Don Smith
Introduction
After 16 articles, and in effect, 16 months, this exchange will now be brought to a close. The exchange began with a man named Micah Jackson, who asked this writer to compose a letter to his father, Marc Jackson, relaying to him a lesson Micah witnessed regarding the cessation of miracles. Marc was/is a Pentecostal preacher, and Micah had been brought up under his tutelage. Micah believed the lesson he heard on the cessation of miracles and very much wanted his father to hear it. Subsequently, this writer produced a manuscript detailing the teaching on the subject and mailed it, along with other written materials, to Marc. It was surprising when Micah’s mother, Mrs. Julie Jackson, responded, and not his father, Marc. Upon this, an exchange of correspondence began, which has now been recorded upon the pages of The Gospel Preceptor (TGP). The final five paragraphs of Mrs. Jackson’s second response will now be given, along with a reply in refutation to each of those paragraphs.
(16)
1So [TGP, Oct. 2023, pg. 33, par. 14, sent. 12] states that your & my theology should line up but it doesn’t because your theology does not line up with the Bible in certain aspects, like the role of the HS. 2I say that with all respect. 3Please consider this. 4I am no better than you and humbly consider it an honor to converse with you. 5A friend of my sons is a friend of mine. 6I don’t take lightly Micah’s high admiration of you but you (& he) saw fit to challenge me on these things so I have to respond. 7This life as a Christian is “my life”. 8There is nothing more worth living for than Jesus Christ & furthering the truth from the Word of God.
Reply to Paragraph 16
In sentence 1 of this paragraph, Mrs. Jackson shows just how much she was not paying attention to what she was responding to. In her response to the manuscript recorded in TGP, Aug. 2023, pg. 19, par. 10, she questioned about why this writer’s religious position would line up with the other authors’ material that was sent to her. So, this was explained to her in the subsequent reply, along with the question to her, “If their theology lines up with the Bible, and my theology lines up with the Bible, shouldn’t our theology line up with one another (1 Cor. 1:10)?” It was clearly a rhetorical question stating that my theology does line up with the other authors’ scripturally-sound material. However, she seemed to be piecemealing the reply as she responded to it, not keeping anything in context, and came to the absurd conclusion that I was stating my theology should be lining up with hers. Of course, her theology and mine do not line up with one another but not because mine does not line up with the Bible. Remember, she is the one who was disregarding the importance of pronouns (TGP, April 2024, pg. 10, par. 5, sent. 4). Did God give the Bible in human language we can understand? Does she think He disregarded the rules of grammar when He gave it? Does she think he expected us to do that – disregard the rules of grammar? If we do not interpret the Bible in view of the use of proper grammar, we can make the Bible say anything, just as she has done. This is one of the reasons her theology and mine would never line up and an example of how people twist the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). Doing this is utter disrespect for God and His word, which she needs to recognize before it is too late.
(17)
1Please read the following scriptures about HS and Baptism of HS and consider them: John 14:17; Lk 11:13; We cannot merit or deserve the Baptism with the HS. 2It is a gift. 3Peter spoke of receiving the Gift of the HS (Acts 2:38). 4Jesus said: “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the HS to them who ask Him?” Joel 2:28-29; Acts 1:5; Acts 2:4; 1 Cor 14:39; Jude vs 20.
Reply to Paragraph 17
The scriptures she compiled in paragraph 17 do not line up together when kept in their proper contexts. Again, the pronouns must be considered, so it is known who is being spoken to or about – this she refuses to consider. Also, she must understand the essential fact that different measures of the Spirit are referred to throughout the scriptures. She has compiled scriptures together that speak of different measures – miraculous and non-miraculous. All of this had been untangled for her in the manuscript, if only she would have considered it before she wrote this disjointed and erroneous response.
(18)
1My favorite chapter of the Bible is Romans 8. 2We have touched on this Book quite a bit. 3Please know that “the flesh” talked about in these verses is speaking of the Christian’s ability (not the nonbeliever) assumed strength outside of the Holy Spirit. 4He is in effect saying, if we try to live this life by trusting in our own strength, “the flesh”, we will fail and fail every time. 5By walking after the flesh we are trusting in anything other than the Blood of Jesus Christ on the Cross. 6John 16:13-16 spells out the job of the HS IF we will only listen. 7In vs 16 when Jesus says, ”a little while, and you shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and you shall see Me” is referring of Christ ascension and then sending the HS. 8But then you probably agree with this but just don’t believe it is for you and me. 9That’s so sad. 10You are leaving the “life more abundantly” out of your walk with the Lord. 11You could have so much more insight, comfort, guidance and joy if you would acknowledge the HS as it’s laid out in the Word.
Reply to Paragraph 18
In sentence 3, Mrs. Jackson completely contradicts herself in stating that “the flesh” in Romans 8 is not referring to the nonbeliever, whereas she stated it was the nonbeliever in TGP, June 2024, pg. 18, par. 10, sent. 6-7. She stated in sentences 6-8 that this writer would probably agree with her interpretation of John 16:16 – that Christ speaks of His ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit. However, I do not agree with that interpretation, as it is clear Christ speaks of His death and resurrection as He defined it in the context through verse 24. She implies in sentence 11 that the Holy Spirit will give more insight than the scriptures do. Does she at all believe Paul when he states the scriptures make us complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? Does she believe that all things pertaining to life and godliness had been given in Peter’s day (2 Pet. 1:3)? Why would we need more insight if the Holy Spirit has already given us everything through the scriptures?
(19)
1I have made notes on all of your letters and thought that I would address them all but I see that becoming quite tedious and long. 2I believe the Lord is directing me to address a couple more things in this letter and then stop. 3I was going to cover more about the Baptism requirement for salvation, your Salvation Plan, the Worship definition & COC being the only people going to heaven. 4You will just have to trust that I read and studied ALL of your correspondences. 5I have spent countless hours on this and am grateful to do so but I must move on.
(20)
1Because you believe COC IS The Only True Church. 2This is an age old problem (heresy) that has plagued Christianity ever since it was birthed. 3Man made doctrine has afflicted the church and has arisen from believing about God, things that are not true. 4Or from over emphasizing certain true things so as to obscure other things that are equally true!!!!! 5To magnify the attribute to the exclusion of another is to head straight for one of the dismal swamps of theology that so many have fell into. 6In [TGP, Jan. 2024, pg. 29, par. 40, sent. 7-8] you offer me salvation through yourself and or Dub McClish. 7I am sorry but I do not need either of you, as devout men of God that I believe you are, I only need Jesus Christ as my Savior. 8He died for me! 9Also our non denominational church that we attend is not “denomination by practice” and is not perfect because it is made up of people and ALL people are fallible. 10But our Pastor preaches the unadulterated Word of God. 11I AM saved and am NOT in violation of 2 John 9-11. 12Verse 11 is the HS using John to very clearly draw the line and state that you can’t have it both ways. 13So I could easily use these scriptures on you but I would rather state that God is a loving God and that He is available at all times for repentance. 14It’s just a prayer away. 15You definitely don’t need me but God can use me to shed some light and I hope He has.
Always Trusting in Him!
And most Sincerely! Julie
Reply to Paragraphs 19 and 20
In paragraph 19, Mrs. Jackson made the spiritually fatal decision to ignore the plan of salvation as it had been outlined in this writer’s previous reply. In fact, she chose to ignore all the essential matters pertaining to her salvation. In paragraph 20, sentence 2, she states that claiming the church of Christ is the only church is heresy, and then, in sentence 3, she implies this writer’s exposition of the scriptures is man-made doctrine. In either of these assertions, she has failed to prove her case – she has failed to even try to prove these to be true. That is really the only defense the rebellious have. In sentences 6-8, she says I offered salvation through myself and Dub McClish. That is not true in the ultimate sense she implies, but it is another indication that she completely ignored what was written about Christianity being a taught religion, as recorded in the reply in TGP, Oct. 2023, pg. 32, par. 12. In sentences 9-10, she says her non-denominational church is not a denomination by practice. If it wasn’t, she would have been arguing with them as profusely as she was with me! She certainly is denominational by practice. There is Calvinistic and Pentecostal jargon all throughout her letters – she even used the term “Pastor” in a denominational sense when trying to argue that her church was non-denominational. In reply to sentence 11, since she does not believe doctrine to be essential, as implied by her paragraph 13 (TGP, July 2024), she is in violation of 2 John 9; since she continues to hold to the denominational tenets she had been espousing, she is in violation of 2 John 9; since she has rejected the only way to get into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27), where all spiritual blessings are (Eph. 1:3) including the forgiveness of sins (v. 7), she is not saved. In sentence 14, she has ignored yet another essential truth, that prayer for forgiveness is the second law of pardon after initial salvation, as directly outlined for her and recorded in TGP, March 2024, pg. 26-27, par. 64-65. She had everything she needed but sadly rejected it all!
Conclusion
It is an incredibly sad ending to this exchange, wherein Mrs. Jackson fully rejected every essential truth she needed to prepare for eternity. If she had shown the slightest hint of moving towards truth, perhaps a second written reply to her would have been worth making. However, it is worth a noble try to show the denominational world of Christendom the way out of their error, as it is the duty of the Christian to spread the gospel to all the lost. Sometimes the honest and good heart is found. As sad as the ending of this exchange is, it is still not over for Mrs. Jackson; as long as she is alive, she has the chance to reverse her error and abide by the truth of God’s word.
