Barry Davis posted this initial question. I would like to re-visit the topic and, hopefully, stay 'on topic' perhaps by being more specific.

Barry Davis has indicated in another thread that he accepts the baptism of those holding to the 'faith only' position as valid. I have emailed back and forth a couple of times with Barry. He believes and teaches that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, he does NOT hold the 'faith only' position himself.

Can it be shown from scripture that the baptism participated in by those believing they are already saved, who have faith in Christ as their Savior and have repented of their sins, does NOT result in the forgiveness of their sins?

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2001

Answers

Robin.....you ask...."Can it be shown from scripture that the baptism participated in by those believing they are already saved, who have faith in Christ as their Savior and have repented of their sins, does NOT result in the forgiveness of their sins?"

Robin....I think it can. My Scriptural evidence is Acts 19. There at Ephesus, Paul found disciples who had all the qualifications that you just listed...i.e., they had faith in Christ and they had repented of their sins (in fact Paul reminds them the purpose of John's baptism was a baptism of repentance).

However, it is obvious from the text, this was not good enough. The missing element was the Holy Spirit. John's baptism did not promise the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit given only to those who had their sins washed away by the blood of Christ made efficacious at baptism.

Therefore, these disciples were reimmersed.

Now, I believe these disciples to be in the grace of God previous to their knowledge of the baptism of Christ. The real question is....could they have disregarded Paul.....and been saved??

I believe the implication to be obvious.

So it is clear to me from the the text, there is a proper understanding of baptism that must be understood if one's baptism is to be efficacious.

If this is not so....then Paul could have simply glossed over it and said....as a number on this forum have...."That's alright....as long as you were baptized in obedience....everything is hunky dory."

BTW.....I would also add a "dittos" to Scott Sheridan's post. The question is almost irrelevant since the Scripture only knows of "one baptism" (Eph. 4).

I do not say that disprespectully......I simply underscore the gist of Scott's thesis.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

Robin....

As Scott said....this discussion would be mute in the 1st century since no one knew of being saved....and then being baptized (i.e., a baptism of obedience).

The only baptism they knew was the one for the remission of sins and the receiving of the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit.

It has only been since the Protestant reformation that a discussion of "another baptism" has become necessary to debate.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

Mr. Hanson, you state......"It is not MY obedience I am made righteous"

In light of this will you tell us what the Spirit teaches you about the meaning of this passage found in Acts 6:7....

....."and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith."

Now....if one's obedience has nothing to do with their salvation.....then what in the world does that passage mean??

BTW.....I asked you what the Spirit teaches you.....that way I can be assured that we get the perfect exegesis of the passage from you.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Against my better judgment.....I spend the time to go over this again.

Certainly not for the benefit of Mr. Hanson, for as Robin pointed out.....others have been very explicit and detailed in their explanations....and yet to no avail. The reason is simple.....once one views the Scriptures with a theological axe to grind (i.e., Calvinism).....it is hard to put the axe aside. Rather than exegete Scripture....Mr. Hanson uses the false hermeneutic of using Scripture to give an apologetic for his beliefs.....as opposed to allowing his beliefs to come from Scripture.

Therefore, I am not answering the questions for his benefit....but for those who read the forum. I will let them decide the soundness of scholarship that is presented.

First Mr. Hanson asks..."Please, show me how your teaching and that of the Scriptures are not completely incompatible… Romans 3:10-12?

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

In the college courses I teach, I sum up one of the most important rules of hermeneutics with this declaration...."It all comes down to context, context, context."

In determining context, there are two that must be considered....the general theme of the book....and the immediate context of the passage.

The theme of the book of Romans is very simple....it answers the question..."Who are the sons of God?" At the church at Rome there was a serious problem of fellowship. For hundreds of years....Jews and Gentiles had been enemies....and now....they were going to church together. It is false 21st century thinking to believe these two just geled together. It was a serious problem that a number of N.T. epistles give attention to.

At the church in Rome....each group was claiming a special standing with God....while passing judgment on the other. In chapter one....Paul pointed out how the Gentiles were under sin (even though they were without the law). In chapter two...he points out that the Jews, who had the law, were also under sin.

This comes to a conclusion in chapter three where Paul nails it down in vs. 23...."For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

That is.....neither Jew nor Gentile have the right to claim a "special place" with God....neither do they have the right to judge.

Now....instead of proof texting like Mr. Hanson does by taking verses out of context.....let's pick it up at vs. 9......I will put my comments in parenthesis....

vs. 9...."What shall we conclude then?? (You see....he has been making an argument concerning the fact that both groups were under sin.)..."Are we any better? (The "we" being Jews.)....Not at all!!! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. (DID YOU SEE THAT?? My interpretation of chap. 1 & 2 came straight from the apostle Paul.)

Now....in vs. 10....he quotes the O.T. to underscore his point...."There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have become worthless; there is no one that does good, not even one."

Where Mr. Hanson makes his interpretative error is by interpreting this literally. This is figurative language. It is poetic, prophetic language. It is hyperbole. This is along the same lines of 1 Cor. 13 where Paul says..."If I had all knowledge." Of course Paul did not have all knowledge!

For further proof of this....keep reading (where Mr. Hanson stops).

Vs. 13...."Their throats are open graves...(does Mr. Hanson take this literally??).....their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. (Again....are we to take this literally??)

Again....very simply....Paul quotes the poetic, hyperbolic language of the prophet to underscore.....no one has the right to claim they are without sin.

Unlike Mr. Hanson....Paul knew nothing of an Augustinian/Calvinistic view of faith that sees man as morally depraved and unable to even think a good thought.

Lastly, Mr. Hanson asks.....

"Please, explain the contradiction I see in your teaching and this verse. Romans 5:19

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

What is so hard to understand about this?? Because of the obedience of Christ to the will of the Father (i.e., the cross)....the potential for many to become righteous is present.

The obedience of Christ DOES NOT negate the need for a decision on my part and an acceptance of the terms of the covenant...(i.e., faith, repentance, and baptism).

Again, this verse is only a problem to Mr. Hanson because he refuses to take the glasses of Calvinism off....and see the word of God clearly....without a theological axe to grind.

Respectfully submitted to the readers of the forum,

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001

Can you all believe this?!?!?!?!?!?!

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Quite simply Barry....you are proof texting as usual. You pick and pull Scriptures out of context to support your pre-conceived false doctrines.

In addition....you lied.

You said...."That was the last word"....but it was not.

I really don't care whether it is or isn't.....because you have aptly demonstrated your Calvinistic theological axe that you are going to grind.

Do you even know what hermeneutics is??

Oh...never mind....I forgot....you don't need it because you have been illumined....(another Calvinistic doctrine).

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Barry.... When you wake up on X-mas morning....put on your clothes....and go to the X-mas tree.....and open up a gift from your wife......is it still a gift??

I mean...you did have to work!! You had to get up. You had to walk into the living room. You had to lift the present up. You had to unwrap it.

Following your logic all the way through....I assume you never thank your wife for any gifts.....because after all..."you worked for it."

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Barry....

Simply because you choose to redefine the word "gift" does not therefore....change the meaning of the word.

The fact is....when you get out of bed....go to the X-mas tree....pick the gift up....unwrap it.....IT DOES NOT NULLIFY THE FACT THAT IT IS STILL A GIFT!!!

When my daughter sends me a gift and I walk outside to get it from the UPS gal....and open the box...(i.e., work)....IT DOES NOT NULLIFY THE FACT THAT IT IS STILL A GIFT.

In the same way.....when God sent the gift of His son and offers the free gift of salvation......and in the waters of baptism I accept that gift.....IT DOES NOT NULLIFY THE FACT THAT IT IS STILL A GIFT.

Just because Barry Hanson calls baptism a work (right in line with Luther, Calvin, et. al.)......IT DOES NOT NULLIFY THE FACT THAT BAPTISM IS FROM GOD....NOT MAN!!!

In fact, baptism IS A WORK!! But not in the way Barry Hanson defines work. I would rather take the N.T. definition of work.

Colossians 2:11-12....."In Him you were also circucised in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision (listen to this Barry)....done by Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith (listen to this Barry) IN THE WORKING OF GOD, who raised Him from the dead."

Baptism is a work Barry....but not as you define it. At baptism....God is doing the work. Baptism is not something you do....it is something you submit to.

Your Calvinism does not allow you to accept this because from your theological construct.......no response at all from man is acceptable. In fact, to carry your construct all the way through logically......even having faith....could be defined as a work.

Thus....as a Calvinist....you believe even faith to be given miraculously to man.

I don't care if you call yourself a Calvinist or not. The facts are....you are....when you espouse this "faith only" doctrine.

I want to lay a challenge before you Barry Hanson.

Find me a quote from one single church father who lived from the first through third century who disputed the necessity of baptism in the process of salvation.

In fact, I'll carry the challenge further. Show me one theologian before Martin Luther in the 16 century who taught what you are teaching....(or any other "faith only" teacher).

I want a quote and a source.

Good luck hunting. You are going to need it.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Testing....testing...testing

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2001

I guess the way I see it is probably best explained in way of analogy. If I am understanding your question...then let's look at a couple who decides after they have been living together for years that they should be married. Now many would say that the couple already is married (kind of by default), the wedding ceremony is merely a formality.

In the same way, the denominational realm approaches salvation. They would espouse that one can "already" be a Christian and then be baptized by being obedient (but the baptism has absolutely nothing to do with ones stance soteriologicall speaking...it is merely a formality).

I say that the couple who has been living together has been living in sin and "playing married," but the commitment was never there. The same is true for the one who merely prays Jesus into his heart and believes he has met all the requirements necessary for eternal life...it is really just a false pretense and dangerously close to the fire of Hell.

Now in the same way that I would not marry a couple who has been living together neither would I accept someone's "baptism" that has been done on false pretenses.

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001

Robin,

You raise a great question and already Mike has begun to give the answer I have already come to expect from this forum. However, if we look at the overall gospel message, we find that it is not a redemption by works, as the Jews had a long history of knowing how futile it is to try and work for ones own salvation. This point is also magnified when we look at the worlds religions in thier attempt to circumvent the cross, man attempting to make heaven on his own. The vast majority of Jesus' own teaching regarding redemption was to simply believe. Jesus has then taught us that as disciples we will obey His commands, what an awesome message - the world tells us we have to work to gain God's favor, Jesus tells us He loves us already, and when we believe, He will help us in our work.

Mike,

Jesus has met the "requirements" for redemption - we either believe or we do not. He lived the perfect life, I could not, He appeased the justice and punishment of God for my sin, I could never, and my feeble attempts of obedience could never compare or contribute to what Christ has already accomplished for me. I find it highly illogical and downright insulting to suggested that we could begin to merit Gods favor apart from Christ. What differentiates my attempts at good works before I believe compared to after I believe are obvious.

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001

Barry,

I believe that baptism is essential for salvation... (in other words, I believe that those who are not yet baptized can NOT be already saved) and since that has been debated 100 times in other threads, I would like to leave it out of this one... that is why the question is worded the way it is.

What I asked was, "Can it be shown from scripture that the baptism participated in by those believing they are already saved, who have faith in Christ as their Savior and have repented of their sins, does NOT result in the forgiveness of their sins? " Let's stick to the question....

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001

If baptism is for the forgiveness of sin, which it is, why would anyone be baptized for another reason? The Scriptures do not deal explicitly with this issue because it didn’t exist then and it shouldn’t exist now. It only exists due the cunning of Satan. If it is at baptism that a person becomes a Christian, what better subject to distort and destroy than baptism? Let’s call the working of God through faith a human work of merit. Keeps people from coming to Christ and it even sounds spiritual. It’s demonic spirits, but spiritual nonetheless.

The best inference I can think of is in Acts 19. Twelve Ephesians had been baptized by John (the baptizer). His baptism was for repentance, not forgiveness. They had to be baptized into Christ by Paul.

It seems very simple to me. The purpose for which you are baptized is why you are baptized. If you are baptized for an outward act of an inward grace then that’s what it was for – a feeling you have. If you are baptized because you think you have already been saved, you are baptized for a salvation you do not possess. What purpose is there for baptism BECAUSE of salvation? It has none.

If it is simply a sign for others, it’s a terrible sign. Circumcision was a good sign – once it was done it stayed done and everyone could see it (at least those that wanted to). Baptism is a terrible sign because you dry off.

BTW, if there baptism were only a spiritual thing, why didn’t Jesus spiritually baptize the 12 guys above before Paul had to teach them? They obviously believed in Jesus. For many on this forum, that should have been all they needed. You're not going to find specific Scripture on this subject because it's like demons in heaven - it may be something to think about but it just isn't reality. Like premillennialism (sorry, couldn't resist:o).

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001

Of course, both pre-millennialism (pre-wrath, post-trib) and baptism as a 'demonstration', a 'type', a 'figure' (figurative) are all very Scriptural. That's why I believe them.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

They are Sciptural only in the CAV (Connie Authorized Version)...which is your most quoted translation.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

I see you only study the passages which agree with your very limited theology. If they don't fit your pre-conceived notions, you just excise them.

The only Scriptures I read and post are verbatim from the accepted versions.

I'm talking about in the transaltions we all know and respect.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

Robin,

No need to get hostile.

I had a distinct salvation experience at age six, was water baptized at age eight and Baptized with the Holy Spirit at age eleven. There was no need to be water baptized for forgiveness of sins as it is the blood of Christ that cleanses me of all sin

Ephesians 1:7

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"

Therefore, my water baptism does not save me from my sin, but rather the work of Christ on the Cross.

Colossians 2:13,14

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

I see the pertinent question as being, how do we become a child of God? 1 John 5:1

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."

Clearly who ever believes that Jesus is the Christ IS (not "will be") born of God. I suppose there are some who do not know the definition of the word "is"…haha…

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

Barry Hanson,

I wasn't being hostile... just trying to keep this thread on track.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

Scott & Danny,

Thanks for taking the time to share your insights on this.

Danny, I missed your last point, so didn't take it as disrespecful... What is your point concerning "one baptism"?... my question was only concerning one baptism.... I don't understand how "The question is almost irrelevant since the Scripture only knows of "one baptism" (Eph. 4). "

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001

God is a triune Being, and He expresses Himself often in triune ways. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, yet we are told there is but one God.

So why is baptism so difficult to understand? We are told to be baptized by water (Acts 2:38 et. al.), we are told we are baptized into Christ and His Church, and we are told of being baptized by and of the Holy Spirit. Yet we are told that the Scripture only knows of "one baptism" (Eph. 4). Not three. Isn't it fairly obvious therefore that all these baptisms refer to one and the same thing?

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

Brother Robin:

I know that you are asking this question for you have sensed that it should be further discussed and not because you believe that we can ignore the command to be baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38). So, my criticisms of the reasons that this question has been raised do not apply to you but rather to those who are ever seeking to pervert the gospel of Christ. I also know that you are asking this question to give us an opportunity to discuss it separately from our ongoing discussions of the truth that we must be baptized in order to be saved (Mark 16:16). For the issue is one between those of us who believe that truth. For those who believe in salvation by faith only certainly would not have an issue about this. For according to them nothing after the moment one believes matters in the least in relation to salvation. And I appreciate your doing this and working to keep this thread “on track” in that regard.

I will now write a brief statement in response to the question of this thread. I do not currently have enough time to go into the details of a more reasoned argument that would begin with the very eternal purpose of God related to his plan of salvation with is not a complex matter to understand in the least. But the complexity of this subject is derived from the convoluted knot that false teachers have tied around the subject of God’s plan of salvation. So that if one hears the pure gospel of Christ they would immediately and easily understand all that they need to know about not only baptism but the faith, repentance and confession of Christ that precedes it for those who are “according to God’s plan, proper subjects of it. It is always easier to tie a knot than to untie one that has been made even tighter by the constant pull upon “both ends of the rope” so to speak. And such is the case with many of the questions related to God’s very simple and easy to understand plan of salvation. If we, in the twenty first century, were not being bombarded and pressed down with 2,000 years of the creeds, dogmas, and multitudinous theories and speculations of men this question would not have ever entered into our minds nor would it require any of our attention. If one is able, though I admit that in our day it is difficult, to ignore all that men say about the matter and simply read the New Testament from beginning to the end. They would easily see that no one could come to God without understanding the gospel of Christ that was delivered to us though men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And this question that you have asked about understanding the purpose of baptism, because of the wresting of the scriptures by evil men who teach false doctrine, we could just as easily justify asking this question concerning faith, repentance, confession as of baptism. But baptism is singled out because it is, by the design of Satan, the ground of battle for the souls of men. For he knows that those who by faith obey Christ command to be baptized FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS shall in that place and at that time have his sins removed by the circumcision made without hands (Col. 2:11-13). And this is his last opportunity to interfere with God’s effort to save men from their sins and it is here that he puts up his most ardent and severe efforts to deceive. There is not other reasonable explanation for Christians that there is this controversy at this point.

But think of this. Can one come to Christ acceptably as God prescribes if he believes in Christ as a mere “good man” and not as the messiah or the very Son of God? In other words is faith still valid so long as one believes in Christ even though he does not believe that Christ is the Son of God? TO ask this question is to answer it, isn’t it? And think of this. Can one repent of his sins without knowing that he is doing so with the intent to obtain the forgiveness of them? Is such a thing even possible? Is it possible to repent of one’s sins without even knowing that sins have offended God and that he must repent for the purpose of receiving the forgiveness of them? Or is it sufficient that he simply be “sorry” like a prisoner who regrets that he has been caught and found guilty of a crime and is being punished for it? I am convinced that none would even ask if one could be truly penitent as God commands unless he understands that the purpose of repentance is “for the remission of sins”? But we cannot over look the simple fact that baptism is for the same purpose as repentance. For we are told in simple terms that anyone can comprehend, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Now by what stretch of our imaginations do we conceive that we must understand the purpose of repentance and can just be oblivious to the purpose of the baptism that is conjoined with it in this verse? I cannot see it and I do not believe that anyone with any common sense could miss this point. But, let us also note that if God tells us to do something and he tells us to do it FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE that we had better, if we are acceptably obey God, understand the purpose as well as the act. In Acts 2:38 we are not merely being told to perform the actions of repentance and baptism but we are also being told to perform them with a specific purpose in mind which is “for the remission of sins. Now we cannot ignore the purpose any more than we can neglect to perform the act that God commanded us to do. Now, if God had simply said “be baptized” and that is all and told us nothing of its purpose not promised anything connected with the doing of it. Then and only then could we justifiably explain that the only reason we are doing such is to be obedient to God. For we, in that case had not been told anything more other than being commanded to obey. And if “baptismal regeneration” were what we believed in, which it is not, then it would not matter if we understood anything about it at all. For the magical powers ascribed to the waters of baptism by those who foolishly believe that the waters alone possess the power to save us from sin would be just as effective without any cognizance of its purpose whatsoever.

But the truth of God’s word is that baptism has for it the same purpose as repentance. We do both of them looking for the forgiveness of sins as God commanded but did not promise. For some have the illusion that Peter commanded them to repent and be baptized and then promised them remission of sins, as if the phrase “for the remission of sins” is not a part of the command itself. But there is no justification whatsoever for this notion in the least. The Command “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” makes up the entire command which Peter by inspiration issued to those who believed his preaching and asked “men and brethren what shall we do?” And the rest of the verse contains the only promise related to this matter which is “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). Therefore it is impossible to obey the command to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins without understanding and complying with the purpose of heart that God commanded to accompany it. And that is the reason we are told by Paul in referring to the baptism of the Romans the following, ““Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Romans 6:16-18)

Notice that they OBEYED FROM THE HEART that form of doctrine that was delivered to them. And that form of doctrine to which he refers is found in Romans 6:3-6. Which was their being buried with Christ in baptism. They obeyed that form of doctrine from the heart and were THEN made free from sin. To obey from the heart is to obey from the understanding. And those who obey without understanding are obeying without the heart. And those who do not have this purpose in their heart are refusing to obey God’s command to obey with the purpose of heart that he commanded. And that would make all that they do invalid. For God does not allow us to ignore his commands. And Paul said they were made free from sin when they obeyed that form of doctrine, which was baptism FROM THE HEART or with the understanding and not without it. The purpose of heart is as much commanded as the act of baptism.

When men go swimming and dive into the pool they are baptized. But in doing so they have no purpose in their heart related to God or the forgiveness of their sins, which God commanded then to have. And thus they will not obtain forgiveness of sins just because they were baptized. And the reason is that such a baptism has no connection to faith in Christ (Acts 8:37), repentance of sins, and it does not obey the command to be baptized for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness of our sins from God as given in (Acts 2:38).

And those who are baptized for reasons not commanded by God are not obeying God. They are instead pleasing themselves. Many are baptized these days just because it is required of some denominations as an initiation into some denomination so that they can become members of it. And in doing so they think that they are doing it to “obey God” for they believe that God has “lead them” to join that denomination and thus God has commanded them to be baptized for that purpose. But the word of God does not teach anyone to be baptized for that purpose. God commands us to be baptized for the remission of sins. And there is not one place in the scriptures where anyone was told to be baptized simply for the purpose of obeying God. God commanded us to be baptized for the purpose of remission of sins. Any other purpose for such is a perversion of God’s commandment. And that in itself is nothing more than further sin and offense to God. One hoping to obtain God’s mercy cannot offend God in the process and expect to be forgiven for having offended God in the past.

It is not a stretch at all, therefore to insist that those who come to Christ understand some “basics” such as those described above. Peter insisted, nay commanded, that his audience be baptized “for the remission of sins” and if they had been baptized for any other purpose they would not have obeyed that clear command. Phillip insisted that the Eunuch “believe with all of his heart” which would include his understanding in his heart”. (Acts 8:37). We cannot speak of one’s obtaining the forgiveness of their sins without requiring that they understand at least that they have sins that need to be forgiven and what God requires of them in order to obtain that forgiveness. For those whom Peter had convinced on the day of Pentecost of their sins wanted to know or “understand” what they could do about it. For they had crucified the Messiah! And they had been persuaded that Jesus was the Christ by Peter’s preaching and they knew that they had sins that needed forgiveness. And they asked “Men and brethren what shall we do? And Peter not only TOLD them what to do but he explained the purpose and reason for their doing it because he wanted them to understand it’s relationship to their concern about their sins and what to do about them. SO he said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). Now this was not so hard to understand but it is necessary for men to understand that they are lost in sin and how to obtain forgiveness or remission of their sins. And this case is proof of it. And we are not talking about something that is so “Difficult” to understand, are we? We are talking about what God has revealed for us to understand. Any one who is attempting to become a Christian for any reason other than seeking forgiveness from God for his or her sins has no idea what they are doing. No one can become a Christian or obtain forgiveness from God for sins that they have not repented of and obeyed God’s conditions for their pardon. If they do not understand this simple fact they cannot obtain forgiveness. If they are not coming to Christ in God’s prescribed way to obtain the forgiveness of their sins they will not be forgiven. For those who speak as if there is no need to understand the purpose of baptism fail to realize that those who come to Christ must understand the purpose of coming to him which is to obtain forgiveness of their sins. And if they must understand this much then they must understand everything that God has connected with receiving remission or forgiveness of their sins. We cannot treat baptism as if it is isolated form our obtaining the remission of our sins. For that is the very purpose of Baptism (Acts 2:38). Baptism does not alone and isolated from faith repentance, confession give us the remission of our sins. And baptism is connected to faith and repentance and is a natural result of the movement toward remission of sins. If we understand enough to have faith in Christ as the Son of God and if we understand enough to repent of our sins for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness. Then it is not very hard to see that it is quite natural for such a one to easily understand that baptism is as much for the remission of sins as is repentance. And one cannot be ignorant of the purpose of the one without being ignorant of the purpose of the other. If one cannot be forgiven by repenting without understanding the purpose for which he is repenting then he also cannot be forgiven by being baptized without understanding the purpose of it. And Acts 2:38 marries repentance and baptism together and tells us that they are both for the same purpose and it is not difficult in the least to understand it. And none will be excused for failing to understand it either. And those who think that they will need to show us where God promises to excuse ignorance. For we are told, “at the times of ignorance God winked at by now comanndeth all men every where to repent.” (Acts 17:30). God is not winking at ignorance any more. We are told, “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45). And for that reason Christ said, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father son and the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”. (Matt. 28:19,20). If understanding the will of God were not essential to obtaining forgiveness of our sins and reconciliation to God then we would not be commanded to teach the gospel at all. For it would not be necessary if understanding was not important. But the fact is that we are expected to understand and be “taught of God” through the preaching of his word before we can come to him. “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1 Cor. 1:21). Now since God chose to use this method of saving people it means that he chose a method that requires teaching and teaching inescabaly7 requires understanding the will of God. No one can come to God in ignorance of God’s will and that is a fact. And none can remain faithful to God without daily seeking to know, understand and obey God’s will. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is].” (Eph. 5:18). And “For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;” (Col. 1:19). Thus we see that Christianity begins with understanding the will of God and it continues with the understanding of God’s will.

I will discuss this in more detail when I have time but I just wanted to say amen to your words. But in coming to Christ we are seeking the forgiveness of sins and RECONCILIATION with God in a relationship that has for a long time been broken because of sin. And God and man cannot be reconciled until the matter of forgiveness of sins is resolved. And in seeking to be reconciled with God we cannot do so if we fail to understand that sin has broken that relationship with Him. And the conditions, which God has placed upon us before he will grant us a pardon or forgive us and accept us, back into his presence. And all of those conditions must be understood. We must believe in Christ (John 3:16). Can we fail to understand the purpose of faith in Christ and still be saved? WE must confess Christ (Romans 10:10; Matt. 10:32) are we to believe that we can confess Christ without UNDERSTANDING THAT HE IS GOD’S SON? We are to Repent of our sins that they might be blotted out (Acts 3:19). Are we to understand what we are repenting of? Indeed we cannot repent without understanding the purpose of our repentance. And then we are to be baptized for the remission of our sins. (Acts 2:38). If one understands faith, confession of Christ as God’s Son, repentance of sin, can he then just fail to understand that baptism is for the remission of sins and all is well? Surely Not!

To obey from the heart is to obey from the understanding. (Romans 6:16-18). And those who obey without understanding are obeying without the heart. And those who are baptized for purposes other than seeking remission or forgiveness of sins are failing to obey God for he commanded that this be the purpose of our hearts in repenting and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. If one cannot repent without having in his heart the purpose of seeking forgiveness for the wrongs he has committed against God. He also cannot be baptized without having that same purpose in their hearts for that purpose of heart is a part of the command found in Acts 2:38. And Paul said the Romans were made free from sin when they obeyed that form of doctrine, in their baptism, FROM THE HEART or with the understanding and not without it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

E. Lee,

You have stated my purpose for asking the question quite right and I thank you for doing so. I also thank you for your usual well thought out response.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

Well said, Lee.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

John,

If they refer to the same thing, why then, after Cornelius' household was baptized by the Holy Spirit did Peter command them to be baptized? (Acts 10:47, 48)

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2001

It is with great eagerness I respond on this forum as I have come to understand that there is such a diabolical perversion in this world that attempts to darken the understanding of good people to the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. For twenty and seven years I have lived this Christian life in a sweet fellowship with my Lord Jesus Christ, owing Him and ascribing to Him the glory and gratitude that comes from a life of abundant blessing and favor. Notwithstanding that it has also been met with adversity and hardship, for in times of sharing the gospel I have been ridiculed and mocked. Yet I hardly consider this worthy of mention in the light of those saints that have gone on before and paid much greater prices than I have experienced.

Only until about a year and a half ago did I ever encounter a false "brotherhood" of obnoxious and arrogant individuals who in my observation eagerly desire to replace God as Judge and Jury. Condemning those who intelligently and reasonably disagree with their private interpretation of the Scriptures, as the theories they hold concerning the Gospel have had little to no effect in the world. Having been in ministry since 1990 and exposed to many diverse people groups and locations across this nation and the globe I had never heard of this cult. Although I have encountered many other cults that insist upon conditional salvation this particular brand, being so small, has eluded my study.

As for attempting to revisit the arguments posed by this cult in a single post is not possible and I must therefore content myself with a clear presentation of the truth. Once this has been declared it is quite easy to identify the counterfeit. Romans 10:13,14, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" First the proclamation of the truth, second the hearing of the truth, third the belief of the truth, and fourth action based upon the belief of that truth.

Romans 3:10-12, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Action preceding faith is unprofitable, there are none outside of Jesus Christ that understand or seek after God, all mankind has gone out of the way, not a single one doeth good, not one. Ephesians 2:2, "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:" Outside of Christ mankind is utterly disobedient.

Herein lies the subtle twisting of this new age cult. Teaching that children of disobedience will, contrary to Scripture, seek after God, will understand, and will come into the way by doing good. There is no profit in a child of disobedience working to redeem himself. To say the very least it is reasonable, and conversely to state so emphatically from the Scriptures, works result from faith. Anything not done in faith is sin. Henceforth, it has been declared time and again that once in faith redemption has been applied by the grace of God. Through faith we are baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12) this is the reality the grace of God institutes, and to which our baptism into water symbolizes (1 Peter 3:21). The great ignorance that exists concerning the doctrine of baptisms (Heb.6:1,2) is astounding being that it is so elementary.

It is Abraham who believed God unto righteousness and decades following offered up his son. Likewise Noah, following a life of righteousness, commences to build an ark. Thus, the message is clear, we being righteous will walk in good works, as it has been throughout the Scriptures. To attempt good works prior to redemption in contribution to ones salvation is nowhere taught in the Scriptures. We do find specific actions directed by the Holy Spirit of specific people, which in nowise find application to all people for all time and is at each instance occurring after faith. Thus it is the child of God that walks in obedience to the commandments of God and not the child of disobedience. Unmistakably illogical and anti Scriptural for the disobedient to seek after God or do good.

The Good News - Romans 3:21-26

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is BY FAITH of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that BELIEVE: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified FREELY by his GRACE through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

Romans 5:19

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

The Good News to mankind is not a reworded message of Buddhism, Islam, Krishna or any other works based religion, this in reality is bad news, we cannot work our way to God. This is the entire point of God coming to man as Jesus Christ - all have sinned, all have gone their own way and none seek after God!

It is not MY obedience I am made righteous as the Scriptures so emphatically and universally declare but rather it is the obedience of ONE many shall be made righteous. To deviate from this very simple gospel is eternally damning. Trust in Christ's sufficient and complete work, lean not on your own understanding or effort or works or obedience, they only lead to death.

I leave you now, as this has been perhaps my most lengthy message, not because I could not continue, but rather out of consideration for the reader, as messages inordinate in length evidence virulence.

In Christ's Love

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2001

Barry Hanson,

You're a funny man!!

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Robin,

I like to laugh a lot! Humor is an important part of life.

Proverbs 17:22

"A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones."

However, Mr. Cornell, what exactly did you find amusing?

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Danny,

I will gladly answer your question and then I have two I am hoping you will answer for me.

You ask about Acts 6:7…

"And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."

I am not sure what exactly you are getting at, once one believes the Gospel they will be obedient to the faith. Outside of Christ mankind is disobedient….

Ephesians 2:2…

"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"

In order to be obedient you must be in Christ, as Romans 3:10-12 makes abundantly clear, outside of Christ none seek after God….

Thus, one is either, outside of Christ, completely disobedient going after their own way, unprofitable and not doing good, OR, one is in Christ, obedient, profitable and doing good. The Scriptures nowhere teach that as an unconverted sinner we will do good, in fact it teaches just the opposite, we are utterly lost, going our own way and there is not a single person that seek after God or does good or even understands for that matter.

Therefore, to answer your question, the passage means exactly what it states…."priests were becoming obedient to the faith"…they heard the truth and believed the truth. Once they believed the truth they were born of God, once born of God they obeyed the truth they believed. Obviously, as pointed out earlier, outside of Christ " There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." But once they believe and are in Christ they will be obedient.

1 John 5:1

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."

Now although the Spirit does teach, if you want to "be assured that we get the perfect exegesis of the passage" just believe what it states as that is all I simply do time and again, no special, private interpretation such as is posted on this forum.

Now my simple questions, if you don't mind.

You believe that one must obey to be born of God, explain the contradiction I see in your teaching and this verse. Romans 5:19

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

When the Scriptures teach it is only by the obedience of Christ we are made righteous, why do you insist that it is otherwise?

Second question. You believe a person must be water baptized in order to be born of God, this means they must, understand what water baptism means, seek after God in water baptism and therefore perform a deed of goodness to obtain God's Grace. How do you explain the contradiction with your teaching and the teaching of Romans 3:10-12?

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Sincerely,

PS. Point of clarification. My obedience has nothing to do with my redemption. Once I am redeemed, my obedience has a lot to do with my salvation, however, my obedience does not redeem me or "save" me, it is by the obedience of one I am made righteous, just as the Scriptures state.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

Hello, Mr. Cornell, are you there?

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001

Barry H.,

Yep....

My "funny" comment was less concerning amusement and more along the lines of 'might as well laugh as cry'.

The beliefs of many in this forum have been fully explained to you multiple times by E. Lee and others.... yet you continue to ignore what has been said and continue to misrepresent what you have been told concerning beliefs about faith, works, and baptism.

It is not Ha! Ha! funny.... but rather sad.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2001

Mr. Cornell,

Perhaps you could point out in my message what exactly I misrepresented that makes you want to laugh/cry?

Do you not teach all must be water baptized to be born of God?

Do you not teach that it requires obedience to be born of God?

Do you not teach that if one does not understand the implications of water baptism they are actually not born of God?

Please, show me how your teaching and that of the Scriptures are not completely incompatible… Romans 3:10-12?

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Please, explain the contradiction I see in your teaching and this verse. Romans 5:19

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

When the Scriptures teach it is only by the obedience of Christ we are made righteous, why do you insist that it is otherwise?

I really want to know.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Mr. Hanson has uttered more of his “Calvinistic nonsense” as follows:

“Thus, one is either, outside of Christ, completely disobedient going after their own way, unprofitable and not doing good, OR, one is in Christ, obedient, profitable and doing good.”

Indeed there are only two places that we can be in this world. We are either in Christ or we are out of Christ. But Mr. Hanson’s faith in Calvinism instead of Christ is apparent in his above statement. For, as we shall see when we take up the rest of what he has said, he believes not only that people are either out of Christ and disobedient or they are in Christ and obedient. But he also believes that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who is out of Christ to obey Christ. This is what he intends to convey to us.

But the word of God makes it abundantly clear that God has commanded those who are out of Christ to believe in Christ.

After John the Baptist had been cast into prison Christ came preaching “the gospel of the Kingdom of God” to those who were not “in Christ” and He commanded them to repent and believe the gospel. “And saying the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” (Mark 1:15). But they were not in Christ and were not believers in Christ. And according to Mr. Hanson it was it was impossible for them to obey the command of Christ for them to repent. So, just imagine, Christ came commanding people to repent and believe the gospel, which it was impossible for them to do, according to Mr. Hanson, until they were in Christ because they were so “utterly depraved”! But they could not be in Christ until they did it!

So, we have a situation here, created by Mr. Hanson and not God, where men must obey Christ in order to be “in Christ” but they cannot obey Christ until they are “in Christ” because they are too “utterly depraved” outside of Christ to obey Christ. Therefore it was, according to Mr. Hanson, completely impossible for them to obey the command to “repent and believe the gospel”. Yet God was going to condemn them to eternal punishment if they remained outside of Christ even though as long as they are outside of Christ it is impossible for them to obey his command to believe which was essential to their getting into Christ! Now that is the kind of absurdity that Mr. Hanson is preaching. And the gospel of Christ is not anything like that nonsense, is it?

But, Mr. Hanson would solve this problem by saying that God would give them the power to do what they did not have the power to do themselves by His grace. But he does not have any scriptures that teach such a thing, now does he? But even if this were true he would then have to explain why any man fails to “obey” the command of Christ to repent and believe the gospel? For they cannot, according to Mr. Hanson, chose of their own free will to believe. Therefore, if any man fails to believe it is God’s fault, according to His theory. For they cannot believe unless God gives them the power to do it. SO, God would have to “put them into Christ” before they could repent of their sins or believe in Christ. For unless they are “in Christ” they cannot obey the command to believe, according to Mr. Hanson. And if this is true, any man who is lost is lost because God never saved him! He is not lost because he refuses to obey God because he has, according to Mr. Hanson, absolutely no option but to disobey God because he is so utterly depraved. And according to Mr. Hanson, all men are so utterly depraved that they cannot obey God, which means they are too depraved to obey the command to believe in Christ. Thus, men are lost, not because they have sinned, for according to Mr. Hanson they have no choice about that matter. But they are lost only if God refuses to come to them and give them the ability to believe. So, we must wonder why any man will be lost if Mr. Hanson’s theory were correct? Why, does God save some and let others die in their sins for the choice is God’s according to Mr. Hanson’s theory, and not man’s. For according to them they are too depraved to be able to ever obey God in anything until they are in Christ. Thus they cannot even obey the command to believe in Christ which is absolutely necessary for them to be IN CHRIST. What a mess, indeed, Mr. Hanson has the human race into! And what a monster he has made God to appear to be! Commanding us to do what he knows in advance that we cannot do and depriving us of eternal salvation because we fail to do it! Such a false doctrine brethren and friends is pathetic indeed! And it is a shame that any man could call himself a follower of Christ and teach such pure nonsense!

Then he says:

“The Scriptures nowhere teach that as an unconverted sinner we will do good, in fact it teaches just the opposite, we are utterly lost, going our own way and there is not a single person that seek after God or does good or even understands for that matter.”

Now here, Mr. Hanson is saying that it is impossible for any of us to “seek God” or to understand the gospel of Christ when we hear it. And therefore he is saying that we must be converted before we “believe”. For how can man believe if he does not at least “seek God”? For how can anyone “believe” that which he cannot “understand’? For if we “believed” we would be doing a good thing wouldn’t we? And how can we “understand” anything for if we did we would be doing something “good” now wouldn’t we?

And he does not tell us why Peter commanded people who were not in Christ to “repent ye therefore and BE CONVERTED that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord”? (Acts 3:19). For they could not repent, according to Mr. Hanson, since they were “UNCONVERTED”! Now, if Mr. Hanson’s doctrine were true, then the Holy Spirit surely knew nothing about it because he inspired Peter to tell those UNCOVERTED people to repent and BE CONVERTED that their sins might be blotted out, didn’t he? Maybe, Mr. Hanson will explain that to the Holy Spirit at his next “retreat” or “advance” when he is “overwhelmed” by the Holy Spirit!

But what Mr. Hanson fails to do is show us one single scripture that teaches that an unconverted sinner CANNOT do anything good even so much as obeying the command to “believe” in the gospel of Christ. Think of it brethren and friends. I know, and you do as well, many “unconverted men who love their mothers. Is that not a good thing? I know many unconverted Children who “obey” their parents and that is a good thing, isn’t it? I know of many unconverted sinners who gave their lives for their friends and fellow countrymen. Isn’t that a good thing? I know of many Jews, who have never been converted to Christ that believe in GOD. Is that not a good thing? I know of men, like Mr. Hanson who read the word of God every day that have not been converted to Christ. Is the reading of God’s word, hoping to learn what is right that they might do it a good thing? Now, if men can do these good things are we to conclude that it is impossible for them, of their own free will and choice to choose good over evil enough to be persuaded by the gospel of Christ to believe in Christ? Mr. Hanson says no, they cannot do even that much Good. But the word of God says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). The gospel is able to persuade men to believe and when they hear it they are able to chosen, based upon the testimony of God provided in it, to obey the commands to “believe in Christ”. And they can also obey the command to “repent and be converted”. And who can deny that they are capable, of choosing of their own free will to obey the command of Christ to be baptized (Mark 16:16).

Remember, Mr. Hanson stated, “The Scriptures nowhere teach that as an unconverted sinner we will do good, in fact it teaches just the opposite, we are utterly lost,”. But he has not read where Peter, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit commanded and expected unconverted sinners to repent and be converted! Read it for yourselves. “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;” (Acts 3:19). Now how could they be expected, since they were unconverted, to do the GOOD thing that Peter commanded them to do which was to “repent and be converted”? I suppose that Peter, since the only guidance he had was the Holy Spirit, just did not “understand”. Especially since John Calvin had not yet been born and he did not have any one like Mr. Hanson around to whisper in his ear. He just did not have that valuable piece of the puzzle that John Calvin discovered and delivered so efficiently to Mr. Hanson now did he? And inform him that he was being so foolish to command these people to do this good to “repent and be converted” because the scriptures “nowhere teach that an unconverted sinner can do such good things as “repent and be converted”!

And the example that Danny Gave is sufficient to show that the “unconverted person” can obey the command to believe in Christ. For these “priest” were at the time they became “obedient to the faith” (another phrase which Mr. Hanson would choke to death before he could form those words and say them to any one in reference to becoming Christians) UNCONVERTED SINNERS. And in the process of being “obedient to the faith” they followed what Paul had describes as the “obedience of faith” (Romans 16:25,26). Both of these phrases show that faith and obedience are indeed inseparable from one another. and that one must obey the faith and that all are commanded to believe and when they do believe they are in fact being obedient to Christ who commanded them to “believe and be baptized” Mark 16:16). For Mr. Hanson overlooks the simple fact that even believing is an act of obedience in itself. So, His response to Danny that these priests believed and then they were able to obey is ridiculous. For how were they able to obey the command to believe if they were unconverted sinners outside of Christ void of all capability to do any good? For believing is a command to be obeyed just as repentance and confession and baptism. Also, if anyone would bother to read the context of this verse it does not say that these unconverted priests believed first and then they were able to be obedient to the faith. It says that they were obedient to the faith. But prior to their believing they were unconverted and according to Mr. Hanson they were incapable of believing. They how on earth did they obey the faith? Now we would like to see an answer from the scriptures to that question and not from Calvin. For only the word of God matters here.

Mr. Hanson says concerning these priests:

“Therefore, to answer your question, the passage means exactly what it states…."Priests were becoming obedient to the faith"…they heard the truth and believed the truth.”

But, Mr. Hanson, you are forgetting that they were, in their unconverted state, “utterly lost” and unable to do “any good”. And we would all agree that it is a good thing to believe the truth when we hear it, wouldn’t we? But you said that they “heard the truth and believed it”. But you do not explain how they were able to do this GOOD while they were “utterly lost” and void of all GOOD and unable to do any good thing! Believing the truth is a good thing to do isn’t it? Then how did these unconverted men manage to “do this good thing”?

Then he says:

“ Once they believed the truth they were born of God, once born of God they obeyed the truth they believed.”

But they were outside of Christ when they “heard the truth” weren’t they? Then since they were outside of Christ how did they obey the command to believe the truth? For Mr. Hanson has said that when man is outside of Christ he cannot be obedient. Then how did these priest, who were outside of Christ before they believed hear the truth and obey the command of Christ to believe it? For they were outside of Christ when they were commanded to believe when they heard the truth, weren’t they? Do, tell us, Mr. Hanson, how these priest, when they were outside of Christ obeyed the command of Christ to believe? For according to your theory no one can be obedient at all if they are out of Christ!

Then he says:

“ Obviously, as pointed out earlier, outside of Christ " There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”

Well, these priests were outside of Christ, how did they “hear the truth” and obey the command to believe in Christ? (Mark 1:15) (Mark 16:16)? They were outside of Christ how did they “seek God”? They were outside of Christ when they heard the gospel so how did they even UNDERSTAND it?

Then he says:

“ They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."”

Indeed this quotation from the prophets shows that the condition of Israel was that there we none of them that did good but where does it say that they COULD NOT DO GOOD IF THEY WANTED TO? Paul never, in any place taught that it was impossible for anyone to do well or obey God in their unconverted state, least of all this passage. So do tell us then, how did these unconverted priests do the good thing of obeying the command to “believe the truth” for they heard it in their unconverted state? And according to you they could do no good. But they did do Good, now didn’t they and they did it before they were converted. For it is a good thing to “hear the truth” isn’t it? They could have been like many of the other Jews who refused to even hear it, couldn’t they? But, even when they were unconverted they were able to chose to listen to the truth and obey the command to believe in Christ, now weren’t they?

Then he says:

“ But once they believe and are in Christ they will be obedient.”

One is being obedient when they believe in Christ for that is one of the first things commanded of those who hear the gospel. (Mark 1:15; Acts 8:37). Now, if they cannot obey the command to believe in Christ because they are unconverted and outside of Christ how can they ever obey anything at all? You see Mr. Hanson at least has to allow these priest to obey enough of the gospel in order to be able to obey the rest of it, doesn't he? But they cannot obey the command to believe in Christ, according to Mr. Hanson, because since they are outside of Christ it is impossible for them to “be obedient” then they cannot ever be in Christ! So, Mr. Hanson actually proves with his above statement that he doesn’t even believe his own nonsense, so why should we believe it? For he shows that he believes it was possible for these priest, in their unconverted state to “hear the gospel and believe in it”. Which means that in their unconverted state they were capable, of their own volition and choice to come to believe the testimony of Christ and become “obedient to the faith”. And one of the first commands of the gospel that they obeyed was the command to believe in Christ! But we must tell you all, that though we are not glad to see Mr. Hanson teach such lies and nonsense we are happy indeed to see that he really does not believe it himself! And we do not believe that you, our readers are so void of the ability to reason that you would ever believe such nonsense either.

Now, Brethren and friends, anyone can see through this pathetic Calvinistic nonsense offered up by Mr. Hanson, can’t they? And we are thankful to God that he has given men the ability to reason so that they can be saved from those who would lead them away from the truth of the gospel of Christ.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001

"Now, Brethren and friends, anyone can see through this pathetic Calvinistic nonsense offered up by Mr. Hanson, can’t they?

A truly Christian response? I don't think so.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001

ssmith48, I don't know your name....But I must disagree with your implication that E.Lee's response was an unchristian thing to say. I think it was a NOBLE Christian response! He did not say unkind things about Mr. Hanson... but instead, he FRANKLY (as one should when dealing with false doctrine)called Hanson's THEOLOGY nonsense. One cannot "beat around the bush" when exposing doctrine that is TOTALLY false. Satan LOVES for Hanson's doctrine to be accepted by mankind because it passes the "buck" to God and leaves men "off the hook." Men and women may be lost eternally if they believe such nonsense and think there's nothing they must, or CAN, do... since it is all up to God to "zap" them with the salvation experience. I must say that E.Lee's response is VERY Christian.... he is concerned for men's souls... that they might not buy into doctrine that could lead them to hell.

THANKS E. LEE, for the truly Christian response to Hanson and for standing FIRM in the defense of the TRUTH revealed in God's word!

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001

Danny,

Being that I am an objective individual I am able to lay aside the nonsensical comments and dissect the theological errors.

First your whole argument is based upon the premise that I am a Calvinist. Seeing that you are completely oblivious to my position I find it just about senseless to continue this dialogue (if one could actually categorize it as such).

Actually I had a much lengthier response ready to post and reviewed my attitude in posting it and admittedly was not completely in the Love of Christ, therefore, I allow you to have the final word.

In Christ's Love,

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

SS,

Indeed, a person with quite the discernment! In a single message you hit the nail on the head!

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Notice that Mr. Hanson is now making an excuse for not continuing the discussion with Brother Danny and myself on this issue by saying the following concerning Brother Danny’s excellent response as follows:

“First your whole argument is based upon the premise that I am a Calvinist. Seeing that you are completely oblivious to my position I find it just about senseless to continue this dialogue (if one could actually categorize it as such).”

Now notice, Brethren and Friends that Mr. Hanson has again found a convenient excuse for refusing to answer questions that are beyond his ability to answer with his above statement. No, Brother Danny is not “oblivious” to Mr. Hanson’s “position” but rather he has the “coordinates of his position exact” and Mr. Hanson has found himself squarely in the “crosshairs” and is “ducking out” before the artillery is “incoming”. Now, Mr. Hanson may not call himself a “Calvinist” and he may not be proud to be a “Calvinist” but he cannot escape the fact that his doctrine is very much “Calvinist” and very certainly contrary to the doctrine of Christ. And if anyone is oblivious of Mr. Hanson’s “position” it just might be Mr. Hanson himself! And he cannot blame anyone but himself for this situation because he refuses to respond to arguments that he cannot answer nor does he even attempt to explain how we might have “misunderstood him” if in fact we have done such. For Brother Danny and E. Lee Saffold have responded only to the words that Mr. Hanson has written.

And, we notice that Mr. Hanson has determined that it is “just about senseless” to continue this “dialogue”. Well, judging from the nonsense that Mr. Hanson has offered thus far. His part of this discussion has assuredly been quite truthfully “senseless”. For it is a fact that his statements do not make sense and we have shown them to be senseless and asked him questions which we know that he cannot answer so that the logical inconsistencies of his comments can be examined. And he knows what will be the results of any attempt on his part to answer those questions and he has wisely determined that it would indeed be “senseless” for him to continue this “dialogue”. And this “escapism” is not new to Him. For he has done the same thing in the other discussion that we have had with him. But we do not find that there is any problem with continuing this “dialogue” for the truth has nothing to lose to be subject to any kind of examination whether it be fair and objective or deliberately hostile. For the truth shines brighter when it is “buffeted”, doesn’t it?

And he accurately doubts that this has been a “dialogue” at all. For a dialogue requires discussion between both parties and mutual responses to each other’s comments and questions. But Mr. Hanson has failed to respond to much of what we have said to him and the questions that we have asked of him. Yet we have given responses sentence by sentence to most of his words. And he has deliberately ignored the majority of what we have said to him. So, it is clear that the reason this has never really been a dialog is because Mr. Hanson has the habit of ignoring the hard questions that put his position into some difficulty. So, if he keeps his promise to not continue he will have just as much “dialogue” as he had before making that decision. For he has long since abandoned the idea of contributing to the “dialogue” when he stopped responding to our questions and comments. And he can abandon it if he so desires this is his right. But it will not be anyh cause for us to cease teaching the truth as opposed to error on this subject. And it matters not to us in the least whether he is “present to join in the discussion or if he desires to avoid it. But the “dialogue” will go one with those who have the courage to continue. For Mr. Hanson is not the only one involved in this discussion. And the discussion is not about “Mr. Hanson” and it will progress without him as well as it would with him. For his part in it has no effect whatsoever upon the doctrine of Christ which is contrary to his false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” and his Calvinistic notions that man cannot obey the gospel of Christ because no one “outside of Christ” can do anything good. For there is not a single passage in the word of God that teaches such nonsense.

So, Brother Danny, I do believe what I see Mr. Hanson doing here for this is not the first time he has sought to evade the issues and avoid the hard questions, and discontinue the “discussion” when he found it becoming too difficult and unpleasant for him to pursue further. Facing the truth is often difficult and running from it becomes more inviting and easy. And Mr. Hanson is not the first false teacher to reach this point and leave the discussion to avoid the facts.

SISTER TERESA:

I thank you very much for your comments. I am glad that you understand the truth and love our Lord who is “the way, the truth, and the life”. (John 14:6). I appreciate your taking note of the souls of men, which are at stake in these matters. For indeed that is the reason we do not and have not ever deliberately “abandoned” any discussion in this forum. For we care about the precious souls of our readers who often are seeking to know the truth from God’s word. And we care far more about this than we do about how others might perceive us, condemn us, or deliberately misrepresent us. We will continue to do what we can to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3) and to be set for the “defense of the gospel of Christ” (Phil. 1:17) even if there is no “real dialogue” with the person to whom we are directly responding in the forum. And your taking a stand for the truth and speaking the fact that is often overlooked, that we have done that which is right. We thank God for you, and for the work that you and your husband are diligently doing for Christ. And we appreciate your remakes which place this matter in it’s correct perspective. We thank God for you.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Teresa,

" I think it was a NOBLE Christian response! He did not say unkind things about Mr. Hanson... ".

I respectfully disagree. There is nothing noble, kind or Christian- like about calling a fellow Christian's words "pathetic".

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

ssmith48, I don't know your name....But I must disagree with your implication that E.Lee's response was an unchristian thing to say.but instead, he FRANKLY (as one should when dealing with false doctrine) called Hanson's THEOLOGY nonsense. One cannot "beat around the bush" when exposing doctrine that is TOTALLY false. Satan LOVES for Hanson's doctrine to be accepted by mankind because it passes the "buck" to God and leaves men "off the hook." Men and women may be lost eternally if they believe such nonsense and think there's nothing they must, or CAN, do... since it is all up to God to "zap" them with the salvation experience. I must say that E.Lee's response is VERY Christian.... he is concerned for men's souls... that they might not buy into doctrine that could lead them to hell. THANKS E. LEE, for the truly Christian response to Hanson and for standing FIRM in the defense of the TRUTH revealed in God's word!

-- Schwingel (schwingel@netzero.net),

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001

James was addressing Christians when he made the statement...

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

Once in Christ we perform good works, to perform good works before one is in Christ is done with a motive that is self centric and not Christ centric. This is as basic to the true Christian gospel as the virgin birth, for the Scriptures declare...

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."

Either we enter Christ by grace through faith or enter hell by debt through works. Thank the Lord for the good news...

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

In my ungodliness, when I was still a sinner, Christ reconciled myself to Himself on the cross by grace when I believed.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Mr. Hanson has again repeated the nonsense that we have answered before and about which we have asked him a question to which he has yet to answer as follows:

“James was addressing Christians when he made the statement... "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."”

Indeed, as we have already admitted, James was surely addressing Christians. And as we have pointed out before Paul was also addressing the CHRISTIANS at Rome when he said, “"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."” But that does not seem to prevent Mr. Hanson from believing, correctly, that Paul was talking about how one becomes a Christian or how one obtains salvation. Anyone can see that just because the writer is addressing an audience of Christians does not prevent him from discussing the subject of how they became Christians or how they obtained their salvation or how one can be saved, now does it? So, it is clear to anyone who is able to think that because James was talking to Christians is no evidence that he was not discussing the subject of how one can be saved, now does it? In fact, we have asked Mr. Hanson before, and we ask him now yet again to name one book of the entire New Testament, from which we learn about salvation, that was NOT ADDRESSED to Christians? If the fact that a given book of the New Testament addresses Christians prevents the author from the possibility of describing how one becomes a Christian or how one is saved. Then the entire New Testament could not tell us anything about how to be saved because the entire New Testament is addressing Christians! So, Mr. Hanson, do you believe that the fact that Paul is addressing the Christians at Rome in the book of Romans means that everything he said in that book could not have been discussing how one is saved or becomes a Christian? If so then how do you conclude that his words were talking about one’s initial salvation even though he was addressing Christians but James could not have done the same thing?

Now, even though James was addressing Christians just as much as Paul was addressing the Christians at Rome in the book of Romans. And even though James was addressing Christians, just as every other book in the New Testament. He asked a question about SALVATION when he said, “What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?” (James 2:14). So, his question was about whether or not faith can SAVE a MAN (not a specific Christian man but any man) without works. And he gave the answer, “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” (James 2:17-23). Then James concludes the whole matter with these words, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24). So, James is talking about his answer to his own question, which was whether faith with out works could SAVE A MAN. And his answer is diametrically opposed to Mr. Hanson’s answer to that same question, isn’t it? If you were to ask Mr. Hanson if “a man say he hath faith without works, can faith save him?” Mr. Hanson would say, “yes indeed it can!” He would say, “in fact one is saved by faith ONLY the very moment that he believes without any works whatsoever!” And Mr. Hanson would be very adamant about that answer, now wouldn’t he? But James answered the question very differently! He answered it in such a way that no one can doubt that James did not believe nor agree with Mr. Hanson’s nonsense doctrine of “salvation by faith ONLY” now didn’t he? For James said, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY” (James 2:24). Now those are words that Mr. Hanson would choke to death upon before he would ever say them in answer to the question that was asked by James, now wouldn’t he? He claims that he does not teach “salvation by faith only” but every time he says anything he claims that we are saved by FAITH ONLY. And we have asked him to come in here and tell us that we are not saved by faith ONLY and he has never done so. The reason he has never done so is because he cannot do it! The reason he cannot do it is that the moment that he comes in here and says the same thing that James said he will have to give up the false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” that he is truly trying to teach, now won’t he? And he would rather hang on to that false doctrine than to accept the truth that the Holy Spirit spoke through the inspired James, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24). And that is something, which he clearly demonstrates that he will not do. So, James was talking about whether faith without works can save a man. And his answer was, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24). And the fact that he was talking to Christians does not change that simple truth any more than the fact that Paul was speaking to the Christians at Rome negates the simple fact that he spoke to them about the same subject of salvation in Christ. And again we remind you that we have asked Mr. Hanson twice now to tell us which books of the New Testament were NOT addressed to Christians? And he has refused to answer us. And if it is true that all of the New Testament was addressed to Christians and the fact that a book is addressed to Christians means that the author CANNOT possibly be talking about salvation when addressing Christians. Then it follows that we cannot find the subject of salvation addressed anywhere in the entire New Testament because every book in it was addressed to Christians! Now that is the kind of nonsense one must resort to if he wishes to avoid the truth as Mr. Hanson seeks to do, isn’t it?

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

We now continue our response to Mr. Hanson’s post as follows:

Mr. Hanson has said:

“Once in Christ we perform good works, to perform good works before one is in Christ is done with a motive that is self centric and not Christ centric.”

Now that is a very interesting ASSERTION, but where is the PROOF of it? Mr. Hanson, in another thread claimed that it was impossible for anyone outside of Christ to be obedient or to even do ANY GOOD THING! But now he claims they can do "good" but they do it out of “self centric motives” instead of “Christ centric” motives. It is interesting to note that he first tells us that men are too depraved to ever do anything good when they are outside of Christ. But now he believes that they CAN DO GOOD while outside of Christ but they can only do it out of “self centric motives” and that now he believes that it is impossible for them to do it out of “Christ Centric motives”! But he cannot find one single passage of Scripture that teaches any such nonsense and this is very likely the reason that he has cited no scripture to support it, now isn’t it?

Now, indeed when we are in Christ we perform “good works” but we also perform the “the very good work” of “believing” in Christ (John 6:29) as Christ commanded us to do (Mark 16:16) in the process of becoming Christians. We also perform the very good work of obeying God’s command to “repent” (Luke 13:5; Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38) in order to the remission of sins which means we do it before we become Christians. And we also perform the “work of God” or the work which is commanded of God when we are baptized IN ORDER TO OBTAIN REMISSION OF SINS (Acts 2:38) which means that we do it BEFORE OUR SINS ARE REMITTED, now don’t we? Which means that we do it before we become Christians. Now we have dealt with Mr. Hanson’s nonsense doctrine that men are so pathetically depraved that they cannot do any good thing before they are saved. Now this is shear nonsense. For no one can be saved until they believe in Christ. And believing in Christ is a work (John 6:29) and it is a work that God commands them to obey (Mark 16:16) it is not a work that God does for them. They must believe as God commanded them. But if they could not do any GOOD THING until they are IN CHRIST then how could they ever believe in Christ, which is a GOOD THING one must do which is absolutely essential to getting into Christ? But Mr. Hanson says that one cannot do any good thing until he is in Christ. Then he comes along in this post and says that they can do good things while outside of Christ but they cannot do it from a pure motive that is centered around Christ. Therefore it would be, according to Mr. Hanson, impossible for them to “believe in Christ” with a pure heart that was centered upon Christ! And if that nonsense is true then no one could ever get into Christ because they must first do the GOOD THING of believing in order to get into Christ. Or, is Mr. Hanson saying that it is acceptable for them to initially believe in Christ out of “self centric motives” in order to get into Christ where they will then, and only then be able to believe out of “Christ centric motives”? Mr. Hanson seems to think that all of you out there who are not Christians are just simply TOO DEPRAVED to ever be persuaded by the gospel of Christ to DO THAT GOOD THING of believing in Christ out of pure motives. But there is not one single verse in the entire word of God that teaches that one, who is outside of Christ, is so depraved that it is impossible for him to do any good thing. That is just another false doctrine that Mr. Hanson would like to convince you to believe. For in that way, if you are lost, you can take comfort in the fact that it is not your fault but rather it is God’s fault. Because he conditioned your salvation upon faith, a good thing that you must do in response to the gospel, a thing which GOD KNEW ALL ALONG THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO! Hogwash! Let Mr. Hanson show us even one scripture that even remotely implies such nonsense and we will examine it. Until then we will believe what God has clearly told us. He has commanded us to “repent and believe the gospel” because it is indeed possible for us to do what he has commanded us to do. And we will urge all men to do just that. We will continue to urge them to believe (John 3:16), repent (Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38) and confess (Romans 10:10) and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) that they might be saved (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-6; 16-18; Col. 2:11-13; Gal. 3:26,27; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:25,26; Heb. 10:22).

Then he says:

“This is as basic to the true Christian gospel as the virgin birth, for the Scriptures declare... "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."”

Now, he did not support any of the things, which he claims is “basic to true Christian gospel as the virgin birth”, by quoting any basic scriptures from the doctrine of Christ to support such nonsense, now did he? But he does quote one that does not support what he had said before. For before he had said, ““Once in Christ we perform good works, to perform good works before one is in Christ is done with a motive that is self centric and not Christ centric.” But the scripture that he quoted says, “"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."”. Now does that scripture say anything that would indicate that one who is out of Christ CANNOT obey the gospel of Christ out of any, motive other than one that is “self centric”? No, it doesn’t, now does it? That scripture simply points to the truth that when we obey the gospel God does not OWE us salvation. But rather he is, by the process of the gospel of Christ and our obedience to His commands in it, freely granting us His divinely chosen means of saving us while at the same time being JUST in doing so. (Romans 3:25,26). We are commanded by the gospel to BELIEVE (Mark 16:16). And when we are convinced by the testimony given in the gospel of the truth that Christ is the Son of God and we obey the command to BELIEVE. God is not thereby placed in our dept so that he OWES us and is indebted to us so that He has no choice but to save us. And no one in this forum has ever said any such thing. Rather, it is his will to by such gospel and our obedience to the commands given in it to save us. And in doing so we are saved “by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8). And the fact that we obey Christ (Heb. 5:8,9) and obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8,9), which includes the command to “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Does not in any way whatsoever change in the least the fact that our salvation is by God’s grace and MAN’S faithful response to that Grace. And when one reads how the Ephesians were “saved by Grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8) he finds that it was WHEN they were BAPTIZED in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 19:1-6). And since that is how they were saved by “grace through faith” it follows that it is also how all who would be saved are saved by “grace through faith”. For no one was ever saved by a DEAD faith or a faith that was not made complete or perfect by works (James 2:22).

Then he says:

“Either we enter Christ by grace through faith or enter hell by debt through works.”

Now this statement though “cute” and apparently “quaint” is plain nonsense unsupported by a single word in the inspired word of God. Can Mr. Hanson show from the scriptures how anyone will be LOST FOREVER in hell for doing the good works that GOD commanded us to do one of which is the good WORK of believing in Christ? Can Mr. Hanson show us any good works that would cause a man to GO TO HELL? And can he explain the simple fact that faith itself is a GOOD WORK (John 6:29)? When men do the GOOD WORK of believing in CHRIST, are they trying to place GOD into their debt? It is almost humorous just here to notice that Mr. Hanson says on the one hand we are saved by FAITH ONLY. Even though it is a work that God commands MEN to do. And then he comes along and claims that when they do this work they are trying to place God in their debt and therefore when they do this good work they will GO TO HELL! So, do tell us Mr. Hanson, does this work of faith (John 6:29) save us or does it cause us to go to hell? So, we have Mr. Hanson claiming in one place that we are saved when we obey the command to “believe” (Mark 16:16) and then he tells us that we will go to Hell if we do that WORK. For you see faith is something that WE are commanded to do and it is a WORK that God commands us to do. (Jon 6:29; Gal. 5:6; James 2:22). For Christ said, “repent ye and believe the gospel”. And repentance is also a good work we are commanded to do. (Acts 3:19; 2:38) But Mr. Hanson says if you do that good work you will go to hell. But the scriptures teach that we are to “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Now, if this brings remission of sins how could we go to HELL for doing it? And Mr. Hanson himself has done these WORKS. According to his own words he has repented and he has been baptized. So, has he condemned himself to hell by doing such work? We would like to see him explain to everyone just how it is that God will send us to Hell for obeying the command to believe. We would like to see him prove from the scriptures that God will send us to Hell if we managed, in our depraved state, to actually obey God’s command for us to repent of our sins that they might be blotted out (Acts 3:19). We would like for him to show us from the scriptures how that God will send men to HELL for obeying His command for us to confess Christ (Matt. 10:32,33) especially when Christ said that we would be lost for not doing it? (Romans 10:10). And We would like for Mr. Hanson to prove from the scriptures that God is going to send to hell all of those whom we read about in the New Testament who obeyed the commands of Christ to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). For if that is the case then all who became Christians in the New Testament would now be in hell for there is not a single one of them that became Christians without being baptized, not a single one! In fact, can you imagine that when Phillip preached to the eunuch he preached only Jesus? And as a result of hearing Phillip preach Jesus when they came to a certain water the first thing that the eunuch wanted to do was be baptized. Did Phillip tell him, NO? If he had been Mr. Hanson, instead of the inspired Phillip, he would have said, “don’t you know that it is not necessary for you to be baptized? What on earth made you think of such a thing? If you do that WORK you will be trying to put God in your debt and God will send you to HELL for doing it?” But that is not what Phillip said, now was it? Read the account for yourself. It is found in Acts 8:35- 40. And there you will find the TRUE gospel being preached and the proper response to it. And you will find that Phillip baptized the eunuch and he went “on his way REJOICING”. He did not go on his way in fear. He had no fear that God was now going to send him to hell because he tried, by means of obeying the command of Christ in the gospel to be baptized (Mark 16:16), to “put God in his debt” as Mr. Hanson would have you to believe. Again, it is clear that Mr. Hanson is teaching nothing but pure, self-contradictory nonsense, which is also contrary to the doctrine of Christ.

Then he says:

“Thank the Lord for the good news... "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."”

The faith that was “counted for righteous ness is a “working faith”. For the Inspired James says so. “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” (James 2:22). So, it is not a DEAD faith which does not “work” that is counted for righteousness but a living active faith that is “wrought with works” that was “counted for righteousness in the case of Abraham”. And even Paul said justification is for those who “walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham”. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised.” (Romans 4:12). So, the faith that saves is one that is perfected by works. But one is not justified by “works only” any more than he is justified by “faith only”. Rather we are justified by a faith that is “made perfect or complete” by works (James 2:22). We are not saved by “working” nor are we saved by “believing alone”. But rather it is a fact that we are saved by a faith that works! We are justified by a faith that is made alive, fruitful, active and COMPLETE or PERFECT by works. (James 2:14-26). We are not justified by “faith only” (James 2:24). And we are not justified by a mere “mental assent or acceptance of the facts concerning Christ. We are saved when our faith leads us to obey Christ. (Heb. 5:8,9) and that is WHEN our faith is “counted to us for righteousness” just as Abraham’s faith was “counted to him as righteousness after, and not before he was obedient to God’s command to offer his son Isaac.

Indeed we should “thank God for the Good News.” But the gospel of Christ is far more than mere “good news”. It is the “power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth to the Jew First and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). And it contains not only good news but it also contains facts to be believed (1 Cor. 15:1-4), Commands to be obeyed (Mark 16:16) and Promises to be received (Acts 2:38). And the gospel itself is something that must be OBEYED. For those who do not obey it will be “punished with ever lasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power” (2 Thess. 1:8,9). Therefore, we cannot believe Mr. Hanson’s nonsense that we will be condemned by God to HELL for “obeying the gospel” when God has said that we will be forever punished for NOT “obeying the gospel” (2 Thess. 1:8,9).

Then Mr. Hanson says:

“In my ungodliness, when I was still a sinner, Christ reconciled myself to Himself on the cross by grace when I believed.”

Again we see that Mr. Hanson, according to his own words was able to “do a good thing” when he was in his “ungodliness and while a sinner outside of Christ”. Then why does he teach that other men, beside himself, are totally depraved, utterly lost, and unable to do anything good or to obey Christ out of any motive that is not “self- centric” when they are out of Christ. For believing is an act that we DO in obedience to the commands of Christ given in the gospel. For if Christ had not told us in the gospel that we must believe then we would have never known that we must do it. And he tells men that through the gospel while they are yet “sinners” and outside of Christ. But Mr. Hanson says we cannot do anything good, we cannot truly obey Christ, and we cannot do it out of pure motives that are centered on Christ until we are in Christ. But then he comes along and tells us that HE DID, while he was yet an “ungodly sinner”, that which, according to him, no man can do while he is an “ungodly sinner outside of Christ”. So according to Mr. Hanson he DID, while outside of Christ, the very thing that he claims all that are outside of Christ CANNOT DO! The legs of the lame are often unequal, aren’t they?

Well, this is what Mr. Hanson says but the bible says no such thing. For Mr. Hanson is here claiming that he was saved WHEN he believed before and without repenting of his sins and being baptized for the remission of sins. But in Acts the second chapter we have the account of those Jews who heard the gospel preached by Peter. And when they believed the gospel that Christ was indeed the very messiah and that they had crucified Him. They said, “men and brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter, who did not believe as Mr. Hanson does, said to them, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Now if these men, “while still sinners” were “reconciled by Christ on the cross by grace WHEN THEY BELIEVED” then they were saved, reconciled, without receiving the remission of their sins or the gift of the Holy Spirit! Now who can believe that anyone is saved before his or her sins are forgiven? And we have asked Mr. Hanson numerous times about Acts 2:38 and the fact that Peter told these BELIEVERS to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (in order to) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). We have asked him how they could have been saved from their sins before they repented and were baptized for (or in order to obtain) the remission of them? And he has not given an answer. But, now we ask you to think about it. These people were not saved the moment that they believed, now were they? For after they believed and asked Peter what they should do? Peter did not give the answer that Mr. Hanson would have given, now did he? Mr. Hanson would have said, “you do not have to DO ANYTHING for if you try to DO ANYTHING you will go to Hell!” Mr. Hanson would have said, “it is obvious that you believe and you do not have to do anything because Christ reconciled you to himself when he died on the cross and the moment you believed.” Mr. Hanson would have said, “don’t you know that you are already saved and your sins have already been forgiven and that there is nothing else you can do"? And we are almost certain that he would have asked, “how is it that you were able to do this good thing of “believing in Christ” while you were yet outside of Christ.” He would have said, “you are a bunch of depraved people it is not possible for you to do this good work of believing in Christ.” He may have told them to “pray the sinner’s prayer”. Now isn’t it interesting brethren that there is not a “sinner’s prayer” such as men like Mr. Hanson tell sinners to pray today found in the entire word of God?

I believe that all honest souls can see the vast difference between what Mr. Hanson is teaching and what the Holy Spirit teaches in the word of God. If one follows the word of God they will find the truth. If they follow the nonsense taught by men like Mr. Hanson they will find nothing but false doctrine that is contrary to and contradictory of the doctrine of Christ. And we are told not to “bid Godspeed” to such a one. (2 John 9-11).

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Anyone can see that just because the writer is addressing an audience of Christians does not prevent him from discussing the subject of how they became Christians or how they obtained their salvation or how one can be saved.

Indeed Romans discusses HOW one can be saved!

"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; BUT NOT BEFORE GOD."

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

"Therefore it is of faith, THAT IT MIGHT BE BY GRACE; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all"

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:"

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

"Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:"

"Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

"Being then made free from sin, ye BECAME the servants of righteousness."

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith."

"Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the WORKS of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;"

"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever BELIEVETH on him shall not be ashamed."

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that BELIEVETH."

"For the scripture saith, Whosoever BELIEVETH on him shall not be ashamed."

"And if by grace, then is it NO MORE OF WORKS: OTHERWISE grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

The last verse should be self-explanatory, but in case those having ears cannot hear and having eyes cannot see I will explain.

Either a gift IS of grace OR it is of works.

It cannot be both.

If by works, then it is merited and can no longer be a gift of grace.

If a gift of grace then by definition cannot be merited by works.

Either we enter Christ through faith by grace or we enter hell by debt through works.

Once in Christ we walk in obedience to the Lord bearing the fruit of righteousness.

Quite Simply,

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Brethren and Friends:

Please notice that Mr. Hanson has noticed only one sentence from our previous post and he has therefore again failed to answer the questions that we asked him concerning his post now hasn’t he? But he does accurately quote my words concerning the book of Romans while simultaneously ignoring the argument that was put to him from the book of Romans. He quotes my words as follows:

“Anyone can see that just because the writer is addressing an audience of Christians does not prevent him from discussing the subject of how they became Christians or how they obtained their salvation or how one can be saved.”

To which he replies:

“Indeed Romans discusses HOW one can be saved!”

And so does James! This was the point, which he wishes to ignore. Mr. Hanson agrees that the book of Romans discusses how one is saved. But the book of Romans was written to Christians, now wasn’t it? But Mr. Hanson argued in his last post that James could not have been talking about salvation because the book of James is written to Christians. Yet he correctly realizes that Paul is talking about salvation in the book of Romans even though it too was written to Christians. Now, if it is true, as Mr. Hanson contends, that a book written to Christians cannot be discussing salvation why does he agree with us that the book of Romans, though it was written to Christians, is talking about salvation? The reason is that he likes what the Holy Spirit said through Paul about salvation because he can twist those words but he does not like what James said because there is no way that he can pervert them.

James, in answer to his own question, “if a man say he hath faith and hath not works, can faith save him?” said, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only.” (James 2:24).

Then Mr. Hanson quotes Paul while ignoring James as follows:

"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; BUT NOT BEFORE GOD."

And James agrees with this when he says, “ Was not our father Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?” (James 2:21). Now, Paul says that “if Abraham were Justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, BUT NOT BEFORE GOD”. And James says that works justified Abraham. But the works by which Abraham was justified was works of faith in God or works that God commanded him to do which he by faith in God obeyed and did. But Paul is talking about those who sought salvation on the basis of their OWN good deeds or works that did not proceed from faith in God or obedience to HIS WILL. These people believed that they could be saved by their OWN WORKS rather than the works that God commanded which was done to perfect their faith in God. And this is the reason that James says, “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” (James 2:22). Faith, according to this passage WORKS and when our faith is working it is saving us by making our faith perfect or complete. And those who are trying to be saved by FAITH ONLY are trying to be saved by an incomplete and imperfect or DEAD faith.

Then he quotes Paul in Romans again while ignoring James as follows:

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

But James explains to us just how it was that Abraham “believed God” WHEN his belief was counted to him as righteousness. And by doing so he gives us a divine commentary or exposition of the words of Paul. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, WHEN he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how FAITH WROUGHT WITH HIS WORKS, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” (James 2:21-23). Now, anyone can see just when and how Abraham BELIEVED GOD by reading this verse. Abraham BELIEVED God when he OBEYED God’s command to offer his son Isaac on the alter. And this was how Abraham WALKED by faith. When God Commanded him to leave his country and his Kinsmen to go into a Country that God would show him Abraham OBEYED and when he obeyed he believed God. And his faith was not counted to him as righteousness UNTIL HE OBEYED GOD. And that is why obedience is essential to make faith COMPLETE or PERFECT. Our faith in Christ is not complete or perfect until we by faith obey Christ. (Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46) And to that both Paul and James agree. For It was Paul who said that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9) And it was Paul who said that those who do not obey the gospel shall be “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power.” (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And often when we see the word “believe” it is talking about a complete faith, a faith that works and obeys God. Mr. Hanson would like for us to think otherwise but James makes it abundantly clear, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.” (James 2:24).

Now, Brethren, this is all I have the time to write at the moment because I am at work. But, I will return to discuss it in more detail later. However, in the meantime why don’t we ask Mr. Hanson to answer our questions and respond to our arguments given in our last post? For you can see that we answer him and we make arguments that he does nothing more than deliberately ignore. Now, he can ignore them, if he so chooses but when he does let us take note of the fact that he has deliberately ignored them.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Danny,

Unfortunately you seem to have fallen into the same pit of derogatory speech as my adversary Mr. Saffold. So sorry.

I believe that I mentioned I would bow out of our conversation and allow you to have the final word. You seem to be deluded into thinking that means I am leaving the forum (?)

Perhaps I have not demonstrated my Calvinistic theology because I am not Calvinistic!

Hello, earth to Danny, you there? How often does this need to be repeated?

As with Mr. Saffold I am coming to the conclusion that a dialogue is not possible.

I leave the choice to you, I am happy to discuss ideas, if you are not I will discontinue replying to your posts as well.

Simply,

BTW, I repost my answer here for your second message….

What if I told you, on CHRISTmas morning my wife walked into the bedroom and handed me a bottle of Polo.

I did not get out of bed. I did not get dressed. I did not unwrap the gift. She simply GAVE it to me FREELY with no strings attached.

Hmmmm…..

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Genesis 15:1-6

"After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 2 And Abram said, LORD God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

The Scriptures declare that Abraham believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. I suppose those who are blind to the simple truth will attempt to teach that the Lord did not call Abraham righteous (?) I believe the Scriptures.

We see plainly that the Lord called Abraham righteous decades before he had his son Issac.

After we are righteous we will walk in obedience to the commandments of the Lord, just as Abraham. It is the depraved mind that is at enmity against the grace of God, always attempting to work their own way to God, slighting the great sacrifice of God at the cross.

IF we were talking about perfecting our FAITH, I would mention other Scriptures. Being that we are talking about redemption I will stick to relevant references that declare we are saved by grace through faith NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast.

Perhaps we could re-read James? It is a discussion on how one's faith is perfected. First is faith, second is works.

James does not teach that he will validate his works by his faith, he will validate his faith by his works.

First faith. Saving faith will perform work, such as water baptism.

"And if by grace, then is it NO MORE OF WORKS: OTHERWISE grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

Quite Simply,

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Danny,

You must be confused.

Colossians 2:11-12 no where mentions WATER baptism.

Perhaps you do not know the definition of hermeneutics?

Colossians 2:11-12 most obviously is not talking about water baptism as the CONTEXT says this is done WITHOUT HANDS!

Danny, I know you are an intelligent person. I am certain you have been water baptized.

Was your water baptism done with hands?

Then it is not the baptism talked about in Colossians.

This is very basic.

We were buried with Christ the text says. So when Christ was crucified and buried, we were buried with Him.

How were we buried with Christ? By being in Christ. How are we "in Christ"? By grace through faith.

Nowhere does the text say this is baptism done with hands into water. In fact the theme of Colossians is "Being In Christ" this happens through faith, not through water. Therefore, we were buried with Christ by being placed into Christ (baptized) by grace through faith.

I already know you claim we enter Christ by water baptism, but that is contrary to the Holy Scriptures.

We enter Christ by grace through faith. Our water baptism is a figure of that reality, see 1 Peter 3:21.

You stated…

"Baptism is not something you do....it is something you submit to."

Huh? This is absolutely nonsensical.

You stated…

" Your Calvinism does not allow you to accept this because from your theological construct"

Huh? This again is nonsensical seeing that I am not Calvinist.

Perhaps if I continually insisted that you belong to a "denomination" (even though you claim you do not) you will understand how silly your assertion that I am Calvinist?

Finally your illogical assumptions peak…

"I don't care if you call yourself a Calvinist or not. The facts are....you are....when you espouse this "faith only" doctrine."

So, I am a Calvinist even though I do not believe in Predestination, or Limited atonement? Two cornerstones of Calvinism! Why? Because YOU say I am? Hahaha, this is amusing! How about this Danny, I don't care if you say you are not part of a denomination, the facts indicate that you are when you adhere to these saved by water creeds! Obviously those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones!

Lastly, Danny I don't believe in luck, that is a secular colloquialism.

To answer your "challenge" - seeing that I do not teach "faith only" I can only wonder what conversation you have been participating in over the past several months?

One last thought, I see you fail to respond to Romans 11:6?

Perhaps you can explain why you redefine grace?

"And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace." NIV

"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." NAS

"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." NKJV

"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." RSV

"And if they are saved by God's kindness, then it is not by their good works. For in that case, God's wonderful kindness would not be what it really is--free and undeserved." NLT

We are either saved by grace through faith as the Scriptures teach OR we are saved as your denomination teaches, by works. It has to be one or the other by grace through faith or by works.

I prefer to believe the Holy Scriptures over your denomination.

Simply,

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2001

Beautifully and accurately put Mr. Hanson.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2001

Brethren and Friends: Mr. Hanson continues to ignore our arguments and he continues his efforts to pervert the word of God as follows:

“Colossians 2:11-12 most obviously is not talking about water baptism as the CONTEXT says this is done WITHOUT HANDS!”

Now any person who is able to read can tell that it was the “circumcision of Christ wherein he removes our sins from our souls that is done without hands. This passage does not say that baptism is this circumcision of Christ but that this “operation” or circumcision of Christ takes place when we are baptized. But it is not that baptism is done without hands rather it is the removal of our sins by Christ that is done without hands when we are baptized. Lets all read this verse together and see that this is in fact what it says.

“And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 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. 2:10-13).

Now notice that Paul is here telling the Colossian Christians that they are complete in Christ Jesus who is the head of all principality and power. And that though they, as gentiles, had not been circumcised by the hands of men wherein the foreskin of the flesh is surgically removed, in order for them to have a part in the covenant that God had made with the Jews as the physical descendents of Abraham. Therefore, they had no need of such a circumcision since they had been circumcised with the “circumcision made without hands”. Notice that it does not say they had been “baptized with a baptism made without hands” as Mr. Hanson has deliberately perverted it and would like for you to believe that it says. It is a comparison between the physical circumcision, which was done by the hands of men upon male children when they were eight days old. And it was required of Jewish proselytes among the gentiles. And the Judiasing teachers were trying to require that the gentile Christians submit to this circumcision made with hands. And Paul told the Colossian brethren that they had no need of such circumcision because they had been “c8ircumcized with the CIRCUMCISION (not baptism) made without hands”. And that the “circumcision (not baptism) made without hands” was, in contrast with the removal of the physical foreskin of Jewish circumcision, a circumcision designed to remove the “sins of the flesh” which Christ did without the assistance of human hands. And this passage makes it abundantly clear that this removal of sins by the circumcision of Christ took place WHEN THE COLOSIANS were “BURIED WITH HIM (CHRIST) IN BAPTISM”. Not when they were buried with Christ the day the Christ was buried after his crucifixion as Mr. Hanson perverts it to say. So, when we are “buried with Christ in baptism” Christ removes our sins from our souls just as the Jews removed the foreskin of the flesh when they circumcised their male children and proselytes among the gentiles. So, the contrast given here by Paul is between the circumcision of the Jews and the Circumcision of Christ. It is not a comparison between the circumcision of the Jews and baptism that is being made. Baptism is not parallel to Jewish circumcision and it does not have the same function or purpose as Jewish circumcision. But the removal of sin by Christ was all the “circumcision” that anyone ever needs. And this passage tells us that when we are buried with Christ in baptism he removes our sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. So, these passages tell us two things. We are told WHAT happens and we are told WHEN it happens. Our sins are removed by the circumcision made with out hands (not the baptism made with out hands as Mr. Hanson has falsely sought to deceive you into believing) by the circumcision of Christ. This is WHAT happens. And it happens WHEN we are “buried with Christ in baptism” not WHEN Christ was buried after his crucifixion. For neither Mr. Hanson or anyone else can prove that ALL MEN were buried with Christ when Christ was actually buried after his crucifixion! That is just more of Mr. Hanson’s absolute nonsense, isn’t it? For if ALL MEN were buried with Christ on the day that Christ was literally buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathia. Then all men would have had their sins removed at that time which would be before they were even born and before they even heard the gospel or even believed in Christ. Christ was buried after his Crucifixion and he was raised from the dead on the third day. And when we obey the gospel we too are buried with Christ WHEN we are baptized and we are raised with Christ when we are raised from the waters of baptism to walk a new life (Romans 6:3-6). And THEN we are made free from sin (Romans 6:16- 18; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16). This is what this verse teaches in its context. Mr. Hanson cannot show one single place in the context of this verse where it says that “baptism is done without hands” and he cannot show one place in this passage where it says that we were all “buried with Christ at the exact same time that he was buried. In fact, this verse unequivocally states that we are buried with Christ, not in his tomb on the day he was buried, but IN BAPTISM. In this nonsense of Mr. Hanson’s we see how absurd men can be when they refuse to accept the truth and seek instead to pervert it to fit their favorite theological presuppositions!

Now, there is only one baptism related to the gospel of Christ and the remission or removal of sin in the New Testament. And that baptism is an immersion in water. For Peter told his audience on the day of Pentecost, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

And Mr. Hanson has given us no reason whatsoever to believe that this verse is talking about Holy Spirit baptism and he has not offered any reason why we should think this might even be a possibility. But let us take a look at the facts. The baptism of Colossians 2:10-13 is a baptism related to the removal of sins and is therefore the baptism spoken of which is in response to hearing the preaching of the gospel of Christ as commanded in the great commission given by Christ in three places. Let us read all three accounts, ok?

“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:14-16).

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19,10).

“Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:45-47).

Now, looking at these three accounts of the exact same great commission given by Christ we see that he was commanding the apostles to preach the gospel to “all nations” and “every creature” beginning at Jerusalem. And we also see that he commanded the apostles to baptize those whom they taught. Now, throughout the word of God the only way a MAN can baptize anyone is to immerse him in water like John did and as the disciples of Christ had been doing up until the very time that Christ died. But John said of Christ that he was the one who could baptize in the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 3:11). So, since the baptism commanded in these verses was one that the apostles, mere men, were to administer it could not be Holy Spirit baptism because the apostles had no authority or power to baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit. Only Christ could do that. And not only were the apostles to administer this baptism but they were to also teach those whom they baptized to observe all things that Christ had commanded them in relation to it. Which means that they also were to “make disciples of all nations and baptize them in the name of the father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19,20). Therefore, since this baptism was supposed to be administered by men it cannot be baptism in the Holy Spirit because there has never been a man alive, other than our Lord Jesus Christ, who had the authority to baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit.

And this baptism is one that the apostles and those whom they taught and baptized were commanded to do. And inasmuch as no man has ever been able to baptize someone into the Holy Spirit it follows that the baptism that they were commanded to do in Mark 16:15,16 and Matthew 28:19,20 is in fact water baptism. For that is the only option. No man can baptize another man into the Holy Spirit. And that my friends is a fact. Thus the baptism which Christ commanded in the great commission was baptism in water.

But to further see this, let us remember that when the great commission of Christ was given in Luke we are told that repentance and remission of sins would be preached in his name beginning at Jerusalem. And in Acts the first Chapter we have Christ promising to baptized the apostles in the Holy Spirit “not many days hence” as follows: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” (Acts 1:4,5). And then when the Apostles were gathered together in one accord and one place they were baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4) and then Peter preached and on that day, according to the promise of Christ, he preached “repentance and the remission of sins” and when these people in his presence believed his preaching and we convinced that they’d crucified the “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). They then asked, “Men and brethren what shall we do” (Acts 2:37). And peter gave them the answer. He said, “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38). And then, “with many other words did Peter exhort them saying save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). Then we are told that they which “gladly received his word were baptized and there were added to them in that day three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). Now this baptism was after the baptism of the apostles in the Holy Spirit and the purpose of it was “for the remission of sins” and afterward they were promised the “gift of the Holy Spirit”. So it could not have been Holy Spirit baptism, now could it. For it was administered by the apostles and not by Christ directly. Only Christ could baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit. And they were promised the gift of the Holy Spirit after they repented and were baptized. And later we read of the conversion of the Samaritans in Acts chapter eight as follows:

“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12). And when the apostles at Jerusalem hear that the Samaritans had “received the word of God” they sent to them Peter and John. And I want you to notice that what is said about the Samaritans. “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 8:14-17).

Now from the above account of the conversion of the Samaritans we see that they had clearly hear the gospel preached by Phillip, which he was doing in obedience to the command of Christ given in the great commission which we quoted from Mark 16:15,16 and Matthew 28:19,20). And we also learned that he had baptized them. Now even though we know that this baptism was not a baptism in the Holy Spirit because it was administer by a man named Phillip in the name of Christ. And not by Christ himself who was the only one that had the authority and power to baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit. We also know for other reasons that this was water baptism and not baptism in the Holy Spirit. For we are plainly told that Peter and John came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit for as yet he HAD FALLEN ON NONE OF THEM ONLY THEY HAD BEEN BAPTISED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. Now if they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit this could not have been said of them, now could it? For if they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, as had been the apostles they would have most assuredly “received the Holy Spirit”. But we are told they had not received the Holy Spirit only they had been “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”. Now this proves conclusively that the baptism of the great commission, which was to be done in the name of Jesus Christ, was not baptism in the Holy Spirit because the Samaritan had been so baptized but they had not received the Holy Spirit AT ALL. Then we see that these Samaritans received the Holy Spirit when the apostles lay their hands upon them. And not by any baptism of the Holy Spirit, which only Christ could do.

But next we must show that the baptism of the great commission, which is the baptism that was administered by Phillip among the Samaritans, which was baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, was water baptism. And all we need do to find conclusive evidence of that fact is to read a little further in Acts eight to see this same Phillip preaching this same gospel under the same commission given by Christ. And administering the same baptism which was in the name of Christ as he had administered among the Samaritans and we see that it was without any doubt or question whatsoever a baptism in WATER and not in the Holy Spirit. Let us read the account.

“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 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.” Now here we see the same Phillip. Preaching under the same commission of Christ given in Mark 16:16, and baptizing in the same way as he had been among the Samaritans and we clearly see that that baptism, in the name of Christ was a baptism in water.

We are told in this passage that Phillip “began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus. That is all we are told that Phillip preached. Which means that he was preaching the gospel as commanded by Christ in the great commission under which he was working which is found in Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19,20; Luke 24:45-47. And as a result of hearing Phillip preach nothing but Jesus as soon as they came upon a certain WATER the very first thing out of the Eunuch’s mouth was, “see here is WATER what doeth hinder me to be baptized?” Now, if Phillip had been preaching under the great commission about Holy Spirit baptism instead of WATER baptism he would not have gotten this response from the eunuch, now would he? And then we see Phillip baptizing the eunuch in WATER under the great commission given by Christ in Mark 16:16 therefore the baptism of Mark 16:16 is without question a baptism in water and not a baptism in the Holy Spirit. For no man has the ability to baptize in the Holy Spirit. Only Christ can do that. But the command to baptize given in the great commission of Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19,20; was a baptism to be administered by men in the NAME OF CHRIST. And when we see these men administering this baptism which Christ commanded them to administer. We see that it could only be in water for that is the only way a man could ever baptize some one in the New Testament and we see that when they administered this baptism it was in fact actually done in WATER and not in the Holy Spirit.

Now we have established our case that the baptism of the great commission was an immersion in water and not Holy Spirit baptism. Now, if Mr. Hanson would like to prove to us conclusively that it was Holy Spirit baptism and not water baptism we would be glad to hear h8i9s reasoning if he is able to do such reasoning on the matter. And after he attempts to make his case that it was Holy Spirit baptism we would like to hear him show wherein he thinks we are in error in our above reasoning if he deems that we are in error concerning it. But do not forget that if he affirms that the baptism of Colossians 2:10- 13 is Holy Spirit baptism it is his burden to do as we have done with our affirmation above and PROVE that it is true.

Then Mr. Hanson says:

“Danny, I know you are an intelligent person. I am certain you have been water baptized.”

Well, I must say that we are happy to note that Mr. Hanson has been able to determine that our Brother Danny is in fact an intelligent person. And that because he recognizes that Brother Danny is intelligent enough to determine that it was wise to be baptized in obedience to the command of Christ. (Mark 16:16;Acts 2:38; Col. 2:10- 13).

Then he ask:

“Was your water baptism done with hands?”

This makes us wonder about Mr. Hanson’s intelligence. For have you ever saw anyone be immersed in water in obedience to the gospel without hands?

Then he says, without even attempting to prove that what he says is true, the following:

“Then it is not the baptism talked about in Colossians.”

Yes it is the baptism spoken of in Colossians. And we have shown good reasons to believe that it is the baptism of the great commission which was connected with the removal or remission of sins (Acts 2:38). For that baptism is the baptism which was required by the gospel of Christ. (Mark 16:16) and the baptism that was related to the removal of sins (Acts 2:38). Hence it was an immersion in water as we have show in our above arguments.

Now, if Mr. Hanson thinks otherwise let him prove it. For the baptism spoken of in Colossians 2:10-13 is the baptism of the great commission, which was done with hands. (Acts 8:12-40). And is connected with the removal of sins by Christ which is done without hands WHEN one is buried with him in baptism. (Col. 2:10-13; Romans 6:3-6; 16-18). And the thing that is done by Christ without hands is the removal of sins. And we challenge Mr. Hanson to show us from this passage where it says that BAPTISM is done without hands. It says that the circumcision of Christ or the removal of our sins by Christ, is done without hands and this takes place when we are buried with him in baptism. Baptism is not the “Circumcision of Christ” but the “circumcision of Christ” wherein he removes our sins without hands happens WHEN we are “buried with him in baptism”.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, July 22, 2001

With the wealth of knowledge participating in this discussion, I feel almost unworthy to participate, however I hope these thoughts might help in this process.

How can one have "Faith in Christ, and be saved" apart from baptism (Acts 2:38, Rom 6:1-14, and 1Peter 3:21)

Remeber salvation is in the mind of God, not anywhere else. How can a sinner be united with God i.e. "saved" with out first dying to sin? Romans states the answer clearly. How can one be saved before being immersed when 1 peter 3:21 says baptism "saves you?"

It has been said someone can have "faith" in Christ without being immersed. "Faith only" is the satement that has been made. To say "faith only" so as to be without obligation is inconsistant with the bilical use of the greek word for faith. Faith is a multifacited word which cannot be summed up in one concept. Belief is certainly a part of it, and trust is also a part of it. Obeidience is no less a part of faith than belief or, trust. Faith is much more than mere assent toward Christ. It is dying to yourself and raising again as a new creature to serve Christ as your LORD and your savior. Faith in Christ is obeying his Word when it says something. There are many instances that translate a lack of faith to be "disobedience"

I realize this is a delicate issue, and hope that I have helped to clear the waters, and not to make them more muddy.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2001

Is this the Mike Adams that I know from the holy land (Ohio)?

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2001