing so deliberately. I surely hope that you are simply unable to read or have been so blinded by what you think a person with my background "aught" to be expected to say that you are simply unable to see what I have ACTUALLY and CLEARLY said!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

Lee:

Ok. Sorry. It's been a while since I was here regularly, and it's been a LONG time since I read the PK threads.

But you wrote sarcastically of me trying to do the same thing that you claim to want to do. Why is it admirable of you to want to attend a PK rally and make inroads there for the truth, buy when I do the same thing at other kinds of gatherings and establish relationships where truth can be spread, you write about it with a sneer in your words, and present me as a weak witness and a compromiser of truth?

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

Maybe GW will experience the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and become Pentecostal like John Ashcroft from MO. In fact John's home church is Central Assembly of God in Springfield MO. !!! Perhaps GW will be given the spiritual gift of tongues. :)

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2001

Hey

I just saw the gift of tongues at WalMart about an hour ago..............they were in the frozen food section..;~)

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2001

Brother Kelley has said:

“Maybe GW will experience the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and become Pentecostal like John Ashcroft from MO. In fact John's home church is Central Assembly of God in Springfield MO. !!! Perhaps GW will be given the spiritual gift of tongues. :)”

Brother Kelley himself has not been given the gift of tongues and no one else writing in this forum has been given such a gift. And since we have no conclusive evidence that anyone else in the world today has been given the gift of tongues. And especially since tongues have ceased as God told us that they would (1 Cor. 13:8; Eph. 4: 11). And since there are no living apostles today to lay their hands on us that we might “receive” the miraculous gift of the Holy accompanied with tongues (Acts 8:14; 19:1-6). If I were John Ashcroft, I would not “hold my breath” waiting upon God to give a gift that he has clearly not given anyone since the last apostle died.

False teachers are always seeking to assume that everyone will believe their doctrine if they simply repeat it often enough. Brother Kelley is such a false teacher. Unfortunately his imagination that God is giving these gifts to men today just cannot overcome the simple fact that he has yet to demonstrate, as Paul did, that such powers actually exist either within himself or others. Read (1 Cor. 2:1-4). Should God actually give such a gift to Mr. Ashcroft, I would hope that he would be as Paul was and actually demonstrates the power of God for all to see and end this controversy once and for all. I would not expect him to be like Brother Kelley and others in this forum who do nothing more than simply “talk” about this nonsense.

I highly recommend that you not hold your breathfor any actually demonstration of the gift of tongues in this forum whether it would come from Brother Kelley or John Ashcroft for it simply will never happen. Just like Connie’s “Holy Fire” we just will never see it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Brother Sam:

You have said:

“But you wrote sarcastically of me trying to do the same thing that you claim to want to do. Why is it admirable of you to want to attend a PK rally and make inroads there for the truth, buy when I do the same thing at other kinds of gatherings and establish relationships where truth can be spread, you write about it with a sneer in your words, and present me as a weak witness and a compromise of truth?”

I sincerely appreciate your remarks to me about this matter. I did not intend to be “sarcastic” in anything that I said to you. It does appear however that I did use some sarcasm toward you and for this I sincerely apologize.

Now, If in fact you are actually claiming to do the exact same thing that I am doing then I certainly cannot do anything other than admire you for it. For it is indeed right and our duty to openly oppose false doctrine when it is being taught in our presence. And it is also our duty to show others the way of the Lord more perfectly when they are being taught a false gospel. We are indeed to be set at all times and in every place for the defense of the gospel. (Phil. 1:17) and we are to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We are not however to treat those who are not Christians, because they have never obeyed the gospel, as if they are in fact Christians. I had the impression from your words that we should treat those at PK meetings as if they are Christians even though they have never obeyed the gospel of Christ. For this reason it appeared to me that you were attending these denominational and sectarian events with the purpose of fellowshipping them as if they were as much a Christian as one who has actually obeyed the gospel. If I were wrong in this estimation then I would have to apologize for attacking your position.

But I am not quite certain that I misunderstood you. I for one would not consider these people as genuine “believers” in Christ. Just because someone accepts certain facts about Christ to be true does not make them “believers”. A true “believer” in Christ is one who believes strongly enough to do what he says. He is not the Lord of those who do not obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9). For Christ said, “why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). And again, “not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). While it is indeed true that the word “believe” in the scriptures is used in the sense of a specific act separate from other acts promoted by belief, it is also true that in the New Testament those who believed also obeyed.

Yet there is another sense in which the word “believed” is used in the New Testament which is often overlooked. The word is often used in a comprehensive sense to include obedience. Notice this verse, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; he that obeyeth not the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE but the wrath of God abieth on Him.” (John 3:36). In this verse the word “believeth” and the word “obeyeth” are used synonymously. Another place is Romans 13:11 where Paul tells us, “ And that, knowing the time, that it is high time to wake out of sleep: for our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.” (Romans 13:11). Here Paul looks back to the time when these Romans became Christians and says, Now is our salvation nearer than when…” we first started; than when we were first converted-than when we first became Christians. But what term does he use to designate what they did in becoming Christians? The word “believe”. Then these people became Christians by believing. Shall we then conclude, therefore, that they did not obey the gospel? To do so would be to pervert God’s word. For, in this same letter just a few chapters back- and Paul did not divide this letter into chapters-Paul had alluded to this same time when these Romans became Christians or “believed” and ceased to be servants of sin, and here is the way he speaks of the time when they “believed”:

“ But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered to you. Being THEN made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Romans 6:17) Thus the apostle tells us that these people “obeyed from the heart” a form of doctrine at the time they became Christians. And he is referring to the very form that he described in the first verses of this same chapter where it is said, “For Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of life”. (Romans 6:3-4). So we have Paul telling us that they became Christians by obeying that form of doctrine which included being buried with Christ in baptism and then without dipping his pen in ink he tells us that when they became Christians they “believed”. It should therefore be quite obvious that he used the word “believed” in such a way as to include the obedience to the gospel in baptism.

Now there are many other instances in the New Testament where the word “believed” is used to include the obedience to the gospel required of all that would be Christians. And no one, who has not obeyed the gospel in the New Testament, is referred to as “believers”. For this term is also used often as a synonym of the word Christian. Now some are described as believing certian facts about Christ that did not obey the gospel but they are not called “believers” in this comprehensive since. Those who have not obeyed the gospel are not “believers” in Christ though they may believe much about him that is true. For these reasons, Brother Sam, it appears to me that there is a difference in the way I view those who claim to believe in Christ among the denominations and the way you see them. I do not see them as Christians or “believers” in the New Testament sense of the term at all. And the New Testament sense of this term is the only one that matters. Those who have not obeyed the gospel are not Christians no matter how much they claim to believe in Christ.

I do however agree with you that the fact that they believe certain facts about Christ. And that they appear to have a desire to follow Him makes it a fertile ground for saints to work to teach them the truth and lead them to obey the gospel of Christ so that they can in fact be “believers”.

But I would not treat them as if they were in fact “believers” and “Christians” and encourage them to come and teach us about the scriptures. For if they are not yet in the “kingdom” of God they have no business teaching those who are in God’s kingdom anything. They are lost and without hope in this world until they come to Christ. And we should go among them to teach them the truth, not to be taught by them how to make the “church grow” etc. They need salvation in Christ and we should not be diverted from that purpose. Neither would I go to worship with them because they cannot worship in “spirit and in truth” as we are taught to do when they believe and teach false doctrine. Let us convert them to Christ and lead them to obey the gospel that their sins can be forgiven and then allow them to use their talents to edify the “house of God, which is the church of the living God the pillar and ground of the truth”.

So, Sam, it does seem that there is still some difference between what you do among them and what I do when I go among them. I teach the gospel and confront error without compromise and I do not pretend that they are “believers” and join hands with them to worship God when they are not even a part of the “house of God which is the pillar and ground of the truth”. They are not a part of the “lively stones” which are built up a “spiritual house” and the “holy priesthood” which was designed to offer up “spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”. For they are not in Christ and therefore cannot worship him acceptably for they are “yet in their sins” and lost. Notice this passage which describes just what Christians are. “ Ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”. (1 Peter 2:5) and then notice, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light:” (2 Peter 2:9). Now these two passages show us that Christians are, as God’s holy nation whose souls have been cleansed from sin, the only ones that can approach God in ACCEPTABLE worship. The notion that I perceived that you expressed that those who are not Christians and therefore are yet in their sins can approach God acceptably while yet in their sins. And, what I perceived as you notion that they can worship him with as much acceptability as those who are Christians that have been washed in the blood of the lamb and are able to worship God acceptably. I do not agree with this notion, if it is what you intended by your words. None, who have not obtained mercy in Christ Jesus, can approach God acceptably in worship for their sins are a barrier until they have been removed. Thus said Isaiah. “The Lord’s hand is not shortened that it cannot save neither is his ear heavy that he cannot hear but your iniquities have separated between you and your God and your sins have hid his face from you that he will not hear.” (Isa. 59:1,2). The great curse of sin is that it separates men from God and until sins are removed sinners will remain separated from him. This does not mean that he will not on occasion hear their cries for help but it certainly does prevent them from approaching God in acceptable worship. Until men come to Christ in obedience to the gospel and thereby become members of the “royal priesthood, holy nation,” they cannot show forth the “praises of him that called them out of darkness into his marvelous light". Now, in this I perceive that there is a vast difference in what you do and what I do when I go among the denominations to teach them the truth. I do not give them the illusion that they can worship God acceptably while they are yet in their sins and have not obtained the remission of them in obedience to the gospel.

But, as far as any intent to deliberately offend you, such a desire was never in my heart.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Lee:

"For this reason it appeared to me that you were attending these denominational and sectarian events with the purpose of fellowshipping them as if they were as much a Christian as one who has actually obeyed the gospel. If I were wrong in this estimation then I would have to apologize for attacking your position.""

Then, please, let me try again to make this clear and understandable. I go to such events with two intentions -- first, to offer praise to God; second, to find and begin to establish relationships in which I can advance the gospel. As to the first, I believe that I can offer true praises in any place at any time -- even when among those who think they are also. Their standing before God, or lack of it, does not keep my worship and offerings of praise from being heard. THEY don't have to be truly saved in order for ME to praise God in song and prayer. As to the second, I go to such places and among such people because, as I said before and as you perhaps have now grasped, these are people who understand what I say to them. I don't have to plow completely untilled ground. They are seekers, and as such are attuned to what I have to say. When they are offering prayers for salvation, I am offering prayers that they will see the truth, through me or through some other, or simply through their own study of the Word. And when the evening is over, I have made acquaintences which I then try to bring into situations where they can hear what I need to tell them.

Perhaps the greatest difference in what I try to do and what I perceive you as wanting to do is this -- you would go to an event and immediately try to teach and convert "cold turkey", as it were; whereas I prefer to attempt to establish some sort of more long-term interaction, on what common ground there is, to find the best way and most opportune situation for each individual I engage. I think that we do not differ in the ultimate goal, but in the particular approaches we would and do use. Is that fair to say, do you think?

""I do however agree with you that the fact that they believe certain facts about Christ. And that they appear to have a desire to follow Him makes it a fertile ground for saints to work to teach them the truth and lead them to obey the gospel of Christ so that they can in fact be “believers”.""

That is exACTly what I was saying. Thank you.

""I do not pretend that they are “believers” and join hands with them to worship God when they are not even a part of the “house of God which is the pillar and ground of the truth”. They are not a part of the “lively stones” which are built up a “spiritual house” and the “holy priesthood” which was designed to offer up “spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”. For they are not in Christ and therefore cannot worship him acceptably for they are “yet in their sins” and lost.""

I would challenge you, at least partially, on this point, the bit about being unable to worship "acceptably". I refer you to the book of Acts, chapter 16. I will quote verses 13-15a (with the pertinent phrase capitalized by me): "On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer of purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, WHO WAS A WORSHIPER OF GOD. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. WHEN SHE AND THE MEMBERS OF HER HOUSEHOLD WERE BAPTIZED, she invited us to her home."

Here, we have a woman who was NOT baptized, and therefore NOT a Christian, and yet the inspired New Testament writer Luke clearly says that she was a worshiper of God. That would seem to directly contradict the position you take just above.

There is also the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, who, the scripture states, had gone up to Jerusalem TO WORSHIP, but was not at the time a baptized believer. We also have Paul meeting with Titius Justus (Acts 18), "a worshiper of God" although not yet a baptized believer. And I would refer you again to Acts 18:24-26 -- "Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. he had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and TAUGHT ABOUT JESUS ACCURATELY, THOUGH HE KNEW ONLY THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquilla heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately." In chapter 19, we find some men who are described as "disciples", although they were not yet baptized. That situation was corrected through Paul's teaching, but they are still called "disciples" before they are Christians.

So we find, in a number of places in the New Testament, people who are spoken of, by the divinely inspired writer, as being capable of, and actually engaged in, worshiping God and following Jesus BEFORE they know all the truth, BEFORE they are baptized into Christ. There is no claim that they are CHRISTIANS, and therefore saved, before their baptism, but they very cleary (once again, according to the divinely inspired author)worship and follow, even in their limited understanding. And God appears to have honored that worship and that following, in some way, to some degree.

In my approach, I see myself as being a lot like Priscilla and Aquilla, seeking out those who are attempting to be true to God, and trying to teach them more completely the truths of the gospel, just as they did with Apollos. And I join with the inspired writer Luke in declaring that those who are truly seeking God and trying to please Him CAN be called "worshipers", even before they have come to complete understanding about salvation and how it occurs. They must be sought out and taught. I hope you can see your way clear to blessing my efforts, even as I bless yours.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

E Lee,

Cut out the slander. It is not appreciated. You make false accusations without any proof. Try to have a little bit of character- try to have Christ-like character, that is.

You wrote, "And since there are no living apostles today to lay their hands on us that we might “receive” the miraculous gift of the Holy accompanied with tongues (Acts 8:14; 19:1-6). "

You've made this argument before. Repeatedly I tried to you to back up this view from the Bible. You've never been successful.

So I challenge you again- put up or shut up.

Prove from scripture that 1. There is a 'miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost' and that it is different from the 'non-miraculous' gift of the Holy Ghost.

2. Prove that speaking in tongues could only occur through the laying on of hands.

You can't prove point 2, because it contradicts scripture. Those with Cornelius spokein tongues while Peter preached to them.

I Corinthians says that the gifts are distributed as the Spirit wills. In trying to 'prove' this, don't make the error known as 'begging the question' again.

For example, if you say that the spirit only willed to give tongues to those the apostles had laid hands on, that is 'begging the question' plus eisegeting your ideas into scripture. The Bible doesn't teach that the Spirit only wanted to give that gift to those on whom the apostles had laid their hands. If YOU think that is the reason, then that is yoru opinion. You don't have the right to set the Spirit's criterea for giving out this gift as only for those one whom the Spirit had laid their hands. That is God's perrogative, not yours.

There is no evidence in scripture that the only ones who had spoken in tongues were those on whom the Spirit had laid their hands. Acts 8 does not mention speaking in tongues. Acts 10 is good evidence for people speaking in tongues WITHOUT the laying on of hands of the apostles, and the Bible teaches that the gifts are fiven according to the Spirit's will. Also, sicne the Bible doesn't set restrictions on who God will and will not give gifts to, E. Lee Saffold has no right to make up whatever restrictions he wants and read them into scripture. If the Bible does not tells us what he limits ar that God will do concerning a matter, then it is a matter of God's sovereignty. Therefore, God can give the gift of tongues to whoever he wants. God is in charge, not you.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Please, let's not get off into such a subject here. I'd very much appreciate it you would let this discussion between Lee and myself (and between D. Lee and myself, if she comes back) carry on to its end. If you want to hash thru the other again, I would respectfully request that you take it elsewhere. Please?

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Brother Link:

You have said:

“Cut out the slander. It is not appreciated. You make false accusations without any proof. Try to have a little bit of character- try to have Christ-like character, that is.”

No one has been slandered in the least, Brother Link. If you and Brother Kelley will stop teaching false doctrine, I will stop pointing out the simple truth that you both are false teachers. Now telling people the truth is definitely a “characteristic” of Christ. Notice what Jesus said to a group of Jews that rejected the truth. “Ye do the deeds of your father. They said unto him, we be not born of fornication; we have one father even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: For he is a liar and the father thereof. And because I tell you the truth ye believe me not.” Thus it was a characteristic of Jesus Christ our Lord to call false teachers and men who reject the truth liars. Now, if any one of those Jews hearing Jesus call them children of the devil because they rejected the truth had been like brother Link they would have cried out “Cut out the slander. It is not appreciated.” But have no doubt, Brother Link, as long as you and Brother Kelley teach lies I will, as often as I choose call both of you false teachers. And you should know by now that I could care less whether you false teachers appreciate it or not.

Then you say:

You wrote, "And since there are no living apostles today to lay their hands on us that we might “receive” the miraculous gift of the Holy accompanied with tongues (Acts 8:14; 19:1-6). " You've made this argument before. Repeatedly I tried to you to back up this view from the Bible. You've never been successful.”

Yes, Brother Link, I have made this argument numerous times before and I have so successfully done so that you have not bothered to answer it yet. All you do is ignore it and ask me to “back up this view” as if I had never made the argument at all. Anyone reading the two verses from the Bible that I have quoted are able to see that it was “through the laying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given” (Acts 8:14-18). And that the apostle Paul laid his hands upon the Ephesians in Acts 19 and they received the gift of tongues indicating that they had received the Holy Spirit. And I stated numerous times that the only ones in the New Testament that received these gifts without the lying on of the apostle’s hands were the apostles themselves and the household of Cornelius. And that the reason for this was that the apostles were given the authority to guide the church and give gifts to others, through the power of the Holy Spirit in order that the church might be established (Rom. 1:11). And that the unique situation of the household of Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit apart from the laying on of the apostles hands was a confirmation to the apostles and the rest of the church that God had “granted them also repentance unto life”. And Peter, himself recognized this unusual circumstance when he said that “the Holy spirit fell on them as on us at the beginning” indicating that it was unusual from the way that these gifts were normally received which was through the laying on of the apostles hands. For this reason he said, “Forasmuch as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us at the beginning who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God.” Acts 11:17. Then we are told, “When they heard these things they held their peace, and glorified God saying, then hath God also to the gentiles granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18). Now anyone able to read can see that it was the unusual circumstance of their receiving the like gift as the apostles received in the beginning that convinced the Jewish Brethren that God had accepted the gentiles. And it does not take a genius to see that if this reception of the Holy Spirit had been the normal "Modus Operandi” of the way in which the Holy Spirit had been given to everyone it would not have had such an impact upon Peter and the others. Thus, my original statement, which you have failed to report accurately, from our previous lengthy discussion of this topic, stands. I stated that the Holy Spirit was given by the “laying on of the apostles hands” with the exception of the apostles themselves and the household of Cornelius. No one else ever received the Holy Spirit except through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. (Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:1-6; Acts 2:1-4; Acts 10:40-48).

Then you say: “So I challenge you again- put up or shut up.”

I have put this argument up before you numerous times, Brother Link, and you have not answered it yet. But, even if I ignored your “challenge” completely just what would you do if I did not “shut up” as you commanded? You would do nothing at all. You are completely helpless to shut me up, now aren’t you? It is pathetic that you would say such ignorant and foolish things. Incidentally, I remind you that we are still waiting for you to “demonstrate” these so-called “miracles” that you have been claiming are being done by the Power of God in the Church today. You have been asked to “put up” but you have failed to do so. You have not demonstrated to us that anyone today actually has the gift of tongues. You do not have it and Brother Kelley does not have it and you are completely unable to prove to us that anyone you know actually has this gift. Despite your complete inability to demonstrate as Paul did (1Cor. 2:1-4) these Powers and gifts of God, you just cannot shut up telling us the lie that you know people that have such gifts today.

Then you say:

“Prove from scripture that 1. There is a 'miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost' and that it is different from the 'non-miraculous' gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Why would you want me to prove something from the scriptures that I do not believe it teaches? I have never made any such distinction in any of my arguments about this subject. Just because I call this gift of the Holy Spirit “miraculous” does not mean that I believe that there is any such gift that is “non-miraculous”. You must learn to argue with me when we have a discussion instead of arguing with others and trying to make me answer questions that should be put to someone else. You have done this so often that I am beginning to think it is a deliberate tactic to confuse the issue.

Then you say:

“2. Prove that speaking in tongues could only occur through the laying on of hands.”

Again, I do not know whom you are arguing with. I have never said that “speaking in tongues “could only” be given through the laying on of the apostles hands. For it could be done any way that God chooses to do it. I have said that it is the only way it was done in the New Testament with the necessary exception of the apostles (for they could not lay hands upon themselves). And the household of Cornelius for the distinct purpose as stated by the apostle Peter who witnessed it himself to demonstrate to the Jewish Christians that the gentiles “also had been granted repentance unto life”. To all others it was God’s will to give the Holy Spirit only through the lying on of the apostles hands. And there is no other way it which it was done in the New Testament. So again you ask me to prove your “point two” as if it is a point that I have made. I have stated all this before. That for everyone except the apostles and the house of Cornelius the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostle’s Hands. And Acts 19 is a case in point when Paul asked the Ephesians, “have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed” and we see how he corrected the problem and they received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of his hands. “ And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:6).

Then you say: “You can't prove point 2, because it contradicts scripture. Those with Cornelius spoke in tongues while Peter preached to them.”

Now, point two is a straw man that you set up. It is not an argument that I have made. I have said that the Holy Spirit was given only through the laying on of the apostle’s hands. But I have never said it “could only occur through the laying on of the apostles hands” for all know, including myself that it did occur. For the apostles did not lay hands upon themselves. And God used this gift to confirm the gentile had equal standing in the gospel age with the Jews before God. For if he had allowed the NORMAL procedure of giving the Holy Spirit through the Laying on of the apostles hands it would not have been long before some Jew would have concluded that the gentiles were “second class citizens” of God’s Kingdom. They would have concluded this because the gentiles had to receive the Holy Spirit through the hands of Jewish apostles. But I can tell you that I have made it abundantly clear. That if you were not an apostle and if you were not among those who were the first gentile converts at the house of Cornelius you would not, in New Testament times, have receive the gift of the Holy Spirit except through the laying on of the apostles hands.

So, all can see that you do not take up my arguments. Instead you simply “make up” your own and take them up and answer them as if they were mine. Anyone can do that, Brother Link and most false teachers use this tactic because they cannot deal with the truth.

Then you say: “I Corinthians says that the gifts are distributed as the Spirit wills. In trying to 'prove' this, don't make the error known as 'begging the question' again. For example, if you say that the spirit only willed to give tongues to those the apostles had laid hands on, that is 'begging the question' plus eisegeting your ideas into scripture.”

Now, this passage tells us that the Holy Spirit distributes the Gifts as he wills. But this distribution of the gifts, in the New Testament, is only to those who received the Holy Spirit and this was done through the “laying on of the apostles hands”. “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus) Then LAID THEY THEIR HANDS ON THEM, AND THEY RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT. And when Simon saw that THROUGH THE LAYING ON OF THE APOSTLES HANDS THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS GIVEN, he offered them money. Saying, give me ALSO this POWER that on whomsoever I LAY MY HANDS, HE MAY RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.” (Acts 8:14-18). Now anyone who can read this and not see that it was through the laying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given is too ignorant to understand when someone is “begging” the question.

Then you ignorantly say:

“The Bible doesn't teach that the Spirit only wanted to give that gift to those on whom the apostles had laid their hands.”

The Bible teaches that such is the way all men except the house of Cornelius and the apostles themselves DID RECEIVE the HOLY SPIRIT. Now, we can only assume that since this is how they did receive the Holy Spirit and that the apostles were given, by God this POWER that it certainly must have been God’s will to do it in this way. If you know of it happening in any other way today then PROVE IT. Demonstrate to us as the apostle Paul demonstrated and proved that God had given him powers to reveal and confirm the word of God. (1 Cor. 2:1-4).

Then you say:

“If YOU think that is the reason, then that is yoru opinion. You don't have the right to set the Spirit's criterea for giving out this gift as only for those one whom the Spirit had laid their hands. That is God's perrogative, not yours.”

Now, Brother Link, if you were honest, you would admit that I have never even remotely implied that I have “set the Spirit’s criteria”. I have shown that I recognize what the scriptures teach about these gifts and that the Spirit, through his Holy Word has given us the means to determine liars from those who speak the truth. Those who claim to have these gifts today are not telling the truth because they have not had the apostles lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Therefore their pretense is obvious to all. For the Holy Spirit set his own criteria and I recognize and accept it as it is written in His inspired word. You are the one who is trying to set a criteria other than that revealed in the word of God and that is just what false teachers do on other subjects. You just do not like the simple fact that God has left us out of these special gifts that were designed to reveal and confirm the word of God during the infancy of the Church when His will had not yet been revealed. But now that he has “delivered the faith” we must contend for it, not try to have something that God never intended for us to have whether God likes it or not!

Then you say:

“There is no evidence in scripture that the only ones who had spoken in tongues were those on whom the Spirit had laid their hands.”

I think you meant to say “the apostles laying their hands on them”. And yes there is ample evidence that this is just the way it was done and that the apostles themselves and the house of Cornelius were divinely appointed exceptions to this as I have pointed out above. And God could make an exception today if he wanted to but he would demonstrate His power in doing so in such a way that there would be no doubt that he has made such an exception today. And if you claim that he has done such today then it is your responsibility to prove it by demonstrating that either you or someone you know actually has these powers. This you have never done, though Paul demonstrated those powers (1 Cor. 2:1-4) and God demonstrated it to Peter at the House of Cornelius (Acts 20).

“Acts 8 does not mention speaking in tongues.”

But it does show that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostle’s hands and receipt of the Holy Spirit was necessarily a precedent of the speaking in tongues. No one in the New Testament spake in tongues until he had first received the Holy Spirit. And Acts 19:6, which is quoted above, shows that after the laying on of Paul’s hands they received the Holy Spirit and spake in tongues. And again I have shown that the House of Cornelius and the apostles on Pentecost are exceptions for the reason stated in the scriptures.

Then you say:

“Acts 10 is good evidence for people speaking in tongues WITHOUT the laying on of hands of the apostles, and the Bible teaches that the gifts are fiven according to the Spirit's will.”

Again I say to you that Acts 10 is an example of God making such an extraordinary exception to his own rule and pattern of practice as to draw attention to the fact that he had accepted the gentiles and Peter is the one who says this not me. (Acts 11:15-18).

Then you say:

“ Also, sicne the Bible doesn't set restrictions on who God will and will not give gifts to, E. Lee Saffold has no right to make up whatever restrictions he wants and read them into scripture.”

The Bible does not set restrictions and E. Lee Saffold has not set any restrictions either. God’s word tells us how this was done and E. Lee Saffold simply recognizes what it says about this matter. And it says the direct opposite of what Link Hudson and A. Kelley say about it. It says that the Holy Spirit was given “through the laying on of the apostles hands” (Acts 8:14-18). And it says that the Holy Spirit was given to the house of Cornelius as on the apostles at the beginning in order to establish for all that the gentiles were accepted of God. And if this had been the normal manner in which the spirit had been given it would not have made such an impact on an apostle who had been sent to Samaria that they might receive the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit came without the apostles then why would they send Peter and John to the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit. How could they have know that the Samaritans would receive the Holy Spirit if the apostles went to them for that purpose? How could they be so confident that God would give the Samaritans the Holy Spirit and why did the Samaritans not receive the Holy Spirit until the apostles came to them? God is the one who has decided how and why this gift was given and Brother Link ignores God’s reason and God’s chosen way in order to deceive himself and others into expecting things that God has never promised them. It is a teaching that will ultimately produce infidelity among those who expect these things and never receive them from God. And they will not blame Link the deceiver. No, they will blame God our heavenly father. What a shame!

And anytime God gave these powers to men he made it so evident by clear demonstrations of His power that none could or would deny it. But you and Brother Kelley do not demonstrate any such power and neither does anyone else come forth to demonstrate that God has given them these gifts. So, if you are like those in the New Testament who had these gifts then demonstrate it as did Paul (1 Cor. 2:1-4). Otherwise all you are is an idle talker with no more power from God than even the vilest sinner who knows not the Spirit of Christ.

Then you say:

“ If the Bible does not tells us what he limits ar that God will do concerning a matter, then it is a matter of God's sovereignty. Therefore, God can give the gift of tongues to whoever he wants. God is in charge, not you.”

God is sovereign. And E. Lee Saffold knows and accepts fully that God is sovereign. God’s word tells us the reason and the way in which the Holy Spirit was given. It was through the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8:14-18; Acts 19:6). Brother Link does not like what our Sovereign God has told us and he therefore seeks to nullify the word of our sovereign God. And then when E. Lee Saffold points this out for all to see Brother Link returns to impress us with his great respect for the sovereignty of the God who inspired the words that he rejects outright.

Yes, Brother Link, God can give the gift of tongues to whomever he wants. And I have never said that he couldn’t. God has told us in his word that he gave the gift of tongues for his own purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God (Mark 16:17-20; 1 Cor. 141- 6; 14:22; Heb 2:3,4). And He has told us that tongues would cease when that task was complete (1 Cor. 13:8; Eph. 4:11-16). And he told us that the task of revealing and confirming his word is complete (Jude 3). Now it is God who says that tongues would cease and that they would cease when the purpose for which they were given was finished. And it is those who reject God’s word on this matter that are refusing to accept His sovereignty over the matter. They intend to have gifts even if God is not giving them. They will do this even if they must deceive themselves and others by pretending to have such gifts. If you or anyone that you know claim to have any of these miraculous gifts then you should demonstrate that you have them as Paul did (1 Cor. 2:1-4) instead of merely making claims without offering any proof whatsoever that those claims are in fact the truth. Give us one single passage of scripture that teaches that the gift of tongues would continue to this day and until the end of time. We have asked this of you before and you have made no effort to provide one. God says that tongues would cease and Brother Link says they will continue to the end of time. Who do you believe? I believe God because I accept His sovereignty. God could give gifts to anyone but he has not done so today and that is His right. He has not given the Gift to A. Kelley or Link Hudson nor has He given it to anyone they know. And if they claim that He has let them prove it by demonstrating it to us as Paul did (1 Cor. 2:1-4). They will not prove that anyone has these gifts today but they will tell everyone that they can have them even though God has not given them to anyone as far as has been proven to us.

Remember, Brethren, we are told to “try the spirits whether they are of God for MANY false prophets have gone out into the world”. (1 John 4:1). Test these men, Brethren and see if they speak the truth. We have more than once asked them for proof that they have these miraculous gifts from God and we are still waiting for a demonstration. They will do nothing more than talk. For they have no POWER from God.

And, if you want to discuss this issue further let's honor Brother Sam's request and take it elsewhere. You amd Brother Kelley are both apt to take any thread and deliberately turn it into a discussion of tongue speaking. It seems to be a hobby for both of you. Our previous discussion of this matter was sufficient and quite lengthy but it was carried on in a thread entitled "Do you allow emotions in the worship". And this issue has been discussed in several other threads as well. Brother Kelley entered this thread hoping to start a new round of discussions on this subject. He has failed so miserably to prove his point that he must keep repeating it with the hopes that some might come to accept it as true. He seems to think that if one hears nonsense long enough he might just begin to think it makes sense after all. But that tactic has never worked with thinking men and it will not work in this forum.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Sam,

Wanted to write a note letting you know that I do intend to come back. I wrote you a long response several days ago to your post of the 15th. When I tried to spell check it…it got lost in cyberspace. Since then I have been ill. I will attempt to write tomorrow.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Sam,

"I reject the notion that those who haven't walked all the way the salvation door are incapable of praising God. You don't have to be a Christian to praise God. In both the Old and New Testaments, there are people who are described as giving praise and glory to God, even when those people were not of God's people and didn't intend to be. They were still able to recognize and acknowledge what God did and, to some extent, who He was."

I understand your point here, and yes, there are many that worshiped and who worship today, though they were not Christian. Even looking at the apostle Paul…we know he worshipped God. But, he persecuted the church (Phil. 3:4-8). Paul counted ALL that as loss (including his worship of God, which he thought he was doing all along) for the sake of Christ. Now if there ever was a sincere man in his worship…it was Paul. But sincerity alone does not make our worship acceptable.

Even the Pharisees worshiped God.

Mark 7:6-9 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!

Their worship was not pleasing to God. As a matter of fact…their worship was in vain. Why? Because they taught the doctrines of men and not God. In the same way denominations do this today.

And what Paul said for Israel still holds true today: Romans 10:1-4 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

This is exactly what is happening today in the denominations. These are sincere people, even zealous for God. They have no knowledge, and therefore do not submit to God's righteousness.

When you say…"And wherever praise is being lifted to God, I am happy to join, unless unscriptural activity is happening."…do you understand that just by the very fact that they teach a false doctrine about salvation that unscriptural activity is going on?

You asked me if I listen to any Christian music. This I will admit is a struggle for me. I've brushed up on false: teaching, brothers, doctrine, and prophets. In this area, we as Christians are told strictly what to do and what not to do. I do not listen if false teaching is in the song itself. I used to go to religious concerts, but can not anymore. This is a decision I personally have made. The last one I went to was a Ray Boltz concert…unfortunately he had the whole auditorium saved by a prayer. This I can not support. Several religious singers of our day consider themselves to be "singing evangelists" or at the very least vessels to spread the gospel. I can't pay money to further spread a false gospel.

You ask: "Do you only listen to music written and performed by Restoration Movement people? Surely not. But if you sing songs that were written by unbaptized people, how is that different than being AROUND unbaptized people when they are singing the same song? "

You are correct here in saying that surely I do not only listen to music written and performed by Restoration Movement people. I do not consider one a Christian just because they claim a Restoration Movement background though. So my problem becomes somewhat broader. Sam in all honesty…this situation that you are getting at has bothered me. Where do we draw the line? Would you say that we should turn off or not sing music that is full of false doctrine? As to the difference between the music that is written by unsaved folks that I am singing on Sunday morning and being "AROUND" unsaved people when they are singing the same song…

Here is my dilemma…I don't want these people to get the impression that I consider them saved when I believe they are not. I don't want to go there, worship with them and become desensitized to the fact that they have not obeyed the gospel. I do see the apostles going to the Jews first, most times in fact, to where they worshiped but they had a purpose…that purpose was not to worship with them…it was to tell them the gospel.

I commend you on going to make friendships in order to teach the gospel to these people. And what a great example for me…in that you have in all of these discussions sooner or later come to the point of teaching the truth of salvation!

I do not as you say some do…stand off to the side, and say: "But you people aren't really Christians", and then do nothing. Doing that is just a wrong as going to worship with them as if they are saved and saying nothing about the truth.

I said: ""In general I ask, can anything built upon a faulty foundation stand firm? I mean, what does it matter what good a person teaches or believes when the very foundation is false? The rest will not matter in the end unless one comes to a true understanding of what it is to be "in Christ".""

You answered: "It depends on from which point you're looking at it. You are right to say that good teaching and proper ideas will not, in the end, save that person. But good teaching and proper ideas build ME up. For instance, if I can learn good discipling ideas from the Navigators -- ideas that will help me to bring along spiritually those people with whom I am working -- then I would be a fool to toss those ideas out simply because the Navigators don't teach baptism. My use of those ideas does NOT mean that I think Navigators is all they should or could be. It just means that I've found something that is helping me bring along some young Christians."

Nothing built upon a faulty foundation stands firm! Sam, if you have obeyed the gospel the foundation upon which you are standing is not faulty. The question was: "Can anything built upon a faulty foundation stand firm?"

Good Biblical teaching does not come from those who are not in Christ. It is not that they just do not teach baptism…the Bible says they "understand nothing". I can not understand why it is that Christians feel the need to go to the LOST for Biblical teaching. Would Paul or Peter have brought an Old Testament believing, God fearing, God worshiping Jew - who still believed in the Law to preach in the church?

You ask if I see the difference. What I believe I see and I hope is that you use the denominational meetings to reach people who are not Christians for the cause of Christ. Telling them the truth. More power to you!! It is an example the apostles left us with…using their meetings and meeting places to spread the word.

Please don't loose your motivation to do just that. Please don't look at them as Christians if they have not obeyed the gospel. I was one of them once...knowing now what I do, I would not have wanted you looking at me as if I were a Christian if we had met at a denominational meeting.

Can you understand where I am coming from? Can you help me out with the conflict I have with the music thing?

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

E Lee Saffold,

Your previous post has some errors of logic in the eisegesis. I posted another thread on this topic, so as not to take this thread any further off topic.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

D. Lee:

It is late, and I do not have time to give your very good and thorough reply its proper response. So please don't take the following as my entire answer, or as full justification for anything I do. But let me make this quick point:

For the last week, here in New Bern, the drama presentation "Heaven's Gates / Hell's Flames" played to packed houses every night. My wife and I went on Saturday evening, with another couple from our church. Here's a quick rundown of the production, if you're not familiar with it.

The stage set represents the gates of heaven, guarded by angels, all gold and silver and beautiful, with one angel overseeing the Book of Life. Off to the side is the entrance to hell. You see a series of short sketches, protraying people in various walks and stages of life, some represented as believers, and some as people who reject God. In each sketch, people die frokm various causes -- car wrecks, bad drugs, murder, suicide, accidents, sickness, etc. -- and come to the gate of Heaven. If their name is in the Book of Life, because they have accepted Jesus, they enter the joys of heaven, If their name is NOT in the Book, Satan comes with his demons and drags them into hell. It's all very loud and dramatic and overplayed, the point being made again and again that if you ignore Jesus, or put off a decision about Him, or search for meaning in worldly things, then you and anyone you influence in that way (a big point is made about your children following your way) are delivered to hell. Very emotional, very intense. I was bored silly. BUT . . .

1) After the invitation to "say the sinner's prayer", the ones who responded to the invitation and came down front were sent off with volunteer counselors for further instruction or counseling. Being a minister, I was invited to be one of the counselors. And visiting minister counselors are allowed to say whatever they want to these people who are sent to them, according to that minister/counselor's spiritual convictions. The fact that I am there in that setting, surrounded by people without the whole truth, allows me to speak to a few about the entire salvation story. If I had said, "I don't want them to think that I accept them as Christians, so I won't go and participate", then those that I would have counseled would NOT get that proper counseling. If 150 people go forward (which was about the average each night), then I might get 5 a night. If I'm NOT there, that's 5 more that don't get the whole story. If I AM there, that's 5 who do.

(In a related story, my minister here in New Bern tells of a Billy Graham crusade held in Oklahoma City some years ago, while Eddy lived there. A group of Christian Church ministers went to the counselors sessions to volunteer their services. They specifically asked the question of the leader, "This is who we are. Will we be allowed to counsel according to our convictions?" The leader was adamant -- yes, each counselor is to counsel and teach according to his or her own spiritual conviction. As a result of their participation, many, many people were given the whole gospel message than would have been if they had chosen not to participate.)

2) As I said, another couple from the church went with us to the Heaven's Gates/Hell's Flames production. He is a long-time Christian. He was born into this congregation, and has been a part of it his whole life. He became a Christian there in his teens. He's 40 now, and has been, as far as anyone can tell, one of the most faithful, loyal, earnest and strong Christians in the congregation for all these many years. He's absolutely right on concerning doctrine. If he felt comfortable teaching, I'd have him in front of an adult class every week.

He was moved by a couple of the sketches in the production. Intensely moved. You ask, "can anything built upon a faulty foundation stand firm? I mean, what does it matter what good a person teaches or believes when the very foundation is false?" I agree with you, the message presented that night is built on an incomplete and therefore to some degree faulty foundation. But that does not mean that there can be no good in it.

The proof? The next morning, Terry came forward at our invitation time to publicly recommit his life to Jesus Christ. He wanted to express public repentance (even tho no one in the room but him knew he had anything to repent of) for what he termed his "lack of focus and attention to being the Christian" he knew he should be.

God used a presentation that was clearly incomplete in terms of salvation to reach deep into the heart of a man who needed to hear certain things. Terry, we can confidently expect, will be a better Christian, a better father, a better husband, a better employer, a more deeply committed believer in all ways, because he went to Heaven's Gates/Hell's Flames. If we had said to him, "Terry, you shouldn't go there. They don't teach baptism", he would have missed hearing and seeing what he needed to hear and see at that moment, and he, his family, and our church would have been poorer for it.

So, I say again, the effect of the faulty foundation depends on your perspective. An incomplete message will not save anyone. But it can bring one to a position where he or she CAN hear all the truth, where before they would not have otherwise. And those who DO know the truth, and have acted on it, can be touched by God even through such contact. Terry's story is not unique among our churches, or even among our church. One night earlier in the week, two of our most obnoxious middle school boys were moved by the production to seriously consider what they were doing to their lives, and they have become more serious about understanding what they are called to be.

For their sake, and for Terry's, and for the sake of huundreds or thousands more like them, I continue to encourage our people to go to interdenominational events, using understanding and discernment, but seeking what God may have for them even in an incomplete presentation of the truth.

But I'll give a more complete response tomorrow.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

/Btest/btest

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

THis is a test to see if I can post . I have been trying to post a reply in another thread but the system does not seem to be working. So, if this gets through just ignore it.

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 27, 2001

Lee, again I am not surprised to see your arogant and self righteous language has not changed. For you information so you can ridicule me more and slander my name and character... I now speak in tongues. In fact I have been also "slain in the spirit" on three occasions. I do not expect you to understand since your lack of understanding and legalistical pharasee type of reasoning will not allow you to understand my view and expereince.

Lee, instead of throwing around unproven attacks by calling me a false teacher you need to look in a mirror. Your brand of "Iam the only CHristian in the only true church" attatitude is leading yourself and those around you to hell with your flawed logic. Yours is a sespool of theological rubbish that the stench is far from ending, unless you encounter the power of the Holy Spiritas I have. I pray that you will repent before it is too late for you.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

AKelley:

This seems a little strongly worded, even for you. Having a bad day?

Would you please explain from scripture the phenomenon of being "slain in the Spirit", giving examples or instruction of the subject from Scripture?

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

testtesttesttest

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

D. Lee:

It's not tomorrow. sorry.

This is exactly what is happening today in the denominations. These are sincere people, even zealous for God. They have no knowledge, and therefore do not submit to God's righteousness.

When you say…"And wherever praise is being lifted to God, I am happy to join, unless unscriptural activity is happening."…do you understand that just by the very fact that they teach a false doctrine about salvation that unscriptural activity is going on?

Yes, I understand what you mean. But two things here: (1) What I specifically meant by "unscriptural activity" was the showy, "miraculous" things associated with charismatic theology (Link and AKelley and others, please argue this in another place. I've joined you in one of those other threads). I am uncomfortable when those things break out, and usually leave the room when they become intrusive and take over the place. (2) I would answer with a question of my own -- When they are NOT talking about salvation, but only about praise and worship and honor, is an unscriptural activity going on? I would say not. Such activity would put them, for that time that I am with them, in the category of Lydia and her friends by the river, whom Luke calls "worshippers of God." They were not baptised; they were not yet saved. And yet Luke, the inspired writer, describes them so. How can we do any less?

Sam in all honesty…this situation that you are getting at has bothered me. Where do we draw the line? Would you say that we should turn off or not sing music that is full of false doctrine?

ABSOLUTELY, I would say that we should turn off and not sing songs that are full of false doctrine. When we sing, for instance, "To God Be The Glory" in church at Broad Creek, we do not sing the second verse -- "The vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives." That is false doctrine. But the rest of the song is not. So we sing verses 1 and 3. Verses 1 and 3 are perfectly good doctrine.

If a song teaches bad doctrine, don't sing it. But if a song says true and proper things about God and Jesus and the Spirit and faith and praise and worship, etc., then, by all means, sing your little heart out.

Here are some of the lyrics to a beautiful song we have begun to sing:

My soul finds rest in God alone. He only is my salvation. My rock; my peace; my fortress strong -- I will ever love and adore Him.

A beautiful song, with beautiful, moving thoughts about the peace and confidence given in salvation. Written by a guy, probably, who does not see baptism the way we do. But that doesn't change the fact that in this song is no bit of falsehood, no hint of bad doctrine. And so we sing the song.

To be sure, there ARE songs with bad doctrine in them. I try to not sing those. Sometimes I don't immediately realize how a lyric is wrong. But when I stop and think through a lyric, it's generally easy to see what is good and what isn't.

As to the difference between the music that is written by unsaved folks that I am singing on Sunday morning and being "AROUND" unsaved people when they are singing the same song…

Here is my dilemma…I don't want these people to get the impression that I consider them saved when I believe they are not. I don't want to go there, worship with them and become desensitized to the fact that they have not obeyed the gospel. I do see the apostles going to the Jews first, most times in fact, to where they worshiped but they had a purpose…that purpose was not to worship with them…it was to tell them the gospel.

Please understand this -- I would not urge you to go where your conscience bothers you to go. If I read Paul correctly, that would be wrong for you. It harkens back to the arguments in the early church about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul says that eating such meat is just fine, if you can do it in good conscience. There's nothing unholy about the meat itself. But if it troubles you, he says, because of the association with pagan sacrifices, then it is wrong for you do eat it. I would encourage you to view in the same way the singing of God's praises with people you aren't sure are actually saved. To use Paul's ideas about the meat and apply them to the singing situation -- there's nothing ungodly about the songs, if they express truth about God. Go ahead and sing them, even in the presence of Lydia-like "worshippers of God" -- UNLESS your conscience will not allow you to do so. But, in that case, understand, as Paul commands, that you have no right to dictate the conscience of those who would do so in GOOD conscience.

Sam, if you have obeyed the gospel the foundation upon which you are standing is not faulty. The question was: "Can anything built upon a faulty foundation stand firm?"

Good Biblical teaching does not come from those who are not in Christ. It is not that they just do not teach baptism…the Bible says they "understand nothing". I can not understand why it is that Christians feel the need to go to the LOST for Biblical teaching. Would Paul or Peter have brought an Old Testament believing, God fearing, God worshiping Jew - who still believed in the Law to preach in the church?

I would refer you again (well, the first time I was actually referring Lee to him) to the story of Apollos, and what Luke says about him. Remember now, Luke is writing with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And about Apollos, he says this: "This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught ACCURATELY the things of the Lord, THOUGH HE KNEW ONLY THE BAPTISM OF JOHN" (Acts 18:25 -- capitalization mine).

Here is a man who was clearly not baptized into Jesus Christ for salvation, and therefore, by the Biblical standards we promote, clearly not saved. And yet, the inspired writer Luke says that Apollos "taught ACCURATELY the things of the Lord." To use your terminology, some of Apollos' foundation was false. And yet he was a man from whom the church learned good and true things, even before he was baptised into Jesus.

I would put it to you that we can do the same. When we find teaching that is good and true, we can benefit from it. To use a modern example: When Chuck Swindoll teaches, I listen. I reject his teaching on the method and moment of salvation, but in EVERY other area on which I have heard him speak, he has been as right and true and biblical as anyone I ever hear from anywhere. When he speaks things that are true, he is a modern-day Apollos -- teaching accurately the things of God, while needing more instruction in a certain area or two. Like Apollos, a faulty foundation, but not an entirely useless structure. Rather, a structure that needs shoring up in one corner.

I've worked for the last couple of years, before my recent return to full-time ministry employment, as a home inspector. One of the things I learned is that, in fact, a faulty foundation does NOT necessarily sound the death knell for a house. When we would find foundation problems, we would NOT say, "Well, your foundation is faulty. Better tear down the house and start over." We would say, "Call RamJack and get them to repair and shore up this corner of the house, and you'll be just fine." I would liken Apollos, and Swindoll, to that situation. Some shoring up is called for; some repair is needed; but there are perfectly good things there to enjoy until that gets done.

But we would also say to the potential buyer words not far off from Paul's words about the meat: "This can be fixed, and will be just fine, but if you are uneasy about it, then go look for another house." Let the Spirit and the Word be your guide. Follow the convictions of your conscience, and allow other believers to follow theirs. I am not saying to allow others to persist in the belief that they are saved when they are not. I am saying to allow others, like me, to eat that good meat, even if you choose not to.

Can you understand where I am coming from? Can you help me out with the conflict I have with the music thing?

I hope you have seen that I CAN and DO understand, and I hope that I have given you godly thoughts to consider. Thanks for your time.

Sam

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

Sam,

Did you see E. Lee's post in whichhe attacked Kelley's character? I understand the strong wording.

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

How many teeth does a mule have? Some of these answers remind me of that old doctrinal discussion. Instead of speculating, why don't we wait until we have some facts before we offer an answer to the question. George W. Bush is a Methodist, he believes the Bible is the word of God, and he has expressed a faith consistent with conservative theology. He has reportedly repented of his sins. Has he been immersed in the name of Jesus Christ? We need some more information before we answer this question. Some people seem to have forgotten that the Restoration Movement is a movement to "unite the Christians in all the sects." And that we are "not the only Christians, but Christians only." In fact, some of the respondents to the current question would apparently not accept Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Raccoon John Smith, and Walter Scott as Christians. A. Campbell led us to the discovery that baptism is for the remission of sins, but many of his theological benefactors--including writers in this forum--would apply the doctrine in such a way as did Dr. Thomas of Virginia in Campbell's day. Regarding such an application, Campbell wrote that any who take such a restrictive view of baptism have abandoned the principles of the movement.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2001

Mr. Allen, I repost from above:

In fact, some of the respondents to the current question would apparently not accept Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Raccoon John Smith, and Walter Scott as Christians. A. Campbell led us to the discovery that baptism is for the remission of sins, but many of his theological benefactors--including writers in this forum-- would apply the doctrine in such a way as did Dr. Thomas of Virginia in Campbell's day. Regarding such an application, Campbell wrote that any who take such a restrictive view of baptism have abandoned the principles of the movement.

-- C. Ermal Allen (ErmalAllen@juno.com), January 30, 2001.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What you say is so true. I've read short accounts by some of these men and they were in no way as restrictive as some on this forum.

Sad. They are teaching something that the founders didn't teach.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2001

C. Ermal Allen,

What would the Campbells have said about the idea that if someone is baptized in the name of Jesus with faith in Christ, he cannot be saved unless he believes that baptism remits his sins?

There seem to be two RM views, at least- one that those who have faith in Christ and are baptized (by immersion) can be saved. Another is that one must believe his baptism saves him in order to be saved in additionto the above. What would the Campbells and Sone have said about this.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2001

Link, regarding your posting, dated January 30, in which you asked what the Campbells and Stone would have said about (the matter you raised) --

First, although it's nice to be able to claim that some of the "bigwigs" of the Movement held the same position you do, in my opinion, and probably that of most of the other "RM" people in this forum, what really matters is NOT what Campbell and other "Founding Fathers" of the "RM" taught, but what the Bible teaches.

Second, you really shouldn't be surprised that there are two views on this matter -- or a number of other important matters. We are NOT a denomination, and we have "no creed but Christ; no book but the Bible." Although there is a broad consensus on a number of important issues (especially, it seems, issues where we tend to differ from "other Evangelicals"), there is no one at all who can decide what the "RM position" is, or can "speak for the Movement" in defining doctrine. Although you might feel that we are very "closed" -- mainly because most of us don't agree with some of your positions -- historically, our movement has included a much broader spectrum of different opinions on a wide variety of different topics than most other "movements" and "denominations."

That may be one reason why some of the discussions in this forum get so heated. We have no one to "lay down the law" and say "this is our official position" -- all we have, when we think something is important but people don't agree with us, is the force of persuasion through logical arguments based on the Scriptures.

We are also not the only ones to find it hard to FULLY accept people whose views on certain key issues differ too widely from our own. If I'm remembering correctly from my "Restoration History" class, though the Campbells eventually came to positions that took them out of the existing denomations and into a new "non-denominational" movement, initially it was the Presbyterians and the Baptists who kicked them out because they (the Presbyterians and Baptists) couldn't tolerate the Campbells' "inclusive" (rather than "exclusive") view of what it meant to be a Christian.

As a personal example, I have been a member of the Hong Kong Evangelical Fellowship for more than 20 years, and was its Chairman for about 5 years (2 years and then later 3). I did this with a clear conscience, as did a couple of other of "our" missionaries, though some others chose not to, for reasons I never asked. However, we had some good friends who were Baptist missionaries, and their mission would not allow them to join HKEF or any other co-operative organisations or endeavours.

My primary allegiance is to Jesus Christ, but I also bear a certain allegiance to this movement (as long as it follows Christ). There are a lot of reasons for my feeling this way, but probably chief among them is the fact that I believe in the ideals of the movement, including that of testing all beliefs and practices not by "the historical position of the RM", but by Scripture itself.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2001

Link,

"Another is that one must believe his baptism saves him in order to be saved…"

Must a person believe that faith saves him in order to be saved? If I say I believe in God, but don't believe that faith saves me, am I saved?

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2001

You must believe that the death and resurection of Jesus Christ saves you, to be saved. That is faith, and it is the gift of God (grace).

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

D. Lee,

I see wher ethe Bible requires faith in Christ, but I don't see where we are told we must have faith in our faith. John wrote so taht the readers of I John might know they had eternal life. Perhaps they had it and were not to sure about it...i.e. perhaps it was possible taht some of them did not know or really believe that they were saved. Think about that.

E. Lee Saffold wrote,

"Brother Kelley himself has not been given the gift of tongues and no one else writing in this forum has been given such a gift."

You often challenge other people to prove their assertions. here you make an assertion that not only cannot be proven, but is just plain false.

I challenge you to show from scripture or reason that no one in this forum has been given a gift of tongues.

It isn't logical for you to make such an assertion because no one has flown to Atlanta _proven_ to you according to your standards that he/she has the gift of tongues.

Neither does the fact that on one occasion the Holy Spirit was given out through the apostles hands. There are 3 strong cases in the book of Acts of people receiving the Holy Ghost without the laying on of the apostles hands.

Neither verse you refer to teaches that the gifts have ceased. In fact, ephesians 4 is a really good case forthe ocntinuance of certain gifts, but doesn't even mention the gifts of tongues.

Whether there are tongues, they will cease. That is the case today. no one speaks in tongues forever. The verse you referred to doesn't even say 'the gift of tongues.'

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

Link Hudson: The following is an excerpt from my article, "Is Baptism a Hindrance to Unity?" March, 1997, Restoration Herald: Many who accept the necessity of baptism for salvation also believe that the candidate for baptism must be aware of this connection between baptism and forgiveness of sins. If a person believes that his sins were forgiven before he was baptized, does that mistaken belief invalidate the baptism? When Alexander Campbell was baptized in 1812, his biographer, Robert Richardson, makes it clear that Campbell did not then know the relationship between baptism and salvation. (And yet his spiritual heirs have often taken the stand that such a baptism is not valid.) Richardson argues that the highest motive for anything is obedience to God’s commands regardless of the results to the individual. Campbell himself wrote on the subject of the “re-immersion” of those who had left the Baptists to become Christians only. On one such occasion he wrote that re-immersing Baptists because they were deficient in their knowledge of the meaning of baptism amounted to an abandonment of the principles of the Restoration Movement! Usually two Scriptures are set forth as teaching the affirmative to this question. Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is for the remission of sins. Since forgiveness is the design or purpose of baptism, then a person must be baptized for that reason or else the baptism is not Christian baptism. So goes the argument. Forgiveness of sins is taught as the design of baptism in this verse. However, it does not follow that the candidate must understand this teaching in order for the baptism to be valid. The argument that it must can be met by asking two questions: (1) Whose design is it, and (2) is this the only design of baptism? (1) Whose design is mentioned in Acts 2:38? Must it be the believer’s? Not necessarily. It could be God’s design. The words “for the forgiveness of sins” may refer to the result rather than the motive. God’s purpose is to forgive sins, but our motive may be obedient faith to his command. The word “for” (eis) would certainly lend itself to this view, that Peter is describing the effects of the repentance and baptism more than the motive of the believer. (2) Forgiveness of sins is not the only design of baptism. Baptism results in putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27)--probably the main design of baptism, making all the others possible--membership in the one body (1 Cor. 12:13), the new birth (John 3:5), putting off the flesh (Col. 2:11-12), and several other results. Must a person understand all of these before his baptism is valid? A second Scripture which could be quoted to prove that the candidate for baptism must know the connection between baptism and salvation, is Colossians 2:12. “Faith in the operation of God” (ASV) is taken to mean that a person being baptized believes that in baptism God is raising him from the dead (spiritually). Admittedly, this interpretation would be in harmony with the passage, but it is not required by the passage. It seems more natural to view the passage as referring to faith in the action of God in raising the individual with Christ, not necessarily requiring a consciousness of the role baptism plays in the action. The action of God is not the act of baptism but the act of resurrection, which occurs in baptism. It is not faith in the time- place, but faith in the fact of the action of God to raise from the dead, even if the person is mistaken about the time-place of the action. To make belief in baptism as the time-place of forgiveness a requirement for salvation raises some serious questions about the system of justification by faith. Theoretically, does it not place our faith in the act of baptism rather than in the word of Christ that is active in that baptism? Practically, are we prepared to accept the consequences of such a position? Are we prepared to change the “good confession” that we ask a person to make before we baptize him? “Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (and do you accept him as your personal Savior and Lord)?” Are we prepared to add, “. . . and do you believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins?” Our faith is in Christ, not in baptism. Our faith is summed up in “Jesus the Christ, the Son of God.” Our surrender to and acceptance of his Lordship take place in baptism. Let us make certain that we never confuse the two. No one, after all, has been baptized because his sins have been forgiven (since in fact they had not), even though he may have thought so. If he was a believer in Christ, being immersed on the basis of his faith in the name of Jesus, his baptism was for the remission of sins even if he was unaware of it.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

The words "for the forgiveness of sins" may refer to the result rather than the motive. God’s purpose is to forgive sins, but our motive may be obedient faith to his command. The word "for" (eis) would certainly lend itself to this view, that Peter is describing the effects of the repentance and baptism more than the motive of the believer.

I understand that the word "for" (eis) can perhaps better be translated in this passage "because of" ["in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past" - Thayer], which would make the passage read, "Repent and be baptized .... because of the remission of your sins." Meaning that it was their faith and repentance that actually produced the remission, not the physical act of baptism, but that the act of baptism immediately followed as a proof (a "pledge", as Peter puts it in 1 Peter 3:21) of their repentant heart and the remission of their sins.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

John Wilson,

You may not want me to be in agreement with you on this forum. It is likely to reduce the acceptance of your point with many here. However, your translation "because of" is entirely consistent with my position, that the Bible teaches that baptism follows faith and forgiveness.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

It is good to see a few still holding to the faith once delivered ~ that it is by grace we are saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. [Paraphrased from memory].

And then also, it is good to see that the brethren dwell together in such unity.

May God be glorified.

P.S.

I think George really is a Christian.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

Danny,

See my comment on the other thread. I am not saying I entirely agree with the interpretation, but that the interpretation indicates a proper understanding of the relationship between faith and baptism taught elsewhere and throughout the Bible including 1 Peter 3. Your reading of the text, to imply that baptism is what produces the remission, conflicts with nearly every clear presentation of the gospel message. Baptism is a symbol of the finished work of Christ, which is what provides remission for all my sins.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Let us pray for our president, but let us not get comfourtabile, we must spread Gods word. Preaching salvation in the name of Jesus!! Let us pray for discernment lest we be decieved by philosophys of man.Jesus is the way!!

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001