Brethren:

Brother Davis, in the thread entitled “a people of the Book” wondered off the subject to bring up his pathetic false doctrines concerning baptism yet again with these words:

“I am just curious as to how much a person has to know about baptism before it becomes efficient for their salvation? Do I have to be baptized every time I learn more about it? Where does the Bible clearly state or imply that one has to know baptism is for the remission of sins before it will take effect?”

Now, Brethren, this question has been asked by Brother Davis once before and it has been asked on his behalf yet a second time in a thread dedicated to the subject. And in both threads we responded and received absolutely no reply from Brother Davis at all. Now, he pretends that his question has never been raised before and has not been answered before. He wants to forget about the original discussion where this matter was covered. But we will simply give our discussion of that matter again and ask him to respond. WE therefore repeat in this thread our responses to that question yet one more time. And we do this in order to allow the thread entitled "A People of the Book" to stay on subject and to remind our readers that this subject has been discussed in two other threads and to show that Brother Davis is attmpting to continue the discussion of that issue without having to respond to the arguments that he deliberately ignored in those threads. It is his highest hope that you will forget the arguments were ever made and that he can avoid dealing with them. Well, he can certianly continue to ignore them if he so desires but we will not let him or anyone else forget them. And he not only ignored the arguments made from the scriptures by E. Lee Saffold but he also ignored Brother Danny's arguments and Brother Scott Sheridan's arguments as well as other. If they wish to copy and paste their arguments hear and ask for a reply they are welcome to do so. I have no authority to move there excellent arguments to this thread. But I highly recommend that those interested in this subject go to those threads and read the several responses that Brother Davis received to his question which he deliberately ignored because he could not answer them.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Answers

Brethren:

Brother Davis, in the thread entitled “a people of the Book” wondered off the subject to bring up his pathetic false doctrines concerning baptism yet again with these words:

“I am just curious as to how much a person has to know about baptism before it becomes efficient for their salvation? Do I have to be baptized every time I learn more about it? Where does the Bible clearly state or imply that one has to know baptism is for the remission of sins before it will take effect?”

Now, Brethren, this question has been asked by Brother Davis once before and it has been asked on his behalf yet a second time in a thread dedicated to the subject. And in both threads we responded and received absolutely no reply from Brother Davis at all. Now, he pretends that his question has never been raised before and has not been answered before. He wants to forget about the original discussion where this matter was covered. But we will simply give our discussion of that matter again and ask him to respond. WE therefore repeat in this thread our responses to that question yet one more time as follows:

“Brethren:

Barry Davis has ask the following question:

“I was reading a book by a non-instrumental church of Christ author who stated that unless one believes that he/she is being baptized specifically for the remission of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit, their baptism is not valid.” Now, I do wonder, just why Mr. Davis thinks the fact that our brethren do not use instruments of music in their worship has to do with this question that he asked? Since the majority of the Brethren reading this forum do use an instrument in their worship. It does indeed seem that Mr. Davis expects to gain some sympathy for his unstated position but stated opposition to the author’s position. He hopes obviously to do this by beginning with this feeble attempt to prejudice our readers in this forum against the position held by the author of this book on the basis of the fact that he worship God in a scriptural manner. For we all agree that it is not sinful or wrong to worship God without the use of instruments of music. WE do not agree that it is right to use them but we all at least agree that it is right not to use them, don’t we? SO, Mr. Davis’ argument goes like this:

Major premise: An author who does not use instruments of music in the worship cannot know the truth on any subject.

Minor premise: The author of the book I have been reading does not use instruments of music in his worship to God

Conclusion: Therefore the author of this book cannot be correct in stating that one must understand the purpose of baptism or it is not acceptable to God.

And that argument is pathetically false because it cannot proven that it is impossible for an author who worships God without instrumental accompaniment to know the truth on any subject. SO the major premise falls on its very face and Mr. Hanson’s attempt to prejudice our readers against this authors position before and without hearing any of his arguments is a miserable way to claim to be objectively reviewing any particular issue.

Now, I will have something to say about this matter later but I do not have time at the moment to go into it. But I ask that all of you read a passage of scripture.

“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)

“And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? (Mark 15:16). “And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Mark 12:33). “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,” (Luke 24:45).

“The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,” (Eph. 1:18)

“Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:” (Eph. 4:18). “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is].” (Eph. 5:17).

“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. 1:9).

“That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;” (Col. 2:2).

“Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” (Titus 2:2).

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20).

“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” (1 Cor. 4:15).

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;” (1 Cor. 15:1)

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:” (2 Cor. 4:3).

“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2 Cor. 4:4).

“I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.” (John 8:32).

I shall discuss these and numerous other important passages in relation to this subject of how much we must understand in our obedience to the gospel which includes faith, repentance, confession and baptism. For we want God’s word concerning this subject. The opinions of men generally pervert God’s word on most subjects. Let us turn instead to the word of God and read all that he has to say about the matter before we “form opinions” and go forth teaching them.

Now Barry was apparently unwilling to affirm his position clearly and defend it with argumentation. He wanted to know what we men thought about it. But we want to know what GOD has to say about the matter in HIS word. But in our next post we will discuss these passages and several more and explain the bearing that they have upon the question asked by Mr. Davis.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold”

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Brethren:

Then Brother Robin asked the question yet again after having some discussion with Brother Davis about the matter via email and we responded, and again Brother Davis ignored the arguments as follows:

“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, August 17, 2001

Brethren:

And yet again we made arguments in agreement with Brother Danny against Brother Davis’ false doctrine concerning baptism which were also completely ignored by Brother Davis as follows:

“Brother Danny:

I haven’t much time this morning but I wanted to say AMEN AND AMEN to your following words: “Is it a strech then to insist that individuals understand some "basics" before they make a commitment to Christ???....especially when this is a far more serious commitment.”

You are absolutely correct. It is not a stretch at all to insist that those who come to Christ understand some “basics”. Phillip insisted that the Eunuch “believed 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 an 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. 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 thenhe 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 comanded 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 inescapably requires understanding the will of God. No one con 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. Brother Demastus may have a good example in referring to marriage but it is not quite parallel as anyone can see. For in a marriage we are seeking a relationship that has not been broken. 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!

It seems that a more fitting example might be found in the reconciliation of an estranged couple who were married but because of sins against each other have been separated and are now seeking to be reconciled with one another. Such reconciliation requires quite a bit of understanding of what you are doing and why you are doing it. But I really recommend that we search the scriptures for illustrations that God has provided for it is His will, His word, and His truth that we are trying to understand. Thus it seems to me that we should exhaust the supply of His illustrations found in His word before we set out to find some of our own.

Paul, in reference to the baptism of the Romans, which he was discussing in chapter 6 of that book, says: “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 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.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Hi E. Lee,

Your major premise was: An author who does not use instruments of music in the worship cannot know the truth on any subject.

While I am not in agreement with your premise entirely, I would agree that they sure don't know much about biblical worship and are in direct disobedience to God's commands to use musical intruments.

Pray tell, are you an "anti" yourself? What a shocking revelation!

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Brother Davis:

Now, you know that the major premise to which you refer was your major premise of your argument and not mine at all. So, do show us where I ever stated such as a major premise which I would defend.

ANyone with half of a brain can see that the "major premise" to which Brother Davis refers from my post is preceded by the words,"so Mr. Davis' argiument goes like this". which indicated that I was stating the argument as given by Mr. Davis. Read it again for yourself.

"SO, Mr. Davis’ argument goes like this:"

Major premise: An author who does not use instruments of music in the worship cannot know the truth on any subject.

Minor premise: The author of the book I have been reading does not use instruments of music in his worship to God

Conclusion: Therefore the author of this book cannot be correct in stating that one must understand the purpose of baptism or it is not acceptable to God."

But now, Brother Davis thinks that I made the argument! Do we need fruther evidence of Brother Davis'delberate intend to deceive? For he has deliberately sought to take the argument that he made and attempted to make it appear that I had made the argument and that he does not agree with it. SOmething such as this cannot be done accidentally. By its very nature it was a deleberate effort to tell a deliberate lie. And we know what happens to deliberate liars.

Then he says, concerning his own argument which he has sought to make it appear is an argument that I have made the following:

"While I am not in agreement with your premise entirely, I would agree that they sure don't know much about biblical worship and are in direct disobedience to God's commands to use musical intruments."

Since it was Mr. Davis' argument and not mine we wonder why he is so ashamed of it that he wished to make it appear that we are the ones who made it. And he does not even agree with the argument that he had made and therefore we wonder why he made it unless he just wanted to deliberately prejudice the case.

Now, he cannot prove from the scriptures that God has COMMANDED ANYONE to use instruments of music in the worship to save his life. But that is not the subject of this thread. If he wishes to prove such a false doctrine then he should start a thread related to it and all of you brethren in the Christian church can discuss that issue as much as you like. If he wishes to discuss it with me he will have to agree to a formal debate in this forum.

But look at this matter Brethren. He does not really want to discuss the question that he claimed falsely to be so "curious about" which was whether baptism was valid if the person being baptized does not understand that it is for the forgiveness of sins. He wishes to avoid that discussion by stiring the "instrumental music debate" so as to divide us from each other and he can focus on teaching his false doctrines without being challenged. But it will not work. Because I do not use instruments in the worship of GOd and will never do so. And I have come into this forum to fellowship with my brethren in the body of CHrist and talk about the word of God and the truth. And I will nopt allow this false teacher to divert attention from his deliberate lies by starting a fight over instrumental music between us. WE will finish this discussion on baptism first and if he wishes to accept my challenge to debate the issue of instrumental music I will be happy to join in the debate. But the subject of this thread has nothing to do with instrumental music. But he is using that isue to "poisen the wells" as he did in his previous attempt to discuss this issue. And he is now using it to inject unessary strife among those of us who disagree with his false doctrine about Baptism.

Brethren:

Notice this tactic and understand that we will avoid the discussion of any subject not related to the issue at hand in this thread which is baptism.

But it is interesting to note that Brother Davis no longer believes his owm argument and is even ashamed of it as he should be.

Your Brother in CHrist,

E. `Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

You are exactly correct E. Lee!!

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

E. Lee,

You missed my point entirely. I know that this was not your major premise, but it was never mine either. I clearly pointed that out to you on the other thread but you chose to ignore it. Instrumental music was never a part of the equation. In this post I simply turned the tables and did the same thing to you you've been doing to me -- attributing positions to you out of thin air. This is why it is impossible to discuss anything with you -- you make up positions for me that I've never held or posted here.

If you cut through all the chaff that you have made up about me, there are two basic areas of disagreement that we have:

1) I believe that a person can be saved without being specifically baptized for the remission of sins.

2) I believe that man is born with a propensity to sin.

That's it! And because of these two positions I am considered a liberal and a false teacher. If you were any narrower we could fit you, and a few others on this forum, through a keyhole.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

And the "whole" Gospel of Jesus Christ.....would fit in that keyhole as well.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, You missed my point entirely. I know that this was not your major premise, but it was never mine either.”

You have not made a point to be missed Brother Davis. Yes it was YOUR major premise in your deliberate efforts to “poison the well” before discussing the issue of baptism as per you question that you pretended to have some interest in discussing but that you have now avoided discussing ever since you were met with resistance to it. And you have repeated all of that here because you want everyone in the forum to know in advance that the person who is contending against your false doctrine concerning baptism is one who is also opposed to instrumental music in the worship. But I have been in this forum for a long time and they all know that such is the case with me. So, your use of the instrumental music issue to run away from discussing the issue of this thread and the others about baptism for the remission of sins is useless. For they all know that I will never use instrumental of music in the worship and that is just the way it will be. But they also know that such has no bearing upon the issue we are discussing in this thread. And you are merely stalling to avoid the arguments, which we have made against your false teaching concerning baptism. You are seeking to cause a discussion if instrumental music to erupt so that you can excuse you complete inability to answer the arguments, which we have made against you false doctrines concerning baptism. But it will not work.

Then you say:

“ I clearly pointed that out to you on the other thread but you chose to ignore it”

You were caught trying to poison the well and I made it abundantly clear that you had done so and you tried to defend yourself and I responded to it. Which means that I did not ignore you lie which you tried to tell that you were not trying to poison the well. And now you lie by stating that I ignored it. But this has nothing to do with the arguments, which we have made against your position on baptism in this thread. Those you have constantly ignored now haven’t you?

Then you say:

“. Instrumental music was never a part of the equation.”

It should not have been but it was because you made it so. AS you are trying to do even now. For now you are using that issue to avoid the real issue and the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is baptism not instrumental music. I have quoted from the post where we answered you questions about baptism and you have now ignored them entirely in all three threads. I can understand why you must blow all of this smoke. For you must hide yourself from the facts.

Then you say:

“ In this post I simply turned the tables and did the same thing to you you've been doing to me -- attributing positions to you out of thin air.”

Now, I have not done any such thing to you and you cannot prove that I did now can you? So you have not “turned the tables” but you have only lied about “turning the tables”. Where is the evidence that I have done such a thing to you? But we do see that you deliberately lied to our readers in what you have done isn’t it?

Then you say:

“ This is why it is impossible to discuss anything with you -- you make up positions for me that I've never held or posted here.”

I have responded to your very words and you have in fact held the position that one does not have to understand that baptism is for the remission of sins for his baptism to be valid or acceptable to God. And that is the position that we are talking about in this thread. You have taught that man is a “SINNER BY NATURE” as I accused you of teaching which is as I stated a “touch of Calvinism” in you that is not found in the word of God. And I did correctly accuse you of teaching via your creed that Christ is returning to “establish his kingdom” which is false doctrine as well for the scriptures no where teach that Christ is coming to establish his kingdom.

None of those accusations were misrepresentations of your stated positions in the least. Now you may have misrepresented yourself but based upon what you had said in this forum those were doctrines that you taught and you have yet to correct any of them and show that you do not teach them.

But your real difficulty in discussing these matters is that you cannot answer the arguments, which have been made, against your position and you simply ignore them.

Then you say:

“If you cut through all the chaff that you have made up about me”

Where is the proof that I have “made up” anything about you?

Then you say:

“ there are two basic areas of disagreement that we have:”

No Brother there are far more than TWO basis disagreements that we have and you can rest assured of that. They may not have all come out clearly in this forum yet but they will in time. You and I are not even close to agreement on much of anything.

Then you say:

“1) I believe that a person can be saved without being specifically baptized for the remission of sins.”

Now just here is where you differ with the God, Christ and the Holy Spirit who spoke through the apostle Peter and said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). And we have made several arguments above to further establish this truth and you have ignored them all. WE have repeated them for you three times and yet you continue to ignore them all.

Then you say:

“ I believe that man is born with a propensity to sin.”

No, Brother Davis, this is not what you believe. You believe, according to your creed that MEN ARE SINNERS BY NATURE”. This is very different from the idea of man having some “propensity to sin” For the fact that man can be tempted is proof that he is in a position to be tempted to sin. But he is not a sinner until he chooses to sin against God. But your teach that man is a SINNER BY NATURE”. That there is something in his nature is inherently sinful and you have so stated this to be your position. Your false teaching is not that man is born in an environment that is conducive to sin but that he is a sinner by virtue of being born, inherit in his nature as a human being he is a sinner. This is what you have stated. But I can see that you are now trying to change that position.

Then you say:

“That's it!”

No, Brother that is not it. You also believe, according to your creed that Christ is returning to “ESTABLISH HIS KINGDOM” and that is a false doctrine that ignores the fact that Christ has already established his Kingdom. If he has established his kingdom how can he “establish it when he returns. For it has already been established. Your Creed says that he is returning to ESTABLISH HIS KINGDOM. And there is a huge difference between what your creed teaches and what the word of God teaches about this matter.

You believe in Creeds and have one for the congregation where you worship. WE are satisfied with word of God and object to all creeds of men even those written by our brethren.

Then you say:

“And because of these two positions I am considered a liberal and a false teacher.”

You use the word “liberal” Brother Davis. I do not make it a habit to use that word. I refer to you as unfaithful while others have called you “liberal”. I prefer to use the scriptural terminology for those opposed to the doctrine of Christ. That word is unfaithful. And I have justly called you a false teacher because your doctrines are contrary to the truth. And I have established that as a fact. It has been established by all of those arguments that you have continually ignored such as those concerning baptism in this thread which you have thus far refuse to discuss by simply ignoring them.

Then you say:

“ If you were any narrower we could fit you, and a few others on this forum, through a keyhole. “

Well, we are told that “straight is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life and few there be that find it. And you are just too FAT or drunk on your lies to walk down it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

I must say, Mr. Saffold, for someone with no time to go into detail you sure have a lot to say. However, you are still quoteing a lot of scripture on your point and miss the others which talk about being accepted with out mentioning baptism. Remember when Peter spoke to the Cornelius and his family, they apparantly recieved the Holy Ghost and then Peter asked why they should not be baptised. Of course many other places that could be mentioned, if I had the time. But moreover, I would just remind you of the motto, "Where the bible speaks, we speak and where it is silent we are silent." It seems that where the bible does not say anything about instuments, and other subects, many are willing to judge the position of other saints all to willingly. Love in Christ, L. John

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2001

Mr. Duncan:

You wrote your response to me after a couple of months after I had sensed that not one was going to write anything further in this thread. Therefore, I did not notice it until much later. Because I did not notice that you had written it. And now that I have read it I will give a response to you.

You have said:

“I must say, Mr. Saffold, for someone with no time to go into detail you sure have a lot to say.”

Well, this is true and if I had more time to go into details I would have even more to say, now wouldn’t I? I may have even taken the time to repeat things that I had said elsewhere in this forum which you complain that I have “missed” after quoting a “LOT OF SCRIPTURE”.

Then you say:

“ However, you are still quoting a lot of scripture on your point and miss the others which talk about being accepted with out mentioning baptism.”

I notice that “quoting a LOT OF SCRIPTURE” is not something that you can be charged and convicted of having done, now is it? And you therefore have completely “missed” almost everything concerning what the scriptures have to say about this subject. So, if we are to know what God’s word says on the matter persons will receive more of that from what we have said than what you have written, would you not agree? So, we highly recommend that you join with us in quoting “LOTS OF SCRIPTURE” for in doing so our readers are likely to receive more instruction from GOD then from any of us.

There is not a passage in the entire word of God that says anything about being accepted without obeying the gospel by being baptized. But several which teach that those who do not obey the gospel and refuse to be baptized will be lost. (1Cor. 15:1-5; Romans 6:3-6;17- 18; Romans 1;16; Mark 16:15,16; 2 Thess. 1:8,9). There are some which mention the term “believed” in a comprehensive sense to include all that is involved in becoming a Christ such as repentance, confession of Christ and baptism. And we have gone into proving this in great detail in other threads, which you have obviously not read. We will not repeat them just here unless you would prefer that we copy and paste them into this thread. But it is a fact that the word “believe” is often used in a way wherein a “part is put for the whole”. And when this is the case it was understood that those who “believed” had also repented of their sins, confessed Christ and were baptized in obedience to his commands to do so. And none of these passages state that believing only saves anyone. And your charge that we have “missed these passages” simply shows your ignorance of our long and many discussions we have had in this forum on this subject. For in those discussions we have dealt with these passages more than once. So, if you want to see our responses concerning those we recommend that you do more reading and less assuming.

Then you say:

“ Remember when Peter spoke to the Cornelius and his family, they apparently received the Holy Ghost and then Peter asked why they should not be baptised.”

And just here you fail again to notice that we have dealt with this passage more than once. And you also left out the fact that the household of Cornelius did not receive the Holy Spirit to show that one could be saved without repentance and baptism. But rather to demonstrate to Peter and the rest of the Jews who were preaching Christ that God had granted “repentance unto life” to the gentile also. For if he had not done this Peter may not have baptized them at all thinking that the gospel was for Jews only. And Peter explained the reason for this in Acts 11:15-18. And you also overlook the fact that Peter did not only “ask who could forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?” But he also “COMMANDED then to be baptized” (Acts 10:48). So, these persons were not “saved” without being required to obey the COMMAND to be baptized and if they had refused to be BAPTIZED they would have disobeyed the very Spirit that they had been given and would have “done despite unto the spirit of grace”. And they would not have been saved by any means since baptism is the time and place wherein a person receives the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38) and it is the place wherein Christ removes sins from the soul. (Col. 2:11-13). And there is no indication whatsoever that they were forgiven of their sins the moment that the Holy Spirit fell upon them.

Then you say:

“ Of course many other places that could be mentioned, if I had the time.”

And if you would take the time to read all that we have said about his subject in this forum you would find that we have most likely covered all of them! In fact, if you will take the time to read all that we have said in this forum concerning this subject, and there is quite a lot of it, and you find any passage that we have “missed” we will be happy to respond to it. But the above passage concerning the household of Cornelius is certainly NOT ONE OF THEM.

Then you say:

“ But moreover, I would just remind you of the motto, "Where the bible speaks, we speak and where it is silent we are silent."

And we live by this very motto because it is what the scriptures teach us to do. (1 Peter 4:11). And you have failed miserably to show where we have spoken in any place where the scriptures are “silent”. You can rest assured that the scriptures are not “silent” concerning the fact that one must be baptized for the remission of sins in order to be saved. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:3-5; Col. 2:11-13; Gal. 3;26,27; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 6:25,26; Heb. 10:22; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:14-40; Acts 16:30-34; ).

Then you say:

“ It seems that where the bible does not say anything about instuments, and other subjects, many are willing to judge the position of other saints all to willingly.”

This statement is not entirely true. The Bible says much about instruments but NOTHING about using them in the worship of God in the church of Christ. And as concerns the subject of music in the worship the Bible has spoken quite clearly in SPECIFYING exactly the KIND of MUSIC God has commanded for private and corporate worship. It is VOCAL MUSIC that God’s word specifies. (James 5:13; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). So, what we have done is speak concerning our need to obey God’s commands to use the KIND of music that he has spoken about and specifically commanded us to use, which is VAOCL MUSIC. And God has also spoken quite clearly concerning the corresponding accompaniment that he has specified to go along with the vocal music he has specified which is to be accompanied by “grace in the heart”. (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19).

So, your assertion that the “Bible does not say ANYTHING about instruments” is true and that is the reason you not only should not say anything about them they should not be heard in the church at all. For those who use them are “speaking where the Bible does not speak” in making arguments to justify. It is those who use instruments who are guilty of “speaking where God is silent”. It is those of us who sing and accompany that singing with grace in our hearts that are “speaking as the Bible speaks” on this matter. For what we do is taught in the word of God and God has indeed spoken telling us that we are to SING WITH GRACE IN OUR HEARTS TO THE LORD”. Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; James 5:13). And if you would “Speak where God speaks” and be “Silent where God has been Silent” you would teach all to “sing with grace in their hearts to the Lord and say NOTING ABOUT USING INSTRUMENTS IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD for God has said nothing about it. Then we would not hear the “blatting and grinding” of church organs coming among the assemblies of any of the Saints, now would we? Do tell us Brother Dugan just what WORD from God forms a part of your justification for using mechanical instruments of music in your worship? And if you have determined that God is “Silent” about the matter then why are you not silent in your demands that it be allowed? Especially when you know that such an innovation in the worship of God that he is “silent about” would cause division and contention among the faithful saints of God?

Now, we are preparing for a debate on this subject as we speak and recommend that when this debate occurs that you read that debate and there you will see that God is not silent about the kind of music he wants in the church. He is simply “silent” about the kind of music that YOU want in the worship. Now we are more than willing to speak of the kind of music that God speaks and commands. But it is you that want to speak in support of something that GOD has not spoken concerning at all, now isn’t it?

And indeed you also say:

“And other subject, many are willing to judge the position of other saints”. Yes, many do this, don’t they are YOU are among those who do so aren’t you?

Then you say:

“ Love in Christ, L. John “

Mr. Duncan, if you are in Christ, then you are our Brother and you can rest assure that we LOVE you because of Him.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2002