Billy Graham - Sept. 14, 2001

There is one thing out there about what happened last Tuesday/Friday that came in under the radar and escaped most Christians.

Today for the first time in history, one man (Billy Graham) spoke the Gospel to the entire world at the same time. He gave the sermon today at the National Memorial Service and was broadcast on every major television station in the U.S. and by satellite to the world. Every country in the world received this broadcast...and because it was a Geo Political event, every leader watched and heard it translated into his/her language. Many preachers have their messages broadcast in other countries and carried around the world, but this is the first time that the entire world listened to the Gospel preached at one time. The World and All its leaders tuned in and heard the gospel. Never before has one individual preached to the leaders of the world and their country at one time!!

Mark 13:10 - And the Gospel must first be preached to all the nations.

Matthew 24:14 - And this Gospel of the King shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations and the end shall come.

Romans 10 - whole chapter - particularly verse 18.

My read on this is that through Billy Graham today, Biblical prophecy was fulfilled. As I listened to him today, I was in a store that had the entire service broadcast throughout every speaker in the store's audio system. It was on virtually every TV and radio station and people across America held hands and wept before God. It is my personal belief that the Holy Spirit came upon Billy Graham just as it did upon John the Baptist announcing the Kingdom of God is at hand. I also believe that this is the most significant prophecy to be fulfilled since Israel became a nation in 1948.

Agree or not, it was staggering to hear this today. Jesus tells us often, to watch and 'take heed, keep on the alert, for you do not know when the appointed time is." Mark 13:33.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

Answers

Billy Graham didn't give the full plan of salvation and never will. Why? Because he doesn't believe it or practice it. In fact he wouldn't know the gospel if it came down the road wearing a hat. Read Colossians 1:23.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Most true Dr. Jim!

As far as I'm concerned, until Graham and his like begin to preach the WHOLE Gospel - his words were no better than the Muslim that spoke........since a false Gospel is no better than a false god!

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

This is something I heard some time ago, and I can't quote who I heard it from, but IF it is true it sheds some light on a lot of things.

I had heard that when Billy Graham started his preaching, he included the entire Gospel, including the biblical stand on immersion. He then dropped that from his invitation at the request of preachers in the towns where he spoke ... since they preached an incomplete Gospel.

When questioned about this (I THINK by a restoration preacher some years later) he made it clear that he had been dunked, for biblical reasons, yet his ministry would have faltered had he continued to preach the need for immersion.

I personally don't believe it was a money thing. I know he is well taken care of, but he has always had a "hands off" approach to the finances that come into the ministry, makeing a straight salary (I do not know what that is or was) and leaving the rest of the $$$ for them ministry itself. If it wasn't the $$$ then maybe the prestige, or maybe something else.

Here is an aside to this thread ... If the Billy Graham crusade came to your town or area, would you participate in any way, and if so in what way? I have heard some preachers who would stay as far away from the crusade as possible. Others I know jump at the chance to take their people to hear the preaching, etc.

Some folks I know participate as counselors during the invitation time. They do this in order to share the complete Gospel with as many folks down front as possible, hoping to save some from the incomplete Gospel the crusade teaches, and that many of the counselors down front are sharing with those who come forward.

Is it a good thing to participate, in order to ensure that at least some of those coming forward hear the truth?

What do you think?

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Amen and Amen, Brother Jim!

Billy Graham preaches a false gospel and the apostle Paul made it clear what will happen to those who pervert the gospel of Christ. He siad, "though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which ye received let him be anathema." (Gal. 1:8,9). The doctrine of salvation by faith only is contrary to and diametrically opposed to the gospel of Christ. James said, "ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only". (James 2:24). Christians should preach the gospel of CHrist and have nothing whatsoever to do with the preaching of anything other than the gospel of Christ. THose who give Godspeed to these false teachers are partakers in their evil deeds. (2 John 9-11) and they will share the same fate. All will be anathema that support or participate in the preaching of that which is contrary to the true gospel of Christ. And our Lord does not need the support of these false teachers to reach the lost.

Your Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Darrell,

I have in the past, and will continue in the future, to drive right past any facility having a Graham Crusade (or Promise Keepers meeting). Just the same as I would drive past any Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Charismatic, etc. churhc on the way to a truthful church on any given Sunday morning.

I would not volunteer as a "counselor" at these sort of functions either, because frankly,......they don't want me. These groups don't believe in the full Gospel and have no place for the truth I would share. I would probably have to compromise my own beliefs before they would even consider me for such a position........and that AIN'T gonna happen!

I really don't think that trying to counsel people on the spot at these groups is a viable option anyway. These "Crusades" rely entirely on stirred-up emotions - trying to teach new truth through this "curtain" is most probably a futile effort. Efforts would be better served by sitting these folks down after the "fireworks" have died down and teach them fully the counsel of God when they are thinking more clearly. True converts are more desirable (and long- lasting) than quick mind changes.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Brother Mark:

AMEN AND AMEN! Very well said and accurately stated! May God grant us more men with your spiritand love for the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Sissy,

I, too, was very impressed with Billy. What a great man of God he is. I praise the Lord that he had this opportunity and did not hold back on proclaiming Jesus as the only way to salvation.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

>>I would not volunteer as a "counselor" at these sort of functions >>either, because frankly,......they don't want me. These groups >>don't believe in the full Gospel and have no place for the truth I >>would share. I would probably have to compromise my own beliefs >>before they would even consider me for such a position........and >>that AIN'T gonna happen!

Actually, the Billy Graham crusade DOES accept decision counselors from Christian Churches, AND allows them to say anything they want to say to anybody during the counseling.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Sam,

I'm glad to hear that is the case, but I would still feel like a "weasel in the hen house" under those conditions. I would still rather talk to them a week or 2 later, when I could actually teach truth instead of just doing "damage control" at the site. I've seen too many people come forward on emotions, only to end up getting divorced or SHOT (in 1 particular case) when the emotion died down.

The only thing I could, in good conscience, tell them at the site is, "go home, take 2 aspirin, pray for spiritual guidance, and then call me in the morning so we can discuss what you need to do". I might be wrong with this attitude; but then again, if I go against my conscience in such matters would that not be sin on my part according to Paul in Romans CH 14?

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Technically, according to 1 Corinthians 15 he did preach the Gospel ...

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Well John,

In a very loose sense that may be true - but as you well know.....1 chapter does not a Gospel make. It is indeed "good news" that Jesus came into the world to save the lost that accept Him. But it is BETTER news to tell them HOW to accept Him.

It would be wonderful news if I was told that somebody out there has the gift of a brand new 2002 T-Bird waiting for me. It would be much better for someone to tell me how to claim it. In fact, without being told HOW to lay claim to the gift, the information of the gift's existence is actually a curse....as I would lament about not being able to claim the gift.

In that line of thinking, preaching I Cor 15 without mentioning Acts 2, Mark 16, John 3, and James 2 might actually be defined as cruel & unusual punishment.

Maybe that's why I can never listen to a complete Graham, Falwell, Robertson, etc. sermon - I see the anguish it will eventually cause to those who follow this "incomplete news" and it makes me sad & angry at the same time.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001

(Philippians 1:18) But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001

Brother John you have said:

“Technically, according to 1 Corinthians 15 he did preach the Gospel ...”

This passage reads:

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

This shows that the gospel is the truth that Christ died, was buried and raised again the third day. And according to Christ this gospel is to be preached all over the entire world and man is to be given an opportunity to respond to it in a specific way. Hear his words:

“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 16:16).

And again:

“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.” (Mat. 28:19-20).

Now the above words of Christ show just how the gospel is to be preached and the response that is to be sought after when it is preached. And there is absolutely no doubt that Mr. Graham negates the proper response to this gospel. He does this when he urges a response to the gospel other than the one that Christ himself made a definite part of the preaching of it when he gave the apostles the great commission to go out and preach it to the world. So, when Mr. Graham preached supposedly to the whole world he deliberately left out the response, which Christ commanded to be taught. Mr. Graham most certainly did not baptize them in the name of the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit nor did he even teach them to respond by submitting to such baptism.

Now compare this with the faithful preaching of Phillip to the Ethiopian eunuch.

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts 8:35).

Now preaching Jesus, in this context is surely a preaching of the gospel, which is the very task that Phillip was performing in that region. Then we read further:

“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?” (Acts 8:36).

Now from this we see that preaching Jesus is synonymous with preaching the gospel. And that upon hearing the inspired preacher Phillip preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ when they came to a certain water the first thing out of the eunuch’s mouth was “see her is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized. So, as a result of hearing the preaching of the gospel by Phillip the eunuch learned that baptism was an important and significant part of it. And he further learned that baptism was a proper response to the gospel. Therefore anyone who is preaching the gospel of Christ that does not teach baptism in water, as a response to it is not “technically” or by any other means preaching the true gospel of Jesus Christ. And Brother John is pathetically wrong to imply that the preaching of Mr. Billy Graham is even remotely preaching the gospel of Christ. One could hear Billy Graham preach for years and the last thought that would come to his mind would be the notion of being baptized according to the command of Christ connected with the gospel of the great commission.

Also, notice that the gospel is the truth that Christ dies for our sins was buried and raised again. And that we are told:

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;” (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

So, if one does not obey the gospel he will be eternally lost! But the question, which is answered by the proper preaching of the gospel, must be taught or the preacher is woefully negligent in his duty. That question is how does one obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? For the gospel is indeed made up of “facts to be believed” but from the teaching of Paul in the above passages it is clear that it also has commands to be obeyed. And it has promises to be received. Anyone preaching the gospel who merely states the facts to be believed while deliberately avoiding any discussion whatsoever of the commands to be obeyed and the promises to be receive in obeying them has failed miserably to preach the true gospel of Christ, “technically” or otherwise! So let us again ask and answer the question, “how does one obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Well, Paul gives the inspired answer to this question in his following words:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” (Romans 6:3-6).

No one can obey the gospel of Christ without dying to sin and being buried with Christ in baptism and raised from that watery grave with Christ to walk in newness of life. This is how one obeys the gospel. And those who do not obey the gospel will be punished with ever lasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thess. 1:7-9). And Paul spoke of those who had obeyed the Gospel from the heart through this “form of doctrine” as THEN, and not before then, being made FREE FROM SIN. Hear him yet again concerning this important matter:

” 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).

When were they free from sin? When they obeyed the gospel which they obeyed in the form of baptism which is connected with the preaching of Jesus, or the gospel (Acts 8:35-40). And it was not merely in the hearing of the gospel but in their obedience to it that they were made free from sin. And the only way that they could obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ was to submit to that form of doctrine by being buried with him in baptism and raised with Him to walk a new life. There is absolutely no other means devised, designed and revealed in the word of God for anyone to obey the gospel! And this is the very thing that Billy Graham has for his entire career DELIBERATELY avoiding preaching to anyone in any place! And thereby he is deliberately thwarting the very purpose of the gospel while pretending to be a preacher of it.

So, no brother John, Billy Graham did not even remotely much less “technically” preach the gospel and you should know better! And every other faith Christian who has obeyed the gospel of Christ should know it as well. And Mr. Graham is not a "great man of God" but rather a a false teacher and a deceiver that has decieved many into believing that they are saved by "faith only" without obeying the goepsl of Christ. When, in fact, they are just as lost and without hope after attending his crusades and responding to his sermons by reciting the "sinners prayer" as they were before they ever attended. So long as men deliberately refuse to teah sinners to obey the gospel by repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins" as peter commanded (Acts 2:38)so slong will men be lost and without hope in this world. If we preach as men like the inspired Phillip preached when our hearers appraoch water they will stop us and say, "see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized". This will never happen in response to Billy Graham's preaching because Billy Graham is deliberately hiding that truth from his fellow men. And those who support such men are partakers in their evil deeds and will share in their punishment.

Brethren again I warn you do not support and give Godspeed to these deliberate false teachers who pervert, distort, and thwart the purpose of the gospel of Christ. For if you do so you will become a partaker with them in their evil deeds and will share their fate at the judgement day when all men will stand before God to give an account of the deeds they have done whether they are good or bad!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001

Brethren, I ask that you take notice of how Brother Davis not only takes a passage out of context in order to apply it in some way to this discussion but also notice that he uses a translation that is far from accurate as follows:

“Philippians 1:18) But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,”

The question “but what does it matter?” does not correspond to any of the words found in the original text of the New Testament. The original rather reads, “ti plen” meaning “what then?” There is a very big difference between asking “what then?” and asking “what does it matter?” It is a very loose and rather interpretive translation that would assume that Paul meant to convey the idea that it did not matter at all whether the gospel was preached in truth or in pretence. When in fact he was pointing out that the gospel would accomplish its objective when it is preached regardless of the motives of the one’s doing the preaching of it. But this Paul did not say concerning those who “preached another gospel”, which was contrary to and designed to thwart the purpose of the true gospel of Christ. Paul made it quite clear in Galatians 1:8,9`that it mattered very much. So much so that those who did so were to be “anathema”! Paul, in this context was speaking of those who taught contrary to the truth of the gospel of Christ. But in the context of the verse quoted by Brother Davis he was speaking of what had happened to him as a result of the preaching of the genuine gospel regardless of the motives driving those who preached it.

But I encourage you to read the entire context of Paul’s inspired words in an accurate translation rather then in some “commentary disguised as a translation” to see what Paul was really discussing. And think it through to determine if this verse fits the situation that we are discussing concerning false teachers like Billy Graham. You will find that it is instead referring to Christians who had been emboldened to preach the true gospel of Christ so much that often they did so in a spirit of envy, strife. Some did so out of contention supposing to add afflictions to Paul’s bonds. Others did so out of Love knowing that Paul was set for the defense of the gospel. But in each and every case they were preaching the true gospel, which included not only the facts to be believed but also the commands to be obeyed and the promises to be received. Paul is not talking here of those who preached a false gospel under the pretense that it was the gospel of Christ. But rather he was speaking of those who spoke the true gospel under the pretense that they actually believed it when in truth they did not so as to add in some way “afflictions to his bonds”. In reference to those who preach a false Gospel, like Billy Graham preaches, he spoke quite differently in Galatians when he said, “but though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which ye have received let him be anathema”! (Gal. 1:8,9). This definitely matters! But we should rejoice that the gospel is preached in truth even if it is preached in a spirit of contention ands strife. But we should never rejoice when a false teacher preaches a PERVERSION of the gospel of Christ under the pretense that it is in fact the true gospel of Christ. This is teaching another gospel and this same apostle Paul states clearly that those who preach another gospel, even if it is done by an Angel from heaven let him be anathema or accursed! (Gal. 1:8,9).

But here is the entire context of the passage quoted by Brother Davis in an accurate translation, which I encourage you to read for yourself. So that you can accurately judge whether the passage that he quoted applies to a false teacher like Billy Graham who perverts the gospel by teaching salvation by faith only instead of preaching the truth of salvation through faithful obedience to the gospel of Christ.

“But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things [which happened] unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other [places]; And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, According to my earnest expectation and [my] hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but [that] with all boldness, as always, [so] now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether [it be] by life, or by death. For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain. But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh [is] more needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again.” (Phil. 1:12-26).

Now it should be obvious from the above reading that this verse quoted by Brother Davis is found in the context of a discussion by the apostle Paul of the “things which happened” to him and how they had “fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel”. And in this context he shows that no matter how the genuine gospel of Christ was preached whether it was done by persons pretending to be friends of the truth of the gospel or those who were sincerely such, in either case, Christ was preached. And we know from Galatians 1:8,9 that Paul would not teach, “Christ was preached” when a perverted gospel is preached. And no person in their right minds could ever conceive that one who preaches salvation by faith only without any obedience to the gospel of Christ is actually “preaching Christ”. There is not one word in this context that even remotely implies that it does not matter when persons such as Billy Graham and others preach a perverted gospel! And anyone reading this context can readily see that this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread. And to pull the 18th verse out of this context and make it apply to false teachers who teach a perverted gospel is simply abusing the word of God. They should be ashamed of themselves but most false teachers know no shame! They will face God in the judgement for such deliberate abuse of His divine word.

But there is nothing in this passage that has any reference to the idea that the preaching of a perversion of the gospel of Christ would “fall out rather” to the furtherance of the gospel. For that is surely not the truth taught in this passage. Now, Brother Davis did not have the courage to make an argument based upon this passage because he knows that he cannot defend it. But his placing of a perverted translation of this verse, severed completely from its context, was intended by him to produce an effect. One which would leave the false impression that Paul was teaching that it does not matter if men like Billy Graham preach a perverted gospel out of pretense or sincerely. And that we should rejoice when such a one preaches his perversions to the whole world. But nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more contradictory to what Paul taught in Galatians 1:8,9

Notice also that persons like Brother Davis are quick to condemn those of us whom he perceives are preaching the true gospel of Christ with a “contentious spirit”. But if he applied the above passage correctly he would have to admit that preaching the gospel with such a spirit, according to his interpretation and his erroneous translation, would not matter at all. Now just why is it that he can use this passage out of its context and deliberately mistranslated to leave the impression that a “it does not matter” if a false teacher like Billy Graham preaches the false gospel of salvation by faith only. While simultaneously complaining that it "matters" very much that some Christians preach the true gospel with a contentious spirit! The above passage appropriately applies to the latter and does not apply at all to the former. Such abuse of the scriptures is inexcusable! Beware of such men who so abuse the word of God Brethren!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 02, 2001

E. Lee wrote: But if he applied the above passage correctly he would have to admit that preaching the gospel with such a spirit, according to his interpretation and his erroneous translation, would not matter at all.

Here's another case of E. Lee looking for something that is not there. I offered no interpretation whatsoever, I simply quoted a Bible verse. In addition, the translation if from the NIV.

You have too much time on your hands friend. Why not spend some time winning people to Christ instead of trying to through rocks at your brothers in Christ?

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Davis has said:

“E. Lee wrote: But if he applied the above passage correctly he would have to admit that preaching the gospel with such a spirit, according to his interpretation and his erroneous translation, would not matter at all.”

He is right I did in fact write those words and was correct in doing so.

Then he says:

“Here's another case of E. Lee looking for something that is not there.”

The truth is that E. Lee was looking at something that was there, that should not have been there. What was there was the following quotation in the context of a discussion concerning the false assertion that Billy Graham had “preached the gospel to the world” when in truth he has always preached the perverted notion of “salvation by faith only” as if it were the gospel. The passage he quoted was:

“(Philippians 1:18) But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,”

By severing this passage from it’s scriptural context and quoting it in the context of this discussion it was hardly necessary for Brother Davis to say more by way of explanation. He made his position concerning the matter quite clear and at the same time left himself a “way of escape” should he be challenged concerning the impression he sought to leave in his misuse of this scripture. But we are satisfied to see him running away from and seeking to escape all responsibility for the false impression that the scriptures teach that it “does not matter” how the gospel is preached, even if it is perverted, and that we should just rejoice “that Christ is preached”. Even when his gospel is perverted and even when men are being deceived into thinking they are saved by faith alone and they are thereby diverted from ever obeying the gospel of Christ. For he most certainly should run from such pure nonsense! For he shows by his running that he knows as well as we do that the scriptures do not teach such pathetic nonsense. Now, it matters not to us that he should escape responsibility for his failed attempt to make this impression. For our purpose was to completely destroy the impression which he sought to cause our readers to believe. And this we have done thoroughly and he cannot do anything about it, now can he? And he can run from the truth that he was responsible for seeking to leave that impression and we do not mind. For by his running from it he admits that he does not believe it himself. Our purpose was to make sure that others would not be deceived into believing, by his quoting of scripture out of context and inserting them into a context in which they do not apply. That it “does not matter” if perversions of the gospel are presented as the true gospel of Christ so long as “Christ is preached. For this is indeed the effect, if it was not the deliberate intention, of his deliberate misplacing and misuse of this passage in this thread. For the gospel is most assuredly perverted by men like Billy Graham who preach salvation by faith only as if it were in fact the gospel of Christ so long as “Christ is preached”. And such perversion of the gospel of Christ very much matters so much so that those who do such things are to be “anathema” (Gal. 1:8,9).

So, E. Lee was responding to a passage, which was there, mangled by being violently severed from its context, and deliberately cast into in a place where it did not belong. For it was a quotation of a passage of scripture in the context of a discussion concerning a false teacher being praised for having supposedly “preached the gospel” when in fact he preached a perverted gospel as if it were the gospel of Christ? And Brother Davis inserted this violently severed passage, without comment, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, which was under discussion. For this passage says nothing about the subject of false teachers preaching perverted gospels as if they were in fact the very gospel of Christ. Now, if Brother Davis would like to explain just how he intended for this verse to fit the discussion we would be glad to hear it and respond. But the passage would certainly have to be taken completely out of its context to have any bearing whatsoever upon the subject at hand in this thread.

This is a tactic used by those who pervert the truth and I urge you brethren to be aware and alert for such nonsense. They simply quote a passage in the context of a discussion, which taken out of it’s context, causes the passage to appear to say that which they themselves have not the courage to affirm or contend that it does say. And they use this tactic so that when they are corrected. And condemned for making things appear thus they can safely claim that they “never meant to leave that impression” and condemn those of us who corrected the error for “jumping to conclusions” or “looking for something that was not there”. It is merely a subversive “hit and run tactic”. It is a form of “spiritual terrorism” wherein they cowardly seek to leave “impressions” without making “assertions” overtly that they could not prove to be true if their lives depended upon it. This is what Brother Davis has deliberately done here. And we have justly and accurately corrected him and his false impression. And we care noting about whether he or anyone else whines about his being “unjustly accused” of asserting something that he never actually overtly stated in his own words. The impression was corrected and the more efforts he makes to show that he did not mean to leave such an impression the stronger the correction of that false impression becomes. So we are very please to see him now trying to “distance himself” from the false impression which he sought insert into this discussion.

So, Brethren, when you see men do these things simply attack and watch them run away from their own false doctrines. It is indeed interesting, isn’t it? These false teachers will make such foolish efforts to teach contrary to the word of God and then cry “fowl” when they are corrected. Well, they can cry all that they like. It is not until their lies have been defeated that they begin to whine about how sorely they have been treated by the one who took the time to thwart their best attempts to spread their deceptions. And this feeble attempt by Brother Davis to further his deceptions concerning the gospel has failed miserably and now just look at how sorely E. Lee Saffold has treated him! IF it were not such a serious matter it would be hilariously funny.

But we are satisfied that Brother Davis has now returned to admit to us that he “never believed” that “it does not matter” if false teachers like Billy Graham preach their perverted gospel of salvation by faith only as if it were the gospel of Christ. We are sufficiently pleased to see him deny any connection with the “impression” that he clearly sought to leave by taking this passage out of context and seeking to make it apply to this discussion of false teachers claiming falsely to preach the gospel of Christ. For the verse that he quoted had absolutely no application whatsoever to this discussion. Unless it was intended to justify the preaching of the false gospel of “salvation by faith only” as taught by Billy Graham and his band of false teachers who have for many years wondered around the world perverting the gospel of Christ.

Then Brother Davis says:

“ I offered no interpretation whatsoever, I simply quoted a Bible verse.”

Maybe he should have made some effort to explain just how he intended for this passage to apply to the discussion of the preaching of Billy Graham. He surely must have thought that his intended application of this passage to this discussion was “self evident” or he would not have simply quoted it without comment. And I agree that it was indeed quite self evident and we responded to it.

Then he says:

“ In addition, the translation if from the NIV.”

Indeed the quotation was from the NIV but that does not make it an accurate translation for the NIV is not accurate in many places. In fact in some very important places it is far being an accurate or suitable translation of the word of God.

Then he says:

“You have too much time on your hands friend.”

Just how Brother Davis can “know” that I have more “time on my hands” than anyone else living is hard for me to imagine! In fact, the last time that I checked I had been given by the Almighty the exact same amount of time into my hands as he gave to Brother Davis and every other person living. WE all have 24 hours a day, no more and no less, to use as we see fit and we will most assuredly be judged for how we make use of our time. Now, Brother Davis could accurately say that he does not agree with nor does he appreciate the priorities which I have place upon the use of my time but he cannot with any measure of truth or common sense assert that I have “too much time on my hands”. For that is simply untrue. I may have, as he says “time on my hands” but you can rest assured that I do not have any “blood” on my hands. For I have been using my time to teach the gospel of Christ to all within my realm of influence and to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered against false teachers. And I am convinced that this is a very good use of my time. And if Brother Davis thinks otherwise and would like to convince me of it then he needs desperately to begin with the word of God and show from it that such is a poor or inappropriate or sinful use of my time. But simply complaining that I have “too much time” when I have no more or less than anyone else is just ridiculous.

Then he says:

“Why not spend some time winning people to Christ instead of trying to through rocks at your brothers in Christ?”

WE are spending our time winning souls to Christ and if you think we are not we would like to hear your PROOF that we are not spending time in that endeavor. And we have not thrown any “rocks” but instead we have contended with Brother Davis’ false teachings, which would cause men to lose their souls. In the very process of contending with Brother Davis’ false doctrines we are fighting for the hearts and minds of men and seeking to win souls to Christ away from the false doctrines of men Like Billy Graham and Brother Davis. So, the time spent corrected the errors of Brother Davis is intended to “win souls top Christ”. But we can understand why Brother Davis thinks of it as merely “throwing rocks at our brothers” when in truth it is “contending earnestly for the faith” against our brothers who have become “shipwrecked concerning the faith”. WE will continue and there is just nothing that Brother Davis can do about it, now is there?

But remember Brethren that this is just another tactic of false teachers. They want to leave the impression; especially when they cannot answer or deal with the arguments, that they are busy doing more important things than those of us who have made arguments are they cannot answer. Oh, they are “winning people to Christ” with their false doctrines that are contrary to all that Christ taught! Ha! Those who teach that which is contrary to the truth cannot do anything other than lead men away from Christ. For Christ is the way the truth and the life. Anything contrary to the truth is contrary to Christ.

Those who teach the truth and fight against false doctrine are in fact engaged in winning souls to Christ. This is what we are doing, Brethren, and we will continue to do it. False teachers can whine, cry and hurl as many insults and lodge as many complaints of “unfair treatment” as their outrage and self-pity lead them to lodge. But when it is all over we will be standing there prepared to fight again any false teaching, which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ that arises. That is what we are doing and there will be no compromise about the matter and there is just simply nothing that anyone can do to stop us. That is the way it will be!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2001

E. Lee,

I wasn't running from anything friend. I believe that Billy Graham is a great man of God and that he preached the FULL gospel message.

Oh, by the way, don't you think "spiritual terrorism" is a bit much?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, I wasn't running from anything friend.”

Brother Davis, you have been running from the facts of the gospel cponcerning the subject of baptism for a long time and in this case you are supporting a man who is teaching the false doctrine of salvation by faith only apart from obedience to the gospel of Christ. And when challenged you simple ignore the arguments, which is just another way of “running”. And you were corrected concerning your misuse of the passage that you quoted in this discussion and instead of dealing with the passage itself you simply ignore it. Which is nothing short of more “running away” instead of facing facts.

Then you say:

“ I believe that Billy Graham is a great man of God and that he preached the FULL gospel message.”

One who teaches contrary too the doctrine of Christ cannot possibly be a “great man of God” and one who leaves baptism out of the preaching of the gospel is not teaching the full gospel message. For when the inspired preachers preached Jesus the response which their hearers made to their preaching was to say as the Eunuch said, “see here is water what doeth hinder me from being baptized?”. And Christ himself made the teaching of baptism a part of preaching the gospel (Mark 16:15-16; Matt. 28:19,20) and no one who leaves it out, as Billy Graham does, can make a just claim to p-reaching a “FULL gospel message”. And there is not way that anyone can obey the gospel without being baptized into Christ. (Romans 6:3-6). Thus if one leaves that out of the message he is not preaching Christ as did Phillip and other inspired Preachers of the gospel. (Acts 8:35-40). In Fact, Billy Graham does not only leave it out he actually teaches a doctrine that is contrary to it. He teaches the doctrine of “salvation by faith only” and that is not in any way a “full gospel message. For James says, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only”. (James 2:24).

Then you ask:

“Oh, by the way, don't you think "spiritual terrorism" is a bit much?” Not in the least, for I was referring to the tactics used often by false teachers which are similar to the tactics of terrorist and is in its result, if not fought against and corrected, the equivalent in the spiritual world to terrorism in the political world.

Then you say:

“IHS”

There is simply no way that you can support a false teacher like Billy Graham who perverts the gospel of Christ around the world and do so in the “service of Christ”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

E. Lee,

Your water-worship is not found in the Bible. Baptism is not a part of the Gospel, it is a response to it.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Barry,

If baptism is as you say a response to the gospel... would you agree that if one is not baptised, they have not responded to the gospel, therefore are not saved?

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, Your water-worship is not found in the Bible.”

Of course "water worship" is not found in the Bible nor is it found in any single word that I have ever said in my entire life and especially in this forum. And you know it, Brother Davis, don't you?

Can you prove that I have said a single word that indicates anything about anyone at any time “worshipping water”? I am talking about worshipping and obeying Christ the Son of God who said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).

When the inspired Preacher Phillip preached the gospel we are told that baptism in water was a clear part of his preaching of that Gospel.

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.” (Acts 8:35-40).

Now, in this case, Phillip was preaching the gospel of Christ in the region. He had just left Samaria where we are told, “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). Notice that when Phillip preached as a result of hearing him preach men and women, upon believing his preaching, were baptized. Thus baptism formed a part of his preaching.

And when he preached to the Eunuch the only thing we are told that Phillip preached was “Jesus”. And as a result of hearing the inspired preacher, Phillip, preach the gospel the first thing out of the eunuch’s mouth was, “see here is water what doeth hinder me from being baptized”. (Acts 8:36). Now it is obvious to any thinking person that baptism formed a part of preaching Jesus. Otherwise how could the eunuch have known that baptism had anything to do with what Phillip had said about Christ?

And this is in harmony with what Christ said when he gave the great commission, which was the command to preach the gospel. He said,

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15) And in the same breath he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16). Now, if baptism did not form a part of the preaching of the gospel how would anyone know that they were required to believe and be baptized as Christ commanded? It is in hearing the preaching of the gospel that men are expected to learn that they must believe in Christ and be baptized in order to be saved from their sins. It was in this place that Christ made faith and baptism a part of preaching the gospel.

And in the account of the giving of the great commission found in the book of Matthew Christ even made it more clear that teaching others to be baptized was to form a part of the teaching of the gospel. Hear him:

“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.” (Mat. 28:18- 20).

Now here Jesus made it clear, based upon the fact that all authority had been given unto him in heaven and in earth. That we are to go into all the earth and not only teach all nations but also “baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. And he made it also clear that it was not possible to do this without baptism being a part of the teaching. And for that reason he said that we are to teach them to “observe all things that Christ had commanded them”. (Matt. 28:19). Christ commanded baptism in the giving of the great commission and he also commanded us to teach them to observe all things that he had commanded. Therefore baptism of necessity forms a vital part of what we are to teach everyone to observe when we obey the great commission to preach the gospel to the world.

Further we are taught that the gospel is the truth that Christ died for our sins, was buried and raised from the dead. (1 Cor. 15:1-4). And these are all connected to the command to be obeyed, which is to be baptized. (Mark 16:16). These form the facts to be believed but we are also told that those who do not obey the gospel of Christ will be punished with everlasting destruction (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And the only way that we can obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (i. e. the gospel) is to obey Christ command. Which was a part of the gospel Christ told us to teach and as Phillip demonstrated formed a part of the preaching of the gospel, to be baptized. For we are told by the apostle Paul that baptism is where were follow Christ in dying to sin and being buried with him in baptism and then, not before then, we will be raised with him to walk a new life. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:” (Romans 6:3-6).

Now this is the only way given in the word of God for us to “obey the gospel”. And we are told those who do not obey the gospel will be punished eternally (2 Thess. 1:8,9). Therefore those who have not been baptized in obedience to the command of Christ in the gospel of Christ (Mark 16:15-16) will indeed be lost. And those who teach contrary to this truth are not teaching the full true gospel of Christ and are leading men to be lost eternal by deceiving them into believing that they are saved when they have never obeyed the gospel as Christ commanded them to do. This is what Billy Graham and Brother Davis are both doing and I say again with Paul, “But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel that that which ye have received let him be anathema”. (Gal. 1:8,9). And these men should be anathema because of the precious souls that would have willingly done anything that Christ commanded them have been, by these men, deceived into thinking that they can be saved by faith only without ever obeying the gospel of Christ. Anyone who has not been baptized into Christ has never obeyed the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In other words they have never obeyed the gospel. And if they do not obey the gospel they will be lost eternally according to the inspired apostle Paul. (2 Thess. 1:8,9).

And this is the reason that we read Paul saying, “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).

It was when they obeyed that “form of doctrine” which Paul spoke about in verses 3-6 of the 6th chapter of Romans. It was when they were buried with Christ in baptism. It was then that they were “made free from sin” (Romans 6:18) and it was then and not before then that they were “raised” with Christ to “walk in newness of life”. (Romans 6:3-6).

Then he says:

“Baptism is not a part of the Gospel, it is a response to it.”

It is not possible for baptism to be a response to the gospel unless it first forms a part of the preaching of the gospel. For if it is not a part of the preaching of it then how would anyone learn that baptism is essential in responding to the gospel? The word response means, “something constituting a reply or a reaction.” If baptism is not in any way a part of the preaching of the gospel then how can baptism “constitute a reply or a reaction” to it? And if it is a “response” to the gospel then it must be a response to instructions concerning it, which forms a part of the preaching of the gospel. For if one preaches the gospel without giving any teaching concerning baptism then one cannot react or reply concerning it at all. So, the fact that it is a response to the preaching of the gospel is proof positive that baptism forms a necessary part of preaching the gospel.

Thus we see just how the eunuch drew the conclusion when he came upon a certain water that it was his opportunity to “respond” to the gospel that he had hear Phillip preach. WE are told that Phillip “preached unto him Jesus” (Acts 8:35). And as a result of hearing the inspired preacher Phillip preach Jesus the eunuch was informed of his need to be baptized. Now this is proof conclusive that baptism forms a part of the preaching of the gospel of Christ in the New Testament. And it therefore should be a part of the preaching of the gospel today and will be if we preach the gospel in the same way as the inspired preachers of the New Testament preached it. And any preaching of the gospel that ignores this is a perversion of the gospel of Christ intended to prevent people from obeying the gospel which can only be done when one is buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-6). Thus one can see that when Brother Davis admits that baptism is a proper “response to the gospel” he inadvertently admits that it must of necessity a part of the preaching of it. He has thereby destroyed his own position quite well!

So, Brethren, anyone can see that it is Christ that we worship and obey. And because of that we are baptized in obedience to the gospel of Christ of which baptism forms a necessary part of the preaching of it. Anyone who cannot see this is woefully misinformed concerning all of the accounts of conversion in the New Testament after the resurrection of Christ from the dead. For there is not one single person that was ever converted to Christ during that time that was not taught, in the process of preaching the gospel, that they must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. We have given some examples above and we will now give yet one more. When Peter preached the first gospel sermon after the ascension of Christ he convinced the Jews that they had crucified their Messiah. And they cried out, Men and brethren what shall we do? And Peter told them what Christ had commanded him to tell them in Mark 16:16 and Matt. 28:19-20. He said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38). Then we are told they that gladly receive his word were baptized…” (Acts 2:41). So, from the very beginning baptism formed a part of not only the preaching of the gospel but also is an essential element necessary to the obedience to the gospel. (1 Cor. 15:1-4, 2 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Peter 4:16-18; Romans 6:3-6, 16-18; Mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:18-20).

Now that is the simple truth in this matter and thus far no one has been able to show otherwise. In fact, most have done nothing more than ignore these facts

It is my prayer that you will not ignore them. For your salvation is at stake in this matter.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

E. Lee,

Is it your position, then, that every time a sermon is preached, baptism must be mentioned? If so, you'll have trouble squaring that with the NT, where we have entire books that don't mention baptism.

You have not quoted one verse that states that baptism is a part of the Gospel. In fact, with every quote you have made you have been proving my point that people are baptized in response to the gospel message. The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I respond to that message by being baptized into the Name.

On another note: No one is going to take you seriously if you base your argument on spurious passages such as Mark 16.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Marc....

An excellent, well thought out question.

I'm not sure what Barry's response would be......but Scripture would certainly concur that failure to be immersed....is failure to respond to the Gospel....and thus...one is lost.

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Brother Davis now doubts the authenticity and genuineness of the word of God and he does so without offering any reason whatsoever that would cause us to believe that Mark 16 is spurious. He considers it to be a foregone conclusion that can now be asserted without proving. Notice his absurd assertion as follows:

“On another note: No one is going to take you seriously if you base your argument on spurious passages such as Mark 16.”

It matters little if anyone takes E. Lee Saffold seriously. But that people will take the word of God seriously is very important to the salvation of their souls. Brother Davis finds a passage in the word of God that he does not like because it is contrary to his false doctrines concerning baptism and he would like to remove it. So, he asserts, but cannot prove, that Mark 16 is “spurious”. I can only assume that he means that the entire 16th chapter of the book of Mark is spurious. The facts are that he does not offer any evidence that Mark 16 is spurious. The only part of Mark 16 that anyone has ever questioned was Mark 16:9-20 and that was based upon very little and certainly inconclusive evidence.

Brother Davis could not prove that Mark 16:9-20 is spurious if his life depended upon it. And neither can anyone else. The evidence in favor of the authenticity of these passages is overwhelming. In fact, it is so conclusive that no reputable and widely accepted translations of the scriptures are without these verses. So, Brother Davis’ feeble assertion that Mark 16 is spurious is nothing more than a feeble and helpless unsupported assertion with no reasonable evidence to give it any credibility whatsoever. It is a mere assertion for which he is completely incapable of offering sufficient evidence to cause any thinking person to believe it. In fact, he has not offered any evidence to support that absurd assertion at all. He simply expects us to believe it solely because he asserts it.

Well, we can only tell Brother Davis that such is not sufficient. If he wants to convince us of this nonsense he will have to do much better than he has thus far. Mere assertions without proof nothing to us. If you wo0uld like to make some attempt to prove it we are ready to respond. But brethren you will soon see that the evidence that he might offer, if he wishes to do so, is far from sufficient reason to convince you to go to your Bibles that are on your coffee tables and just rip out the last chapter of the book of Mark. And only one who has forsaken the faith once delivered and has forsaken the use of good common sense and reason would deny the genuineness and authenticity of the last chapter of Mark including the last twelve verses of the book of Mark.

Others have mentioned this before concerning Mark 16:9-20. But when I challenged them to discuss the matter in a formal way and in detail no one was willing to do so. All they wanted to do is assert that they do not believe that it belongs in the word of God but they did not want to discuss their reasons for believing such nonsense. Maybe Brother Davis would like to go into the details of that subject. Or maybe he is just like all of the others who made this absured assertion. Someone told them in college that it was true and they believe it and that settles it! Now that they have been to college everyone else is supposed to simply believe this hogwash just because they assert it. If anyone challenges them they are to just go away. For it is their opinion that no one would challenge them if they were truly informed. But the fact is that they have no conclusive evidence that would prove that MArk 16:9-20 is spurious. At least thus far no one has presented any in thiws forum and the subject has been mentioned a few times.

We are not concerned about quoting the words of Jesus in Mark 16:9-20 as the word of God for we have no reason to doubt their authenticity in the least and we have not lost any credibility for doing so. If Brother Davis wishes to make some attempt to prove that we have lost credibility in quoting these verses we would like to see him give it his best shot. Thus far his best shot has proven to be nothing more than "wet powder". He is a "cloud without water" which is a Biblical description of false teachers.

And Brother Davis thinks, though he cannot prove, that we have lost credibility by quoting them. He is woefully wrong about it. But we wait to see him prove that the entire last chapter of Mark is spurious as he has falsely asserted. In the meantime I recommend that everyone read Dean Burgeon’s book on the “Last Twelve Verses of the book of Mark vindicated”. It is 350 pages long filled with evidence in support of the last twelve verse of Mark and stong refutations of the feeble efforts of those who doubt the passages. In fact that evidence is overwhelming and the arguments are irrefutable and has in fact never been refuted. And I also recommend, if you would like to read something that discusses the matter with brevity but sufficiently, that you read Brother J. W. Mcgarvey’s commentary on the book of Mark. But if any one wishes to discuss this matter in detail with me let them prepare for a lengthy and detailed discussion that they will agree to respond to every single argument made rather than ignoring them as Brother Davis has ignored my arguments given above. He is good at “running away” from discussions that do not quite go as he imagined they would.

Beware of such Men Brethren.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Danny,

I'm not sure which question you're referring to? I scrolled through the messages and must have missed something.

While my disagreement with E. Lee probably verges on hair-splitting (on both our parts), my issue with him was not that baptism was not essential, but that it is not a part of the Gospel. It is a response to the Gospel. Would you agree?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Barry....

Here is Marc Grindle's question posted earlier today.....

"Barry, If baptism is as you say a response to the gospel... would you agree that if one is not baptised, they have not responded to the gospel, therefore are not saved? "

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Danny,

Yes, I believe that would be the norm.

Now, do you agree with me that baptism is a response to the gospel, but not the gospel itself?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Davis has ignored all of the arguments that we have made thus far. And now he seeks to continue to ignore the arguments concerning the issue which we initially began discussing and make it appear that we are merely “splitting hairs” as follows:

“Danny, I'm not sure which question you're referring to?”

He knows exactly what Danny was referring to he just wants to ignore it as long as possible. Brother Marc asked him a fine question, which he has deliberately ignored as he has all of our arguments.

Then he says:

“ I scrolled through the messages and must have missed something.”

He did not miss anything he just does not have an answer to the question, which was addressed to him.

Then he says:

“While my disagreement with E. Lee probably verges on hair-splitting (on both our parts)”

The issue between us is far from hair splitting. He believes that Billy Graham preaches the gospel of Christ when he preaches his false doctrine of “Salvation by faith only” when in truth such a “gospel” is nothing short of a perversion of the gospel of Christ. And we are not even close to “splitting hairs” over this matter. The difference between us is as wide as the ocean as can be seen in his most resent false assertion that Mark 16 is “spurious”. There is no hair splitting about that issue. I am convinced that the last chapter of Mark is as much the word of God as is the rest of the New Testament. He believes that the last chapter of Mark is not inspired of God. And this is not hair splitting.

Then he says:

“my issue with him was not that baptism was not essential, but that it is not a part of the Gospel.”

The issue between he and I in this forum concerning the subject of baptism is far more serious than this. He believes that one does not have to be baptized for the remission of sins in the name of Christ according to the teaching of Acts 2:38 to be saved. And I believe what Peter said in Acts 2:38. He falsely accused me of teaching “Water worship” without being able to show one place where I ever taught or encouraged any such thing. And I have shown conclusively that those who preached the gospel in the New Testament included teaching their hearers the appropriate and absolutely necessary and essential response to the gospel, which was to be baptized. Jesus said, “go ye therefore and preach the gospel to every creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:15,16). Now if baptism does not form a part of the preaching of the gospel as Christ commanded it to be preached in this verse then how would anyone learn that they must be baptized in order to be saved by the gospel.

And I will not repeat the details of arguments that Brother Davis continually ignores but I will again state that baptism is the only way given in the scriptures to obey the gospel. He who has not been baptized has not obeyed the gospel and those who do not obey the gospel will be lost eternally (2 Thess. 1:8,9). For there is no other way that anyone can obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ without being baptized (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8,9; Romans 6:3-6; 16-18). And he has failed miserably to respond to our statement that no one can respond to the gospel by being baptized unless something concerning baptism forms a part of the proper preaching of the gospel according to the command of Christ given in the great commission. (Mark 15:15-16; Matt. 28:19-20; Luke 34:46,47). If one preaches the gospel as did Phillip, an inspired preacher, they will know about baptism and that they have the choice of believing the gospel and being baptized so that they can be saved or not believing it and being condemned. (Mark 16:15-16). No one has fully preached the gospel of Christ to any reasonable effect until he has called upon them to respond to it by faith and baptism. One who simply goes around the world repeating that Christ died, was buried and raised again. But deliberately refuses to tell his audience nothing more fails miserably to obey the great commission of Christ to preach the gospel in such a way to not only state the facts of the gospel but also the commands related to it and essential to the obedience of it. Now there is no doubt that the gospel has commands that must be obeyed. For those who do not OBEY the commands which are a part of the gospel will be condemned (2 Thess. 1:8,9) and no one is in the kingdom of Christ who has not obeyed the gospel. (1 Peter 4:1-18). And therefore any preacher who leaves his audience ignorant of their responsibility to properly respond to the gospel and how they are to respond to it by believing and being baptized fails miserably to obey the commands of Christ given in the great commission found in Matt. 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16. This is what Billy Graham does and this is what Brother Davis and I have been discussing.

Brother Davis thinks Billy Graham is a “great man of God” who “preaches the gospel fully”. While I have shown that he is in reality a false teacher who perverts the gospel of Christ and deceives thousands into believing that they are saved by faith only without ever being obedient to the gospel of Christ. Thousands who follow his preaching are losing their souls. They are dying without Christ because they have never obeyed the gospel by having enough faith in Christ to submit to His command to be baptized. A command that Christ insisted to be taught to everyone when he gave the great commission telling the apostles to go and preach the gospel to the entire world. Now this difference between us is a long way from “hair splitting”, isn’t it?

Then he says again that baptism is a response to the gospel and asks Brother Danny if he agrees as follows:

“ It is a response to the Gospel. Would you agree?”

I have stated more than once that baptism is a necessary response to the gospel of Christ. And anyone who fails to respond to the gospel by faith in submitting to the command to be baptized will not receive the promised remission of sins which also forms a part of the preaching of the gospel of Christ. For we are told by Christ again in giving the great commission that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in all nations beginning in Jerusalem” (Luke 24: 46,47). And when the preaching of this gospel began in Jerusalem we see that Peter said to those who had heard him preach and had asked, “what shall we do?” He said “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSIONOF SINS”. (Acts 2:38). And this was all a part of the preaching of the gospel as Christ commanded in Luke 24:46, 47, Mark 16:15-16 and Matthew 28:19- 20. If baptism did not form a part of the gospel baptism could not by any means be a RESPONSE to the gospel. Just look up the meaning of the word RESPONSE. You will see that response is a reply to something that has been said or done to which the response in some way corresponds. There can be no such thing as a response with nothing to which the response corresponds. Read again the preaching of Phillip. He preached Jesus. And surely one can see that he would have preached that Christ died, was buried and raised again the third day. But as a result of hearing Phillip preach Jesus when they came to a certain water the first words out of the eunuchs mouth was “see here is WATER what doeth hinder me to be baptized. Thus baptism surely formed an important part of the gospel preached by Philip. (Acts 8:12; 35-40). Notice how that baptism corresponds naturally to the death burial and resurrection of Christ. In fact, it so wonderfully and exactly response to the gospel that when one observes a person being baptized he is seeing visually an imitation of the death burial and resurrection of Christ, or the gospel. If you want to preach the gospel take someone to witness the proper baptism of someone into Christ. For when they see this they will see a visual representation of the gospel. Baptism corresponds exactly to the death burial and resurrection of Christ. And this is what Paul was telling the Romans in Romans 6:3-6. Baptism is the gospel of Christ in action. For every time one is baptized he dies to his sins and is buried with Christ and then risen with Christ to walk a new life. Baptism is not something that the subject of it is doing alone. He is being “buried and raise with Christ. Anyone who says that baptism is not a part of the gospel of Christ fails completely to understand that Christ participates in every baptism that happens. For it is in this place that the circumcision of Christ done without hands removes our sins (Col. 2:11-13). Anyone that cannot see the death burial and resurrection of Christ in baptism of one who has humbled himself to obey Christ command to be baptized just simply does not comprehend the gospel. For the subject is not alone in baptism. Christ is with him there reliving or picturing each time the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

So, do not be deceived brethren. Those who claim to preach the gospel of Christ when they teach others that they can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ by being baptized are not preaching the gospel of Christ as it was preached by the inspired preachers of the New Testament. And those who teach the false doctrine of salvation by faith only are teaching a perverted gospel.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2001

E. Lee,

One reason many people do not respond to you is that you do not write to them directly. You post things like: "Brother Davis said:" and then go on the attack. If you would show a little respect and speak to us in the first person maybe we would respond more directly to you.

In addition you stated above: "He believes that one does not have to be baptized for the remission of sins in the name of Christ according to the teaching of Acts 2:38 to be saved." That is patently false representation of my views. I have never stated or implied that. You have said that about me in several different ways, but I challenge you to find me saying it with my own words in one post on this board. If you can't find it, and you cannot, you need to apologize.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Davis has again sought to make it appear that he is not teaching the lies that we have all seen him teach in this forum. He seems to think that it is in some way “disrespectful” for me to respond to his in third person instead of addressing him directly in the first person as follows:

“E. Lee, One reason many people do not respond to you is that you do not write to them directly.”

Now, anyone reading my post in this forum will find numerous occasions when I have both addressed persons directly and when I have address the brethren concerning their comments. It is my right to chose my response in any way that I see fit. And it is not disrespectful in the least for me to respond in either first person or third person. Brother Davis does not show any good reason for anyone to conclude that the use of the third person in our language is any less respectful than the use of the first person. I have been addressed numerous times in this forum in the third person and have never once thought that the person so addressing me was in the least bit being disrespectful. And Brother Davis could not prove that my speaking to the Brethren concerning his comments is disrespectful to him. It is true that in many formal debates the use of the third person is common. For the two debaters are addressing an audience and they purposefully direct their comments concerning what their opponents have said to the audience and refer to their opponent in the third person. This is not in any way disrespectful to anyone and Brother Davis knows it. He is just hoping that you do not know it.

And as to the pathetically false notion that “many people do not respond” to what E. Lee Saffold says is clearly refuted by the numerous response that he receives in this forum when debating most issues. We are not lacking for responses. What is woefully lacking is response to the arguments. Many do respond and they often respond as Brother Davis responds. They respond trying to divert the attention of our readers from the actual arguments that E. Lee Saffold has made to the “feelings” that he has created by making them. The actual arguments that have been made are often completely ignored in the responses. So, if Brother Davis will agree to respond directly to the arguments that we have made we will agree to respond directly to his responses to them. But so long as he continues to ignore the arguments that we have made in his responses to us we will continue to respond to our readers as we have been doing. It is right and good to do what we have been doing and we will not cease to do it when we deem it prudent to do so. Now Brother Davis is entitled to his opinion of our choices but we reserve the right to make our own choices in this matter and are completely satisfied that we are doing the right thing unless someone can prove from the scriptures that we have done wrong. And that no one has yet done least of all Brother Davis.

Then he says:

“ You post things like: "Brother Davis said:" and then go on the attack.”

Yes, and brother Davis has failed miserably to give us any good reason to believe that this approach is in the least bit wrong.

Then he says:

“ If you would show a little respect and speak to us in the first person maybe we would respond more directly to you.”

You have not been asked to respond “directly” to us. You have been asked to respond to the many numerous arguments that you ignore. We do not care in the least whether you respond directly or indirectly. The reason Brother Davis is not responding to these arguments is not because we have not always responded directly to him. The real reason he is not responding to our arguments at all, directly or indirectly, is because he cannot answer them. But he wants you to believe that he is not responding because that “mean old E. Lee Saffold” has been disrespectful to him by not addressing him directly. This is just nonsense pure and simple. If he had any answers to the arguments he would be more than happy to offer them in his responses. He does respond to us but he does not respond to our arguments. So this is proof positive that he is not refusing to respond for any reason. He is simply refusing to respond to the arguments that have been made and he is doing so for a very good reason. He cannot answer them. It is that simple, Brethren. If he used such tactics in a formal debate his proposition would fall flat on its face in the eyes of any intelligent and reasonable audience.

Then he falsely claims that he has been sorely “misrepresented” as follows:

“In addition you stated above: "He believes that one does not have to be baptized for the remission of sins in the name of Christ according to the teaching of Acts 2:38 to be saved."”

I did say those words and they are not in the least bit a misrepresentation of Brother Davis’ stated views in this forum.

Nevertheless he says:

“That is patently false representation of my views. I have never stated or implied that.”

No, Brethren, our words are not in the least bit a misrepresentation of the views of Brother Davis concerning baptism. For he has more than once not only stated but implied as well that he does not believe that one must specifically be baptized for the remission of sins to be saved.

Then he challenges us as follows:

“ You have said that about me in several different ways, but I challenge you to find me saying it with my own words in one post on this board. If you can't find it, and you cannot, you need to apologize.”

Well, Brethren, Brother Davis need not expect any apology coming from us in this matter. For we have not misrepresented him in any place. If we did misrepresent him we would most certainly apologize but the truth is that we have not misrepresented him at all.

But we did take up his challenge and have gone to the thread “Repentance and Baptism for the Remission of Sins” and found his own words wherein he stated, almost verbatim, the very thing that we accused him of teaching and believing. We now invite your attention to Brother Davis’ own words concerning what he believes about a person being saved without being baptized for the remission of sins.

In a response to one of my post in that thread he said to the following:

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

And the date of those words written by Brother Davis in the thread which we have referenced we now give to assist you in looking it up for yourself to verify that this was in fact HIS OWN WORDS.

“-- Barry Davis (barrydavis@coonrapidschristian.org), August 17, 2001.”

And we responded to those words in that thread as follows and he never responded back to us. Our response to him is in the same thread on the same date, and notice please that it is written in the first person as Brother Davis would prefer, yet he did not respond to it. We wonder what his excuse for not responding to it would be since he was addressed in the first person! Ha! The following was our first person response to his comment and if you will notice there is no response from Brother Davis following it for these comments are in the last post on that thread.

“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.”

So, Brethren, the truth is that Brother Davis is failing to respond to our arguments but his reason is not because he is being addressed in the third person instead of the first person but rather because he has no answer to the arguments. And he does teach that one can be saved without being baptized FOR THE REMISSIONOF SINS as his above quoted and dated words show. You can read it for yourself.

Therefore we owe him no apology. But while we are on the subject of apologies let us ask him if he really believes that one who deliberately misrepresents another should apologize for having done so and let us see if he practices what he preaches in this regard.

Notice Brethren that he deliberately represented E. Lee Saffold as teaching “Water worship” as follows:

“E. Lee, Your water-worship is not found in the Bible.”

To which we responded as follows without asking him to apologize for his deliberate misrepresentation of our position:

“Of course "water worship" is not found in the Bible nor is it found in any single word that I have ever said in my entire life and especially in this forum. And you know it, Brother Davis, don't you? Can you prove that I have said a single word that indicates anything about anyone at any time “worshipping water”? I am talking about worshipping and obeying Christ the Son of God who said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).”

Now even though Brother Davis cannot find any place in this forum where E. Lee Saffold has ever taught anyone anywhere to worship water. And he has been asked to find one place where we have said any such thing that would even remotely imply such he has not even thought to offer an apology, now has he? Is Brother Davis fair objective and honest? If he is then he will admit that he cannot find one place where E. Lee Saffold ever taught anyone to worship water and he would, if he followed his own standards, apologize for that deliberate misrepresentation of E. Lee Saffold’s position wouldn’t he? So, we will wait and see if Brother Davis will apologize for such. For if he really believed that one who misrepresents another should apologize then he would have already apologized to us for this deliberate misrepresentation, wouldn’t he? Because he has not yet found one place where E. Lee Saffold taught anyone to “worship water” has he?

Think about it brethren. Is this man being truthful and honest with us?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

E. Lee,

At this point it is obvious that you are purposely misrepresenting me. Or should I just be blunt and say you are a bold-faced liar?

I have stated that a person does not need to know everything about the theology behind baptism for it to be effectual. I did not say that baptism is not effectual. For example, a person can be baptized out of obedience to Christ without ever having heard Acts 2:38. They will be saved. That is a far cry from saying that baptism is non- essential.

Now I fully expect you to twist my words again, as that is what you seem to spend a lot of your time doing.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, At this point it is obvious that you are purposely misrepresenting me.”

No, Brother Davis, quite to the contrary, it is more than obvious that I have correctly represented your stated views for we have accurately quoted your own words, which say:

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

Now with these words you are clearly saying that a person can be saved “without being specifically baptized for the remission of sins”. But Peter said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38). Now you have contradicted Peter on this matter and if you have misrepresented yourself with these words then just admit that you did not correctly represent what you believe when you said them and we can accept that. But do not blame us for the misrepresentation for these are your words not ours.

Then you say:

“ Or should I just be blunt and say you are a bold-faced liar?”

Now, we have no advice for you in this matter. This is entirely up to you. But if you wish to call us a “bold faced liar” and at the same time you wish to maintain some semblance of credibility yourself. We highly recommend that you be prepared to PROVE that we have in any way deliberately lied about your position by quoting your own words which was intended by you to represent your beliefs about this subject. Then you say:

“I have stated that a person does not need to know everything about the theology behind baptism for it to be effectual.”

No, Brother Davis, you have stated the following:

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

That is what you have stated. Now if that statement does not reflect what you actually believe then you and you alone are responsible for misrepresenting your own views of the matter. And if this is the case it is wiser for you to correct your own misrepresentation rather then being angry with us and blaming us for it.

Then you say:

“ I did not say that baptism is not effectual.”

No one said that you did. We said that you stated that you “believe that a person can be saved without being specifically baptized for the remission of sins”. And that is what you have said and we disagree with that false doctrine completely and so does the inspired apostle Peter who said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Then you say:

“ For example, a person can be baptized out of obedience to Christ without ever having heard Acts 2:38.”

Christ is the author of Acts 2:38 and if one is baptized in obedience to Christ he will have to obey what Christ taught in Acts 2:38 whether he has ever heard the verse itself quoted or not. Now, it does appear that you are a saying that one can be baptized in obedience to Christ without being baptized in harmony with the teaching of Christ in Acts 2:38. And if this is your teaching you are teaching contrary to the truth taught by Christ through the apostles in Acts 2:38.

Then you say:

“ They will be saved.”

Well this has been the thing that we have argued with you about and you have ignored our arguments and you have failed to produce one single passage of scripture that teaches one can be saved without being specifically baptized for the remission of sins. You seem to expect us to believe such nonsense just because you say it and despite of the fact that what you say is in direct contradiction to the inspired teaching of Christ through the apostle Peter in Acts 2:38. But we will not simply take your word for it. What you need to do to convince us that you proposition is true is to give us a “thus saith the lord” on the matter. This you have failed miserably to do, now haven’t you?

Then you say:

“ That is a far cry from saying that baptism is non- essential.”

No one said that you taught that baptism was “non essential”. We have said accepted your own words concerning what you believe and have stated that you believe that one can be saved without specifically being baptized for the remission of sins. And that is exactly what you have said is your belief.

Then you say:

“Now I fully expect you to twist my words again”

You have miserably failed to demonstrate that I have twisted your words in any way whatsoever. In fact, we have shown from your own words that you believe that a person can be saved without specifically being baptized for the remission of sins. WE have proven it by your own words, which we now quote again as follows:

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

Now this is what you have said in your own words. Now if this is not what you believe, then it would be a good idea for you to repudiate those words and start over again and this time try to stay within the bounds of what the word of God says.

Then you say:

“as that is what you seem to spend a lot of your time doing.”

We have shown that we have not spent any time misrepresenting anything that you have said. We have simply quoted what you have said and responded to it. If anyone has spent any time misrepresenting anyone it is yourself for those are your words, which we have quoted and you have yet to explain how we have misrepresented you in quoting them.

And the only one who has actually deliberately misrepresented anyone is you. You said nothing about my pointing out to you the simple fact that you represented E. Lee Saffold as believing in “water worship” and you knew when you did so that such was not the truth. Now that was deliberate and it was in fact a deliberate lie, wasn’t it? But you have not even considered apologizing for such, now have you? So, it is obvious, as I expected that you do not practice what you preach when you expect others to apologize when they deliberately misrepresent someone. We have proven that you have deliberately misrepresented E. Lee Saffold as one who believes in “water worship” and yet you feel no desire to practice what you preach about how one should apologize when they are guilty of doing such a thing.

Well, Brethren, as we expected and as we have now shown conclusively Brother Davis is not being honest and truthful with us now is he?

Beware of such men, Brethren!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

E. Lee,

Who is the "we" you keep referring to? You're the only making these erroneous statements, don't blame it on others.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have asked:

“E. Lee, Who is the "we" you keep referring to?”

Perhaps, a simple reading of the definition of the word “we” and how it is used by writers of the English language will help you understand our use of the word “we” as follows:

“Main Entry: we Pronunciation: 'wE Function: pronoun, plural in construction Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wE; akin to Old High German wir we, Sanskrit vayam Date: before 12th century 1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you -- used as pronoun of the first person plural; 2 : 1I -- used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal character

Now, as you can see, writers, to keep an impersonal character, often use “we”. That is how “we” are occasionally using it in our writing in this forum. It is correct to do so and it is our right to do so and we will continue to do it and there is simply nothing that anyone can do about it, now is there? We most certainly are not using it so as to make anyone other than ourselves responsible for what we have said, and you know it, don’t you Brother Davis. Your concern over this matter exists solely because you need something to say other than responding to the arguments that we have made, don’t you? For it is much easy to discuss things that do not matter in the least and it is especially convenient when you need some way to avoid dealing with arguments that you cannot handle, isn’t it?

Then you say:

“You're the only making these erroneous statements, don't blame it on others.”

You have not proven though we have given you ample opportunity to do so, that any of our statements are erroneous. Thus there is no blame to be placed upon anyone. For our statements are all absolutely correct. The only thing we could therefore possibly do toward others concerning them would be to give them credit for the correct arguments we have been making. Therefore, since there is no blame to be placed we could not be attempting, as you falsely charge, of placing blame that does not exist upon anyone for our statements.

And we are in fact the only one’s refuting, quite successfully we might add, your erroneous and false doctrine that one can be saved without specifically being baptized for the remission of sins. And none are responsible for our arguments, which you have miserably failed to even attempt to answer, except ourselves. Therefore we simply wait for you to make some attempt to respond to our arguments instead of whining about things of no consequence.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

E. Lee, Thank you, thank you ,thank you. Your answers are so clear, always backed up by scripture. Anyone reading this thread objectively can see you have not misrepresented Mr. Davis. All one need do is go back to some other threads such as the Camelback Church, Is Baptism Valid when it's purpose is misunderstood, etc. to see more of the same. A hearty AMEN and AMEN to you for standing firm.

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

Cynthia,

Thanks for your tongue in cheek answer concerning the resident Pharisee. LOL!

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Cynthia:

I sincerely thank you for your comments in support our defense of the gospel of Christ against the egregious errors of Brother Davis. Your love for our Lord Jesus Christ and your desire to obey him faithfully in all things is not only evident in your post in this forum. But also in your entire family who obeyed the gospel of Christ by being baptized for the remission of sins according to the teaching of Christ in Acts 2:38. I recall often how your entire family obeyed the gospel on the same day. I wish that I could have been there to witness that momentous occasion. And ever since that day I have thanked God for you and your family for their love of Christ and faithfulness to His word and strong will to follow Him in all that is good and right. Our Lord knows of your faith and we are thankful to know of it as well. Thoughts of you and your family encourage me daily. AS always I want you to know that I thank God for you constantly in my prayers. I pray often for your family and especially your husband that God will grant you a long life of joy and peace in his service.

I know that Brother Davis has even tried to deliberately misrepresent your comments as being “tongue and cheek” as if you were not in the least bit sincere in making them. For one who complains so much about being misrepresented he seems to have no hesitation to deliberately misrepresent you and others knowing when he does so that he is telling deliberate lies. In fact, it is shameful for one who claims to follow Christ to deliberately tell such lies. For there is no way in which he can claim that he honestly “misunderstood” your words to be “tongue and cheek” rather than the sincere expression of your appreciation and support for our defense of the truth. He did not merely “misunderstand” you. Instead he has deliberately, with the fullest intent to deceive others, misrepresented your words. And all of our intelligent readers in this forum can see it as clear as they can see the sun on a bright sunny morning, can’t they?

I thank God for you and your family and remember you constantly in my prayers. May our Lord abundantly bless you and your entire family with a long life of joy and peace in His service. And may we all be gathered together with Him at the last day to sing forever His praises and worship, adore and obey him in all eternity.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Brethren:

Notice how Brother Davis has deliberately misrepresented our Sister Cynthia’s words as follows:

“Cynthia, Thanks for your tongue in cheek answer concerning the resident Pharisee. LOL”

Now Brethren, He asserts that Sister Cynthia’s words were not sincere. But as usual he cannot prove that the words written by Sister Cynthia were in the least bit “tongue and cheek”, now can he? In fact, he knows that they were not tongue and cheek. For there is noting in the words she has said or in the tone in which she said them or the context in which they are written that would cause any honest and intelligent person to conclude they were not sincere. Neither is there any justification for anyone to even mistakenly assume that they are being written “tongue and cheek” as if they are any thing other than a sincere expression of appreciation and support of what we have been saying concerning the false doctrines asserted by Brother Davis. He cannot prove that his false assertion that her words were tongue and cheek to be the truth and we defy him to even attempt to prove it.

And since Sister Cynthia’s words were addressed to E. Lee Saffold he has thereby also made another false assertion that he could not prove to save his life. He asserts that E. Lee Saffold is “the resident Pharisee”. By this assertion, which he also could not prove to save his life, he shows that he does not even know what a Pharisee truly is. He just does not want anyone to contemplate the possibility that E. Lee Saffold is a Christian. He wants them to believe that he is a Jew of the sect of the Pharisees. We would like to see him make some effort to prove that E. Lee Saffold is actually a Jew and a member of the sect of the Pharisees. For we have never claimed, as Paul did, to be of the strictest sect of the Pharisees. Notice how Paul spoke of his having been a Pharisee. Paul took advantage of the fact that he had been a Pharisee on one occasion as follows:

“But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” (Acts 23:6).

Now, if the fact that one believes in the resurrection of the dead is all that is essential to being considered a Pharisee, then not only would E. Lee Saffold be a Pharisee but so would every Christian living. But it is clear that it takes more than that to be a Pharisee. And those who do not believe in the resurrection of the dead would be like the Sadducees, wouldn’t they? But they would not actually be Sadducees. But the truth is that I am not a Pharisee nor the son of a Pharisee as Paul claimed to be and in fact was. But we can see that if Paul were here he would be the “resident Pharisee” and he would not in the least bit be ashamed of it, now would he? But, as much as I agree with the Pharisees concerning the resurrection of the dead I cannot with any honesty claim to be a Pharisee for I am not even Jewish and I am not the son of a Pharisee. But Brother Davis’ claim that I am such is based upon his false impression that the Pharisees were always WRONG about every thing that they did, said and believed. That by virtue of behaving or believing in some respects on some occasions as a Pharisee would behave or believe one is automatically placed in the position of being automatically wrong about everything he has ever said or taught is absurd. There were Pharisees, indeed that were opposed to Christ. In fact most of them were. But there were some, like the apostle Paul, who were converted to Christ and were not ever ashamed of their having been Pharisees. They just knew that even though they were good Pharisees they could not be saved by their own goodness. They learned that they needed to obey the gospel of Christ as much as any other man. But they were not converted because they were convinced that everything they believed or all of how they lived as Pharisees was wrong. Listen to Paul’s words concerning himself:

“Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” (Acts 26:5).

And again notice Paul’s description of himself as follows:

“Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.” (Phil. 3:4-7).

Paul was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” and could have been proud of it. And his zeal was without question because he even persecuted the church and concerning the Law he was a Pharisee and concerning the righteousness that was in the law he was “blameless”. Now, he gave up all of these things in becoming a Christian. But can you imagine how Paul would react to some feeble false teacher in the Church calling him a Pharisee as if the word itself was synonymous evil? He would say as he said above that he was indeed a Pharisee and he would make no apology for it but that he gave it all up for Christ. Think of how wonderful it would be if some of our weak brothers could at least muster up as much zeal for Christ and the truth as the Pharisees possessed for the law. In fact, it is clear that Paul, after being converted to Christ, transferred all of the zeal that he had as a Pharisee into the service of His savior. This was without question a good thing wasn’t it? No, Brethren, all was not wrong with the Pharisees and when they became Christians they did not have to change everything about how they lived. They only had to change what was wrong and continue doing that which was right in the service of Christ.

But E. Lee Saffold cannot make the claim to being a “Hebrew” at all much less a Pharisee. And concerning his past life he cannot say, as did Paul, that he has ever lived “blameless”. So, we would like to see Brother Davis prove beyond any shadow of doubt that E. Lee Saffold is now or ever had been a Pharisee. . He could not do so if his life depended upon it. In fact, we wish that in some respects we had been Pharisees prior to becoming Christians. We might be even stronger Christians than we are at present if such were the case.

And if Brother Davis’complaint is that E. Lee Saffold believes and behaves as a Pharisee he must specify what beliefs and behaviors he is referring to before anyone can determine that such is good or bad. For the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead and so do we, and we presume that Brother Davis does as well. And some of the Pharisees, according to Paul, concerning the righteousness that is of the law were “blameless” and this would also be a “good” thing wouldn’t it? E. Lee Saffold cannot claim such maybe Brother Davis can.

But the false assumption that everything that a Pharisee believed and practiced was wrong is just false to the core. And the use of the term Pharisee in the sense of an insult directed toward a brother in Christ who stands firm for what he is convinced to be the truth is caused by nothing short of pure ignorance and a lack of Christian principle. For the standing firm for what one believes sincerely to be the truth was one of the good things about the Pharisees. The Pharisees, as well as anyone else, could not be saved without obeying the gospel. But this concept, among many false teachers in the body of Christ, that the comparison of their brothers in Christ who stand firm against their pernicious doctrines to Pharisees is a just insult is caused by a complete ignorance of what a Pharisee really was. And the idea that one is a Pharisee anytime he stands firm for what is true and right and therefore he is to be condemn for being “strict” as a Pharisee is absurd. The Pharisees were not condemned for their strict adherence to the Law but rather for their hypocrisy, their human traditions which conflicted with the word of God, and their opposition to the very messiah who was predicted in the very law that they sought to follow strictly.

Now we know what Brother Davis means by his shallow insult cast upon us in calling us Pharisees. But we know one thing for certain. He could not prove that we are Pharisees if his life depended upon it and in some cases it would not be an insult to be considered, as being in some respects, compared to the Pharisees.

Brethren, beware of men who use such pathetic tactics and who never even attempt to prove that their assertions are based upon facts. “Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is true”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Barry Davis, My statement was a sincere comment of appreciation for the time and effort E. Lee, (as well as Danny, Mark, Scott etc)put into this forum. I continue to learn so much about the Gospel from these men and the way they contend for the faith once delivered. If anyone deserves to use the signature "In His Service" it is them, for they truly are serving our Lord.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Cynthia,

My comments were not directed to the other men you mentioned, only toward E. Lee who has proven himself to be a liar and a divider of brethren. If he uses "In His Service" I would like to know who the pronoun "His" stands for , as it is obviously not Christ. Perhaps it is the god of this world?

IHS, Barry

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Brethren:

Please take notice of Brother Davis’ last post wherein he deliberately makes further assertions and accusations without even so much as stating his reasons for making them much less making even the slightest attempt to prove that they are true as follows:

“Cynthia, My comments were not directed to the other men you mentioned, only toward E. Lee who has proven himself to be a liar and a divider of brethren.”

Now, we know that the only one’s allowed to be calling others a liar without being required to even give the reasons for such. And the only one’s allowed to do such without immediately being condemned for being “unloving, harsh and unchristian” is those, like Brother Davis, who is opposed directly to the truth of the doctrine of Christ. Let one who stands for that which is true call someone a liar and give not only their good reasons for doing so but also providing irrefutable evidence that their accusation is true. And you will see immediately a deluge of condemnation from those that care nothing about the truth. They could care less whether the accusation is sustained by the facts. WE see an example of this in this place don’t we?

Now, Brother Davis has called E. Lee Saffold a liar. And we know that E. Lee Saffold would not want to ever be, in fact, guilty of such a thing. And we are convinced that he is not guilty of it in the least. But if Brother Davis will make some attempt to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we have in fact told any deliberate lie we would be more than prepared to repent of such immediately. But, as with all of his other assertions he could not prove that E. Lee Saffold has told a deliberate lie in any place in this forum if his life depended upon it.

Then he also asserts that E. Lee Saffold is a “divider of the brethren”. Even though he cannot give one ounce of evidence that E. Lee Saffold has ever said or done anything that would encourage or lead any of the brethren in this place to be separate from one another. In fact, even though he is aware that E. Lee Saffold is a member of the body of Christ and that he is opposed to some of the teachings and practices of his brethren in this forum. Yet, he has come into this forum to fellowship with them in the teaching of the word of God and opposing false doctrines with are contrary to the doctrine of Christ. And in not one single place has he ever suggested that the brethren who opposed to one another should under any circumstances divide or separate from one another. Instead he has suggested that we discuss what the word of God teaches and seek to harmonize with one another to teach what God has taught in his word. Even if this means having some very harsh and strong and even combative arguments and down right struggles with each other. But not once, in any place has he suggested that we “divide”. Instead he has consistently said that we study, debate, discuss, contend and that we all harmonize together with the truth of the doctrine of Christ.

Yes, it is true that we cannot worship with an instrument of music without violating our conscience. But we have sought to fellowship with our brethren who do use instruments as much as possible without violating our conscience. Which means that we are here discussing truth and the word of God and fellowshipping with our brethren in the defense of the gospel of Christ against those who are both within and without the body of Christ that would by any means pervert the gospel of Christ. This is right and good to do and we will continue it.

But we ask anyone, including Brother Davis, to demonstrate with evidence that we have sough by any means to divide brethren from each other. WE have opposed false doctrines by whoever taught them, including brother Davis, but we have not suggested that anyone separate from him. WE have instead warned all to beware of him and his teachings. But our thrust is to seek to contend for the faith and oppose error. It is the duty of the local congregation and the elders of each local flock to decide who must be “marked and avoided” because their doctrines are contrary to the doctrine of Christ. WE have simply demonstrated that Brother Davis’ doctrines are opposed to the teaching of Christ, especially in Acts 2:38. We have established this beyond doubt and Brother Davis has failed miserably to even respond to our arguments, which prove that his doctrine in this matter is false and opposed to the doctrine of Christ. But we are still talking with him and have not by any means on any occasion suggested that anyone, even us, divide, separate and have nothing whatsoever to do with him. We simply warn you not to believe his nonsense that he is teaching. This is right, good and acceptable in the eyes of God for us to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

So, where is the evidence, which would prove that E. Lee Saffold has ever told a deliberate lie in this forum? And where is the evidence that E. Lee Saffold has ever suggested that our Brethren divide from each other? The evidence is just does not exist, now does it? Brother Davis does not even attempt to provide any evidence to support his false charge, now does he? Like all of his other false assertions he expects our readers to believe it just because he says it even though there is no proof whatsoever that his assertions and accusations are in the least bit true. He does not have any other reason for such accusations other than the fact that we oppose his doctrines, which we have proven from the scriptures to be completely false and contrary to the doctrine of Christ.

We are doing the right thing brethren and will continue to do it. And men false teachers can falsely accuse us, deliberately misrepresent us, insult us, and even praise us and speak nicely in an attempt to lead us into a “compromise” with them. But none of these tactics will work. For we stand upon the foundation of the truth of God in Christ our Lord revealed through the inspired word of God and “we shall not be moved”!

So, false teachers need only understand that when they teach doctrines contrary to the doctrine of Christ they are in for a long controversy that will not stop until our Lord returns for the souls of men are at stake. And our Lord cares very much about the souls of all men and because we serve him we care as well. This fight for the souls of men will continue and it matters not who we must oppose in that fight. WE will stand with Christ our Lord even if we stand alone in this dying world where there are so many lost souls that yearn for salvation.

Then Brother Davis says:

“If he uses "In His Service" I would like to know who the pronoun "His" stands for , as it is obviously not Christ. Perhaps it is the god of this world?”

Brother Davis has already shown his inability to understand pronouns and their proper use. So, we would expect him not to understand whom the pronoun “His” stands for in the phrase “In His Service” even though he uses it at the end of all of his post. He is likely to have as much trouble with this pronoun as did our former President Clinton had with the meaning of the simple word “is” when he was “caught between the headlights” so to speak!

WE know that when he uses that phrase he intends for the Pronoun to stand for “Christ”. But simply because we oppose his false doctrines concerning baptism he thinks that we are serving Satan instead of Christ. But remember Brethren, he must prove what he says. And yet again he claims that we are servants of Satan because we stand for the truth taught in Acts 2:38 by Christ our Lord and he opposes it. But where is the evidence which he might offer which would prove that E. Lee Saffold is a Liar, a divider of the brethren, and worst of all a servant of “the god of this world” which all Christians know to be Satan?

It is obvious that he cannot answer our arguments and the only tactics left for him to resort to using is false accusations, insults and innuendo. The weakness of his position could not be more surely established, could it brethren?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2001

Barry....

You asked me the following question...

"Now, do you agree with me that baptism is a response to the gospel, but not the gospel itself?"

In short, baptism is a part of the gospel of Christ....(not just a response as you called it).

In part....my conviction of this is based upon the following passage of Scripture from 2 Thess. 1:8....where after Paul describes the return of Christ he states...."He (i.e., Christ) will punish those who do not know God, and DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus Christ."

So it would appear Barry....that the Gospel is not just something TO BE BELIEVED.....it is also something TO BE OBEYED.

Sorry it took so long to respond.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2001

Brother Danny:

I just want to take a few minutes to say AMEN AND AMEN to your post! There is absolutely no doubt that the gospel is more than mere “facts to be believed” but is also made up of “commands to be obeyed” as well as “promises to be received”. And the passage that you quoted makes it abundantly clear to any thinking person that the gospel is something to be BELIEVED and OBEYED. Therefore not only must we believe that Christ died for our sins, was buried and raised again the third day (1 Cor. 15:1-4) but we must also die to our sins, be buried with him in baptism, and raised to walk a new life with him. (Romans 6:3-6) and when we thus OBEY the gospel that we BELIEVE we shall then, and not one moment before then, be MADE FREE FROM SIN and become servants of righteousness. (Romans 6:16-18). Thus, it is clearly impossible for anyone to OBEY THE GOSPEL, which is the death burial and resurrection of Christ without being baptized. (Romans 6:3- 6). For Baptism is the “gospel in action” wherein a penitent sinner dies to sin, is buried with our Lord in baptism where his past sins are removed in the “circumcision of Christ” made “without hands”. When one is baptized by faith in the “operation of God” (Col. 2:11- 13) it must therefore be done with the fullest intent or purpose to obtain the remission of our sins. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:15,16). For such is its very purpose and it is the will of God to remove our sins in that place (Col. 2:11-13). This explains what every person who ever became a Christ in the New Testament was baptized. And it expalins why Peter said, “repent and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Acts 2:38). And this is how they “Named the name of Christ”. For it is without doubt that one is saved in OBEDIENCE to the gospel and lost for having not obeyed it.

And there is another passage which demonstrates specifically that the gospel is not only a set of “facts to be believed” but also of “commands to be obeyed” as follows. “Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Peter 4:16-18).

Now there are several very significant things to notice about the above passage:

1.) We should not be ashamed to suffer as Christians but should rather glorify God because of it.

2.) The time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God. None should forget that the judgement is coming and it will BEGIN AT THE HOUSE OF GOD. And he says if it must begin “at us” that is the “house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15)

3.) Then by way of contrast between the house of God and those who are not a part of the house of God he asked, “ what shall be the end of them “THAT OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL”? Thus it is clear that the “house of God” is made up of those who obeyed the gospel and those not in the “house of God” are made up of those who “OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL”. Notice that it does not say those who “BELIEVE NOT THE GOSPEL” but rather it says those who “OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL”. Therefore those who have never obeyed the gospel are not in the “house of God” which is the “church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

4.) And this question was a rhetorical question to which all Christians knew the answer. He asked, “what shall be the end of them that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL?” and Paul, by inspiration gave the answer to this question in the passage which you have quoted, Brother Danny, as follows:

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;” (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Thus, the problem that I have with men like Billy Graham, whom Brother Davis supports wholeheartedly, is that they, by perverting the gospel of Christ through preaching the false doctrine of “salvation by faith only”, prevent men from ever “obeying the gospel”. They do this by teaching them that they are saved the moment that they “believe the gospel” and therefore they need not even contemplate that they must also OBEY THE GOSPEL in order to be saved. And for this reason they never even consider the question of “how does one OBEY THE GOSPEL”? This explains why they substitute various false and completely useless responses to the true gospel such as the mourner’s bench and the “sinners prayer”. Such responses cause persons to believe that they are saved when in fact they have never obeyed the gospel of Christ. But the truth is that no one who has not “obeyed the gospel” will be saved! Not ANY! Instead they will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power”. (2 Thess. 1:8,9).

Just think of the thousands of souls who have followed Billy Graham’s perversion of the gospel! The thousands who have been deceived by him into believing that they were saved the moment they believed in Christ and on the day that they said the "sinners prayer" even though they have NEVER OBEYED THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. It is a terrible tragedy. And the only thing that is a worse tragedy is that one who is in the “house of God” and has “obeyed the gospel of Christ would actually support, sustain, and praise the very man who is responsible for this evil deception. A deception that was surely designed by Satan to lead thousands of souls to the judgement believing that they were Christians and were saved when in fact they were never Christians at all. And they had never received the remission of their sins and are facing eternal punishment of God because they have never OBEYED THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. What a horrible thing has been happening before our very eyes and men like Brother Davis consider deceivers like Billy Graham as “great men of God”. Oh, what shame! But let those who support Billy Graham and speak of him as if he is a "great man of God" know that they are “partakers in his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11) and they will share in his fate.

Let those who love Christ and those who are lost teach the truth that we must hear the gospel, believe it and OBEY it in order to be saved. And let us fight against those who are daily and in increasing numbers deceiving those precious souls who are seeking to come to Christ for forgiveness with a perverted gospel which leads them to never obey the gospel of Christ by being baptized for the remission of sins. (Mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:19,20; Luke 24:46,47; Acts 2;38, John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6;3-6;16-18; 2 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Peter 4:16-18; Gal. 3;26,27; Acts 8:12; 35-40; 1 Cor. 1:10-12). And let us show them the truth. Let us courageously tell them that it is in submission to baptism that a penitent believer actually obeys the gospel of Christ. And that without baptism it is impossible to obey the gospel for there is simply no other way given in the word of God for anyone to OBEY THE GOSPEL. The lost of this world depend upon the Church, which is the “pillar and ground of the truth” to teach these things. And God will hold us accountable for failing to teach them. And it is right that he should do so. And this may be one of the very reasons that judgement will begin at the “house of God” and woe be unto those who “preach not the gospel” and those who support and encourage men like Billy Graham who teach a perverted gospel! Let them all either repent or be “anathema”!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

I have stood on the sidelines long enough, hoping someone else would come to Barry's defense against the misrepresentation of what he has clearly and plainly said on this matter. I was wanting to not be drawn into this argument, because I have in past found it wearying and futile to enter into argument against those who are attacking Barry's position. But conscience can no longer let me allow Barry to stand alone.

Danny, on this issue, I think that you are trying to split the hair much too finely. Whether baptism is a PART of the gospel or a RESPONSE to the gospel is not a major issue. Barry has repeatedly shown very clearly and unmistakably, in this and other threads, that he understands baptism to be a part of what God requires of man in response to His offer of salvation. Barry baptizes people, and tells them that it's part of what they have to do to be saved. Why can't you accept that and be done with it?

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Sammy......

You must have not read very thoroughly......because I'm not the one you have been "observing on the side line."

The vast majority of this conversation has been between E. Lee Saffold and Barry.

I simply responded to a question Barry asked me.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Sam,

You said: "Whether baptism is a PART of the gospel or a RESPONSE to the gospel is not a major issue. Barry has repeatedly shown very clearly and unmistakably, in this and other threads, that he understands baptism to be a part of what God requires of man in response to His offer of salvation. Barry baptizes people, and tells them that it's part of what they have to do to be saved."

In the thread Repentance and Baptism are for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38, dated August 17, 2001, Barry said:

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

In light of Barry's comment in this prior thread, how can you make the statement above that he tells people what they must do to be saved? Especially since he doesn't believe that Baptism is required for salvation?

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Brethren:

Brother Sam has said:

“I have stood on the sidelines long enough, hoping someone else would come to Barry's defense against the misrepresentation of what he has clearly and plainly said on this matter.”

Now this is ridiculous, isn’t it brethren. Even Barry has refused to “come to his own defense” because he knows that his false doctrines concerning baptism cannot be defended. And we suspect that the reason brother Sam has been hanging out on the sidelines is that he also knows that he cannot defend Brother Davis’ position on baptism either. But, now he just cannot stand it any more he can no longer stand “on the sidelines”! Ha! Now if Brother Sam could have defended Brother Davis’ position on baptism he would have done so long before now if he cared about such things. So, we do wonder just what he was doing on the sidelines when he should have been defending what he thought was true. Or is it that he simply seeks to defend bother Davis instead of the truth.

Then he says:

“ I was wanting to not be drawn into this argument, because I have in past found it wearying and futile to enter into argument against those who are attacking Barry's position.”

Now Brethren look at this excuse! Brother Sam did not want to be “drawn into the argument” because he has found it to be “wearing and futile” to enter into an argument against those who are “attacking” Barry’s position. Well, if Barry’s position were the truth it might be wearing to enter the discussion but it could never be futile to do so! But it is indeed futile to argue against the truth and this is the reason that we agree that Brother Sam will not do any better in proving that Barry’s position on this issue is the truth any more than Brother Davis has himself done. And if Sam thought that Brother Davis’ responses were sufficient he would not feel that he has been left out there helpless and alone on the field of battle, now would he? And it is indeed futile to merely assert a position without offering any proof of it. And if Brother Sam cannot offer any proof from the word of God that Brother Davis’ position is true then his efforts will always be wearing and futile. And this is the very reason that it is wearying for these men to teach false doctrine.

Then Sam says:

“ But conscience can no longer let me allow Barry to stand alone.”

We have been discussing this subject for a long time and now Brother Sam’s “conscience” is bothering him. And Barry is indeed standing “alone” because he has failed miserably to offer any evidence that his position is true. Now Brother Sam comes in here and instead of responding to the arguments that we have made he does the same thing that Brother Davis has done and he simply ignores the arguments and whines about an imaginary “misrepresentation”. And he will continue to ignore them because he cannot answer them either.

But because his conscience bothers him and he has entered the discussion we will now have to repeat our arguments all over again only to have them ignored again. And the reason we will have to repeat them is because he will not go back through the post that we have written and respond to the arguments that Brother Davis has ignored. He will simply wait until we repeat them again. SO, we ask brother Sam to go to our previous post and respond to the arguments that Brother Davis has been “standing on the sidelines” ignoring and see if he can offer evidence that they are not true. For it is certain that Brother Davis has been unable to do so. But if we must we will simply repeat them again for Brother Sam. And if Brother Davis were doing a good job of defending his position himself Brother Sam would not be so concerned about Brother Davis “standing alone” now would he. And he might also take a close look and ask himself just how much help Brother E. Lee Saffold has received from others in this discussion. All of this talk is pure nonsense, Brethren. When will these men get away from the “emotion” connected with this discussion and get to the facts and respond to the arguments that have been made? Think about it. For months now this subject has been brought up again and again. And we have met their assertions with arguments, which they cannot answer. And they have all ignored the arguments and simply reacted with anger, insults, and cries of “misrepresentation”. And the one person that we know about that agrees with Brother Davis has been hiding behind the scoreboard on the sidelines for fear that getting out on the field would be “wearing and futile”.

Brethren, Think about this.

Just think of this picture, Brethren. Poor Brother Davis is now being left out there all alone to defend himself without any help from anyone against that mean old E. Lee Saffold. Why, it almost makes you want to cry, doesn’t it. That poor, pitiful, Brother Davis, suffering all alone the onslaught of argument after argument after argument none of which he can answer and no one is there to help this poor helpless soul out! And now Brother Sam just cannot stand it any longer so he comes in here making the same mistake Brother Davis has made. He ignores those arguments and makes an assertion that he himself cannot prove is even remotely true. It is a pitiful sight isn’t it? These two men defending that false teacher Billy Graham as a great man of God who teaches the full Gospel even though he is preaching a perversion of the gospel of Christ and thousands of souls have been lost through his preaching of a perverted gospel. And they are claiming that one does not have to be baptized for the remission of sins even though Peter said other wise in Acts 2:38. But instead of responding to one another they have joined on the field of battle to suffer the onslaught of powerful arguments that they cannot do anything more than huddle together and ignore and cry out that they have been “sorely misrepresented”. If it were not for the fact that these matters are important to the salvation of the souls of men this would not only be a pathetic sight it would be laughable!

Then Brother Sam says:

“Barry has repeatedly shown very clearly and unmistakably, in this and other threads, that he understands baptism to be a part of what God requires of man in response to His offer of salvation.”

What Barry has repeatedly said was:

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

These are his own words and he has not in the least bit been misrepresented.

Second, Brother Sam needs to remember the subject of this thread was that Billy Graham preaches the “full Gospel” when he in fact preaches the doctrine of salvation by faith only without baptism. That is what we have been discussing. Brother Davis thinks that Billy Graham preaches the true gospel and we are convinced that he preaches a perverted gospel. Thus brother Davis is supporting someone whom we know does not preach that baptism is essential to salvation and therefore does not preach the true gospel of Christ concerning baptism.

And third, we have not said in any place that Brother Davis does not believe that baptism is not a part of what God requires of man in response to his offer of salvation. Instead he has said that a “person can be saved without specifically being baptized for the remission of sins”. And we deny this position for numerous reasons, which we have given in both this and other threads. And he has yet to respond to our arguments. But his position has not been misrepresented in any place and neither he nor Sam Lovall, or anyone else for that matter can show any single place where he has been misrepresented in either this or any other thread in this forum.

And we have already responded in another post above concerning whether the difference between Brother Davis and myself is “hair splitting”. And we have shown conclusively that it is not.

We are glad that at least Brother Davis believes that baptism is required of those who would be saved and that those who are not baptized will not be saved. But his position that the person being baptized does not have to understand that he is being baptized for the remission of sins is wrong because it is contrary to the command of Christ in Acts 2:38. And we have said this so many times that no one has any excuse for deliberately misrepresenting us as representing Brother Davis as one who does not believe that baptism is necessary as a response to the gospel. But he teaches that one can be saved “without specifically being baptized for the remission of sins” and those are his own words and we have correctly quoted them and responded to them. And those words are in direct opposition to what Peter said. Peter 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, in other threads, made numerous other arguments against this position and Brother Davis has ignored them all, and frankly so has Brother Sam. Now Brother Sam may have ignored them because he does not disagree. But his assertion that Brother Davis has been misrepresented concerning this issue, not only in this thread but also in others in this forum as well is patiently false and it is a statement that he has not even attempted to sustain with any evidence whatsoever. He cannot prove that Brother Davis has in any place been misrepresented if his life depended upon it.

Now, the subject of this thread is whether Billy Graham preaches the true gospel. Brother Davis fully supports this man who teaches salvation by faith only and we do not. If Brother Sam wishes to engage in the discussion of baptism for the remission of sins then we will start another thread for that purpose and we can discuss it at length. But for now no one, least of All Brother Sam Lovall, has demonstrated that Brother Davis has been misrepresented in the least in this thread or in any other thread in this forum.

Brother Davis has represented in his own words his belief about baptism as follows:

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

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

We chose to believe Peter and reject that false doctrine of Brother Davis, which is contrary to the inspired words of Peter.

So, it is possible that the reason that no one other than Brother Sam Lovall has said anything about Brother Davis being misrepresented is because no one has seen him as being misrepresented. And Brother Sam’s idea that he just cannot take it that others have failed to say anything about Brother Davis being misrepresented is based upon his assumption that others have seen such and just do not have the courage to say so. While the truth just might be that others have been paying attention to our discussion of the subject of baptism in at least four other threads and have noticed his deliberate efforts to ignore all arguments presented to him. And thus they have not made the same mistake that Brother Sam has made in assuming that he has been misrepresented just because he cries that his views have been misrepresented.

Brethren,

Billy Graham teaches a perverted gospel of salvation by faith only and Brother Davis supports him in it and praises him as a “great man of God” while he claims that he believes that baptism is necessary to salvation and he knows that Billy Graham does not. And we completely disagree with him about this matter. And our quoting his exact words stating his belief concerning this matter has correctly represented Brother Davis’ position on baptism for the remission of sins. And we have even discussed his position in the tread entitled, “Is baptism valid when its purpose is misunderstood”. And even the title of that thread accurately represented Brother Davis’ position on the matter. So, this is just pure nonsense for Brother Sam to assert, without even attempting to offer any proof, that Brother Davis has been misrepresented. So, anyone that believes that Brother Davis has been misrepresented needs to come in here and show with evidence that such is the case. Merely coming in here and asserting it is not sufficient. So, we ask Brother Sam to give us the proof. And we ask our readers to play close attention to how these men will try to avoid all responsibility to support their assertions with evidence. For they would rather discuss whether that mean old E. Lee Saffold is treating them fairly then discuss the arguments that have been made against their position. For in one arena they can at least provide a smoke screen for themselves to hide when it become difficult to confront facts but in the other they must actually make some effort to prove what they say. Beware of such men brethren!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Kevin:

If you take that sentence out of the context of the entire argument, then, yes, it is as you say. But to look at the statement WITHIN the context of the argument, you will see that the part Barry was emphasizing was the bit about KNOWING THAT BAPTISM IS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Barry fully supports the Restoration and biblical position that baptism is part of man's response to God, along with faith, repentence, confession, submission, etc. Where he has disagreed with Lee, among others, is on the issue of WHOW MUCH YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT BAPTISM WHEN YOU DO IT (or, I suppose I should say, when it is done to you.) Barry's position is that you can be saved by grace thru faith at the time of your baptism, even if you don't fully understand all that it means. He takes a back seat to no one in his belief of the necessity of baptism in the process of salvation.

Sam

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Sam,

Thank you for your honest representation of my position. How this could be unclear to anyone who has read my posts is beyond me.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Sam:

You are correct that Brother Davis does believe that baptism is essential to salvation and we have not said otherwise. In fact you cannot find any place where we have accused him of teaching that baptism is not essential to salvation. And if you had read my last post you would have seen the fourth time that I have made this abundantly clear to any person capable of reading.

And we did not take his words out of context. We clearly cited the thread from which it was taken and the date in which his post was written so that everyone could go to that thread and read the entire context of his words concerning this matter. And in the context of a discussion concerning the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins he said:

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

And we have shown that persons must understand the purpose of baptism as much as they must understand the purpose of repentance in order for it to be effectual. We have made this clear for all to understand. But we said nothing that would indicate that brother Davis does not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.

And in this particular thread he came in here speaking of Billy Graham, who does not believe that baptism is essential to salvation, as if he was a "great man of God" who teaches the full gospel of Christ. When in truth Billy Graham teaches that one is saved by faith only without being baptized. And it is his support for such false doctrine and false teachers that causes others to doubt if he really believes that batism is essential to salvation. We do not doubt that he believes that baptism is essential to salvation but we know for a fact, as per his own words, that he does not believe that baptism FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS is essential to salvation for he has said, "“1) I believe that a person can be saved without being specifically baptized for the remission of sins.”

And this is what we completely disagree with and this is the statement that we have contended against. So, your attempt to make it appear that we have deliberately taken him out of context and tried to make others believe that he does not believe baptism is necessary to salvation is patheticly false and borders on being a deliberate mirepresentation of the facts in this matter itself.

Now, If you wish to discuss this matter concerning Baptism for the remission of sins. I invite you to go to the thread where we have made our case that it is essential that those coming to CHrist understand that baptism is for the remission of sins and take up the arguments that Brother Davis has deliberately ignored, which is all of them, and see if you can deal with them.

And if you wish to show that We have deliberately misrepresented Brother Davis then give us evidence of it. In fact, you cannot show one place where we ever said that he did not believe baptism was essential to salvation. We have instead shown that he does believe that one can be saved without ever being "specifically baptized for the remission of sins". THis is what Brother Davis himself said and this is what we deny. For this contradicts what Christ taught through Peter in Acts 2:38 which says, "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS." (Acts 2:38).

But we have not accused him in any place of not believing that baptism is "effectual". In fact we have already said this to him several times. But you continue, without even one single ounce of evidence to prove that it is true, to pretend that we have in some way deliberately misrepresented him and taken him out of context. We quoted his words and referred our readers to the context in which his words were found so that they could judge them for themselves. Such is not taking him out of context. He did in fact say “1) I believe that a person can be saved without being specifically baptized for the remission of sins.”

And this is our disagreement with him on this issue. So, this should clear up any notion of his being misrepresented and we still disagree with the statement which he made that we have quoted now several times above. For Baptism FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS is in fact essential to salvation because salvation is nothing more than being released from our sins and the consequences due us for having commiting them. So, it is nonsensical to say that you believe that a person can be saved (i. e. receive the remission of sins) without specifically being baptized "for the remission of sins". And it is just plain silly for anyone to preach the gospel and ask others to come to Christ without explaining to them that they must repent for the remission of sins and that they must also be baptized for the remission of sins. ". Peter had no problem with this matter in the least. He said, "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins". (Acts 2:38). If a person must understand the purpose of repentance in order to be saved then he must also understand the purpose of baptism as well for they are conjoined equally in the statement of Peter and both are for the same purpose. ANd we also cannot understand why anyone would object to teaching others that they must be baptized for the remission of sins if they sincerely believe that baptism is essential for salvation (i. e. the remission of sins). In fact, one who believes that baptism is essential to salvation (i. e. remission of sins) then it follows that baptism is for the remission of sins (i. e. salvation). If a person does not have to understand that bpatism is for the remission of sins (salvation) in order for it to be effectual then he also does not have to understand that it is essential for salvation (i. e. remission of sins) for it to be effectual. Thus the practical effect of this doctrine is to produce the same results as those who teach salvation by faith only.

If you would like to discuss this issue concerning baptism for the remnission of sins then we will start a new thread for this purpose and begin from the begining and repeat our arguments and ask you to be kind enough to correct us if you are convinced that they are wrong in any way. Brother Davis has failed miserable to even attempt an answer to opur arguments. We can onlyh hope that you will at the very least make some attempt to answer them. For now all you have done is whine that Brother Davis has been sorely misrepresented wich is pathetically and miserably fale to its very core. WE can only hope that you will handle the arguments with more skill.

Now, if Brother Davis has been misunderstood it is not because anyone other than himself has misrepresented his views but rather that he has made a statement that could be misunderstood by others and has not taken the time to show that he did not actually mean what he said with the words which he wrote. For he wrote:

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

Now, if those words do not accurately express his view or belief concerning baptism then he needs to repudiate them, correct them and state his belief in a more accurate way. But blaming others for msirepresenting him when the words that supposedly misrepresent his belief are HIS VERY OWN WORDS is just plain stupid.

Your BRother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Brethren:

Notice how Brother Davis continues to attempt to perpetuate the myth that he has been misrepresented in this thread. He does this by thanking Brother Lovall for an “honest representation of his position” as if his position was not being honestly represented in the first place. He does this as follows:

“Thank you for your honest representation of my position.”

Neither Brother Lovall nor Brother Davis is able to establish that Brother Davis’ position has not been honestly represented in this forum prior to Brother Lovall’s comments if their lives depended upon it. No one has proven that Brother Davis has even remotely been misrepresented in this discussion. And we have asked both Brother Davis and Brother Lovall to give us evidence that proves that anyone has said anything that deliberately misrepresented Brother Davis’ position and neither of them have been able to show any proof that such was the case. But they continue to speak as if this were true. It is not so but they think by speaking and pretending that it is so it will become true and by this means they can force others into believing a false impression that we have been misrepresenting Brother Davis even though we have done nothing of the sort.

But what else could we expect from a band of false teachers who believe that a man like Billy Graham is teaching the true gospel even though he believes and teaches the false doctrine of “salvation by faith only” without being baptized. And that he is a “great man of God” when in truth is a deliberate false teacher that has deceived thousands into believing that they were Christians without ever obeying the gospel of Christ.

Then Brother Davis says:

“ How this could be unclear to anyone who has read my posts is beyond me.”

What proof does he have that his position has been “unclear to anyone”? He has not and cannot prove that such is the case. And it is not difficult for things to be “beyond” Brother Davis.

The truth is far beyond brother Davis because he is in the habit of deceiving himself. For he is convinced that his position was unclear to others when in fact his position was quite clear to every one and no one has misrepresented his position in the least bit. And we have asked both he and Brother Lovall to prove that he has been misrepresented by anyone other than his own words. And they have failed to show or even attempt to show any evidence that would cause any thinking person to believe that Brother Davis had been misrepresented at all.

So Brother Davis stated his position quite clearly, when he said:

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

And it was not until we quoted his own words in response to his complaint that we were misrepresenting him did things become suddenly “unclear”. Ha! Anyone that cannot see this all as a simple tactic to prevent our readers from seeing that we answered sufficiently his challenge which he put to us in response to what I had said to him as follows:

I had said:

““In addition you stated above: "He believes that one does not have to be baptized for the remission of sins in the name of Christ according to the teaching of Acts 2:38 to be saved."”

To which Brother Davis replied:

““That is patently false representation of my views. I have never stated or implied that.”

And then he challenged us:

““ You have said that about me in several different ways, but I challenge you to find me saying it with my own words in one post on this board. If you can't find it, and you cannot, you need to apologize.”

Then we accepted his challenge and we “found it” right where we knew that it always was. Because we used his statement to make our own concerning what he believed so as not to “misrepresent him” and we quoted his following words which are without question almost verbatim what we said that Brother Davis believed as follows:

“But we did take up his challenge and have gone to the thread “Repentance and Baptism for the Remission of Sins” and found his own words wherein he stated, almost verbatim, the very thing that we accused him of teaching and believing. We now invite your attention to Brother Davis’ own words concerning what he believes about a person being saved without being baptized for the remission of sins. In a response to one of my post in that thread he said to the following:

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

And the date of those words written by Brother Davis in the thread which we have referenced we now give to assist you in looking it up for yourself to verify that this was in fact HIS OWN WORDS.

“-- Barry Davis (barrydavis@coonrapidschristian.org), August 17, 2001.”

So, his position was clear and did not become “unclear” even in Brother Davis’ point of view until he could not answer the arguments presented against his pathetically false position, now did it? And he made a challenge for us to find where he had either stated or implied that a person could be saved without being baptized for the remission of sins. We found it in his own words where he not only stated it but also implied it as well. And that is what Brother Davis has said with his own words. If he does not believe it why does he not just come back in here and simply admit that he misrepresented himself with the words that he used and simply state unequivocally that he believes that unless one is baptized for the remission of sins he cannot go to heaven? The reason he will not do that is because he does not want us to believe that one must be baptized for the remission of sins in order to be saved. And therefore we are correct in saying that Brother Davis does not believe that one must be baptized for the remission of sins in order to be saved. And his own words stand as a testimony, even in their context, that Brother Davis has not only implied this but he has clearly stated it as well. His words again were as follows:

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

They can be found in the thread entitled “Repentance and baptism for the remission of sins” and the date of the post was as follows:

“-- Barry Davis (barrydavis@coonrapidschristian.org), August 17, 2001.”

As I stated before go read the entire context in that thread and you will not find a single word in the context of his post that would controvert what Brother Davis clearly stated and emphatically implied what he believes about baptism as follows:

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

Therefore Brethren we owe him no apology for he is still deliberately trying to deceive. And we have offered evidence, which clearly demonstrates his position and anyone can see that if he has been misrepresented at all he has misrepresented himself. But the truth is that he has not even misrepresented himself. In fact, he has inadvertently actually represented the truth concerning what he actually believes but he has done it with far more force than he intended and now he cannot “back away from it” or find a way to escape what he has said. It is quite humorous to observe how false teachers, who normally take the time to provide a way of escape in their words so that they cannot be held strictly to them. And then to observe them when they become “bold” enough to speak their true beliefs in such a way that they cannot escape from their words. And then to watch them trying to help one another extricate themselves from their pathetic false doctrine. Especially when their own words spoken clearly leaves them no alternative but to either cry “fowl” and “misrepresentation” or accept the fact that their doctrines are clearly contrary to the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we were not dealing with the souls of men this would be hilarious!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001