I have been given permission by Joe Carson Smith (minister, of Camelback C.C.) to post this letter he and the elders of Camelback have mailed to the Christian Church all over the United States.

As these men ask, "Please give this proposal serious and prayerful consideration."

I would be interested in knowing if any of you preachers have received your letter, and what you think.

Dear Brethren:

It is our conviction that the Churches listed in The Directory of the Ministry have reached such a state of doctrinal decay that it may no longer be assumed that they hold the common faith of the New Testament to which their historic movement was called.

It can no longer be assumed that ministers listed in the Directory will faithfully believe and teach as true what the New Testament teaches. It is obvious that such entities as the North American Christian Convention, the Christian Standard, and many of our colleges and seminaries can no longer be depended upon to defend and represent the New Testament position.

It is desirable for the ministers, preachers, evangelists, and elders of the Churches who believe the New Testament to be able to identify one another. Since we are enjoined to find and follow leaders "who hold to the faithful word which is according to the teaching" (Titus 1:9), the following proposal is made:

1. That an association be formed called "The Remnant" (the term is from Isaiah). (cf. 37:4, 46:3, 4, etc.)

2. That a list be made and published of those among us who will subscribe to the following statements:

- I believe that the New Testament is true, in the sense in which ordinary people use the word true, that is "to tell it like it is."

- I believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a repentant person who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God.

- I believe that Christian baptism is into Christ, for the remission of sins in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

- I believe that Christian baptism is integral with conversion and salvation in the New Testament.

- I believe that the New Testament knows nothing of an unbaptized Christian, and therefore people should be told that they should be baptized to receive Christ and accept him as Lord.

- I believe that acceptance of the Lordship of Christ is at issue in Christian baptism.

- I believe that leaders in the Church should conscientiously believe and teach that these things are true.

If you believe these things and are willing to stand for them, please sign and return the enclosed card.

A list of members will be published.

An emblem of identification will be sent to you in due course for the cost of the pin (a Greek rho).

It is our conviction that if New Testament Churches are to survive in the current culture of compromise and confusion, it is necessary that faithful leaders identify themselves. In the present climate they are isolated and invisible to Churches seeking a faithful ministry.

Please give this proposal serious and prayerful consideration. It is time to stand up and be counted for Christ as Lord.

Yours and His,

Joe Carson Smith, Minister

Elders: Sam Franks, Paul B. Hall, Pete Kemp, Don Kinser, Don Petersen, Dr. Webster Sage, Mike Smith

END OF LETTER

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Answers

I call this 'Gospel Helper' or 'Salvation Helper' ~ just add H2O.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Connie,

As you know, this was not meant for you. Numerous times recently, you've seemed to feel the need to spout off "two-year-old" comments. This I do not understand.

Whatever happened to that promise to do some sandal shaking?

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

All,

Please only serious replies to this letter, this may be a little too much to ask of Connie, considering her postings. But, I am hoping to generate (from those of you in the CHRISTIAN CHURCH or CHURCH OF CHRIST) some much-needed insight into a problem that we here have encountered often. That particular problem being that in sending families from our local congregation to a new one that is teaching the truth has become more and more difficult as time passes. Also isn't it getting a little scary out there… (Yes, of course we are told of this in the scripture, but it still scares me that those who in the past held to the truth are turning away)…all the apostasy? Something we definitely need to try to stop.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

D. Lee:

I am so happy to see you again in the forum. I know that you remain faithful to the truth of God’s word as ever and I thank God for you. I cannot resist responding to your post because I am indeed saddened to read that there has be such a “culture of compromise” among those who should be standing for the truth of the gospel of Christ among you. While I believe that these brethren are among those who will indeed stand for the truth I want to issue a “caution”. Let us please be careful that we not ask anyone to subscribe to a Creed. For we have no creed but Christ and no rule of faith and practice but the scriptures. I know that these brethren have no actual intentions to write a creed but if they are not careful they will end up doing the very thing that they wish to avoid. As you know I will indeed stand firm for the truths taught in the Word of God and my constant defense of the truth that we must believe and obey the gospel in order to our salvation is evident. I am one who will forever teach that we must “repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins” (Acts 2:38). But I do not need a creed to make sure that I do it. I recommend that these brethren follow a different course of action. It seems that they should work together to do as Paul commanded Timothy. “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.”(2Tim. 4:2-5). “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:2)

I know that it is their desire to find those who are holding to the truth so that they can all join together to continue the teaching of it. And I agree with and share their genuine concerns. And in that spirit I would heartily join with them in supporting such an effort if they will, as I am sure that they would want to, avoid writing a creed in the process. For if they do that they will unwittingly be going against the very things that we have all fought against for so long.

I would recommend if they do gather such a “remnant” as they speak of that they immediately begin work on such things as a Bible School for training faithful men to preach the truths of the scriptures and to train them with diligence and dedication. Someone recently suggested an “Internet Bible School” which is a great idea. And they should also start a publication that would replace the “standard”. And that they establish a website for the publication of scriptural teachings and expositions of the word of God and that they prepare for and arrange as many discussions or Public debates of these issues as they possibly can.

You can tell Brother Smith for me that I will help in any way that I can and will heartily endorse his letter with the understanding that he will make it clear that E. Lee Saffold does not support the formulation of it into a human creed. We have the word of God and no creed is necessary. For if the creed says more than the word of God it says too much for it would be an addition to the word of God. And if it says less than the word of God then it says too little for it is thereby taking away from the word of God. And if it says the same thing as the word of God we already have God’s word and need no creed to replace it!

They have express the following sad comment:

“It is our conviction that if New Testament Churches are to survive in the current culture of compromise and confusion, it is necessary that faithful leaders identify themselves. In the present climate they are isolated and invisible to Churches seeking a faithful ministry.”

I will help them in any way that I can but please ask them to beware of the strong urge under these circumstances to write a creed solely for the purpose of distinguishing those who follow the truth from those who are following error. Such a creed is not necessary. For we can join together to accomplish what they are seeking without writing a statement of beliefs that all subscribe. Let us all agree to teach the truth, as it is revealed in God’s word and leave it at that.

And by the way, please send Brother Smith and the elders there my name and address which is:

E. Lee Saffold 2608 Tree Summit Parkway Atlanta, Ga. 30096

And tell them that they can call me if they like at 404-532-6386 (Work) and 770-622-0628 (Home). If I can help them in any way please tell them I will do what I am able to do.

Well, it is late, D. Lee, and I must rest. But I pray for you and your family and that God will grant you much joy in Christ and strengthen you in your efforts for truth and righteousness.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

D. Lee....

I for one will not sign it or turn in my name. Two reasons....

1) Who are they to set themselves up as the test of orthodoxy in the brotherhood?? I believe that responsibility falls upon each individual Christian to "test the spirits" to see if they are from God. It is not the responsibility of any organization. Doesn't the list come across to you as "creedal"....the very thing the R.M. has always combatted??

2) Right off the bat...I disagree with them doctrinally...as per their listing of church offices. I wish I had the letter in front of me.....(I threw it away). Anyway.....I believe it was addressed to......"Ministers (a non N.T. designation of the Evangelist)....Elders, Pastors", (and something else I can't remember). Why do they address it to "Elders and Pastors".....when that is the same office???

Now....understand this.....while they are wrong about their "ecclesiology".......I don't make that a test of fellowship. Although I think we ought to be careful about our terminology (sloppiness in little things leads to sloppiness in big things).....I could still consider someone a brother who choses to be called "the Pastor." (I don't see that as a condition of salvation listed by Peter on the day of Pentecost).

HOWEVER.....here is the point.....if you are going to set yourself up as a test of orthodoxy......YOU HAD BETTER BE CORRECT IN ALL POINTS!!!

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

D. Lee,

I can see eye to eye with the other opinions so far.

It's good to see that some of us on here have not been the only "voices crying in the Wilderness" concerning the CC/COC's watering down of doctrine and the Theological distortions by publications such as the Christian Standard (which has become neither Christian OR Standard in many of its stances).

However, I can see the potential for great harm inherant in this letter. E. Lee is correct in his assessment that what they propose could indeed be turned into a "creed" by some - as people have natural tendencies to do such things.

I haven't seen this letter personally (and probably won't due to my current circumstances) so I can't really comment on some of their doctrinal stances as Danny has done, but by what I can see posted here, it has a great potential to cause unneeded division - something the Restoration Movement was supposed to stop.

I may be wrong as to motive, but I almost pick up a trace of self- martyrdom in this letter......"I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, torn down Thine altars and killed Thy prophets with the sword. And I ALONE am left; and they seek my life, to take it away" (I Kings 19:10 & 14). Almost sounds like a "poor me", feeling sorry for ourselves cry for attention. I'm not saying that it what they think or feel (as I think their motives are probably pure) - it just kinda sounds like it from the outsiders point of view.

I admire these men's courage in trying to point out what is definitely a problem in our churches today - many more of us need to be saying the same thing. But this letter would have been more appropriate if they had just called on everyone to more closely observe the basic points of Doctrine that they listed and offered to help them do so through prayerful and maybe even financial support (if need be), rather than to call for the development of a "division within the ranks" so to speak.

All of us who are called in Christ are the Biblical Remnant. Let's stick to using Biblical definitions to Biblical Terms. I don't want to be known as a Christian Church/Remnant member.......I just want to be known as a Christian.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Brother Danny:

Amen and Amen.

I agree with you in all that you have said. I sent my name in with the offer to help because I appreciate what they seem to be intending to do which is to hold to the teaching of the truth. But I agree with you that we have no way of being certian whether that will be the result that they actually achieve. For it does indeed seem that they are "setting themselves up" as the "test of brotherhood orthodoxy" and unwittingly headed, as I cautioned, toward establishing a creed to do it.

And I appreciate the fact that you noticed that they had addressed their letter to the "elders and Pastors" as if those were seperate offices in the church. I did not notice it for it was late when I read it. And you know also that I oppose that nonsense vehemently. And I am sure that you know that I am opposed to several other things that were actually in that document and some things that i know that they believe which are not in that document that I disagree with.

But I do desire for those who will stand for the truth to work together in the support and spread of it. As I have been doing in this forum, I fellowship my brethren in Christ to the furtherst extent possible and only when I think that I am being forced to support or participate in things that I do not believe is true do I refrain from any "joint participation" in such things. In other words I can fellowship my brothers, even when I am convinced they are in error provided that I am not required to jointly participate in or jointly support things which I cannot in good concience agree with.

I may have erred in sending in my name to offer support for them but it was done in the hope that these men are indeed interested in the truth and that we would in some way be able to jointly work toward the teaching of it so that we can continue to restore the Ancient order of things. I could have been mistaken, but I had sincerely hopes that I wasn't.

I also agree with you as my previous post indicates that this letter does come accross as being "creedal" which I will always oppose. But it was my hope that they were not intending it to be creedal and that my stated caution might influence them to realize it and refrain from going in that direction for I was indeed assuming that they had the best of intentions. But, you would know them better than I would.

Anyway, thanks for keeping us all straight on these things!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Dangerous.

That "confession" looks exactly like a creed. Notice that it only refers to the New Testament is true. Can I believe that the Old Testament is a myth and hold the NT to be true and still be part of the "remnant"?

While the motivation of these brethren is probably very pure, it seems that they are not focusing in the right direction. It seems that they simplky want to find those around the world who are standing on the truth of the Scripture. I think it can be safely stated that creating a creed is not a viable alternative.

I agree with Danny about the sloppy terminology. We could cause a huge uproar about not calling church leaders by Bible names. So we need to make sure our terminology is correct. There is more to unity than just immersion.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Danny (and others),

If someone from the congregation that you serve is moving to another area and comes to you for help in finding a church body with which to worship, how do you go about helping? Does the help offered include a query into the doctrine held by other churches?

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Robin.....

Two things....

1) In most circumstances in my 20 years I was able to refer people to a congregation I was familiar with.

2) In the other cases.....I had enough confidence in the teaching I had done that an individual could do a very thorough "testing of the spirits" to determine whether a particular church was for them or not.

I'm happy to say....that a number of such indivduals have called me back through the years and said...."Boy that church is messed up"....and then gave the XYZ reasons.

Teaching....it all comes back to making teaching THE CENTRAL FOCUS of the church....not an afterthought (or in many churches today...any thought at all).

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

What concerns me is that it sounds like it is very close -- too close -- to the religious exclusivism inherent in most cults and sects. We are the only ones who have the truth, we are the remnant, all others are lost, even those within our fellowship who don't believe exactly as we do. That along with a leadership that believes that they alone hold the cornerstone on truth and have already started formulating a core creed ... this is very dangerous ground IMHO.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

I'm glad to see that I ain't the only one who threw the letter away.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

To all,

I share the words of caution, however, I intend to get the name of the congregation here into the book. By the way, that is Bakersfield, East Hills Christian Church, 2500 Fairfax Road, Bakersfield, CA. 93306. We meet on Sundays, Wednesdays regularly, and every possible excuse that we can come up with to get together and continue steadfast in the Apostle's Doctrine, Breaking of Bread, Fellowship, and Prayers. We invite all to come and visit with us as you pass through Bakersfield. We are an oasis in the desert. (in more ways than one) Ok, my commercial is over (For now, hee hee).

To the question raised, Before we recommend a congregation in another city, we pay the long distance phone bill and call and talk to the leadership of said congregation. (Ya know, we preachers ought to call each other more often anyway)

Thanks for the post D. Lee Muse

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

My pastor said he also got the letter, and also threw it away.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

A bit of a problem not believing that the entire Bible is true, Old and New Testament. While this congregation's leaders problebly believe that, it's a shame they don't note that.

Then the following:

- I believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a repentant person who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. - I believe that Christian baptism is into Christ, for the remission of sins in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - I believe that Christian baptism is integral with conversion and salvation in the New Testament. - I believe that the New Testament knows nothing of an unbaptized Christian, and therefore people should be told that they should be baptized to receive Christ and accept him as Lord. - I believe that acceptance of the Lordship of Christ is at issue in Christian baptism.

All of a sudden it starts to sound a lot like baptismal regeneration. Now, I am fairly certain these leaders don't believe in baptismal regeneration, and that they believe in the entire process of salvation, including faith, repentance, etc. But this "creed-like" statement doesn't mention any of that. A person (or congregation) that DOES believe in baptismal regeneration could certainly sign such a "statement of faith."

We in the C/C CofC went through a long period of having folks believe we were baptismal regenerationists ... and I don't think we need something like that to start again.

Danny is correct -- when you teach your people the truth of God's Word, they will be able to seek out a congregation that teaches that truth ... regardless of the name on the sign out front. Too many times when a person moves, we were quick to look to the Directory of the Ministry to find congregations in the town they were moving to. Can't rely on that anymore. A phone call and discussion is a smart thing.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

It seems that many people in our "brotherhood" do not have a problem with organizations such as "PK" or "Youth for Christ" or ""Crusade for Christ." Why then, should we have a problem with the "Remnant?" If we want to be nit-pickers, we may say that the name "Christian" is not correct. After Acts 11 there were many names that believers were called, such as "disciples," "followers of the Way," etc. The fact that the NT was written in Greek does not mean that I must use a Greek name which comes from "Christos." Paul never called himself a "Christian." He said, "Iam a Jew" (Acts 22). "Are they Hebrews?" "So am I " (2Cor 11:22) "Are they Israelites?" "So am I" (2Cor 11:22). "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Jesus'" name was Yahshua which means God's salvation. Yahshua saves me. I want to be identified with Him along with a/Remnant.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

To All,

The letter has been posted here in its entirety. Please scroll back up and read it. Danny, there is no mention of pastors at all, it is addressed to "Brethren". The letter does say: "It is desirable for the ministers, preachers, evangelists, and elders of the Churches who believe the New Testament to be able to identify one another." Now… ministers (all of us??), preachers (and also as E. Lee reminded me tonight...all of us), evangelists, & elders…I don't know that any has been left out, and I don't believe any of the terminology was incorrect.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

E. Lee,

Thank you for the welcome back and your response. It was GREAT talking to you tonight! I hope to soon alleviate some fears that I see concerning this being a human creed. And of course we do need to be concerned and cautious. I do believe though that they are doing a good thing. I have talked with Mr. Smith twice recently, and have just today asked that he or an elder of his congregation come here into this forum and address some of these concerns. As you know I can not answer for them. You mention that you are saddened to read that there has been such a compromise among us. I too am saddened by it, though as you can tell even from this forum, it is not something that we are shocked by.

And you and Danny are correct in saying that we MUST teach the truth concerning the Word of God. Joining our efforts I believe is a good thing.

As to the idea of an internet Bible School, this is already in the works. I did correspond with the man who initially posted about this, but did not receive anymore word about it at all. But I do know a man who is attempting to get some courses online.

It is my hope as it is yours that we can join together to accomplish what they are seeking without writing a statement of beliefs that all subscribe. You are right; a human creed is NOT necessary!! I believe this effort will help in identifying one another. As I have stated before, this is becoming very difficult!

There was no mention of pastor in the letter. Lee, you have said: "I am opposed to several other things that were actually in that document and some things that I know that they believe which are not in that document that I disagree with." Could you explain further? This statement that you have made..."But I do desire for those who will stand for the truth to work together in the support and spread of it." is I believe the intent of these men. When one of them comes into the forum, their explanation will be far better than mine will.

I do not believe that you have erred in sending your name or offer of support. And I know that these men are interested the truth and I hope that we can in some way work toward the teaching of the truth.

As for your statement to Danny: "But, you would know them better than I would." Let's ask...Do any of you men know these men personally?

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Danny,

You say: "Who are they to set themselves up as the test of orthodoxy in the brotherhood?? I believe that responsibility falls upon each individual Christian to "test the spirits" to see if they are from God. It is not the responsibility of any organization. Doesn't the list come across to you as "creedal"....the very thing the R.M. has always combatted??"

To be honest, I had not thought of this list being "creedal" at all. I wonder if the letter had been more personally directed and in question form if any of the responses would have been different. For example Danny, if I asked you in the following manner, what would you have answered?

Do you believe that the New Testament is true, in the sense in which ordinary people use the word true, that is "to tell it like it is."?

Do you believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a repentant person who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God?

Do you believe that Christian baptism is into Christ, for the remission of sins in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

As per your 2nd point, the letter does NOT even use the term pastor at all, but is addressed to "Brethren".

You say: "HOWEVER.....here is the point.....if you are going to set yourself up as a test of orthodoxy......YOU HAD BETTER BE CORRECT IN ALL POINTS!!!"

Danny, I don’t believe this is what is happening at all. They are not setting themselves up and everything they do as THE litmus test. They are only pointing out that there is a huge problem in the church, and that we could join together in helping each other teach the truth & identify one another for support in doing this. Also they are NOT saying that those who DO NOT sign on are wrong or that they are NOT brothers.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Mark,

I can understand the concerns everyone has. Though I did not see this immediately. You say you can see the potential for great harm if this were the putting forth in the brotherhood of a human creed. As I said earlier, I do not believe this was even near the intent of these men.

As for not seeing the letter personally, the letter is in its entirety in my original post. Please take a look again and I would appreciate any more comments.

As for the "Restoration Movement" which both you and Danny have mentioned…What is the difference between what happened to start the R.M. and this? I see both as a move to get back to the truth and to find others that will do the same.

You say: "But this letter would have been more appropriate if they had just called on everyone to more closely observe the basic points of Doctrine that they listed and offered to help them do so through prayerful and maybe even financial support (if need be), rather than to call for the development of a "division within the ranks" so to speak." Division, that dirty word. In most folks minds anyway. I know many of you here on the forum DO NOT believe that all division is wrong. Isn't this coming out from among those who do not teach the truth similar to what the R.M. did at its beginnings? Besides that, there is ALREADY division this letter is not the cause of that, the cause of the division is because there are many out there who claim to be in the church of Christ but who are NOT. And that is the cause of the division. As to the motives of these men, Mark, hopefully one of them will be able to answer you directly here in the forum soon. Exactly Mark!! All of us who are called in Christ are the Biblical Remnant. So I see nothing wrong in calling ourselves a Remnant.

You say: "Let's stick to using Biblical definitions to Biblical Terms. I don't want to be known as a Christian Church/Remnant member.......I just want to be known as a Christian."

Where in the letter do you see anyone using not using Biblical definitions or Biblical terms? I know others have said this before, but "Christian Church" is not in the Bible, yet most of us go by that name.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Matt,

What is wrong with wanting to find those around the world who are standing on the truth of the scripture? When my husband and I got orders for Japan, the first thing we did was to start looking for a congregation that was standing on the truth of the Scripture. Would we have gone looking for a congregation that did not stand on the truth of scripture? Would we have started with one naming itself Baptist? Luthern? Methodist? NO, those we did not even so much as glance at.

I agree with you that creating a creed is not a viable alternative. That is not what is being done here.

You say that you agree with Danny about the sloppy terminology? WHERE in the letter is the sloppy terminology? I agree with you that we need to make sure our terminology is correct, but again…where in this letter is there incorrect terminology? And yes, I agree that "there is more to unity than just immersion", but take a look around here in just this forum…what is one of the biggest divisions you see here. Take a look around you…what do you see? Baptism is a huge stumbling block!

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Robin & Danny,

Thank you for your question to Danny, Robin. This is the crux for me. How to go about finding a church body with which to worship for those leaving us. We do our best here to steer folks in the right direction. Calling, emailing, etc. And yes, I do ask about doctrine before sending others out to a particular congregation. The problem is this…where to go to find the information about a faithful congregation. One has to start somewhere. Our congregation is mostly military. Just this past week or so, we have had several baptisms. One young man is leaving immediately. What to do? Look in the Directory of the Ministry? At least that is a resource that is already compiled for us so it is convenient. Yet the problem is that many are NOT adhering to the truth.

Danny,

The people that leave us are sent all over the world. How about referring them to a congregation in Turkey? Japan? Bosnia? Germany? Saudi? Are you familiar with any congregations in those places? Also our people are sent to places all over the U.S. We are just not familiar with that many congregations. Though I do understand you doing this Danny when possible, here it just does not happen often.

Secondly…It is NOT that we do not have enough confidence in the teaching that has been done. The problem is that often these babies are such NEW Christians that they do not yet know how to "test the spirits" "to determine whether a particular church is for them or not." which is not the test by the way. Danny, I agree 100 % that it all comes back to teaching and teaching must be "THE CENTRAL FOCUS". But again, many times we do not have enough TIME with these people.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

John,

Of course WE are not the only ones who have the truth. But those who do have the truth are far and few between, and it is getting worse. And Biblically those who obey God ARE THE REMNANT. Again this is not a core creed.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

David,

Thank you for your post. Could you explain WHY you intend to get the name of your congregation into the book?

I too make that phone call and talk to the preacher of the congregation that we are sending folks to before they leave. I just think it would be a whole lot easier starting from a listing of congregations that were of like faith.

For what reason was the Directory of the Ministry put together? Do any of you who have objected to this plan use the Directory?

Three years or so ago my husband and I came down on orders to go to Leavenworth KS. Before attending a congregation, we talked with the preacher for about an hour asking all the important questions and receiving answers that were right down that Biblical line. 5 or 6 weeks later we were asked by the elders/preacher to leave the church for our stance on baptism being essential to salvation. We did ask that question btw.

You're welcome…for the post.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Darrell,

They do believe in the entire process of salvation…

And folks still believe we are baptismal regenerationists…just ask Connie, Link, others. They are continually saying that we say that the water is what saves us. Which is not true at all. As for teaching…yes people will be able to seek out a congregation that teaches the truth, and are responsible for doing so. It is VERY hard to do this though when you have been saved and then leave that bible teaching group within one or two weeks. I believe this listing will help speed up our search in helping these folks along in the search.

I agree that the Directory of the Ministry can't be relied on anymore. Which is one of the reasons why I believe this list is a good thing. You have to start somewhere. You have said yourself that we can not rely solely on the Directory anymore. Where to go then? The phone book? At least the Directory narrows the field; it is a place to start. And I believe this list will be a better resource.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Ascher,

Thank you for your response. It is true that many in the "brotherhood" do not have problems with such organizations that you mention. But there are also several who post here who do (you might enjoy checking out one of the old P.K. threads).

I too want to be identified with Him along with a Biblical Remnant!!

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

D.Lee.....

The fact is....the letter I received....and evidently others....did use the term "pastor"....and it was not in the "elder" sense of the word.

Also.....was this letter sent to everywhere overseas?? The impression I got from the letter was that this was a stateside thing.

If I knew we would be having this discussion.....I would have kept the letter.

For the record....the Directory of Ministry was never meant to be a listing of "remnant" churches. It was simply a listing of churches, missions, and ministries within the Christian Church/Church of Christ fellowship.

Just as the Christian Standard does not make any recommendations concerning churches and or preachers needing positions in their paper.....neither does the Dir. of Ministry make recommendations one way or the other in their listing.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

D. Lee --

My assumption is that this group of leaders DO believe in the entire biblical process of salvation ... my point being that they didn't mention it, only the immersion part.

I visited a number of congregatons when I first started this college ministry here at Indiana Unviersity of Pennsylvania. At one congregation,one of the leaders insisted that my first series of teaching at the Tuesday evening fellowship had to be on baptisim. He understood that I would be speaking to students from all kinds of backgrounds. I disagreed with him, explaining that If I did as he suggested, we would lose a number of students right off the bat.

During the course fo the first year, I worked immersion into a number of studies, without it being presented quite as forceful as it is mentioned in the letter above, or as forceful as this gentlemen wanted me to present it. PTL, we immersed 6 students during the course of the first year of ministry. Two were new believers, and the other four came from belief backgrounds that did not teach immersion, and the biblical reasons behind it.

Six immersions, with an average Tuesday evening attendance of 25 -- pretty good percentage.

My point is, when we come out and slam people with BAPTISM, BAPTISM, BAPTISM then they will believe we are regenerationists. If we teach the salvation process levelly (sp?) that is, as an equal part with hearing, belief, repentance and confession, we will accomplish much more for the Kingdom of God. That is my opinion, based on a number of years in the ministry, where I have taken both roads.

I do understand that the letter and the "statement of faith" is intended for various leaders in the congregations, but if it were used as a "statement of faith" for perspective converts, would it cause some problems?

Would I list my ministry with this group? Maybe -- in order to have the contact with students heading to IUP. Would I list our Sunday morning worship service? Yes, though they might not want me to, since we are meeting in conjunction with a Church of the Brethren congregation (who I honestly find closer to the restoration ideal than many of our own congregations).

Again, my opinion.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Brethren:

I am convinced, as I am sure most of you are as well, that D. Lee is one who has demonstrated often in this forum that she stands firmly for the truth of God’s word. And I am also convinced that we have all, beginning with myself, made our point quite clear that we object strenuously and correctly to supporting any actions that would tend toward the establishment of a Creed of any kind. For we have only one creed and that is Christ and only one rule of faith and practice which is the doctrine of Christ revealed by the apostles of Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Any doctrine other than this is contrary to Christ. And I am also certain that D. Lee definitely would be opposed to the establishment of any creed as well as the rest of us. And Though I did see something in the letter to which she refers that sounded very close to being a suggestion that would, if followed as stated, result in the establishment of a Creed. I am convinced that we have no evidence that this is what these brethren actually intend and hope would be the result of their suggestion. In fact, I believe that such is not their objective in the least.

Therefore I believe that since we have sufficiently registered our protest against the portion of the letter that appears to us to be dangerously on the verge of seeking to establish some kind of “creed”. Let us now discuss the actual concerns stated in the letter and let use discuss whether we agree with those concerns and whether we are willing to work with these brethren to address them and do something constructive to resolve their LEGITIMATE concerns.

With that in mind I now review the letter in detail.

D. Lee asked us to give this letter our serious consideration as follow:

“I have been given permission by Joe Carson Smith (minister, of Camelback C.C.) to post this letter he and the elders of Camelback have mailed to the Christian Church all over the United States. As these men ask, "Please give this proposal serious and prayerful consideration."”

D. Lee, I see that you have been very busy in responding to all of our sincere concerns about the potential for establishing a Creed. And that you agree that we should not support anything that might result in such being established. I know what it is like to try and respond to every one. It is work, isn’t it? But now that we have expressed that concern and made it abundantly clear that we will have nothing to do with establishing any creed. I apologize, for myself at least, that I have not spoken seriously about whether I could help these brethren work to deal with the serious problem of unfaithfulness to the truth which they have identified among us.

It might be better if we followed Paul’s inspired advice to “mark them that cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and AVOID THEM” (Romans 16:17). It seems to me that these brethren are really trying to find a way to do just that, don’t you think? And if this is what they are trying to do then we all should discuss this matter and work with them in attempting to do it. How can we avoid them while at the same time keeping them in our fellowship? Now, I am not going to discuss this point in great detail at the moment but only suggesting that should these brethren agree that we would not ever establish a creed. And that we will MARK them that cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which we have learned so that all of the faithful can AVOID THEM I would be obligated by the word of God to support them in it. And I say this so long as in doing so congregational independence and autonomy must be maintained as well. WE must always avoid the grievous error of establishing an “earthly head quarters” with a “ruling bishop” etc. This is the danger of “forming associations” because we do not believe that the organization of the church as revealed in the New Testament is sufficient to handle these problems. But we fail to realize that if we followed the New Testament “pattern” we would be protected for much of what we are now facing.

Then D. Lee Says:

“I would be interested in knowing if any of you preachers have received your letter, and what you think.”

Naturally I did not receive the letter because, as you know, I am not “listed” among those who are members of the Christian Church. But I am indeed, as are all faithful Christians, a member of the Church of Christ and therefore cannot ignore this matter now that it has come to my attention.

Now Brethren let us take a brief look at the letter again in some detail. I am convinced that this letter is not the final word on the matter but an effort to gain support for our jointly taking action on matters that desperately need to be corrected. And if we can discuss what we are really trying to accomplish we might find ways to actually do some good. And this might mean dropping the portion of the letter that seems to have the appearance of seeking to establish a creed. And then discussing ways in which we can publicly mark those MEN, not congregations, who are causing offenses contrary to the doctrine of Christ and where they are so that we all can avoid them and some of us can fight and resist them.

Now let us look at this letter:

“Dear Brethren:”

WE are brethren, are we not? If we are all in Christ Jesus we are indeed brothers in Christ. And I am convinced that we are all in Christ Jesus because we have obeyed the gospel of Christ and his we are all in the body of Christ which is the Church of Christ (Col. 1:18, 24; Eph 1:22; 4:4).

Then they say:

“It is our conviction that the Churches listed in The Directory of the Ministry have reached such a state of doctrinal decay that it may no longer be assumed that they hold the common faith of the New Testament to which their historic movement was called.”

Now here is the saddest condition I have ever read! Not only entire congregations of the Lord Church but most of the churches listed in this “directory of the ministry” which I am sure covers this entire country at least if not the rest of the world as well has become “shipwrecked concerning the faith. The idea here is that they have all completely turned from the “faith once delivered to the saints”. But I am disappointed, however to notice that these brethren are too concerned about the “historic movement” rather than the fact that individual Christians are commanded not “called” to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints”. The “movement” to restore New Testament Christianity is not honored by efforts to restore a “movement”. But to continue the work of restoring New Testament Christianity as it was in the days of the apostles and this can only be achieved by following the doctrine of Christ in the New Testament. So let us seek to be faithful to the truth and the “movement” to restore New Testament Christianity today will take care of itself.

Then the letter says:

“It can no longer be assumed that ministers listed in the Directory will faithfully believe and teach as true what the New Testament teaches.”

If this is the case then let us obtain evidence concerning each one of those “ministers” of Satan and either correct them or MARK them as Paul taught us to do. Now, what we need therefore to discuss is just how this will be done but my purpose is respond to the letter and not go into the details at the moment. But I am saying that we should not be in the process of marking “CONGRGATIONS” but the leaders who teach false doctrine.

Then we are told:

“ It is obvious that such entities as the North American Christian Convention, the Christian Standard, and many of our colleges and seminaries can no longer be depended upon to defend and represent the New Testament position.”

Now, this is where in the problem lies. These “conventions” ended up accomplishing what the old “synods and counsels” accomplished which was to produce a framework wherein error could spread throughout many congregations like wildfire! Whereas if we had continued to follow the New Testament order of congregational autonomy these false teachers would not have been able to create such havoc, now could they? And I can tell you that establishing yet another association or “convention” will have only the same result. Let us insist upon congregational autonomy and mark individuals who teach false doctrines contrary to the truth and do so with evidence not mere hearsay.

Then we are told:

“It is desirable for the ministers, preachers, evangelists, and elders of the Churches who believe the New Testament to be able to identify one another.”

Now brethren, do we not all heartily agree with this? And do we not “identify one another” by the doctrines that we teach? And can we not therefore see why we are to mark those who are not teaching the truth? Should we not be willing to see how we can work to accomplish this end? So that the young converts that leave the congregation within two days of being converted to Christ, while serving in the military, at D. Lee’s congregation, can be guided to faithful Christians who can help them grow in the faith?

Then these brethren say:

“ Since we are enjoined to find and follow leaders "who hold to the faithful word which is according to the teaching" (Titus 1:9), the following proposal is made:”

No just here brethren they have made a proposal that we do not like and that we cannot agree with but they are merely “making a proposal”. Can we not suggest a “counter proposal” that we accomplish the purpose that we both have in common which is to hold to the truth of God’s word and fellowship only those who do just that and mark those who do not? You see, because we do not agree with there proposed way of solving the problem does not preclude us from seeking to work with them in some other way to solve it, now does it?

Then it is suggested:

“1. That an association be formed called "The Remnant" (the term is from Isaiah). (cf. 37:4, 46:3, 4, etc.)”

Now, this is one of the things that are not necessary. We do not need to “form” an association. We already have an “association or fellowship” in the body of Christ. WE are already associated in Christ and if we will but fellow the doctrine of Christ and communicate with one another concerning those who are opposed to Christ within that divine ASSOCIATION called the church we can accomplish this task. But the starting of yet another human “association” to accomplish what the “divine association” called the “church” is perfectly suited to do will not work. And calling ourselves “remnants” rather than Christian will not work either. But, remember now that I have not given up on the fact that we must deal with the problem that we all agree needs to be corrected. So I agree with this brethren that we must do something about the problem. And therefore would suggest that we meet together to discuss how to do it but let us not insist that it been done by a newly formed “association” either outside of our even within the body of Christ. But by the very divine organization which is body of Christ. WE see what happens after years of failure to obey God’s commands concerning the discipline of those who turn from the truth. It is easier to deal with “associations” and “conventions” so that we can avoid the actual discipline of INDIVIDUALS who oppose the truth. Are we simply unwilling to engage in the much needed battle? Let us begin to call out those false teachers and confront them AS INDIVIDUALS in public forums and places so that all can see them clearly MARKED and they will be easily identified. But just dealing with “associations and conventions” and attempting to distinguish or identify them as “groups” will never work. For false teachers seek to hide in a group until they are exposed. Now, what is needed is for these men who have left the truth to be confronted and exposed.

The next comes the portion which we have sufficiently shown our objections which does appear to be very much like a creed whether it was intended as such or not.

“2. That a list be made and published of those among us who will subscribe to the following statements: - I believe that the New Testament is true, in the sense in which ordinary people use the word true, that is "to tell it like it is." - I believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a repentant person who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. - I believe that Christian baptism is into Christ, for the remission of sins in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - I believe that Christian baptism is integral with conversion and salvation in the New Testament. - I believe that the New Testament knows nothing of an unbaptized Christian, and therefore people should be told that they should be baptized to receive Christ and accept him as Lord. - I believe that acceptance of the Lordship of Christ is at issue in Christian baptism. - I believe that leaders in the Church should conscientiously believe and teach that these things are true. If you believe these things and are willing to stand for them, please sign and return the enclosed card. A list of members will be published.”

The word Creed simply means to “believe” and when this list begins each sentence with “I believe” it is a creed. It is a statement of what we “believe”. And there is nothing to prevent a false teacher from pretending to believe these things and creeping, as is their deceptive way into this “list of members”. But when you oppose false doctrine by exposing individuals whom you can prove actually is teaching it there is not escape and not where for them to go and hide!

Then of course we are told:

“An emblem of identification will be sent to you in due course for the cost of the pin (a Greek rho).”

I suppose that the purpose in this is to have some “fun”. It is fun to have a special club that we belong to that in some way distinguishes us from others along with neat things like pins such as those described above. Somewhat like a “secret society” but is this not somewhat opposite to our purpose? Are we not trying to bring all men to be “one in Christ Jesus”?

Then of course we come back to the real issue as follows:

“It is our conviction that if New Testament Churches are to survive in the current culture of compromise and confusion, it is necessary that faithful leaders identify themselves.”

Well just here let me remind everyone that the Church of Christ has two thousand years of false doctrine and lies and persecution and misrepresentation and she still stands as the PILAR and GROUND of the truth! She may not have always had the “large numbers” and gained the respect and recognition of the societies and communities in which she dwelt. But she has always survived and always will for our Lord has said, “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matt16: 18). And the gates of hades was not able to keep Christ in the grave and His resurrection was a signal for ever that Satan cannot prevail against the kingdom of God which is the church of Christ. And the Hebrew writer said, “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom that cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.” (Heb. 12:28).

But then the letter informs us:

“ In the present climate they are isolated and invisible to Churches seeking a faithful ministry.”

If there is a congregation of the Lord’s people they cannot be “seeking a faithful ministry”. They are, if faithful involved in a “faithful ministry” and they do not need a list of what preachers they should “hire” when in reality what they need is to preach the gospel of Christ. They do not need to bring “strangers” in from afar off (not only in miles but in doctrine as well) “seminary” which I refer to as “Cemeteries”! They need to train themselves and others to preach the truth. And we are especially blessed today that we can have websites. Where those who have been recently converted to Christ and within a week have to go away can stay in touch with us and can continue to learn the truth and be taught in the way of righteousness by the very congregation where they were converted to Christ. And in those websites any person teaching false doctrine among the churches should be, with appropriate evidence confronted and exposed so that they will be MARKED and easily avoided. But these process that we seem to have of “hiring” some kind of “professional “ministry” in stead of simply serving Christ where ever you are is part of the problem.

Now, having pointed to some things, which I disagree with these brethren about. I remain in support of their ultimate purpose of holding to and teaching the truth of God’s word. But, can we talk about better ways to do it than the suggestion offered in this letter or must we accept that this is the only “proposal” allowed on the table and that we accept it or we cannot “work together”?

Then the letter says:

“Please give this proposal serious and prayerful consideration.”

This is exactly what I recommend that we do and that we prayerfully consider that God can help us to find a better way if this “proposal” is not acceptable. Let us not fail to recognize the urgent need to do something about this legitimate problem that is being raised by our brethren who wrote this letter. And let us not just say, “we do not like your proposal so lets just forget about an appropriate and effective address to the problem.

Then we are told:

“ It is time to stand up and be counted for Christ as Lord.”

Indeed, and have we not all been doing just that for a great long time now? For the day that we first submitted to the Lordship of Christ and we made the good confession: that Christ is the Son of God until this very day. We have been “standing with Christ our Lord” for he is seated at the right hand of God in the heavens. And he is our Lord and we not only stand with him, and stand for him but we will one day STAND BEFORE HIM to give an account of the deeds done in the body whether they be good or bad. And we will receive eternal life of eternal condemnation depending on our faithfulness to him. So let us “quit you like men and be strong” and let us stand therefor! But let us know that we must obey Him as we stand. We cannot just follow our own ways.

Indeed let us confront false teachers and expose them and MARK them as individuals. And realize that there are faithful men in all of these congregations that are presently overrun by error. And if they can be assisted in their efforts to “stand up” and “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints”. And if we know who they are when persons leave our congregations we can put them in touch with faithful individual Christians who are standing for the truth and we can lend support to their work. There is much that we can do but let us seek more than some “association” identifiable by a pin. Rather let us seek a solution that drives false teachers into hiding, fearful to come out into the light of the truth of God’s word that we are constantly shining upon them!

So, Let us understand that D. Lee has brought to us a matter of grave importance. And that we should, though we reject the current proposal in the letter we have just discussed, let us find a way to appropriately and jointly work together with these brethren to overthrow false doctrines and strengthen the hand of those who love and teach the truth.

For those who Love Christ and the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Lee,

You have said, "Therefore I believe that since we have sufficiently registered our protest against the portion of the letter that appears to us to be dangerously on the verge of seeking to establish some kind of “creed”. Let us now discuss the actual concerns stated in the letter and let use discuss whether we agree with those concerns and whether we are willing to work with these brethren to address them and do something constructive to resolve their LEGITIMATE concerns. " AMEN!!

It is refreshing to see a positive attitude of doing something constructive rather than just a negative (almost prideful) attitude of 'I threw it out'!!

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Robin.....

Please define in Robin's world....how "throwing it out"......even comes close to a prideful attitude?? (In Danny's world...it appears to me....the letter carries a far more prideful attitude.)

Sit with me (or any other preachers on this forum) as we sort through the mail each day of "urgent requests."

Did you maybe ever stop to think it just wasn't as urgent to us who threw it out.....as it was to the people at Camelback.....D. Lee....or yourself???

I'm sorry.....but I didn't hear you ask for a word for word doctrinal analysis of the letter.

You asked what I did....and I told you. It's worked quite well for 20 years.

I feel no need for an association that gives you a pin as a sign of the "remenant."

Now if you feel it's urgent.....GO FOR IT!!!....but don't make tongue in cheek remarks about those of us who are hit with a minimum of 50 "urgent requests and letters" each week.

Every single point brought out by myself, Matt Hartford, and John Wilson are valid, Scriptural and historical objections.

I am absolutely positive.....Brother Alexander Campbell would have voiced the same concerns. If you think not....read his excerts on creeds.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Darrell,

You say: "My assumption is that this group of leaders DO believe in the entire biblical process of salvation ... my point being that they didn't mention it, only the immersion part."

The reason I believe they only mentioned immersion is because immersion is for the most part what separates us is it not? That is borne out here in my congregation. We have many people come to visit us from denominations. Usually they love our meetings until they learn that we teach as the Word does that baptism is a part of our salvation. Up until that point, they have NO problem fellowshipping with us. This is why I believe these men put the emphasis on immersion. Do you understand?

I understand you taking a less forceful path with the students you are working with. And I understand your decision to move more slowly with them. But consider this…we are not talking about this group of people. We are talking about a group of people that SHOULD ALREADY HAVE A GRASP ON THIS MOST ELEMENTARY DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. We are talking about folks who should know better, have known better, yet have fallen away.

Your point about slamming people with baptism is well taken. This is true. And again this letter is written to those who should already know this teaching.

You are correct in that we should teach the salvation process as if all points are equally important. But there is a time when MORE teaching on baptism will have to be done if a person does not agree with that point, but agrees with the others. But again, here we are talking about a different group of people. This letter is NOT addressed to this group of people.

I agree that it would cause problems if it was used for perspective converts. Again, that is not the intent of this letter.

You say: "Would I list our Sunday morning worship service? Yes, though they might not want me to, since we are meeting in conjunction with a Church of the Brethren congregation (who I honestly find closer to the restoration ideal than many of our own congregations)." I don't know personally what this body of the Church of the Brethren teaches. I do know that if they are teaching the whole counsel of God, and have obeyed the gospel then I would see NO reason not to include them or to shun your congregation because you meet in conjunction with the Brethren.

Thank you for your post.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

E. Lee,

Thank you for your response. And your willingness to help resolve these concerns.

Of course you said it way better than I could have when you said" "It might be better if we followed Paul’s inspired advice to “mark them that cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and AVOID THEM” (Romans 16:17). It seems to me that these brethren are really trying to find a way to do just that, don’t you think? And if this is what they are trying to do then we all should discuss this matter and work with them in attempting to do it. How can we avoid them while at the same time keeping them in our fellowship? Now, I am not going to discuss this point in great detail at the moment but only suggesting that should these brethren agree that we would not ever establish a creed. And that we will MARK them that cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which we have learned so that all of the faithful can AVOID THEM I would be obligated by the word of God to support them in it. And I say this so long as in doing so congregational independence and autonomy must be maintained as well. WE must always avoid the grievous error of establishing an “earthly head quarters” with a “ruling bishop” etc. This is the danger of “forming associations” because we do not believe that the organization of the church as revealed in the New Testament is sufficient to handle these problems. But we fail to realize that if we followed the New Testament “pattern” we would be protected for much of what we are now facing."

I do believe this is the intent of this effort. And soon I hope to see a response from Mr. Smith or one of the elders concerning this matter.

You say: "…And then discussing ways in which we can publicly mark those MEN, not congregations, who are causing offenses contrary to the doctrine of Christ and where they are so that we all can avoid them and some of us can fight and resist them." Could you please explain further why you mention marking those "MEN" and not "congregations" who are causing offenses contrary to the teachings of Christ? I had not considered this, because I believe that most generally the congregation will follow their leaders. So if a preacher leads or teaches a certain way, the congregation will go along. If a preacher is teaching incorrectly and is NOT admonished to stop…doesn't if follow that soon…so will go the way of those in that congregation?

This that you say next is the point that I have been trying (though I believe unsuccessfully) to say about the Directory of the Ministry: "And do we not “identify one another” by the doctrines that we teach?" Of course we do! There was a reason for the directory…was it not to compile a list of those of like faith? We definitely NEED to guide those who are leaving our congregations in finding another faithful congregation. As Danny said each one is responsible for testing the spirits, but it is ALSO the responsibility of the church to help these folks and not just drop them because they are leaving.

May I ask, if the word creed simply means to "believe" then is there something wrong with having one if it is in accordance with the Word? And you are right when you say that we will not be able to prevent some false teacher from pretending to believe these things. This will always be true.

As for the emblem. I do not believe the purpose is to have some "fun", but to identify one another. I understand in part where concerns arise from this, but look at all the symbols we as Christians use today: the cross, the fish, W.W.J.D., a lighthouse. I am NOT saying that we should worship these symbols, but we are identified by them. Thanks for the reminder that NOTHING will prevail against the Church. Sometimes when thinking about the Apostasy we (at least I anyway) grow so greatly concerned that we can loose our sight and focus and forget for a time the promise Christ has given us here. I hope that we can find a solution, and work together in the spreading of God's word and combating the false teaching that is running rampant in the church.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Danny,

Robin took the comments about throwing it out as prideful; you consider the letter having a prideful attitude. Could it be that NEITHER carried that connotation? I DO understand your problem with sorting through mail. I am not a preacher, but work with one. It can become difficult at times. And you are so right about getting those urgent requests and even phone calls! I also understand that what I consider urgent or important may not be what you consider the same. We all come from different circumstances and situations, and even our congregations have different needs. What works for you may not work for me and vise versa.

You say: "Every single point brought out by myself, Matt Hartford, and John Wilson are valid, Scriptural and historical objections."

Danny I want you to know that I HAVE heard the warning bells you are ringing. I told you before that I honestly did not see at all this letter being creedal, and that still holds. BUT…I HAVE taken notice of what you, Matt, & John have said. I have a great respect for you and when you made the responses as you did it definitely caught my attention. I appreciate the fact that you are diligent to do what is right in the sight of God. I do not know much about Mr. Campbell, but I have learned from you since coming to the forum and understand your desire to be faithful, again, I am looking at the warnings.

You make a point in asking if the letter was sent overseas. Point taken. I got carried away in my defense. I do not believe the letter was sent overseas, so that argument was unfair and not valid. I did mention that we also send many people to Stateside areas…more places than we personally know of, so recommending a familiar congregation will not always be possible.

Thank you for your post.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

All,

Danny says: "If I knew we would be having this discussion.....I would have kept the letter." & "The fact is....the letter I received....and evidently others....did use the term "pastor"....and it was not in the "elder" sense of the word."

The letter in the original post is complete. I can not see how a letter sent to Danny could have used the term "pastor" and incorrectly at that unless there were TWO different letters sent out. And I do not understand WHY if this is the case it would have been done in such a way.

Does ANYONE have a copy of this letter? I would like to clarify this matter.

Thank you.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

D. Lee.....

You ask.....

"Robin took the comments about throwing it out as prideful; you consider the letter having a prideful attitude. Could it be that NEITHER carried that connotation? "

My answer to you is....yes!! I think it is wrong to assume that either was written out of pride. I was simply pointing out to Robin....that if one is going to make assumptions about why people do things....I think a stronger case could be made for the assumption of pride in the letter itself.

But the fact remains.....there is evidence for neither.

I believe the people who wrote it to be sincere.....I believe the people who are investigating it (such as yourself) are sincere....and I believe the people who "threw it out".....are sincere.

As you so aptly put it.....we all have different issues that we consider....."important"....and for differing reasons.

Again.....sorry I don't have the letter. Wish I did.....because one of the things that caused me to disregard it quickly.....was the way it was addressed.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Long time lurking, long time since last post. I guess I'm with those who found something, probably unintentionally, arrogant or prideful in the oringinal letter (I got one in the mail). While I found nothing in the doctrines of baptism to be false, because of the emphasis of the letter is DOES APPEAR to be baptismal regenerationist. And creedal.

BTW the reference to "Pastor" was in the response card that accompanied the letter.

I did, however, feel properly rebuked by the brother who posted concerning the fact that while some of us tolerate PK, Youth for Christ, and others we don't want to offer the same latitude to the Remnant. As one who (let's not dig up old arguments) makes room for PK, I will also make room for the Remnant. My sometimes fear of legalism occasionally causes my pendulum to swing too far the other direction. So, while I won't sign up, I understand the position and will pray God's blessings on these men and women who are obviously concerned for truth.

For someone who hasn't written in a long time, I sure took up a lot of space.

Blessings,

Sam Burton Council Bluffs, IA

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

D. Lee.....

Sam is right!! The "pastor" designation was on a little 3 x 5 index response card.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Danny,

I have been gone a bit, so am late replying....

As usual, you have "went off" a bit.... I had no quarrel at all with the points you guys were making... I understand the concern. I also was not commenting in repsonse to your answer to my question about helping those who were moving... your answer was fine and helpful.

As far as my "almost prideful" remark... I don't think it was "tongue in cheek"... it was truthfully how I took your comment about throwing it away in combination with the others that then wrote about it having been 'tossed'. That's "my world", I guess.... :-)

As should have been clear from what I quoted E. Lee saying, I would just like to see a more helpful, positive attitude within the body. I sometimes think we carry 'autonomy' to such an extent that we forget that we have many brothers and sisters in Christ... not just those in our own little congregation.

I applaud this group and Ms. Muse for at least looking and thinking a bit beyond the walls of their local congregation.... and trying to do something constructive.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Hi, I received this letter also. If any congregation has strayed from the Restoration Plea, it is the one that wrote the letter.

Everything they state about organizing around their creedal (baptismal) statement goes against the intent of the "Restoration Fathers".

Notice that all the statements but one refer to baptism. They are promoting the often heard accusation that all we talk about is baptism. If you're going to write a creed, don't you think something should be included about the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc... These guys are a great example of what is wrong in many of our churches today. I dare say, they sound more cultlike than Christian.

IHS, Barry

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Barry,

Much of what you said has been addressed above. They were not trying to "write a creed"... they were trying to develop a way to identify congregations that have stood firm as far as the teachings about baptism go. This is a GOOD thing!! (I am not saying their approach was perfect... but surely think the attempt was genuine and the goal was commendable.)

Then you say, "These guys are a great example of what is wrong in many of our churches today. " REALLY??? I think what is wrong is people straying from the Word... not those that are trying to stand firm!!!

Do you have any constructive comments on how to help them go about identifying congregations that stand firm in the Word?

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

I think some in the Brotherhood have given up thinking for "Lent!"

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Robin wrote:

Barry, Much of what you said has been addressed above. They were not trying to "write a creed"... they were trying to develop a way to identify congregations that have stood firm as far as the teachings about baptism go.

Barry responds: I didn't know that the only thing we stood for was baptism.

Robin wrote: This is a GOOD thing!! (I am not saying their approach was perfect... but surely think the attempt was genuine and the goal was commendable.)

Barry responds: How is it commendable? I think it is shameful.

Robin wrote: Then you say, "These guys are a great example of what is wrong in many of our churches today. " REALLY??? I think what is wrong is people straying from the Word... not those that are trying to stand firm!!!

Barry responds: And what churches are straying from the Word? Please name them and deal with them in a biblical manner instead of sending out a Papal- like document.

Robin wrote: Do you have any constructive comments on how to help them go about identifying congregations that stand firm in the Word?

Barry resonds: No. I don't think that is our job. I didn't go into ministry to become a Pharisee. Obviously our "brethren" at Camelback believe that they are the standard of orthodoxy for the rest of us. God help us! They are a great example of what we should all avoid!

In Christ, Barry -- Mr. Robin Cornell (robinc@mwt.net), June 14, 2001.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

James, I agree!

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Robin, I guess that beats dealing with the issues I raised, huh?

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Barry,

Just takin' my time... waitin' for you to put your foot in your mouth. You have said, "I didn't know that the only thing we stood for was baptism. " I didn't say it was. And, I'm pretty sure the originators of this letter don't believe so either.... They were not trying to cover all of our beliefs (that is obvious from the ommissions)... they were trying to identify congregations that have stood firm as far as the teachings about baptism go. Then, you say, "How is it commendable? I think it is shameful. " You said this in response to what I said, "...they were trying to develop a way to identify congregations that have stood firm as far as the teachings about baptism go. " So... you think it is shameful to "try to develop a way to identify congregations that have stood firm as far as the teachings about baptism go"??? Can you explain how that is shameful?? I think it is commendable to try to identify which congregations are teaching the Word. I think it is commendable to try to not send new Christians to churches that are putting forth False Teachings. Then you say, "And what churches are straying from the Word? Please name them and deal with them in a biblical manner instead of sending out a Papal- like document. " Ahhh! Finally, a constructive suggestion!! (Even though worded in such a way as to be confrontational.... Of course, from what you say further down... you didn't really even want to offer any helpful suggestions in the first place!!) Then you say, "No. I don't think that is our job. I didn't go into ministry to become a Pharisee. Obviously our "brethren" at Camelback believe that they are the standard of orthodoxy for the rest of us. God help us! They are a great example of what we should all avoid! " Wow! Now, not only are you calling the writers "Pharisees"... but you intimate that they are not Brothers by adding quotes to "brethren". If so, on what basis do you believe they are no longer Brothers in Christ? Are you setting some "standard of orthodoxy" here? Again, I understand that the letter appears "creedal". I understand that the Word is the only "creed" we need. I understand that there is much more to salvation than baptism. I also understand that baptism IS an important part of salvation... a part so important that we should be concerned about how churches believe concerning it. What I don't understand is why it wouldn't have been better to communicate in a civil manner with these Brothers... rather than try to squash them. Perhaps, something constructive could have been gained... rather then just more in-fighting and dissension. Of course, some people thrive on that....

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Sorry about no paragraphs... I couldn't send what I had written for awhile (system down) and cut/pasted it so as not to lose it... must have lost them then.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Dear Fellow Believers,

(Especially those of you who have a problem with the letter from Camelback).

Let's back up, take a deep breath, and clear your minds of your previous notion that this whole idea is creedal, cult-like, or just plain wrong. Let's first look at the PRIMARY focus of the letter. The focus is that our churches will continue to go the way of the world, unless we continue (or return to in some cases) to defend the TRUTH. Not mans idea of truth, but God's idea of truth. Is His Word true? Is all of it true? Every page? Every paragraph? Every Word? Well, I for one believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. Now if you also make this claim, then I suppose that you also take most seriously that in teaching truth we must tell the WHOLE TRUTH.

Is baptism necessary? What did Jesus say about the way to the Father (John 14:6)? Is it true? What does Peter say about how we come to be forgiven? "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins…" (Acts 2:38) Is it true?

Now let's get back to the primary issue, I Peter 3:21, is it true? Do you say no? Then God is a liar?! Do you say yes it is true? Then - Tell it like it is! Teach it! Accept nothing less! Do not allow a lie to be taught among you! People's souls are needing to be saved!! Can they be saved without Jesus? NO! Can we come to be in Jesus by simply saying a prayer? Not according to the Word. So, therefore, if you do not tell them they will not know (Romans 10:14)! Don't let them believe whatever seems right. Proverbs 14:12 says, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." We are talking ETERNITY here folks we have got to get it right.

That dear brothers, is what is a stake and that is the focus of the letter.

About you who say, let each one test the spirits. Great! However, shat do you do when you have a brand new, "baby" believer, who has just received his orders from the US Army (Navy, Air Force, or Marines)? Do we send him away and say, "Now you're a Christian, here's the name of a church, get out there and test the spirits?" No, we must know that we are sending new converts to a body of believers who will help them get established in the Word. And a telephone interview of a preacher doesn't always tell the tale, as some can attest to!

Next, there seems to be some trouble with the understanding of the word "creed". Do not think I am condoning man made creeds. I am not! Let's look at the meaning of the word creed and where it came from. It comes from the Latin, "credo", which means - I believe! Creed is defined as a statement of belief. And what is wrong with that?? Don't we all have a statement of belief - of faith? Yes! We do! It is the Holy Word of God! The Bible! I do understand your fear that we will develop some man made, formal bunch of gobbldy-gook that we must recite at our assemblies. Look at the letter It suggests no such thing! Only that we get back to the truth!

And by your many protests, it appears that you have already decided that our stand on salvation is too narrow or too strong. Take it up with our Lord.

Have a problem with the name "remnant"? At least it is scriptural. Hey, how about R.M., look that one up in your Bible! Come on people, let's pause and pray about this before we jump to any more conclusions. Don't try to find some hidden meaning in Camelback's letter, there isn't any. Only the desire like that of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, to return to the basic truths of God's Word!

In brotherly love,

A disciple of Messiah

P.S. To the writers of the letter from Camelback. I applaud you for your insight and courage. We need many men who are willing to tell the truth at ALL COSTS!

You are NOT the instigators of division. The division occurred in the hearts of those who will not remain in the truth, but have accepted those as Christians, who are not.

And one last issue - to those who believe there is a problem with the emblem. Take your doves, fish, crosses, praying hands, etc. Down off of your homes, church buildings, cars, lapels, etc. For these too are emblems!!

In the love of the Lord,

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001

Brother Robin:

I just want to say AMEN AND AMEN to what you have said to Mr. Hanson.

You have correctly said:

“What I don't understand is why it wouldn't have been better to communicate in a civil manner with these Brothers... rather than try to squash them. Perhaps, something constructive could have been gained... rather then just more in-fighting and dissension. Of course, some people thrive on that....”

Indeed Mr. Hanson likes dissention until he cannot answer the arguments. Then he does not like it in the least and runs off to conjure up an imaginary “experience” with the Holy Spirit and returns with the excuse that he is so full of “overwhelming love” that he cannot discuss matters with you any more! After that all he thinks about is “civility” and your every response to him is suddenly so “unloving”. Enough of this nonsense! If we truly love we will speak the truth and refute error. Anyone who does not do so does not love God or man. It is past time that we all learn this fact and take notice of how false teachers use an imaginary false love as a smokescreen to hide their deceptions!

When Mr. Hanson thinks that he can he will try to teach that which is false with little or no concern for doing so in a “civil manner”. Until he faced with arguments that he cannot answer then he goes off and has an “experience with the Holy Spirit” and falls so deeply in love that he just cannot continue the discussion. This is what he stated in his following excuse for failing to answer the questions that I had asked him about baptism as follows:

““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.”

But it does appear in his response to our brethren in the above letter that when the “Holy Spirit poured his overwhelming love” into Mr. Hanson he did not pour enough into him to cover these brethren who wrote the letter to which we are all responding, now did he?

It may be that the reason he has not spoken in a “civil manner” to these brethren is because when the when he had his “experience with the Holy Spirit” he was only told to “fall in love” with E. Lee Saffold. So that he could justify his inability to answer the arguments made by him. He obviously did not tell Mr. Hanson to “fall in love” with these brethren, now did he?

Be careful, Brother Robin. If you press Mr. Hanson too hard he just might have another “experience with the Holy Spirit” and he will “fall in love” with you and then he will have a perpetual excuse for ignoring your arguments that he cannot answer. And if you keep pressing him after that he will stop speaking directly to you. Now wouldn’t that be a terrible thing to happen? The only thing you will see from him after that experience is a perpetual effort to show his “superior spirituality” that he received from the “Holy Spirit” he will never talk with you directly again. Because he knows that his false doctrine will be met with the strength of undeniable truth and this he cannot bear.

It is interesting isn’t it that the “legs of the lame” are indeed often unequal!

And it is further interesting that Mr. Hanson does not agree that baptism is essential to salvation and he would hope that those of us who are Christians cannot find a way to work together to resolve the concerns that these good brethren have brought to our attention. For that would suit him just fine. Therefore, though he is not “among us” and is not one of us he wants to come in here and hinder us by fueling any dissention between us so that he can ensure that we fail to do anything constructive about the problem.

Let us take note brethren. When we have a man, who teaches the false doctrine of salvation by faith only coming in here and agreeing with us in our concerns over “creeds”. Only so that he can encourage us to use that as our excuse for failing to work with these brethren concerning the important matters that they are care very much about it is time that we took notice that the devil is trying to help us do the wrong thing!

These brethren will hear our concerns about creeds. In fact I am convinced that they have heard them. Now let us hear them about the problem we all sincerely seek to correct! And let us continue to correct Mr. Hanson’s false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” at every opportunity.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001

Brother Johnson:

I want to say Amen to your post. It is well writen and strikes at the very concerns that some of us, including myself have. I will always raise the flag of caution against creeds and it seems that all of us, including yourself, agree to avoid such. And I do agree with you that these brethren are not seeking to establish any such creed. I am also convinced that they will understand, agree and take appropriate action to ensure that our concerns regarding the establishment of a creed is taken seriously and sincere efforts will be made to prevent that from happening.

You have said:

"And one last issue - to those who believe there is a problem with the emblem. Take your doves, fish, crosses, praying hands, etc. Down off of your homes, church buildings, cars, lapels, etc. For these too are emblems!!"

I am opposed to such emblems and agree with you that we should take all of them down. But I would not refuse to work with my brethren who use them so long as they do not begin to turn toward the practice of idolatry associated with graven images. I understand what you are saying about these things but we must not turn Christianity into anything like a mere club filled with symbols without substance. We have sufficient symbolism in the word of God which are inspired symbols that we should not, but often do neglect, like the Lord's supper. And I have noticed that those who carry crosses and wear various symbols on their lapels and aroung their necks often neglect the Lord's supper, a divine representation of our communion with the precious body and blood of Christ. I am sure that you can see what I am concerned about. Not that I believe that the fact that these brethren neglect the Lord's supper because they enjoy their "emblems". For I am certain that such is not the case. But rather that they have more interest in emblems of their own device than those who were designed by our Lord for his divine purposes.

Indeed I do have a problem with "remnant" as a name for the body of Christ though it is scriptural. For we are told, "and the disciples were called Christians first at antioch" (Acts 11:26) And we are told, "If any man suffer as a Christian let him glorify God in this name." and that is the "worthy name by which we are called". And I will never be anything other than a Christian nor will I accept being called by anything other than that.

But I believe that I understand you meaning. I do not call myself nor do I consider myself an "R. M." as we are want to refer to our efforts to restore new testament christianity. I am indeed, and will be till our lord calls me home, invloved in efforts to restore new testament christianity. But I do this AS A CHRISTIAN and not as a member of a particular association of brethren in any particular movement. All of our efferts to restore New Testament Christianty came to be know as "the restoration movement" but we are not organized under any human assotiation or corporate structure called the "restoration movement". We are instead, in the process of restoring New Testament Christianity,organized after the New Testament "pattern" and jointly teaching the truth of God's word and continuing steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship and the breaking of bread an prayers. And we are jointly fighting with the sectarians who are not even in Christ Jesus to teach the truth of how to become "christians only". ANd while we are Christians only we are not the "only CHristians" but we are calling for any Christians that may be cought up in the sectarian denominations of men to "come out from a mong them and be ye seperate and touch not the unclean thing"! Butjust as I can work with brethren who prefer to think of us as a "movement" instead of as the body of Christ in action I could help these brethren who prefer to think of themselves as a "remnant" instead of as the body of Christ and those who have left the truth as being "shipwrecked concerning the faith" and disciplined them and recognized that they are no longer in the body until they repent and return to the teaching of the truth. Those congregations who have left the truth have most assuredly had their "candelstick removed from its place" by our lord and should not be fellowshipped by any of the faithful saints.

But we must talk together and decide how we can do these things jointly and not go astray from the truth ourselves in the process. Is it not good for us to call for such discussions? Would it not be a good idea to have a national meeting of brethren concerned about these matters and have some faithful preaching from the word of God to discuss the many things that need to be done in relation to "contending for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3)? You can est assured that only those interested in "Contending for the faith" who attend such a meeting. I would be happy to organize such a natioanl meeting her in Atlanta and invite all concerned about these things to come here and let us "reason together" and commit our plans to the Lord and begin to take appropriate scriptural action to do something constructive about this important and I might add URGENT issue.

What say you brethren? Can we now discuss ways to work on these problems together?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001

Lee,

Thanks for your posts....

I am wondering... could we have two Barry's here?? There seems to be a Barry Hanson (Barry Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com)) and a Barry Davis (Barry Davis (info@pastorshelper.com))??? (When I was writing in response to Barry Davis, I wondered if it was the Barry that had been writing in previously... so did a little looking in other threads....) Anyway, just trying to avoid any mistaken identities if such has occured.

Have a Great week!!

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001

Answer to Objections to the Remnant Project

Joe Carson Smith

A number of objections have been raised to the Remnant project. The notable ones were anticipated.

The most predictable was that a "creed" was being proposed for our churches. This is not true. The statement of belief and commitment for the Remnant is not used or presented to people at Camelback Christian Church as a condition for membership or acceptance in fellowship in the church. What the Remnant statement is for is to identify leadership that will stand for what it says. That is all it is intended to do, but it is intended to do that.

It should not be assumed that peop0le who do not sign on to the Remnant project do not believe the Remnant statement. It was anticipated that many who believe what it says would not believe that it is a good idea, or they would be inhibited by the strong but relatively amorphous Restoration tradition about creeds. In fact, the most common negative reaction has been, "I believe everything in the statement, but I won't sign a creed."

People who do sign on are identified publicly as believing what it says. The statement means exactly what it says, not more or less. It does not, for instance, make any judgment about the eternal destiny of people who are ignorant or in error about Christian baptism. In the view of its author, that final adjudication is in the hands of God alone. The statement does say that people in serious, continuing, and stubborn error about baptism are unqualified for leadership in the church.

The strategy of the Remnant is that if people will come straight about the truth of the Bible and about Christian baptism, they will come straight about many other things. The statement refers only to the New Testament because that is adequate to the purpose. If people believe the New Testament to be true, it follows that they will accept the Old Testament. The definition of truth in the statement has been variously attacked. The philosophically sophisticated will recognize it as a simple assertion of the correspondence theory of truth; that is, that truth is that concept or expression that corresponds to reality. The assumption of the statement is that the whole human race understands that, as in C.S. Lewis' "Tao." When God sent Moses down from the mountain with the commandment, "Thou shalt not lie," He did not instruct Moses to establish continuing seminars in epistemology. God knew perfectly well that they understood what the truth was.

In the late 1950s the author of the Remnant letter successfully defended for three hours a paper on the "Resurrection Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels." The professor who presided over that doctoral seminar at the University of Southern California subsequently became one of the participants in the "Jesus Seminar." As the frontiersmen said in the 1800s, the Remnant author "has been over the mountain an ddown the river" in matters of historical-critical methods. It is his conviction at the end of the day that the New Testament is true.

Our longstanding objection to creeds should be examined. A creed as repudiated by the Restoration fathers was a comprehensive and theologically complicated statement of faith, adopted by an authoritative ecclesiastical body like a council or synod, and often assumed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore equal to the Word of God. Such a creed was employed as a condition of fellowship with the church, even of recognition as a Christian. It often included a stated or implied anathema for those not subscribing to its tenets. Such devices were properly repudiated by the Restoration fathers.

In two hundred years, a curious thing has occurred. A Restoration tradition has developed that says that it is outrageous and divisive to write down anything that should be believed and taught by Christian leaders, even an exact quotation of scripture. This writer has observed this on many occasions. Two are cited. In the 1980s, in response to a well-known problem, it was proposed in a board of directors meeting of a Christian service camp in Arizona that in camps operated by our churches, ministers identified as ministers of Christian churches should believe and teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. It was stipulated that people from other orientations might be used, only that they not be presented as representing our churches. This policy was attacked as a creed and voted down. A Restoration tradition about creeds had been made to trump an express statement of scripture in the practice of the church. At the second Forum on the Future of The Christian Churches and Churches of Christ held in St. Louis in the 1980s, the Double Vision project was launched. It was designed to double the number of our churches in the USA by the year 2000. Barton McElroy, Ph.D., sometime missionary to the Philippines and Dean of Manhattan Christian College; Mark Maxey, veteran missionary to Japan; and this writer, engaged in a little conspiracy. We caused three of the eight "breakout groups" to report back to the floor of the meeting that leaders of the new Double Vision congregations be expected to believe and teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. This proposal was viciously attacked from the floor of the meeting as "binding this creed upon these new churches." It was voted down. A Restoration tradition about creeds had trumped an express statement of scripture in the policy and practice of one of our parachurch organizations.

At the very least, brethren who do this are all tangled up in their Campbellite shoe laces! To quote scripture is to be put down as legalistic or fundamentalist--remarkably pejorative and non- specifidc terms of propaganda. It can now be safely stated that we often follow a tradition which says that to write a policy for the operations of a church or parachurch organiation, even if it is an exact quotation of scripture, is forbidden because it is to adopt a creed. If someone doubts this, let him try it and see what happens. This tradition is subversive of the promotion of New Testament Christianity and of the good order of our churches.

In respect to other objections: No, the Remnant list is not intended to supplant The Directory of the Ministry. The brethren who publish that useful item do a good job. The Remnant project intends to identify brethren who are committed to its statement. That this is needed is evident from the reports of many people who are signing on to the Remnant.

It is remarkable that some people are saying that the "Brotherhood" will be split by publishing or signing the Remnant statement. Many of the same people say with great heat that there isn't any problem anyway. Lurking in those two assertions there woul dseem to be an inconsistency.

It has been objected that the letter proposing the Remnant unjustly accuses the NACC and the Christian Standard. People who say this simply don't know what has been going on around them. Some irate letters have been received demanding specifics. People may consult page 6 of the March 11, 2001, issue of the Christian Standard, which presents a list of "Our Megachurches." Listed there is the Overlake Christian Church, now located in Redmond, Washington. In 1980 its then minister was presented as the featured speaker in the closing session of the NACC in Seattle. It was well known in the churches of that area that he had left the New Testament position and was aggressively advocating the common Baptist view of conversion. He aggressively lobbied the administration and board of Puget Sound Christian College to dismiss Dr. Harold W. Ford from its faculty as a condition of Overlake's support of the college. Dr. Ford was one of the leading historians of the Restoration Movement in the 20th Century. That minister as subsequently and repeatedly promoted and defended in Arizona into the late 1990s as a leader to be emulated. This sort of practice effectively indicates that our Brotherhood is now a sort of umbrella of churches who hold to New Testament Christianitya nd other churches that hold a Baptist or solifidian view of conversion. If those who set editorial policy for the Christian Standard do not know the facts stated above, they are brain-dead.

This writer has written extensively on these matters for many years. Additional materials will be provided on request for the cost of reproduction. In response to he allegations that he is an "isolationist" opposed to association with people outside "out gans," the author of the Remnant letter has participated in all of the two-week conferences of the C.S. Lewis Society at Oxfort and Cambridge Universities (1988, 1991, 1994, and 1998). At such conferences one associates in little groups. They don't include our people. Our "intellectuals" are curiously absent. Among those in our group in 1991 was a Roman Catholic priest who teaches in one of the church colleges in Rome. He was a sharp and lovable gentleman. This might lay me open to a charge of questionable associations by some of our people. The charge of bigoted isolationism won't work! (Well, actually, there was one of our intellectuals hanging about the University in 1988. He made no visible contribution to the proceedings of the conference that year on the decline of the influence of Christianity in the universities of the western world, but he did fill the pulpit on a Sunday morning at the Church of St. mary the Virgin, on High Street in Oxford. He was billed as a gentleman from Tennessee. He delivered a harmless little homily, heavily draped in the rags of academic respectability. It wouldn't ahve offended the Devil himself. It was delivered from the same pulpit from which C.S. Lewis delivered his famous sermon, "The Weight of Glory," a half century before. Sic transit gloria.)

The purpose of the Remnant project is to identify leaders who are committed to its statement. That is its exact purpose and its entire purpose. It is preposterous to assert that it will divide a Brotherhood united in believing what the Remnant statement says.

Someone said to Billy Sunday one time tha he didn't like the way he did evangelism. Billy responded that he didn't much like it either, but he liked it better than he liked the way that his critics didn't do it!

So it is with me and my critics about how I choose to defend and promote the truth of the Bible in the Christian churches and Churches of Christ.

When Alexander Solzhynitsyn won the Nobel prize for literature he was a prisoner in the Soviet Union. The communists wouldn't let him go to Oslo to deliver his lecture, so he sent it to be read. It is a touching and profound document of thirty-three pages. He closes his Nobel Lecture by quoting a Russian proverb: "One word of truth outweighs the world!" His release and the fall of the Soviet communist empire were a dramatic vindication.

The truth of God will prevail. The Remnant just suggests that we tell it. Without unity the Church is damaged. Without fidelity to the truth of the Word of God, it will cease to exist.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

Answer to Objections to the Remnant Project

Joe Carson Smith

A number of objections have been raised to the Remnant project. The notable ones were anticipated.

The most predictable was that a "creed" was being proposed for our churches. This is not true. The statement of belief and commitment for the Remnant is not used or presented to people at Camelback Christian Church as a condition for membership or acceptance in fellowship in the church. What the Remnant statement is for is to identify leadership that will stand for what it says. That is all it is intended to do, but it is intended to do that.

It should not be assumed that peop0le who do not sign on to the Remnant project do not believe the Remnant statement. It was anticipated that many who believe what it says would not believe that it is a good idea, or they would be inhibited by the strong but relatively amorphous Restoration tradition about creeds. In fact, the most common negative reaction has been, "I believe everything in the statement, but I won't sign a creed."

People who do sign on are identified publicly as believing what it says. The statement means exactly what it says, not more or less. It does not, for instance, make any judgment about the eternal destiny of people who are ignorant or in error about Christian baptism. In the view of its author, that final adjudication is in the hands of God alone. The statement does say that people in serious, continuing, and stubborn error about baptism are unqualified for leadership in the church.

The strategy of the Remnant is that if people will come straight about the truth of the Bible and about Christian baptism, they will come straight about many other things. The statement refers only to the New Testament because that is adequate to the purpose. If people believe the New Testament to be true, it follows that they will accept the Old Testament. The definition of truth in the statement has been variously attacked. The philosophically sophisticated will recognize it as a simple assertion of the correspondence theory of truth; that is, that truth is that concept or expression that corresponds to reality. The assumption of the statement is that the whole human race understands that, as in C.S. Lewis' "Tao." When God sent Moses down from the mountain with the commandment, "Thou shalt not lie," He did not instruct Moses to establish continuing seminars in epistemology. God knew perfectly well that they understood what the truth was.

In the late 1950s the author of the Remnant letter successfully defended for three hours a paper on the "Resurrection Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels." The professor who presided over that doctoral seminar at the University of Southern California subsequently became one of the participants in the "Jesus Seminar." As the frontiersmen said in the 1800s, the Remnant author "has been over the mountain an ddown the river" in matters of historical-critical methods. It is his conviction at the end of the day that the New Testament is true.

Our longstanding objection to creeds should be examined. A creed as repudiated by the Restoration fathers was a comprehensive and theologically complicated statement of faith, adopted by an authoritative ecclesiastical body like a council or synod, and often assumed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore equal to the Word of God. Such a creed was employed as a condition of fellowship with the church, even of recognition as a Christian. It often included a stated or implied anathema for those not subscribing to its tenets. Such devices were properly repudiated by the Restoration fathers.

In two hundred years, a curious thing has occurred. A Restoration tradition has developed that says that it is outrageous and divisive to write down anything that should be believed and taught by Christian leaders, even an exact quotation of scripture. This writer has observed this on many occasions. Two are cited. In the 1980s, in response to a well-known problem, it was proposed in a board of directors meeting of a Christian service camp in Arizona that in camps operated by our churches, ministers identified as ministers of Christian churches should believe and teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. It was stipulated that people from other orientations might be used, only that they not be presented as representing our churches. This policy was attacked as a creed and voted down. A Restoration tradition about creeds had been made to trump an express statement of scripture in the practice of the church. At the second Forum on the Future of The Christian Churches and Churches of Christ held in St. Louis in the 1980s, the Double Vision project was launched. It was designed to double the number of our churches in the USA by the year 2000. Barton McElroy, Ph.D., sometime missionary to the Philippines and Dean of Manhattan Christian College; Mark Maxey, veteran missionary to Japan; and this writer, engaged in a little conspiracy. We caused three of the eight "breakout groups" to report back to the floor of the meeting that leaders of the new Double Vision congregations be expected to believe and teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. This proposal was viciously attacked from the floor of the meeting as "binding this creed upon these new churches." It was voted down. A Restoration tradition about creeds had trumped an express statement of scripture in the policy and practice of one of our parachurch organizations.

At the very least, brethren who do this are all tangled up in their Campbellite shoe laces! To quote scripture is to be put down as legalistic or fundamentalist--remarkably pejorative and non- specifidc terms of propaganda. It can now be safely stated that we often follow a tradition which says that to write a policy for the operations of a church or parachurch organiation, even if it is an exact quotation of scripture, is forbidden because it is to adopt a creed. If someone doubts this, let him try it and see what happens. This tradition is subversive of the promotion of New Testament Christianity and of the good order of our churches.

In respect to other objections: No, the Remnant list is not intended to supplant The Directory of the Ministry. The brethren who publish that useful item do a good job. The Remnant project intends to identify brethren who are committed to its statement. That this is needed is evident from the reports of many people who are signing on to the Remnant.

It is remarkable that some people are saying that the "Brotherhood" will be split by publishing or signing the Remnant statement. Many of the same people say with great heat that there isn't any problem anyway. Lurking in those two assertions there woul dseem to be an inconsistency.

It has been objected that the letter proposing the Remnant unjustly accuses the NACC and the Christian Standard. People who say this simply don't know what has been going on around them. Some irate letters have been received demanding specifics. People may consult page 6 of the March 11, 2001, issue of the Christian Standard, which presents a list of "Our Megachurches." Listed there is the Overlake Christian Church, now located in Redmond, Washington. In 1980 its then minister was presented as the featured speaker in the closing session of the NACC in Seattle. It was well known in the churches of that area that he had left the New Testament position and was aggressively advocating the common Baptist view of conversion. He aggressively lobbied the administration and board of Puget Sound Christian College to dismiss Dr. Harold W. Ford from its faculty as a condition of Overlake's support of the college. Dr. Ford was one of the leading historians of the Restoration Movement in the 20th Century. That minister as subsequently and repeatedly promoted and defended in Arizona into the late 1990s as a leader to be emulated. This sort of practice effectively indicates that our Brotherhood is now a sort of umbrella of churches who hold to New Testament Christianitya nd other churches that hold a Baptist or solifidian view of conversion. If those who set editorial policy for the Christian Standard do not know the facts stated above, they are brain-dead.

This writer has written extensively on these matters for many years. Additional materials will be provided on request for the cost of reproduction. In response to he allegations that he is an "isolationist" opposed to association with people outside "out gans," the author of the Remnant letter has participated in all of the two-week conferences of the C.S. Lewis Society at Oxfort and Cambridge Universities (1988, 1991, 1994, and 1998). At such conferences one associates in little groups. They don't include our people. Our "intellectuals" are curiously absent. Among those in our group in 1991 was a Roman Catholic priest who teaches in one of the church colleges in Rome. He was a sharp and lovable gentleman. This might lay me open to a charge of questionable associations by some of our people. The charge of bigoted isolationism won't work! (Well, actually, there was one of our intellectuals hanging about the University in 1988. He made no visible contribution to the proceedings of the conference that year on the decline of the influence of Christianity in the universities of the western world, but he did fill the pulpit on a Sunday morning at the Church of St. mary the Virgin, on High Street in Oxford. He was billed as a gentleman from Tennessee. He delivered a harmless little homily, heavily draped in the rags of academic respectability. It wouldn't ahve offended the Devil himself. It was delivered from the same pulpit from which C.S. Lewis delivered his famous sermon, "The Weight of Glory," a half century before. Sic transit gloria.)

The purpose of the Remnant project is to identify leaders who are committed to its statement. That is its exact purpose and its entire purpose. It is preposterous to assert that it will divide a Brotherhood united in believing what the Remnant statement says.

Someone said to Billy Sunday one time tha he didn't like the way he did evangelism. Billy responded that he didn't much like it either, but he liked it better than he liked the way that his critics didn't do it!

So it is with me and my critics about how I choose to defend and promote the truth of the Bible in the Christian churches and Churches of Christ.

When Alexander Solzhynitsyn won the Nobel prize for literature he was a prisoner in the Soviet Union. The communists wouldn't let him go to Oslo to deliver his lecture, so he sent it to be read. It is a touching and profound document of thirty-three pages. He closes his Nobel Lecture by quoting a Russian proverb: "One word of truth outweighs the world!" His release and the fall of the Soviet communist empire were a dramatic vindication.

The truth of God will prevail. The Remnant just suggests that we tell it. Without unity the Church is damaged. Without fidelity to the truth of the Word of God, it will cease to exist.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

I appreciate Cheri's well thought-out words; I think she did a good job explaining the true intent of the Remnant letter. I just have a couple of observations:

What the Remnant statement is for is to identify leadership that will stand for what it says.

How then is this not a creed? For a creed is a statement of beliefs that identifies a particular group that stands for what it says. However, I do agree that as a whole the RM has gone a bit overboard with its blanket repudiation of "creeds" of any kind.

If people believe the New Testament to be true, it follows that they will accept the Old Testament.

This has been shown to be false with such people in this forum as CG White, who believes the Old Testament is not literally true.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

The bat says, responding to another post:

(Other post) If people believe the New Testament to be true, it follows that they will accept the Old Testament.

This has been shown to be false with such people in this forum as CG White, who believes the Old Testament is not literally true.

CG replies:

(a) This remnant thing is not my problem. I have merely lurked on t his thread because it does not involve me, and I will return to lurking after I state I do not appreciate being brought into it.

(b) I have never said I do not accept the OT or believe it to be true. I do not believe it is all literal. I have never said I reject the biblical teaching on baptism either. I accept both. What I reject is the interpretations of Scripture which do violence to the cause of truth and the message of salvation.

For the honesty and sincerity of the folks on this forum, I cannot accept the positions on baptism and on the OT that folks here do without having a lobotomy done on myself. They just are not true!!

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

Cheri Smith Sims,

Thanks very much for sharing some more insight into the purpose of this letter. The problem addressed in it is very serious.... Again, I applaud those involved for their attempt at a solution. I hope many can work together on this.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

Lee, Thanks for your posts....

I am wondering... could we have two Barry's here?? There seems to be a Barry Hanson (Barry Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com)) and a Barry Davis (Barry Davis (info@pastorshelper.com))??? (When I was writing in response to Barry Davis, I wondered if it was the Barry that had been writing in previously... so did a little looking in other threads....) Anyway, just trying to avoid any mistaken identities if such has occured.

Have a Great week!!

Brother Robin, I appreciate your pointing to what is an obvious error on my part. Ther does indeed appear to be "two Barry's" here and I therefore must extend my apologies to Mr. Barry Hanson for my making it appear that he was inconsistent as I pointed out in my previous post to you. For if Mr. Barry Hanson is not the same as Mr.`Barry davis, and it seems certain that they are not then there is absolutely not evidence of the inconsistency in his attitude as I had thought. For my comments were based upon my mistaken perception that the Barry we were speaking of was the same Barry Hanson that I had been contending with in other threads.

I sincerely appreciate the correction for it prevents me from being unjust to either Mr. Bary hanson or Mr. Barry Davis. And again I express my prompt and very much owed apology to Mr. Hanson.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

Brethren, I so much applaud this effort to establish truth among the Christian Church/ Church of Christ, who hold strong to the Doctrinal Truths of Gods Word. This effort to bring to Light the compromising and watering down of Doctrinal truths by many of our liberal thinking congregations should be upheld and admired. It is a tragedy that many of The New Testament Churches are falling away to accommodate numbers and not true Christians, Disciples of Christ.

I know first hand of this compromising theology of growth and numbers and disunity within the body of Christ. Oh I can hear it now!! The nitpicking independant notion of agreeing to a creed or an association ect.. Come on , were talking eternal things. The fact is in Arizona and many western states are growing into a liberal attitude of compromising truth to be a Mega Church, wanting bodies not bringing souls to the Grace of God and to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Im no Doctor of Theology , but I know what Gods Word says. And I believe the convictions of the restoration Movement in restoring Gods truths and unity within the Body of Christ.

Graduating from Kentucky Christian College, I accepted ministries in Kentucky and Colorado, then was called by my home Church in Arizona to help in the capacity of Associate Minister. The Church had went though a split and was recuperating thru a new Minister who appointed Elders with backgrounds and doctrinal beliefs from denominations of Baptist and Lutheran. After being told one thing from the Sen Minister who supposely held to New Testament doctrines, for the purpose of bringing people to Christ and to afford growth, maybe it not best to emphasize Baptism as part of the Salvation Plan. To make a long story short. He gave in to Faith only position in essence, He probably wont admit it - I know first hand He say one thing to me , another to some one else - for the sake of growth and harmony!!

Brethren , be assured there is many sinking to the notion that compromise is better than truth. Make your arguments without incriminating the facts of whats happening, The truth of God is being watered down and a "Remnant" holding strong to truth is needed and should be supported to bring the "Whole" back to God's Standards.

Im sure some may think this verse out of context, but it says alot about many things: If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and think that godliness is a means to financial gain.1 Tim 6:3- 5

Lets not quarrel over words - lets see and admit there is a problem and make unified efforts to expose them and correct them to the Glory of God. Rich mulholland

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

Do you think some have had lobotomies?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

I forgot to include the reference from CG:

For the honesty and sincerity of the folks on this forum, I cannot accept the positions on baptism and on the OT that folks here do without having a lobotomy done on myself. They just are not true!!

-- (Whitecg@juno.com), June 18, 2001.

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

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Connie & CG.........

I know a place where I can schedule you both for lobotomies at bargain basement prices!

It's called the Baptistry........or a river or a lake or a creek (crick for you Indianites) or a tank or a pool, etc! For that is where the New Creature is created...........not at the altar of the Sinner's Prayer!

And remember the words of the Unknown Existentialist: "I'd rather have a Bottle in Front of me, than a Frontal Lobotomy"!

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark

I have been to the baptistry. In fact yesterday I visited the church where, in 1974, I was baptised by immersion. But that is not the place where the new creature is made. No one has shownn me a direct correlation there.

As far as lobotomies go, I do not think I want one...I probably would have to switch my political affiliatioons if I got one. :) (Just kidding)

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

CG.........try these on for size:

2 Cor 5:17 - "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come".

When is someone made "in Christ"?

Romans 6:3-5 - "Or do you not know that all of us who have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST JESUS have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection".

So it's very simple.....no Baptism, no new life........no new life, no Eternal life.

(interpretted via Occam's Razor)

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark

(a) You are correct about baptism, but no one has "unequivocably" shown that water is required.

(b) I have been baptised by immersion...do I need re-baptised, according to you?

I really think I am not the monster you tend to see me as being.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

CG......

Do you need re-baptism?

Only you can answer that question. We're told that Baptism gives you a clean conscience. Is is yours clear? Has anything that has been spoken these past few months made you wonder or rethink Baptism? Has ANY DOUBT arisen?

Use myself for example here. I was baptized in the Baptist Church when I was but 8 years old. As a simple child, I knew nothing of Calvinism or Baptist Doctrine. All I knew is that the Bible said, "all have sinned & fallen short of the glory of God"............"the wages of sin is death"........"repent & be Baptized everyone of you, for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".........."Unless one is born of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God".

I went forward to be baptized because I wanted to be saved......period.

Now, after studying Scripture, I have absolutely NO DOUBTS that my decision to be Baptized was correct for the proper reason, and therefore had no reason to be "re-immersed".

If I'm wrong......I'll gladly pay the price, for I will have earned it in the sight of God.

If I'm right.......a WHOLE LOT of people will be paying a price that they never knew existed or never accepted as being factual.

Scarey thought, isn't it?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Thanks for the well put post Mark.

Your last post brings up an interesting fact concerning baptism.

There are some who read and/or lurk on this forum that believe that unless you are baptized in "the" Christian Church you are condemned to hell.

That belief is nothing but pure Catholicism. In the Catholic view of baptism they operate by the principle...."ex operae operato." That is....as long as the priest says the right words, does the right things....and uses the right liturgy....the baptism is efficacious regardless of the faith (or lack thereof) in the individual.

This is purely false. Baptism is efficacious based upon the faith of the individual being baptized.....not the person doing the baptism.

Therefore, your baptism sounds very efficacious to me....since.....you believed at the time you were baptized what the Scriptures said about baptism....and not....what the Baptist church said about baptism.

For the record....I accepted a person into our fellowship once who had been immersed in the Mormon church!!! Her view of Jesus at her baptism did not even come close to the what the Mormons teach about Jesus....and in fact....her Christology was more biblically sound than some I have heard who were members of the Christian Church.

Thanks again for the post!

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark you said:

Only you can answer that question. We're told that Baptism gives you a clean conscience. Is is yours clear? Has anything that has been spoken these past few months made you wonder or rethink Baptism? Has ANY DOUBT arisen?

No doubts here. My conscience is absolutely clear before the Lord and all people. But If that is the criterion, then what about the person who has not been immersed but still has a clear conscience? Is such a person a Christian? If so, then what does that say about water baptism? If not, then what does that say about how important the conscience is?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

You keep getting things mixed up. Mark.

I don't need to be re-baptized; mine were in the proper sequence.

My first one at age 12 was like a CC/CoC/RM's. I was not a believer before or after. At age 25, I was borne from above by the Spirit and wanted to be re-immersed but waited and prayed for three years until my husband would also want immersion. (He also was borne from above by the Spirit during this time ~ the Spiritual regeneration spoken of by Jesus, Peter and John et al, and indicated to be preferable and more important than water baptism ~ the one we must have to be saved). This was 42 years ago. We were both immersed as believers three years after our salvation experience and all five of our children have been immersed as believers.

We believe it is a 'figure' ~ figurative ~ or 'demonstrative', as the Scriptures say it is. It is a 'type, or example.

It is very important as a step of obedience and a good work; it is just not salvationary. We hope you will come to a correct understanding of the Truth, because it is important that you understand that your good works will not save you. Jesus achieved every detail of our salvations. We merely accept and obey and believe ~ these are not works.

A work is the physical action of something on another. Like a water baptism.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

CG.....

Again it's simple, a lot of sinners have a clear conscience.....that doesn't matter. If they are unimmersed.....they are not in Christ - that is exactly what Paul said as I quoted above. Stop trying to confuse the point (a typical liberal ploy).

You asked about yourself and that is what I answered. I'm glad you & Connie are immersed and are comfortable with yourselves. The reasons you did it are between you and God........and I'll gladly let him sort it out.

Now Connie.....you are the one who is confused. You are hung up on this "work" issue.

In your own words, "A work is the physical action of something on another". Therefore, by your definition NOBODY can be saved!!!

How can I say that? Simple.

We are physical, finite beings - therefore everything we think or do is a physical, finite action (or "work" by your definition). True, we have a spiritual nature, but we DO NOT yet exist in the spiritual plane. Therefore, Faith, by your definition would be a "work". Repentance, by your definition is "work". Confession, by your definition is a "work". SO of course, Baptism would have to be a "work" as well. And since salvation is by grace, not of works - we're all doomed (by your definition)!

Either you have condemned all Mankind along with me (since I assume you are still adamant about me going to Hell) or else you are totally wrong and headed that direction yourself. And since Jesus said that at least some will find the narrow road. I can only assume then that the 1st option is no option at all.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark....

It sure seems like Connie has a serious case of neo-Platonism don't it??

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark says:

Again it's simple, a lot of sinners have a clear conscience.....that doesn't matter. If they are unimmersed.....they are not in Christ - that is exactly what Paul said as I quoted above. Stop trying to confuse the point (a typical liberal ploy).

CG says:

I am not trying to confuse the point. I am trying to plum the depths of your position. If a clear conscience does not matter, then baptism is magical. It seems to me you are trying to have it both ways by talking about literal immersion giving a clear conscience and them saying a clear concience does not matter. Which is it?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

CG......

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. You can't logically tie the consciences of the immersed and unimmersed together......as they are totally different creatures.........one trying to do right by God and the other not giving a "flying fig" about God.

Hardened criminals have no dicernable conscience, so of course they don't worry about baptism, a clear conscience, or anything else but their own lusts.

Your case cannot be compared to that. You submitted to Baptism of your own volition (I assume) based on your own convictions. Your Conscience should be clear, unless..........................something in your studies and discussions lead you to different conclusions. IF that were to happen, I know your conscience would bother you some...it would to anyone who really wanted to seek the Lord's will. Then you would have to make a decision concerning the effacacy of your previous Baptism.

Now the following is only an example, so please don't get bent out of shape over this:

Knowing that you have stated multiple times on this Forum that you do not believe that water baptism has anything to do with salvation ..........if you were to become truly questionable about your previous baptism and came to me and asked what you needed to do to be "right with God"........I would recommend being Baptized again.........as that would knock out that last remaining doubt (clearing your conscience) and freeing you to live the "life more abundant" in the here & now.

Life is too short and too uncertain to go about with a cloud of doubt hugging your shoulder.......WASH it off.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Danny....

You are SO RIGHT about Connie. After reading that last post, I thought I was back in a High School Greek Literature class contemplating the writings of Plato.

The Apostle John would have a blast correcting those Gnostic ideas.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

To All,

The letter Cheri Smith Sims "posted" was written by her father Joe Carson Smith, the originator of the Camelback letter. It is a response to the concerns that have been raised here and directly to Mr. Smith. Please take a look at it again with this in mind.

Cheri,

Thank you for taking the time to post the letter from your father. I am happy to see it finally worked.

Mr. Smith,

Thank you also for the response you have given in regards to our concerns. Have you noticed that E. Lee Saffold has responded with a suggestion for brethren to meet in Atlanta to discuss this apostasy that is plaguing the church, and what we can do about it?

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Thank you Sam and Danny for trying to clear up the "pastor" problem. I have not seen the 3 x 5 card yet. Will check it out when I go to work tomorrow.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Rich,

Thank you for your post!!

I too know first hand of congregations compromising, here in my own area. Though we do not have mega congregations here, ours are going the same way. It is easier. NO conflict, confrontation, a "can't we all just get along" kind of "Love" the religious bodies of today teach us. It is disgusting!

The verse you quoted is not at all out of context. The main purpose of the letter is to make at least some attempt to stop false doctrines.

E. Lee Saffold has offered to set up a meeting place for Brethren who would like to meet. Do you believe it is possible to do something such as this?

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Robin & E. Lee,

Thank you for your responses in this thread. It is good to see men of God willing to not only take a stand for the truth (we know how important that is), but to try to actually DO something about the problem we are facing. I do hope that this discussion we are having does not just end there. I hope that we really DO something about what we are discussing…something constructive as you say.

E. Lee,

I know you are serious about your offer as you were about your offer concerning faithful men going to a PK meeting to defend the gospel. And that is the whole crux of the matter, THE DEFENSE OF THE GOSPEL. Doing this on a united front, helping each other, teaching one another, being our brother's keeper, snatching some back from the fire, saving others.

I believe Robin is correct…we have become too autonomous. We don't many times see past our own back pews much less our own back yard. I have been guilty of this. The one thing that was really brought home to me after I started coming to this forum is that there are way more faithful congregations out there than I had thought, and that is great, to get to speak with, learn from, and discuss things with these men. On the other hand, though I know personally of the apostasy, I came to find there is much more of that than I had thought also. And as I believe Rich said…THESE ARE ETERNAL THINGS we are speaking of.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Mark when you say:

You can't logically tie the consciences of the immersed and unimmersed together......as they are totally different creatures.........one trying to do right by God and the other not giving a "flying fig" about God.

You assert that the unimmersed do not give a "flying fig" about God, but this is not so. For one thing, the immersion irrefutably has nothing to do with salvation. A God who required that should be cursed and damned instead of worshipped (and I say that with a clear conscience because God is not like that.) A God like that is shallow and stupid--giving his life on Calvary and then not having that be effacacious unless one is dipped in water!

And even if you are right--Paul served God with a clear conscience all hisl ife, even before knowing Christ. Is it not possible that some of the unimmersed love the Lord as much as you or I and have not been taught correctly? ERGO, it is erroneous to say the unimmersed do not care about doing right by God.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

If you're still lurking, CG.....

Whoa Nellie........."curse God & die", huh CG. How bitter......Where is that pacifist love of God in you that you would spit at His feet. Do yourself a favor.......stay out of lightning storms!!!

CG, you asked:

"Is it not possible that some of the unimmersed love the Lord as much as you or I and have not been taught correctly? ERGO, it is erroneous to say the unimmersed do not care about doing right by God."

Of course it is......you carry the example too far once again. My example of the unimmersed was of those of Hardened heart, those Not willing to seek God........a topic you wanted to discuss, not me.

I know lots of people who are extremely serious & sincere about following God who are of other persuations of faith (i.e. have not followed the plan ofsalvation as I understand it). I hope, pray, & expect to see at least some of them in heaven on the "other side", BUT........that is God's call and I can't teach that.....all I can teach (and not incur stricter judgment) is what the Bible says, "go into all the world, preaching the gospel, making disciples, and Baptizing in the name of the Father, Sin, & Holy Spirit".

A couple of points about Paul:

1) Yes, Paul was diligent and zealous for God while a Pharisee - zealous enough to murder Christians, was that a good thing?........ooops, there's that death penalty thing again.

2) Even though Paul always sought God, when he found Him in Christ on the road to Damascus.........HE STILL HAD TO BE BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE MADE RIGHT WITH GOD !!!

3) Notice also, that all Paul had done as a Pharisee, seeking & serving God through the Law...........he considered it to be as filthy rags (literally "menstrual cloth" in the Greek) before God. I.E......it all was WORTHLESS and unclean until he came to Christ in the watery grave of Baptism.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Hi, What I find quite amusing (even though it is also quite sad) is that Mr. Carson and the Camelback Church have no statement for us to sign concerning what we believe concerning the Christ, the Trinity, etc... Their one and only focus is on baptism. While a correct understanding of baptism is important, a correct understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is even more so -- for what are we being baptized into? It appears to me, that Joe and his friends and Camelback, are indeed, baptismal regenerationists.

I once attended a church of Christ where baptism was mentioned without fail at every service for two years running. Jesus was mentioned sporadically. Sadly, this is common in the more legalistic "churches". And yes, I use quotes, because the legalists are not true believers, they have "fallen from grace" (see Galatians).

In Christ, Barry

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Barry....

While you and I do not agree on the issue of baptism....I agree with the general content of your post.

For instance, the Mormons have a correct view of the mode and purpose of baptism....but their Christology ruins it....and if an individual is baptized in the Mormon church....and accepts the Christology of that church....that baptism is worthless.

As I have said before....you can be immersed in the ocean so many times that every fish knows you on a first name basis...but if proper faith and belief do not accompany that baptism....it is worthless.

I just felt the need to acknowledge your post as a valid concern.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

From his Answer to Objections to the Remnant Project Mr. Smith says, "What the Remnant statement is for is to identify leadership that will stand for what it says. That is all it is intended to do, but it is intended to do that." So... in other words, the statement is to identify leadership that will stand for what it says about baptism... NOTHING MORE, nothing less. We should not assume that the writers of the statement believe that nothing more is needed besides baptism.... especially to the point of indicating that they are not Brothers! Indeed, from the information available on this thread alone, to do so is nothing more than gossip....

This letter was mailed to "the Christian Church all over the United States"... not to all denominations. I believe that the letter was trying to do just as it says, "identify leadership that will stand for what it says" (leadership within the Christian Church as that was who it was sent to). I understand your point that "a correct understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is important, but I think that Satan's main attack on sound doctrine within the Christian Church is concerning the part that baptism plays in the plan of salvation... this is the problem the letter is trying to address.

I would venture that there are VERY few Christian Churches that have fallen away from "a correct understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and still hold to the truth concerning baptism! Like it or not, baptism is where the battle is at... personally, I think the battle is there because Satan wants to keep as many people to himself as he can!!

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Robin....

I could not disagree more.

The issue is not baptism....the issue is....true repentance.

For a person who has truley repented....baptism is not an issue.

The essence of repentance is...."Not my will...but yours..."

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Oh....and one more thing Robin....

At least 50% of what I hear coming from our churches concerning the Holy Spirit is also unscriptural. I only need to refer you to some of the debates that have occured on this forum concerning tongues, healings, miracles....etc.

And some say calling the preacher "pastor"....isn't a big deal?? Like I have said...."sloppiness in little things (i.e., the pastor issue)....makes sloppiness in ALL OTHER AREAS.....including baptism.

I only wish the main battle ground was baptism. That would sure make my job easier.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Danny, Two issues:

1) Where do we disagree on baptism? I don't think I've stated my position on it, have I?

2) I am a pastor. I am the full-time, paid, preaching minister of the congregation I serve. In the church I serve I am considered part of the eldership. To me, that is the biblical pattern.

The above is not written in a sharp tone, just wanted some clarification.

In Christ, Barry

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Robin, The letter very clearly states that they want to identify those that hold to the "New Testament position", and then go on to describe that position in strictly baptismal terms.

Below is the direct quote:

It is our conviction that the Churches listed in The Directory of the Ministry have reached such a state of doctrinal decay that it may no longer be assumed that they hold the common faith of the New Testament to which their historic movement was called.

It can no longer be assumed that ministers listed in the Directory will faithfully believe and teach as true what the New Testament teaches. It is obvious that such entities as the North American Christian Convention, the Christian Standard, and many of our colleges and seminaries can no longer be depended upon to defend and represent the New Testament position.

Baptism is a minute part of the "New Testament Position". In addition, it is pure cowardice to make these kind of accusations against these churches, the NACC, and the Christian Standard, and not make direct references to where these churches or entities have strayed away. The letter that the Camelback church wrote is pure gossip and nothing more. It is shameful and they should be the ones called on to repent.

In Christ, Barry

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

D.Lee Muse,

Yes, a gathering for those who understand the "CRUX" of the problem of the watering down of an essential Doctrine of the True Church of Christ whould be very beneficial . Some on this forum don't understand the cutting away of the Fat to the issue that is weakening the True Church to carry on God's will for the Church. Making Disciples and Teaching them God's truths not those of men who believe in Easy believism and Cheap Grace. No true Faith / repentance and dieing to the old Self,in Obedience to Christ command to Baptize ( immerse ) in the name of THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT - Matt.28:18-20 - this is the dividing point of either faith only or TRUE OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Barry,

In reference to your questions to Danny... I believe (but may be wrong) that he has mistaken you for Barry Hanson who has clearly laid out his understanding of baptism elsewhere. If so, this is the same 'mistaken identity' problem that is addressed above by E. Lee.

I would be interested in hearing your position on the "minute part" (as you put it) that baptism plays in the path to salvation....

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Mr. Hanson....

Robin is correct in his assertion that I had you mistaken for another Hanson that visits us that is of denominational persuasion. He has made his position abundantly clear.

As per the "pastor" issue. You are EXACTLY CORRECT in the way you are doing things.

However, would you not agree that you are "a" pastor.....and not "the" pastor???

The word "a" and "the" makes all the difference in the world.

The N.T. knows no such thing as "the" pastor....but it certainly teaches the concept of the collegiate eldership....a group of men leading, serving, who have equal authority with no one man being elevated about the other.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Hi Danny, I think the following verse applies to those in the preaching role:

(1 Tim 5:17) The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

I agree that all elders (whether paid staff or volunteers) are pastors, there does seem to be a special significance paid to the one who is the main preacher/teacher, which to my understanding, is our common Senior Minister designation. I am "a" pastor, not "the" pastor, but none of our elders choose to be called "pastor". I don't know why, but I think it would be entirely appropriate if they were.

Here in the North (I'm in Minnesota) it is very common for the minister to be called "the" Pastor in the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. In fact, the ones who are not would be in the minority. I moved here from Kentucky, where the opposite would be true.

In Christ,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Robin,

By "minute" part I do not mean unimportant. But baptism is not the beginning of the journey to salvation, but the end. A person must understand the Person of Jesus Christ and trust in Him, or his/her baptism is meaningless.

My comment about baptism being "minute" was not in the context of salvation at all, but in the context of the "New Testament Position" the Camelback church referred to. Their "New Testament Position", or their litmus test, only concerns this one issue, rather than the weightier portions of the NT. In that sense, baptism is minute.

IHS,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Danny,

I don't really think we are that far apart on this.... I understand the need for True Repentance and the fact that it involves baptism for the forgiveness of sins ("Not my will...but yours..."). My point about baptism being where the battle is at, is based upon my observation that many, many think they have truly repented... but still misunderstand baptism.

I also believe that Satan works hard to cloud the issue of baptism because he knows that is where the 'rubber meets the road'... or should I say 'where the sin meets the blood'.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry,

You have said, "By "minute" part I do not mean unimportant. But baptism is not the beginning of the journey to salvation, but the end. A person must understand the Person of Jesus Christ and trust in Him, or his/her baptism is meaningless." I agree fully. And, part of that understanding needs to include repentance. Baptism is only a part (an important part because one cannot consider a journey complete without getting to the end -- in other words it is essential for salvation).

Then you say, "My comment about baptism being "minute" was not in the context of salvation at all, but in the context of the "New Testament Position" the Camelback church referred to. Their "New Testament Position", or their litmus test, only concerns this one issue, rather than the weightier portions of the NT. In that sense, baptism is minute. " I understand what you are saying.... I just don't think they were trying to set up "a litmus test"... but instead "...they were trying to develop a way to identify congregations that have stood firm as far as the teachings about baptism go. " It appears that you and I might never agree about what their motivation was (is)... until we have more information....

It does bother me that, based on the information here, you are willing to write them off as not being Brothers....

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry,

You have said, "...it is pure cowardice to make these kind of accusations against these churches, the NACC, and the Christian Standard, and not make direct references to where these churches or entities have strayed away. The letter that the Camelback church wrote is pure gossip and nothing more. It is shameful and they should be the ones called on to repent." Yet, in his "Answer to Objections to the Remnant Project" Mr. Smith says, "It has been objected that the letter proposing the Remnant unjustly accuses the NACC and the Christian Standard. People who say this simply don't know what has been going on around them. " and then goes on to give a very specific example. (And, I am quite sure they could share many more specifics concerning NACC, etc. -- I thought it was fairly common knowledge that there was concern in the Brotherhood about this very issue....) Thus, you have falsely accused them of "pure cowardice", being "shameful", and of "gossip".

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Robin,

I was to quick to say they were not brothers in Christ and I apologize. Two years ago I left a ministry that was extremely legalistic and have become hyper-sensitive to some of these issues. I sometimes "project" some of the teachings of my former church onto others when they speak in a similar vein. That is unfair.

Would you agree though, that the Camelback church is not handling this in a biblical way? As I stated above, the accusations they make constitute pure gossip if they are not willing to reference the congregations, ministers, etc...and where they have strayed from NT teaching. To simply send out a letter making these accusations without anything to back them up is reckless, to say the least. If they are truly concerned, why not meet with the individuals or groups they have questions about and try to come to an understanding?

IHS,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Danny,

You have said, "At least 50% of what I hear coming from our churches concerning the Holy Spirit is also unscriptural. I only need to refer you to some of the debates that have occured on this forum concerning tongues, healings, miracles....etc." You are probably right... you would have a better grasp of what is being taught in more of our congregations that I would.

Do you think that a misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit (tongues, healings, miracles... etc.) necessarily implies a lack of salvation? Do you think that a misunderstanding of baptism (ie., believing it is not essential for salvation) implies a lack of salvation? I personally think that one can truly be saved and still misunderstand the Holy Spirit... but it is hard for one to find salvation when they do not understand baptism, an integral part of salvation. Right?

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry....you said....

"I don't know why, but I think it would be entirely appropriate if they were."

Barry....it's very simple. Start calling them such....teach...teach....teach. In the two churches I have served over the last 10 years.....the elders were referred to as "pastor." In our bulletin...when one of them leads a meditation...it has them listed as "Pastor...."

Could it be Barry....you are afraid to share that title??? If you really want it to happen....it is very easy to do.

Barry...you also said....

"Here in the North (I'm in Minnesota) it is very common for the minister to be called "the" Pastor in the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. In fact, the ones who are not would be in the minority."

Well...your problem there is that you are closer to California (the left coast)....and the "Fuller Connection." Don't let location change sound doctrine.

And by the way.....ecclessiastical handcounts DO NOT determine truth.

You also said....

"I moved here from Kentucky"

Ahhh....there is where your problem started!! :)

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Robin,

I don't think the listing of Bob Moorehead's stand on baptism constitutes going to a brother in Christ and trying to come to an understanding, rebuke, or whatever is necessary. I repeat that the Camelback church is acting in pure cowardice.

In addition, belief that baptism is essential or non-essential for salvation does not determine orthodoxy. I have many brothers and sisters in Christ that hold different views on this issue. The fact is, they believe that Jesus commanded us to be baptized, and they are baptized. The real issue is, "What do you believe about Jesus Christ". Baptism is secondary.

IHS,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry,

You have said, "In addition, belief that baptism is essential or non-essential for salvation does not determine orthodoxy. I have many brothers and sisters in Christ that hold different views on this issue. The fact is, they believe that Jesus commanded us to be baptized, and they are baptized. The real issue is, "What do you believe about Jesus Christ". Baptism is secondary."

So, are you saying that you believe that those who hold to the 'Faith Only' position (ie., baptism is not essential for salvation) and strongly teach it, are brothers and sisters in Christ? If so, perhaps that is why you have taken such affront to the letter....

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry Davis,

You're not really Barry Hanson in disguise... are you? :-)

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Hi Robin,

I am not Barry Hanson in disguise :). Maybe I should use a different name to stop any confusion?

Anyway, you asked: "So, are you saying that you believe that those who hold to the 'Faith Only' position (ie., baptism is not essential for salvation) and strongly teach it, are brothers and sisters in Christ? If so, perhaps that is why you have taken such affront to the letter...."

Yes, I believe that those who hold to the "Faith Only" position are my brothers and sisters in Christ. How could I not? If they believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, they are my brothers and sisters.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry, my friend, You have said:

“Would you agree though, that the Camelback church is not handling this in a biblical way? As I stated above, the accusations they make constitute pure gossip if they are not willing to reference the congregations, ministers, etc...and where they have strayed from NT teaching. To simply send out a letter making these accusations without anything to back them up is reckless, to say the least. If they are truly concerned, why not meet with the individuals or groups they have questions about and try to come to an understanding?”

You may or may not be right about what you have said above, though I have not made up my mind about it just yet. But if you believe what you wrote in your above accusation that the brethren at CamelBack are guilty of spreading “pure gossip”. And you believe that doing such is wrong. Why then do we find you saying the following about your fellow Christians in the “body of Christ” which is the church of Christ (Eph. 1:22,23, Col. 1:18,24; Eph. 4:4)? These were your exact words:

“I once attended a church of Christ where baptism was mentioned without fail at every service for two years running. Jesus was mentioned sporadically. Sadly, this is common in the more legalistic "churches". And yes, I use quotes, because the legalists are not true believers, they have "fallen from grace" (see Galatians).”

Now you make this assertion and accusation against a church of Christ in some community but you were not willing to “reference the congregations, ministers, etc.”. Nor were you willing to give evidence other than your word, which is not sufficient, that these brethren preached baptism to the exclusion of Christ. In fact, I happen to find it very hard to believe that there is a church of CHRIST on this planet that could or would do such a thing! For no one can teach about baptism without mentioning Christ for he is the one who commanded it. And no one can accurately preach Christ, as the inspired preachers of the New Testament without preaching baptism that Christ commanded preached him. And You also fail to notice, that when you walked into that church of CHRIST every Sunday for 2 years you would have to close your eyes to not see the “sign out front that prominently displayed the name of Christ in connection with the church. You do not see among sectarians!

But notice what happened when Phillip preached Jesus. Let us read it together.

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? 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. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.” (Acts 8:35-40).

Now notice that all the scripture tells us that Phillip PREACHED to the Eunuch was JESUS. And as a result of hearing Phillip preach Jesus when they came upon water the first thing to enter the eunuch’s mind and come out of his mouth was, “see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized?” Now this proves conclusively that when the early preachers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit were preaching JESUS, baptism was a part of that preaching. And it was such a prominent part that upon the first sight of water the thought to be baptized was in the minds and the request to be baptized was on the lips of their hearers. And this is evidence that when one preaches about Christ he mentions baptism and it is further evidence that one who speaks of baptism is speaking of what Christ himself commanded (Mark 16:16) thus I find it very hard to believe your GOSSIP about this church of Christ. It seems indeed to be a terrible exaggeration of the facts. And you have not followed your own advice to avoid spreading anything like “pure Gossip”. For what you have said about this unknown congregation is just that, isn’t it? It is just pure unsubstantiated gossip, which all faithful Christians will refuse to believe until you prove it to be the case. Now that is the truth about what you have said about this congregation of saints that you have unjustly and without evidence maligned in this forum.

You should be ashamed of having done this just because they may have offended you in some way or you do not agree with how they go about doing the will of God. I have disagreed with many sectarian churches in my lifetime but I have never spoken of one of them in a forum such as this to malign as you have done to the church of Christ in that community. If I were to feel called upon to mention specific wrongs committed by any of the sectarians I would state them specifically by name, give evidence to support the truthfulness of what I said and give good reasons why such information should be made public. I would not just malign them because they did not please me and speak of them anonymously. For in your doing this you have painted the entire church of Christ throughout the world with the same broad strokes that you spoke concerning this congregation. For the way you have done this others could easily assume that you could be speaking of the congregation of Christ's body in their town. And you have done so with no proof whatsoever that what you say about them is true.

Thus, if you are a Christian, you have slandered your brethren in Christ. You truly should be ashamed. And it seems that you have deliberately done this thing. If you have, I urge you to repent of this. For when Paul persecuted the church of Christ in the New Testament he was asked by Christ on the road to Damascus, “Saul, Saul, why persceutest thou me"! My brother, any harm you bring to the body of Christ is harming Christ himself. I urge you to either give irrefutable evidence of the charges you have made or repent for having maligned Christ in your gossip against His body the church.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

E.Lee,

You have a unique way of avoiding the real issue -- build a straw man, and then attack!

While you are correct that I did not name a particular church, I also did not send out a scandalous letter to the entire body found in the Directory of the Ministry and make unfounded accusations.

Do you agree with Camelback's methods? A yes or no would suffice. I don't need a whole commentary.

Thanks,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry:

You have said:

“E.Lee, You have a unique way of avoiding the real issue -- build a straw man, and then attack!”

I do not believe there is anything unique about how I write. And you have not proven your assertion that I have avoided the “real issue” in the least. All you have done is assert it. You say that I have built a straw man and attacked but you do not prove it, do you? Assertions are not sufficient, Barry. Only evidence will suffice. I quoted your words wherein you condemned Camel back for spreading pure gossip. And I have demonstrated from actual quotations of your own words concerning this congregation of God’s people that you unjustly accused, without evidence, of preaching baptism to the exclusion of Christ. Your words were nothing more than gossip, pure and simple and you did publish it in this forum which is a public forum. And though it may not go as far an wide as the letter from Camel Back you have in essence done the exact same thing that you condemned them for doing. You were in fact spreading gossip.

Then you say:

“While you are correct that I did not name a particular church, I also did not send out a scandalous letter to the entire body found in the Directory of the Ministry and make unfounded accusations.”

Not only did you not name a particular church; you also did not give any evidence to prove that your accusations were the truth. Therefore you did make UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS. And your unfounded accusation was just as scandalous in this forum as you claim the letter from Camel Back was when mailed to all of the churches. The only difference is in the range of coverage of your publication “pure Gossip” and the range of coverage for the letter from Camel Back, which you claim, was “pure gossip”. But your “pure gossip” though it may not have covered the same distance it was of the same effect that you describe and attribute to the letter from Camel Back.

Then you asked:

“Do you agree with Camelback's methods?”

Now, if you had been reading this thread you would already know the answer to that question for I have written extensively in this thread about that very matter. I will therefore simply refer you to my post, which were written above in this thread. If you read those post and do not understand anything I will happy to answer you.

Then you say:

“A yes or no would suffice. I don't need a whole commentary.”

We have no concern here for what you think you “need” in our responses to your questions.

Barry, you can ask me any question that you so desire to ask and I will answer you as I see fit. You have no power or right to dictate how I will answer your questions. You need to understand that up front when you decide to ask me a question. You are welcome to ask me anything that you wish and I will answer as I see fit. If I desire to write a whole commentary in response to any of your questions I will do so and there is just nothing in this world you can do about it, now is there? So you feel free to ask any question that you so desire of me but know for certain that I will answer in any way that I please. If you do not believe that such is the case then just ask anyone in this forum. No one dictates how I will answer a question, least of all one such as yourself who despises his own brethren so much. In fact, no one has a right to dictate to anyone in this forum how they will answer any question. And you are no exception to that rule.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

E. Lee,

I do have a question for you: do you ever get tired of listening to yourself?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry:

You have asked me the following question:

“E. Lee, I do have a question for you: do you ever get tired of listening to yourself?”

No, Barry I never get tired of doing what God has commanded me to do. I do read what I write and pay attention to what I will say and what I have said. For we are told to teach the gospel of Christ and I listen to what I say, examine it to make sure it is correct and true. We are indeed commanded by Christ to “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Cor. 13:5). And we are told, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21). This would include proving the things that we say ourselves. How can one do that unless he “listens” to himself? And takes note not only of what he says but what he does. We should indeed listen to ourselves and prove every thing that we say and hold to what is true and correct what is not. So, Barry, we never get tired of doing this for God has commanded us to do it and His commandments are not “grievous”.

Now you have accused your brethren of neglecting to speak of Christ because they taught baptism. But you have not been able to prove the things that you have said about them. Paul was often accused in this way. Hear what he said, “Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.” (Acts 24:13). And if you never tired of listening to or examining yourself you might be more willing and able to see that you have not proved the things that you accused these brethren of doing and therefore are in danger of accusing them falsely. And you are assuredly spreading “pure gossip” which you do not like for the brethren at Camel Back to do. I agree, neither of you should be doing such things. And if you listened to yourself you might not have done such a slanderous thing in this forum.

But it is obvious to me that what you meant to imply by your above question. You meant to say that since I will not "answer" your questions in the manner that you dictate, and there is nothing that you can possibly do to force me to answer your questions as you prefer them to be answered. That you will not listen to my answer and I would thus be talking with and none would be listening but myself. And believe me when I say that I am fully aware that you have every right to ignore everything that I have said. And you are not the only one who “claims” that they do not read my posts. And that is their right, which I would not deprive them of if I had the power to do so. But your assumption that no one will read what I have written even those who dislike what I have to say is very misinformed. There are plenty that are daily reading what I have written in this forum, and among them are often those who try to answer what I have written beginning with the words, “I have not read all of your posts”! Ha! And I predict that you may well one day be numbered among those who pretend that they do not read what I have to say while simultaneously attempting to answer the arguments that I have made. And it is really humorous to watch this charade! And you are welcome to join it if you like.

And if you could see the numerous e-mails that I receive daily from “lurkers” who do not post in the forum you would not have assumed that when I write no reads it. But even if that were the case I would write anyway for I am obeying God’s commands to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints and to preach the precious gospel of Christ. And I never get tired of hearing the gospel of Christ even if I am the one preaching it! It is a wonderful story that I will tell so long as I live and there is just nothing anyone on this planet can do to prevent me from doing so, now is there?

So, you write whatever you wish and I will do the same. And if you write something that I am convinced is contrary to the truth of God I will respond as I have time and opportunity even if no one reads it but God and myself. For it is Him that I seek to obey and please. Your pleasure, comfort and acceptance of what we teach are not my concern. For we teach the truth from the word of God, and we listen to ourselves constantly and compare what we say with the truth of God’s word. And we hear the criticisms of others to determine if we are in error so that we can correct our course if it is wrong.

I highly recommend that same practice to you, my friend. For if you had listened to yourself closely when you were spreading “pure gossip” about your own brethren in Christ you would have stop yourself from doing it, I am sure. Or if you had listened to yourself after you wrote it you would have apologized for doing such a slanderous thing. But the problem, my friend, appears to be that you do not listen to yourself at all. You might want to take up the habit. If may spare you from doing wrong things.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Barry....you simply prove the reason that the Camelback folks feel the need to take the steps they do.

Robin....rest assured....I would not be sending my folks to Barry's congregation.

Barry....if you agree with the "faith only" position....which is a departure from the Restoration Movement.....then why don't you do yourself and us a favor....and join a denominational fellowship and leave the RM??

And don't say you don't believe in denominationalism. You have all the workings of such. If if looks like a duck....and sounds like a duck....it is a duck.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Danny,

Who said I hold to the "faith only" position? I didn't.

By the way, we are not looking for people from your congregation. We are much more interested in evangelism (including baptism!) than transfer growth from legalistic churches. If people came to the church I serve with the attitude you are showing, I'd rather they went elsewhere. Of course, if they were willing to listen to true NT teaching, we'd be glad to have them.

Your sectarian spirit sounds much more like denominationalism than anything I have posted, friend.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Ah-h-em, as Connie markedly clears her throat.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Brothers and Sisters,

If you had signed a Remnant card or indicated that you wanted further information on this issue, you would presently be looking at a detailed, 22-page document offering specific cases and points that caused the leadership of Camelback Christian to challenge the brotherhood to this dialogue. Obviously, this could not be posted in its entirety in this forum. The charge of "gossip" or "cowardice" in the face of what is obviously a sincere call to serious study and discussion regarding specific and well-documented events is sad and reckless, and perhaps demonstrates in part the nature of the difficulty at hand. Perhaps those of you hiding in the tall grass hurling irresponsible accusations would like to come out and speak directly to Dr. Smith. His home phone number is listed below.

I would also invite those who imagine the approach taken in the Remnant letter to be "legalistic" to give him a call. This will be very instructive for you.

Regarding the use of the term "Pastor" on a 3 x 5 card that was enclosed with the Remnant letter: This card included several other categories; i.e. Minister, Teacher, Elder, Evangelist, Missionary, and Other. It is indeed accurate that the Christian churches/Churches of Christ have not traditionally used this term, which is Greek in origin and means roughly "shepherd." It is pretty much interchangeable with Elder, the term our churches have historically used. The card was copied from a standardized form. The term was included because it has come into use in the last 20 years in many of our so-called "super churches" and "mega-churches." The purpose of the letter was to cast about for a wide response from both liberal and conservative factions of the Restoration Movement. The term was included simply because we wanted people in positions of leadership to identify themselves and respond. The term is currently in use among our brethren. The issue is being considerably over- analyzed.

The people who are involved in this project are extremely thoughtful people who have exercised great care and agonized considerably over how best to present these issues to the brotherhood. The spirit of rancor that has been demonstrated by some in this forum is inappropriate and unproductive. We are called to love each other in the truth. Let us all try to remember who we are.

Cheri Sims

Dr. Joe Carson Smith's home phone number: 480-945-4751. Tell him Cheri says "Hey."

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Barry....

When you say that you consider those who believe in the "faith only" doctrine as "brothers and sisters in Christ".....that means....you accept the "faith only" doctrine position. Call it anyway you like it.

I can imagine you wouldn't want any "legalistic" people around...it sounds like you would have trouble dealing with people who call into question some of your denominiational practices and traits.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Cheri....

Your attempt to explain away the "pastor" term....is so contradictory....that it brings into question everything you are doing.

In essence your answer is...."it was a standardized form and well....everyone is doing it anyway."

Could not the same argument be used for the issue of baptism???....i.e., "well the mega churches are downplaying it....so why don't we as well."

If you are going to set yourselves up as the litmus test for orthodoxy in the brotherhood.....fine. But be consistent. Either reject all of liberalism.....or none of it.

In fact, I find your recent response troublesome....because as I said....it gives the appearance of....."well...everyone else is doing it."

And by the way....."Pastor" is not "pretty much the same thing as elder"......it is the same thing as Elder.

You really think some are "over analying this?" Think again. Twenty five years ago.....preachers in our brotherhood who used the term "pastor"......were pretty much shunned, rebuked....etc....and fired.

But now....in our continuing efforts to "repent and be Baptist"......we kind of think it's cute. We feel like the big churches now.

I'm going to say it over and over again....ad naseum......"sloppiness in little things leads to sloppiness in big things."

Now if Brother Joe will come on the forum and admit that it was a bad choice of wording.....and that he regrets using the card....and will be more careful in his biblical language....then I will be glad to hear what he has to say.

Until then, however, he has not passed my litmus test.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Oh...and by the way Cheri....the internet is not "the tall grass."

WWW....means.....World Wide....that means....it's open for everyone to see.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Danny,

So you believe anyone who holds to the "faith only" doctrine, and is baptized in obedience to Christ, is lost? Please state your position plainly.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Yes.....the purpose of baptism is not simply a matter of "obedience to Christ."

It is a matter of "coming into Christ"....(Galatians 3:27).

Someone who says they were saved before they were baptized...has not been obedient to Christ....but to the tenets of Calvinism.

Is that clear enough??

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Danny,

Yes, it is very clear. May God have mercy on you.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Barry....

Please share with us the logic that states that God must "have mercy on me"....and yet....people, who in direct violation of the clear teaching of Scripture, reject the biblical purpose of baptism for Calvinistic "faith only" doctrine....are in the graces of God.

That one is a hoot!!!!

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

For all of your references to Calvinism, I don't believe you understand even one iota of what he taught and believed.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Connie....

I have forgotten more about Calvinism...than you will EVER know.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Well, that is possibly true. Since it's a fact that I haven't concentrated on what Calvin believed, but on what the Scripture teaches.

Much that he postulated about being 'the elect' and God choosing us is right there in the Scriptures. But I also believe in 'free will', so that is another paradoxical subject to ask the Lord about IMMEDIATELY following the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

I DARE you to actually read something Calvin wrote. Then you would have some basis for giving an opinion about what he believed and taught, and not some regurgitated opinions of some of your college professors.

I know you don't have time to do that, however, with your hunting and sports interests.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Forgive her Lord....she knows not what she says....and I mean it....she really doesn't!!

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Alright Connie....where should we start....let's you and me have a discussion about let's say...."Calvin's Institutes?" Or maybe....his commentary on the book of Romans?? Where do you want to start??

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Cheri.....

I really would like to work out this issue about the card and get it behind us. That is why a response from your dad to my last post....would be helpful.

After spending time talking with Barry Davis....I think there might be a need for such a work. I would hate to by accident send someone to that congregation after moving out of our area.

Please understand my concerns and try to respond. He may also choose to e-mail me privately....and that is fine too.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Danny,

You have never "talked" to me. Even if we considered posted in this form "talking" you have not done it. If you were willing to actually dialogue, I would be glad to. You have no idea what I believe about baptism, the state of the Church, etc.... You just blast anyone who doesn't fit lock-step into the comfortable little way you've put God in a box of you own making.

Our congregation believes in baptism. I have baptized over 20 people into Christ so far this year -- almost all adults! With all your talk of baptism, I'd like to know how many people your church has been bringing to Christ? I don't mean this to be an attendance contest, but surely with your skills and zeal, you must be winning people right and left.

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Nice try Barry.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Brethren:

Connie “markedly” informs us that she has cleared her throat:

“Ah-h-em, as Connie markedly clears her throat.”

Connie is clearing her throat so that she can continue to spew forth the stench of that “open sepulchre” and the rotten bones of he defiled and perverted gospel of “salvation by faith only” apart from obedience to God which perfects faith and makes it living, active and efficacious.

For her throat is accurately described by the Psalmist:

“For [there is] no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part [is] very wickedness; their throat [is] an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue. (Ps. 5:9).”

And by Paul:

“Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:” (Romans 3:13).

And having cleared her throat in the thread entitled does anyone know the Clear Lake Church of Christ in Houston Texas that “open sepulchre” is pouring out more “cursing and bitterness” against the “way of truth”.

But such things do not surprise us for we are told:

“And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2 Peter 2:2).

She is ever speaking evil of the way of truth, which she despises with a passion equaled only by our old adversary Satan.

But it is not her “throat” that should concern her as much as her “ears”.

“Give ear, O my people, [to] my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.” (Ps.78: 1)

“Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.” (Proverbs 23:12).

Those who do not hear the word of God are all members of a “rebellious house” as were the Israelites in the days of Ezekiel:

“Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house.” (Ezekiel 12:2).

She is deaf and blind but her only concern is that her throat, that “open sepulchre” should be “clear”.

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matt. 11:15).

“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye.” (Acts 7:51).

She clears her throat that she might behave as the Jews did upon hearing the inspired preaching our brother Stephen. “Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,” (Acts 7:57).

“But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.” (Zechariah 7:11).

“And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” (Matt. 13: 14,15). “For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” (Acts 28:27).

“(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.” (Romans 11:8).

She clears her throat that she might pray her hypocritical open display of prayers that are contrary to the will and word of God. But will not hear the truth.

“For the eyes of the Lord [are] over the righteous, and his ears [are open] unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord [is] against them that do evil.” (1 Peter 3:12).

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (Titus 4:3,4).

So, we see her foolishness. For she is busy “markedly” clearing her throat while simultaneously stopping her ears. What she needs desperately is “markedly” to pull her fingers out of her ears to hear the truth of God’s word.

May God grant that we will have many who hath ears to hear the truth of God and throats that are sing his praises and preach his blessed gospel throughout the land. And may the tribe of those who must constantly “clear” their “open sepulchres” that are ever full of dead men’s bones!

For Christ and those who love to hear the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Dear Father, help me to forgive Danny and E. Lee. Help me to accept that their training has poisoned them and created their other Gospel.

Help me to put into practice:

RSV Ephesians 4 4:25 Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 4:26 Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 4:27 and give no opportunity to the devil. 4:28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need.

4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

4:31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, 4:32 and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

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

I am very careful about speaking the truth in love, because I would not want to bear false witness against a meighbor.

As for my only wanting dissension, I have asked repeatedly for the dissension to end.

When I first came here in the first week of March, 2000, the dissension was in high gear. Do you remember NELTA, MARK HILLYARD, BARRY HANSON, DBVZ, PHILIP WATKINSON, AKELLEY, LINK HUDSON, ALAN CECIL, CG, and now BARRY DAVIS? ~ even Benjamin Rees, who agrees on baptism, but deplores the attitudes exhibited by several here.

Many are afraid to disagree with Danny and E.Lee because they do not want to be subjected to the very unChristlike, hateful rhetoric and rancor exhibited by them.

The very worst element of individuals are controlling the agenda here.

I stay beause I believe the offenders need to be admonished by more mature Christians, in a spirit of love.

I have failed a few times in that area and have tried to respond in a less than Christlike way. I am sorry for that.

I do believe that their offenses have to be pointed out, however, so it is like walking a tightrope to admonish without rancor.

Within one week of coming here, I was called a liar and satanic, simply for saying I believed for three years before being immersed a second time (as a believer). I have been immersed twice. Even Alexander Campbell would accept that. I have been a believer for 42 of my 67 years.

May God have mercy on your souls, Danny and E.Lee, and Mark W. You will need it. I pray that you will turn from your 'other Gospel': that a work, even a good one like water baptism, can save us.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Connie, I have a debate board at: http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage? who=debates where we have members of all different denominations, plus once in awhile, a few cultic representatives. You're welcome to stop by. For me, I'm outta here. These guys are nauseating me and are not worth my time.

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Do you really mean it this time Barry??

By the way.....the Mormons build 2.5 churches per week on average.

So what does that prove??

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

And please....do take Connie with you.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Danny,

You say to Robin:

"Robin.... I could not disagree more. The issue is not baptism....the issue is....true repentance. For a person who has truley repented....baptism is not an issue. The essence of repentance is...."Not my will...but yours..."

I have to disagree here, (and you know I hate to do that especially with you:)

I've been thinking about what you said, and I think we must back up even further than that. The problem is FAITH. People do not understand what faith is, what we must believe, what we must do. Do I merely believe Jesus is God's Son? Do I have to believe all of what He says? Do I have to obey His commands? As you can see on the justification by faith thread there are many problems here. If a person does not understand faith correctly and holds to that, all is lost including their souls.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Barry Davis,

You said to Robin: "Yes, I believe that those who hold to the "Faith Only" position are my brothers and sisters in Christ. How could I not? If they believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, they are my brothers and sisters."

Then to Danny: "Who said I hold to the "faith only" position? I didn't."

You said it yourself. You believe people that hold the "Faith Only" position are your brothers and sisters in Christ. So you do hold to the "Faith Only" teachings.

Danny is correct; you have proven the reason that the Camelback folks AND OTHERS feel the need to take the steps they have taken!!

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

D. Lee....

I'll buy your argument. Good point....and I agree.

In both cases we agree.....the issue is much deeper than just baptism.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Danny,

I knew early on that you would not send any of your people to Barry's congregation.

It does seem that you are beginning to understand where Camelback and others are coming from. This is the type of thing that locally I have to deal with on a regular basis. I have said before that we send many young Christians out. Barry is a prime example of the fight we are fighting. I am hoping what Camelback has started will help us in the area of finding FAITHFUL congregations for these people. It is desperately needed.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Barry Davis,

If you are still checking in... I would be sincerely interested in learning a bit about your background. (I understand if you don't want to share answers to any or all of these questions... that is fine.)

Were you raised in a Restoration Church (Church of Christ/Christian Church)? Did you go to a Bible College? Which one? What church are you with now? What church were you with in Kentucky?

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Connie,

You say: "Dear Father, help me to forgive Danny and E. Lee. Help me to accept that their training has poisoned them and created their other Gospel."

You have nothing to forgive them for. The Gospel they preach is not another gospel. Let's look again. They have many times given various verses which include faith, repentance, confession, baptism, Christian living. You say faith is all you need. That is not what the word says: James 2:14-26, Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16, I Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:12, Gal. 3:27; John 3 (THE WHOLE CHAPTER), John 15.

When one "takes away" from the word of God dire consequences happen. Rev. 22:19 "and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."

Connie, when you exclude things that GOD has said are a part of our salvation, you are taking away from His word. We have not added anything, but are only quoting inspired verses from the word of God.

Now you quote the following verses like you believe it is wrong to be angry, as if we should never speak harshly. This is not so.

"Help me to put into practice:

RSV Ephesians 4 4:25 Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 4:26 Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 4:27 and give no opportunity to the devil. 4:28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need. 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 4:31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, 4:32 and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."

Please see the following for times when Jesus Christ, Paul and others were very angry against others…tell me their words were ALWAYS what you would consider as loving. Will you EVER answer this question?

2 Pet 2:1-6 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in {their} greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and {if} He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing {them} to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter;

Matt 15:7-14 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'" 12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" 13 He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Matt 23:23-36 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-- mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. 25 ”Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. 29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

2 Cor 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.

Rom 16:17-18 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

You say: "As for my only wanting dissension, I have asked repeatedly for the dissension to end." The dissension will not end as long as you are teaching a false doctrine. And KNOW THIS…dissension or division is NOT ALWAYS WRONG.

I Cor. 11: 18-19 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. You say: "Many are afraid to disagree with Danny and E.Lee because they do not want to be subjected to the very unChristlike, hateful rhetoric and rancor exhibited by them."

Who is afraid to disagree with Danny and E. Lee? Do you have any proof of this? Has anyone come in here and said "I am afraid to disagree with Danny and E. Lee? What repercussions to you think would be incurred if one disagreed with Danny and E. Lee? Flogging, beating, stoning?? There is no one here stopping people from disagreeing with Danny or E. Lee. I myself disagree with them both on certain issues. As a matter of fact, I just recently disagreed with Danny. Is there some penalty I don't know about for disagreeing with them that I should be concerned about? What you do see is both of them and others refuting false teaching from you and others. And as you can see from the verses quoted above, it is NOT wrong to be angry about such or use harsh language.

This forum is voluntary. NO ONE is forced to come in here and discuss with Danny or Lee either. If it is the choice of anyone to decide as you and others have decided in the past to "SHAKE THE DUST" so be it. I just wish that if you say you are going to do some sandal shaking that you would simply do it. You and others have said before you are going to do this, yet you stay, or keep coming back. Say what you mean, and DO what you say.

Then you say: "The very worst element of individuals are controlling the agenda here."

This is just crazy! Now you tell me TRUTHFULLY how Danny and E. Lee are "controlling the agenda here". Each and every person that comes in here has just as much freedom to post, respond, ask a question, or start a thread as any other. The one who has control is Duane, and there are rules he has set up, but Danny and Lee are controlling nothing. What you have said is absolutely NOT TRUE!

You say: "Within one week of coming here, I was called a liar and satanic, simply for saying I believed for three years before being immersed a second time (as a believer). I have been immersed twice. Even Alexander Campbell would accept that. I have been a believer for 42 of my 67 years."

Again this is not true. You were not accused of such things "simply for saying I believed for three years before being immersed a second time (as a believer)." Both E. LEE & Mark have addressed these issues in another thread.

I do not care "IF" Alexander Campbell or an Angel from heaven would accept your baptism. Your point carries NO weight here. Your baptism was not done for the reasons stated by God; therefore it is not valid.

When you say: "I pray that you will turn from your 'other Gospel': that a work, even a good one like water baptism, can save us."

Your intent is to say that it is a work of man and that is a lie.

Colossians 2:12 says: having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The Bible says "working of God".

We all need God's mercy, not just Danny, E. Lee, and Mark. And without that mercy we would not be saved.

Matthew 18: "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. "When he had begun to settle {them,} one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. "But since he did not have {the means} to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. "So the slave fell {to the ground} and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.' 27 "And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. "But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and {began} to choke {him,} saying, 'Pay back what you owe.' "So his fellow slave fell {to the ground} and {began} to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.' "But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. "So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. "Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. "My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.""

AND

Luke 1:76-79 "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; For you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS; To give to His people {the} knowledge of salvation By the forgiveness of their sins, Because of the tender mercy of our God, With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH, To guide our feet into the way of peace."

Luke says that John was to give God's people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins, "BECAUSE" of the tender "MERCY" of our God. Without God's mercy, we are all lost. So there is another death blow to your salvation by faith only doctrine.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Good gravy D. Lee!!!!....ya been holdin' that one in for a while...ha!!

If you ever move to Indiana and need a home church give me a call!!!

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Thanks Danny, I would love to meet with fellow Christians at your home congregation if I ever move your way!!!!

And I guess that was kinda building up…I have been really ill for some time, and until just recently have not been able to post in the forum like I want to. As you can see…I am starting to feel like my old self again:)

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Been away from the forum for awhile. A lot's happened. This caught my attention though:

"Is there some penalty I don't know about for disagreeing with them (Danny & E. Lee) that I should be concerned about?"

Yes. Danny makes you you dress like Bambi during bow-hunting season until you "get his point". It's not a pretty picture.

"This is just crazy! Now you tell me TRUTHFULLY how Danny and E. Lee are "controlling the agenda here""

Danny told me to tell you you that you shouldn't have said that. E. Lee told me to post that his control over the forum is supposed to be confidential. If these kind of subjects are to be discussed here he will take you over to Danny's house, in which a Bambi costume (one size fit all) will be waiting.

I did not type that of my own accord.

Thanks D. Lee.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Connie, I hope that you realize that the statements and opinions of Danny and E. Lee are hardly in the majority among the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. I would estimate less than 5% hold to their extreme legalism and sectarian ways.

The quotes you posted are a true representation of our heritage and much more closely resemble the views of most within our movement today.

I'm sorry you've had to be exposed to this legalistic nonsense. Reminds me of the Galatians....

IHS,

Barry Davis

-- Barry Davis (info@pastorshelper.com), June 24, 2001.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Ah-h, yes, those foolish Galatians. I sure hope Barry is correct on this.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Connie....

As I said....he ain't.....and I'm proud to say I'm in a position to influence many more to come....men and women who "contend (lit. brawl) for the faith once delivered"....and not just be "lovers."

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Everyone, Robin alerted me to the fact that when you cut and paste the link to my Debate Board it takes you to an adult forum link! I have no idea why this is happening. Please forgive the error. You can get to the Debate Board through this link instead if interested: http://pastorshelper.faithweb.com/boards.html

BTW, Danny. This really is my last post!

Love Ya,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

This is from another RM site:

What Is Regeneration?

by Lee Wilson (Editor)

Regeneration is a common word among Christians. You hear it from the pulpit, and read of it in books. Basically, it means that something was dead and it was brought back to life, or regenerated. To humans it means that we are (were) spiritually dead in our sins, and we can be regenerated by the means of God.

Some Christians believe that we are saved in total by Baptismal Regeneration. They believe that baptism regenerates our spirit from death to life. While I believe in baptism as the Bible commands (for remission of sins) I can't go as far as to say that Baptism regenerates our spirits. The physical cannot bring to life the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44-50; John 3:5), therefore it is something spiritual which brings regeneration--God. God regenerates the sincerely obedient. (If He chooses to regenerate after the believer's baptism, that is His business)

D.L. Moody once said, "I am glad man cannot save himself; otherwise you'd never hear the end of it." This is in perfect harmony with Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 3:27-28. Regeneration is trusted to God. We can no more save ourselves than inhale all the oxygen on earth in one breath. We don't have the capacity to save ourselves!

Dr. Rubel Shelly says this: "While we are justified by faith alone, the faith that justifies is never alone. It is 'faith expressing love' (Gal. 5:6). It is faith looking to obey, not faith offering pious pronouncements as an alternative to obedience. It is faith that goes to the Word of God not to be inspired but instructed, not to find a feeling but to discover the path to holiness, not simply to hear but to obey."

Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."

Jesus, who did not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit, is the only one in a position to "bargain." Mankind cannot do any kind of work and then sit back waiting for God to grant salvation out of admiration of the spectacle we have produced. Only Jesus can attest to a perfect life worthy of the admiration of God the Father.

Where Does Work Come In? "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6). Quite simply, if we have to do something for it-it is not grace. If we work for the gift, it is not a gift but a payment for services rendered.

"For we maintain that man is justified by faith apart from observing the law"(Romans 3:28). If a believer in Christ has the faith which is shown by works, his or her faith is the kind of faith which God conditions to justification. Praise God that He does not demand a "superhuman" faith, but rather gives grace, and develops our faith Himself (Romans 12:3).

"The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever; he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." Psalm 103:8-12

God knew what price it would take, yet still he came to earth. Let us understand that God paid the price. May we stop trying to pay what has already been paid in full. May we lift our hands towards the heavens and thank the God who paid in full our ransom.

-Lee Wilson (Editor)

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

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES WHICH ARE IN CAPS ARE IN THE NASB, EXCEPT WHEN ENCLOSED BETWEEN ++++++++ ++++++++ CROSSHATCHES. I BELIEVE THAT DENOTES QUOTATIONS FROM THE OT, OR ALLUSIONS TO SOMETHING FROM THE OT.

NASB Galatians 3 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed {as} crucified? 3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

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

DID YOU RECEIVE THE SPIRIT BY WORKS OF THE LAW, OR BY HEARING WITH FAITH?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

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

ARE YOU SO FOOLISH? HAVING BEEN BEGUN BY THE SPIRIT, ARE YOU NOW BEING PERFECTED BY THE FLESH?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? 3:5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, {saying,} "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--

3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

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

...SO THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE THE PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT THROUGH FAITH.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is {only} a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as {referring} to many, but {rather} to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 3:18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 3:20 Now a mediator is not for one {party only;} whereas God is {only} one. 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 3:22 But the Scripture has shut R133 up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

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

....SO THAT WE MAY BE JUSTIFIED ****BY FAITH****.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

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

FOR YOU ARE ALL SONS OF GOD THROUGH ***FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS****

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

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Connie

I can only speak for my area of the country but-

I have to agree with Barry when he says Danny and Lee do not represent the majority. From what I see in our area they would be kicked out of the local Ministerial Association. They certainly couldn't ride the buss with our local CC preachers to the Promise Keepers. Much of what I hear preached today is like Scott's Bambi suit. One size fits all. But no one really get's the point. Some of the CC Colleges might never allow them to teach.(All that stuff about Hebrew, Greek and Herman -sombody). They don't know a thing about teaching drama. And I don't think either one has ever spoken at the NACC. The majority also would not want to upset someone with all that,(the bible say's)stuff.

Danny

The land of Lincoln could use some missionaries. How about directing some of those students this way.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Faris, I re-post to comment:

The majority also would not want to upset someone with all that,

SOME OF WHAT(the bible say's)stuff.

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

THEY PREACH A PARTIAL GOSPEL, BUT VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT OUR LORD PUT FORTH.

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

Danny

The land of Lincoln could use some missionaries. How about directing some of those students this way.

-- Faris (fsweet8@yahoo.com), June 26, 2001.

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

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

I want you to notice yet another example of how Connie deliberately leaves out the portions of scriptures, which she not only does not like and most assuredly does not believe, but also that she does not want you to see. Connie said the following:

“3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FOR YOU ARE ALL SONS OF GOD THROUGH ***FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS**** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++”

But she conveniently left out the very next verse for she does not want you to read it and know what it says, now does she. She quoted Galatians 3:26 but left out verse 27 which says the following:

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27). And the Greek word that is translated “for” in the beginning of verse twenty-seven is the term “gar” which means literally “because”. Unlike the Greek term “eis” which means “in order to”. This word “gar” is a transition word showing the connection between the this sentence in verse twenty seven and the one that precedes it in verse twenty six which was quoted by Connie. So she not only he the twenty seventh verse but in doing so she did not allow God to complete his thought and by this means she seeks to pervert the word of God and hide the truth.

But when the two verses are read together and the word “gar” is taken in its correct sense of “because” it reads:

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For (from ‘gar’ meaning because) as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Therefore the complete sense and meaning of the verse is “for ye are all children of God by faith n Christ Jesus. BECAUSE as many of you as have been BAPTIZED into Christ have put on Christ. Hence it is clear yet again, as we demonstrated in the Case of Eph. 2:8 that we are children of God by faith in Christ because we have been baptized into him. Just as Grace saved the Ephesians through faith WHEN they were baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 19:1-6). Baptism is done by and because of faith in Christ and God saves us by his grace through our faith WHEN we by faith obey his command to be baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). For God makes it abundantly clear that the “operation of God” takes place WHEN or while we are being baptized in obedience to Christ (Col. 2:11-13).

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;” (Col. 2:11-13).

It is in baptism that we undergo the “circumcision of Christ”. Now baptism itself is not spoke of here as “Circumcision” not is baptism a “seal” of any covenant as was circumcision. But baptism is the place wherein Christ performs the circumcision of removing or “putting off the body of sins of the flesh” and this happens WHEN we by faith are “buried with Christ and are raised with him”. And this is done by faith in the operation of God that raised Christ from the dead. And in this action which is prompted by our living faith is the time and place when we have been forgiven ALL OUR TRESPASSED. Not because there is any power in the water but because there is power in the faith that causes us to obey Christ command to be baptized (Mark 16:16) in response to the gospel of Christ (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:16).

This is the WHOLE truth. And we can see from Connie’s PARTIAL quotation from the scriptures that it is Connie who is preaching a perverted gospel. It is perverted because it is only part of the truth. We are saved by faith for the scriptures teach that we are but that is only part of the truth. We are saved by a living active faith and not by a dead faith. For Connie is teaching “salvation by faith only and that is impossible. For James said, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY” (James 2:24). And James explained that “see faith wrought with his works and by works was faith made perfect” (James 2:22) And again he said, “faith if it hath not works is DEAD, being alone” (James 2:17). And that the “devils believe” but they do not obey. And again, As the body with out the spirit is dead even so faith if it hath not works is dead.” (James 2:26).

So, friends, it is your decision. Will you seek to be saved by a living active obedient faith in Christ or will you be deceived into depending upon a DEAD faith to save you without obedience to Christ. Remember that we are told that Christ is the "author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him". (Heb. 5:8,9). Christ himself said “why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things, which I say? (Luke 6:46).

For Christ and those who love the truth in him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

I re-post to comment:

For James said, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY” (James 2:24). And James explained that “see faith wrought with his works and by works was faith made perfect” (James 2:22) And again he said, “faith if it hath not works is DEAD, being alone” (James 2:17). And that the “devils believe” but they do not obey. And again, As the body with out the spirit is dead even so faith if it hath not works is dead.” (James 2:26).

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

I agree with James completely and believe this fervently.

And while I do not want to commend myself, I have spent a life of Christian service.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

By the way, that word 'Justification' is interesting. I have said that before. It is NOT the same as 'Salvation'.

My dictionary says:

3. The fact, circumstance, or evidence that justifies; GROUND OF DEFENSE.

Justification makes us DEFENDABLE. The EVIDENCE of our works makes us able to be defended. Who is our Mediator ~ our Lawyer? None other than our Lord Jesus Christ.

Respectfully, and still praying for your enlightenment,

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Connie has said:

“By the way, that word 'Justification' is interesting. I have said that before. It is NOT the same as 'Salvation'.”

Let us look at what the scriptures say about this matter of “justification” and “salvation” and how the two words are related to one another though they have different meanings.

We are told “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:10).

The word translated “righteousness” in this passage is “dikaiosune {dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay} It is from the root word “dikaios {dik'-ah-yos}. And the word dikaiosune {dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay}means in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God”

And it happens to be from the exact same root word in the following verse:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24). In this verse we have the word dikaioo {dik-ah- yo'-o}, which is from the same root word “dikaios {dik'-ah-yos. And dikaioo {dik-ah-yo'-o} means “to render righteous or such he ought to be; to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered; to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be”

Now it does not take a scholar to see that the word used in Romans 10:10 when we are told that a man “believeth unto righteousness” is from the same root word and has the same meaning as the word translated Justified in James 2:24). A person is saved when he is rendered righteous or such as he ought to be or when he is declared to be righteous. So, the fact that saved means something different from Justified does not mean James was not talking about salvation. For one is saved when he is justified and not before.

And also James original question was “What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” (James 2:14) and his final answer was “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24). The word for “save” in this passage is “sozo {sode'-zo}” meaning to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction”. SO the question was can faith without works save a man? And the answer was that a man is not “justified” by faith without works. So, when a man is justified he is saved from danger and since he cannot be justified by faith only he cannot be saved by faith only.

For example, a criminal is condemned and seeks pardon so that he can be saved from the danger and suffering of prison. But he cannot be pardoned until his release can be justified or righteous or made righteous. And making the prisoner meet certain requirements stated by the governor for his pardon is often done. But none can doubt that when the prisoner is justified or made righteous he is then and thereby saved from the dangers of prison. Thus one can see what God meant when he said that through Christ God was able to be “just and the justifier” of him that believes in Jesus” (Romans 3:23-25). Or it could be translated “righteous in making righteous” him that believes in Jesus.” Justification is righteousness and we must be made righteous in order to be saved. And we cannot be made righteous by faith only according to James 2:24.

Now that is the truth of the matter concerning the difference between salvation and Justification.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001

E.Lee:

I re-post to comment:

Thus one can see what God meant when he said that through Christ God was able to be “just and the justifier”

***of him that believes in Jesus”*** (Romans 3:23-25). Or it could be translated “righteous in making righteous”

***him that believes in Jesus.”*** Justification is righteousness and we must be made righteous in order to be saved. And we cannot be made righteous by faith only according to James 2:24.

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

I agree with this completely. Notice it repeats "HIM THAT ***BELIEVES IN JESUS***. No mention of BAPTISM. Only BELIEF.

And when we believe, we will do good works.

We have to lay that foundation, though, ~ belief in Christ. And then we will want to do good works out of obedience.

If we have no good works which last through the fire of testing ~ wood, hay, and stubble ~, the Scriptures say we will have no rewards, but we will still be saved, though as by fire.

I am still praying for your salvation and enlightenment, Lee.

Blessings,

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

I have read through many of the posted messages about the 'Remnant' survey that was sent out by Camelback Christian. I cannot believe the accusations against Camelback and I cannot believe how much the real issue is being strayed from. The real issue here is whether or not the RM churches have strayed from right doctrinal teaching about salvation. Camelback was NOT trying to write a creed. They were only trying to determine if there is a 'consensus' among the RM churches especially about where baptism stands in the realm of salvation. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not about what we think!!!! It is about what God's Word says. Remember the proverb, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to destruction...". We all (Christians Churches / Churches of Christ) agree, at least verbally, that baptism is taught by the Bible as part of being saved. Additionally, we agree that the 'faith only' doctrine that includes the 'sinners prayer' is false doctrine! So, why not state that we believe it? It(the problem) is worse than that. It(faith only teaching) is a LIE. It is not much different than the lies that satan has been telling people since he told Adam and Eve "you will not surely die". The REAL issue here is that WE have let this LIE be perpetuated and become believed by the majority of Evangelicals (as Christians are sometimes called). Do you believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins as stated in Acts 2:38. If so you should have no trouble saying that. And that is all the 'Remnant' was asking for, a 'consensus'. The REAL problem that we all need to work together to solve is that the right message needs to be preached. We must stop allowing the 'faith only' groups to be the main (or only) ones preaching about salvation outside of the church walls. We need to stop supporting those groups and to start forming our own groups and public evangelism efforts. The Camelback effort and the results from it prove that the RM churches are in poor condition. Either we believe what we say we believe or we do not. If we believe it, then we need to act like it. If we do not believe it or do not act like it, then we should change our signs. Let's quit being wishy washy. Let's start professing what we believe!

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

Mike, When you say "we" are you talking about our denomination -- the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ? If we are truly non- denominational then there can be no "we" because that sets us apart as a sectarian group.

Of course we are a denomination and a sectarian group, even if our legalistic friends at Camelback wouldn't admit it. And I for one refuse to sign their creedal statement. If I were to sign one, I would much rather sign the Apostle's Creed -- it is much more biblical!

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

Brother Mike:

Brother Davis, who calls himself "Barry" in the last post, is a sectarian that has no idea whatsoever about what the "church of Christ" really is. But, he has a "creed of his own" and if you would like to read it you can go to the thread entitled "Statement of faith". But he pretends to prefer the "apostles creed" which none of the apostles ever read! But the truth is that he actually prefers his own creed, which is contrary to the very word of God. Especially when it comes to the subjects of "baptism for the remission of sins" and The establishment of the Kingdom of God and his "Calvinistic tendencies".

WE will quote him concerning baptism as follows:

" Brother Davis, on the other hand has said: “1) I believe that a person can be saved without being specifically baptized for the remission of sins.” Thus anyone can see plainly that Brother Davis does not hold to the truth concerning baptism in common the teaching of Christ our Lord and for that very reason he does not hold it in common with those of us who are determined to faithfully follow the doctrine of Christ.”

So, you can see why he opposes you. He is a sectarian and he wants others to follow his own creed though he prefers the “apostles Creed since the word of God is not sufficient for him. But true Christians are members of the precious body of Christ which is not a sect (Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:18,24; Eph. 4:4). This is a body that Brother Davis knows nothing about. For he does not even believe that this body exist. He thinks that sectarianism is good and acceptable to God and that all sectarians are the churches that Christ built. But the true body of Christ he despises with a passion. He has many notions that are contrary to the doctrine of Christ and we simply tell you that he is opposed to anything that would seek a strong stand that is in harmony with the TRUTH as it is in Christ. You are welcome to look at all of the arguments we have had with him in this forum and judge these matters for yourself.

For Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2001

Great post, Mike.
Barry, you wrote:
I have baptized over 20 people into Christ so far this year.
My question:
If you baptized them "into" Christ, what were they before you baptized them?

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001