Andrea Yates, the distraught mother of five, suffering from PostPartum Psychosis, who drowned her children attended this church.

Sadly,

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Answers

Connie....

What is your real motivation for asking this question?? Is it to suggest that those who attend the Church of Christ and homeschool their kids.....are psychotic??

If that is the case.....Sun Young Moon attended the Presbyterian Church......Anton LeVay of the Church of Satan had a Baptist background.....Charles Taze Russell attended a denominational seminary....etc...etc...etc.

Yes....she needs our prayers for her soul....then she needs to go to the death chamber. The upside is....at least she did it in Texas where she will get what she has coming to her.

Postpartum depression my foot!! She is a killer!

I have zero sympathy for her!!

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Barry.....

First....as per what Robin said....you can't show up on the block yesterday and start making such statements.

Second....lose a congregation?? Shoot....many would want to hire me. Like I said....many are tired of spineless preachers who show more concern for a pschopathic killer than seeing "justice flow like waters." (That's from the book of Amos.)

By the way.....a number of people from my congregation "lurk" here. I'm no different on the forum than I am in real life. Can you say the same??

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Oh....and Barry......I already know you are a minister...and it saddens me in light of the false "faith only" gospel you progagate.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

No Barry...it's only the way I talk to you and Connie.

If you go back....who was the first one to throw the salvo out concerning "God have mercy on you??" Why is it alright for you to call E. Lee legalisitic, pharisaical, and a Judaizer?? (BTW...when you called E. Lee a Judaiser it showed your absolute ignorance concerning what a Judaiser really was.)

One thing I have absolutely wearied of on this forum is the way liberals can call people all the names they want....but if a conservative uses saracasm....or says things for the way they are....all the sudden their Christianity...position....and lack of love are brought into question.

And sir...your wimpy, spineless version of being a minister....is one reason....I would never suggest anyone attend your congregation (let alone the false doctrine you progogate).

E. Lee.....YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD SIR!!! Connie had no concern for the woman whatsoever. I immediately saw her thread for what it was.....a cheap shot at the Church of Christ....in the same way Barry mentioning a church of Christ author was supposed to "poisen the well" right off the bat.

Both Connie and Barry....who because they are unwilling and unable to discuss/debate the issues.....must resort to such tactics.

I trust you know E. Lee....that none of the regulars on this forum would have made such a ridiculous assertion and implication. I'm sorry that had to be written.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Question Connie.....

If the Holy Spirit is your teacher.....doesn't He know Hebrew and Greek?? Therefore, why do you need someone to translate a Greek or Hebrew word?? Seems to me....that I should be able to give you my Greet N.T. and with the Holy Spirits help.....you should be able to interpret away.

Or can He only understand KJV English??

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Connie....

I gave you a full week....and you never even attempted to answer my question.

If the Holy Spirit teaches you.....then why does He only do it in English??

If the Holy Spirit teaches you....I should be able to give you either my Hebrew or Greek Bible....and you should, with the Holy Spirit's help, be able to interpret.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

OK Connie....

Let me get this straight.....the Holy Spirit teaches you. If that is so.....how then can you possibly make a mistake??

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

Connie....

I have been wrong plenty of times....BUT....I never claimed divine guidance either. You see....when I'm wrong....it's not the Holy Spirit's fault. He did His job....He gave me the word. He showed me the way through the Word that was given me.

If I'm wrong....it is because I have not "studied enough to show myself approved."

It is extremely inconsistent to say "The Spirit teaches me".....and then claim to be wrong.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

Connie.....

Let me get this straight.....when you get it right....that's the Holy Spirit???

When you get it wrong....that's you???

One more thing.....what determines whether you are wrong or not??

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

Let the readers of the forum take notice.

Connie has routinely accused myself, E. Lee, and others of lacking a humble spirit.

But take notice.....she is the one who arrogantly claims...."she is never wrong."

Keep talking Connie....the evidence keeps mounting.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

Connie.....did you not write this....

"Actually, I never claimed to be wrong; in fact, I believe I am correct on the issues I discuss."

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

OK...so let me get this correct....

The only time you are never wrong...is when you speak on the forum???

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

No twisting necessary Connie.

Just asking you to clarify YOUR OWN WORDS.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Geez Connie...it sounds like you have "Clintonitus."

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Connie...

Why do the Gideons need to get a Bible into everyone's hands?? Can't the Spirit just teach them??

Sure would save the Gideons a lot of money!!

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

When I read that all five of her children had Bible names and that she home-schooled, I dreaded that the news people would start emphasizing that they are Christians.

Her husband is correct; she needs our prayers.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

My motivation is concern for her husband and family ~ and for her.

Mental illness is a reality, Danny ~ witness this forum.

May God forgive her, and give comfort to her husband and family.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Danny,

What did Connies say that would lead you to these conclusions? She simply stated her concern.

Please tell me you're not a minister! I would hate to see you let loose on a congregation.

IHS,

Barry Davis

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Barry,

You sorta have to know some of the history of this forum....

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Robin,

You are correct -- I don't know the past of this forum. But regardless, the way Danny speaks to people is inexcusable. If he really is a minister (which I find very hard to believe!) his congregation must be absolutely starving for spiritual food and a leader that lives a life that emulates Christ. I'm not saying this to be a smart-aleck, I truly feel sorry for them. Danny makes Ed Bousman sound like a liberal! At least Ed is nice to people.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

You have said:

“Andrea Yates, the distraught mother of five, suffering from postpartum Psychosis, who drowned her children attended this church. Sadly,”

Do tell us Connie just what you are trying to suggest from this statement. I do not see a single word in what you have said that suggests any concern for this “mother”. All I can see is that you despise the church of Christ so much that you are simply elated to be able to point to the fact that this murderer turns out to have attended this congregation. What is the source of your information, which causes you to believe she is a member of that congregation? I do not doubt it, mind you, but I want evidence before just accepting it from you. For you have been known on several occasions to lie to us in this forum. But I would not be surprised to find a “murderer” in our mists no more than I should be surprised to find liars, false teachers, thieves, robbers, child abusers, homosexuals and numerous other ungodly sinners. For it is sinners that we are trying to reach with the blessed gospel of Christ. And we do not know, but she might have even been converted to Christ rather than just attending the services of the church. She may have been at some time a faithful Christian. And then, for reasons that no one can understand, she ends up committing this horrible crime.

But your unjust effort to insinuate that she might have committed this crime because she was a member of the church and was a Christian is just plain stupid!

And Barry, do not come in here with your nonsense that Connie intended nothing more with her above comments than to show concern for this poor mother. If you will read what she said above you will not find one single word of concern for this mother in it. Her only words are that this woman was a member of the church of Christ as if that has any bearing whatsoever upon what she did.

What is your point Connie? Do you want all Christians to take responsibility for what this murderer did? Well, we are not responsible for her actions. But you can rest assured that she is!

I do not know, and neither do you, why this woman did this thing. And she has not been tried in a court of Law just yet though she has been tried in the media, which is unjust. But when all of the facts are available to us we could then make some judgements about her. But inasmuch as she has admitted to having murdered her children we can only say that she is a murderer. But we cannot say much more without evidence. So, I will reserve my judgement concerning whether she did this because of “postpartum psychosis” until it has been proven to be a fact.

The fact that you despise Christians is obvious in your above feeble, pathetic attempt to make it appear that this woman who did this awful thing did so as a member of the church of Christ. You should be ashamed but liars have no shame. And I have proven now on more than one occasion that you have resorted to deliberate lies so I guess we could not expect anything less of you than to see to blame the church for this crime committed by one who was attending that congregation of the church. You will resort to any tactic to cast evil false charges against the blessed body of Christ.

For Christ and those who love his body the church,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Mr. Davis:

You have said to Danny apparently concerning the initial post in this thread wherein Connie merely pointed to the fact, “sadly” that this woman who killed all five of her Children was a member of this congregation of the church as follows:

“What did Connies say that would lead you to these conclusions? She simply stated her concern.”

Now these were Connie’s word, Mr. Davis:

“Andrea Yates, the distraught mother of five, suffering from PostPartum Psychosis, who drowned her children attended this church. Sadly,”

Now, what in her above statement gives you the slightest indication that Connie show any “concern” for this woman? Do tell us, Mr. Davis. Do you see any concern in those words? If so which nineteen words shows any concern for this woman? Those words show nothing more than Connie’s attempt to make some point about the fact that this woman attended this congregation and worshiped with the Lord’s people in this place. She is obviously happy to repot that this happened in the church of Christ and among the Christians that she so pathetically despises.

It is true that you know nothing about the history of this forum. But worse it would not matter to you for you appear to despise the body of Christ as much as she does judging from the attitude that you have displayed toward those who are members of the church of Christ. Have you not asked yourself just why this particular point is important? Why does Connie eagerly come to this forum to tell us that this woman attended a church of Christ? Have you even bothered to ask her what she meant by this? No! And it appears that it is because you could care less what she intended.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Brethren:

Connie has said:

“My motivation is concern for her husband and family ~ and for her.”

Now, in Connie's initial post she said not one single word that indicated any concern whatsoever for this woman, her husband or family! This is just another of Connie's deliberate lies. Read it for yourself brethren. She did not start this thread out of any concern whatsoever for this woman or her family. She was just so excited to learn that the woman who committed this crime was a Christian that she could not wait to rush in here and inform everyone that her Christianity was in some way connected to her crime. For her main point was to tell us which congregation of Christians she worshiped with which is a congregation of God’s people whom she despises; though she does not know any of them!

And you pathetic souls out there who are always pretending to be so Christian by asking everyone to be kind, gentle, respectful, and “loving” are no where to be found when such injustices occur, now are you? You brood of vipers who will spare you from the wrath to come? You are worse than Connie is. You spineless hypocrites! And you, unless you repent, will take your place along side of her in the pits of hell for your evil deeds. Christ will not save you unless you repent for he is coming not only to save but also to punish and he will assuredly do both. Watch and beware your hypocrisy is going unnoticed and if you do not repent you shall perish.

Anyone can see from her words that she was concerned for nothing more than an opportunity to connect the Christian people of this congregation with this woman’s crime and to use it as an unjust opportunity to “speak falsely of the way of truth”. He actions in doing this is an evil that comes from the very same source as the one who led this woman to commit this horrible crime. Satan is behind this crime as Satan is the source of Connie's deliberate lies. She pretends now, after being challenged concerning her initial statement, which showed no concern for this woman’s husband and family that her real purpose in starting this thread was to show her concern for the family! Such is a deliberate lie to cover her tracks after foolishly expressing her contempt for the body of Christ in this way! She forgot to make that a part of her original statement because she was so happy and elated to be able to report that someone who is a Christian had committed such a crime! Anyone that cannot see Satan speaking through her in this matter is either aligned with Satan or pathetically blinded to the facts.

Then she says:

“Mental illness is a reality, Danny ~ witness this forum.”

And who made Connie to suddenly be an authority on “mental illness”? She probably would not recognize “mental illness” if it introduced itself to her. And she is not concerned about how this woman might have been suffering from a “mental illness” as much as she is trying to imply that the church of Christ is responsible for her mental illness. And that is the reason she falsely attempts to suggest, for she cannot offer any proof, that there is mental illness in this forum. Especially since at least one person, namely E. Lee Saffold that she despises so much because she cannot answer his arguments, is also a Christian and hence a member of the body or church of Christ and she has unjustly accused him of suffering from “mental illness” in the past. It reminds us of how the ignorant Jews who could not answer Paul’s arguments could only respond with “Thy much learning hath made thee mad”! They too resorted to being sudden “experts” and authorities on the subject of “mental illness”. How pathetic of one who pretends to be led by the Holy Spirit to do all that she does! The Holy Spirit does not lead anyone to lie and play the hypocrite as Connie has in this case.

Now Connie we ask you to prove by any specific examples that you can find in this forum that demonstrates any “mental illness” in this forum. You will see brethren that Connie can say any evil, unjust, and unsubstantiated thing that she wants but she still believes that she is “loving”, “kind”, “respectful” and being lead by the Holy Spirit. She can even lie and still claim to be led by the spirit of God and be "loving" and "gentle" to all men. To all of you out there that make it a habit of criticizing at every opportunity those who stand for truth because you think that they are being too harsh. Where are you when these false teachers accuse us of insanity, and insult us, and even attempt to make us responsible for the crimes committed by this woman? If you say nothing about this your hypocrisy will be apparent to all that seek the truth!

Then we hear another hypocritical prayer for this woman:

“May God forgive her, and give comfort to her husband and family.”

Saying this after making the point that the Christianity which she was involved with in that city was in some way responsible for the crime she committed. And then praying that God would “forgive her” because of the Christianity that caused this crime is so hypocritical that God will not hear her prayer for this woman.

She should be ashamed but she will simply “wipe her mouth” and say, “I have done nothing wrong”.

For Christ and those who love the truth in him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Mental illness is a reality, Danny ~ witness this forum.”

And who made Connie to suddenly be an authority on “mental illness”? She probably would not recognize “mental illness” if it introduced itself to her. And she is not concerned about how this woman might have been suffering from a “mental illness” as much as she is trying to imply that the church of Christ is responsible for her mental illness. And that is the reason she falsely attempts to suggest, for she cannot offer any proof, that there is mental illness in this forum. Especially since at least one person, namely E. Lee Saffold that she despises so much because she cannot answer his arguments, is also a Christian and hence a member of the body or church of Christ and she has unjustly accused him of suffering from “mental illness” in the past. It reminds us of how the ignorant Jews who could not answer Paul’s arguments could only respond with “Thy much learning hath made thee mad”! They too resorted to being sudden “experts” and authorities on the subject of “mental illness”. How pathetic of one who pretends to be led by the Holy Spirit to do all that she does! The Holy Spirit does not lead anyone to lie and play the hypocrite as Connie has in this case.

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

Paranoia reigns! But I am glad that you made a connection between mental illness and the stances of someone here. (I certainly didn't).

Jumping to conclusions will get some poor results, E.Lee. I do feel very sorry for that mother ~ and especially for her husband and extended family, and even for her fellow church members.

I wish someone in that group had recognized her symptoms and helped her when it might have made a difference.

I view you through very sad eyes. But I have a hope and a prayer that you will eventually be enlightened and changed and old things will be passed away and all things will become new, as happened to me 42 years ago, three years before my believer's immersion.

And I rarely let the sun go down on my anger. I'm afraid to disobey God in that way, since His precepts are for our benefit.

And I have never despised anyone. I read just enough of your posts to get a gist of their import. It is the same thing repeatedly, to all posters who disagree with your baptismal regeneration stance. Why keep reading it? I can probably repeat it word-for-word.

It adds nothing to the discussion. So it's not that I am pointedly not answering your questions; it is that I am pointedly not reading most of them, for the most part. I said long ago that you would have to change the way you post things, or you would get little new from me. Two pages of well-thought out discussion is worth 10 pages of mindless repetition.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Connie,

You said, "I read just enough of your posts to get a gist of their import."

Funny.................that appears to be the exact same way in which you read Scripture! Reading just enough to back your views, but not enough to understand what God has said and expects.

You obviously never read that book on Heurmentics I suggested a year ago.........since you haven't learned anything.........at least nothing useful as far as Scripture goes.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Connie, you know I usually cut you a lot more slack than most in this forum, but in this one I am afraid I am going to have to stand with the others. Not only was bringing up the fact that Andrea Yates attended a Church of Christ a rather veiled attempt to sow dissention in this forum and attempt to connect the woman's psychotic behavior with the fact that she attended that church, but then you wrote,

I am glad that you made a connection between mental illness and the stances of someone here. (I certainly didn't)

which is patently false; you certainly did when you wrote,

Mental illness is a reality, Danny ~ witness this forum.

Pardon me, lady, but your slip is showing. I often think the others sometimes go too far in casting out "liar" and other epithets, and you know I do, that sometimes I come out siding (somewhat) with you, but in this case your innuendos and baldfaced lies are so transparent it is just plain ugly. You claim to be a Christian, Connie, and up until now I have given you the benefit of the doubt. But really, this is beneath even you. I think you owe quite a few people an apology and you need to repent of the vindictive spirit you've displayed here. (Regardless of whether or not you feel others have been vindictive toward you. That is immaterial. Remember repaying good for evil?)

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Connie, you know I usually cut you a lot more slack than most in this forum, but in this one I am afraid I am going to have to stand with the others. Not only was bringing up the fact that Andrea Yates attended a Church of Christ a rather veiled attempt to sow dissention in this forum and attempt to connect the woman's psychotic behavior with the fact that she attended that church, but then you wrote, I am glad that you made a connection between mental illness and the stances of someone here. (I certainly didn't)

which is patently false; you certainly did when you wrote,

Mental illness is a reality, Danny ~ witness this forum.

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

John,

What I said was in response to what Danny said. I DIDN'T MAKE ANY ASSOCIATION BETWEEN MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MY INITIAL POST, OTHER THAN TO STATE THAT ANDREA YATES ATTENDS A CHURCH OF CHRIST.

In fact, I was concerned that the news media would make a connection between Christianity and what she did, and I was hoping they would not. I dare say that every church has someone in it who is mentally ill.

I was also thinking it might be of interest to people here.

You are wrong, John, on this one. I know you are afraid to disagree too stringently with what is stated, for fear of being attacked. Please set a good example.

I am very careful to avoid lying. It would dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ. I never want to bear false witness against anyone, even an enemy, so I am careful not to.

Blessings,

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

My concern in my initial posts was entirely for Andrea Yates, her family and her church, all of which bear the name of Christ.

The media loves to overdo the news when dealing with ostensibly Christian subjects.

My sympathy was for Church of Christ related people. I am not against the church of Christ simply because of its associations.

I am not against it because of the ones who give it a bad name, either.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

John:

It is good to hear from you again Brother. I haven't talked with you in a long time. I sincerely hope all is well with you.

I appreciate your comments concerning this post and you are absolutely correct in what you have said and you are among those who should say it.

It is obvious that you reached Connie with you words for it definitely touch a never, didn't it?

She is now, in her last post sing a completely different song than her opening number, isn't she?

I am quite pleased to she her use of such tactics actually "backfire" on her for once!

I thank you on behalf of the faith Christians that she sought to malign.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

John,

Is this true that Connie has stated: "You are wrong, John, on this one. I know you are afraid to disagree too stringently with what is stated, for fear of being attacked. Please set a good example."

Connie sounds like she "may" have some intimate knowledge of a fear of yours. She says you are afraid to disagree too stringently with what is said here for fear of being attacked. Is this true?

By your postings, you seem to me to feel free to post what you believe.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

It seems to me.........

That if Connie was so concerned about this lady, her husband, & their church; she would be using her time trying to contact them and offer help and prayer - rather than using the time to make juvenile accusations against a Church of Christ that has got to have its "hands full" right now over this issue......trying to help people deal with this atrocity.

Maybe a little more research into that part of town would have revealed more of what was needed beside her accusations. Like how that area's School District has the highest teen suicide rate in the country. Like the enormous drug & teen sex and violence problems that are there. It's enough to help drive anyone a little "bonkers". I know.....I moved from the area almost 12 years ago while the getting was still good. And in case you're wondering....it ain't the poor side of town either............mostly rocket scientists (Johnson Space Center) and Astronaut families fill this area...........a true Yuppie Kingdom.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Mark, I re-post to comment:

You obviously never read that book on Heurmentics [SP?] I suggested a year ago.........since you haven't learned anything.........at least nothing useful as far as Scripture goes.

-- Mark Wisniewski (Markwhiz@aol.com), June 25, 2001.

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

I say now, as I said then:

"Hermeneutics, Schmermeneutics".

I don't need the opinions of mere men when I have the Holy Spirit as an Instructor.

I DO NEED someone to occasionally translate a Greek or Hebrew word or passage for me, but not many here can do that.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Harold Helm wrote: > Wednesday 10:30 am Funeral Services > Clear Lake Church of Christ, Houston > 5 kids - as reported on news -

Would this by any chance be the five children drowned in the bathtub by the mother? Was this family affiliated with the churches of Christ there? I hadn't heard this. Does anyone know for sure?

Al Maxey

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

Apparently, from another source, they were not members here, they just attended.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

I'm not afraid at all. I just know when to use the better part of valor, when to hold my tongue when I wish to avoid "friendly fire."

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Connie.....

You have marked your small mind for us, as you said:

"I say now, as I said then:

"Hermeneutics, Schmermeneutics".

Let me translate: "I have no interest in learning the proper, time- accepted methods for interpreting and examining Scripture..............since I act as God on earth (as I have the power to cast men into Hell) I have to right to MAKE UP by own interpretations and impose them on all."

With attitude, it's no small wonder that you cannot carry on an intelligent discussion on Theology!

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Connie:

You have said:

“I DO NEED someone to occasionally translate a Greek or Hebrew word or passage for me, but not many here can do that.”

Connie, if you cannot get the Holy Spirit to “translate” a Hebrew or Greek word for you since you claim that He helps you understand the word of God. You are welcome to ask me for the translation of any Greek or Hebrew word and I will be happy to help. But please, after I give you the translation, do not then return to the forum and tell every one that the “Holy Spirit” revealed it to you for that would be a lie, now wouldn’t it?

Now, notice Connie, you have done this very thing. You have asked others to help you find the meaning of certain words. And then returned to inform us that the Holy Spirit revealed the truth to you and that the Holy Spirit has helped you to understand God’s word when it truth you received help from someone other than the Holy Spirit. Thus you have lied when you claim that the Holy Spirit helps you to understand God’s word and you therefore have no need to understand “hermeneutics”. Hermeneutics is nothing more than the science of language and it’s interpretation. And the Laws of Language are the laws of God for it is he who gave us the tongues (languages) which wee speak. And when we study language we are studying something that God gave us and we are studying the medium by which he chose to reveal His will to us.

So, your hypocritical assumption that you do not need to understand language in order to understand the word of God is pathetic indeed. Because you falsely claim to have the Holy Spirit’s help in understanding God’s word while simultaneously asking for help from men to know the meaning of the words in Greek and Hebrew is pathetic indeed.

Danny’s question is therefore a valid one. If the Holy Spirit is interpreting the word of God for you then you would have an INSPIRED interpretation and would not need any help whatsoever, not even help in knowing the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words. And your confused and self- contradictory arguments and unproven assertions have marks of human frailty that they would not have if the Holy Spirit were the source from which they came.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

John,

I re-post to comment:

I'm not afraid at all. I just know when to use the better part of valor, when to hold my tongue when I wish to avoid "friendly fire."

-- John Wilson (mrbatman@earthlink.net), June 26, 2001.

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

I guess I have not 'learned the better part of valor' yet. I believe when they silence us because we may fear their slanderous words, satan has won. ....So I continue. If these are friends, what need have we of enenmies?

I also believe that a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Love in Christ,

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Typo:

'enemies'

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Brethren:

Connie has said:

“And I have never despised anyone. I read just enough of your posts to get a gist of their import. It is the same thing repeatedly, to all posters who disagree with your baptismal regeneration stance. Why keep reading it? I can probably repeat it word-for-word.”

The evidence in this forum of the fact that Connie does indeed despise the church of Christ is evident from this thread alone. Our readers are able to see it boldly displayed in this thread. And her above deliberate misrepresentation that we believe in “baptismal regeneration” is further evidence of her continual efforts to deceive. She says the above even though we have now explain numerous times to her that while we believe that the scriptures teach that we must “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). That we do not believe in “baptismal regeneration” because we do not believe that baptism ALONE saves us. But rather we are “saved by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8). And we have shown how that Paul is the one who wrote to the EPHESIANS that they were “saved by grace through faith” and he was referring to their conversion to Christ which happened as a result of his teaching. And if one wants to know how the Ephesians were saved “by grace through faith” in Christ. All he need do is read the account of the conversion of the Ephesians, to whom Paul wrote these words, and they will find that they were baptized in the process of being saved by grace through faith. And therefore the fact that baptism is for the remission of sins is involved, as a part of their being saved by grace through faith is no justification for the false accusation that we believe in “baptismal regeneration”. Now read the account of how these Ephesians were saved by grace through faith:

“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts 19:1-6).

SO, we believe what the scriptures teach that we are saved by grace through faith in the exact same way as the Ephesians to whom Paul wrote “for by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8) when they by God’s grace were taught the gospel of Christ. And by faith were obedient to Christ through the gospel (Heb. 5; 8,9) and were baptized in his name (Acts 19:1-6) “for the remission of their sins” (Acts 2:38). And that is not “baptismal regeneration” as Connie falsely and deliberately claims. Baptismal regeneration is the idea that there is some “efficacy” in water itself that saves us. And that all one needs to do to be saved is to be baptized and that alone will give them the remission of sins. We have never taught any such doctrine and have debated numerous times with those who did. It is our faith in God and our repentance of sins and our obedience to God’s commands by faith that is at work in baptism. And it is also God who is at work in baptism when it is preceded by faith, repentance, and confession of Christ (John 3:16; Acts 3:19; Romans 10:10). For it is there that HE has decided because of the sacrifice of our Lord and our faith in Him to remove, remit, and forgive our sins. Thus, the efficacy is in the blood of Christ by which our sins are washed away when we are baptized. “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). And that is completely contrary to the false doctrine of “baptismal regeneration which Connie would like for all to believe we are teaching. But we have taught no such thing. And though we have explained this to her numerous times she continues to deliberately lie to our readers by misrepresenting the facts in this way.

But, she has now so many times now that her lying has resulted in her complete loss of credibility among those who care for the truth. But her assertion that she can repeat what we have said “word for word” is also a lie. For we have never once said that we believe in “baptismal regeneration” and she cannot find one word from us that even remotely indicates that we believe such nonsense. WE believe that faith, repentance, confess of Christ, and obedience to Christ command to be baptized (Mark 16:16) are all involved in our salvation and none can be excluded. While Connie falsely believes we are saved by “faith only” which leaves our repentance (Acts 3:19), confession of Christ (Romans 10:10) and baptism (Mark 16;16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3:26,27; Romans 6:3-6;16-18; Col. 2:11-13; Titus 3:3-5; John 3;3-5; Eph. 5:25,26; Heb. 10:22; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:9-40; Acts 22:16). He false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” leaves out most of what God has required of us in order to our salvation. And she has thus far been completely unable to find one single passage of scripture which teaches that we are “saved by faith only” not even one. Therefore she resorts to lies, innuendo, misrepresentation, and deliberate attempts to malign those who oppose her false doctrine. And when she is corrected she begins to complain that we are too “unloving, harsh and unchristian” to actually be Christians therefore we could not be teaching the truth of God’s word. That is her tactics as we have demonstrated with sufficient force that only a “wayfarer and a fool” could miss it.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

From another RM site:

> Nelta, > Have you heard the late breaking news from this morning? Channel 13 > Eyewitness News in Houston reports that Andrea Yates is again > pregnant with another child..

Yes, Richard, I heard that and it just adds fuel to the fire IMO that her husband had no regard for his wife as a person, knowing what giving birth to the last two did to her. > > The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday I believe it was that the > family did not attend church services, but Ms. Yates was Catholic and > did not specify the denominational faith of the husband. I was > wondering myself of the affiliation with the Clear Lake Church of > Christ.>

They were neither with the CoC. I would like to do some *judging* here. Want to warn ahead of time. IMO the Clear Lake CoC is getting the publicity they are relishing.

I said it was my judging opinion.

Good to hear from you, Richard. Don't stay away so long.

nib

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Connie was so certain of her facts at the beginning of this thread. And she wanted so badly to connect this crime with the Christians at this congregation that she mentioned and now she says they were not really members of this congregation at all! These are her words:

“From another RM site: > Nelta, > Have you heard the late breaking news from this morning? Channel 13 > Eyewitness News in Houston reports that Andrea Yates is again > pregnant with another child.. Yes, Richard, I heard that and it just adds fuel to the fire IMO that her husband had no regard for his wife as a person, knowing what giving birth to the last two did to her. > > The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday I believe it was that the > family did not attend church services, but Ms. Yates was Catholic and > did not specify the denominational faith of the husband. I was > wondering myself of the affiliation with the Clear Lake Church of > Christ.>”

Now we could have easily guessed, that which I had suspected all along, that Nelta was the source of Connie’s nonsense in the first place.

Now she tells us:

“They were neither with the CoC.”

Isn’t that interesting? But she still wants to blame the body of Christ and the Christians at this congregation for this woman’s Crime.

Then we get some “judging” which Connie and others have often condemned others for doing. But I can only suppose that it is ok for Connie to judge but not ok for anyone to Judge Connie! There is nothing wrong with judging but it must be righteous Judgement. She has been very unjust in her judgement, false judgement I might add, of the church of Christ in this place. She knows it and the fact that she has yet to apologize for this unjust judgement is proof that she cares nothing about the actual practice of Christianity! She just wants to teach false doctrine and that is all she cares about. She should be ashamed. But this is her Judgement:

“ I would like to do some *judging* here. Want to warn ahead of time. IMO the Clear Lake CoC is getting the publicity they are relishing.”

Now this shows how unjust a person can be when they judge those whom they despise! Connie, you will face God in the judgement for these things and you will lose your soul if you do not repent of your sins and obey the gospel of Christ. And we can all see from this behavior of yours further evidence that you are not being guided by the Holy Spirit as you are falsely claim. For the Holy Spirit is not the author of such pathetic sinful behavior.

Then she says:

“I said it was my judging opinion.”

And that judgement is unrighteous based not upon facts in the case but on a bias against the body of Christ in Houston, Texas.

And notice that all of these comments are intended to hold others responsible for the crime committed by this woman. While simultaneously seeking to “excuse” her on the basis of her suffering from “postpartum psychosis” which has not been established as the cause by a court of law or any expert testimony or investigation.

Any judgement in this case at this time is a “rush to judgement” prior to the facts and ought to be reserved until all of the facts in the case are available to us. But those who seek to use such things against the Christians that they despise do not need for the facts to be established in the first place. All they need is the opportunity to make things appear to be, as they would like for them to be. Truth has nothing to do with it. Those who care about the truth reserve their judgement of these matters until all of the facts are collected, collated, and considered. And then with wisdom, justice, and equity they make judgements if they must and take actions based upon the best efforts to be just and merciful in a balanced and Godly way. Their judgement will be righteous and in harmony with the will of God. But false teachers, liars, and the rabble of this earth relish in these things because they have ample ways to hurt as many innocent people as possible. And that is Connie’s only purpose in bringing this subject to the forum. She cares nothing about this family, this woman, and least of all these Children. She was only too happy to use this terrible tragedy as a tool to cast a cloud of suspicion, innuendo, and false accusations against the body of Christ, the Christians of Houston, Texas. But she, like her friend Nelta, lies and has no shame. Hell is prepared and unless she repents God will send her there and his doing so will be just. But we do not seek justice for Connie and Nelta, but mercy. But they will not receive God’s mercy without repentance, which they refuse to do. They merely “wipe their mouths and say, ‘we have done nothing wrong’.” But they need not think that God will forget for without repentance on their part that God will punish them for this evil.

For Christ and the precious body of Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

E.Lee,

This WHOLE POST is Nelta's, except the first sentence:

From another RM site:

> Nelta, > Have you heard the late breaking news from this morning? Channel 13 > Eyewitness News in Houston reports that Andrea Yates is again > pregnant with another child..

Yes, Richard, I heard that and it just adds fuel to the fire IMO that her husband had no regard for his wife as a person, knowing what giving birth to the last two did to her. > > The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday I believe it was that the > family did not attend church services, but Ms. Yates was Catholic and > did not specify the denominational faith of the husband. I was > wondering myself of the affiliation with the Clear Lake Church of > Christ.>

They were neither with the CoC. I would like to do some *judging* here. Want to warn ahead of time. IMO the Clear Lake CoC is getting the publicity they are relishing.

I said it was my judging opinion.

Good to hear from you, Richard. Don't stay away so long.

nib

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

None of those are my words, except the first sentence.

I did not read the first information from Nelta; I read it in my local newspaper.

I didn't post any of the info on that forum, because I was off it for two weeks while our sons re-roofed and stained and painted our house (and I cooked and didi dishes and ran errands)and i just went back on..

They send too much e-mail and I didn't have time to answer it.

Nelta is correct about you, however: you are an evil man as she said on the 'Bor-i-ng' first thread, which cannot be accessed.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

And Lee, I disagree with Nelta on this. I believe that the Clear Lake CoC is doing a Christ-like work for that family.

I read another account that the father is overbearing, but there is no way to know that. He seems Godly to me.

My prayers are with that entire family, that church in doing a good work, and even still for you, Lee.

(We ought ALWAYS to pray, and not to faint).

The fact that she is a nurse and a home-schooling mother makes her someone with nurturing aspects to her personality. I believe she was simply mentally ill, and I have sympathy for mentally ill people.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2001

Perhaps God will create 'beauty from ashes'.

That father's witness might bring some to Christ.

KJV

Isaiah 61: 1-3: 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; 61:3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, ***to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning,*** the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

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

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

Connie, all you need is a concordance or a Vine's expository dictionary to translate a Greek or Hebrew word. It will open up a whole new world of information and understanding as some words do not translate well.

Now I'm interested in the comments that were made about the death penalty. It seems unusual to me that it would get support on this forum. Whenever I have attended a Church if Christ and asked about keeping the Ten Commandments, the answer has always been the same, droned at me over and over- "The Ten Commandments and the old law were nailed to the cross." But suddenly when something like this comes up, we want to drag out the Old Testament and dust it off, and now the 'life for a life' part applies! What about Mary Magdalene and the apostle Paul? Mary was caught in the act of adultery, and Paul had murdered a lot of Christians. Why weren't they put to death?

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

Chamoisee,

Thank you for your suggestions.

I have a Vine's, a Strong's Concordance, A Greek-English Interlinear Bible, several versions (four side-by-side) and a son who teaches Greek and Latin at the college level (has a PhD in Classical Languages).

I also studied Greek for a year around 40 years ago, so I can read the Greek alphabet.

That's why I know it is not so simple. If one does not understand the tenses, verb forms and such in the given language one cannot know about continuing action or completed action, or future action, etc.

That is why a word-for-word translation in the Greek (which most of our translations TRY to adhere to) are inadequate for a complete understanding. One cannot properly translate Greek to English without using lots more words. That's why I value the AMPLIFIED for nuances of meaning.

As for Danny's question, I suppose in some degree he has a point. What I count on the Holy Spirit for is to guide me to the correct interpretation. Danny doesn't believe He has that power anymore, and that all we have is the printed page. I say, with Paul, that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. And the Spirit is our counselor (teacher) according to the very word on the page that Danny worships.

In this regard, if a mistake is made, it is my mistake. We won't know some of these details are correct until 'to teleion' comes and we see fac-to-face, not through a glass darkly.

I worship the Giver of those words.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

I, being human, am fallible. I make mistakes. I sometimes misunderstand.

I also have opinions about various things. I realize, unlikely as it is, ;-) , that I am occasionally wrong. This does not prevent His TRYING to teach me.

Unlike you, who never makes a mistake or misunderstands ANYTHING. Unlike you, since you are ALWAYS right.

Love in Christ,

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

Danny, Dear,

If you have the best teachers and school in the world for learning to fly an airplane (as John F. Kennedy, Jr. did) but you either miss class or don't do all your homework (because you think you are so smart ~ as John F. Kennedy, Jr. did), you just might end up making a collossal mistake (as John F. Kennedy, Jr. did).

[My son flies planes (which I don't like) and says that is what happened]. I consider flying small planes to be a matter of not IF you make a mistake but WHEN. But I pray otherwise.

So the student can make mistakes even though his teacher never does.

In Him, and He in me, comforting and counseling and instructing me,

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

I re-post to comment:

It is extremely inconsistent to say "The Spirit teaches me".....and then claim to be wrong.

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

Actually, I never claimed to be wrong; in fact, I believe I am correct on the issues I discuss.

As do you.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

Please, readers of the forum.

Show me where I said I am never wrong. I never said it.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

I re-post to show Danny is not reading carefully:

I, being human, am fallible. I make mistakes. I sometimes misunderstand. I also have opinions about various things. I realize, unlikely as it is, ;-) , that I am occasionally wrong. This does not prevent His TRYING to teach me.

Unlike you, who never makes a mistake or misunderstands ANYTHING. Unlike you, since you are ALWAYS right.

Love in Christ,

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), June 29, 2001.

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

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

What I DIDN'T say is that I am NEVER WRONG. I said that on the issues I discuss on this forum, I ***BELIEVE*** I am correct. It's like adding an IMHO to an opinion.

I know you are trying to demonize me, Danny, but God protects me from satan's wiles. Because I call on the Name of the Lord.

Blessings,

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

Twisting my words into your counterfeit 'reason' will not hold water.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

I'll try again, Danny. I know you have some difficulty understanding what you read:

I re-post to show Danny is not reading carefully: I, being human, am fallible. I make mistakes. I sometimes misunderstand. I also have opinions about various things. I realize, unlikely as it is, ;-) , that I am occasionally wrong. This does not prevent His TRYING to teach me.

Unlike you, who never makes a mistake or misunderstands ANYTHING. Unlike you, since you are ALWAYS right.

Love in Christ,

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), June 29, 2001.

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

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), June 30, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Connie.....did you not write this.... "Actually, I never claimed to be wrong; in fact, I believe I am correct on the issues I discuss."

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), June 30, 2001.

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

Sometimes I am wrong. But I didn't say I was wrong in what I believe and aver on this forum.

You were the one convoluting on whether I was right or wrong or condidered myself to be either.

I am occasionally wrong. To my knowledge, except where I have readily admitted it, I have not been wrong on this forum.

Let's take the example of Mark Wisniewski. He erroneously stated that the Gideons do not promote baptism on their Bible covers, and he claimed that the Gideons do not believe the Bible to be inerrant in the autograph languages. I proved to him with multiple accounts from Gideon material that we most definitely do believe the Bible to be inerrant in the autograph languages (with the knowledge that we only have copies of copies).

In that same material, it is stated that we do not baptize or promote the gifts of the Spirit, or any other doctrinal position. The reason is that our sole purpose is to get God's Word into as many hands as possible. Actually, our goal is to get it into every pair of hands in the world.

We leave it to the Holy Spirit to use His Own words to teach. He knows how. And, as I've said, every reference to baptism which is in the New Testament is in EVERY Gideon Bible.

Instead of being an organization which has a unity of Spirit, and a oneness in Christ, which we have (and even many CC/CoC/RM people belong) we would be like this forum, where everyone is at each others' throats.

Now the point of this re-telling is to remind all that Mark PROMISED to apologize if I could prove to him that he was wrong. I proved it ABUNDANTLY, but I never got an apology (not for me, but for a Godly organization).

The thing he and some of the rest of you choked on was that there is a short sentence in the back which states:

MY DECISION TO RECEIVE CHRIST AS MY SAVIOUR

Confessing to God that I am a sinner, and believing that the Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins on the cross and was raised for my justification, I do now receive and confess Him as my personal Saviour.

NAME________________________

DATE________________________

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

In the larger version, the very first verse on the cover is John 3:3; the second is John 3:16, and the third is Romans 10:9.

On the next page under 'DYNAMIC DOCTRINES' it lists 'The New Birth', giving John 3 as the reference. It does not comment because it is obvious that people disagree on that verse.

The Gideons leave doctrinal points to teachers and preachers.

We have one purpose: Get the Word of God into every pair of hands in the world.

We aim at the health care industry, (first line of defense against abortion); the prisons; the schools; the military; and of course, every hotel and motel room in the world.

We haven't reached our goal, but we continually work at it.

Affectionately in Christ,

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Connie,

Aren't you glad that Peter didn't leave the teaching to someone else on the Day of Pentecost?

Aren't you glad that the Holy Spirit led Peter to say, "Repent and BE BAPTIZED everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS and you shall receive the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT"?

Aren't you glad that the 3000+ who were baptized that day didn't have to wait while some scribe handwrote and made copies of that stupid Gideon form?

Bottom line Connie.............they don't teach Baptism because, as a group, they do not belive in Baptism. God (nor I) have much use for a man who believes something, but will not teach it; he is either a coward or else he does not believe. A man of conviction (and honor) will proclaim his conviction until he runs out of breath to do so.

And I will not apologize for the Gideons being either wimps or promoters of false doctrine............they'll have to answer to God for that, I won't.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

What they don't teach is that baptism saves. (No work does). All of the people I know believe personally that one should be baptized (as a 'type' ~ a 'figure' ~ a 'demonstration' of one's faith). As the Scriptures say.

Nothing about the Gideons is 'stupid' but I cannot say the same for some of their detractors. (Of which they have very few. Anyone who cannot see the value of getting the word of God into every person's hands is blind, in my estimation).

The proof you required, by the way, was on the 'inerrancy' question, not on the baptism verses. I proved it to be the way I said it to be, with several copies of different Gideons statements. We believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures in the autograph languages. You didn't keep your word. What do you call that?

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Like Paul, some are not called to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.

Billy Graham is one of those, as are the Gideons.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Simple Connie,

Actions speak louder than words. I don't care what they put into their own personal documentation (none of which stated that they believed Baptism was a requirement for salvation, by the way) - what do they tell the public?

They tell them, "The Bible contains the mind of God".........FALSE, it contains God's own Holy Word. If they believed as you say, they would state that, but their example (in their Bibles) is NOT TO MENTION IT. WIMPS!

They tell them, "Sign & date this form and you shall be saved"...........FALSE. "The soul who believes AND is Baptized shall be saved". HERETICS!

If they (as a group) believed as you say and followed up with their actions IN PUBLIC, I would be glad to pass out their Bibles and help finance their printing....................fortunately, I won't have to hold my breath waiting for such, cause it ain't gonna happen.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Brethren and Friends, Connie has said:

“Like Paul, some are not called to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. Billy Graham is one of those, as are the Gideons.”

But do notice that she has offered not one word of evidence to support her false statement that Paul was not “called to baptize, but to preach the gospel. When the truth is that he was “sent” not only to baptized but also to preach the gospel. (1 Cor. 1:17). And we will show this to be the truth from the scriptures. But before we do let us notice things about Paul that Connie ignores, does not want you to notice and hopes that you will not remember. It was Paul, who at the time was called “Saul” who was COMMANDED by Annanias, “and now why tarriest thou? Arize and BE BAPTIZED and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the lord.” (Acts 22:16) And it was the apostle Paul who questioned the baptism of the Ephesians and then baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 19:1-6). And this is how the Ephesians were converted to Christ or as Paul reminded them, this is how they were “saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). And Paul baptised “Cripus and Gaius and the entire household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:14-15). That is a lot more baptizing than one who was not sent to baptize would do and it is quite likely that it is far more baptizing than Bill Graham himself has done or is ever likely to do. And it is more than the Gideons ever intent to do, isn’t it? So Paul cannot by any means be compared to false teachers such as Billy Graham and the Gideons, now can he? For he not only was baptized to have his sins washed away he also bpatized numerous people with his own hands and taught that baptism was essential to salvation. (Romans 6:3-6; 16-18; Gal. 3:26,27; Acts 19:1-6; Col. 2:11-13).

But be that as it may let us take a closer look at 1 Cor. 1:17 so that we can come to understand exactly what it says. There Paul says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel”. (1 Cor. 1:17). Now those who have much understanding of the principals of hermeneutics know that there are in the scriptures many various forms of expression and one of them is a form called the “elliptical” form of expression. We have many of these in the Bible for example, “He that believeth on me, believeth not on me but on him that sent me.” (John 12:44). Here the savior is made to contradict himself in a single sentence, by saying he that believed on him did not believe on him; but when we supply the ellipsis all is plain. “He that believeth on me, believeth not (only) on me but (also) on him that sent me”. Now let’s try another. “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak; for it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your father which speaketh in you.” (Matt. 10:19.20). Here again unless the ellipsis is supplied, Christ contradicts himself by first saying it would be given them what they should speak, and then telling them that they should not speak at all. When the ellipsis is supplied the passage reads thus: “It is not (only) you that speak, but (also) the spirit of my father that speaketh in you.” I am sure that all would agree that this is the case in these verses.

Then why may we not understand Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 1:17 in the same way? For when we supply the ellipsis it reads thus: “Christ sent me not (only) to baptize but (also) to preach the gospel”. If this ellipsis is not allowed, then we have Paul doing that for which he had no authority. For he says that he did baptize some of the Corinthians; and he says that he himself had baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the entire household of Stephenus. Now, can anyone suppose that Paul raised his before God and said, “in the name of Jesus Christ I baptize you”, when Christ gave him no authority to baptize at all? I most certainly hope no one would imply that Paul deliberately disobeyed God by baptizing people when God had not authorized him to do so. But the truth is that Paul was sent not only to baptize but also to preach the gospel, which is the direct opposite to what my good friend, CG, would have us to believe. Paul did not thank God that but few of them had been baptized, but only that few of them had been baptized by him and he gives his reason for this as follows: “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name”. (1 Cor. 1:15). And Paul does not say that he baptized but a few persons at all, but that he had baptized but few of the Corinthians, among whom this unfortunate division had sprung up. He might have baptized thousands elsewhere.

But while we are at this portion of scripture let us take note of something very significant that my good friend, CG, has overlooked along with many others. Notice the rest of the context of Paul’s words: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that their be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgement. For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul Crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:10-12). Thus he shows the reason why he was glad that he had not baptized many of them because they were taking on the names of those who had baptized them and claiming that they were of them instead of the truth that they belong to Christ. But it is indeed instructive to notice Paul’s answer, which was in the form of rhetorical questions of which they all knew the answer. He asked, is Christ divided? And the answer was clearly NO. Then he asked was Paul crucified for you? Again the answer was a resounding NO? And then he asked were you baptized in the name of Paul? And again the answer was NO. Then the conclusion was obvious that they should not be divided because they were a part of the body of Christ and Christ is not divided. And it was also obvious that they could not belong to Paul because Paul was not crucified for them and they were not baptized in the name of Paul. Thus it is clear that it was Christ who was crucified for them and they were baptized into His name therefore they belonged to Christ and not Paul, or Cephas or Apollos. Now, anyone can see from Paul’s argument here that two things were essential for one to belong to or be of Christ. Christ had to be crucified for them and they had to be baptized into Christ. No one can deny that this was Paul’s point. He was showing them that there were two reasons that they belonged to Christ and not Paul. And the two reasons were that Christ was crucified for them and they were baptized in the name of Christ. And anyone to this day that would “belong to Christ” Christ must have been crucified for them, which he was, and they must be baptized in the name of Christ. And this baptism that Paul speaks of is water baptism because it is the baptism that Paul himself had had administered for Crispus, Gaius, and the entire house of Stephanus. Only Christ could administer Holy Spirit baptism. Therefore this baptism that Paul says was evidence that the Corinthians belonged to Christ was the baptism which was administered by men in the name of Christ. And that baptism was water baptism. And that is the truth taught by Paul in this place.

If one has not been baptized in the name of Christ he does not belong to Christ at all. And if this were not true Paul’s argument in this place would have had no meaning whatsoever. So, this portion of scripture proves far more than my friend would like for it to prove. But it most certainly cannot prove his contention that “water baptism was not a part of the gospel” because the context does not allow it and the actual words, which he quoted, are elliptical and thus they do not even say what he claims that they have said. And anyone familiar with hermeneutics can see that my friend, who is quite familiar with those principles, has left his skill in hermeneutics at the door when he examined these verses.

Now Brethren and Friends, I hope that you will notice that it takes some diligent study and research to understand the truth of God’s word in these days when people merely make assertions about the Bible without referring directly to what it says. And during these times when even if they mention a passage they mention only the parts of it that appear to support their views. Rather than taking a close look at the context in which it is placed and reviewing what the rest of the word of God has to say about it. Let me urge you to not settle for this kind of mishandling of the word of God. Go and search for yourself for the word of God is it’s own best interpreter. And you will find it a great joy to learn the truth from God’s word rather than the suppositions and theories of men about God’s word.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2001