Brethren:

I have started a new thread to continue an old discussion on baptism which was in the previous thread entitled "A revival of an old discussion on Baptism". I have done this so that we can continue our discussion without having to spend forever downloading the thread since it was gettng rather lengthy. I will continue my responses to my friends in that thread here.

For Christ and truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Answers

Mr. Hanson....you ask....

"Jesus mentions only faith, can anyone show me in these statements by Jesus where He mentions anything other than faith alone."

Your problem here sir....is your question. It starts from a false premise.

Allow me to show the false premise by asking you this question..."Can you show me anywhere (OT or NT) where the words "faith" and "alone" are used together in the way that you use them...i.e., "faith alone?"

I know only one occurance in the entire Bible where the words "faith" and "only" are used together....and that is James 2:24. Allow me to quote it.....

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by FAITH ONLY."

I await your response for other occurances that I may have missed.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

As usual....you missed the point. Read the question again....name another place in the Bible where the words "faith" and "only" are used together.

*sigh*

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

*sigh*.....answer the question Connie.....you keep harping on "faith only".....show me JUST ONE PLACE in all of Scripture where that phrase is used the way you use it.

JUST ONE?????

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Mr. Hanson.....

It appears to me your argument is the equivalent of saying that the walls of Jericho could have come down without the Israelites marching around them.

Or....that Namaan could have been healed of his leprosy without washing in the Jordan.

Or....that Rahab could have been saved without hanging the scarlet thread.

In all four cases.....be it...the walls of Jericho....Namaan.....Rahab....or our salvation.....saving faith requires a response on the part of the individuals involved.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Boy....the Holy Spirit sure does get blamed for a lot!!!

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Brethren:

Mr. Hanson has said:

“To All: I would like to point out some often overlooked evidence in Acts 8:35 - 37. (And as before mentioned will comment on the issue at hand and leave off polemicizing).”

Mr. Hanson would like to leave you with the impression that we have “over looked" something. When in fact we are the one’s who quoted this verse and we did not overlook the fact that Phillip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.” Indeed, as we have now said numerous times, more numerous than one can count that no one is a proper subject of baptism who has no faith in Christ. We are the one’s that quoted the verse, “without faith it is impossible to please him for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek after him”. (Hebrews 11:6). We have also argued that baptism is an “act of faith” in other wards an act that is prompted by faith in Christ and his command to be baptized (Mark 16:16). And further, we were tempted to use a version of the scripture, which does not have this particular verse in it because of the simple fact that it has been determined by many scholars to be a spurious passage. But because we are not given to making arguments from the imperfect science of biblical criticism we left it in for it is perfectly in harmony with what is taught in the rest of the scriptures and it expresses what we firmly believe to be the truth. If one does not believe with all of his heart that Christ is the Son of God there is no need to baptize him and if one did baptize such a person he only immerse a dry sinner and bring out a wet one.

Then Mr. Hanson quotes the verse correctly:

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Then he says:

“The eunuch asks Philip, "what doth hinder me to be baptized?" First, Philip does not answer him, "nothing hinders you - jump right in there buddy".”

No one ever suggested that Phillip said, “nothing hinders you-just jump in there buddy”. For unless the eunuch believed the gospel preached by Phillip with all of his heart it would be a futile exercise to baptism him, now wouldn’t it. Yet, Mr. Hanson would like for you to overlook the simple fact that because he did believe with all of his heart that Christ was the Son of God was the very reason that he sought to be baptized. For baptism was a part of the gospel preached by Phillip and upon hearing Phillip preach nothing but Jesus the eunuch because of his belief said see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized. It was the eunuch’s faith that led him to desire to obey the gospel of Christ, which enjoins baptism as a command of Christ. (Mark 16:16; Romans 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8,9; Heb. 5:8,9). For one cannot obey the gospel, which is the good news of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4) without being, “buried with Christ” in baptism (Romans 6:3- 6,17) and raised with him to walk a new life. SO because the eunuch hear Phillip preach Jesus and believe what he preached he wanted to be baptized and ask if there was anything that hindered him. And the only thing that could have hindered him was if he did not believe with all his heart the gospel that Phillip preached concerning Christ.

Then Mr. Hanson says:

“Notice very carefully the answer and just exactly what the text states, Philip qualifies the fruitless action of water baptism apart from faith! "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Faith must precipitate water baptism.”

TO this we say AMEN! Baptism “apart from faith" is fruitless indeed. In fact it is just as fruitless and dead as faith apart from obedience to Christ Command to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). For we are told, ““What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:14-26).

Thus it is indeed true that man must be promted by faith in Christ to obey Christ in baptism and without faith baptism is just as fruitless as is faith without obedience to Christ in baptism. For such a faith is “DEAD being alone” and such a “dead” faith is indeed as fruitless and useless as is an immersion in water that is not prompted by faith in Christ and His commands.

Then Mr. Hanson thinks that he has found a problem here facing Mr. Saffold which I have already shown above that there is no problem posed by the fact that baptism without faith is useless. For it does not pose any problem at all for the truth that I have been teaching from God’s word. For baptism with out faith is just as useless as faith with out baptism. For no one is saved by “Faith ONLY” as the above quotation from James makes abundantly clear. For the only place in the entire word of God that we find the words “faith” and “only” together is James 2:24 and it states clearly, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24). So Mr. Hanson has correctly shown that baptism alone or “only” without faith is fruitless and we do verily agree. And I have shown from God’s word that faith alone or “only” is equally fruitless in that it is without question DEAD. “ Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17). And, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:26). Now the word “works” in these passages does not refer to “works of merit whereby man can expect or demand “payment” but rather “acts of faith” or indeed actions predicated by faith or prompted by it as is the case with baptism. Immersion in water at the command of Christ is an act that is predicated by faith in Christ and caused or prompted by it. And a refusal to obey Christ command to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16) would be an act of defiance prompted by a complete lack of faith in Christ and His commands. And this is the reason that we are told that Christ is “the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him”. (Heb 5:8,9). So, faith without baptism is as dead as the body without the Spirit. And anyone who hopes to be saved by faith ONLY is going to be terribly disappointed indeed.

Now just hear I want to take a moment to mention something from another post, which Mr. Hanson wrote. He said in another of his post:

He began by quoting my words, which were:

“"The Lord did not say that one is saved by believing alone, now did he?"

To which he responded as follows:

“Well, yes, Mr. Saffold, Jesus has mentioned on numerous occasions one is saved by believing alone. John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46, John 12:46, Matt.26:28.”

Now, if any of you will simply pick up your Bible and search for these passages quoted by Mr. Hanson you will find that not a single one of them says that one is saved “by faith alone” as Mr. Hanson affirms. You will not find the words “faith only” in the passages. And you will not find the word “only” in any of them. Note that Mr. Hanson did not say we are saved by faith for that is exactly what these passages teach. He said something that they do not teach. He said that these passages teach that “believing alone” saves us. But I have shown you from the above quotation from the book of James that the inspired apostle says, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.” (James 2:24). And it also says, “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:16). But Mr. Hanson wants you to believe that you can be saved by a dead faith one that is “alone”. Now these things are important my friends because you must remember that when God told Adam and eve what would happen to them if they ate of the fruit that he told them not to eat he said, “in the day that ye eat thereof thou shalt surely die. And the devil only changed one word of God’s word when he tempted Eve. He said, “thou shalt NOT surely die. God said, the day that ye eat thereof “thou shalt surely die” the devil suggested to Eve the direct opposite idea by adding one simple word. He said to her, “thou shalt not surely die”. Now Mr. Hanson has done the same here. God’s word says we are saved by faith and it teaches that we are saved by a faith that leads us to obey God not a faith that is alone. So God says we are saved by faith and Mr. Hanson says we are saved by “faith only”. Just as Satan added one simple word to God’s word so Mr. Hanson has done here. He has added the word “only” to the passages, which he listed. And it does not take a genius to see that Satan would like for us to have a faith that does nothing for such a faith is the kind of faith that his servants “the devils” have for they believe and tremble. If he can get you to believe that you are saved without obedience to the Son of God he will have destroyed your soul while simultaneously making you believe that you are saved when in truth you are miserable lost because your faith is dead. Go and read those verses for yourself and you will not find the word “only” or the word “alone” in them anywhere, not a single one of them. Mr. Hanson has supplied those words himself. And Mr. Hanson did not want you to notice that now did he? Mr. Hanson says that those verses say we are saved by faith only when we have God’s inspired word that we are not justified by “faith only”. (James 2:24). Now just whom will you believe God or Mr. Hanson? I will believe God. And if you actually read the verses that Mr. Hanson references you will find that he has misinformed you when he falsely claimed that these verses say that we re saved by “believing alone”.

But Mr. Hanson says:

“The problem facing Mr. Saffold and friends is that the moment one believes they have been Baptized into Christ!”

Now it this is a nice assertion but do notice my friends that he does not quote one single passage of scripture which teaches any such thing as what he asserts, now does he? Now there is not a verse in the entire word of God that says “the moment one believes they have been baptized into Christ”. And we would like very much for Mr. Hanson to show us any passage of scripture that says such a thing. That it Mr. Hanson’s doctrine it is not the doctrine of Christ. In fact we are told by James that “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” So it is clear that the even the “devils also believe”. Mr. Hanson, the are we to conclude that the “moment that these devils believed they had been baptized into Christ”?

Then after stating something that the Bible does not state, he says:

“ Therefore making the act of Water Baptism but a figure of the internal work that has already taken place.”

Notice again my friends that Mr. Hanson fails to quote or even remotely reference a single scripture that says such a thing. There is no scripture that says, “the act of water baptism is but a figure of the internal work that has already taken place”. In fact Col. 2:11- 13 tells us that the operation of God (or the internal work of removing our sins from our souls) takes place in baptism not before it.

Then he says:

“ With the confession of Christ by the eunuch indicates that this transformation has already taken place.”

Again the scriptures do not say this; Mr. Hanson has imagined it. All we are told in the account is that he believed and that he was then a proper subject of baptism and it indicates that faith leads one to obey the Lord’s command to be baptized which is an inseparable part of the gospel of Christ. For when Phillip preached nothing but Jesus the subject of baptism was a part of his preaching. And because of hearing that preaching and his belief in it the eunuch wanted to be baptized. And Phillip told him that he must believe with all of his heart and the eunuch said that he did so believe and thus he was baptized IN WATER. And nothing even remotely indicates that he had “already been baptized into Christ the moment that he believed. This is just what Mr. Hanson wants to believe but he has given not one verse of scripture that supports such a view now has he?

Then he says:

“ The fact that the eunuch then enters into good works, obedience, water baptism, etc. further indicates that, indeed, the Holy Spirit has taken up residence and the eunuch is in Christ.”

Now Mr. Hanson could not prove this from the scriptures to save his life. There is nothing in the context of this passage that says any such thing even remotely. You must notice again that Mr. Hanson is inferring these things with out referring to the scriptures to sustain them. You cannot prove that the Holy Spirit in this context did anything directly to or for the eunuch for nothing is said in this context about that matter in the least. In fact, the Holy Spirit worked on the preacher during in these verses more than on the eunuch. The scripture tells us the Holy Spirit told Phillip to “join” himself to the eunuch’s chariot and he did so and began to preach Jesus to Him. And after the eunuch was baptized we are told that the Spirit “caught away Phillip that the eunuch saw him no more”. Nothing more is said concerning the “work of the Holy Spirit in this context. And certainly nothing is said about the eunuch receiving the Holy Spirit at all in this passage. Mr. Hanson just made that up, now didn’t he?

Brethren and friends do watch for those who ask you to believe something without giving you a passage of scripture to support it. They may not be telling you the truth. In this case Mr. Hanson is not telling the truth in the least.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

E. Lee,

Just wanted to thank you for your time and effort put into this discussion.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Now Brethren I continue my response to Mr. Hanson’s original post wherein he had six major points and a few questions for me. His next major point was to simply say that he ignored the Lord’s condemnation of religious titles of honor found in Matthew 23:5-12 as follows:

“6. Finally, your whole diatribe on "Reverend" to me is only amusing.”

I suppose here that he thinks that this would be the first time the truth was found to be “amusing” to those who reject it. It is not the first time. People do it all the time in this world. It was not uncommon for sinners to mock Christ and it is nothing that they laugh at those who follow him.

Then he says:

“People have called me Reverend, Pastor, Evangelist, Apostle, Prophet, Teacher, their "under shepherd", friend, brother and Barry - all of which is fine with me, anyone can call me what they want.”

Well, Mr. Hanson, we are not talking about what is “fine with you” but what is acceptable to Christ the Lord. He said:

" But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matt. 23:5-12).

Now those words may be humorous to Mr. Hanson but they were not intended by Christ to give Mr. Hanson the pleasure of humor. They were intended to tell us to avoid religious titles of honor such as “rabbi, Master, Father” and surely the principle applies to any other humanly devised religious title of honor. Now, surely there is nothing wrong with referring to the work that we do in the body of Christ by terminology revealed by the Holy Spirit in His word concerning those works such as Evangelist, Apostles, teachers, elders, deacons. But even then if we use those words as religious “titles of Honor” we violate the principle taught by Christ and thus his command. But that the word “reverend” is not found in the scriptures in reference to any man either apostle, evangelist, teacher, deacons or elders is clearly true for the very reason that God does not approve or authorize the use of it. Yet Mr. Hanson has decided to just ignore God’s word and what it says about this matter and to call himself “reverend”. I know that he thinks he has authority from God to do so because some of his brethren have so “ordained him” but they have no authority from Christ to ordain him to be called by a religious title of honor contrary to the teaching of Christ. But of course this is Mr. Hanson’s choice but he will never hear me refer to him as reverend, for it is contrary to the doctrine of Christ to do so.

Then Mr. Hanson says:

“As far as how I see myself? I have no problem with seeing myself as God sees me.”

I suppose that he is admitting here that God does not see him as a “reverend” and if this is true Mr. Hanson has rightly determined that God does not see him as a “reverend” yet he insist upon being called “reverend” regardless of what God wants!

Then we are told to believe just because Mr. Hanson claims it to be true that:

“ His anointing is upon me - and as you have pointed out He is called Reverend, I have no issue with being called Reverend.”

He offers absolutely no proof whatsoever that the “anointing” of God is upon him. I wonder just how he might prove to us in this forum that this is true? If God’s word taught that this “anointing” is supposed to be upon men today it would not prove that it is upon Mr. Hanson. Anyone can make that claim but none today can prove that they have it. And I hope that everyone notices just what he is saying here. He is saying that since God was called reverend and God so fills him that he is therefore claiming that it is thus alright to call him anything that we might call God. But Jesus taught us to call God our father but he told us to call no man "father” for one is your father even God. Friends, Mr. Hanson is not God and would not be God even if God’s “unction” or anointing were truly “upon” him as he falsely claims. Thus he still has no justification for being called “reverend” since he does not, nor does any man, deserve the respect or reverence that is due to God alone. But he will spend no more time with such unimportant matters, now will he?

Then he says:

“ To be honest, I am not going to spend any more time here straining at a gnat, but only to say that titles were used in the N.T. which I will leave up to you to go spend your time with.”

Yes, in New Testament times religious titles of honor and distinction were used and Christ condemned their use. (Matt. 23:5-12). And the description of those who worked as Evangelist, apostles, and teachers, and deacons and elders were not religious titles of honor nor used in that sense which Christ condemned. And the word reverend is never used in reference to any man in the New Testament.

Well, I suppose that Mr. Hanson is honestly admitting to us with this statement that the word of God and the command of Christ concerning religious pride in the wearing of religious titles of honor is no more significant to him than a pesky gnat! Well, Mr. Hanson, it does appear that you are right in honestly admitting such to us. For it was Christ that condemned this behavior and you could care less about it.

Then he says:

“Now, "friends and brethren" you have heard these verses stated as simply as they are written. I am now wondering how Mr. Saffold is going to explain Gal. 3:26,27 when the word water is nowhere mentioned?”

Well he is not wondering how I will explain this any more now is he? For I have answered that question in the previous thread entitled “Revival of an Old Discussion on Baptism”. You can read my detailed answer there eighty percent of which has been completely ignored by him. But in that thread I showed conclusively that we find water in the word “baptized”. For the word in its primary sense means “to dip, plunge or immerse in water” and in its metaphorical sense it means to overwhelm. And I have stated that we must give the word its primary meaning unless there is a just reason in the context of the verse under consideration that demands that it be taken metaphorically. And I have asked for evidence to prove that the word is used metaphorically in this passage but no one has given any thus far.

Then he says:

“ Or how 1 Peter 3:21 specifically states that water baptism is a figure, without going into some convoluted explanation of what a figure is!”

I have also answered this in my answer to Mr. Hanson’s point number one in his original post and if you wish to read it you can go to the previous thread and do so. And you can judge for yourself whether my explanation is “convoluted” as he falsely claimed that it would be. And Mr. Hanson has not dealt with that response at all except by ignoring most of it and simply repeating the same old argument over again. You can go to the other thread to read that for yourself.

Then he says:

“Now, seeing that I again spent time answering your verses, let's see "friends and brethren" if Mr. Saffold can explain several simple questions?”

Well, I will let the readers judge for themselves whether or not you have actually “answered” the verses, which I have quoted. For as my response to your self-styled “answers” will show that you have not even remotely dealt justly with them in the least.

Then he ask the following questions:

“1. Where in Matt.26: 28 does Jesus say that water baptism is needed for the remission of sins? "this is my blood of the New Testament shed for many for the remission of sins".”

Now who said that in order for one to learn that baptism is for the remission of sins he must go to Matthew 26:28 to learn it? If one wants to know what the Bible teaches on a subject he must go to the verses that talk about the subject under consideration now doesn’t he? But be that as it may, I have shown the connection between this verse, which says that Christ shed blood is “for the remission of sins” is indeed connected to the idea that baptism, is “for the remission of sins”. And I did so in my remarks concerning Acts 22:16 where Saul was told, “and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord” in following way and Mr. Hanson has not yet responded to it: “Therefore friends and brethren please note that Ananias speaks of baptism in water metaphorically as “washing Saul’s sins away”. Because that is the time when Saul completed his obedience to God’s commands related to the gospel and it is the time and place where God remitted Saul’s sins. But not because there was any efficacy in the WATER that washed Saul’s sins away. But rather because it was the time and place WHEN God determined that He would and we read of how it was the time when he in fact did wash those sins away and Saul benefited from the efficacy of the blood of Christ which was shed for that purpose. Read these two verses together and you should be able to see this more clearly.

“This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28)

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

And notice that baptism and the blood of Christ appear to be for the same purpose, which is the remission of sins. Thus again we can see that it is actually the blood of Christ that washes our sins away WHEN our faith in his gospel leads us to obey that gospel by being baptized for the remission of sins. Thus the efficacy of the water is not what saves us. Instead it is the efficacy of the blood of Christ that saves us WHEN the efficacy of our faith leads us to obey His command to be baptized and not one single moment before.

Then he ask the following question:

“2. Acts 10:43 - specifically says "that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins", where does it mention water baptism?”

Were does it mention the blood of Christ which is for the remission of sins? (Matt. 26:28). Where does it mention repentance which was also for the remission of sins (Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38)? Where does it mention confession of Christ which is unto salvation (Romans 10:10, Matt. 10:32,33)? Where does it mention grace which also saves us (Eph. 2:8)? Where does it mention the gospel which is the power of God to save (Romans 1:16)? Where does it mention obedience to Christ which is essential to those whom he is the author of eternal salvation (Heb 5:8,9)? And where does this passage claim to be all inclusive of every thing essential to the remission of sins. The verse does not say that one will immediately receive the remission of sins the moment that he first believes. For the scriptures teach that faith shall save us when it leads us to obey Christ. (Heb. 5:8,9; Luke 6:46; Matt. 7:21-23 Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Mark 16:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4).

We are even told that it is possible for those who have been saved in by faith and obedience to have “believed in vain”. Read these words:

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” Icor. 15:1-4).

We are told not only that we are to believe this gospel, “by which also we are saved” but we must “obey” it or else be eternally banished from the presence of God and the glory of his power. Read these words:

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.” (2 Thess 1:7-10).

Notice that those who “believed” are put in contrast with those who did not obey the gospel. Hence obeying the gospel is the way in which we believe it. And if we do not obey it we will be treated as if we did not even believe. We will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power.

Then notice the following warning again concerning those who fail to obey the gospel of Christ:

“Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls [to him] in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.” (1 Peter 4:16-18) Notice that the “House of God” is put in direct contrast with those who “obey not the gospel” showing that the house of God is made up of those who have in fact not only believed the gospel but have obeyed it. And the end of those who do not obey the gospel is described in the previous passage (2 Thess. 1:7-10). They shall be punished. And those who have obeyed the gospel and are faithful to it will not have “believed in vain” but will share in the blessing reserved for the saints of God in the house of God, which is the church or kingdom of God.

But the important question arises just here. How is one to obey the gospel which is described as the proclamation of facts to be believed concerning the truth that Christ died for our sins, was buried and raised again the third day (1 Cor. 15:1-4). And not only is it commands to be believed it contains promises to be received, ie the remission of sins.

So how is it to be OBEYED? Let me state it yet another way, how are we to obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? There is indeed, according to the preaching of Phillip and the words of our Lord, a command to be obeyed that is related to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. For when Phillip preached the gospel of Christ the first thing to come to the eunuch’s mind and out of his mouth was, “see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized? (Acts 8:35-40). And Christ, in connection with his commission to the apostles to preach the gospel to “every creature” and “all nations” also commanded them in connection with that preaching to “baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit and to teach them to observe ALL THINGS WHICH I HAVE COMMANDED YOU, one of which was to baptize. And it does not take much effort logically to see that if they were told to baptize everyone that they were to teach, ie all nations and every creature that it is therefore commanded that all nations and every creature is commanded thereby to be baptized.

And thus when Paul spoke to the Romans he told us how that baptism in essence is obedience to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Read his words:

“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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” (Romans 6:3-6,17,18).

Thus we can see that the only way for us to “obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, which is another way of saying obey the gospel of Christ, is to be immersed in water and raised from it in obedience to Christ commands in the great commission. This is the only way can come into contact with the benefits of the blood of Christ which he shed in his death on the cross. And be subject to the operation of God that removes sin from our souls (Col. 2:11-13). And that we can be raised up, clothed with Christ, from the water to walk in newness of life. Thus baptism is the way, and the ONLY way given in the word of God, for one to actually OBEY the gospel of Christ and this is explains why Christ made it a part of his command to preach the gospel to every creature. (mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:19,20). We are not merely told to preach the gospel to every creature we are also told to direct them to obey that gospel by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:16). SO, if one has not believed the gospel of Christ and obeyed it he will be lost. Any failure to obey this gospel will cause one to have “believed in vain”. (1 Cor. 15:1-4) And this gospel is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16,17) through faith which is made perfect in obedience (James 2:14-26; Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21-23) to it. And baptism is essential to the obedience of the gospel for it is not possible in any other way to actually obey the “death, burial and resurrection of Christ” which is the gospel. And for this reason Paul reminds the Romans that when they “obeyed that form of doctrine” which he had described in the beginning of the same chapter they were THEN made free from sin. (Romans 6:17,18). If one asked WHEN were the Romans made free from sin? He is not told that they were made free from sin the “moment he first believed”. Rather he is told that when they obeyed from the heart (i.e. with faith) that form of doctrine which was preached unto them (the gospel). And baptism as a means of obeying it (as Rom. 6:3-6 demonstrates) they were THEN and not one moment before or after THEN made free from sin. (Romans 6:17,18).

Read these word of the inspired apostle Paul:

“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Romans 6:17,18).

When were they made free from sin? Was it the moment that they first believed? NO! It was when they obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine by being buried with Christ in baptism and raised with him to walk in a new life as Paul had described in the beginning of the chapter. (Romans 6:3-6). Therefore, without being baptized according to the command of Christ in the great commission to preach the gospel to every creature and baptizing them in the name of the Father Son, and Holy Spirit one cannot obey the gospel of Christ. And a failure to obey the gospel of Christ will cause one to be lost. (2 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Peter 3:21).

Yes, it is true that believers get remission of sins through the name of Christ and that is why Peter Commanded those on the day of Pentecost to be baptized in his name. (Acts 2:38). We know of no other way to get remission of sins except by believing in Christ enough to obey Him by being baptized for the remission of sins where we are buried with him in connection with his death and His precious blood that was shed in it. Now just look at all of the places where we find the words remission of sin friends.

“This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28)

“To him give all the prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins”. (Acts 10:43)

“Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19)

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Now notice now we have four things that are essential to the remission of sins. First and foremost is the shedding of the blood of Christ. The second and equally important with the third and fourth is faith (Acts 10:43) and third is repentance (Acts 3:19;Acs 2:38). and the fourth is baptism (Acts 2:38). Now it is obvious that Acts 10:43, as quoted by Mr. Hanson, does mentions only one out of these four things that the scriptures teach are essential to the remission of our sins. And his argument is that since belief is all that is mentioned in this verse it proves that this is the only thing essential to obtaining remission of sins and that the lack of attention given to the other things means that they are not necessary to remission of sins. Well, Acts 10:43 does not mention the blood of Christ, does it? Are we to conclude from this that the shedding of the blood of Christ was not essential to remission of sins? This verse does not mention repentance either. Are we to conclude from this that repentance is not essential to remission of sins? If not then on what grounds would Mr. Hanson conclude that this passage is all inclusive of all that is necessary to the remission of sins and think that because it does not mention baptism that it thereby excludes it as being essential to the remission of sins. For we are clearly told that baptism is essential to the remission of sins by the inspired apostle Peter who also spoke the words of Acts 10:43. Did he contradict himself? For it was this same Peter who said, “repent and be baptized everyone of you for (eis, in order to obtain) the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38). No, the word "believe" has a comprehensive meaning, which includes all the acts that would be prompted by faith including repentance and baptism. But that baptism is where our sins are washed away and the time WHEN we receive the remission of them by the blood of Christ is clearly seen in Acts 22:16 and acts 2:38. And Acts 10:43 does not contradict those verses at all. In fact, Just a few verses down from this one we read that this same Peter Commanded that the house of Cornelius be baptized in water. (Acts 10:48).

But there is this one difference between faith and the blood of Christ. For we are told that those who believe SAHLL receive the remission of sins. It does not say that they will receive the remission of their sins the “moment that they believe”. Indeed no one would doubt that we receive remission of our sins the moment that the blood is applied via the “operation of God” that removes sins. It says that those who believe “shall receive remission” but Acts 2:38 tell us WHEN they receive the remission of sins. Peter said to those who believed on the day of Pentecost, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (in order to obtain, Thayer’s Greek English lexicon p. 94). The remission of your sins.” Acts 2:38). Thus the blood of Christ washes our sins away when our faith leads us to obey his command to repent and be baptized and not one moment before.

Indeed it is true for the scriptures abundantly teach that “whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins”. Not only in this passage but in numerous others and we believe every one of them as much as any man living. In fact, we believe them more than most men do. For we know the very meaning of faith and it is not just some mere mental assent to the idea of Christ. But rather it is a complete confidence and trust in him that prompts us to OBEY him. (Heb. 5,8,9).

Now, Mr. Hanson’s argument from Acts 10:43 is the old argument from exclusion. Mr. Hanson here hopes to take your mind away from what is said in The numerous passages which teach that baptism is essential to salvation by the process of finding passages, which mention “faith” without making any mention of the other things found also in the word of God necessary to our salvation. But we are not to take only part of what the word of God teaches. We are to take all of it including the verses which teach that baptism is essential to salvation which I have now shown numerous times. For if we are to conclude that because a verse “mentions” faith with no mention of baptism is proof that baptism is not essential what are we to conclude about a verse that mentions baptism with no mention of faith? Acts 2:38 does not mention “faith”. Are we to conclude, as Mr. Hanson has on the same ground that baptism is not mentioned in the verses which he quotes, that such means that faith is not essential? I Peter 3:21 says that baptism doeth also now save us” and there is no mention of faith. Are we to conclude that faith is therefore not essential? John 3:3-5 talks about being born again of water and the spirit but no mention whatsoever of faith. Are we to conclude that because it does not mention faith that faith is excluded? I think not! Acts 22:16 says, “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord”. Where is the word “faith” found in this passage? Are we to conclude that faith is not essential because we do not find mention of it in certain verses that speak of baptism without any mention of faith? Surely not! But this is exactly what Mr. Hanson is attempting to do. He attempts this with his arguments in every place where he finds a verse that mentions faith in connection with salvation. But he fails to realize that those verses also do not mention anything else we know from other passages to be essential to remission of sins such as repentance, grace, confession of Christ, obedience to him or even the very blood of Christ which is the actual agent of removal of sin. Now we can all see that this type of argumentation is ridiculous, can’t we? Just because a verse mentions that “repentance and baptism” are “for the remission of sins” with no mention of faith whatsoever does not mean that faith is not necessary because we have abundant evidence from verses that talk about faith that faith indeed is essential to our salvation. And for exactly the same reason just because we have verses that mention faith without mentioning repentance and baptism and confession of Christ does not mean that these do not play a part in our salvation. For the verses that do speak about repentance, Confession and baptism do say that they are essential to our salvation. And then of course my friend wants you to be distracted by this so that you ignore the plain and easy to understand words of Christ in Mark 16:16 which says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. Now if the presence of a verse that says we are saved by faith without mentioning baptism proves that baptism is not necessary just what does the presence of a verse that does mention baptism and faith together as being necessary to salvation mean? It should be obvious to any honest person that we must take all of the word of God has to say about salvation not just the one’s that are most suitable to our “theology”. We cannot deliberately neglect any of them now can we?

Then he ask:

“3. Rom.3:21-28 - verse 24,25 specifically say "being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past", where does it mention water baptism?”

The answer to this is the same as the above. For Mr. Hanson has only done the same old thing again where he finds a verse that does not mention baptism and draws the erroneous conclusion that this verse is all inclusive and negates the rest of what the Bible says concerning the subject of the remission of sins. For we are told, “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38) And we are told, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. (Mark 16:16).

Then he says:

“4. Eph. 2:8,9 - the fact is the Scriptures explicitly state that we are saved by grace through faith not saved by means of works, such as water baptism.”

We have shown that baptism is not a work in the sense of which this speaks of works of “righteousness” whereby men might expect to be saved on their own merits. But rather that baptism is, as is faith, a work of God in the sense that God has commanded and ordained it. And this verse does not say that we are saved by “faith only” as Mr. Hanson would like for you to believe. It says that Grace saves us through faith. And Mr. Hanson overlooks the fact that faith includes obedience to God’s commands for a refusal to obey God has ever been conclusive evidence of faithlessness. And obedience has been always the proof of genuine faith. So the simple fact that faith cannot be separated from obedience with out causing the death of faith is proof that we are indeed saved by faith WHEN we obey as we have shown above from the book of James. (James 2:14-26). James does not contradict Paul or Paul James. They are both teaching the same gospel. Paul states that we are saved by grace through faith and James shows us how and when God by his grace saves us by faith. Read the two together and you will understand it far better than ignoring James and twisting the words of Paul to suit your own theology.

Then you say:

“ How do you explain away this obvious contradiction in your statement of faith?”

Mr. Hanson, you have not shown any contradiction in what you term my “statements of faith”.

Then you falsely accuse me as follows:

“ By reinventing definitions to such words as "work" and "figure" and conjuring up words such as "water" where the text omits.”

I have not “reinvented” any definitions. I have simply used words as scholarly lexicons properly define them. And you cannot show a single word that I have either invented or reinvented. All I have done is to show the accurate definition of those words. And if you think those definitions is not accurate why had you not made some attempt to PROVE it. Now I have not sought to define the word “works” but only to explain how they appear to be used in the passages where they are found. And I have said nothing but the truth about the meaning of the Greek terms for “figure” in 1 Peter 3:21 to which you have not given any sufficient reply as of yet. Those who wish to pursue that can read my response to your words on that passage. And I have not “conjured up” any water that was not already present in the word “baptized” in Galatians 3:26, 27. Which I have amply proven from the clear import and meaning the Greek term "baptidzo" as My response to your arguments concerning Galatians 3:26,27 shows and for those interested in that matter they can read my post wherein I developed this argument in detail.

Then you say, after falsely accusing me of the above without even attempting to offer even one shred of evidence to support your false allegations the following:

“ I face this very same problem (of re-definitions) with those who claim to be "Jehovah's" Witnesses.”

Now these words demonstrate nothing more than the simple facts that Mr. Hanson is using a deliberate tactic to try to convince others that I am a member of some cult like the Jehovah's witnesses. For if he can convince them of this he will be able to cause them to be so prejudiced against what I say that they will not even bother to read my arguments. It does indeed appear from these comments that he would like for our readers to ignore everything that I have said or might say about these things. I suppose that a successful use of this tactic would be easier than having to answer the arguments that we have presented. However, it is my hope that the wise and discerning can realize that if his arguments had sufficient strength in themselves or if he had more confidence in them he would not feel the need to use this tactic, now would he?

Then he says:

“5. Heb.10:10-23 - verse 19 specifically says we "enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus" where does it mention water baptism?”

Well I think that he had better read those words again, my friend. For Hebrews 10:22, which is right in the middle of your quotation and you have neglected to read it says, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb. 10:22) And it most certainly is a reference to water baptism.

Then he says:

“In the context of the rest of Scripture it is obvious that remission of sins does not come through water baptism but through faith in the Blood.”

Well, the rest of scripture says, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” Acts 2:38) and it says, “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord”. (Acts 22:16). And it says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16). For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). And, “the Like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:21). And we are told, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:12,13) which is another clear reference to baptism in water. And we have the examples of the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch. (Acts 8:35-40) and the baptism of the Samaritans Acts 8:14-35. And the baptism of every person who ever became a Christian in the New Testament after the resurrection of Christ indicates that baptism was a part of not only the preaching of the gospel but also the proper response to it.

And with this statement Mr. Hanson has completely forgotten that he has shown that belief is for remission of sins according to Acts 10:43 and that it is on this basis that he concludes that remission of sins comes from faith in the blood. And if that be true, which I am indeed convinced that it is. Then it is also true on the basis of the fact that repentance and baptism is “for (“eis” ‘in order to obtain’ Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon) the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38) That with equal force and on the basis of the same argument that remission comes by the APPLICATION of the blood of Christ to our souls WHEN we repent of those sins and are baptized according to the commands of Christ through Peter. For Peter also said, “repent and be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins". (Acts 2:38). Thus if the blood of Christ brings remission of sins, and it surely does. (Matthew 26:28). And the scriptures teach that faith in that blood leads us toward remission of sins as it most certainly does. (Acts 10:43) and the scriptures teach that repentance and baptism is for (or in order to obtain) the remission of sins as it surely does (Acts 2:38). Then it follows without any reasonable doubt that faith in the blood, repentance of our sins and baptism for the remission of sins all work together to bring us the remission of our sins. But Mr. Hanson wants us to depend solely upon only one of these and he has not shown one passage of scripture that teaches that faith in the blood ALONE will do what God has said faith, repentance and baptism are designed to do together. (Acts 10:43; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 3:19; I Peter 3;21; Acts 22:16).

Then Mr. Hanson says;

“ Mr. Saffold I clearly see a common thread through out these verses - Faith. I fail to see water baptism mentioned in any significant amount of the Scriptures that declare the redemption message.”

Well Mr. Hanson your “failure to see” water baptism is caused by a deliberate unwillingness to see it. For it is clearly there for all who are not prejudiced against it to see. And the amount of verses where a thing is taught does not have any bearing upon its truthfulness. God does not have to say something numerous times for it to be true. If God only mentioned it in ONE SINGLE verse it would still be the truth. Thus the number of times a thing is mentioned is no reasonable measure of truth, now is it? But the truth is that baptism is found 127 times in the New Testament.

Then you ask:

“Why Mr. Saffold when the Holy Spirit was inspiring the N.T. writers did He not make it abundantly clear throughout the entirety of the N.T. that salvation is only obtainable through water baptism?”

Now I have never said that the scriptures teach that salvation is “ONLY” obtainable through water baptism. And you know I have never said any such thing don’t you? I challenge you to find one single statement from me when I have said that salvation is “only obtainable by water baptism”. Now it is just a deliberate misrepresentation again used to prejudice our readers. But Mr. Hanson you will soon learn that our readers are far smarter than you give them the credit for being. The Holy Spirit has however made it abundantly clear to all that baptism is required along with faith and repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3:26,27; Romans 6:3-6, 17). And Christ said that faith and baptism are essential to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. (Mark 16:16).

Then you say:

“If salvation is only achieved through water baptism as you teach why is it not explicitly mentioned each and every time the gospel message is preached in the N.T.?”

Again I do not teach, for the scriptures do not teach, that salvation is “only through water baptism” and again you have deliberately misrepresented me by saying this. I have said now numerous times that God saves us by the blood of Christ by faith when we repent of our sins and are baptized in obedience to the command of Christ. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). But you should notice that all of the examples of Conversion in the book of Acts show that those so converted were baptized. Which would necessarily imply that baptism was mentioned when the gospel was preached. And if you read the account of the conversion of the Eunuch at the preaching of the inspired preacher Phillip you will see that the scripture says that all he preached was Jesus. And as a result of hearing Phillip preach Jesus as soon as he saw water he said, “see here is water what doeth hinder me from being baptized?” Now this is conclusive proof that baptism in water was a part of the preaching of Jesus when inspired men preached it, now doesn’t it?

Then you say:

“Of necessity, water baptism would have to be mentioned every time the gospel was preached in order for the hearers to be saved.”

I believe that it was as is demonstrated by the example of the preaching of Phillip to the eunuch. But every sermon that was preached is not recorded in the scriptures for us. We have only enough of them for us to be able to determine what the gospel was and how it was preached. And from the evidence that we have baptism was without doubt a part of preaching the gospel (Acts 8:35-40) and the gospel is “God’s power to save” (Rom. 1:16).

“ In fact, water baptism would have to be a part of the vast majority of the verses in Scripture that directly influence the doctrine of salvation - IF what you say is true.”

Now that is just not true. For repentance is essential to salvation and it is not mentioned in the vast majority of verses that mention salvation. Confession of Christ is essential to salvation (Romans 10:10; Matt. 10:33,34) and it is not mentioned in the vast majority of verses that directly influence salvation. In fact, if any verse directly influencing salvation says that baptism is essential to it then that alone is sufficient to make it true. For God is not required to repeat himself for his word to be true. And if the only verse in the Bible were Mark 16:16 where Jesus said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” that would be sufficient to prove that just such is the truth. But we not only have that verse we have numerous others as we have shown during this discussion.

Then you go on to say:

“Obviously, this is not the case. Water baptism commands very little reference, comparatively with the vast amounts of Scripture, dealing with redemption.”

How many times does God have to say something to you Mr. Hanson before you decide that it is true? Once is enough for me. But baptism is found throughout the New Testament and in numerous places it shows that it is “for the remission of Sins” (Acts 2:38) and salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21).

Then Mr. Hanson says:

“ Water baptism is a peripheral issue when it comes to the message of redemption.”

Not according to Christ who said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). And Not according to Ananias who said to Saul, “and now arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). And not according to Peter who said, “the like figure whereunto baptism doeth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:21).

Now friends, Mr. Hanson wants you to believe that something is “peripheral” which Christ has placed in a “Pivotal” position in its relation to the scheme of redemption as his following words indicate.

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). In this verse baptism has the same relationship to salvation as faith. Because the two are connected with the coordinating conjunction “and” in English and the word “kai” in Greek both of which, according to the rules of Grammar of their respective languages connects thing of equal rank and importance in a sentence. SO, if Mr. Hanson is correct in his estimation, which he most certainly is not, that baptism is a “peripheral” issue then so is faith for according to Christ they have the same relation to salvation. But the fact is that both faith and baptism are “pivotal” as we have amply demonstrated from the scriptures and the very word of Christ which connect both of them in the exact same relation to our salvation.

Then you say:

“Once we are born again we pass through the water, just as Noah. Water baptism is a figure of the resurrection - 1 Pt. 3:21”

Not according to Jesus in John 3:5. For according to him we are not born again until we born of water and the Spirit. Thus we must by faith repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. Saul had to pass through the water before his sins were washed away. (acts 22:16) And Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized (pass through the water as you would say) shall be saved.

And water baptism is not, according to Peter, a “figure” of the resurrection but rather a “like figure” corresponding to the salvation of eight souls in the days of Noah through water. THE passage does not even remotely indicate that baptism is a figure of the resurrection. And the verse also plainly states that “baptism doeth also now save us..” in the same way that the water of the flood saved Noah and his family. And it says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God BY THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. It is through the resurrection of Christ that those who are baptized can obtain the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38) and thus obtain a good conscience. We asked Mr. Hanson to tell us just what it is that baptism saves us from if not sin. No one can have a good conscience until their sins are remitted and according to Acts 2:38 our sins are remitted when we repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38). And that is simply the truth of the matter. I have covered al of this in detail in my response to the earlier argument made by Mr. Hanson concerning this same verse.

Now I have completed my response to Mr. Hanson’s original post and I will now turn to the other things that he has said which contrary to the word of God.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Brother Robin:

I thank you for your kind words. And as always I thank God for you as my Brother in Christ.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

To All:

I suppose I will again have to wait until some other message when my unanswered questions will be looked at? Perhaps I should cease responding to message after message after message - providing answer upon answer - and repost my questions again and again until they are answered. I suppose then I will be accused again of not answering questions posted to me.

It has been asserted that I do not answer questions put to me, yet message after message I post answers, and the very accusation against me is transgressed by the on who has made those allegations.

Therefore, to avoid any possibility of having anyone say I do not post answers I will again post a reply to the previous message. I can only hope that at some point my questions will be answered - as of yet I have messages on other threads that have stood for 17 months without anyone taking a moment to answer my questions.

Moving on….

It has been asserted that the following verses Jesus did not say that we are saved through faith - John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46.

I will now systematically go through each verse and show that Jesus stated that we are saved through faith and at no time asserts that one must be water baptized in order for that faith to lay hold of redemption.

John 5:24

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

Notice Jesus does not say, "He that heareth my word, IS WATER BAPTIZED and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

So apart from any work, any act of obedience, any repentance or confession, Jesus only mentions that it is through faith we have, possess, lay hold of everlasting life and IS passed from death unto life.

QUESTION ONE: Where does Jesus mention any work in addition to faith in obtaining everlasting life?

John 6:47

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

Notice Jesus does not say, "He that IS WATER BAPTIZED and believeth on me hath everlasting life."

So apart from any work, any act of obedience, any repentance or confession, only faith is mentioned by Jesus in possessing everlasting life. Notice Jesus does not say, "He that believeth on me WILL HAVE everlasting life."

Notice Jesus does say, "..hath everlasting life." PRESENT TENSE.

QUESTION TWO - FOUR: When does Jesus say we possess everlasting life? Is this at water baptism or when we believe? Does Jesus mention water baptism at all in the context?

John 7:38

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

Notice Jesus does not say, "He that IS WATER BAPTIZED and believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

So apart from any work, any act of obedience, any repentance or confession, faith only is mentioned by Jesus in redemption just as the Scriptures hath said.

QUESTION FIVE: What has the Scriptures said about how one receives "rivers of living water"?

John 11:25

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

Notice Jesus does not say, ": he that IS WATER BAPTIZED and believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

Jesus once again mentions only faith in the process of receiving life, no mention of water baptism or any other work.

QUESTION SIX: In these references can anyone point out anywhere that Jesus mentions any other way of obtaining everlasting life.

QUESTION SEVEN: Jesus mentions only faith, can anyone show me in these statements by Jesus where He mentions anything other than faith alone.

QUESTION EIGHT: If Jesus is not mentioning faith only in these references, can anyone point out where He mentions Faith and water baptism? Faith and works? Faith plus anything else? Or does He only mention faith apart from any other qualification?

John 12:46

"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness."

Notice Jesus does not say: "that whosoever IS WATER BAPTIZED AND believeth on me should not abide in darkness."

Do I really need to comment further? Is it not abundantly clear by now? Just a few questions to help some think.

QUESTIONS NINE: Was Jesus confused as to the way of redemption? Did He not realize that one could not simply believe, but had to be water baptized? Shouldn't He have made it abundantly clear to the hundreds of thousands that heard Him speak that they could not simply believe and possess eternal life? Shouldn't He have at every proclamation of the gospel made it abundantly clear one must be water baptized or their faith is dead? Why continue to mislead the multitudes with His noticeable emphasis only on faith?

To give background to these references. I had been reading in my daily devotions and noticed in the span of just a couple of days the multitude of times that Jesus preached on the new birth and realized that He had not mentioned water baptism a single time. I have not had the time to study this out, but I cannot recall, off the top of my head, any instance Jesus mentioned we must be water baptized to be born again! Conversely, I could name an abundant of references where Jesus mentions only faith in reference to redemption.

Thus, in the light of this great evidence it is abundantly clear that he that believeth on Jesus HATH everlasting life.

Now, let us get to the reason for this reply….

Mr. Saffold is questioning my reasoning concerning the eunuch (Acts 8:35 - 37) and how I would think he was born again the moment he believed on Jesus - even to say I have not provided Scriptural evidence. (I thought it amusing that after saying this he provided the many references I did supply).

Well, I have only scratched the surface on the amount of evidence that exists concerning redemption. That one is born again when they believe.

The gospel is simple. It is good news. Believe on Jesus and you will have eternal life.

Any action following faith is an act of obedience done by a child of God.

An unbeliever, obviously, is not a child of God, hence is not acting in faith.

In order to act in faith one has to be a believer.

To be a believer one has been baptized into Christ.

Simply,

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

To All:

As I have determined to not respond in like manner to Mr. Saffold I will simply let his venom concerning me speak for itself.

I no longer feel any need to defend myself with Mr. Saffold particularly after his last message.

Mr. Saffold, your affront to me I leave with the Lord, if your conscience does not convince you that your last post was over the line then any thing I would have to say would not matter anyhow.

As to discussing the issue at hand I take on without hesitation and with great enthusiasm and energy.

I was not born again by the beggarly elements of this world, but because of the precious blood of my Lord and Savior though faith I enter into this New Covenant not by works of righteousness that I have done but according to His mercy He has saved me.

Mr. Saffold, then wishes to discuss ideas and not people.

I will say that it is about time….

And as I am out of time for today I will surely be back tomorrow to address the rest of this message.

Faithfully His,

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Mr. Hanson has said:

“To All: I suppose I will again have to wait until some other message when my unanswered questions will be looked at?” The reason that he is responding in the first place is that we have answered some his initial post and every question that he asked in it. And we admitted that though we have finished answering his initial post in complete detail we are not continuing our response to other things that he has said, including other questions that he has asked. So he knows that he will not be disappointed in that we will answer all of his questions, which anyone can see that we have been step by step, line by line discussing. But he feels the need to pretend that we are ignoring them. But our readers are more intelligent that he gives them credit for being. They can easily see the facts. Then he says: “ Perhaps I should cease responding to message after message after message - providing answer upon answer - and repost my questions again and again until they are answered.” That is ok with me Mr. Hanson. Why don’t you do just that. And I will continue my gradual but persistent line by line response to them until I am finished. Then Mr. Hanson tells us: “ I suppose then I will be accused again of not answering questions posted to me.” Mr. Hanson, we have not accused you of not answering all questions put to you. What we have said is that you have responded to my responses without attempting to answer all much of what I have said to you. Why don’t you attempt to do as I have been doing and respond to every single word in every post that I have written as I have been doing to yours? It takes more time, I know, but you could not then be charged with making no effort to respond to much of what I have said. But it does not matter to me how you do things. Our readers are able to see the difference between one who is trying to respond to all that has been said though he has only thus far completed the task of responding to every word in the initial post which you provided for our consideration. And one who reads a post and responds only to a very few things written in it and shows not intention to respond to any more and claims that he has sufficiently responded to EVERYTHING. And yet again he says: “It has been asserted that I do not answer questions put to me, yet message after message I post answers, and the very accusation against me is transgressed by the on who has made those allegations.” No one has said that you do not answer any questions put to you. We have said that you do not answer much of the arguments made against your position. Originally I said that you had ignored questions that were asked of you 17 months ago and that statement remains true. Then Mr. Hanson says: Therefore, to avoid any possibility of having anyone say I do not post answers I will again post a reply to the previous message.” Well, this is proof again of what I have said. I have completed my response to Mr. Hanson’s initial post. And my response has at the very least touched upon every single word that he uttered in that post. That answer has covered in just this last installment alone 45k. But every word spoke by Mr. Hanson has been accurately quoted and a response given. Now anyone who is able to read can see that Mr. Hanson has not even remotely attempted such in response to my post, now has he? Then he pretends as follows: “ I can only hope that at some point my questions will be answered” All he has to do is read my post above to see that I answered several of his questions but he still insists that we have not do so. Now he may not like or agree with the answers but he cannot say that none of his questions have been responded to. And there are no questions from 17 months ago that he addressed to me that I have not answered. But if he wishes to have me consider them all he need do is bring them up in this thread if they are related to this subject. Or start a new thread and address them to me if they are questions unrelated to the subject of this thread and I will give them the attention that he would like for them to have. Then he says: “ as of yet I have messages on other threads that have stood for 17 months without anyone taking a moment to answer my questions.” I do not believe that this is really true. He certainly did not address those questions to me. And if anyone will read the archives they will see that Mr. Hanson became angry and told everyone that he was leaving and he left and stayed gone for 17 months. Not many people will generally try to answer the questions that were asked by a person who has stated that he will not be around to read the answers! Then Mr. Hanson decides to “move on” and says: “Moving on…. It has been asserted that the following verses Jesus did not say that we are saved through faith - John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46.” Now here it should be obvious what Mr. Hanson has done. He has deliberately misquoted what I have said so that it will appear that the scriptures teach what he falsely claimed that they said. And notice also that he has changed his original words where he claimed that these passages stated that we are saved by believing ALONE in order to make it appear that he said that these verses say we are saved by FAITH. Now I will quote his original words and my response to them so that all can see the change that he has made and the falsity of his assertion that I have said that these verses do not teach we are saved by faith as follows: His original statement to which I was responding was as follows:

““Well, yes, Mr. Saffold, Jesus has mentioned on numerous occasions one is saved by believing alone. John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46, John 12:46, Matt.26:28.”

Now compare it to his more resent deliberate revision, which is as follows:

“It has been asserted that the following verses Jesus did not say that we are saved through faith - John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46.” Now read my response to his original and notice that I have never stated that these passages do not teach we are saved by faith. Rather that I have stated that these verses do not teach that we are saved by “believing alone” as Mr. Hanson originally affirm but now has backed away from and pretends that he did not affirm. And he did this because he knew that others were going to possibly read these verses at my suggestion for them to do so and see if they could find the word “alone” or “only” in them ANYWHERE. He knew that you would not find those words there so he has now attempted to make it appear that I said you would not find the word “faith” there. I have made no such assertion, as my following quotation of my initial response to his assertion concerning this verse will abundantly show as follows: Now, if any of you will simply pick up your Bible and search for these passages quoted by Mr. Hanson you will find that not a single one of them says that one is saved “by faith alone” as Mr. Hanson affirms. You will not find the words “faith only” in the passages. And you will not find the word “only” in any of them. Note that Mr. Hanson did not say we are saved by faith for that is exactly what these passages teach. He said something that they do not teach. He said that these passages teach that “believing alone” saves us. But I have shown you from the above quotation from the book of James that the inspired apostle says, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.” (James 2:24). And it also says, “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:16). But Mr. Hanson wants you to believe that you can be saved by a dead faith one that is “alone”. Now these things are important my friends because you must remember that when God told Adam and eve what would happen to them if they ate of the fruit that he told them not to eat he said, “in the day that ye eat thereof thou shalt surely die. And the devil only changed one word of God’s word when he tempted Eve. He said, “thou shalt NOT surely die. God said, the day that ye eat thereof “thou shalt surely die” the devil suggested to Eve the direct opposite idea by adding one simple word. He said to her, “thou shalt not surely die”. Now Mr. Hanson has done the same here. God’s word says we are saved by faith and it teaches that we are saved by a faith that leads us to obey God not a faith that is alone. So God says we are saved by faith and Mr. Hanson says we are saved by “faith only”. Just as Satan added one simple word to God’s word so Mr. Hanson has done here. He has added the word “only” to the passages, which he listed. And it does not take a genius to see that Satan would like for us to have a faith that does nothing for such a faith is the kind of faith that his servants “the devils” have for they believe and tremble. If he can get you to believe that you are saved without obedience to the Son of God he will have destroyed your soul while simultaneously making you believe that you are saved when in truth you are miserable lost because your faith is dead. Go and read those verses for yourself and you will not find the word “only” or the word “alone” in them anywhere, not a single one of them. Mr. Hanson has supplied those words himself. And Mr. Hanson did not want you to notice that now did he? Mr. Hanson says that those verses say we are saved by faith only when we have God’s inspired word that we are not justified by “faith only”. (James 2:24). Now just whom will you believe God or Mr. Hanson? I will believe God. And if you actually read the verses that Mr. Hanson references you will find that he has misinformed you when he falsely claimed that these verses say that we re saved by “believing alone”.”

Now anyone who is able to read can see from my above quotation that I said that these verse do not teach that we are saved by “believing alone” as Mr. Hanson had originally asserted. And we are very pleased to note that he has significantly felt the force of the fact that he cannot find the words “alone” or only” or “believing alone” or "by faith only" in these verses. And he knew that you would not be able to find them either and for that reason he has sought to subtly modify his position and hide from you the fact that he has done so. He should be ashamed of this deliberate attempt to deceptively make a subtle change and accuse me of asserting that these passages do not teach we are saved by faith! Especially when he knows that I have not made any such assertion. Such tactics as this is definitely deliberate in its attempt to deceive. And they are most assuredly not truthful and are therefore contrary to the very Spirit of Christ who ever spoke the truth.

I have said that the verses teach that we are saved by faith but I have denied that they teach, as Mr. Hanson had originally claimed that we are saved by “believing alone”. Now the facts are right before your eyes, Brethren and friends, and you are able to see the truth and that Mr. Hanson has not been very honest with you, now has he?

Then Mr. Hanson pretends to “systematically” go through each verse and find the word that we are saved by faith. We have asserted as much ourselves and agree that these verses teach we are saved by faith. But Mr. Hanson affirmed that these verses teach that we are saved by “believing alone”. And we have challenged him to find the word “alone” or “only” anywhere in any of these verses. And he knows that it cannot be done and proof that he knows it is seen in his deceptive attempt to change his original assertion so as to make it appear that he never said that these verses teach we are saved by “believing alone”. Now these verses do teach that we are saved by faith and we have taught as much all of our lives. But these verses do not teach that we are saved by “believing alone as Mr. Hanson asserted and he knows it for now he is trying to run from his own assertion and hide the fact that he made it. Now, Mr. Hanson we have shown that your original assertion was that these verses teach that we are saved by “believing alone”. Now we challenge you and “systematically” take each one of these verses and find the words “believing alone” or “faith only” in ANY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Or you may want to return and openly admit that you original assertion that these verses teach that we are saved by “believing alone” is not the truth. Now which is it, Mr. Hanson? Will you stay with your original assertion and prove it by showing us the words “alone” or “only” exist in any of these verses? Or will you do openly what you have sought to do subtly and admit that these verses do not say that we are saved by “believing alone” as you had originally claimed? We do sincerely wait for you to clear this matter up, now don’t we Brethren? We would indeed welcome you to modify your position concerning this matter one way or the other but we expect you to do it openly and honestly. We do not expect you to subtly modify your position and falsely pretend that Mr. Saffold has denied your modified view when in fact he was rejecting your original view that you have now appear to have forsaken. WE have rejected your statement that these verses teach that we are saved by “believing alone” but you have deliberately and falsely claimed that we have denied that these verses teach that we are saved by faith. This we most assuredly have not done and you know it.

Thus he says: “I will now systematically go through each verse and show that Jesus stated that we are saved through faith and at no time asserts that one must be water baptized in order for that faith to lay hold of redemption.” It is a waste of time to do this Mr. Hanson for we are all agreed that these verses teach that we are saved by faith. And we also agree that these verses have nothing to say about baptism. But the thing that you asserted originally was that these verses teach that “believing alone” saves us. Now, either come back in here or support your original assertion by showing us the words “alone” or “only” in these verses. Or admit that these verses do not teach what you originally affirmed that they teach. So, we wait for you to return and take these verses up one by one and show us the words “believing alone” in them in any single one of them. Or even find the word “alone” in any of them. Or find the word “only” in any of them. Or admit that you original assertion was not true. We wait for you to do either of these before we respond to these verses since we believe as much as any man that they teach we are saved by faith. But we deny that they teach we are saved by “believing alone” as you originally and falsely asserted. Now, we want you to attempt to clear this matter up before we respond to the rest of this particular post. But if you do not do so I will take up the remaining portion of your post when I next have the time to write.

For Christ and those who love the Truth, E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I re-post to comment:

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by FAITH ONLY."

I await your response for other occurances that I may have missed.

Respectfully,

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), May 15, 2001.

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

'Justified' means 'defendable' or absolvable.

Salvation, justification and sanctification are all different concepts. And James was speaking to the already saved.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

No, Danny, I didn't miss the point.

You keep haranguing on that point and it doesn't apply to the matter at hand. What James said was to BELIEVERS not to UNBELIEVERS. Of course we are saved to do good works. We are just not saved by those 'dirty rags'.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

To All:

Just what exactly am I supposed to think.

First, I am told by Mr. Saffold:

""Mr. Hanson: Yes it has been at least a year now since we have heard from you. Before leaving the forum you refused to answer numerous questions that were ask of you and now many of those who were posting may not notice that you have returned. Thus they will not have the opportunity to insist again that you answer their questions. So it seems that we will end up starting this discussion again from scratch. And though you have managed to escape dealing with many of the difficult questions that you ignored a year ago we will simply have to ask them again and hope that you will make some effort this time to answer them. I sincerely hope that you will not run away again when confronted again by these same questions and arguments that you failed to answer in all of our previous discussions."

Now I am told by Mr. Saffold:

"Mr. Hanson, we have not accused you of not answering all questions put to you."

Obviously Mr. Saffold has to back down off of his original statement that I "refused" to answer questions seeing that I am here answering post after post. He claims I had refused to answer "numerous" messages - I am curious to know which messages I "refused to answer? The postings are there for everyone to read. I am accused of "refusing" to answer "numerous" question, and in a later post, "we have not accused you of not answering all questions". I am used to dealing with people who "shoot straight", not all this doublespeak. If I am here answering questions stop inferring that I "refuse" to answer questions as this is obviously not the case. Apparently you are having difficulty dealing with my messages and so you believe you have to belittle me to discredit and cloud the actual issue at hand. I don't believe it will work - most people can see through the baloney.

In the first message I am challenged to answer questions I have already spent much time answering - nevertheless, if I do not answer them yet again it would be perceived that I had never answered them to begin with.

As all have witnessed, I have answered every message addressed to me and even posted beyond that asking follow up questions.

I will say that Mr. Saffold over the past couple days has spent some time attempting to answer my questions. Obviously, by now, it is apparent we are never going to see eye to eye, I have always been one to agree to disagree. A couple points I would like to make however. One, If indeed, as Mr. Saffold claims he has placed faith in Christ and not in his works of obedience I believe he is a child of God. Yet, if his own work of water baptism has any redemptive quality I have to question if he has placed faith in Christ's finished work or has merited redemption through his own obedience. Conversely, I remember reading (and I am sure I will be corrected if wrong) that the folks apart of this small sect would not consider me to be a child of God because I in no way ascribe any redemptive quality to my own works. Herein, lies the subtle digression from the good news - either redemption is a free gift of God to be received freely by faith or it is based upon merit - if you are water baptized, if you confess and repent, if you produce works of righteousness, only then will one be born again. This is the point of contention. I refuse to engage in the defamation of another person, I shall not judge the entire forum by one persons words but I have the feeling that these true sentiments, which have been expressed, represent the sentiments of the majority who post here. (Again I expect to be corrected if wrong.)

Next it is stated:

"And there are no questions from 17 months ago that he addressed to me that I have not answered."

Again, this is not what was originally stated, here is the exact statement:

"Before leaving the forum you refused to answer numerous questions that were ask of you and now many of those who were posting may not notice that you have returned. Thus they will not have the opportunity to insist again that you answer their questions."

Mr. Saffold you did not accuse me of leaving the forum because of questions you had asked me and I have not made statements that you failed to answer questions I asked you 17 months ago. You accused me of leaving the forum and not responding to questions by unnamed "numerous" others - I responded by stating that if one would take the time, those old threads are available to all to go and check for themselves. I even went back and double checked those threads and listed each thread stating that in each, with the exception of one, my message was the last one posted and has remained so for the past 17 months.

Therefore, I have never stated that you have not answered any question I had asked of you 17 months ago, but that questions pertaining to this very issue have gone unanswered for 17 months. Your attempt to cloud the issue by making these misstatements may work with those who casually read these messages, but for myself, as I have now been personally attacked, will not work. Therefore, you are correct, there are no questions from 17 months ago that I specifically addressed to you Mr. Saffold, but that is not what I have said and you know it full well. Only now when I have returned has anyone even taken the slightest knowledge of those postings and that is only because I myself have taken the time to point them out. It is apparent that the issue would have gone on for another 17 months unnoticed if I hadn't come back to mention to the forum that this issue of faith vs. works still exists.

Next it is asserted:

"Originally I said that you had ignored questions that were asked of you 17 months ago and that statement remains true."

I have gone back to these posts and attempted to find what Mr. Saffold is now claiming he said and I am completely at a loss as to where he said it or as to the veracity of his allegations. It does remain true that I ignored questions, it remains that you continue to allege this, Mr. Saffold why don't you repost those questions I failed to answer so that you have some evidence as to your truthfulness?

Next it is stated:

"But every word spoke by Mr. Hanson has been accurately quoted and a response given. Now anyone who is able to read can see that Mr. Hanson has not even remotely attempted such in response to my post, now has he?"

To begin, Mr. Saffold, your posts are very verbose and most often they are not even dealing with the issue but have gone off onto yet another tangent. You are fortunate that I am a simple guy making my points straightforward and to the point that you may indeed quote me verbatim and reply to these messages quite easily. I am at the moment attempting to compile a message that rivals yours in wordage and at time to time will stray completely off the issue at hand and will wait to see if indeed you will then quote me word for word as you have done - going through the entire post answering each and every little innuendo, even though it has little to no bearing upon the discussion at hand! I find your above statement to be frivolous. The point is Mr. Saffold I have gone through each and everyone one of your messages - extracted what I felt was worth my time to respond to and given answer after answer. You, obviously are not going to agree with those answers so instead of dealing with those answers you have once again taken the conversation completely off the subject by attempting to point out that I have not answered your posts verbatim. This is a complete waste of time. The fact is, I have supplied answer after answer and for you to deny that I am posting answers is not being honest. I have supplied answers - and if they are not verbatim, too bad - I don't have the time as I am taking now in an attempt to prove my point. I cannot help it that this is your method of communication - it is not mine - we are different and to point this out has absolutely no bearing upon the issue at hand. I have posted enormous documentation, evidence, and Scriptures in these posts to remove any doubt that we are born again by grace through faith and not by any work of water baptism. You do not agree, so stick to the point. By continuing to post frivolous points, about how I answer, is completely nonessential to the discussion at hand. If you cannot handle the way in which I deem best to spend my time in answering your questions that is completely your problem and if this fact troubles you then perhaps you should remove yourself from the conversation because this is the last time I am going to waste my time addressing this silly point of yours. I answer each of your messages and that covers entirely the obligation I am under to adequately carry on this conversation. You may wish to continue avoiding the actual point of the discussion by setting up these inconsequential messages and expecting me to answer these points verbatim but this just is not going happen, just as it would be dim for me to expect you to answer verbatim this very message. But as I have mentioned am attempting to prove a point herein. I suppose that the point will be lost and you may in fact attempt to answer this message verbatim - that would be your prerogative - and I would not put it past you in your attempt to prove some point with me, however don't impose your inanity on me. I have not attempted to nor will I attempt to answer your messages verbatim. Therefore, in response to the silly question you pose (knocking over your own straw men) no I have not remotely attempted to answer your posts verbatim! Yet, again, this has absolutely nothing to do with Faith vs. works. Hopefully I will now read some inference in your message that deals with the issue?

Next statement: (again nothing to do with the subject yet Mr. Saffold expects me to answer this nonsense verbatim - give me a break)

"Then he says: " as of yet I have messages on other threads that have stood for 17 months without anyone taking a moment to answer my questions." I do not believe that this is really true. He certainly did not address those questions to me. And if anyone will read the archives they will see that Mr. Hanson became angry and told everyone that he was leaving and he left and stayed gone for 17 months."

As I have already adequately pointed out - I was accused of leaving the forum without answering questions by "numerous" unnamed individuals and now added to the allegations I "became angry" (?). Am I really expected to respond to such statements? It is a complete waste of my time. As I pointed out earlier, I am charged with carrying on conversations with others, not answering their questions and now Mr. Saffold states I did not address any of these questions to him. First, I never stated that I had, Second, you are the one setting up the straw man, third, I will now post a messages to which I have yet to receive reply's - notice I put names to these "numerous" individuals that Mr. Saffold fails to do, indicating I have spent the time to search for the truth. As to leaving "angry" I am completely unable to find anywhere what Mr. Saffold is talking about. Again a straw man he is setting up to knock down - to say that no one will answer my messages because I was leaving - well, read the messages for yourself and determine if Mr. Saffold knows what he is talking about.

From the archives….

"Brother Tom, IF you will allow me to call you brother? Never did I ask you to "prove" that you were an "unsaved" Pentecostal/Charismatic Preacher of 18 years, only that it is very difficult for me to believe, by the description that you gave of yourself as a Pentecostal/Charismatic Preacher, that you ever were one indeed.

I am not here to argue, simply to challenge the concept that most of you have concerning YOUR interpretation of the Bible, and calling it the ONLY way. I suppose this challenge does lead to argument, although it was not my intent to be dragged into such a confrontation. I believe the conversation between Anthony and myself is quite civil and was one that I had been hoping for. I do however like a challenge and the forthrightness of clear bold statements based upon the Holy Scriptures. (One of the aspects of this chat room that attracted me in the first place).

It is apparent that we do not agree, that is a right each of us posses, I suppose you even have the right to say I am wrong. That does not bother me. What does bother me is that up until this year, people I have never heard of with a message I have never heard (or could have deducted from the Holy Scriptures) preaches that I am going to hell (?). I could not pass by a message such as yours without presenting another logical interpretation of the Truth from the Holy Scriptures. And I mention "logical" because I am involved in another chat room where individuals will present views (apparently) without any contemplation. At least here we are attempting to use our God given brains. Do not get me wrong, natural intellect works up to a point and then there is the need for faith, but I thank God for the point up to which intellect does work!

Finally, it appears that someone has taken out their scissors and has done some cutting out, but it wasn't me! Verse 5 is not the end of the thought! But apparently the CONTEXT of a verse doesn't matter to "some in this room". Titus 3:5,6 AND 7: "NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOR; that being justified BY HIS GRACE, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

It amazes me that within the VERY verse the Holy Scriptures tell us salvation IS NOT by WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS that we have done, the OPPOSITE message is being taught. If I were to yank this verse out of it's CONTEXT there might be a slight chance I could see this referring to Water Baptism. But within the CONTEXT of the thought verse 6 says, " THROUGH Jesus Christ " To me verse 6 has qualified verse 5, "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" was "shed on us THROUGH Jesus Christ". When I believed on Jesus as Lord I was Baptized into Christ, NOW through Jesus Christ I am regenerated and renewed. Notice I do not gain entrance into Christ THROUGH regeneration or renewal BUT I gain regeneration and renewal THROUGH Jesus Christ! The exact opposite of the salvation by water message.

Once again, we teach obedience to the commandments of God is essential to a continued life of favor with Jesus Christ. NOT to gain salvation BUT just the OPPOSITE, BECAUSE OF salvation. I show that I love Jesus by doing what He has said and because He first loved me. That is the whole point of Noah, I have no idea how this can become so distorted! Noah had favor and was considered righteous BEFORE the flood (water baptism), just as we ARE righteous by grace through faith BEFORE water baptism (the flood). I am being as honest as I can possibly be here, there is no possible way Noah would have been obedient to the command of God to build the Ark if first he wasn't righteous. Just as the flood is a figure of salvation, water baptism is a "corresponding figure" (1 Peter 3) We are righteous, as well, before we go through the water in baptism (the flood).

Sincerely,

Barry Hanson

Barry Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), December 10, 1999."

This next message as well has never been responded to in over 17 months…..

To Sam: So sorry, I skipped right past your post and did not see your comments. Thank you for correcting my error in communication - it was getting late and even in my attempt to clear up my statement I muddied it further. You are correct, I am saying that the flood and water baptism are types and the resurrection is the anti-type. Thanks again. You did say something that I have heard a lot of since coming to this discussion that I would like you to explain to me:

Well, no, it doesn't. It says that the "salvation effectiveness" of baptism comes from the resurrection. Sounds a lot like Paul here --"Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

I believe you are quoting Romans 6:4. Again (as I pointed out in my last message) you are pulling a verse completely out of CONTEXT. Within the CONTEXT of this passage/paragraph/thought could you re-read and show me where WATER baptism is mentioned AT ALL? I see the word baptism but would never assume upon the Holy Scriptures and make them say something they are not saying. So, in the spirit of letting the Holy Scriptures speak for themselves, show me where Paul mentions WATER baptism anywhere in the entire chapter, or even the word "water", for that matter.

To help you out, an honest reading of this passage tells me I am baptized "INTO JESUS CHRIST". To help you understand the Baptism into Jesus Christ you can read - Gal.3:26,27, Eph.4:5, Col.2:12 and 1 Cor.12:13. If you want to impose your own denominational view upon the Holy Scriptures that is up to you, I however am content to let them mean what they say. I am "put into" (baptized) into Jesus Christ/Christ's Body by the Spirit the moment I believe on Jesus as my Lord. Water baptism is the "like figure" of this reality.

Sincerely,

Barry Hanson (obci200@yahoo.com), November 19, 1999."

Again another message that has yet to be responded to…..

"To Keith: Again I feel like I have to respond, you said: "What I was trying to say is that Peter uses the flood as a preceding figure or type and baptism is the reality to which it points." I know exactly what you ARE saying, (did you read my post?) the verse does not say that the flood is a figure of a "like figure", it says that water baptism is a "like figure" of the flood. Both the flood and water baptism point to the resurrection as the reality. Then you make the next statement:

"The fact that "baptism now saves (or delivers) you" seems pretty clear.

I agree, when you pull a phrase out of its CONTEXT and present it in the way you have it does "seem" quite clear. The only problem is you have not read the phrase within its CONTEXT. I find this is how a lot of the folks in your denomination make the Holy Scriptures say whatever it is you want them to. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but in clear-cut instances such as this one, I cannot just look the other way. By stating that this verse means "baptism now saves you" without including any other part of this sentence/thought you are hermenutically unsound.

"That there is a spiritual act which is taking place by God and not just a physical act which removes the dirt from the flesh."

Here goes, hope you don't overlook the hours of study it took, on my own, to come to an honest answer. By the way, did you study this verse out on your own to come to this conclusion, or did you just take the word of someone else as to the meaning? Just curious.

"Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh". This is a very pivotal statement in this passage and will separate those who dig deep to understand it's meaning and those who simply rely on the word of others. The Greek word for filth in this verse is, "Rupos" meaning, "moral filth and depravity", it is the same word used in James 1:21 and in Revelations 22:11. In no possible way is this verse talking about physical dirt. What this is saying then, is that the "saving" through Water Baptism in no way counteracts the moral filth and depravity of the "flesh", but rather it is "the answer of a good conscience toward God". God knew there would be confusion along the lines of Water Baptism, therefore, He inserts this statement into the verse for clarification. The saving through the water as a result of obeying Gods will and commands does not "put away" our "moral filth and depravity" (only the blood and resurrection of Christ can do that) what it does accomplish, is to give one a good conscience. There are many verses in scripture that talk about "renewing the mind" because the mind is not renewed at salvation or at any one point in time, renewal is a process. A good conscience, or renewed mind, is a result of right behavior and of continued obedience. We can plainly see that Noah's family would have had a good conscience, the fact that they were going through the water meant that they had made the right decision to get on the ark before the first drop of water fell. Even more than that, they had heeded God's message and were walking in obedience to His command. The "like figure" of baptism is exactly the same, we have heeded God's message and are going through the water in obedience to a direct command of God which gives us a feeling of well being and a good conscience knowing we are pleasing God. "By the resurrection of Jesus Christ". The flow of thought in this verse has come to it's only conclusion, since the flood and Baptism are figures of that which saves us, what are they figures of? The answer is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Walking in obedience to Water Baptism we gain a good conscience, all because of the resurrection, or "by the resurrection". This is the whole point, at any moment we make Jesus Lord of our lives we become part of His body or, in other words, we are (baptized) put into Christ, which is a spiritual act (as you pointed out, perhaps without knowing it). This happens not because we are water baptized but because Christ died, was buried and rose again. He is alive to become our Lord when we believe on Him, not when we "do" anything. Can one make Jesus Lord of their life at water baptism? Without a doubt. But salvation is not a result of us getting wet or even being obedient, it is a matter of believing on Jesus as your Lord. We are righteous BEFORE we enter the water. Which is exactly what you yourself admitted to:

"Also, you are correct that Noah was a righteous man

The point is, he was righteous BEFORE the flood, just as WE are righteous BEFORE water baptism. I could go on and on, that is not my point, I think it is tragic that good people like yourself alienate other bible believing Christians because of this apparent difference of OPINION. I concede that one can believe on Jesus while being water baptized (if I understand you to mean that you are saved because of Jesus and not water baptism). Unfortunately you folks are unable to concede that I can believe on Jesus Christ before water baptism as clearly illustrated by 1 Peter 3.

Sincerely,

Barry Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), November 19, 1999."

Yet, again another message that has yet to solicit a response over the past 17 months!….

To D.Lee:

For your benefit I have done a quick exegesis of Colossians 1 and 2, not much time and I don't want to go on so long the point is missed. Theme of Colossians "Faith in Christ's Works" Chapter 1 Vs 4 - Paul had heard of their FAITH not their WATER BAPTISM ( in fact the word WATER does not even appear in the entire book of Colossians!) Vs 5 - because of their faith in Christ that came from the truth of the Gospel they have hope Vs 6 - this faith in Christ producing hope, "bringeth forth fruit" . Obviously fruit (WORKS\Water Baptism) does not "bring forth" faith Vs 7,8 - the fruit that has resulted is Love! Vs 12,13 - GOD has translated us into His kingdom. Vs 14 - we have redemption through His blood - not Water Baptism Vs 18 - Talks about the body of Christ Vs 20-22 - Christ has reconciled us to Himself through his BLOOD and DEATH (not WATER Baptism) Vs 23 - continue in faith Vs 27 - the hope of glory is Christ in us - the hope of glory is not in Water Baptism Chapter 2 Vs 5 - commended for their steadfast faith in Christ - not their steadfastness to works - or faith in works Vs 6 - They had "received Christ Jesus the Lord" - so far throughout this entire book the Holy Spirit has been talking about FAITH and has not mentioned WATER Baptism. Vs 7 - Be established in the Faith - again no mention of WATER Baptism Vs 8 - Warning against traditions of men who draw you away from FAITH in Christ Vs 10 - We are complete IN Him - not in WATER Baptism Vs 11,12 - "In whom " IN WHO? In CHRIST, not in WATER! In Christ we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands. This circumcision is the cutting away of sin when we are put into Christ's Body - this is done "..through the faith of the operation of God " not with human hands (WATER Baptism).

What has confused the "saved by Water" people is this phrase, "Buried with him in baptism " unfortunately you have read this verse with your denominational bias - Please D.Lee explain to me in the entire book of Colossians where it mentions WATER Baptism? In your bias you have assumed upon the Holy Scriptures to make it say something that it doesn't say! At any moment you can provide me with proof that Colossians 2:11 is talking about WATER Baptism I will gladly correct my doctrine. But if you cannot show me that within the CONTEXT of this passage, chapter or book this is talking about WATER Baptism I will suggest that you re-think your doctrine of "saved by Water" and consider that this verse is talking about being Baptized into Christ Himself! As clearly outlined throughout this entire book, we are IN Christ. This Baptism into Christ is better understood when we look at the Holy Scriptures as a whole - read the following verses (if you are honestly seeking truth): Rom.6:1-10, 1 Cor.12:13, Gal.3:27, Eph.4:5 and 1 Peter 3:21 is a great verse that tells us that Water Baptism is a symbol of this baptism into Christ, His death and resurrection.

Lastly, to answer your original comment, you are a 100% correct, this baptism into Christ IS a WORK of God and not man as opposed to WATER Baptism which IS a WORK of MAN! To answer your question about baptism showing you have faith you can check out the other thread 1 Peter 3 and Baptism, obviously its not exhaustive, but provides a bit of an answer to your question.

Sincerely,

Barry Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), November 12, 1999."

Now if you are all still with me….

I have just gone back and quickly without much effort found 4 messages that have yet to garnish a reply!!!! To Tom, Sam, Keith and D. Lee - and none of them mention that I am angry!

Mr. Saffold, any comment? Can you please now tell me where any of these messages have a reply? (BTW this is not all the messages - there are more that have zero replies - but thought this post was already getting long enough).

Well, Mr. Saffold, these 4 examples have zero reply's - yet I am the one who leaves (?) who does not answer messages posted to me (?). Either you are simply a flat our liar or you have not gone back and investigated the evidence and you are just speaking out of an empty head. In any scenario you are a poor representative of your little sect and instead of attacking me should stick to the issue. As for this post I will continue to add verbiage to demonstrate the point that your posts contain many words but fail to say much of anything because you fail to stick to the issue under discussion. Therefore, you can expect that I will not respond to your posts verbatim.

Now that I have provided 4 messages that have stood for 17 months without response I can expect that you will take it upon yourself to provide some type of answer? Perhaps then you will refrain from your incessant drivel of misinformation concerning myself and stick to the issue?

Finally we seem to be getting closer to the issue, but still Mr. Saffold feels the need to attack me….

"Now read my response to his original and notice that I have never stated that these passages do not teach we are saved by faith. Rather that I have stated that these verses do not teach that we are saved by "believing alone" as Mr. Hanson originally affirm but now has backed away from and pretends that he did not affirm."

No, Mr. Saffold as I have already taken the time to point out, not a single passage I have outlined does Jesus mention any other means to be born again except faith alone. Repeatedly I pointed out faith is mentioned apart from any other work or action - faith alone! Show me in any reference where Jesus mentions anything other than Faith? You cannot. That is it, he does not mention water baptism or any other work only faith! Do I have to repeat myself? Apparently so because you go on to state…

"And he did this because he knew that others were going to possibly read these verses at my suggestion for them to do so and see if they could find the word "alone" or "only" in them ANYWHERE."

The point was not that the word "only" or "alone" was mentioned in His statements but that Jesus mentions only Faith, He never once mentions water baptism. Faith is the only "qualification" for redemption according to Jesus. Mr. Saffold show me in any of these references where Jesus mentions Faith plus any other work? You cannot. He does not mention Faith and works, He mentions only faith in these references, faith alone without any mention of works. I am really having difficulty that you are unable to understand this - it is very basic and I have now repeated the same simple premise. Jesus did not mention faith and works in any of these references only faith.

Moving on….Mr. Saffold now makes a statement that completely contradicts everything he has said to date !!!!

"God's word says we are saved by faith and it teaches that we are saved by a faith that leads us to obey God not a faith that is alone. So God says we are saved by faith and Mr. Hanson says we are saved by "faith only"."

continued on the next message....

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Continuing...

Finally, Mr. Saffold admits to the truth, "God's word says we are saved by faith", but he has maintained that faith plus works is what saves not "faith that leads us to obey God not a faith that is alone". Repeatedly I have stated that obedience is what happens AFTER faith - obviously that would not be a dead faith once the Christian is obedient after faith. But we see quite a digression from every other statement we have heard from Mr. Saffold to date. "Faith that leads" is completely foreign in any of Mr. Saffolds messages! He has always maintained that it is works plus faith - not a faith that leads. I believe faith leads to works - I have stated this often - what I do not believe that Mr. Saffold preached is that unless one is water baptized he is not born again. This is nowhere taught in the Scriptures. As a matter of fact if we take Mr. Saffolds new revelation to us is that water baptism is an act of obedience - which constitutes a work. Placing redemption as being merited upon our obedience and work and not upon Christ's obedience and work. For His work to take effect all that is needed is faith. That faith will lead to works without a doubt, but those works do not save. So as much as Mr. Saffold wants to play these word games we will not get to the bottom of this discussion. It is faith that Jesus mentions apart from any work, only faith, no mention of water baptism, faith only no works in any reference I have provided. Very simple.

Again Mr. Saffold has difficulties with the English language….

"He has added the word "only" to the passages, which he listed."

No, I did not say the text specifically stated the word "only", I stated that Jesus mentions faith apart from any work - only faith. Again a pathetic waste of my time to have to clarify an obvious misrepresentation of the intent and meaning of my messages.

Next,

"And he knew that you would not be able to find them either and for that reason he has sought to subtly modify his position and hide from you the fact that he has done so."

Next,

"It is a waste of time to do this Mr. Hanson for we are all agreed that these verses teach that we are saved by faith. And we also agree that these verses have nothing to say about baptism. But the thing that you asserted originally was that these verses teach that "believing alone" saves us."

How very interesting - at the beginning of this message Mr. Saffold states:

"Why don't you attempt to do as I have been doing and respond to every single word in every post that I have written as I have been doing to yours?"

Yet when it comes down to answering my message containing the many references that Jesus states we are saved apart from any reference what so ever to works (only mentions faith) that Mr. Saffold no longer feels the need to "respond to every single word in every post". Hmmm, why is this Mr. Saffold? I have spent some time in answering your messages yet when you claim to answer my every word in every message you fail to respond as you claim(?). Do you think the readers are stupid? It is obvious you think quite little of me with the belittling comments you insistently make, but you continue to make statements that simply are not true. Either you answer my messages verbatim or you do not. Seeing that you did not answer my post verbatim, but with a quick out you wish to escape your claim and avoid the difficult situation you find yourself. Having to go verbatim through my message asking questions that make your position of faith plus works impossible to defend. Jesus did not say believe and be water baptized and you will be born again in a single reference I quoted - but you do not respond verbatim! Hmmmm. You back down after all this time and state that the verses all of a sudden do teach we are saved by faith - have nothing to do with water baptism - but insist on stating that Jesus nowhere states believing alone. Perhaps if you responded to the rest of my message we would get to the bottom of it. I asked a number of questions that went unanswered - let me repost them to see if I get any answers.

QUESTION ONE: Where does Jesus mention any work in addition to faith in obtaining everlasting life?

QUESTION TWO - FOUR: When does Jesus say we possess everlasting life? Is this at water baptism or when we believe? Does Jesus mention water baptism at all in the context?

QUESTION FIVE: What has the Scriptures said about how one receives "rivers of living water"?

QUESTION SIX: In these references can anyone point out anywhere that Jesus mentions any other way of obtaining everlasting life?

QUESTION SEVEN: Jesus mentions only faith, can anyone show me in these statements by Jesus where He mentions anything other than faith alone?

QUESTION EIGHT: If Jesus is not mentioning faith only in these references, can anyone point out where He mentions Faith and water baptism? Faith and works? Faith plus anything else? Or does He only mention faith apart from any other qualification?

QUESTIONS NINE: Was Jesus confused as to the way of redemption? Did He not realize that one could not simply believe, but had to be water baptized? Shouldn't He have made it abundantly clear to the hundreds of thousands that heard Him speak that they could not simply believe and possess eternal life? Shouldn't He have at every proclamation of the gospel made it abundantly clear one must be water baptized or their faith is dead? Why continue to mislead the multitudes with His noticeable emphasis only on faith?

Well, Mr. Saffold, these questions are not going away, I am going to continue to post them and we will see if you reply verbatim as you have already shown is a false statement.

Finally, we get to end of this…

"We wait for you to do either of these before we respond to these verses since we believe as much as any man that they teach we are saved by faith. But we deny that they teach we are saved by "believing alone" as you originally and falsely asserted. Now, we want you to attempt to clear this matter up before we respond to the rest of this particular post. But if you do not do so I will take up the remaining portion of your post when I next have the time to write."

Why wait Mr. Saffold? Go back to my last message and read, therein I have adequately informed you that in every reference posted Jesus only mentions faith, not a single time does he teach we are saved by works or anything other than faith. You will only find Faith apart from anything else you would like to add to the gospel. Mr. Saffold why not answer my questions I have asked you once again and we will clearly see how you explain that faith plus works is what Jesus is teaching. Is Jesus teaching faith plus works in these references or faith alone?

I am sure I will be waiting a while for you to reply seeing that you reply to my messages verbatim. I will be watching to see if you are a man of your word. I am certainly glad I have never made such a claim.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Brethren and friends:

Mr. Hanson seems to want to leave the impression that he has been sorely mistreated by the accusation that he has not answered certain questions that were asked of him. And while I understand that writing in this forum takes time and often we cannot get to all questions immediately. We can at least acknowledge them and begin the process of answering them. And one does not really have to go to the archives for evidence of the fact that Mr. Hanson has a habit of ignoring certain maters that are put to him in the form of questions. He can see it in this very thread. And I will just give some examples. Mr. Hanson had argued the following concerning Acts 10:43:

“2. Acts 10:43 - specifically says "that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins", where does it mention water baptism?”

And I responded by asking a series of questions, which in his reply to that post he deliberately failed to answer.

These are the questions:

“Were does it mention the blood of Christ which is for the remission of sins? (Matt. 26:28). Where does it mention repentance which was also for the remission of sins (Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38)? Where does it mention confession of Christ which is unto salvation (Romans 10:10, Matt. 10:32,33)? Where does it mention grace which also saves us (Eph. 2:8)? Where does it mention the gospel which is the power of God to save (Romans 1:16)? Where does it mention obedience to Christ which is essential to those whom he is the author of eternal salvation (Heb 5:8,9)? And where does this passage claim to be all inclusive of every thing essential to the remission of sins. The verse does not say that one will immediately receive the remission of sins the moment that he first believes. For the scriptures teach that faith shall save us when it leads us to obey Christ. (Heb. 5:8,9; Luke 6:46; Matt. 7:21-23 Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Mark 16:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4).”

Now he did not even touch these questions at all. Neither did he acknowledge them and even promise to answer later, now did he? He just conveniently ignored them didn’t he?

Then I asked another question concerning how we are to obey the gospel which we are told that we must do or we will be punished (2 Thess. 1:9-11) as follows:

“So how is it to be OBEYED? Let me state it yet another way, how are we to obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?”

And again we have received NO ANSWER, now have we?

Then I quoted Romans 6:17,18 and I asked the following questions:

“Read these word of the inspired apostle Paul:

“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Romans 6:17,18). When were they made free from sin? Was it the moment that they first believed?”

Again we have received NO ANSWER from Mr. Hanson, now have we?

And then yet again I asked the following question:

“Well, Acts 10:43 does not mention the blood of Christ, does it? Are we to conclude from this that the shedding of the blood of Christ was not essential to remission of sins? This verse does not mention repentance either. Are we to conclude from this that repentance is not essential to remission of sins? If not then on what grounds would Mr. Hanson conclude that this passage is all inclusive of all that is necessary to the remission of sins and think that because it does not mention baptism that it thereby excludes it as being essential to the remission of sins. For we are clearly told that baptism is essential to the remission of sins by the inspired apostle Peter who also spoke the words of Acts 10:43. Did he contradict himself? For it was this same Peter who said, “repent and be baptized everyone of you for (eis, in order to obtain) the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38).

But he has still not answered those questions, now has he?

And another example is the following questions that he has also deliberately ignored and refused to even attempt to answer:

“For if we are to conclude that because a verse “mentions” faith with no mention of baptism is proof that baptism is not essential what are we to conclude about a verse that mentions baptism with no mention of faith? Acts 2:38 does not mention “faith”. Are we to conclude, as Mr. Hanson has on the same ground that baptism is not mentioned in the verses which he quotes, that such means that faith is not essential? I Peter 3:21 says that baptism doeth also now save us” and there is no mention of faith. Are we to conclude that faith is therefore not essential? John 3:3-5 talks about being born again of water and the spirit but no mention whatsoever of faith. Are we to conclude that because it does not mention faith that faith is excluded? I think not! Acts 22:16 says, “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord”. Where is the word “faith” found in this passage? Are we to conclude that faith is not essential because we do not find mention of it in certain verses that speak of baptism without any mention of faith?”

So, Mr. Hanson has not answered these questions either has he?

And yet again:

Mr. Hanson had said:

““ Mr. Saffold I clearly see a common thread through out these verses - Faith. I fail to see water baptism mentioned in any significant amount of the Scriptures that declare the redemption message.”

And I asked him the following question concerning this matter but he has also failed to answer it or even to remotely refer to it:

“If God only mentioned it in ONE SINGLE verse it would still be the truth. Thus the number of times a thing is mentioned is no reasonable measure of truth, now is it?”

Then I challenged Mr. Hanson concerning the following and again we have received no response:

Mr. Hanson had deliberately misrepresented the things I had been saying with his following question:

““Why Mr. Saffold when the Holy Spirit was inspiring the N.T. writers did He not make it abundantly clear throughout the entirety of the N.T. that salvation is only obtainable through water baptism?”

I responded by challenging him with a question and he has ignored the challenge:

“Now I have never said that the scriptures teach that salvation is “ONLY” obtainable through water baptism. And you know I have never said any such thing don’t you? I challenge you to find one single statement from me when I have said that salvation is “only obtainable by water baptism”. Now it is just a deliberate misrepresentation again used to prejudice our readers.”

Now He knows that I have never said we are saved by “baptism ONLY” and I have asked him to provide one single statement where I said we are “saved by baptism only”. That was my question and he has ignored it hasn’t he?

Then Mr. Hanson argued that baptism was not mentioned very often in the New Testament and I asked him a question that he has still ignored to answer as follows:

Mr. Hanson had said:

“ Water baptism commands very little reference, comparatively with the vast amounts of Scripture, dealing with redemption.”

And contained in my response I asked him the following question, which he has deliberately ignored:

“How many times does God have to say something to you Mr. Hanson before you decide that it is true?”

Mr. Hanson had falsely claimed “the moment one believes he is baptized into Christ”. And we asked him what scripture says that the “moment one believes he is baptized into Christ” and we asked him another question which he ignored as follows:

“Now there is not a verse in the entire word of God that says “the moment one believes they have been baptized into Christ”. And we would like very much for Mr. Hanson to show us any passage of scripture that says such a thing. That it Mr. Hanson’s doctrine it is not the doctrine of Christ. In fact James tells us that “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” So it is clear that the even the “devils also believe”. Mr. Hanson, the are we to conclude that the “moment that these devils believed they had been baptized into Christ”?”

Then he ask the following question:

“2. Acts 10:43 - specifically says "that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins", where does it mention water baptism?”

To which we replied with the following questions for the second time:

Were does it mention the blood of Christ which is for the remission of sins? (Matt. 26:28). Where does it mention repentance which was also for the remission of sins (Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38)? Where does it mention confession of Christ which is unto salvation (Romans 10:10, Matt. 10:32,33)? Where does it mention grace which also saves us (Eph. 2:8)? Where does it mention the gospel which is the power of God to save (Romans 1:16)? Where does it mention obedience to Christ which is essential to those whom he is the author of eternal salvation (Heb 5:8,9)? And where does this passage claim to be all inclusive of every thing essential to the remission of sins. The verse does not say that one will immediately receive the remission of sins the moment that he first believes. For the scriptures teach that faith shall save us when it leads us to obey Christ. (Heb. 5:8,9; Luke 6:46; Matt. 7:21-23 Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Mark 16:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4).

Then in our previous thread entitled, “Revival of an Old Discussion Concerning Baptism” I asked yet more questions which Mr. Hanson has ignored as follows:

Because Mr. Hanson had answered my question concerning what baptism saves us from as 1 Peter 3:21 says, “baptism doeth also now save us…” by saying that baptism saved us from a guilty conscience I then asked him the following question which he again ignored:

“When Peter said that baptism was not the “putting away of the filth of the flesh he clearly meant to say that it was not a simple washing of the dirt from the body as some might think but instead it was an answer of a good conscience toward God. Now no one can have a good conscience toward God when their souls are laden with sin, now can they?”

And again he has not answered.

Then Mr. Hanson affirmed that baptism was not “for the remission of sins” but that it was instead “because of the remission of sins:

TO which I replied as follows:

“"Brethren and friends: Notice how Mr. Hanson has so little respect for the word of God that he deliberately changes the words "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38, to "because of the remission of sins", words more acceptable to himself than to God, as follows:

"5. Acts 2:38 - The verse plainly states that we should be baptized because our sins have been forgiven, I couldn't agree more.”

And I continued my response as follows:

“Certainly after changing the verse to read as you prefer it to read you would naturally agree, now wouldn’t you. For Acts 2:38 says “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2;38). But you have deliberately changed it to read “repent and be baptized BECAUSE OF THE REMISSION OF SINS”. (Acts 2:38 according to Mr. Barry Hanson who does not like the inspired words of the apostle Peter and would have preferred that Peter said something more in line with Mr. Hanson's current beliefs). This deliberate tampering with the word of God to make it say what you want it to say because you do not like what it truly says is sinful and shameful. Acts 2:38 does not say for us to be baptized because our sins are for given but rather it tells us plainly to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (Greek eis meaning “unto or in order to”) the remission of our sins. The Greek word corresponding to our English word “because” is the Greek word “Gar” but the Greek word found here is the Greek term “eis”. It is a word that points always forward and not backward. It cannot be translated “because of” but rather must be translated by the word “unto” or “in order to”.”

I then followed these words with abundant scholarly evidence that the Greek word “eis” means “unto or in order to” the remission of sins and he completely ignore all of the evidence presented concerning it and did not even attempt to deal with it in the least. All he did was claim superior ability to understand the second chapter of Acts because he is a “Pentecostal” and he claimed that Acts 2 did not apply to him but to the Jews. And we have not dealt with that matter yet, but we will as I continue to work on my responses. But he had argued that “for remission of sins in Acts 2:38 meant “because of the remission of sins”. And we proved conclusively from the meaning of the Greek word “eis” that the verse means “unto or in order to the remission of sins” because the Greek word “eis” looks forward and never backward.

Yet, Mr. Hanson has not even attempted to discuss the meaning of the Greek word “eis” as it relates to his false assertion that when the Bible says “for the remission of sins” really means “because of remission of sins”. He just ignored every single word of it and that fact is obvious to any person who has been reading these exchanges.

Then, in relation to the same subject we stated the facts and asked him a question which he has again COMPLETELY IGNORED as follows:

“The exact same words and grammar and syntax found in Acts 2:38 is also found in Matthew 26:28. In Matthew 26:28 we are told, “For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many unto (eis) the remission of sins.” In Acts 2:38 we read, “Repent ye and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto (eis) the remission of sins.” Anyone can see that the two phrases “unto (eis) remission of sins” are identical in English. They are also identical in the Greek. In Greek both passages read, “eis apheisen harmartion”. It is exactly the same and the word eis has the same meaning in both passages. In Matthew 26:28 we are told that Christ blood was shed “unto (eis) the remission of sins.” Now who is ready to claim that Christ shed his blood “because” our sins were already remitted? Christ shed his blood clearly “in order to obtain” remission of our sins and this exact same phraseology is used when speaking of repentance and baptism. We are to repent in order to obtain remission of our sins not “because “ our sins have been remitted without repentance. And we are also to be baptized according to this verse for the same reason. We are baptized “to obtain” to use Thayer’s exact words, the remission of sins. And while you claim that the word “eis” can be translated “because of” in Acts 2:38, it is indeed interesting that you cannot find a single reputable translation that so translates it. And you have not given any reputable scholars that define this word so as to justify such a translation.

Yet, we are just supposed to take your word for it. Do tell us how you would translate this Greek word “eis” in Matthew 26:28? And if you would translate it differently than the way you claim it could be translated in Acts 2:38, please explain the reason since both phrases are exactly identical in the Greek and English New Testaments. If you believe that Matthew 26:28 means, “to obtain” and Acts 2:38 means “because of” please explain why. The phrase under consideration is, “eis aphesin hamartion” It is exactly the same words, syntax, tense, mood, and grammar in both places.”

WE asked Mr. Hanson how he would translate the word “eis” in Matthew 26:28 and he has not answered us.

WE also asked him, “if you would translate it differently than the way he claimed it could be translated in Acts 2:38, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY? And he has not answered that question either, now has he?

Then again we asked him:

“And if you translate this word differently in these two verses we will expect you to explain how you arrived at completely different conclusions concerning the exact same phraseology in two different places. I am placing the two passages parallel to each other so that all can see that they are identical. Matthew 26:28, “ for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion) Acts 2:38, “ for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion)”

We still have heard nothing but silence from Mr. Hanson about this matter.

Now Brethren notice the several questions that I asked Mr. Hanson in the following quotation:

“Same phrase, same grammar, same syntax, and same words, but different meanings? Many people would translate the word differently for absolutely no better reason than the simple fact that in one place it does not fit their favorite theology and in the other place it does. So do tell us Mr. Hanson, which way is it for you? Do you translate “eis” in Matthew 26:28 the same way that you would like to have it translated in Acts 2:38? In Acts 2:38 we read, “repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (Eis) the remission of sins and ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. The Greek word “kai” is a coordinating conjunction. And functions like our English word “and” which connects items of equal rank in a sentence. Whatever “eis” means in reference to baptism it also means in reference to repentance. Now no one is told anywhere in the New Testament to repent “because” his or her sins have been remitted. But if your view of “eis” in this passage were correct then it would be necessary to conclude that are to repent “because” our sins have been remitted. Which is contrary to the teaching of Acts 3:19 which says, “ repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out.” Thus we repent in order to have our sins blotted out. So which is it? Does “eis” mean “because of” in reference to baptism and in the exact same time and place and grammatical construction does “eis” mean “in order to" in reference to repentance? For this word cannot have two meanings in the same place and grammatical connection.

Do you believe that these Jews on the day of Pentecost were told to “ REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” for (eis) because their sins were remitted or do you believe that they were told to “REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” “in order to obtain” the remission of sins. Or is it possible that you are asking us to believe that they were told to “repent” in order to the remission of sins AND be baptized “because of the remission of sins?" Pick one. For surely it must be at least one of these three cases. Which one do you believe is the truth using the Greek words, syntax, and grammar of this sentence? It is definitely true that whatever “eis” means in reference to “repentance” it also means in reference to “baptism.” It cannot GRAMMATICALLY have one meaning in reference to “REPENTANCE” and a completely opposite meaning in reference to “BAPTISM” in the same sentence and the same connection using the same rules of grammar.”

Now, Brethren, everyone reading these two threads can see that Mr. Hanson has not even attempted to answer these questions that I have asked him in the above quotation, can’t they. DO tell us Mr. Hanson why have you not even acknowledged that I have asked you these questions? Not that I expect you will answer me but just to add one more question to the long list of questions that I have abundantly asked you and you have completely ignored.

Now these above questions that have been ignored by Mr. Hanson my not eventually be ignored by him. For we all know how much time it takes to write and reply to several posts, especially if we have to do so while working and taking care of our families. But we can at least acknowledge the existence of the question and state that we will in time gradually respond to all of them and then proceed as I have done to step by step reply to them. At least that way we know that the questions were not ignored even if they are yet to be answered. Or if we do not do that we could at least not pretend that we have answered every question asked of us when we know that we have not done so as Mr. Hanson appears to be trying to do.

Then of course Mr. Hanson attempts to make it appear that I have refused to answer his questions but such is not true. And one can see that such is not true simply by reading what I said in my acknowledgement of his questions in my last post and my commitment to answer them as follows:

I said:

“The reason that he is responding in the first place is that we have answered some his initial post and every question that he asked in it. And we admitted that though we have finished answering his initial post in complete detail we are not continuing our response to other things that he has said, including other questions that he has asked. So he knows that he will not be disappointed in that we will answer all of his questions, which anyone can see that we have been step by step, line by line discussing. But he feels the need to pretend that we are ignoring them.”

The phrase in the above “we are not continuing our response to other things that he said, including other questions that he has asked”. I have just noted has a typographical error that could have caused it to be misunderstood. It should read, “we are NOW continuing our response to other things that he has said, including other questions that he has asked.” Now from these words it is easy to see that I have at least acknowledged his questions and that I have promised to answer then as I gradually progress from the first to the last of them.

I said the same thing in other words as follows:

“And I will continue my gradual but persistent line by line response to them until I am finished.”

But where can anyone find that Mr. Hanson has even acknowledged my above questions and made any attempt to even begin answering then or any commitment to attempt to answer then in the future?

And then Mr. Hanson deliberately ignores what I said concerning his questions, which he claims that I refused to answer:

I said this to Mr. Hanson:

“Now, we want you to attempt to clear this matter up before we respond to the rest of this particular post. But if you do not do so I will take up the remaining portion of your post when I next have the time to write.”

I clearly stated that I wanted to “clear this matter up” concerning his changing of his position on his assertion that these verses teach that we are saved by “believing alone” before we continued our response to his questions. The reason we wanted to clarify this matter first was because his questions are related to his original position which he had changed prior to asking his questions. But notice that we also said that if he did not clear them up we would reply to them anyway when “I next have time to write”. But he is trying to leave our readers with the false impression that I had decided not to answer them at all. And that is just not the truth, now is it?

But I have now spent so much time dealing with his last post that I will have to take up his questions in my next post when I have again some time to write. But do ask yourself Friends and Brethren just where has Mr. Hanson even acknowledged the questions that I have listed at the beginning of this post? And ask yourself just where he has even begun to make attempts to respond to or answer them? And do ask yourself just where that he has promised to even gradually answer any of then, much less all of them, in the future?

Now again I have not stated that Mr. Hanson has never attempted an answer to ANY questions asked of him but rather that he has deliberately ignored many of them. He has done this very thing in our exchanges with each other as I have now abundantly proven.

For Christ and those who love truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Well Mr. Saffold you are going to have quite a hayday with this message, that is fine with me. Last Thursday I had quite the message to post for you and I could not get onto the link, it kept hanging on me which was frustrating, I even mailed my message to my home email account so I could attempt to post it from home. When I got home Thursday evening I still could not get to this link. I left Friday on a Weekend Advance - I am planting a new church in S. Boston - and the group of people that have responded to the new church were mostly Roman Catholic's. We centered the weekend on teaching these new believers about the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I myself went not only to co-lead the weekend but also expecting the Holy Spirit to refresh and speak to me as well. To make a long story short Mr. Saffold the Lord poured His overwhelming love into me, which has really transformed my focus. I have to say that to me this is miraculous. I am not sure if I am going to spend much more time here in this forum, but I wanted to tell you Mr. Saffold, that I love you. I really don't know you, but Jesus loves you, He died for you and desires to walk in fellowship with you. Therefore, if He loves you, I love you. I have decided not to post my lengthy reply I had prepared last Thursday, it does not seem so important at the moment. I am sure you will have much to say….it really does not matter to me now. I pray everyone here will truly come into an intimate relationship with Jesus - He desires true friendship with each of us.

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Praise God, Barry! If God could convert a Paul, he can also save an E. Lee or a Danny.

I pray they will open their hearts to His working.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Connie:

You have said:

“Praise God, Barry! If God could convert a Paul, he can also save an E. Lee or a Danny. I pray they will open their hearts to His working.”

Well, Connie, I must say I am quite happy and pleased to be placed in a list along with the names of Brother Danny Gabbard and Brother Paul. And surely as God has converted Brother Paul and Brother Danny through the preaching of the gospel of Christ just so He has converted E. Lee Saffold by the same process. And just as he commanded Paul to “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16) he gave the same command, through the word of God, to both Brother Danny and myself. And we have both willingly and faithfully obeyed His will in the matter. Thus God, working through His inspired word, has already done what you are yet asking Him to do. For it was Christ Jesus, the very Son of God, who said concerning those who would hear the gospel, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16). Inasmuch then that all three of us have heard the gospel and have believed it and have been baptized in obedience to it we are therefore saved by God’s wonderful grace! It is indeed strange is it not? That you have listed Brother Danny and myself along with the apostle Paul when we have both heard the same gospel he heard, did the same thing that he did and received the same salvation that he received yet you accept Paul’s “conversion” and pray for ours! I find that not only interesting but quite humorous.

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Danny,

Even though my post was not addressing you, I love you too.

Peace.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Mr. Hanson:

You have said:

“To make a long story short Mr. Saffold the Lord poured His overwhelming love into me, which has really transformed my focus. I have to say that to me this is miraculous. I am not sure if I am going to spend much more time here in this forum, but I wanted to tell you Mr. Saffold, that I love you. I really don't know you, but Jesus loves you, He died for you and desires to walk in fellowship with you. Therefore, if He loves you, I love you.”

I have no idea of just what you mean when you say that the Holy Spirit “poured His overwhelming love” into you. But who can reject Love? For the Holy Spirit taught us through His inspired word to love one another. In fact, he has abundantly and “overwhelmingly” taught us from His inspired words to LOVE ONE ANOTHER as the following scriptures abundantly prove:

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (John 13:34).

“This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 15:12).

“These things I command you, that ye love one another.” (John 15:17).

“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” (Romans 13:8).

“But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.” (1 Th. 4:9)

“Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:” (1 Peter 1:22).

“For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” (1 John 3:11).

“And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.” (1 John 3:23).

“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.” (1 John 4:7).

“Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” (1 John 4:11).

“No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.” ( (1 John 4:12).

“And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.” (2 John 1:5).

“By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:35)

“[Be] kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;” (Romans 12:10).

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Gal. 5:13).

“With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;” (Eph. 4:2).

“And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all [men], even as we [do] toward you:” (1 Th. 3;12). “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:” (Heb. 10:24).

“Finally, [be ye] all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, [be] pitiful, [be] courteous:” (1 Pet. 3:8).

Now, it seems that you are saying that prior to your attending this “Advance” you were not “overwhelmed” with love even though you had the inspired words of the Holy Spirit teaching you to love. But his words were not sufficient to persuade you to love and it was not until the Holy Spirit “overwhelmed” you during your “Advance” that you were able to actually “Love” as he had been commanding you “overwhelmingly” through His inspired word to do. So it seems that you are telling us that you would not love until the Holy Spirit FORCED you to do it? Those who will not be persuaded to love by the inspired word of God will surely not be FORCED to do so by the “overwhelming” power of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, I have my doubts about your feigned “love” and have no reason whatsoever to believe that the Holy Spirit “overwhelmed” you and thereby forced you against your own will to obey His commands which He had given in abundance in His inspired word to love others.

I am one who believes firmly, Mr. Hanson, that we should love one another. But it must be genuine, sincere, and VOLUNTARY in willing obedience to the commands and will of God as has been revealed by the Holy Spirit in His inspired word. God will not force it upon anyone for the very idea of “forced love” is a diametrical contradiction in terms. And had you been following willingly the word of God you would not have felt any need to be urged to love E. Lee Saffold. Love is something that we DO, a command that we obey, by genuinely caring for one another and acting to do that which is for the highest good of others.

Now, Love is not something that we simply SHOW by going around telling others that we love them. It is something that we DO by genuinely caring for them and acting to do that which is for the highest good of the object of our love. And it is an act of faith in obedience to the commands of God. It is not something that is “forced upon us” by some miraculous “overwhelming of the Holy Spirit”. And the teaching of that which is false and designed to lead others away from the truth of God is not a “LOVING” thing to do no matter how many times you speak of love with the your lips. You cannot love and teach that which is not true at the same time. No one can love others as God has commanded until he first loves the truth, seeks it and teaches it and follows it.

So, I appreciate genuine love and teach from God’s word that we are to love one another. But using love as a way to appear more “spiritual and righteous” than one who is telling the truth of God’s word is not from God or the Holy Spirit. It has a more sinister origin. For no one can truly love others while simultaneously teaching doctrines that are contrary to the doctrine of Christ. I will not bid Godspeed to any such person just because he says falsely that he “loves” me. (2 John 9-11).

For Christ and those who sincerely love Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

I did not imagine that you were going to get all excited over my experience - I have attempted to put it into words - words have failed me. I leave you with your arguments - I do know that Jesus loves you and the reality of His love in my life has overwhelmed anything else you may want to say. This morning in my devotions I read this verse and it really spoke to me about how we should walk in love with one another, John 13:5

"After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded."

Jesus washed his disciples feet - Judas was even present at this moment! If Jesus humbled himself to this point - I can love even you Mr. Saffold no matter what you may have to say.

In Christ's Love

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Hello, Barry,

I am praising God for your experience.

And I must note one area in which over these past months, E. Lee has improved:

He now uses paragraphs. Otherwise, the blizzard of twisted words has not changed one iota. That is one hardened heart in E. Lee Saffold.

But I am still praying that God will pierce it through with His love and bestow salvation on Lee. If Lee thinks that his work of immersion will save him, he is much to be pitied.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

Brethren:

Take notice of the continued deliberate attempts to discredit and deceive made by Connie:

She says:

“Hello, Barry, I am praising God for your experience.”

Now it is obvious that any person could write claiming that they had some kind of “experience” and Connie would immediately believe it with out the slightest amount of evidence being presented that it is true. If anyone were to just make up a story, tell it, they could watch with glee how quickly and easily she buys it without having any evidence to substantiate its truthfulness in the least. And it does not matter to her in the least if that so-called experience is contrary to the teaching of the very word of God. She will believe it anyway. For she would rather be guided by the experience of others, whether true or false, than to follow the simple teaching of God’s word.

Then she falsely claims the following:

“And I must note one area in which over these past months, E. Lee has improved: He now uses paragraphs.”

I have been writing in this forum for more than a year now and I can only find in the archives three occasions when my post did not have paragraphs. And that was not caused by my failing to put them into paragraphs when I initially wrote them. Rather it was caused by my not understanding that when I put them in the box to be submitted the computer automatically, on some occasions, takes the paragraphs out. When I realized that this was happening I took steps to correct it by going into the box and making sure the paragraphs were included. And this has not occurred since then. But Connie deliberately lies again to us by claiming that I have only in the past few months been using paragraphs. You can go back through the archives if this matter is really important to you and you will readily see how deliberately deceptive Connie can be when she wants to deliberately discredit some one

Then she says:

“ Otherwise, the blizzard of twisted words has not changed one iota.”

She does not offer any examples of “twisted words” now does she? And she makes no attempt to prove the any words have been “twisted” as she falsely claims, now does she? It is easy to assert something Connie, but when it comes to proving what you say you fail miserably.

But we must not overlook the fact that A verse like Mark 16:16 is so clear and easy to understand that it is impossible to “twist” so as to make it say that baptism has nothing to do with our salvation. For Christ made it equal in importance with faith. He said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned”. (Mark 16:16). The only way anyone can misunderstand the clear teaching of Christ in that verse is by pretending that the Lord never said it. For it is impossible to “twist” it to mean anything other than what it plainly says. But everyone has witnessed your feeble attempts to “twist” it to make it say “He that believeth shall be saved and we will baptize him because that is a good “work” to do. But everyone can see that such is the direct opposite to the teaching of Christ.

Christ said:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16).

Connie says:

He that believeth and is NOT baptized shall be saved:”

But our readers are able to tell from this that Connie is speaking the direct opposite of Christ our Lord. They will not follow her “twisted” words unless they have no faith in Christ whatsoever.

But as far as Connie’s comments that my words have not “changed one iota” we need only to note a few important facts. Inasmuch as we are talking still of the exact same subject concerning salvation form sin in obedience to the gospel she is absolutely correct. My words have not “Changed one iota” and because they are in harmony with the truth of God’s eternal word none should expect them to change. It is the lies of those who oppose these truths from God’s word that have changed. One only need read the continuous self-contradictions of Connie and others, who have opposed the truth of the gospel of Christ on this matter, in the archives to see that such is a fact. The attempts to deceive others and deliberately lead them away from the truth of the gospel of Christ by Connie and others like her vary often but they do have one constant. They always fail when they are confronted with the truth. Read these verses. “Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). “And that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).The faith and the truth related to it does not change one iota and therefore those who hold to it will not change or attempt to modify that truth in any way.

Then Connie asserts but cannot prove the following:

“ That is one hardened heart in E. Lee Saffold.” It should be obvious from these words that Connie is frustrated that I will not accept her doctrine of salvation by “Faith only”. But she fails to mention that the reason I cannot accept it is because it is diametrically opposed to the word of God. For we are told, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FATH ONLY” (James 2:24).

Then she says:

“But I am still praying that God will pierce it through with His love and bestow salvation on Lee.”

Now, if that were what I had to depend upon to be saved I would definitely be in a pitiful state! For to depend upon the prayers of one who has never obeyed the gospel of Christ and thus is not “in Christ” at all would be useless. If we are to judge by the results of the things that Connie has said she was praying for in this forum one would see that the record is not a good one. She has been praying thus far for months now that God would “send holy fire into this forum”. And we have not seen any “holy fire” yet, now have we? I am just thankful that my salvation does not depend upon Connie’s prayers. Rather My salvation depends upon the blood of Christ and my obedient faith in Christ which has lead me years ago to obey the gospel of Christ by repenting and being baptized for the remission of my sins as Christ has commanded me to do. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Matt. 26:28; John 3:3-5; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22;16; Matt. 28:19,20; Eph. 5:25,26; Heb 10;22; Titus 3:3-5; James 2:14-24; Acts 8:12-40). My faith resides in Christ, and the inspired word of God delivered once for all by the Holy Spirit through the apostles and inspired writers of the New Testament. But I have absolutely no confidence in Connie’s prayers. WE are saved by the gospel (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1- 4) and obedience to it. Those who fail to obey that gospel of Christ will be eternally lost (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And no amount of prayer by anyone asking God to save souls apart from the gospel of Christ and obedience to it will avail anything whatsoever. Especially prayers from those who have refused to obey the gospel of Christ and seek on every hand to thwart all efforts to encourage others to obey it. SO do not depend, my friends, upon the prayers of anyone. Depend instead upon the precepts of God and the gospel of Christ, which is God’s power to save us. (Rom. 1;16; 1Cor. 15:1-4). For we “purify our souls in OBEDIENCE TO THE TRUTH”. “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. “And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” ((1 Peter 1:22-25).

Then Connie says:

If Lee thinks that his work of immersion will save him, he is much to be pitied.”

Now, again, from the above statement we see Connie using her lying and deceptive tactics.

She knows I have never said that the scriptures teach that salvation is “ONLY” obtainable through water baptism as she has deliberately misrepresented me as having said But she deliberately attributes such to me while knowing that I have never said any such thing. I challenge you, Connie to find one single statement from me where I have said that salvation is “only obtainable by water baptism”. Or that the “work of immersion” alone without faith, repentance, confession of Christ will save anyone. Now it is just a deliberate misrepresentation again used to prejudice our readers. The Holy Spirit has however made it abundantly clear to all that baptism is required along with faith and repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3:26,27; Romans 6:3-6, 17). And Christ said that faith and baptism are essential to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. (Mark 16:16). In fact according to his use of the coordinating conjunction “and” from the Greek term “kai” connects things of EQUAL rank and importance in a sentence he is telling us that baptism is just as important to the salvation of those who hear the gospel as is faith.

I have, therefore, shown from the scriptures that salvation is by the blood of Christ and is appropriated to us WHEN, by faith in his precious blood, we submit to him as Lord by obeying his commands to repent and be immersed for the remission of sins. (Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:15; 16).

But I suppose that Connie would “pity” the Lord who commanded baptism for salvation. For He said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). And she would most assuredly have “much Pitied” Saul, who later became the apostle Paul and Annanias who told him, “and now arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). And she probably even to this day “pities” the inspired apostle Peter who said, “the like figure whereunto baptism doeth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:21).” She can pity us all but she cannot answer any of us, now can she?

But none will be saved who disobey the Lord Jesus Christ for those who refuse to obey him have no faith in Him at all. He is not the savior of anyone who does yield to Him as LORD by obeying Him.

Jesus said, “why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46). And he said, “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). Baptism is a command of Christ (Mark 16:16) and it is the time and place where God changes our state from lost to saved (Mark 16; 16; 1 Peter 3:21). It is the time and place when our sins are removed by the “circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11-13). It is when our sins are remitted (Acts 2:38). Thus, it is not those who believe these scriptural truths that are to be pitied. Rather it is those who refuse to obey Christ Commands that could be looked upon with pity. For we are told that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him” (Heb. 5; 8,9). And He commanded us to repent and be baptized. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16; 16). Those who refuse to obey him cannot claim Christ as the “author of their salvation”. And the only way anyone can obey the gospel of Christ is by believing in Christ enough to be “buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father even so we should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-6). And 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. 1:8,9). SO those of you, like Connie, who have never become Christians in obedience to the gospel by failing to “obey from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered” (Romans 6:17,18) and thus have not been made “free from sin” (Romans 6:18) are yet the servants of sins. And the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6: 23). These, my friends and brethren, are indeed the one’s that we should love enough to teach the truth. For to do nothing more than “pity” them is a useless and selfish emotion.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Connie says:

He that believeth and is NOT baptized shall be saved:”

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

Connie never said this, but I am controlling myself and not calling Lee a liar, even though that is what he is doing.

He is of his father, the devil. Satan is the father of liars.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

KJV 1 Corinthians 13 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth F47 not itself, is not puffed up, 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; F48 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

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

..BEARETH ALL THINGS, ***BELIEVETH ALL THINGS***, HOPETH ALL THINGS, ENDURETH ALL THINGS...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

In my devotions this morning I read John 13:34, 35 -

"34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

I love you all.

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Mr. Saffold wrote, "But none will be saved who disobey the Lord Jesus Christ for those who refuse to obey him have no faith in Him at all. He is not the savior of anyone who does yield to Him as LORD by obeying Him."

Certainly we are commanded to obey, and expected to try to obey, but are your really saying we are required to obey as a condition of salvation? Isn't that the essence of a works based salvation, that most of the new testament is clearly critical of? Isn't that the means of salvation that did not work for Adam and Eve when they were commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge? Odedience, as a condition of salvation, would mean we are all dead in our sins.

God provided an alternative to works, and required faith as the condition of salvation. Knowing the fallen nature of man, God even provided the faith throught the work of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the gospel. We yield to Christ as Lord, as a result of having faith and salvation and the Holy Spirit within us. The Bible is quite clear that no one is able to come to faith, except through the work of the Spirit; and no can obey a master they do not first recognize as their Lord and Master through faith. So faith comes before obedience, and obedience results from faith, and faith comes from the grace of God.

Those that say "Lord, Lord" but do not even try to be obedient, demonstrate they do not have a faith that comes from the Holy Spirit, and they are not of the Body. But God will judge that when the time comes. To that extent I agree with Mr. Saffold.

Once we are His, we are required to obey; but that obedience is not a condition of salvation because we are already His. That is why we pray, "Forgive us our trespasses", and can have confidence they are forgiven. Our obedience does not earn salvation. It is a consequence of our salvation. Christ did not come to save only those who obey God (none ever existed but Christ), but also those of us sinners who rely on the work of Christ as payment in full for the sins of those of us who believe on Him.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001

Amen, Maria.

May God be merciful to all of us. We are all just sinners saved by grace.

He shed His blood, died and was resurrected for our sins.

Thank God we do not have to save ourselves.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Maria:

You have said:

“Certainly we are commanded to obey, and expected to try to obey, but are your really saying we are required to obey as a condition of salvation?”

You left out some very significant facts from my post, which you quoted which answers your question. For it is Christ, and not I, that is saying any of these things but rather Christ our Lord through the Holy Spirit said them in the verses that I quoted which you “conveniently ignored. Such as the following:

“Jesus said, “why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46). And he said, “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). Baptism is a command of Christ (Mark 16:16) and it is the time and place where God changes our state from lost to saved (Mark 16; 16; 1 Peter 3:21). It is the time and place when our sins are removed by the “circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11-13). It is when our sins are remitted (Acts 2:38). Thus, it is not those who believe these scriptural truths that are to be pitied. Rather it is those who refuse to obey Christ Commands that could be looked upon with pity. For we are told that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him” (Heb. 5; 8,9). And He commanded us to repent and be baptized. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16; 16). Those who refuse to obey him cannot claim Christ as the “author of their salvation”. And the only way anyone can obey the gospel of Christ is by believing in Christ enough to be “buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father even so we should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-6). And 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. 1:8,9). SO those of you, like Connie, who have never become Christians in obedience to the gospel by failing to “obey from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered” (Romans 6:17,18) and thus have not been made “free from sin” (Romans 6:18) are yet the servants of sins. And the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6: 23).”

Now you have said nothing about those passages of scripture, which I have quoted in support of the assertions that I made, now have you? It is Christ and not E. Lee Saffold that says we are to obey him and that he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that “obey him (Heb. 5:8,9). And I believe His word, don’t you?

Then you say:

“ Isn't that the essence of a works based salvation, that most of the New Testament is clearly critical of?”

The New Testament is no where critical of “works based salvation” as you describe it. For it is a fact that “faith based salvation” is dead without works. (James 2). The New Testament only points to the truth that salvation by obedience to the Law of Moses, which was prompted by force, could never save anyone. But the “obedience of faith”, that is obedience that proceeds from faith as the source of it, is every where spoke of in the New Testament as essential to our salvation. A person cannot become a Christian with out obedience to the gospel of Christ (1 Peter 4:16-18) and those who do not obey the gospel of Christ will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power.” (2 Thess. 1:8,9) and the scriptures plainly state that Christ is the “author of eternal salvation to ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM”. (Heb. 5:8,9). And I do notice that you do not provide us with a single scripture that is “critical” of obedience of faith. And every act of obedience could be considered a “work” if one expends energy, whether mental or physical to do it. In this sense even faith is a work.

Then you say:

“ Isn't that the means of salvation that did not work for Adam and Eve when they were commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge?”

No, Adam and Eve were originally safe. They were not lost until they disobeyed God’s command. You cannot find a single passage that indicates that Adam and ever tried to save themselves by meritorious works of which they could glory in themselves and not God. In fact they are proof that God will not tolerate disobedience and it was their disobedience to God that plunged the entire world into sin. And one cannot say that they did not believe in God. For verily they did in fact believe in Him. But that faith was not sufficient to save them because it was not strong enough to prevent them from disobeying God’s simple command. And it was Satan who convinced them that disobedience would not cause them to die. And it is Satan who is trying still to convince us that we can “sin that grace may abound”. He is the author of the doctrine of salvation by “Faith only” without any acts of obedience coming from our faith in Christ.

Then you say:

“ Odedience, as a condition of salvation, would mean we are all dead in our sins.”

Now I notice that you do not give one single scripture to support that erroneous assert, now do you? The truth is that without obedience your faith is dead and if your faith is dead so will you remain “dead in your sins”, because if you genuinely believe that Christ is the Son of God you will not hesitate to obey his commands which are for your salvation. He is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY HIM” (Heb. 5:8,9). But we are commanded to believe and belief is a condition of salvation. If wee do not obey that command to believe in the Christ and the gospel of Christ we will not be saved. Now, you say that obedience, as a condition of salvation would mean that we are all dead in our sins. Where does the Bible say it? In fact the Bible says the opposite. (Heb. 5:8,9).

Then you say:

“God provided an alternative to works, and required faith as the condition of salvation.”

Not according to James who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to say, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Now, I must ask you to show us from the scriptures that God intended to provide faith as an “alternative” to works. For we are taught that faith itself is a work or that “faith works through love”. (Gal. 5:6). A faith that does not work is DEAD. (James 2:14-24). So, how could faith be an alternative to “work” when it is itself a work and is the source of our obedience to God (Romans 16:26,27). And as you have admitted it is a condition of our salvation. However you say it is THE CONDITION of our salvation. The Bible says no such thing. Do try to give us the scripture, which says that faith is THE ONLY condition of salvation. You will not find a single place in God’s word that says such.

Then you say:

“Knowing the fallen nature of man, God even provided the faith throught the work of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the gospel.”

I notice again that you do not support your assertions with scripture. Indeed God uses words to persuade men to believe and in that sense and that sense only does he lead us to faith. For we are told, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17). But it was Calvin and not God or Christ who taught that man has inherited some kind of “fallen nature” and that he could only be brought to faith by some miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. Now, I do not know if you meant to say that the Holy Spirit “provided the faith” in the same way as Calvin or not. But it seems that you may be headed in that direction. But let it be known that the scriptures provide us with sufficient reasons or justifications for our belief but it is man who must chose whether he, of his own free will and choice, believe in Christ based upon that evidence which the Holy Spirit provided. For this reason Paul said, “Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;” (2 Cor. 5:9-11). And Peter also said, “But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:35). Surely Peter was not wrong since he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to say those words. But his inspired words are diametrically opposed to your uninspired words now aren’t they? You say that God has given us an “alternative” to “working of righteousness”. But Peter proves otherwise, doesn’t he?

Then you say:

“ We yield to Christ as Lord, as a result of having faith and salvation and the Holy Spirit within us.”

Now again you say something which is not quite true for which you offer not one single scripture to sustain. Indeed it is true that we “yield to Christ as Lord as a result of having faith. But we are not saved until we so yield to His Lordship by faithfully obeying the commands related to obedience to the gospel. The Lord spoke “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16). Thus until we believe and obey his command to be baptized we are not saved. For if we do not obey him he is not our savior (Heb 5:8,9).

Then you say:

“ The Bible is quite clear that no one is able to come to faith, except through the work of the Spirit;”

I doubt that very seriously and if I need evidence from the word of God to persuade me of it I would not find it in your words, now would I? You assert this but cannot prove it. The Bible nowhere says, “no one is able to come to faith except through the “work of the Holy Spirit”. I challenge you to show us just where the Bible says any such thing.

Then you say:

“ and no can obey a master they do not first recognize as their Lord and Master through faith.”

Indeed, none who have failed to obey the master can claim him as Lord, neither can they claim that they have faith in Him, now can they? They must have faith first but their faith is not complete without works or obedience. Notice that this is exactly what James says. He says, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, WHEN he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works and BY WORKS WAS FAITH MADE PERFECT. And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to Him for righteousness: And he was called the friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.” (James 2:21-24).

Then you say:

“ So faith comes before obedience, and obedience results from faith, and faith comes from the grace of God”

Again you speak only a “half-truth” but not the “whole truth and nothing but the truth”. And you do not even offer evidence from the word of God to support even the half of you statement that is true. And anything less than the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a lie. The scripture that I have just quoted from James says that “faith wrought with his works and BY WORKS IS FAITHMADE PERFECT (meaning complete). Faith and works go together and are not separated from one another in the scriptures. Faith is not a “complete or perfect” faith until it is combined with work according to James who was inspired by the Holy Spirit. And it is only partially true that “faith comes by the grace of God”. For faith comes by, “hearing and hearing by the word of God”. And God in his grace gave us the word of God and the gospel of Christ. And when one hears the word of God he hears the evidence or reasons that persuade men to believe that Christ is the Son of God. Once a man is convinced that Christ is God’s son then he is beginning to believe but his “faith is yet incomplete” until he obeys the truth of the gospel. And if he never obeys the gospel his believe will be dead because it is alone. And a dead faith or incomplete faith cannot save anyone. But it seems that you mean to imply that God in some mysterious way gives us “faith”. You have not said so but you sound as if that is what you wish to imply. Faith comes from hearing God’s word and in this sense only does it come from God in that he has graciously communicated his word to us. But it does not come from God by any other means whatsoever.

Then you say:

“Those that say "Lord, Lord" but do not even try to be obedient, demonstrate they do not have a faith that comes from the Holy Spirit, and they are not of the Body. But God will judge that when the time comes. To that extent I agree with Mr. Saffold.”

I am happy to see that you understand that it is impossible to have faith with out obedience or works. Indeed it is true that an imperfect or incomplete faith can exist without works but a perfect, living complete saving faith cannot exist without it. And it is also true that works can exist WITHOUT FAITH and this is the kind of works that Paul condemns as being unable to save us. For works without faith are also useless indeed. And you are also correct that God will “judge that when the time comes”. But in the mean time we are to tell people the truth of the gospel of Christ that they might obey it in order to be saved. For no one who has not “obeyed the gospel will be saved. For the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). And we are saved by it (1 Cor. 15:1-4). And if we do not “OBEY THE GOSPEL” we will be “PUNISHED WITH EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION FROM THE PESENCE OF GOD AND THE GLORY OF HIS POWER” when the “time comes” as you say. But you have not, because you cannot show one passage of scripture that teaches that we are saved by “FAITH ONLY” without “obeying the gospel” (2 Thess. 1:8,9).

Then you say:

“Once we are His, we are required to obey; but that obedience is not a condition of salvation because we are already His.”

Well, again you offer nothing more than a mere assertion with out offering one single scripture that sustains your assertion and would convince any thinking person to believe you. Indeed, we are required to obey “once we are his” but we are also required to “obey” in order to become his! For we are told that Christ is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8,9). And Jesus said, “why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). And he said, not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). And it is by “obedience to the truth that we “purify our souls” (1 Peter 1:21,22). If one does not obey the gospel they will not belong to Christ. For it is through the “obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26,27) that we are to obtain our salvation.

Then you say:

“That is why we pray, "Forgive us our trespasses", and can have confidence they are forgiven.”

Those who have never obeyed the gospel of Christ need not pray “forgive us our trespasses”. For that prayer is for those who have obeyed the gospel. Those who refuse to obey it will be punished and no amount of prayer will prevent their punishment until they repent and obey God (2 Thess. 1:8,9). No one can have confidence that their sins have been forgiven until they do what God commanded them to do in order to that purpose. We are told, “repent and be baptized every one of you n the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMOIISON OF SINS.” (Acts 2:38). Then and only then can we “have confidence” that our past sins have been forgiven and that we “belong to Him”. And this is the reason that he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

“ Our obedience does not earn salvation.”

Indeed this is true. Christ “earned” our salvation when he vicariously died for us upon the cross. But it is a complete or perfect faith in him that saves us and we cannot have a complete or perfect faith until we obey him. A man is on death row and the governor decides to pardon him if he will but write a letter expressing remorse and deliver it to the warden to be sent to the family and published to society. If the condemned man does not believe the word offering him such a pardon he will never comply with those conditions. But if he does believe it and with Joy receives it he will still remain on death row until he writes the letter of remorse and gives it to the warden. And even when he has done this and is granted his pardon he would never be so foolish as to claim that he “earn” his pardon by simply writing a letter of remorse and giving it to the warden, now could he? Thus all mankind is on death row. They stood condemned. And God sent his own son to die for them so that he would be justified in offering us a pardon upon the condition that we would “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38) And if we believe that joyful news that God has offered us the pardon purchased by his Son upon the condition that we believe that he has offered that pardon and repent of our sins and be baptized for the remission of them that he would pardon us. And no one but an absolute fool would honestly think that by repenting of our sins and submitting ourselves to the onetime simple act of faith, submission and obedience toward God of being baptized at His command we have by any means “earned” the remission of our sins. So that we can boast toward God and demand that he give us our pardon is absurd. I have never yet seen one person come up out of the water proclaiming boastfully that he has now finally “earned his salvation” and you have not either. And if you ever did see such a person you would be justified in telling him that he is full of nonsense for the scriptures teach no such thing and therefore neither do we.

And do not forget that “faith” is a “condition of salvation”. For without faith it is impossible to please him. For he that cometh to God MUST believe that he is and that he is the rewarder of all them that diligently seek him.” (Heb. 11:6). Now, just because it is required of us to believe in order to salvation does not mean that when we comply with or meet that requirement that we have by it “earned our salvation”. And we are required to repent before our sins are "blotted out" or in order that they may be remitted (Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38). So again faith alone without repentance will not and cannot save us. But when one repents of his sins he cannot claim that by doing so he has “earned” the remission of them now can he?

And for you to attempt to make it appear that we are teaching that obedience “earns our salvation” is just a shameful deception. Obedience makes our faith complete and we are saved by faith, a complete, living obedient faith. We are not now nor has any one ever been saved by “faith alone”. And you have not shown a single word form God that teaches we are saved by “faith only”. But you are not alone in this failing. For over a year now we have asked for a scripture that says we are saved by “faith only” and no one has yet provided us with any reference from the scriptures that teaches such nonsense. And they will never do so because it is not written there to be found.

Then you falsely claim that obedience is a “consequence of salvation” as follows:

“ It is a consequence of our salvation.”

Now why not show us just where you find the Bible teaching that “obedience is a consequence of salvation”? You have not quoted one single word form God that teaches such nonsense, now have you?

Then you say:

“ Christ did not come to save only those who obey God (none ever existed but Christ)”

No that statement is nothing short of ridiculous! It ignores just what it is that Christ cam to save us from in the first place. He came to save us from sin and the death that is the consequence of it. (Rom. 3:23; Romans 6:23; Luke 19:10). We are lost because of sin and sin is the act of “disobeying God”. Those who had perfectly obeyed God, if there were any would not have needed the sacrifice of Christ for they would not be LOST in the first place, now would they? But if anyone thinks that they will be saved from their sins without turning away from them in repentance and yielding to God in obedience is woefully mistaken. For it was disobedience that caused us to be condemned and it will take faithful obedience to the will of God to be saved. In fact the act of believing God is an act of obedience. And those who do not obey God’s command to believe the gospel of Christ and obey it will never be saved. But you also overlook the fact that God’s word says the opposite of what you have said. It says Christ is “the author of eternal salvation to ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM”. (Heb. 5:8,9). But you say he is not only the author of eternal salvation to all them that obeys him but that he is also the author of eternal salvation to all them that DISOBEYS him. I will believe the inspired word of God over your words. When you say that none have ever existed that obeyed God you overlook the fact that Abraham is given as an example of one who obeyed God. And there is also the example of “Enoch” given by Paul in the book of Hebrews. “And by faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: For before his translation he had his testimony, that HE PLEASED GOD.” (Heb. 11:3). So, you assertion that “none ever existed that obeyed God is just simply not the truth.

Then you say:

“but also those of us sinners who rely on the work of Christ as payment in full for the sins of those of us who believe on Him.”

None of those “sinners” who remain living in sin and rebellion against God and Christ can justly claim that they “believe in Him or that they care anything about the “work of Christ” as payment in full for their sins. They must believe in Christ enough to obey his commands for them to repent of their sins and be baptized in his name for the remission of them. (Acts 2:38) And to have their sins washed away (Acts 22:16). For when they have “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered will they be “free from sin”. (Romans 6:17,18). It is not merely faith but the “obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26,27) that allows us to be the beneficiaries of the “payment in full” that Christ made for our sins. “Faith only will not do anything for us because faith is dead being alone. (James 2:17-24). Simply believing that Christ died for you will not save you or anyone else. But surrendering by faithful obedience to the Lordship of the Christ by obeying him who died, was buried, and raised again will save. (Heb. 5:8,9).

And this old worn out false doctrine that we are saved by merely or “only” relying upon the “work of Christ” is not taught in the scriptures anywhere. In fact, I would like very much for you to attempt to show any passage of scripture where anyone was ever told to merely “rely on the work of Christ” and do not even think of obeying the gospel of Christ in the scriptures. It is just not taught there. And it is interesting that you make this assertion without proving it from the scriptures. We are told to obey the gospel and warned that those who do not obey it will be eternally lost. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). WE are not told to merely “rely on the work of Christ”. We are told to Believe (Mark 16:16) Repent of our sins (Acts 3:19) Confess Christ (Romans 10:9,10; Matt. 10:32,33) and be baptized (Mark 16; 16; Acts 2:38; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-6; 17,18; Col. 2; 11-13; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:20,21). And no one who refuses to obey those commands from Christ can even remotely claim to actually “rely on the work of Christ”. For part of the work of Christ is to be our Lord by telling us what to do to obtain remission of our sins. And those who do not “obey him” do not “rely” upon him for anything. They are instead nothing more than rebellious against him.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Brethren and friends:

Connie has asserted the following without offering any proof whatsoever that it is the truth:

“Thank God we do not have to save ourselves.”

I suppose that she thinks that Peter would have done a better job of preaching the gospel if he had her guidance instead of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For he did not know that “we do not have to save ourselves”. For by inspiration of the Holy Spirit he told those on the day of Pentecost, “ And with many other words did he testify and exhort saying SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THIS UNTOWARD GENERATION. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:40,41) And those who were being added were those who should be saved. “And the Lord added unto them daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:47).

Indeed it is Christ that saves us and none doubt it but the idea that there is NOTHING for us to do toward our own salvation is false. We must believe (John 3:16) and that is something that we do. It is not something that GOD DOES FOR US. We must repent (Acts 3:19) and that is something that we do and not something that GOD DOES FOR US. And we must confess with OUR MOUTH the Lord Jesus (Romans 10:9,10) and that is something that WE DO NOT WHAT DOES FOR US. And we must be baptized (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16) and that is the only thing that is done to us and it is the place where God does something for us (Col. 2:11-13) that is when God removes our sins from our souls (Col. 2:11- 13; Romans 6:3-6;17,18). Anyone should be able to see that there are things that we must do ourselves by the “obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26,27) that plays a part in our salvation.

Again, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24).

I suppose that we will just have to decide whether we will believe Connie or the word of God, now won’t we? I have chosen to believe the word of God, haven’t you?

So again we find Connie diametrically opposed to God and His inspired word!

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

I am pleasantly surprised Mr. Saffold you have not posted any more anti-Barry messages - I have been praying for this forum and believing that Christ's love would be expressed in these posts. Just because we are each convinced of how right we are if we do not have love we are simply a clanging symbol. Indeed, Jesus did not say the world would know we are His because of our ability to argue a point! In my devotions this morning I read John 15:9

"As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love."

May each of you experience the overwhelming love of the Lord today.

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Please Heavenly Father,

May E.Lee repent and confess his sins and come to know your Son as Savior and Lord.

We will know when he starts bearing the fruit of the Spirit.

Thank you for the witness of Barry.

In the Name of Jesus,

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Brethren and friends:

Mr. Hanson continues his pretense of having love for us as follows:

“I am pleasantly surprised Mr. Saffold you have not posted any more anti-Barry messages - I have been praying for this forum and believing that Christ's love would be expressed in these posts.”

Now, with this ignorant remark he would like for all of you to assume with him that I have written “Anti Barry messages” which I have never done. I have indeed written “Anti false doctrine messages” which contradict the false doctrines taught by “Barry” but I have never written a message designed solely to be against Mr. Hanson personally but rather his false doctrines in particular. And there will be no room for compromise of the truth at any time, Mr. Hanson, whether you “love us” or not. For we must obey God and preach the truth of the gospel of Christ as he commanded us whether men “love us” or hate us. And we are prompted by the scriptural concept that requires love for God and man. For none who hate God can truthfully love man and none that refuse to obey God can claim truthfully to love him. Thus we will not ignore the truth of His word or the lies of those who oppose it just to give some outward appearance to our readers that we “love everyone”. We are not interested in the “appearance of love” but rather in the reality of it, which begins with love for God, and is demonstrated in obedience to his commands. For this reason the church is not called the “house of love” but rather the “pillar and ground of the truth”. (1 Tim. 3:15). False teachers have always “made broad their phylacteries” haven’t they Mr. Hanson? And, oh, how broad is yours with the bold and bright letters “I Love You” written across it while your teaching of false doctrine belies a heart black with hatred for us all. For God has commanded that we “repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins” (Acts 2:38). And told us that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16) but you would have us to ignore those truths and just “love one another” instead of loving God enough to do as he commanded.

A faithful Christian is not “surprised” if his prayers are answered, Mr. Hanson. But those who deceive themselves and others are apt to imagine almost anything and then be surprised by their own delusions. But that you would make up such a delusion and then be surprised by it would be laughable were it not making a mockery of Jesus Christ our Lord. For it is true that we are to “love one another” and that by such “all men will know” that we are his disciples. But your design is to take our minds off of the truth that Jesus said, “If you continue in my word then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31,32). Your deliberate attempt to avoid answering the hard questions that you have been asked in this discussion is obvious to all of our intelligent readers. And when you awake from your self -delusion. And stop pretending that you love us while at the very same time teaching doctrines that you know are contrary to the very doctrine of Christ and make some effort, however feeble it might be, to respond to the serious questions that we asked you. And when you decide to actually return to our original discussion instead of running from it and using “love” as your excuse for ignoring it and not facing the truth. Then we will respond accordingly. But there is nothing to be said about current pretense or charade that you love us, which would have any bearing upon the discussion we were pursuing until you found it convenient and useful to pretended that you “fell in love” with us!

For false teachers love no one but themselves for their “God is their belly” and they hate Christ and the gospel and all who would come to Christ in obedience to it they despise. And those who speak the truth they detest. But while they inwardly detest us they outwardly make a great pretense of “loving us”. This tactic is not new to us Mr. Hanson. It has failed miserably in the past and it will fail in your case as well. Remember brethren this same man. And watch this charade which is being put on by Mr. Hanson with his daily efforts to “appear as an angel of light” and be warned that the devil often appears in this way while his true intentions are to deceive us that he might destroy us. And watch how quickly he runs from the truth and how he will change his tactics when he sees that they are not working. But we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices now are we?

Then he wants us to think that we can all “just be friends” so long as we are willing to stand idly by while Mr. Hanson with his newly found “pretense of love” teaches false doctrine that will cause men to lose their souls. His lies have been exposed and he has not answered the questions that were asked of him and now his only defense is to pretend that he has been so overwhelmed with love that he just cannot continue this discussion of the truth of God’s word with us anymore. He wants us all to just allow him to “sweetly” whisper “loving lies” in our ears. He wants to “sooth us” and lull us into ignoring the facts and truth taught in the word of God by claiming falsely that he “loves us”. Do not be deceived brethren. He claims to “love us” but he does not “love us” enough to answer our questions about the teaching of the precious word of God, now does he? If he were teaching the truth there would be no need for him to hide behind this charade of pretentious love, now would there? But since he is not willing answer the questions that were put to him he must now appear to be on a “higher spiritual plain” than those of us who are only interested in the truth. He must now establish that he is “superior” to us all in “love and spirituality”. This is his tactic and the wise can see it.

Even if Mr. Hanson truly LOVES us, though his efforts to teach false doctrine causes us to severely doubt it, such, if it were a fact, would have nothing to do with the questions that we asked him to answer, now would it? So what if we said, “We are glad that you love us Mr. Hanson and thank you for it. Now, will you answer our questions for us please?” Would he answer them? Who knows but Mr. Hanson and God?

It is quite obvious that he has learned that some people in this forum are more interested in “feelings” than “facts”. He appears to be keenly aware that some cannot tell the difference between the “emotion of religion and the religion of emotion”. But always remember, brethren and friends, that any time someone seeks to “tickle your ear”, as Mr. Hanson has done with his “charade of love”, you can rest assured that there is something that he does not want you to hear! And that could very well be the truth, now couldn’t it?

Then we hear the offer of “compromise” which is another way of asking those who follow the truth to surrender to lies, as follows:

“Just because we are each convinced of how right we are if we do not have love we are simply a clanging symbol.”

Now being convinced that one is right contrary to all evidence by ignoring the facts and deliberately avoiding the hard questions is self -deception. This would be delusion rather than conviction. Strong convictions based upon evidence from the word of God are right and good. Even if those firmly held convictions, at times, oppose one another because one party or the other or both have misunderstood the evidence available to them or because all of the evidence is not available to them all simultaneously. But the ignoring of facts that are in conflict with such strongly held convictions is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty and will lead only to self- deception and a lack of love and respect for the truth. And there is little difference between being a “clanging symbol” and being a “blind guide” wallowing in the “ditch of delusion” and pulling others in afterward. Love would prevent self -delusion and deception of others but the pretense and sham of the shallow, false and hypocritical type of love displayed by Mr. Hanson in this thread is nothing more than the sound of a “clanging symbol”. It is basically useless for any good purpose except to give him a personal excuse, which he has convinced himself is acceptable to others. For his deliberate avoidance of the questions that we have asked him, the facts that we have presented which controvert his convictions and the discussion that we had not finished is not excusable on the grounds that he “loves us”. In fact, if he did truly “love us” he would not seek to avoid reasoning about those facts, now would he?

Then he tells us: “Indeed, Jesus did not say the world would know we are His because of our ability to argue a point!”

Jesus did not send us to convince the world that “we are His” but he sent us to preach the gospel of Christ that every one in the world will have the opportunity to “become His” in obedience to it. (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:16). And it is typical of false teachers to be concerned about persuading others that they “belong to Christ” when in truth Christ “never knew them”. Hear the words of Christ that says; “if ye continue in my WORD then are ye my disciples INDEED. And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31,32). It is God’s will that we all actually, truly be Disciples of Christ “INDEED” by continuing in his word. And then by our genuine love to others demonstrate the effect or the result of being Disciples of Christ.

But to do as Mr. Hanson has done by ignoring the truth of God’s word. And striving by way of “pretentious love” to persuade the world to believe that he is a disciple of Christ when he is not. So that he can go about unchallenged to deceive others into believing that they can become Disciples of Christ merely by ignoring the truth and pretending to love one another. And by doing such they can APPEAR to love one another while deliberately avoiding all truth from God’s word. This nonsense is just another of Mr. Hanson’s feeble attempts to lead men into becoming false disciples such as he is.

And “arguing a point” is often essential to the reasoning required for us to ultimately arrive at the truth. Whether we argue with others or within ourselves such arguing is good, right, and essential to finding truth and is the means whereby we diligently seek it. And we are indeed taught to seek the truth and to “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good”. Thus we are nt only taught to but are urged in the scriptures to “argue a point”. God himself once said, “come now let us reason together saith the Lord”. Those who “love one another” reason with one another and have nothing to fear about “arguing their points”. Therefore they do not have any need to “avoid” discussing or arguing in their mutual search for the truth now do they? Neither does arguing a point imply that love is lacking in the hearts of those who argue their points, whether they do it well or with little skill. Just ask any honest man if he has ever argued with his wife? If he did would it follow that he did not “love her” simply because he argued a point with her? I do sincerely doubt it.

Then he says:

“In my devotions this morning I read John 15:9 "As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love." May each of you experience the overwhelming love of the Lord today. In Christ's love,”

Now with these words we are expected to be impressed with the fact that Mr. Hanson is a “devotional man” and he has read yet another of the several passages which we gave for him to read in one of our previous post. Had he read them and sought sincerely to follow them all along there would have been no need for him to conjure up the lie that the Holy Spirit “filled him with love”. Love does not come in this way. Love is a conscious decision to seek the highest good of others. And God has commanded us to Love one another (John 13:34, 35). In this verse he tells us, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another.” Notice that Christ said for us to love one another as He had loved us. WE see His love for us not only in his sacrifice for us but in His telling the truth to us. He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me”. (John 14:6). If Mr. Hanson “loved us” as Christ Loved us he would have more concern for telling us the truth and urging us to obey it instead of telling us the opposite of the truth and urging us to reject the truth. For he would have us to reject the truth that we must, “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38). For this reason he refuses to answer our questions about this matter. And for this reason he deliberately sought to change the reading of that passage to say “repent and be baptized because of the remission of sins”. When in truth it reads repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (or ‘eis’ meaning ‘in order to’) the remission of sins” as we have shown more than once. And we have asked him to answer a few questions about it but he does not “love us” enough to do so, now does he?

And Love for God is found in obedience to his Commands. For Jesus said, “ if ye love me keep my commandments”. And those who teach others to not keep the Lord’s commands do not love either God or men. And it does not matter how often they pretend to be “moved by the Holy Spirit to love” or how many passages of scriptures that they tell us they have read in their “public displays” of their “private devotions”. Mr. Hanson has done nothing more with all of this outward show of “pretentious love” than to seek to avoid the truth.

WE know that Mr. Hanson does not truly “love us” as he falsely claims because he wants us to ignore the truth of God’s word and practice love of one another apart from love for God. For he wants us to ignore God’s commands given in the scriptures to “repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins” (Acts 2:38). And because his arguments concerning “faith only” failed he seeks to get us to think love can exist among men who are in sinful rebellion against God and His word. He is telling us to ignore what God says about these things and just “love one another”. Such a plan will never work. Indeed we cannot Love God whom we have not seen if we cannot love our brother whom we have seen. But we cannot just love our Brother and despise God and the truth of his word and think that thereby we are walking in love. For by such behavior we are instead walking in lies and some do so because they are self-deluded, others because they have been deluded by false teachers and some are deliberately determined to serve as agents of Satan with the very deliberate purpose of deception. But you can rest assured that this current hypocritical display of pretentious love by Mr. Hanson fits into one of the above three categories and has nothing whatsoever to do with the genuine love of both God and man taught in the scriptures.

And the “spiritual pride” and arrogance evident in his prayer that we might “experience the overwhelming love of God today” is apparent to those who will but listen to its implications. For it is based upon Mr. Hanson’s assumption that no one other than himself has “experienced God’s love” because they have not conjured up any lies about having a similar “experience” as Mr. Hanson has deluded himself into believing that he has had. He over looks the fact that the scriptures say that the “love of God hath appear to ALL MEN”. Anyone who thinks that he needs more experience of God’s love that that which one sees in reading the account of the crucifixion of Christ Our Lord just does not understand what a great love that is. For there was no greater love than the Love of Christ and we need no other “experience of love” for us to learn to “love one another with a pure heart fervently”. But Mr. Hanson and others are just not satisfied with that love. No, they mush have something more in some kind of “experience”. A personal experience beyond their capability to describe, explain or even prove to themselves and others that it actually even occurred. By this he thinks that we will have a better demonstration of love than that which was shown when the very Son of God “laid down his life for us” at his cruel death on the cross for all men, sinners every one. For we are told, “but God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners CHRIST DIED FOR US”. (Romans 5:8). That commending of God’s love is enough to “fill us to overflowing” with love for all men. And if that Love is not sufficient then one need not expect that his delusions of personal experiences with the Holy Spirit are going to provide what the cruel death of the Son of God on the Cross could not provide he will surely be woefully mistaken. Mr. Hanson’s delusion notwithstanding!

For those interested in the genuine love of Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

Brethren and friends:

Notice another of “Connie’s contradictions” in her following pretentious public display of prayer that was directed toward men and not God. And which demonstrates her lack of belief in her own false doctrine of salvation by “faith only”.

She says:

“Please Heavenly Father, May E.Lee repent and confess his sins and come to know your Son as Savior and Lord.”

Now, according to her doctrine we are saved the “moment that we believe” without any obedience whatsoever. And anyone can see from the numerous discussions that we have had in this forum, including our discussion in this thread, that, at the very least, E. Lee Saffold believes in Christ. Thus according to Connie’s own false doctrine Lee would have been “saved” the moment that he first came to “believe in Christ” and that by faith and “FAITH ALONE” he must have been saved.

But then she comes along in her prayer and prays more in harmony with the truth of God’s word asking God to arrange that Lee should repent and confess his sins so that he might come to know Christ as “Savior and Lord”. So, in her prayer she admits the truth that “FAITH ONLY” is not sufficient for us to know Christ as “Savior and Lord”, doesn’t she?

And indeed the scriptures do teach that “faith only” is not sufficient to justify or save anyone. For we are clearly told, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only:” (James 2:24). And Connie demonstrates that she knows this to be true in her prayerful request that Lee do more than have faith in Christ but that he would also, in addition to faith, meet God’s requirement to “repent and confess” in order to “come to know him as “Savior and Lord”. It is unfortunate, however, that Connie does not teach what she obviously believes to be true that “faith only” is NOT sufficient for salvation and knowing Christ as Lord. Thus she demonstrates that she believes that faith alone is not sufficient to save but she wants others to believe that they can be saved by “Faith ONLY” without “repenting, confessing” and being baptized. But as the scriptures teach we must be led by faith to repent, confess, and BE BAPTIZED in order to be saved when we yield to Christ as Lord in obedience to the gospel. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 10:9,10; Acts 22:16; Acts 3;19;17:30; Matt. 10:32,33; Romans 6:3-6,17,18; Col. 2:11-13; Gal. 3:26,27; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 6;25,26; Heb. 10:22; Heb. 5:8,9; 2 Thess. 1;8,9).

We are of course pleased to note that Connie does not actually believe her false doctrine of salvation by “FAITH ONLY” though we regret that she seems to be determined to teach others to believe it. Let us sincerely hope and pray that she will see this awful inconsistency and turn from it.

Indeed the legs of the lame are often unequal, aren’t they?

For Christ and those who love the truth in him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

That is ok Mr. Saffold, I did not anticipate anything more from you, I continue to keep this forum in my prayers. I have learned not to expect you to admit anything that could possibly be construed by anyone that you were not omniscient. In other words, you are fully capable of being wrong, Mr. Saffold, yet wouldn't it be great if we could at least obey the command of Christ to love in our disagreement? Therein, any visitor to this forum would know we are Christ's disciples, by our love. Furthermore, when I see Jesus I am not ashamed because I obeyed all of his commands, especially the 2nd greatest command, to love.

Being the outsider on this forum I don't imagine to be accepted by the forum "elite" - yet on the other hand, I would expect some hint of Christian fruit….in my devotions a couple of days ago I read…

John 13:34,35

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

(This has prompted me to think, Mr. Saffold, according to your theology, perhaps you are not born again because you have failed to obey this command along with the many others you believe you must perform in order to be born again?)

I did a little study on how we ought to love one another, Luke 6:35 really spoke to my heart…

"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."

Mr. Saffold, I am believing the Lord's best for you and your family.

In Christ's love

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

Amen.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Mr. Hanson has said:

“That is ok Mr. Saffold, I did not anticipate anything more from you, I continue to keep this forum in my prayers. I have learned not to expect you to admit anything that could possibly be construed by anyone that you were not omniscient.”

Now, I would like to see if Mr. Hanson could give any quotation of statements made by me that would indicate that E. Lee Saffold believes that he is omniscient. It is a fact that anyone reading the archives can see for himself. That when E. Lee Saffold hears sufficient evidence to establish that He is wrong about something he is quick to admit it and correct it. Because he is seeking the truth and has no ambition to be recognized as one who is never wrong about anything. But he will not, nor should any just and honest person expect him to, PRETEND to be wrong about something when there is no evidence to reasonably justify such a conclusion just in order to prevent false teachers from accusing him falsely of thinking himself to be “omniscient”. All one need do to resolve this matter is show evidence that conclusively PROVES E. Lee Saffold has made an error and he will immediately correct it. Mere assertions of such without evidence will not, and should not, be sufficient to justify any change of course. But he will not turn from the truth of God’s word just to satisfy anyone’s personal need to perceive of him as being willing to “admit when he is wrong”. Mr. Hanson has yet to prove that E. Lee Saffold is wrong about anything he has said. If Mr. Hanson were to ever do that he would see E. Lee Saffold admit the wrong, correct it. And then defend with the same force and reluctance to modify the new truth that he has discovered with which he fought for the previous notion that he sincerely thought was true. But so far, Mr. Hanson has not given any good reasons that would convince E. Lee Saffold that he is wrong about these matters. And until he does he will not see any pretense of “admission of error”. What you can expect Mr. Hanson is that truth will not be sacrificed just to give you a better feeling about E. Lee Saffold and dispel your illusion that he thinks himself to be “omniscient”.

Then he expresses the same nonsense in other words as follows:

“ In other words, you are fully capable of being wrong, Mr. Saffold, yet wouldn't it be great if we could at least obey the command of Christ to love in our disagreement?”

Now, everyone here knows that “Mr. Saffold” is “fully capable” of being wrong. And no one knows it more than “Mr. Saffold” does. In fact, Mr. Saffold is just as convinced of his capability to “be wrong” as he is that Mr. Hanson “is wrong” in teaching his false doctrine of salvation by “Faith Only”. For James says, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24). Mr. Hanson, despite such irrefutable evidence that the word of God states the exact opposite of his doctrine, remains apparently too “omniscient” to admit that James is right and he is wrong.

And he assumes but does not prove that we are not obeying the command of Christ to “love in our disagreement”. What evidence is there to prove that we do not love one another simply because we are not agreed concerning this matter. If the only thing that would convince Mr. Hanson that E. Lee Saffold is obeying the command of Christ to “love in our disagreement” would be for him to accept his false doctrine of salvation by faith only. But E. Lee Saffold loves God and the truth revealed in the word of God to do such an evil thing. And the illusion that Mr. Hanson wants us to accept is that he, in fact, loves us while he is lying to us. No one who is teaching false doctrine as Mr. Hanson is when he teaches contrary to the word of God that we are saved by “faith only” can justifiably claim that they “love” those whom they seek to deliberately deceive.

“ Therein, any visitor to this forum would know we are Christ's disciples, by our love.”

We are not trying to impress visitors to this forum with the fact that we are Christ’s disciples. Instead we are trying to teach the truth of God’s word so that all can become Christ disciples. And our love for God and all men is evident in the fact that we are teaching the truth of God’s word and opposing lies and deception which causes men to lose their souls.

Then Mr. Hanson assures us that he has “obeyed” all of Christ commands as follows:

“ Furthermore, when I see Jesus I am not ashamed because I obeyed all of his commands, especially the 2nd greatest command, to love.”

Now, Mr. Hanson knows this statement is not true. Christ did not command him to teach the false doctrine of salvation by faith only. And by teaching that which is contrary to the word of God he violates the “first greatest commandment” while pretending to obey the second one! For we are told to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind.” But teaching contrary to the word of God is an act of rebellion against God. And the false doctrine, which Mr. Hanson is teaching, is evidence that Mr. Hanson is rebelling against God and therefore does not “love him”. And inasmuch as the false doctrine taught by Mr. Hanson will cause men to be eternally lost is proof that he does not love those who he attempts to teach that false doctrine, which is contrary to Gods word and His will, to them.

Then he says:

“Being the outsider on this forum I don't imagine to be accepted by the forum "elite" - yet on the other hand, I would expect some hint of Christian fruit”

I do not know just what makes Mr. Hanson perceive of himself as an outsider in this forum unless he realizes that his false doctrine has not only prevented himself from becoming a Christian and will prevent others from doing so as well. For if he is in fact a Christian he could not be an “outsider among other Christians, now could he? But it may be possible that he perceives of himself as an outsider because he does not believe we are Christians. But no one in this forum has treated him as an “outsider” least of all E. Lee Saffold.

Then he tells us that he doesn’t expect to be accepted by the “forum elite”. Now I do not know of any “elite” among Christians in this forum, do you? Can Mr. Hanson demonstrate that anyone in this forum is considered “elite”? Has anyone in this forum made any claims of being “elite” among us? Have others ever even recognized anyone in this forum as being “elite”? The answer of course is no! All of which proves that the “forum elite” is nothing more than Mr. Hanson’s vivid imagination running away with him again! He would like to make our discussion appear as if it is one between “poor old loving Mr. Hanson” and those “evil, mean, unloving elite”. A perception which pathetically contrary to all facts in the case. One would have to be absolutely delusional to even have such a perception as he seeks to establish. And if there were any “elite” persons in this forum the last one anyone would consider placing among them would be E. Lee Saffold. For I cannot think of one single person in this forum who would ever contemplate the absurd notion that E. Lee Saffold is “elite”. In fact, E. Lee Saffold is despised by some in this forum, tolerated by others, and loved by a few but justifiably considered “elite” by NONE! So, there is no need for Mr. Hanson to have any fear of any “forum elite” for that is nothing more than a figment of his imagination produced by his near complete delusional state of mind concerning our discussion.

Then he quotes Jesus correctly as follows:

“John 13:34,35 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Then he says that all this scripture did for him was to “prompt” him to think the following:

“(This has prompted me to think, Mr. Saffold, according to your theology, perhaps you are not born again because you have failed to obey this command along with the many others you believe you must perform in order to be born again?)”

Well, now he thinks that “perhaps” according to my so- called “theology” I am not a Christian. But he forgets that according to "his theology" ” am a Christian. For it is his doctrine that teaches we are saved by “faith only” and thus all one need do to be a Christian is give mental assent to or believe in the Christ. I do believe in Christ so according to him it is undeniable that I am a Christian. And he is further mistaken about the truth however. For we are discussing what one must do to receive the remission of their past sins in the process of initially becoming a Christian. The issue is what must a sinner in order to be saved from his past sins and to get into Christ wherein resides salvation. And the Bible teaches that we are to believe, repent, confess, and be baptized (John 3:16; Acts 3:19;17:30; Acts 2:38; Romans 20:9,10; Romans 6:3-6,27,28; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3:26,27; Heb. 10:22; Eph. 6:25,26). And after having become Christians they are to remain faithful including obeying the command of God to love one another with a pure heart fervently. And love means that we speak the truth out of love (Eph. 4:15) and this E. Lee Saffold has been doing and is constantly accused by false teachers of not loving. But none, including Mr. Hanson, that E. lee Saffold has disobeyed God’s commands to love. But Mr. Hanson has abundantly shown that he needs no evidence to support his claims. He expects that they will be believed simply because he says it is true. Well, Mr. Hanson, we will wait for you to offer some evidence rather than empty, false and useless assertions.

Then Mr. Hanson has studied love as follows:

“I did a little study on how we ought to love one another, Luke 6:35 really spoke to my heart… "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."

I have no doubt that Mr. Has done a “little study” on “how we ought to love” in fact it is clear that he has done very little study of this subject. For he is still of the delusion that he loves us while simultaneously lying to us concerning the teaching of God’s word. Such a one does not love us.

Then he says:

“Mr. Saffold, I am believing the Lord's best for you and your family.”

Well, I would normally appreciate someone’s concern for myself and my family. But I do not appreciate false doctrine and hypocrisy. Just because Mr. Hanson “believes the best for my family” does not mean that he actually believes the best about “me and my family”. And pretending to “believe the best” for me and my family and teaching the worst doctrine that would cause anyone who accepts it to lose their souls is not consistent with “believing the best” now is it? No, Mr. Hanson we are not thankful when false teachers “believe the best” for us while seeking to mislead us into suffering the worst possible fate. For by leading us to rebel against God and the truth and ultimately be “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power (2 Thess 1:8,9) his believing the best for us will be seen it its true meaning! He hopes by this to cause us to like him too much to oppose his false doctrine. He is not aware that the more we love him the more vigorously would we oppose his false doctrines which will cost him and all whom he misleads to suffer eternal loss. To ignore such a thing among those that we love would be a tragedy indeed.

For Christ and those who love the truth in him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

I am going to refrain from communicating with you until you can communicate with some common courtesy, respect and Christian love.

1 Peter 3:15

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with GENTLENESS and RESPECT,"

I realize I have not always done so - for this I apologize - I was wrong.

I will share again how a couple weeks ago now the Holy Spirit touched my life in a powerful way - as I experienced the Lord's tremendous love for me He reminded me specifically of this forum and I knew at that moment all the arguing and doubletalk and disrespect conveyed in this forum was not pleasing to Him. I determined to walk in His love and each morning the Lord continues to show me through His word the emphasis He has placed on living in love.

Thus, Mr. Saffold I hold nothing in my heart for you but love, I am sure you will twist even these words, that is fine, I do not hold any expectation over you, only to believe that as the Lord is good and His goodness will bring you His best. As for your family, I am not even sure if you have one, but if I consider that you probably would it causes me place you into a different context than what I have experienced with you here. If you have children, you love them; a wife, you love her; brothers, sisters, mom or dad, you love them - therein do I determine to see you as a person and speak to you with gentleness and respect.

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Mr. Safffold,

Your remember the Pharisee who thought he would be heard because of his much speaking? Most of your posts seem to work over the issues by restating points already made earlier. Please try to be brief.

You asked about scriptural support for my earlier statements. I thought with this group the scriptural support would be rather obvious, but perhaps I was wrong. As for the state of humanity without the intervention of God, look at Romans 9:1-33, with attention to verse 32 dealing with why the non-Christian Jews will not be saved. "Why not? Because they persued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the 'stumbling stone'." I think the same can be said of those who follow your teaching that obedience is a condition of salvation, rather than the result of salvation. Or look at Romans 4, where faith is again identified as the means of salvation, not only for Christians but also Abraham. Faith results in obedience, but it is the faith that "was credited to him as righteousness." Certainly faith without some resulting action is dead, as James writes. But the action is the evidence of the faith, and the faith is still what is credited as righteousness. James is calling for Christians to live out their faith, and for "nominal" Christians to either give evidence of their faith or recognize their faith is not genuine. In Gal. 5:6 we read, "The only thing that counts is faith, expressing itself through love." That may not say "faith alone", but it does say that nothing else counts.

So, where does this faith come from, that is to be credited as righteousness? Not from us! See Romans 3:9-20. We are all "under sin", and "There is no one righteous, not even one", and "through the law we become conscious of sin." Calvin did not invent the sinful nature of man. He simply read the scriptures, and believed what he read.

So where does faith come from? From God, through the presentation of the gospel, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Preaching does not save. Baptism does not save. Many hear who reject the gospel, and are hardened like Pharaoh. See Rom. 9:18. Those who hear, and respond, do so because the Holy Spirit overcomes the sin within them and causes their ears and minds to be open to the gospel. If you want scriptural support for that, look at just about every reference to the work of the Holy Spirit among fallen humanity. Examples are Rom. 8:16, 1Cor 2:10-14, 2Cor 1:22, Gal 6:8 etc. You can't rely on your interpretation of James, to the exclusion of the rest of the Word. You need to reconcile the whole council of God, in order to understand James properly. An faithless unbeliever who is baptised is a wet faithless unbeliever. Nothing more. It is faith that makes baptism meaningful.

I am reluctant to write more, because this is enough to refute most of your assertions. Your communication style is off putting, to say the least. Please read all of Gal. 5, and look to see if you can say you display the fruit of the Spirit in your prior comments here. In my opinion, you discredit Christians by the way you deal with questioners here. That may be why Connie is still praying for you. Faith saves, but we would feel better about you as a brother if your works and actions and words demonstrated your faith, and the Spririt that should be evident within you. Surely you will not be offended if I say simply, "May God bless you and keep you."

Maria

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

Very well said, Maria.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001

There is no response to the truth, Maria.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Maria:

You have said:

“Mr. Safffold, Your remember the Pharisee who thought he would be heard because of his much speaking? Most of your posts seem to work over the issues by restating points already made earlier. Please try to be brief.”

Now, Maria, because my posts are lengthier that you would prefer is no justification for comparing them to the Pharisee’s, now is it? Are you honestly of the belief that all persons whose prayers are lengthy are “just like the Pharisees? Please, before you answer do not forget that Jesus, in the very presence of his disciples prayed all night long. I do not know of anyone who has prayed so long as that. Now any good and diligent Bible students know that the problem with the Pharisee’s prayers were not merely their length. But the hypocritical condition of their hearts which caused them to love the “praise of men” and thus their prayers in public were lengthy because of this hypocritical condition of their hearts. The length of their prayers we not the cause of the hypocrisy in their hearts but rather the result of it. Now, in order for you to make any just comparison between my “lengthy post” and the Pharisee’s that prayed “lengthy prayers” you would have to know that such was the condition of my heart, now wouldn’t you? They were clearly seeking the “praise of men”. And if such were what we are seeking with our “lengthy post” we have surely failed miserably to reach that objective for we do not know of very many persons that have any “words of praise” for our “lengthy post”, now do we? In fact what we have consistently received is ridicule from those who disagree with us. And since they cannot answer our arguments the only thing left for them to do is to criticize our methods. But be all of that as it may, I will write whatever I deem is necessary to respond to the false doctrine that we on occasion come across in the forum without any regard whatsoever concerning how much “bandwidth” we are using and how lengthy our post become. And there is just nothing in this world that you or anyone else can do or say that will cause us to change our course in this matter. So your request that we “try to be brief” is hereby denied! And you are not even required by us to mind your own business in the matter. WE will simply deny your request that we give any consideration of brevity or lack of it. We are concerned only for the truth. Now, I readily admit that my post could be more concise if I were a more skillful and talented writer. But unfortunately, I am not. But I will not allow this “handicap” to prevent me from making the best efforts that I possibly can to teach the truth in contrast with error at every point where I have time and opportunity to do so.

Then you say:

“You asked about scriptural support for my earlier statements. I thought with this group the scriptural support would be rather obvious, but perhaps I was wrong.”

Indeed you were wrong about any group of scriptures supporting your false doctrine of “salvation by faith ONLY” for such nonsense is not taught in any place in the entire word of God. In fact, it conflicts directly with the inspired words of James. For by inspiration of the Holy Spirit he said, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24) And he said that in response to the question, “what doeth it profit my brethren if a man say he hath faith but hath not works, can faith save him?” (James 2:14). And the answer was, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24).

Then you say:

“As for the state of humanity without the intervention of God, look at Romans 9:1-33, with attention to verse 32 dealing with why the non- Christian Jews will not be saved. "Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.”

Indeed this is true. The Jews were trying to be justified by WORKS ONLY and they were just as wrong as you are for seeking to be justified by FAITH ONLY. Both of those doctrines are false to the core! If they had been doing the works of the Law of Moses by faith in God as did their father Abraham there would have been no need for the Law of Moses in the first place. For the Law of Moses was given because of transgressions. For one can not be forced to “believe” but they can be forced to act. And the seed of Abraham had to be kept separate and holy from the rest of the world until Christ should come. And the Law was given for that purpose to force them to obey God so that God could keep his promise to Abraham that through his seed all nations of the earth would be blessed. When Christ came we ten were given to obey the “law of faith” and we are now saved not by works alone or works of merit at all. Nor by Faith alone for it is dead. (James 2:21-23). We are saved by “faith working through love”. That is a faith that causes us to believe in Christ and obey his commandments. For he said, “If ye love me keep my commandments”. Therefore if we have faith in Christ and that faith causes us to love him we will obey him and he will be our savior. For this reason the Hebrew writer says, “And he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY HIM”. (Hebrews 5:8,9). And the gospel is God’s power to save (Romans 1:16) and 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. 1:8,9).

Then you say:

“ They stumbled over the 'stumbling stone'." I think the same can be said of those who follow your teaching that obedience is a condition of salvation, rather than the result of salvation.”

Indeed the Jews did “stumble over the stumbling stone” and that stumbling stone was their own Messiah, which they rejected and they rejected him not by doing works but by refusing to believe in him. But those who believed in him obeyed him by “repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38). For Peter had told them on the day of Pentecost that God had made the Christ whom they had crucified both “Lord and Christ”. Here his words, “Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye have crucified.” (Acts 2:36). The word Lord implies that he is one to be obeyed. And then these believing Jews asked this question, “Men and brethren WHAT SHALL WE DO?” Thus they wanted to know what they needed to do to be redeemed from their condition of being those who had actually crucified their “Lord and Christ”. They had actually crucified their messiah and wanted to know what to DO about it. Now, some, like our friend Maria would have said ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BELIEVE ONLY and you will be saved. But, what did Peter say? “And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, AND BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins: and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). Now there were at least two conditions given to them that they must meet IN ORDER TO OBTAIN remission of sins. For that is the meaning of the Greek term “eis”. It is a word that means, “in order to obtain” it does not mean, “because you have already received. The phrase, “for the remission of sins is found in another place. In Matthew 26:28 Jesus said, “this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.” (Matt. 26:28). Now we know that Christ did not shed his blood “because our sins had been remitted”. But he shed his blood in order to obtain the remission of sins. The two phrases are identical in both passages. The Greek Phrase is “eis aphesin harmartion” in Matthew 26:28 and the Phrase is “eis aphesin harmartion” in Acts 2:38. And they both mean “in order to the remission of sins. Therefore Peter said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ in order to obtain the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38). And therefore just as the remission of sins was conditioned upon Jesus Christ shedding his blood in exactly the same language and phraseology remission of sins is conditioned upon our submitting to Christ as Lord in obedience to his command to “repent and be baptized. And that is the truth of the matter. Those who refuse to believe enough to yield to and submit to Christ as Lord by obeying his commands to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins, as many of the Jews did, are stumbling over the stumbling block just as did the Jews.

Then you say:

“ Or look at Romans 4, where faith is again identified as the means of salvation, not only for Christians but also Abraham.”

Indeed Romans 4 teaches that we are saved by faith and no one has ever denied that we are saved by faith in Christ but it does not teach anywhere in Romans 4 that we are saved by “faith only”. That is not taught anywhere in the entire word of God Least of all Romans 4. And many people overlook the simple fact that Romans 4 is condemning the notion of salvation by “works only” as if salvation can be obtain as a debt owed to us by the amount of work that we have done. That would be salvation by works only and this is the error that Paul is clearly seeking to correct. James was seeking to correct the opposite error of “salvation by faith ONLY” without works of obedience proceeding from faith in Christ.

And you fail to notice that both James and Paul use Abraham as proof of their points. And Abraham was indeed just that. He was the best example to refer to when explaining salvation by faith. All of the things that Abraham did in obedience to God were a response proceeding from his faith in God. And Paul made it clear that works alone did not justify Abraham and James made it clear that Abraham was not justified by faith alone and both of them teach that Abraham was justified by faith that worked or obeyed God.

Now I am in the process of writing something in much more detail concerning Romans 4 and will post it when I am finished. But for the moment, because I do not have the time to go into very much detail, I will simply show that Paul teaches that we are no longer under the Law of Moses and that we are under law to Christ. Notice these verses:

Paul states clearly that we are under a “law of faith” And he contrast that law with the law of works found in the law of Moses as follows: “Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? Of works? Nay: but by a LAW OF FAITH” (Romans 3:27). There is indeed a “LAW OF FAITH” and it is a law that requires as much obedience to God as did the law of Moses. The difference being that one was a law of meritorious works and the other was a law of “obedience of faith” or obedience that is prompted by and proceeds from faith and trust in God. This is what Paul said. “But now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God is made know unto all the nations unto obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26). So, the law of faith is designed to produce obedience, which is based upon faith in God and proceeds from it. Instead of meritorious works based upon the glory of man and their vain efforts to achieve righteousness without obtaining the remission of their sins, which could only come through the sacrifice of Christ and the “obedience of faith” proceeding from faith in the sacrifice of Christ. For sin had to be punished. And Christ was punished in the place of sinful man. But God does not immediately appropriate the benefits of that sacrifice to all men but only to those who by faith “obey him” (Heb. 5:8,9). So, just because we meet God’s “conditions of pardon” by repenting and being baptized by faith in the commands of Christ. It does not mean that we have been justified by works so that we can glory in ourselves that we have by some means earned our salvation by works that are not connected to or proceeding from faith in Christ. In other words we obey because we believe and trust that God will keep his promises that he made to us concerning those promises connected with obedience to his commands. Such as the promise of remission of sins connected to His commands for us to repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Which leaves no room for boasting at all. And Abraham was the perfect example of this “law of faith” for he clearly obeyed God because he believed and trusted that God would keep his promises to him. And such obedience leaves no room for boasting.

This is not only called the “law of faith” (Romans 3:27) but when Paul wrote to the Corinthians he said, But to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but UNDER LAW TO CHRIST.” (1 Cor. 9:21). And this explains what Paul meant when he said, “But the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, INSTRUCTING US to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lust we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world”. (Titus 2:11,12). WE are indeed under the “law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus” which is a law that requires us to obey him (Luke 6:46; Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:8,9).

Then you say:

“ Faith results in obedience, but it is the faith that "was credited to him as righteousness." Certainly faith without some resulting action is dead, as James writes. But the action is the evidence of the faith, and the faith is still what is credited as righteousness.”

Now indeed it is true that a LIVING and genuine faith results in obedience but a dead and lifeless faith results in disobedience. And faith without obedience is DEAD and cannot be “credited to anyone as righteousness”. Indeed it is true that we are “justified by faith” and it is also true that we are justified by faith WHEN that faith results in obedience and not one moment before! And indeed it is the faith that is credited for righteousness but it is not considered a “perfected of complete faith until the faith results in obedience. Now to this point James is quite specific. "But wilt thou know O vain main that faith without works is BARREN? (Producing no fruit or results) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered Isaac upon the altar? Thou seest that faith WROUGHT WITH HIS WORKS, and by works was faith MADE PERFECT (or complete). We are saved by a complete faith in God not the partial mere mental assent and acceptance of the facts about Christ and the gospel but when our FAITH is wrought with our works and by our works is our faith made perfect or complete. In other words when we obey God by faith then and only then do we have a perfected or complete faith in Christ that has the power to save us not one moment before. We are commanded by Christ to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins. And when our faith is wrought with our obedience to those commands then is our faith made perfect. And it is then that our faith is imputed to us as righteousness and it is then and only then when we can say that we have “believed God”. Just as was the case with Abraham. For James continues by saying that after Abraham’s faith was perfected in his obedience to God’s command to offer his son Isaac, “And the scripture was fulfilled that Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness”. Thus God does not even consider that we have “believed God” until our faith is perfected in obedience to His commands just as was the case with Abraham.

Then we are again told falsely:

“ James is calling for Christians to live out their faith, and for "nominal" Christians to either give evidence of their faith or recognize their faith is not genuine.”

Now this may be true in reference to much of the book but in the second chapter he reminds them of the true principle of faith and that they did not begin as Christians by faith only and it would follow that they cannot live as Christians by faith only. And he does it by asking a question and answering it. The question that James asked and that he was answering was this. “What doeth it profit my brethren if a man say he hath faith and have not works? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM? And his answer was, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only”. (James 2:24). His answer was that alone is DEAD. His answer was that “by works is faith made perfect” (or complete). His answer was that “as the body with out the spirit is dead so faith if it hath not works is dead. And no one is justified by a DEAD FAITH. God does not impute righteousness to those whose faith is DEAD. And a faith that refuses to obey Christ is a DEAD faith and no one can be saved by such a faith. And this is not just true after becoming a Christian, according to James it is true when one is initially justified by faith for that was his question that he asked. He did not ask could a Christian be saved by “faith without works”. And I am surprised that you would say that this is what James is teaching when you do not believe it yourself. Do you honestly believe that a Christian cannot be saved by faith without works? Now I want you to answer that question if you are still reading it. Do you believe that James is teaching that a Christian cannot be saved by “faith without works? We do wait for your answer to that question. For James asked, “what doeth it prophet my brethren if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? Can faith save him? So do tell us, Marie, can a Christian that has no works be saved? Now James was not talking about Christians only when he asked this question he was talking about “a man” whether a Christian of not. And again I remind you that Paul was also writing to Christians in the Roman Letter but he talked about things related to becoming Christians and how they were justified by faith. If Paul could do that could not James have done the same? Yes he could and he did!

Then we are told:

“ In Gal. 5:6 we read, "The only thing that counts is faith, expressing itself through love." That may not say "faith alone", but it does say that nothing else counts.”

Indeed it does not say “faith alone” for James makes it clear that faith that is alone is useless or “barren”, dead or lifeless. And it is indeed interesting to me that you have missed a very significant statement by Paul in this verse. And you have done so because you have carefully selected your “translation” so that it does not quite speak the truth. Let us read exactly what it says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision or uncircumcision availeth anything but FAITH WORKING through love.” (Gal. 5:6). Indeed it is true that what matters is FAITH WORKING through love! Not faith only without love as your doctrine of faith only would cause one to believe. And this is a universal truth that whereever there is true faith in God, it WORKS through the love that a believe has for God. Since Love always seeks to comply with the wishes of the one loved, he who loves God seeks to comply with his will and follow His teaching whatever it might be. This is why Jesus said; “if ye love me keep my commandments”. SO indeed it is true, and Marie failed to notice it, that we are justified by a “faith that WORKS through love. It works by loving God enough to obey his commands. And anyone who does not have a faith WORKING through love so that he will obey God does not have a complete faith in God and will not be saved or justified by that lifeless, dead faith!

Then Marie continues:

“So, where does this faith come from, that is to be credited as righteousness? Not from us! See Romans 3:9-20.”

Now that is ridiculous! The scriptures tell us that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). And who is it that does the hearing? It is "US" of course! And it is our own free Choice whether we will believe the testimony that God has provided concerning His son trough the gospel. SO read Romans 10: 13-17. And I also encourage everyone to read Romans 3:9-20 as Marie has suggested and you will not find ONE SINGLE WORD in those verses that answers the question that she asked or supports the assertion that she made. She asked the question, “So, where does faith come from that is credited to righteousness?” And there is not one single word in Romans 3:9-20 that answers her question. For in that portion of Romans, which Marie quotes, Paul says NOTHING concerning the origin of faith or where it comes from. Nor does he support her false assertion that “it is NOT FROM US!” But the passage that I quoted from Romans 10:13-17 gives a detailed explanation as to where faith comes from and what part we play in developing it.

But Marie appears to be a Calvinist and thus believes that man is so “totally depraved” that he has not even the power to believe the gospel when he hears it. But Paul, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not see it that way. Read Romans 10:13-17 and you will have a different picture than Calvin and Marie about this matter.

Then she says:

“We are all "under sin", and "There is no one righteous, not even one", and "through the law we become conscious of sin." Calvin did not invent the sinful nature of man. He simply read the scriptures, and believed what he read.”

No Calvin did not believe what he read in the scriptures. For the things he taught are not taught in the scriptures. He invented a doctrine that is not even remotely taught in the scriptures. And this nonsense about the “sinful nature of man” was just one of his numerous pathetic perversions of the gospel of Christ. Man was sinful, yes, but not because it was natural for him to be such or that it was a part of his Nature. No such foolishness is taught anywhere in the word of God. And Marie dos not offer any scriptures that would support such a false doctrine.

Then she says:

“So where does faith come from? From God, through the presentation of the gospel, and the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Well indeed faith comes from the presentation of the gospel and it was the work of the Holy Spirit to reveal and confirm the gospel but it was not the work of the Holy Spirit to present the gospel to anyone. In fact, one cannot find any place where the Holy Spirit did the “presenting of the gospel in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit delivered the gospel to the apostles and they delivered it to us. And it has always been the work of the Holy Spirit to send gospel preachers to persuade men to obey the gospel. He always sent a preacher to do the Job by preaching the blessed gospel of Christ, which is the power of God to save. (Romans 1:16). Read the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in acts 8:25-40. And Pick any example of Conversion in the New Testament and you will see clearly what the work of the Holy Spirit was in conversion and it was nothing like Calvin and Marie IMAGINE it to be.

Then she says:

“ Preaching does not save.”

That is strange, Marie, I suppose you failed to inform the Holy Spirit, God and Christ of this pertinent fact for they did not seem to know it. Maybe you heard Calvin say it and thought that it was Christ. But this is contrary to the truth! Read this verse of scripture. “For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING TO SAVE THEM THAT BELIEVE.” (1 Cor. 1:21). And this same apostle Paul, by inspiration said after declaring that he was ready to preach at Rome also, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION to every one that believeth to the Jew First and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16). Now, Marie, preaching does save for the Holy Spirit declared through Paul that God had determined through the foolishness of preaching to SAVE them that believe.

Then she says:

“Baptism does not save.”

Christ said, “he that believeth and is baptized SHALL BE SAVED:” (Mark 16:16). Now I will just leave it to our readers to decide whom they will believe. Will they believe Marie and Calvin or Christ? We have chosen to believe Christ.

And Peter by inspiration of the Holy Spirit said, “the like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us…” (1 Peter 3:21). Now again we will leave it to our readers as to whether they will believe the inspired apostle Peter or our uninspired friend Marie. And again the scriptures say, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR (unto or in order to) the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38). If you are saved without repentance and baptism then you are saved without the remission of sins. No one will be saved until their sins are remitted and none will be remitted until they “repent and are baptized” (Acts 2:38).

“Many hear who reject the gospel, and are hardened like Pharaoh. See Rom. 9:18. Those who hear, and respond, do so because the Holy Spirit overcomes the sin within them and causes their ears and minds to be open to the gospel.”

Well that is a fine assertion but where is the proof of it?

She says:

“If you want scriptural support for that, look at just about every reference to the work of the Holy Spirit among fallen humanity. Examples are Rom. 8:16, 1Cor 2:10-14, 2Cor 1:22, Gal 6:8 etc.”

Well we have read each of the passages which you give above and not a single one of them says that the “Holy Spirit overcomes sin within and causes their ears and eyes to be open to the gospel”. Not a single one! It is interesting Brethren and friends. I recommend that you go and read those verses and see if you can find any one of them that says that the “Holy Spirit causes their ears and eyes to be open to the gospel”. Please read them for yourself and come back in here and show me a single one of them in this list when teaches that the “Holy Spirit overcomes sin within and causes their ears and eyes to be open to the gospel. It is quite funny to notice that not a one of them says anything even remotely related to such nonsense! But I wait for anyone to come back and show us a single one of these verses, which she referenced, teaches such nonsense.

Then we are told:

“ You can't rely on your interpretation of James, to the exclusion of the rest of the Word.”

No one is doing any such thing, Marie, we have been all over the word of God with this subject and if you had been in the forum long and read many of the former discussions you would have seen it. We have only recently been discussing James and Paul. In fact you will note that we have been discussing not only James and Paul but also Peter as well. And that I have quoted numerous passages from Galatians, Hebrews, Romans, Corinthians, Peter, Titus, John, Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and James several more which is almost half of the New Testament! You have not even come close to discussing this many scriptures with us, now have you?

“ You need to reconcile the whole council of God, in order to understand James properly.”

Marie, we have done just that and we have indeed understood James properly because of it. And you have shown that we have misunderstood him in any place.

Then you say:

“ An faithless unbeliever who is baptized is a wet faithless unbeliever. Nothing more. It is faith that makes baptism meaningful.”

Indeed you would find that we agree with this fact. And it seems that you are trying to make it appear that we are teaching that the baptizing of faithless persons will save them. But we have never taught any such nonsense. WE simply teach what Christ taught. He said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). In this verse by using the coordinating conjunction “and” from the Greek term “kai” which connects things of EQUAL rank and importance in a sentence we see that Christ made baptism as important as faith. And thus we can equally say that it is baptism that gives meaning to faith just as faith gives meaning to baptism!

Then you say:

“I am reluctant to write more, because this is enough to refute most of your assertions.”

Well, I do not know if you are reluctant or just lazy or if you just ran out of things to say but one thing is certain. It was not even remotely sufficient as a “refutation” of the truth taught in God’s word that “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24).

Then you say:

“ Your communication style is off putting, to say the least.”

I do not believe it is my “communication style that you dislike as much as it is the communication of the truth that you detest. But we make no apologies to you for none are called for. We are not the least bit concerned that you be “pleased” with our “communication style.

Then you say:

“ Please read all of Gal. 5, and look to see if you can say you display the fruit of the Spirit in your prior comments here.”

We have read this passage many times and will read them often until we die. And we have not found anything that we have said that is as strong as the words spoken by the inspired author of those words found in Galatians 5. And we never make any effort to “display” the fruits of the spirit. We simply follow the word of God and allow the fruit to take care of itself.

Then you say:

“ In my opinion, you discredit Christians by the way you deal with questioners here.”

Well, Maria, we would not rob you of the right to your opinion though, because you have offered no evidence to support that assertion, we cannot see that we have discredited any Christians. And until you can prove that we have done such we will just simply “discredit” your unfounded accusation.

Then you say:

“ That may be why Connie is still praying for you.”

No, that is not why Connie is “still praying for me”. She does that to be seen of men in the forum and to appear to be far superior spiritually to those of us who oppose her false doctrines.

Then you say:

“ Faith saves, but we would feel better about you as a brother if your works and actions and words demonstrated your faith, and the Spirit that should be evident within you.”

Well, you should know by now that we are not the least bit concerned about how you “feel about me as a brother” for I am not convinced that you are a sister in Christ. And even if you were I would have no concern about such nonsense. I am concerned about the truth of God’s words and how you or anyone else “feels about me” has little to do with that matter. And I most certainly have little concern about how one “feels about me” who is determined to teach that which is false.

Then you say:

“ Surely you will not be offended if I say simply, "May God bless you and keep you."’

I have nothing to say about pretentious statements like the one above except to say that no false teacher is truly concerned that God would “bless us” and your doctrine is contrary to your prayers. For your false doctrine of salvation by “faith only” is a lie. And what I see is that out of the same mouth proceeds “blessings and curses”.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Hello, Maria.

I don't know if you know that Lee is an erstwhile Navy Seal.

He has a militaristic mind-set, where people walk a line and if they don't, they are shot. In this case, Lee's adversaries are shot with his words.

How anyone with his mind-set can be considered a Christian, when his words belie everything Jesus stood for and said, is beyond our ken.

We still need to pray for him, and all such as he is, whether he considers our praying for him pretentious or not.

God can forgive even someone as hateful as he. But of course, he has to repent and confess first. In his pride and egotism, I don't see that happening soon.

Dear Lord Jesus, please soften Lee's hardened heart and reveal Yourself to him as the loving, forbearing, gracious Savior You are, not as the rule-demanding, rigid, unbending and militaristic despot Lee worships, completely unrelated to You. It is the spirit of antichrist he exhibits.

In Your Holy and Blessed Name,

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

You are at least consistent in your message, methods, and delivery. Your last post in response to mine was very long and repeated most of the arguements you have stated earlier. It also failed to address those issues and biblical teachings your position can not account for.

I did not call you a pharasee. I suggested you keep your response brief. Your arguements do no gain anything in either accuracy or persuasiveness by such a long discourse. In that sense, we will not hear you better for your much speaking.

I think we almost agree on the central importance of faith, and the necessity of living out that faith through a life that demonstrates our faith by works of obedience. Where I think we clearly have a disagreement is in our understanding of where true faith comes from, and at what point a child of God is saved. I asked you to read several passages, including Romans 3, 4 & 9; and Gal. 5. Did you do that? They address quite directly the issues we disagree about.

In Rom. 3 it is clear that no form of obedience earns forgiveness, but sinners "are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus...through faith in his blood" and God "justifies those who have faith in Jesus." And boasting is excluded. "On what principle? On that of observing the law?" (obedience as a precondition for forgiveness and salvation) "No, but on faith. For we maintain that man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." (which is again an obedience pre-condition on salvation) And yet Paul writes that this justification does not nullify the law, but rather upholds it. How is that possible? Chapter 4 explains it from the point of view of Abraham.

In Chapter 4, Paul makes clear that even Abraham had faith which "was creditied to him as righteousness." And the passage makes clear the credit was given by God with the faith, BEFORE the obedience that was also required of him. It was creditied to him, "by faith while he was still uncircumcised." and "It was not through law" (obedience) "that Abraham and his offspring recieved the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through righteousness that comes by faith." and "Therefore the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring - not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham." Guaranteed by faith so that our obedience, though required, can not yet cause us to lose the gift of grace our faith assures us of. While James is clear in calling for us to be obedient in living out our faith in works of obedience, Romans is just as clear that salvation is only about faith, and our works result from that faith.

Romans 9 tells us why true faith is so powerful in transforming us from sinners to saved. It tells us that the faith we rely on is not merely human assent, or human agreement that a belief in Jesus Christ makes sense to us. That is the kind of "faith" that the demons have, but they do not have the Holy Spirit within them. The faith that results in salvation begins with God, and is imparted by the eternal decree of God, and becomes a part of us as the Holy Spirit works within us. "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls - She was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated."" and "I will have mercy on whome I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whome I will have compassion." and "It does not, therefor, depend on man's desire or effort," (or obedience!) but on God's mercy." and "Therefore God has mercy on whome he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whome he wants to harden." And you may say, as Paul anticipates, that this understanding of the election of God seems unfair, and such a God unworthy to be worshiped. Paul answers that with "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" and "What if he did this to to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whome he prepared in advance fir glory - even us whome he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles." And as I quoted before, why are the gentile Christians saved when the unbelieving Jews were not? "Because they pursued it no by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the 'stumbling stone'." In other words, they did not trust God alone, but tried to take some responsibility for their own salvation through their obedience to laws and rituals.

It is very clear that Christians are expected to obey God, and that obedience demonstrates the faith we have through the work of the Holy Spirit. With the Holy Spirit in us, we will not find it at all comfortable to be disobedient to God. But that transformation, from being a willing sinner to being a sinner who finds obedience to God joyful, happens when the Holy Spirit enters into us and transforms us and brings us to a true faith that changes the heart and saves the soul. From then on obedience must follow, as we learn more about what is required of us as Christians. That is why true faith is the point of salvation. From that point on, we have the Holy Spirit in our heart. That is true even if in the next moment of time we were to die, and be brought before the judge without ever having an opportunity to demonstrate that faith by an outward act of obedience. None of us humans would know if the Holy Spirit brought such a one to salvation, but it is not our business to know. God knows the heart, and which are his own, and in whome the Holy Spirit has worked to bring about a true faith in Christ.

As Gal 5 stated it, "The only thing that counts is faith, expressing itself through love." What counts is faith, and that faith is expressed through love - which we know is the fulfillment of the whole law. And how do we show our love? By living a life "by the Spirit", that is, by the obedience that the Holy Spirit works out in you as you learn and trust and obey. "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."

So faith is what saves, and saving faith comes from God through the work of the Holy Spirit. Obedience results from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, because a saved sinner can not continue to live in sin. It would be against their 'new' nature. But obedience is not a condition of salvation, because the Holy Spirit is already in us and we belong to God when we are brought to a true faith. God does not lose any who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is simply impossible.

Again, this is long enough for the purpose. I ask again that you try to be brief in your response. I also suggest that the loading time for this thread is excessively long and starting a continuation thread would be of benefit to anyone following the discussion. Please note where this has moved to if you agree and start a new thread.

Finally, I find it a telling commentary on your position that you consider reliance on faith in Jesus Christ as a lie, and a false teaching. It is the heart of the gospel, and the essence of the "good news" that a means to reconciliation with God is available that does not rely on our working contrary to our human faults and failings. Without that good news, no one can be saved because no one can meet the just requirements of God for perfect obedience. You are a type of that great problem in a salvation based on works of obedience. Not many, I am convinced, would meet your exacting standards of what constitues an adequate obedience. I believe we are all fortunate that your standards for salvation are not God's standards.

I agree with Connie, that you need a change of heart, and as I noted above that can only come through the work of the Holy Spirit within you. The Spirit uses the Word and preaching the gospel, as means; so we can hope that this exchange and continued study will be used to bring about the transformation required for you to have that true faith that is the only route to salvation.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Please see the thread entitled "Calvinism Perverts the Gospel of Christ" for my detailed response to Maria's Post above. She had pasted it into the thread "justification by faith" also and I decided to answer it in a tread discussing Calvinism for that is the basic reason for the extreme difference between us on this issue.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Maria,

Be careful, you discerned quite correctly…

"You are at least consistent in your message, methods, and delivery. Your last post in response to mine was very long and repeated most of the arguements you have stated earlier. It also failed to address those issues and biblical teachings your position can not account for."

Be ready for messages that stray completely off the issue and rather focus upon personal attacks.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001