This question hasn't gotten much play in the thread where it was originally asked, so I'll try again. Your reflections, please, on the following:

Since the New Testament wasn't gathered together for a couple of hundred years, and anyone who read any of it until then only read parts, or A part, of it, then what would be the "salvation status" (best guess, given that we're not God) of a man who had been given a copy of the gospel of John, which says nothing about the "salvation sequence" and all that we believe is involved, but who reads the passage that says, "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." Could such a man have read these things and believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing, had life in His name?

-- Anonymous, January 18, 2002

Answers

Sam...

What's the point of your question?? What does it matter....since we do now, and have had since 150 A.D. the completed New Testament??

-- Anonymous, January 18, 2002

Sam...

You stated...."but I could give you thirty right back, from some of the most conservative Church of Christ scholars you could hope for, explaining why it may not be."

I'd be interested in that list. I have two advance degrees in church history and theology and have never read a "conservative Church of Christ" scholar who does not see a reference to baptism in Jesus's discussion with Nicodemus. So....if what you are saying is true....in order to be a good historian....I need to read those references.

Now....I can provide you with a list of a minimum of 30 Baptist scholars who don't see baptism in John 3!!

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2002

Sam....

Fair enough!

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2002

Sam.....you asked.....

"From your understanding, at what point in his life do his writings begin to represent his "final conclusions"? I do not care to quote the man out of context, or from before he finished thinking things thru. As far as dates of writing, when can we be certain we are seeing what he finally settled on as truth?"

I think it would be historically inaccurate to characterize any of the conclusions of the Restoration fathers as "final conclusions." It appears to be more accurate to represent their thinking as "evolving."

As per Thomas.....people often cite the "Declaration and Address" as the epitomy of Restoration thinking and the final word. Far from the truth.

In just one area, let me explain. When Thomas wrote the D & A he was convinced that Christendom was ONLY seprated by "matters of opinion"...therefore, all that was needed was a "reformation from within." Interestingly....in the early part of the movement...it was viewed as a "reformation."

However, as time went on.....and the Baptist kindly asked the reformers to leave....it became clear to the Campbell's that Christendom was not just divided over matters of opinion...but rather....matters of doctrine, faith, and practice.

As a result of this conclusion...he realized that "reformation could not take place within"....but "restoration" would have to take place from without.

In other words....much of what Thomas wrote early in his life in the D & A....he had to admit was wrong.

As per Alexander.....for instance in his earlier writings he was vehemently opposed to the idea of "paying the preacher." By the way...an easy proposition to uphold by someone who married a millionaire!! (ha)

Anyway....towards the end of his life....he came to conclude exactly what the Scriptures do....that the "laborer is worthy of his wages."

So...in susinct answer to your question Sam.....it would behoove us to always look at what these men were saying towards the end of their lives.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2002

Ditto to what Danny said!

But even if someone back then only had John's Gospel in hand; we cannot suppose they never heard the full version of the Gospel. Afterall, they had something we now lack because of the lack of written material back then. They had people with the special gifts of the Spirit to help guide them in what they needed to know.

But in the long run it's "six of one, half dozen of another". What really matters for us is the here & now - what do WE teach as the plan of Salvation?

-- Anonymous, January 18, 2002

Why do you need to dissect "the point" of my question? Why do you need to assume that my question has a "point"? Maybe we could just see questions as questions, and answer them.

How 'bout it?

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2002

Brother Lovall:

You have said:

“This question hasn't gotten much play in the thread where it was originally asked, so I'll try again.”

Your question, as stated in the previous thread was as follows:

“Since the New Testament wasn't gathered together for a couple of hundred years, and anyone who read any of it until then only read parts, or A part, of it, then what would be the "salvation status" (best guess, given that we're not God) of a man who had been given a copy of the gospel of John, which says nothing about baptism being in the salvation sequence, but who reads the passage that says, "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." Could such a man have believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing, had life in His name?”

And we shall therefore respond to it so that you will not feel that it has been deliberately neglected.

First you say:

“Since the New Testament wasn't gathered together for a couple of hundred years, and anyone who read any of it until then only read parts, or A part, of it,”

The teachings of the gospel, the truth, were long spread throughout the world verbally and that by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in inspired men. “For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;” (Col. 1:5). And again, “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;” (Col. 1:23). So that the gospel existed and accomplished its great work of converting men to Christ our Lord before and without being written down for the benefit of future generations who did not have inspiration. There may have been but few inspired books completed during this time but there were plenty of inspired MEN who were teaching the gospel of Christ. You are forgetting that what we have in the inspired BOOK today was first in INSPIRED MEN. A person living during the time when inspired apostles and those upon whom they laid their hands taught the gospel to the whole world did not need a copy of the New Testament to learn the gospel. All he needed was to hear the teaching of inspired men who could “confirm with signs following” that the Lord had sent them. (Mark 16:16-20; Heb. 2:3,4) And plenty of such men existed during those days. And these inspired men knew that this period of inspiration and miraculous signs was temporary (1 Cor. 13:8-13; Eph. 4:11-16). And would cease and by inspiration recorded the inspired truth that they taught for following generations that would not have any inspired men or any miraculous signs to confirm that what they taught was from God. So, a person who heard the gospel during those days heard it from inspired men of which there were plenty and therefore they were not dependent upon the INSPIRED record of the teaching of these inspired men as we are today. Thus, this inspired record being written down and collected for future generations by inspiration of the Holy Spirit was hardly essential to the conversion of anyone during the time when the world had inspired men teaching the gospel and confirming with miracles that it was from God. Read the following scriptures: (Mark 16:16- 20; Heb. 2:3,4).

But you continue to say:

“then what would be the "salvation status" (best guess, given that we're not God) of a man who had been given a copy of the gospel of John, which says nothing about baptism being in the salvation sequence, but who reads the passage that says, "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." Could such a man have believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing, had life in His name?”

Well, in the time period that you speak of it is not likely that a man would simply be given a copy of the gospel of John and nothing more in an attempt to teach him. In fact, I do sincerely doubt that he would be given a copy of John’s gospel until he was first taught the gospel and was converted to Christ. And if our examples that we have from the New Testament are indicative of how the gospel was preached during that time then handing out copies of the gospel of John was not how it was done, now is it? Read the preaching of Philip to the eunuch. He began at the same scripture (Isaiah 53) and preached unto him Jesus and as a result of hearing Phillip preach nothing but Jesus when they came upon a certain water he said “see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized?” And this shows that baptism was an integral part of the gospel preached by these inspired men. And a copy of the gospel of John was not essential to the conversion of any one during that time. In fact, the entire New Testament was being revealed to the minds of men who preached the gospel with the HOLY SPIRIT sent down from heaven. (Heb. 2:,3,4) And it was “confirmed unto us by them that HEARD HIM” (Heb. 2:3,4). And it was the LORD who was working with them in such teaching in a direct and miraculous way so as to CONFIRM that their words were from God. (Mark 16:16-20). So, the situation that you describe would not have ever occurred during that time and therefore is a useless contemplation. Why on earth would an inspired man who was receiving the revelation of what to say when he needed to say it simply hand someone a copy of an inspired text when he was himself an ISPIRED MAN.

Your assumption is that the gospel recorded by John was essential for one to be converted during the time when men could hear with their own ears the actual teaching of the “apostle of Love”! Can you just see it? The gospel was recorded and confirmed to be from God because the time was coming when the entire will of God would be completely revealed and CONFIRMED by miraculous powers in inspired men and there would be no more revelations and certainly no more confirmations of such revelations. And therefore we need these inspired and confirmed words today so that the gospel can be taught accurately. And we do have them, all of them and they cover the “whole counsel of God on these matters. Thus, your hypothetical is not only absurd but its purpose is a feeble attempt to make it appear that “believing” in the sense of nothing more than “mental asset” and acceptance of the facts of the gospel would save a person without obedience to the gospel. But even the gospel of John denies this nonsense. For it gives examples of persons who believed (or gave mental assent to the truth) but were not saved. Read this from the gospel of John: “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12:42, 43). If anyone read this he would see that simply believing without confessing Christ would not save a man. But, if one read this book without engaging his mind as our Brother Lovall has done he surely would not be saved because he would not understand a thing that he read!

In fact, since we are responding to your extremely unlikely hypothetical situation let us just imagine that it was the apostle John himself who presented this person of whom you speak with a copy of his gospel. Does it seem in the least bit likely that this great inspired apostle would have stood there like an absolute idiot and just let the man do the best he could to derive the truth of the gospel from his book? Rather than simply preaching the gospel to him, converting him to Christ and then giving him a copy of the inspired gospel so that he could remember it and could teach it to others? Most likely, however, what the apostle would lay hands upon him and he too would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit so that he too would be inspired of God and guided directly by the Holy Spirit in his teaching until the entire word of God was recorded. But it is absolutely impossible that any person who was not converted to Christ would have during that time been given a “copy of the gospel of John” with the hope that he might read it and be converted solely by it.

But then there is also the false assumption that no one could have learned about baptism from John’s gospel. But let us see if that nonsense, which is implied by the following words from Brother Lovall is even remotely true: Brother Lovall has said:

“what would be the "salvation status" (best guess, given that we're not God) of a man who had been given a copy of the gospel of John, which says nothing about baptism being in the salvation sequence,”

Well, let us just think about it and read from Jon’s gospel to see if Brother Lovall’s nonsense is even close to the truth.

For John’s gospel begins, in the very first chapter to teach that the coming Christ would baptize and it even shows the example of Christ himself being baptized. And it even has Jesus Christ teaching the truth about how essential it was to be “born of water and the spirit” in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Lets just read a few passages of what would be the very first things one would read if all he had were a copy of the gospel of John:

“And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” (John 1: 25-34).

And then in the third chapter of John this person would read:

“There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:1-5).

And further in the third Chapter he would read:

“After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between [some] of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all [men] come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.” (John 3:22-27).

SO, there is little doubt that a person reading the gospel of John would have any real trouble learning that Christ was baptizing people and that all men were coming to him to be baptized and that was in WATER. And he would have little trouble, since he would not be plagued by the many false doctrines prevalent in our day to prejudice him against being baptized to see the connection between baptism and entrance into the kingdom of God. SO, when Brother Lovall suggest that “the gospel of John, which says nothing about baptism being in the salvation sequence,” he speaks from either a woeful unintentional ignorance of the gospel of John or a deliberate ignorance of that gospel. But in either case his question has by some means whether intentional or otherwise overlooked the important fact that baptism and its connection to “salvation” which is in the Kingdom of God has not been neglected in the gospel of John! In fact, it is among the very first things that one learns from the gospel of John. Now, that is indeed interesting, isn’t it? And I am appalled to see such ignorance of the word of God among those who should know better! In fact, it is just plain pathetic and sickening, isn’t it? That one who would purport to be a preacher of the gospel of Christ should be so ignorant of the gospel of John as if to think that his gospel is different from the gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And that it was so different as to leave out “baptism” while the others put it in is just shameful. Now brethren, if you are this ignorant of the word of God it is time for you to take stock of what you are doing. And wake up and pick up your Bibles and pray that God will not let you stop reading until you have read it all at least once. A person who says what Brother Lovall has said here could only have done so by not making thoughtful, prayerful reading of the word of God a daily habit! And anyone this ignorant of God’s word should be ashamed to pretend to be one who is a preacher of it!

His contention that one would even attempt to convert lost men during the days of inspired teachers simply by giving them a copy of the gospel of John, which would be indeed a precious document at that time is ridiculous. It shows that he has forgotten what the scriptures says concerning how men were converted by inspired preachers of the gospel and why the gospel was recorded in the first place. And he deliberately ignores the teaching of the gospel of John on the subject of what is meant by “believing”. Obedience to Christ is the measure of faith in Christ. We are saved by faith TRULY but we are not saved by faith ONLY. (John 3:36;James 2:23,24). And he ignores the simple truth that the gospel is the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). And that those who do not “obey the gospel” WILL BE PUNISHED with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power”! (2 Thess. 1:8,9). No pathetic and feeble hypothetical and far fetched scenario imagined by the minds of men who are constantly in search to find exceptions to God’s word in this matter is ever going to save one single person. For God has made his will clear and easy to understand. And I highly recommend that Brother Lovall and others who are this ignorant of God’s word read his word. And cease attempting to pervert the gospel of Christ by teaching men that they can in some way make an excuse that is acceptable to God for not “obeying the gospel” so that he will saved them without such obedience simply by “faith only”. For that doctrine is false to its very core and all that teach it are liars. But God’s word is forever the truth. And it is clear that those who do not obey the gospel will be punished! (2 Thess. 1:8,9) And it is clear that Christ is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY him. (Luke 6:46; Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21-23). So, do not allow these men who are constantly speculating in this way deceive you into thinking that you can “escape” by “neglecting this great salvation” for the illusion of salvation by faith only! For you will not do so no matter what they imagine, theorize, and hypothetically conjure up for you to think about instead of the teaching of God’s word. These men would allow you to be lost eternally just so long as they can get acceptance for their theories which teach contrary to the truth revealed in God’s inspired word. Beware of such men, my beloved and precious friends. It is your soul that is at stake. Shall you trust men like Brother Lovall to your eternal destiny or shall you trust the teaching of Christ through the inspired apostles of Christ? It is your choice. Be sure that God will hold you accountable for the choice that you make.

But notice how the gospel was preached during the period when men were inspired of God and how persons were converted while revelation and confirmation of the word of God was in progress:

“For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. “ (1 Thess. 1:5).

Now, since your original question, Brother Lovall, was the same as the one your are asking in this thread because it did not receive the attention that you wanted it to receive I will stop just here. But, the reason that I did not give it any attention in the previous thread was because I was simply embarrassed to have to again be the one to point out such shameful ignorance of the word of God. But since you insist that we respond by implying that we were for some reason neglecting to answer you then I simply had no other choice. Brother Lovall, if you were not ignorant of the teaching of the gospel of John you would not have asked this question. It is that simple.

But as to your ultimate question and what appears to be a feeble attempt on your part to imply that one can be saved without being baptized into Christ and thereby being obedient to the gospel according to he teaching of the New Testament you ask the following:

“Could such a man have read these things and believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing, had life in His name?”

By which you mean to ask whether such a one could he simply be "saved by FAITH ONLY" without ever obeying the gospel of Christ pure and simple!

No man can truly and effectively believe in Christ if he does not OBEY Christ. The following Scriptures make this clear from even the gospel of JOHN. “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36). If he believed by obeying the teachings of Christ to be “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3-5) he would be saved for that is the only way that anyone can believe in Christ. If you mean by this question, could he be saved by “believing alone” in the sense of merely giving nothing more than mental assent to the things that Christ taught in the gospel of John. But not taking any practical steps to obey that teaching to be “born of water and the spirit” and to be baptized as was Christ and all others who came to him. Then the answer is clearly NO! And James, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit makes this abundantly clear when he says, “ye see then how that by works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY” (James 2:24). And this is not based upon a “best guess since we are not God” as you sought us to base our response upon. But instead it is based upon the very revelation of God, who is in fact GOD, in his word including the teaching of the inspired book of John one of the “Sons of Thunder” who became the great Apostle of LOVE.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2002

Brethren:

In my above post please make the following correction to a typographical error:

Where it reads:

“For John’s gospel begins, in the very first chapter to teach that the coming Christ would baptize and it even shows the example of Christ himself being baptized.”

It should have read:

“For John’s gospel begins, in the very first chapter to teach that the coming Christ would baptize and it even ALLUDES to the example of Christ himself being baptized.

For the book of John does not go into the details of Christ baptism as my intial words would have implied. My point was that much was said connecting Christ with baptism and by Christ about baptism and its connection to salvation in the Kingdom of God. (John 3-3-5 and the other verses that I quoted verbatim in the above).

Thank you for making the correction. I was writing a fast as I could and this causes errors such as this to be made. Please make the correction as I have requested.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2002

Mr. Saffold:

There was a time when I valued your presence on this board. I enjoyed reading some of what you wrote; I defended you against some wicked attacks; I stood up for you when others tried to knock you down; I tried to help you with the way you wrote your replies, to make them more easily read and understood. I thought it was good that you were involved here, and I looked forward to interacting with you.

That time is long gone. Somehow, even though I haven't changed any doctrinal stance that I've held since I started here, you have decided that I . . . well, let's go through your reply, Mr. Saffold, and tote up the things you have to say about me.

[Saffold: "Your assumption is that the gospel recorded by John was essential for one to be converted during the time when men could hear with their own ears the actual teaching of the “apostle of Love”!]

You have no idea what my assumption was or is. Do not presume to speak my mind, unless you are ready to claim some supernatural spiritual gift by which God enables you to do so.

[Saffold: Thus, your hypothetical is not only absurd but its purpose is a feeble attempt to make it appear that “believing” in the sense of nothing more than “mental asset” and acceptance of the facts of the gospel would save a person without obedience to the gospel. ]

Again, you have no idea what my purpose was or is. You can spend a lifetime reading thru the posts in these archives, and you will never, ever find me saying anything like that. Do not presume to speak my mind, sir, unless God gives you special "revelation knowledge", as some today call it.

[Saffold: But, if one read this book without engaging his mind as our Brother Lovall has done he surely would not be saved because he would not understand a thing that he read!]

You accuse me of reading without thinking, because you can make up out of whole cloth an argument from me which, in fact, I did not make and have not made. Perhaps you should inquire into what I might be thinking sometime. I can give you a much better idea of my thought process than any you can come up with on your own.

In fact, it is my opinion that your writing shows much more evidence of reading without thinking, since you spend so much time answering arguments that haven't even been made.

[Saffold: Brother Lovall’s nonsense]

First, try some reading with thinking yourself, Mr. Saffold. My name has an "e" in it. I know you were in a hurry and all that, but you could at least try.

Second, your assessment of "nonsense" for the idea that John doesn't talk about baptism being in the "salvation sequence" is in itself nonsense. The fact is that John DOESN'T deal with baptism in a salvation aspect. You give three examples. None of them fit the bill. You speak of John the Baptizer. But his baptism had nothing to do with salvation. John's baptism was one of repentence and a resetting of the mind. In Acts 19, we find believers who had undergone the baptism of John being instructed to be baptized into Christ, and they were. Clearly, John's baptism had nothing to do with any kind of "salvation sequence".

Second, you refer to Nicodemus, and Jesus' instruction to him. Jesus' words may or may not have referred to the water baptism presented by the apostles in the book of Acts. I tend to think that it has SOMETHING to do with it, but the issue is far from settled. I'm sure you can give me a thirty paragraph explanation of why you think it does refer to the baptism found in Acts, but I could give you thirty right back, from some of the most conservative Church of Christ scholars you could hope for, explaining why it may not be. But still, Jesus is not giving Nicodemus complete instruction or explanation on how to be saved.

Third, you speak of Jesus baptizing. Two things. If you look a bit further, into the beginning of chapter 4, you will see that it is not Jesus himself who was baptizing, but his disciples who were doing so. One may say, "Well, fine, Jesus wasn't doing it himself, but they were doing it at his instruction." Okay, I can agree with that. But secondly, and more importantly, Jesus was just beginning his ministry. and his ministry was NOT about telling people how to get saved, as far as "how to do it". He left that for the beginning of the church three Pentecosts later. It is generally understood that the baptism being performed by Jesus' disciples was much the same as JOhn's baptism, one of repentance. Jesus left it for his followers to be filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost before the gospel of salvation was completely preached.

So, I say again, John in writing his gospel does nothing to place baptism in to the "salvation sequence". HEAR ME SAY THIS, MR. SAFFOLD -- That doesn't mean that baptism isn't in that sequence: it just means that the gospel writers didn't describe that sequence. That wasn't what they were trying to do. It is nonsense to say otherwise.

[Saffold: SO, when Brother Lovall suggest that “the gospel of John, which says nothing about baptism being in the salvation sequence,” he speaks from either a woeful unintentional ignorance of the gospel of John or a deliberate ignorance of that gospel.]

I've just shown that that is not the case.

[Saffold: And I am appalled to see such ignorance of the word of God among those who should know better! In fact, it is just plain pathetic and sickening, isn’t it? That one who would purport to be a preacher of the gospel of Christ should be so ignorant of the gospel of John as if to think that his gospel is different from the gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And that it was so different as to leave out “baptism” while the others put it in is just shameful. Now brethren, if you are this ignorant of the word of God it is time for you to take stock of what you are doing. And wake up and pick up your Bibles and pray that God will not let you stop reading until you have read it all at least once. A person who says what Brother Lovall has said here could only have done so by not making thoughtful, prayerful reading of the word of God a daily habit! And anyone this ignorant of God’s word should be ashamed to pretend to be one who is a preacher of it!]

I've shown that I am not ignorant of the Word. And I do make thoughtful, prayerful reading of the word a daily habit. But according to you I don't, and according to you I am a "pretend" preacher. For never having met me, you sure seem to know a lot about me. Maybe it's that special revelation knowledge thing working again. You certainly couldn't know any other way. But I, unlike you, won't make a direct claim to know your mind or how God works with you.

[Saffold: His contention that one would even attempt to convert lost men during the days of inspired teachers simply by giving them a copy of the gospel of John, which would be indeed a precious document at that time is ridiculous.]

There is no such contention in my original question. You misrepresent it, as will be plainly seen simply by going up and reading it again. If you can't read and address what is actually written, then you have no business answering.

[Saffold: And he deliberately ignores the teaching of the gospel of John on the subject of what is meant by “believing”.]

And now, in spite of the fact that I said nothing to so indicate, you categorically declare what I am ignoring. You claim to know my mind again, and to read my intentions. Hogwash.

[Saffold: And I highly recommend that Brother Lovall and others who are this ignorant of God’s word read his word. And cease attempting to pervert the gospel of Christ by teaching men that they can in some way make an excuse that is acceptable to God for not “obeying the gospel” so that he will saved them without such obedience simply by “faith only”.]

Now I am ignorant of God's word. And I am attempting to pervert the gospel by declaring a "faith only" position. A reading of the question shows no such thing.

[Saffold: But as to your ultimate question and what appears to be a feeble attempt on your part to imply that one can be saved without being baptized into Christ and thereby being obedient to the gospel according to he teaching of the New Testament you ask the following: “Could such a man have read these things and believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing, had life in His name?” By which you mean to ask whether such a one could he simply be "saved by FAITH ONLY" without ever obeying the gospel of Christ pure and simple!]

By which I mean to ask? Why is it, Mr. Saffold, that you are unable to discuss a topic or answer a question without assuming that you understand the motives, intentions and hidden meanings of the one asking? What have I ever said in these discussions to indicate that I take such a doctrinal position?

Sir, you wrong me. You speak viciously of me with no reason. You make incorrect assumptions and then give slanderous declarations and misreprentations about my understanding, motivations and intentions. This kind of writing has no place in these forums. Your writing in this way is the very reason I have begun to take long sabbaticals from these forums. You haven't done it to me much before this, but I wearied of your abuse of others whose views you misrepresent and whose integrity you malign.

And then I was amazed. Your final paragraph was, in fact, the very kind of discussion I was looking for on this question. It addressed the question at hand, it sought to clarify what the question actually was, it gave biblical support for your answer, and it did not give personal attack and slander. It was a good paragraph. If you had started and ended there, this would have been a pleasant interchange. I encourage anyone reading this far to go back and read your last paragraph again, and continue the discussion from there.

If you can continue in this last manner, then I will welcome your involvement. However, if you insist on continuing in your usual manner, then I respectfully request that you stay away from this thread, and any other which I may start.

Your brother, whether you really believe it or not,

Sam Loveall

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2002

Brother Loveall:

You have said:

“Mr. Saffold: There was a time when I valued your presence on this board.”

There has never been a time when I was concerned whether you or anyone else “valued” my presence on this board. What I am seeking is that persons value the truth of the gospel of Christ on this board regardless of who is teaching it.

Then you say:

“I enjoyed reading some of what you wrote;”

I am glad to know it.

“ I defended you against some wicked attacks;”

I do not need your “defense” of myself. Instead I would appreciate anyone taking the time to “defend the gopspel of Christ” from those who would pervert it and I have not seen you do much of that lately.

Then you say:

“ I stood up for you when others tried to knock you down;”

Again I do not need for anyone to “stand up for me” I can stand firm without your help since I am standing upon the solid foundation of the truth as taught by Jesus Christ the son of God. And none have succeeded thus far in “knocking me down” from that solid foundation and none will succeed in doing such with or without your “help”. But, I would certainly be very happy to see you stand up for Christ and the truth taught by him at any time. But standing up for me is not something that is needed not is it anything that I have ever requested of you or anyone else in this forum. And you will never see me making any such request either. For I do not need not deserve any defense. The truth of the gospel of Christ is what needs to be defended and that is what I am here to defend and if you wish to join in with defending that truth then you are surely welcome to do so. But defending E. Lee Saffold is not something that I request, need nor welcome.

Then you say:

“ I tried to help you with the way you wrote your replies, to make them more easily read and understood.”

My replies are very easily read and clearly understood and your help therefore in that mater was not needed either. Now, while what I write is easily read and understood it is despised because the truth is not appreciated by those who reject it.

Then you say:

“I thought it was good that you were involved here, and I looked forward to interacting with you.”

Well, it is your choice whether you wish to “interact” with me or not. And you are welcome to your opinions concerning whether it is good for me to be on this board or not. And it is meaningless to me just what you opinion concerning that matter might be for it is certain that your opinion is not likely to remain the same in either case.

Then you say:

“That time is long gone.” And I thank God for it. For these platitudes are useless if one is not going to stanfd firm for the truth of the gospel of Christ.

Then you say:

“ Somehow, even though I haven't changed any doctrinal stance that I've held since I started here, you have decided that I . . . well, let's go through your reply, Mr. Saffold, and tote up the things you have to say about me.”

Ok, Let us just do that.

Then you accurately quote my words as follows:

“[Saffold: "Your assumption is that the gospel recorded by John was essential for one to be converted during the time when men could hear with their own ears the actual teaching of the “apostle of Love”!”

To which you reply:

“You have no idea what my assumption was or is.”

If you meant what you said in the post to which I was replying I most certianly do know the assumptions that are indicated by what you said. For you asked, “…a man who had been given a copy of the gospel of John, which says nothing about baptism being in the salvation sequence, …Could such a man have believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing, had life in His name?” Now, with these words you leave the impression that it may be possible that a person could be saved without being baptized. Because he had only a copy of the gospel of John to teach him and that such was the only way he could have had information about what to do to be saved and it says nothing about baptism and its connection to salvation. And that position as stated by you is filled with assumptions of which the one I mentioned is only one.

Then you say:

“Do not presume to speak my mind, unless you are ready to claim some supernatural spiritual gift by which God enables you to do so.” You cannot prove that I have ever presumed to “speak your mind” and you certianly have not proven it in this case. The truth is that YOU spoke your mind about this matter and in doing so you stated facts that you assumed to be true which were not in fact true at all. Your hypothetical situation which you presented in its intirety is based upon the “assumption” that such could have ever occurred. SO, you spoke you mind and indicated by your words that you assumed much that you did not take the time to establish was even possible. And it does not take one with a spiritual gift to see it.

Then you again accurately quote my words as follows:

“[Saffold: Thus, your hypothetical is not only absurd but its purpose is a feeble attempt to make it appear that “believing” in the sense of nothing more than “mental asset” and acceptance of the facts of the gospel would save a person without obedience to the gospel. ]”

TO which you reply:

“Again, you have no idea what my purpose was or is..”

Yes I do. For your question was whether a person who had been given a copy of the Gospel of John, which you asserted without proof did not in any way connect baptism with salvation could be saved by “believing”. And if it were not your purpose to set up a senario wherein a person could have been saved without being baptized because all of the information that he had was the gospel of John which, according to you does not teach that baptism is in the “salvation sequence” then you surely expressed the opposite of what you intended to express. And if that is the case why did you not just “correct” me. In fact, I would really like to see just how it is that you were intending to teach a person cannot be saved by “believing” without being baptized. For that was surely not your purpose now was it?

Then you say:

“You can spend a lifetime reading thru the posts in these archives, and you will never, ever find me saying anything like that.”

Well, Brother that is exactly what you were saying by the words that you used. If it was not why do you not explain how it is that you words could have been construed to teach that one could learn from the gospel of John that he must be batized in order to be saved. For you most certianly did state that one could not learn from John’s gospel that he must be baptized to be saved. And we proved otherwise. One does not have to go to the archives to find you saying it. All he need do is read THIS THREAD.

Then you say:

“Do not presume to speak my mind, sir, unless God gives you special "revelation knowledge", as some today call it.”

Again, I have not “presummed to sppeak your mind and you have not proven that I have. I have instead responded to YOUR speaking of your mind and one does not have to have a special spiritual gift to do that, now does he?

Then you accurately quote me as saying:

“[Saffold: But, if one read this book without engaging his mind as our Brother Lovall has done he surely would not be saved because he would not understand a thing that he read!]”

“You accuse me of reading without thinking, because you can make up out of whole cloth an argument from me which, in fact, I did not make and have not made.”

I do accurately accuse you of reading without thinking. For anyone who reads the first and third chapters of John and cannot see that Christ connects baptism to salvation in the kingdom of God is not “thinking”. And you do not prove that I made anything up from “whole cloth”. I am examining the “cloth” that you manufactured with your ridiculous hypothetical situation and your false assertion that the gospel of John does not connect baptism with salvation.

Then you say:

“Perhaps you should inquire into what I might be thinking sometime.”

There is no need to “inquire” what one is thinking when his words indicate a complete lack of though behaind the words that were written. And when one says as you did that the gospel of John does not “mention baptism in the salvation sequence” he either is not thinking when he says it or he is not thinking when he reads the gospel of John. For we have shown conclusively that baptism is mentioned in connection with salvation in the Kingdom of God. (John 3:3-5).

Then you say:

“I can give you a much better idea of my thought process than any you can come up with on your own.”

Good, then why did n’t you do that instead of stating something without telling us your “thought process”? Especially since, if you were thinking, you would have known that John’s gospel does mention baptism in connection with the “salvation sequence”. And I notice that even after stating that you could give us a “better idea” of you thought process that you fail to even attempt to do so!

Then you say:

“In fact, it is my opinion that your writing shows much more evidence of reading without thinking, since you spend so much time answering arguments that haven't even been made.”

Well, this is a fine assertion but where is the proof of it? I have responded to your own words, word by word, wherein you definitely argued that the gospel of John does not mention baptism in the salvation sequence. Now that was an argument that you made and we responded to it.

Then you again accurately quote me as follows:

“[Saffold: Brother Lovall’s nonsense]”

First, try some reading with thinking yourself, Mr. Saffold. My name has an "e" in it. I know you were in a hurry and all that, but you could at least try.”

I apologize for not spelling your name right and thus far that is the only error you have found in anything that I have said to you. And I made that error in the same way that you made your error concerning the gospel of John. I was not thinking when I spelled your name just as you were not thinking when you asserted that John’s gospel does not mention baptism in the salvation sequence. Now, I have corrected my error in spelling your name by taking time to think about it’s spelling. Maybe you will correct your error by taking time to think about what you read when you read the gospel of John.

Then you say:

“Second, your assessment of "nonsense" for the idea that John doesn't talk about baptism being in the "salvation sequence" is in itself nonsense.”

Well, that is a fine assertion but where is the proof of it.

Then you say:

“The fact is that John DOESN'T deal with baptism in a salvation aspect.”

Oh, yes it does. All one need do is read John 3:3-5 which clearly shows that one who is not “born of water and the Spirit CANNOT ENTER THE KINDOM OF GOD wherein SALVATION resides.

Then you say:

“ You give three examples. None of them fit the bill.”

Yes I gave three examples and ALL OF THEM FIT THE BILL.

Then you say:

“You speak of John the Baptizer. But his baptism had nothing to do with salvation.”

I cannot believe how many of you are so ignorant as to teach falsely that the baptism of John “had nothing to do with salvation”! We have had to explain this so many times to this forum it is becoming ridiculous in itself! Please go read your Bible. But for your benefit we will explain this truth yet one more time.

First of all there is a significant fact stated at the birth of John the Baptist when his father, by the direction of the Angel of God gave him the name, “John”. At that time his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied saying: “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,” (Luke 1:76,77). Now notice that Zacharias by inspiration of the Holy Spirit tells us that John was going to: 1. Be a prophet of the Highest 2. That he would go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways

And that the purpose of his doing this would be to “give KNOWLEDGE OF SALVATION unto his people BY THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS”. SO, john’s purpose as a prophet of the highest was to prepare the way of the Lord to give knowledge of SALVATION unto his people by the REMISSION OF THEIR SINS. So, it would perfectly be in harmony with John’s purpose and mission for him to preach a “baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4).

So, in fulfillment of the Prophecy of Zacharias it is said, “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). And again Luke records, “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;” (luke 3:2,3).

Now, if these scriptures do not prove, beyond the possibility of even respectable quibble, that John’s Baptism came from GOD and that it was a “baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins, then we do not know how language can be shaped capable of proving that fact!

Notice that it Luke says that the “WORD OF THE LORD” came to John and then John “came into all the region around Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And according to Zachrias’ prophecy this is what he would do and that it would be connected with giving the people knowledge of SALVATION. And this makes good sense because when one receives the remission of sins he is then saved from the consequence of sin isn’t he?

And the Phrase “for the remission of sins” in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 is the same Greek phrase that is found in Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38. That Phrase is “eis aphesin harmartion” in all four places. The word “eis” is a preposition that always looks forward and never looks back. It means, according to Thayer’s Greek English lexicon, as well as all other reputable and accepted Greek Lexicons of the New Testament, “for, unto or inorder to obtain”. Now let us read them beginning with Matthew where Christ is talking about the purpose of his shed blood in relation to the Lord’s Supper.

“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:28). There it is folks that same Phrase “eis aphesin harmartion”.

Here Jesus is saying that his blood was shed for many “eis” in order to obtain the remission of sins.

Now let us read Acts 2:38 concerning Baptism in the name of Christ. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38). Now here again we have the phrase, “eis aphesin harmation” In order to the remission of sins. So, baptism in the name of Chrst was as much in order to the remission of sins as was the blood of Christ. Then we have Mark 1:4, ““John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). And again we see this same phrase in the Greek, as well as the English, “eis apesin harmartion” for or in order to obtain the remission of sins. So John’s baptism was as much in order to obtain remission of sins as was the blood of Christ, and baptism in the name of Christ. If not why not?

Now let us read Luke 3:3 “And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;” (Luke 3:3). Again we have exactly the same Phrase “eis aphesin harmation” For or in order to obtain remission of sins”. And again John’s baptism was as much for the remission of sins as was the blood of Christ and baptism in the name of Christ after Christ raised from the dead and began to be preached to the world. So, the baptism of John was “for the remission of sins”. And no one who believes the word of God can doubt it. That is a fact.

Then the apostle Paul, on giving a brief overview of the history of Isreal and the prophecies that were being fulfilled among them spoke of baptism of John in these words. “ Of this man's seed hath God according to [his] promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not [he]. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of [his] feet I am not worthy to loose. Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.” (Acts 13:23-26).

And thus John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance “eis aphesin harmation” in order to obtain the remissionof sisns. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). And let us not forget that sin is what men needed to be saved from and the phrase “remission of sin” and “Salvation from sin” are speaking of the same thing. And this is what Paul also said concerning the Baptism of John. He said, “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” (Acts 19:4). Therefore the Baptism of John was a “baptism of repentance” and it was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). And thus when John was “preparing a people for the Lord he was baptizing them for the remission of sins so that these people could be pure and clean from sin in preparation for the time when the gospel would go forth from Jerusalem on their lips. (Acts 1:8).

And the apostles were taken from this class as is seen from the following passage concerning the selection of one to take the place of Judas who betrayed the Lord. “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:20-26). So, these were the “people prepared for the Lord”. But what was involved in their preparation. The forgiveness of their sins was a part of their preparation. They were a people who had been cleansed of their sins by repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4). That is how they were prepared for the Lord. Sinful men who were yet in their sins could not have been a people properly prepared for the Lord and ready to preach the gospel of Christ which also required of men that they “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:

“John's baptism was one of repentence and a resetting of the mind. In Acts 19, we find believers who had undergone the baptism of John being instructed to be baptized into Christ, and they were. Clearly, John's baptism had nothing to do with any kind of "salvation sequence".”

Well, what we have said above is sufficent to refute that nonsense. But we will say, yet again, something concerning your words about Ephesians 19. There is no “IF” about the fact that those who repented and were baptized at John’s baptism received the remission of sins. For indeed, the scriptures say that John’s Baptism was a “baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins”. (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). Which would therefore make it abundantly clear to any thinking person that those who were baptized at John’s baptism received the remission of sins doesn’t it? And if they received the remission of their sins they were saved from them then were they not? And if they were “saved” from their sins then it would be true that John’s Baptism, because it was commanded of God procured salvation for them. And this also involved faith in Jesus Christ upon whom they were told to believe. (Acts 19:1-6). And after Christ died and was raised from the dead men were told to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 2:38; 8:35-40). And therefore the Baptism of John was no longer in effect since it had been superceded by baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38). But there were so many people that had been baptized at the baptism of John that were still teaching the baptism of John after Christ commanded baptism to be done in his name (Mark Matt. 28:19,20). Therefore there were some, who had been baptized in the baptism of John but not in the name of Jesus Christ as Christ commanded. These people had been baptized after the resurrection of Christ without being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. And therefore they needed to be baptized with the baptism of Christ because the baptism of John, which was not in effect anymore, was not in the name of Jesus Christ. And because it had no connection with the promise of the “gift of the Holy Spirit” which the converts would receive after they were baptized in Christ name and the apostles laid their hands upon them (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). And that is the reason they had to be baptized again. And such were those we read of in Acts 19:1-6. But not all of those who had been baptized in the baptism of John were required to be baptized again such as the apostles of Christ, and Men like Apollus. “And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:24-28). Nothing is said here of this man needing to be baptized again in the name of Jesus Christ. And it is very likely that he did not have to do such because of the same reason that the apostles had not need to do such, such as Mattais. They had been baptized in the baptism of John when it was in effect. And the others such as those in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-6) had been baptized in the baptism of John by men like apollus who were still teaching the baptism of John and administering it after Christ was raised from the dead and baptism in the name of Christ was God’s command. But to assume that because these men had to be baptized again that everyone, even those who had been baptized at the baptism of John when it was doing its authorized work of preparing a people for the Lord, had to be baptized again. And that this is because they did not receive the remission of sins as John the Baptist promised them is just a complete misunderstanding.

Then you say:

“Second, you refer to Nicodemus, and Jesus' instruction to him. Jesus' words may or may not have referred to the water baptism presented by the apostles in the book of Acts.”

There is not question to anyone reading these verses in the context of the entire chapter of John 3, as well as John chapter 1 and even Chapter 4 that Jesus was talking about baptism in water. And the simple fact that he could not have been talking about ANYTHING else when he mentioned WATER in connection with entrance into the Kingdom of God where one would be saved. Do tell us if he was not referring to baptism in connection with the new birth then what was he referring to?

Then you say:

“I tend to think that it has SOMETHING to do with it, but the issue is far from settled.”

Well, if you “tend” to think it had “something to do with it” then why did you say that it had “NOTHING to do with the salvation sequence” in the gospel of John? Was it because you were not THINKING?

Then you say:

“I'm sure you can give me a thirty paragraph explanation of why you think it does refer to the baptism found in Acts, but I could give you thirty right back, from some of the most conservative Church of Christ scholars you could hope for, explaining why it may not be. But still, Jesus is not giving Nicodemus complete instruction or explanation on how to be saved.”

I can give you proof that this verse is talking about baptism. But I would surely like to see you find thirty reputable scholars that teach anything other than that this verse is talking about baptism. I await that information. But you can rest assured that if you find thirty not a one of them will be members of the church of Christ.

Then you say:

“Third, you speak of Jesus baptizing. Two things. If you look a bit further, into the beginning of chapter 4, you will see that it is not Jesus himself who was baptizing, but his disciples who were doing so.”

I quoted the word of God so it was not me that was “speaking of Jesus Baptizing but the sciptures that so spoke. I will quote the verse again for your edification as follows: ““After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between [some] of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all [men] come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.” (John 3:22-27).

“When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)” (John 4:1,2).

And you will notice from the above passages that Jesus and John were working together in this baptizing this baptism was “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). So, it was connected to salvation clearly wasn’t it?

Then you say:

“One may say, "Well, fine, Jesus wasn't doing it himself, but they were doing it at his instruction." Okay, I can agree with that. But secondly, and more importantly, Jesus was just beginning his ministry. and his ministry was NOT about telling people how to get saved, as far as "how to do it".”

Again you are not paying attention to what the scriptures say. John came to prepare the way for Christ and he came to “give knowledge of SALVATION UNTO HIS PEOPLE.”

“And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,” (Luke 1:76,77).

And Jesus said, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. “ (Luke 19:10).

And anyone reading Christ words to Nicodemus and cannot see that Christ was teaching him HOW TO BE BORN AGAIN is just not thinking about what he is reading now is he? And is being born again essential to salvation? Yes it is. Therefore Christ was teaching Nicodemus how to be SAVED wasn’t he?

Then you say:

“He left that for the beginning of the church three Pentecosts later.”

And just what proof do you offer for that nonsense. When Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16) he was teaching men “HOW TO BE SAVED” wasn’t he? And that was before the “beginning of the church three pentecost later now wasn’t it? And John 3:3-5 teahing how one is to be born again was long before the beginning of the church on Pentecost wasn’t it?

Then you say:

“ It is generally understood that the baptism being performed by Jesus' disciples was much the same as JOhn's baptism, one of repentance. “

Indeed this is true and the bpatism of Joh was “for the remission of sins” just like baptism in the name of Christ was “for the remission of sins”. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4).

“Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;” (Luke 3:3)

So, indeed the “baptism being performed by Jesus’ disciples” was the same as John’s. It was FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS (eis apheisen harmartion) Just as baptism in the name of Christ on the day of Pentecost was “FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (eis aphesin harmartion). Just as surely as the blood of Christ was shed “FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (eis aphesin harmation). SO, you have simply proven that a person reading about baptism in the gospel of John would read about something called baptism that was connected to salvation haven’t you?

Then you say:

“Jesus left it for his followers to be filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost before the gospel of salvation was completely preached.”

Now that is a fine assertion but what proof do you offer from the word of God that would even remotely establish it to be the truth? Indeed, it was the beginning of the commission given by Christ to preach the gospel to the entire world and not to Jews only but it was by no means a lessor gospel prior top Pentecost than afterwards. And you cannot show a single passage from God’s word that teaches that your above statement is even near to the truth. And your above statement flies directly in the fact of the fact that John’s baptism and the baptism of Christ disciples was for the remission of sins. (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4; Jogn 3:22-27; John 4:1,2).

Then you say:

“So, I say again, John in writing his gospel does nothing to place baptism in to the "salvation sequence".”

And again you teach that which is contrary to the truth as we have demonstrated from the above quotations of scripture.

Then you say:

“HEAR ME SAY THIS, MR. SAFFOLD -- That doesn't mean that baptism isn't in that sequence: it just means that the gospel writers didn't describe that sequence. “

I heard you say it, Brother Loveall, but it is just plain WRONG of you to assert this without having a shred of proof that it is true. And, I am sure that you believe that bpatism is in the “sequence” of salvation but you are teaching that one could have heard the gospel of John without learning that baptism was that important and this is not true. And worse than that you have suggested that such a person might be saved without being baptized because all he had to teach him was the gospel of John and that is pure hogwash and sinmple nonsense and it is most assuredly false to the core and our arguments which we have stated above demonstrate this quite clearly. But you have made no arguments to demonstrate that the gospel of John “says NOTHING about baptism in the salvation sequence”. In fact, you have even, in your reply to my words admitted that it did have something to do with it in John 3:3-5. SO, you have taugh falsely about this matter in more ways than one as we have shown.

AQNd now with your above statement you go beyond making false charges against the gsospel of john not teaching that baptism in in the “salvation sequence” as you call it. Now you include the other gospel in this falacious charge! But anyone reading, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16) and John 3:3- 5: Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4; John 3:22-27; John 4:1,2 can see that you are teaching contrary to the truth on this important matter.

Then you say:

“That wasn't what they were trying to do.”

But it is what they did do.

“It is nonsense to say otherwise.”

It is nonsense to say that the gospel of John, and now you include all of the other gospels as well, “teaches NOTHING about BAPTISM in the salvation sequence”. As you have falsely asserted. And that is not only NONSENSE it is a false doctrine.

Then you accurately quote me as follows:

“[Saffold: SO, when Brother Lovall suggest that “the gospel of John, which says nothing about baptism being in the salvation sequence,” he speaks from either a woeful unintentional ignorance of the gospel of John or a deliberate ignorance of that gospel.]”

TO which you reply:

“I've just shown that that is not the case.”

No, Brother, you have failed miserably to demonstrate that such is not the case. Our true statement concerning your woeful ignorance of the gospel of John is even now MORE apparent, isn’t it and you have demonstrated that it extends into further ignorance concerning the other gospels as well as the subject of the purpose of John’s baptism. You have actually established our above statement very well for us.

I have more to say to you but must now rest before going to work in the morning. I will then reply to the rest of your post.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2002

Brother Loveall:

I now continue my response to your reply to my post by taking up where I left off last night as follows:

You continue by accurately quoting my words as follows:

“[Saffold: And I am appalled to see such ignorance of the word of God among those who should know better! In fact, it is just plain pathetic and sickening, isn’t it? That one who would purport to be a preacher of the gospel of Christ should be so ignorant of the gospel of John as if to think that his gospel is different from the gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And that it was so different as to leave out “baptism” while the others put it in is just shameful. Now brethren, if you are this ignorant of the word of God it is time for you to take stock of what you are doing. And wake up and pick up your Bibles and pray that God will not let you stop reading until you have read it all at least once. A person who says what Brother Lovall has said here could only have done so by not making thoughtful, prayerful reading of the word of God a daily habit! And anyone this ignorant of God’s word should be ashamed to pretend to be one who is a preacher of it!]”

To which you reply:

“I've shown that I am not ignorant of the Word.”

No, Brother Loveall, in your reply as we have demonstrated in our last post you have demonstrated an even greater ignorance of the word of God that we first realized. For not only are you ignorant of the fact that the gospel of John does mention baptism in relation to salvation in the Kingdom of God. But you also demonstrate a terrible ignorance of the fact that John’s baptism was “for the remission of sins” and therefore related to salvation from them. (Luke 1:76,77;3:3; Mark 1:4).

Then you say:

“ And I do make thoughtful, prayerful reading of the word a daily habit.”

Your teaching in this thread surely DOES NOT show that such is the case.

Then you say:

“ But according to you I don't, and according to you I am a "pretend" preacher.”

Your teaching is evidence that you do not read thoughtfully the gospel of John. And anyone who suggest that a person can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ without being baptized, as you have suggested with your hypothetical scenario, is pretending to preach the gospel of Christ. When in truth he is preaching “another gospel” which is not another but is instead a perversion of the gospel of Christ.

Then you say:

“ For never having met me, you sure seem to know a lot about me.”

You have never “meet me” either but you seem to “know as much about me. And this is because we learn things about each other from the words that we read from each other in this forum. And the words that you have said justify what I have said concerning you.

Then you say:

“ Maybe it's that special revelation knowledge thing working again.”

Now it does not take any “special revelation” to know from the words spoken or written by another that their teaching is contrary to the truth of God’s word and that they are ignorant of what it actually says. For your words have demonstrated that to be true in your case as we have shown above.

Then you say:

“ You certainly couldn't know any other way.”

Now that is a fine assertion but it simply is not true. When you say that the gospel of John “says NOTHING about baptism in the sequence of salvation” when in fact it does say such (John 3:3-5). Then you demonstrate ignorance of what the book says. And that is a perfectly legitimate way of knowing that your are pretending to preach the word of God when you rarely refer to it, and when you do you speak ignorantly of what it actually says.

Then you say:

“ But I, unlike you, won't make a direct claim to know your mind or how God works with you.”

The mind is the heart. And Jesus said, “out of the abundance of the heart the MOUTH speaketh.” Now one can tell from the words that you have spoken what was in you mind in connection with what you said. And this is what we have done. And the fact that you would not do it may be related to the fact that you cannot do it. But we can and will do it as often as anyone attempts to pervert the truth. And this is the exact import of your words.

Then you accurately quote me again as follows:

“[Saffold: His contention that one would even attempt to convert lost men during the days of inspired teachers simply by giving them a copy of the gospel of John, which would be indeed a precious document at that time is ridiculous.]”

To which you reply:

“There is no such contention in my original question.”

Oh, yes there is such a contention and we will quote from your “original question” again to show that such is the case. You said:

“a man who had been given a copy of the gospel of John, which says nothing about baptism being in the salvation sequence,”

Now, the very idea of that scenario and your question following it which was to ask if he did not learn about baptism could he be saved by “believing” without such baptism. For your question was stated in these words following your setting the “stage” by showing that this man could not have learn that baptism was in the salvation sequence from the gospel of John which were:

“Could such a man have believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing, had life in His name?”

Now it is clear that according to your question you were asking if one could be saved without being baptized if he had nothing other than the gospel of John to instruct him since it did not mention baptism in the “salvation sequence”. And that is the same as saying that you expected that it would be possible for one to have been given a copy of the gospel of John in an attempt to convert him to Christ. But that he would not be able to learn from that gospel that baptism was in the “salvation sequence”. Now that is what you said and that is what we responded to. And what you said was indeed ridiculous.

Then you say:

“ You misrepresent it, as will be plainly seen simply by going up and reading it again.”

We did go up and read it again and we have not “misrepresented a single word that you said. And that is clear to anyone who will THINK while reading your words.

Then you say:

“If you can't read and address what is actually written, then you have no business answering.”

We have read and addressed exactly word for word what was said in your original question and therefore we do, even by your own estimation have business answering your question. And anytime you ask a question in this forum anyone who answers it has as much right to do so as you have to ask it. Now your question was based upon much assumption and great ignorance of the word of God. And that is proven even by your response to our reply to your question as much as from your original question itself.

Then you again accurately quote my words as follows:

“[Saffold: And he deliberately ignores the teaching of the gospel of John on the subject of what is meant by “believing”.]”

And now, in spite of the fact that I said nothing to so indicate, you categorically declare what I am ignoring.”

The fact that you “said nothing” about what John’s Gospel teaching about the meaning of “believing” is evidence it itself that you ignored it.

Then you say:

“ You claim to know my mind again, and to read my intentions. Hogwash.”

It does not take much thought to see that I was responding to your words and not your mind which does not seem to have been engaged with your words in the least and my above words say nothing about your “intentions” at all. You did in fact ignore in describing your scenario what the gospel of John teaches about the meaning of believing.

Then you accurately quote my words as follows:

“[Saffold: And I highly recommend that Brother Lovall and others who are this ignorant of God’s word read his word. And cease attempting to pervert the gospel of Christ by teaching men that they can in some way make an excuse that is acceptable to God for not “obeying the gospel” so that he will saved them without such obedience simply by “faith only”.]”

TO which you reply:

“Now I am ignorant of God's word.”

Indeed any person who asserts that John’s gospel says “nothing about baptism in the salvation sequence” is just plain ignorant of God’s word.

Then you say:

“ And I am attempting to pervert the gospel by declaring a "faith only" position.”

Any person who asked, after setting the stage by falsely claiming that the gospel of John says nothing about “baptism in the salvation sequence” and this was all that a person had to instruct him was the gospel of John. And then asked the question that you asked is surely not making an argument to establish that one must be baptized to be saved, now are they? For your question was “Could such a man have believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing, had life in His name?” In other words by the words “such a man” you refer to one who only had a copy of the gospel of John which you had falsely taught “said nothing about baptism in the salvation sequence”. And you ask concerning “such a man” who had not learned that he should obey the gospel by being baptized could he be saved by “believing”. Now one does not need “special revelation” to see that you are asking if “such a man” can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ by being baptized since he only had the gospel of John to teach him the gospel. Now, if that was not leading others to give a “faith only” answer by misinformation and ridiculous hypothetical scenario then words have no meaning at all! For that is what your words mean and you cannot merely escape them by denying it when it is shown to be so pathetically false and absurd that you should be embarrassed that you have said it.

Then you say:

“ A reading of the question shows no such thing.”

We have just read the question again in our above words and we have shown just exactly how it does in fact “show” exactly “such a thing”!

Then you quote my words again as follows:

“[Saffold: But as to your ultimate question and what appears to be a feeble attempt on your part to imply that one can be saved without being baptized into Christ and thereby being obedient to the gospel according to he teaching of the New Testament you ask the following: “Could such a man have read these things and believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing, had life in His name?” By which you mean to ask whether such a one could he simply be "saved by FAITH ONLY" without ever obeying the gospel of Christ pure and simple!]”

“By which I mean to ask?”

Yes, that is exactly what you meant to ask. You know it, I know it, our readers can see it and most important God knows it and we have proven it in our above response to what you said.

Then you say:

“ Why is it, Mr. Saffold, that you are unable to discuss a topic or answer a question without assuming that you understand the motives, intentions and hidden meanings of the one asking?”

Why is it that you assert without proof that I am talking of any “hidden” motives, meanings or intentions? There is nothing that we have charged you with that could not be seen from your written words. You have indicated it by what you have said and we spoke of nothing that was “hidden”. We have now shown three time how that your own words indicate the things that we charged you with doing.

Then you say:

“ What have I ever said in these discussions to indicate that I take such a doctrinal position?”

WE have explained that in our above answers which I will simply quote again for you to read:

“Any person who asked, after setting the stage by falsely claiming that the gospel of John says nothing about “baptism in the salvation sequence” and this was all that a person had to instruct him was the gospel of John. And then asked the question that you asked is surely not making an argument to establish that one must be baptized to be saved, now are they? For your question was “Could such a man have believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing, had life in His name?” In other words by the words “such a man” you refer to one who only had a copy of the gospel of John which you had falsely taught “said nothing about baptism in the salvation sequence”. And you ask concerning “such a man” who had not learned that he should obey the gospel by being baptized could he be saved by “believing”. Now one does not need “special revelation” to see that you are asking if “such a man” can be saved without obeying the gospel of Christ by being baptized since he only had the gospel of John to teach him the gospel. Now, if that was not leading others to give a “faith only” answer by misinformation and ridiculous hypothetical scenario then words have no meaning at all! For that is what your words mean and you cannot merely escape them by denying it when it is shown to be so pathetically false and absurd that you should be embarrassed that you have said it.””

Then you say:

“Sir, you wrong me.”

Brother, we are concerned about the way that you have WRONGED the gospel of Christ, the gospel written by John the apostle and the WRONG things you have taught the precious souls among our readers who are seeking eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. You have wronged all of them with your false teaching in this matter. And therefore, in correcting you we have done you no wrong whatsoever.

Then you say:

“You speak viciously of me with no reason.”

I have said nothing that was “vicious” but rather I have spoken the truth.

Then you say:

“ You make incorrect assumptions and then give slanderous declarations and misreprentations about my understanding, motivations and intentions.”

That is a fine assertion for which you have yet to demonstrate a single instance of such “assumptions” or any “slander”.

Then you say:

“ This kind of writing has no place in these forums.”

Oh, yes it does. And it is here to stay unless you can convince the forum owner to throw me out of this forum.

Then you say:

“ Your writing in this way is the very reason I have begun to take long sabbaticals from these forums.”

It seems to us that you have taken as many “sabbaticals” from the word of God for your teachings indicate a terrible lack of familiarity with it’s teachings.

Then you say:

“ You haven't done it to me much before this, but I wearied of your abuse of others whose views you misrepresent and whose integrity you malign.”

You do not offer a single word of proof that I have “misrepresented” anyone in this forum for which I have not apologized when it was proven that I had done such. And you have not established by any facts presented by you that I have “abused” anyone. Nor have you proven that I have “maligned” anyone who actually possesses any “integrity” in this forum.

Then you say:

“And then I was amazed. Your final paragraph was, in fact, the very kind of discussion I was looking for on this question.”

And that last paragraph was a summation of all that I had said in the preceding paragraphs.

Then you say:

“ It addressed the question at hand, it sought to clarify what the question actually was, it gave biblical support for your answer, and it did not give personal attack and slander.”

And so did all that was said previously. What was spoken previously was TRUE and therefore could not have been slanderous. And it was a statement of FACT rather than a “personal attack”.

Then you say:

“ It was a good paragraph.”

And so were all of the other paragraphs and you have failed to prove otherwise.

Then you say:

“If you had started and ended there, this would have been a pleasant interchange.”

I have not doubt that this would have been a “pleasant interchange” but were seeking a truthful interchange and that is often not pleasant but it is far more beneficial than the “pleasant” ones.

Then you say:

“ I encourage anyone reading this far to go back and read your last paragraph again, and continue the discussion from there.”

I encourage them to read the entire post including the last paragraph and continue the discussion so that they do not miss the TRUTH, which was taught, which Brother Loveall seems to want you to ignore.

Then you say:

“If you can continue in this last manner, then I will welcome your involvement. However, if you insist on continuing in your usual manner, then I respectfully request that you stay away from this thread, and any other which I may start.”

WE do not care whether you “welcome” our involvement or not. If you teach that which is contrary to the truth you will draw our involvement whether you welcome it or not. And that is the way it will be and there is nothing you can do about it short of persuading Brother Duane to bar us from the forum.

Then you say:

“Your brother, whether you really believe it or not,”

Oh, Brother Loveall, why would you think that I do not believe that you are my brother when I have ever referred to you as “brother Loveall”? I believe you are my brother and that you are far off the mark of the truth in the things that you have said in this thread. And because you are our brother in Christ Jesus we seek to correct your errors. And that is a fact, whether you “believe it or not”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2002

Danny:

I didn't say I had 30 scholars, I said I could give 30 paragraphs. It was a use of exagerration to make a point, referring to E. Lee's vastly excessive verbiage on the tiniest bit of info. However, I will be happy to pull together references from conservative scholars on the issue. Give me a bit of time. I am the midst of moving my office and things there are in a mess.

Sam

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2002

Danny:

I have an answer for you now. It's not as big an answer as I thought I had.

But before I get to it, I need to ask you a question, going to your scholarship for info. You have said in other threads that Alexander Campbell is sometimes quoted from writings that came from early in his development, that did not accurately represent what he came to believe. Or something like that. From your understanding, at what point in his life do his writings begin to represent his "final conclusions"? I do not care to quote the man out of context, or from before he finished thinking things thru. As far as dates of writing, when can we be certain we are seeing what he finally settled on as truth?

(BTW, the answer to your question has nothing to do with Campbell. Not yet, anyway.)

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2002