Brethren, I read this today and thought that it was interesting concerning the “Vice of tolerance”:

“Today, when we speak of tolerance, we no longer have in mind a state policy but a virtue of individuals. Fortunately, governmental intolerance toward those who do not accept a nations or state's religion has become a rare exception. This virtue tries to teach us today that we all should endure and accept that others have convictions different from our own, behave differently from the way we consider proper or belong to a group, nation or race which for some reason we do not feel able to think of highly.

In fact, the way it is understood today, tolerance has become something like the most basic element of human solidarity, a first spark of love of the neighbor. We may not approve of the ideas or the behavior of another but the respect for his being a fellow human being restrains us from persecuting, suppressing or molesting him.

Yet tolerance is what I would call a "secondary virtue." It presupposes other more basic virtues. As we ignore the virtues which it presupposes, tolerance as we practice it today is in danger of turning into indifference. To be and to remain what it truly is, tolerance must continue to presuppose firm convictions. Tolerance ceases to be a virtue, indeed is in danger of becoming a vice, if it amounts to not caring for truth, ignoring what is morally good or not appreciating the values of the community. In order not to be accused of intolerance, people often refrain from being truly convinced of anything.

In this way, the culture of tolerance characteristic of societies which take democracy seriously is in danger of turning into a culture of "anything goes." We then become tolerant because we do not believe in anything, have no clear idea about right and wrong, and do not care about where we stand. Instead of being rooted in a respect for the unalienable dignity of another, tolerance turns into an abrading of convictions and in the end of character.

In other words, the problem we face is how to be tolerant without succumbing to relativism.”

By NIKOLAUS LOBKOWICZ NIKOLAUS LOBKOWICZ' THE FAMED EUROPEAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER, IS DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF CENTRAL AND EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES AT EICHSTATT UNIVERSITY

Think about these, brethren, and understand the dangers of what is being promoted today as “tolerance”. If we cannot distinguish between universal love for all men and apathetic indifference toward truth and right as opposed to error, deception and evil we will become nothing but relativist who have no firm convictions and ignorant of truth and completely void of all virtue.

I did not realize it at the time but I saw this idea of relativism while attending a state university. I was registered for and attended a “philosophy” class. In the very first session the professor began by saying to all of us young and easily lead students, “there are no absolute truths”. I was amazed that anyone capable of thought would make such an ignorant and self-defeating statement so I raised my hand and replied, “professor, if that statement is true then it is an absolute truth”. He remained calm and said, “well even that statement is not absolutely true.” I then agreed that it was not true and responded by saying, “If your statement is not absolutely true then there must be an exception to it which would be an absolute truth.” He then became enraged and said to me, “Son, I am trying to tell you that you cannot be certain of anything.” And my prompt reply was, “professor, are you sure?”

Needless to say I was thrown out of the class for causing such “needless disturbance”. But my question has never been answered and never will be answered because no one can affirm the negative proposition that “ there are no absolute truths” without first stating their proposition as an absolute truth and in doing so their argument collapses of its own accord. The existence of truth is axiomatic and impossible to reasonably deny because even a denial of truth inescapably requires the acceptance of its reality.

In like manner this idea of “tolerance” falls on its face as quickly as its close cousin “relativism”. They are from the same logical and philosophical “gene pool”. For the only thing those who preach tolerance cannot tolerate is those who refuse to be tolerant. Are you “intolerant” of intolerant people and cannot realize that by doing so you have become one of them? If you are allowed to be intolerant of something you do not like then on what grounds or by what right do you deny the same option for others to not tolerate ideas and behaviors that they do not like? How can such a one demand that all of us tolerate evil that we are commanded by our Lord to ABHOR while at the same time maintaining their right to be intolerant of and abhor intolerance in others. One cannot reasonably demand and promote tolerance while being intolerant of those who reject the idea of tolerance of all things. Without being tolerant of intolerance it is impossible to genuinely be tolerant.

But this is where the problem lies. No one with convictions can be expected to be so indifferent to those convictions as to be able in all cases to tolerate those who oppose those convictions. This idea of tolerance is a deliberate effort to gain acceptance of things that are genuinely unacceptable to the majority of reasonable men. It is intended to cast aside all reasoning about a matter for we would only reason with the hope of persuading the other side to accept and agree with our convictions. But this is useless if I have made up my mind in advance to never resist opposing ideas because I want to not appear as one lacking this modern secondary “virtue” of tolerance.

Tolerance is a "virtue" that has become a modern "vice" because we are being asked to ignore in the name of total tolerance the many basic virtues necessary to firmly held convictions. It has become a vice that threatens to destroy the very concept of firmly held convictions so that we no longer need to be urged to be patient and tolerant because we no longer possess enough conviction to care enough to challenge of confront anything that we do not agree with or like. This situation is rapidly removing the very restrains necessary to an ordered and peaceful society.

But rest assured that you will not find this lack of conviction among the “preachers” of tolerance in our society. For the moment that you refuse to tolerate anything that you oppose these self-appointed “prophets of tolerance” will immediately pressure you, ridicule you and ostracize you in an effort to bring you into the “fold of tolerance” for they cannot tolerate your being other than tolerant of all things. The effort to do this will either cause extreme conflict or it will produce an apathetic and indifferent society. Total tolerance of any and all ideas, behaviors, and political and religious agendas of any and all groups will produce, in the end, conflict that cannot be resolved for reasonable and firm convictions upon which resolutions depend will not exist. The result will be “wars and rumors of wars” and many of them.

Intolerance is essential to conviction and grows from it. Love for all men demands intolerance of evil in every form. Those who are evil demand that we tolerate their behavior and the only thing they cannot tolerate are our refusals to tolerate their behavior. In the mist of this let us remember that we are told to “Abhor that which is evil and cleave to that which is good”. Just as our Father in heaven, who hates every false way and abhors evil, because of his love for all men sends the rain on the just and the unjust I can love all men without tolerating their lies, deceptions, and evil behavior for even one second. Let it be known to every one that a society that tolerates all things believes in nothing. Keep this in mind when you speak of “tolerance”. We do not have to tolerate evil to love those who practice evil. In fact, you cannot truly love all men if you tolerate evil in any man. “Resist the devil and he will flee from you”. Abhor evil and fight against it while never forgetting that your objective is to save the sinner’s soul.

If you believe the truth you cannot be indifferent to or apathetic about it. A Christian must always be ready to “give an answer” and defend the truth and the faith once for all delivered to the saints and this modern idea of “tolerance” is counter to all the inspired concepts of truth and righteousness found in the word of God.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Answers

Lee....

As you WELL know.....the term "baptismal regenerationist" is a pejorative term used by those whose argument....shall we say....is very weak.

Connie has been told this over and over and over and over.....and she has no intention of listening. You would do better to talk about the topic of repentance...(i.e., "not my will...but yours").

I am just concerned that you save your breath for someone who has some intention of listening to your well worded presentations of the Scripture.

Yours in Christ,

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

I have been reading posts on this forum for several days, and this is one of the best. I heard Josh McDowell, who I know some like and some do not, as distinguishing between "positive tolerance" and "negative tolernace." Positive tolernace is the idea that anything goes and all ideas are equally OK. Negative tolerance recognizes a person's right to hold a different opinion, but also recognizes that when to views collide, at least one of them is wrong...I think our founding fathers would approve of "negative tolernace" but not of the positive tolerance our relativistic society today espouses.

CG White Yadkinville, NC

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Dr. White:

I sincerely appreciate your kind comments concerning the above post. I especially appreciate your clarification of the difference between “positive tolerance” and “negative tolerance”. I will make use of that clarification in all of my future discussions of this issue.

I also agree with you that our founding fathers would approve of “negative tolerance” as you so aptly describe it and I am certain that they would reject completely the modern notion of “positive tolerance”. In fact, if they believed the modern relativistic idea of tolerance, I have no doubt that we would still be subjects of the King of England.

I am also certain that anyone who has read much from the leaders of the “restoration movement” in America would be convinced that they too would reject this modern relativistic idea of “tolerance”.

And our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit speaking in the inspired writers of the New Testament, is most assuredly opposed to this modern relativism as well.

Again, I appreciate your supportive comments and thank you for the excellent clarifications that I can use in future conversations about this subject.

May our Lord abundantly bless you and your family in all good things.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Bro. Saffold.

I think you are correct. My grandparents are godly Church of Christ folk. I was ordained in a non-denominational group but now preach in the Friends Church. Unfortunately, many in all various denominations have lost their moral compass.

We could debate salvation issues, and probably some restoration folks would not consider me a brother, but some do. (I am not inviting such a debate, I am only saying such polemic discourse is possible.) One thing I have observed though, is that there was a time when nearly EVERY church--denominational or not--whatever doctrine of salvation they espoused--at least upheld biblical morality. It is sad that this is no longer the case.

CG White

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Dr. White:

It is again a pleasure to hear from you. Please, if you have opportunity and it is possible, express my Christian love to your grand parents.

You have said:

“I was ordained in a non-denominational group but now preach in the Friends Church. Unfortunately, many in all various denominations have lost their moral compass.”

I have some very good friends who were Quakers and hold them to this very day in the highest regard. I agree with you that many among those who claim to believe in Christ in America have indeed lost their moral compass. I fear, in fact, that they stand in great jeopardy of losing much more in the process. The very idea of being lost is that of having no divinely giving compass to follow. We have it in the very word of God but unfortunately many have forsaken His precious word and have been turn aside after “fables”. But I am convinced that what you say has not taken hold among the Quakers.

Then you say:

“We could debate salvation issues, and probably some restoration folks would not consider me a brother, but some do. (I am not inviting such a debate, I am only saying such polemic discourse is possible.)”

Certainly we could debate “salvation issues” if you deem it necessary to do so. I can assure you that should we ever find it necessary to do such it will not cause me to lose the respect that I have for you because of your stance in regard to our great need for the moral compass found in the inspired word of God.

I am fully persuaded by the scriptures that all who have been obedient to the gospel of Christ are thereby in Christ Jesus (2 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6,17; Gal. 3:26,27; Heb. 5:8,9) and are my brothers and sisters in the Lord. And all, who have not been obedient to the gospel, are my brothers and sisters in Adam our common grandfather and God our Creator but they are not in Christ. (2 Thess. 1:8,9; Heb 5:8,9). Inasmuch as there is no salvation outside of Christ (Acts 4:12) and knowing the “terror of the Lord” we must persuade men to surrender to and obey Him (Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:8,9; Luke 6:46). To those we have been commanded to preach the gospel and urge their submission and obedience to it that they might be saved from their sins. (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16; 15,16; 2 Thess 1:8,9). Thus, as you can see, I am convinced that if you have been obedient to the gospel of Christ you are my brother in Christ even if you have never heard of the group of Christians with whom I worship and serve God. And if you have not been obedient to the gospel of Christ you would still be my brother though you would not be in Christ and therefore you would be one of my LOST brothers. And with all of the love and strength that I have within me it would be my duty to do and say all that is true to convince you to be obedient to the gospel which is God’s power to save. (Romans 1:16). But by no means would I ever lose sight of the simple fact that you are in any case my brother.

I also agree with your following words:

“One thing I have observed though, is that there was a time when nearly EVERY church--denominational or not--whatever doctrine of salvation they espoused--at least upheld biblical morality. It is sad that this is no longer the case.”

Indeed it is sad that those times are gone. It is my prayer that they will not be gone forever. I sincerely hope that those of us who still hold to biblical morality will work hard to teach and persuade our fellow men to return at least to that standard of righteousness that existed before relativism took such a strong hold on our world.

Your Brother,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Bro Saffold

I like how you write. I guess I do not worry about whether other people think of me as a brother or not, I am confident in the Lord that all who have yelided to the Lordship of Christ are family.

BTW--I have been baptized (Immersed) and have baptized by immersion. (I even baptized my wife.) In Quakerism there are three schools of thought.

(a) The Impediment View. These folks are of the opinion that the outward ordinances are actually impediments to faith in Christ.

(b) The Re-examined View--These folks say George Fox had it wrong and we should be like other Protestants.

(c) The Non-Necessity View--which is where I am at this point in my faith journey, not that baptism is not necessary, but that it is inward and done in the heart by the Holy Spirit, water not being required. (We facetiously call this "Baptism by Dry Cleaning.") In reality this view includes "freedom to" as well as "freedom from."

While I realize this puts me at odds with this forum, I am enjoying the biblical discussion and stimulation.

A Friend in Christ,

CG White

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Hello, Dr. White,

I would like to call you 'Dr.', for I'm sure you have earned it.

It seems that you are maturing in the faith and have discovered what the Scriptures stress when it comes to baptism, and that the immersion in the Holy Spirit is preferable to the dunking in water.

I don't know what your doctorate represents, but if you have had Greek, I wonder if you could show me where water baptism is mentioned in John 3:3-7?

My father's ancestors were members of the Friends ~ is that not the Quakers?

Are you not pacifists?

This should become an interesting thread.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Yes, Connie Quakers and Friends are one and the same. I am a pastor in North Carolina and executive editor of Adult Sunday School literature for the Evangelical Friends Church. My doctorate, BTW, is in Biblical Hermeneutics (Theological Reflection is what they called it) from Bethel Theological Seminary in St. Paul, MN. I did that work while pastoring in Iowa. And "officially" Friends are pacifists--but not all members agree. I hold to the view espoused by Ron Sider in "Completely Pro-Life" He argues that since Christ died for all persons, we must never take any life for any reason for that life is one for who Christ died. Paul wrote "Never repay anyone evil for evil." And Peter, in the passage where he said we are to follow "In His steps", specifically dealt with this issue:

(1 Pet 2:21-24 NRSV) For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. {22} "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." {23} When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. {24} He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

It is funny, but to be consistent, the "WWJD" folks ought to be pacifists. We are to follow in his steps, and Peter specifically ties that to not retaliating when we are wronged.

As far as John 3:3-7 goes, nothing about water baptism is here. The word used for water is a derivative of HUETOS, which means "rain". I have always thought Jesus was speaking of the water which breaks when a mother gives birth--to paraphrase, "Just like you were born physically, so must you be born spiritually (the word means "from above")". I am not sure where the rain ties in, I will ponder that today. But I honestly do not think these verses refer to water baptism.

It also merits our attention, As D. Elton Trueblood noted, that manuscript evidence has basically vindicated this position. (I.e., one cannot assume that Mark 16:16 was spoken by Jesus--and no, I do not go for the "Jesus seminar", but it seems tenuous at best to me to make a salvific issue out of that verse.)

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Brother White:

Again I appreciate your kind response. I understand your meaning in your following words:

“I guess I do not worry about whether other people think of me as a brother or not, I am confident in the Lord that all who have yelided to the Lordship of Christ are family.”

Indeed complete and total surrender to the Lordship of Christ is the scriptural criteria of being accepted by Him into the family of God. And ensuring that we do so submit to His Lordship is of greater value than any frivolous concern over whether any of our fellowmen perceives of us as being their “brothers”. Jesus, Our Lord, himself discussed this matter. He made it clear to us that “yielding to His Lordship” involves obedience and not mere calling upon him with our lips saying “Lord, Lord”. “Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom of heaven by the that doeth the will of my father in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21). And again our Lord asked the pertinent question, “why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). I am convinced that there are many today that merely call Christ their Lord while refusing to obey the gospel of Christ. They cannot see that he is not their Lord unless they are His obedient servants. (Heb. 5:8,9). And that those who “obey not the gospel” will be “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power.” (2 Thess. 1:8,9).

I am, as you probably imagined, happy to hear you say:

“BTW--I have been baptized (Immersed) and have baptized by immersion. (I even baptized my wife.)”

I note that we have something in Common. I too baptized my lovely wife into Christ (Gal. 3:26,27) wherein is salvation (Acts 4:12) from sin. (Romans 6:23; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16).

I am convinced that Baptism alone without faith in Christ (Mark 16:16) and confession of Christ (Romans 10:9,10) and repentance of all sins (Acts 2:38; 3:19) is a useless act that could never save anyone. But when combined with and prompted by a faith that leads one to humbly yield to the Lordship of Christ the Son of God it is the divinely chosen time and place where God removes the sins from our soul. For this reason we are told that in baptism we receive “the circumcision made without hands that puts of the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ” through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead. “In whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been immersed with him in immersion wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Col.2: 11,12). This would clarify what Peter meant when he said, “that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even immersion, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. (1 Peter 3:20,21). Then we can see what Paul intended when he says, “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death? We were immersed therefore with Him through immersion into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin.” (Romans 6:3-6).

It was Christ who told us to be baptized and to teach others to do the same. (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:19, 20). And the evidence in favor of the text of Mark 16:9-20 is overwhelming. I do not have the time at the moment to engage in that discussion but I refer you to the scholarly work of Dean Burgeon on that subject entitled “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated”. Much information concerning this subject has been kept from the common ordinary members of the public such as myself.

I am happy to hear that you have been immersed in water and that you also immersed your wife in water and I assume that you did this in obedience to the command of Christ and in submission to His Lordship. For Christ did command us to be immersed and he did say concerning the SECOND birth, “Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). This is also called by Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the “washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5) and is referred to by Paul again when he told the Ephesians concerning the church, “that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word.” (Eph. 5:26). And yet again Paul (whom I am convinced wrote by inspiration the book of Hebrews) refers to this same washing with water when talking about our drawing near to God with a true heart. He said, “Let us draw near with a true heart in the fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: And our bodies washed with pure water, let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for he is faithful that promised.” (Heb. 10:22). Remember also that it was Paul who was commanded, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling upon the name of the Lord”. (Acts 22:16).

I appreciate your making us aware of the three schools of thought in "Quakerism" concerning this subject. I was not aware of them all. I do not have time at the moment to say much about either of them. But I would hope that you would agree that it is not likely that all three of these “schools of thought” are in harmony with Christianity as revealed by inspiration in the New Testament. And therefore it is possible that none of them are in harmony with the inspired word of God. I admit that I am not convinced that the view that you have selected is in harmony with the New Testament. The Non- necessity view or as you have facetiously called it “baptism by dry cleaning” does not seem to fit the many references to water in the New Testament. Especially, it seems that the inspired Preacher, Phillip, who was sent by the Holy Spirit, to preach to the Ethiopian eunuch did not seem to hold to a “baptism by dry cleaning” as you say this view is facetiously called. The account says, “And Phillip opened his mouth and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way they came to a certain WATER; and the eunuch saith, behold here is WATER; what doeth hinder me to be immersed? And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Phillip and the eunuch; and he immersed him. And when they came up out of the WATER, the spirit of the Lord caught away Phillip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing”. Acts 8:35-39). This verse shows us that the Holy Spirit sent Phillip to teach the eunuch. And the only thing we are told that Philip preached was Jesus but as a result of preaching Jesus the first thing that struck the eunuch’s mind when they approached certain water was to be baptized IN THE WATER. Thus, it at least does not appear that the Holy Spirit who sent Phillip to preach Jesus allowed him to teach anything like a “baptism by dry cleaning”. And the Holy Spirit was present during this teaching that led this eunuch into the WATER. In fact this particular baptism was without question not a “baptism by dry cleaning:”

I do understand, however, that the actual removal of our sins is done internally by God. And I am sure that this is what you seem to be discussing. But the scriptures teach that this internal “operation of God” takes place when we are immersed in water (Acts 8:35-39; Col. 2:11,12) in obedience to the gospel (2 Thess 1:8,9; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6: 3-6,17;Col. 2:11, 12).

I hope that we can enjoy our discussions with each other. I appreciate your willingness to openly discuss the scriptures with us and I predict that we will benefit from your participation in this forum. And I pray that you will also benefit from it as well.

A Friend in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Greetings: To my fellow servants in the Lord Jesus who alone is the guiding light for our souls. To the above ? I say there is a famine in our land and that of hearing the word of God(Amos 8:11-13)Where there is no knowledge of god the people perish, Grass witheres flowerers fade away but the word the Lord shall endure forever. We live in a land of intolerence to truth(Gods word) because they arent being fed or dont want to be fed truth. Gods word us that these days were were coming and in fact they are now here, lets not forget whom we serve but let us be faithful to a stiffnecked people with the word of God, that there blood will not be on our hands. We our the watchmen who claim to have to truth thats sets souls free, be bold in Jesus who is true. I was here at the public library talking two Morman girls who are following a false prophet, I was sharing with them the gospil. Then libarian who has rviled me before said "I will have you banned from here" I say to myself in a place that is filled with ungodly material, she tells me not to talk about Gods truth. We live in some dark days wich hate the light. Do any of you know about public rights. I encourage all of you to study to show thyself appoved of the Lord, pray without ceasing holding on to Jesus with all you got. Have a blessed day in the Lord this wonderful moment.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Hello, again, Dr. White,

I re-post from above:

As far as John 3:3-7 goes, nothing about water baptism is here. The word used for water is a derivative of HUETOS, which means "rain". I have always thought Jesus was speaking of the water which breaks when a mother gives birth--to paraphrase, "Just like you were born physically, so must you be born spiritually (the word means "from above")". I am not sure where the rain ties in, I will ponder that today. But I honestly do not think these verses refer to water baptism.

It also merits our attention, As D. Elton Trueblood noted, that manuscript evidence has basically vindicated this position. (I.e., one cannot assume that Mark 16:16 was spoken by Jesus--and no, I do not go for the "Jesus seminar", but it seems tenuous at best to me to make a salvific issue out of that verse.)

-- C.G. White (Whitecg@juno.com), February 16, 2001.

Yes, the Greek word 'gennathays' and 'gennoah' [transliterated] are used in that passage, are they not? (meaning physical birth).

The only verse with which I agree with the baptismal regenerationists is Acts 2:38. It seems to be paradoxical when compared to all of the verses which state that it is by faith through grace that we are saved. As I often say, I'm going to ask the Lord about it right after the 'Marriage Supper of the Lamb'.

Did you happen to know Dr.Bob Smith at Bethel? We used to invite him to speak at different conferences (at the Itasca Evangelical Free Church in Illinois). I thought very highly of him.

Please stick around. You are a breath of fresh air.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

Connie:

You have said:

“The only verse with which I agree with the baptismal regenerationists is Acts 2:38. It seems to be paradoxical when compared to all of the verses which state that it is by faith through grace that we are saved. As I often say, I'm going to ask the Lord about it right after the 'Marriage Supper of the Lamb'.”

Now, I just want to point out a very pertinent fact concerning this subject of “baptismal regenerationist”. I do not know if it was your intent to imply that those of us Christians who are a part of the Restoration movement are “baptismal regenerationist” or not. But just in case, I want to point out that we are not such. We believe the scriptures and they do not teach that baptism alone saves or regenerates us any more than faith alone can save or regenerate us. We are saved by grace through faith and as I have shown numerous times in this forum that faith, if it is alone, is dead (James 2:14- 24) and therefore cannot save anyone. But faith that is living leads us to obey the Lord in all that he commanded us for our salvation. And without such obedience one cannot claim to have saving faith. None who do not obey the Lord will be saved. For he is the author of eternal salvation to ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM. (Heb. 5:8,9).

And among the things that we are commanded to obey is confession of Christ (Romans 10:9,10; Matt. 10:32,33), Repentance of our sins (Act 2:38; 3:19; 17:30), and baptism (Mark 16; 16; Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:35-40; 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3-6; 17;). Obeying these things are all a part of obeying the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6; 17; 2 Thess. 1:8,9) and none of them can be left out without being disobedient to the gospel. And we are told what is the fate of those who “obey not the gospel” in 2 Thess. 1:8,9. Therefore, we are not now teaching nor have we ever taught that anyone is regenerated solely by baptism and we are therefore not “baptismal regenrationist” as you seem to imply. We believe firmly that we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9) and that faith is dead unless it prompts us to obey Christ in all that he commanded us to do in order to our salvation. And baptism is only one of the several things, as I mentioned above, that Christ has commanded us to do. And it is foolish to call Christ Lord if we do not the things, which He says. (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46). And until we submit to the Lordship of Christ in all of those things we cannot be regenerated or saved from our sins.

A “baptismal regenerationist” would be one who believes that baptism alone has the power to save and that baptism in and of itself saves apart from Christ or faith in Him. And no Christian has ever taught such a doctrine especially those of us in this forum.

I consider this clarification important because it will prevent our position on this issue from being misrepresented and misunderstood. Now, I know that we have made this abundantly clear to you in the past but our new posters may not be aware of this fact and you appear to have forgotten it. Please remember that in a useful discussion intended to bring some harmony or understanding that misrepresentations are destructive to that noble purpose. Let us be honest with one another and try our best to represent all opposing positions as candidly as is humanly possible.

I have always denied that baptism alone saves just as firmly as I have denied that faith alone can save. Neither position is the truth and none in this forum has ever held the position that baptism apart from faith in Christ saves anyone. You know this but you seemingly have forgotten it. Even though I made it abundantly clear in my last post. But now that I have reminded you I hope that we can keep this important point clear in this discussion.

Your Friend in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2001

Connie asks:

Did you happen to know Dr.Bob Smith at Bethel? We used to invite him to speak at different conferences (at the Itasca Evangelical Free Church in Illinois). I thought very highly of him.

Do you mean Bob Stein. Bob was my Hermeneutics prof. I thought a lot of him too. He is now at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville KY (where I received my Master's degree.)

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Dr. White,

I re-post from above:

Connie asks: Did you happen to know Dr.Bob Smith at Bethel? We used to invite him to speak at different conferences (at the Itasca Evangelical Free Church in Illinois). I thought very highly of him.

Do you mean Bob Stein. Bob was my Hermeneutics prof. I thought a lot of him too. He is now at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville KY (where I received my Master's degree.)

-- CG White (Whitech@juno.com), February 19, 2001.

I do not know how old you are, but this was 35-40 years ago, and he was near retirement age then.

I know it was not Bob Stein, but it might have been Wilbur Smith.

There were two speakers we had near the same time and one was Wilbur Smith and one was Dr.Bob Smith. I was pretty sure that the one I remember from Bethel was Bob Smith.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Connie writes:

I do not know how old you are, but this was 35-40 years ago, and he was near retirement age then.

I know it was not Bob Stein, but it might have been Wilbur Smith.

There were two speakers we had near the same time and one was Wilbur Smith and one was Dr.Bob Smith. I was pretty sure that the one I remember from Bethel was Bob Smith.

CG writes:

Sorry I cannot help you here. I am only 41 years old myself and got my Bethel degree in 1997 :)

By the way, I appreciate everybody who could remember me in prayer. Thursday I leave on a preaching-teaching trip to Kotzebue, Alaska (25 miles north of the Arctic Circle) and I return home, the Lord willing, March 5.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

I will pray for you brother white. I have been above the artice circle while serving in the Navy. I can vouch for the fact that it is cold up there!

Your friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001