Don Smith
Introduction
In the final portion of this exchange with the Pentecostal, Mrs. Julie Jackson, she put together a lengthy response that, in effect, ignored everything she received in the previous reply. The content of this second response was so jumbled and out of order that it seemed like she was just spouting off whatever crossed her mind at the moment. Notes had been prepared to answer her false statements, but ultimately it was the conclusion of this writer that Mrs. Jackson’s response did not merit a reply. However, in this article (and the proceeding articles that cover this portion of the exchange) a reply based on those notes will be given after nearly every paragraph. Also, in keeping with the uniformity of the preceding portions of this exchange, all references in brackets are a modification from the original to allow the reader to follow using the previous articles of The Gospel Preceptor that have covered this exchange. Moreover, please note that the original typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors will not be corrected for the sake of bringing the reader into a truer picture of this exchange. With this being said, let us begin.
(1)
Don, 10-3-15 (mail date—I have been working on this for quite sometime)
1I want to thank you for taking all the time it must have taken to send me the 6 letters – handwritten. 2I will be typing my responses. 3I am also enclosing 3 lopes to replenish the expense you spent on sending me your letters. 4I will send 3 more later. 5I know how hard things are in there with $ for lopes so I want to do that. 6Don’t feel like you have to reply. 7The lopes are for you to use as you deem necessary. 8I have prayerfully considered all the information you sent and used my Bible to look up scripture. 9I was glad to do this work as reading and studying the Word is ALWAYS a blessing. 10I will be sending Micah copies of this. 11I hope you do as you requested to me: please wait and read to the end letter before responding, if you feel so inclined. 12Please put your beliefs on the shelf and give the Living Word of God a chance to work in your heart. 13I also know you are very passionate about your beliefs. 14I believe you are a most sincere student of the Bible. 15I hear your heart’s desire to see “the church” have pure biblical faith and obedient practices. 16This is awesome and I totally agree with much of what you wrote. 17I really do. 18I totally agree that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. 19I also have compassion in my heart for your physical situation like Micah being in prison. 20I am praying for you. 21I hope you read my response it’s it entirety.
(2)
1When I refer to any of your writings I will use the following format [“TGP” (The Gospel Preceptor), month, year, page number, paragraph, sentence]. 2For example [TGP, Dec. 2023, pg. 34, paragraph 25, sentences 4-5] where you addressed a vagueness on my part. 3I was not clear in my statement of my letter in [TGP, July 2023, pg. 32] paragraph 6, sentence 8. 4(I seriously did not know it was going to be dissected but that is okay. 5I welcome the challenge. 6I should have been more specific. ) 7I meant to say that the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost you chose to substantiate with scriptures did not die with the apostles as you concluded. 8Therefore the Holy Spirit (HS) that I find stated in 1 Corinthians (Cor) chapters 12-14 and Acts 1:4-8, regardless of my personal experiences, is what I believe to be true. 9This is where the huge schism begins when we compare our beliefs. 10The gifts of the Holy Spirit and the enduement of power is stated to be available for every believer. (Acts 2:39). 11So I am clarifying that now. 12In addition there is John 14:16 where Jesus promises the HS “would be with us forever” & Paul said in Romans (Rom) 11:29, “The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” 13So see there is plenty of proof (and this is not an exhaustive list) that the Baptism & power of the Holy Ghost served more than two purposes and was not just for the first generation church.
Reply to Paragraphs 1 and 2
There are many things wrong with these first two paragraphs, but we will limit this to a few points. In paragraph 1, sentence 12, Mrs. Jackson makes a reference to letting the Word of God work in your heart. In essence, she wants a person to let go of all reasoning (which she has been taught is “human reasoning”), and let your heart be your guide. This line of teaching flies directly in the face of Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” In paragraph 2, sentences 2-3, she goes on to reference the statement she made in TGP, July 2023, pg. 32, paragraph 6, sentence 8, where she said, “There was no mention of the Spirit in your paper.” That was in reference to the original manuscript I sent her wherein the Spirit was mentioned in nearly every paragraph. In sentence 7 above, Mrs. Jackson attempts to back-peddle on what she “meant” to say regarding that, and, in turn, blatantly misrepresents this writer as concluding that the Holy Spirit “died” with the apostles. Her dishonesty is glaring here, and it is telling in that she continues to define the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the four pages of her first response – therefore, she meant to completely misrepresent the manuscript in stating, “There was no mention of the Spirit in your paper.”
In paragraph 2, sentence 8, she states that she believes in the Holy Spirit of Acts 1:4-8 and 1 Corinthians 12-14. Scripturally speaking, this cannot be true. She disregards Jesus’ statements in John 14-16 of who would receive the Spirit and how much truth would be revealed. She also disregards Paul’s statements of the duration of the Spirit’s direct operation upon men in 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4. These were the main thrust of the original manuscript that was sent! She certainly does not believe in the Holy Spirit of Acts 1:4-8 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 but rather a fictional character that has been made up by men (cf. 2 Cor. 11:3-4). In this same paragraph, at sentence 10, she claims miraculous enduements are for all and references Acts 2:39. Verse 39 is a reference to verse 38, wherein all who obey would receive the non-miraculous measure of the Holy Ghost. It had been clearly pointed out to Mrs. Jackson in the manuscript that the Bible teaches only through the laying on of the apostles’ hands could one receive the miraculous gifts (outside of two explicit examples and one implicit) (see TGP, March 2023, pp. 30-31, “Others”). She had the information, and she will ultimately be responsible for ignoring it.
The final two errors we are going to address out of paragraph 2 are dealing with Mrs. Jackson’s misuse of John 14:16 and Romans 11:29. In sentence 12, she claims Jesus promises the Holy Spirit “would be with us forever,” in that the promise was for all. However, Jesus did not say that. The statement is, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.” The question that she should have asked herself is, “Who is the ‘you’ in this verse?” A simple study of the pronouns in the context would tell her the apostles were in view here. Astonishingly, she already had this answered for her within the manuscript (TGP, June 2023, pg. 20, “The Duration of Miracles,” 4th paragraph). Further, she uses Romans 11:29 completely out of context to apply it to a miraculous duration. In context, the Deliverer is in view (Jesus Christ), and He would be granting the gift of eternal life through taking away sins (Rom. 6:23): “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins” (Rom. 11:26-27). The context goes on into the verse Mrs. Jackson erroneously used, which states, “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Rom. 11:29). God would not repent of giving this gift of eternal life through His New Covenant. Neither John 14:16 nor Romans 11:29 states a purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, nor do they show a duration of the miraculous past those the apostles laid hands on, as Mrs. Jackson falsely claims in sentence 13.
(3)
1If the HS & the gifts and power of the HS, was only for the apostles, was Christ instructions to evangelize the “utter part of the Earth” also to stop with the apostles? 2Also John 14:12 when Jesus said, “He who believes on Me, the Works that I do shall he do also: and greater Works than these shall he do; because I go unto My Father.” 3The works of Christ were confined to greater Israel (geographically), while the works of Believers in current day cover the entirety of the world, due to the technology of internet and tv too. 4Why would the Creator of the Universe create man and give him the example of Christ to follow and then not empower man to do take the Gospel and the Power of God to the world? 5(Not that everyone should go to the far areas of the world but if every Christian, wherever they are at, would truly hear the instructions of the Father through the HS and be obedient, the gospel could be spread throughout the world, effectively.) 6Your stance seems to challenge the immutability of God to think that He so loved the world that He gave His son to die on the cross and have Jesus command them to wait on the “Promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4-9) just for the first generation of believers. 7God is unchanging. 8He is the same now as He was in the past and He will be the same in eternity. 9I like how A.W. Tozer says it. 10“All that God is He has always been, and all that He has been and is He will ever be.”
Reply to Paragraph 3
In sentence 1, Mrs. Jackson presents the argument fallacy of false dichotomy in her question which implies that if certain things ended with the apostles, then everything ended with the apostles, including the injunction to evangelize the world. As has been shown numerous times throughout this exchange, the miraculous duration ended with the completion of the New Testament (1 Cor. 13:8-10). It was also presented thoroughly to Mrs. Jackson in the first reply that evangelizing the world was to continue with each and every generation (TGP, Oct. 2023, pg. 32, para. 12, esp. 2 Tim. 2:2). This false argument she presented just further highlights her dishonesty and turning from the Truth.
In sentences 2-3, she makes the argument that the works of Christ and the “greater works” are in reference to limited geographical location. However, the works of Christ referred to in John 14:12 were clearly in reference to the miraculous – some of the greatest being resurrecting people from the dead. What works would be greater than that for the following generations? Bringing salvation to the lost through the gospel would be the greatest work. The context has nothing to do with geography. Her argument in sentence 4 is the fallacy of hasty generalization. She implies that the only way man can take the gospel to the world is through the miraculous, and the power of God must accompany the work and must be miraculous. However, the Bible teaches the power of God is the gospel (Rom. 1:16), and man is empowered to take it (mobile) to the world that the world might obey. She makes further implication of the miraculous in sentence 5 by her reference of hearing instructions through the Holy Spirit to spread the word. This is true, yet not in the way she clearly means it, as we receive instructions through the Holy Spirit in the written word to “Go” (Matt. 28:19). The promise she refers to in sentence 6 was made to the apostles, as the context clearly bears out. Mrs. Jackson absolutely refuses to rightly divide the word.
In sentences 7-10, she makes the assumption that nothing about God or that involves Him ever changes. She does this again later in a rant, as the reader will see, in paragraph 5. The Bible does teach that the nature of God does not change; God will always be the same God. However, God has changed many things over time: after creating man, He determined to destroy them (Gen. 6:6-7); He repented of destroying Israel (Deut. 9:18-19); the “fathers” did not have the Law, but the change of giving the written Law was made (Deut. 5:3); the change of that Law to the Law of Christ is yet another change (Heb. 7:12). Even the promise of the miraculous implies a change – before the promise, there was no promise of the miraculous; after the promise came into effect, Christians were endued with certain gifts. It should have been no great surprise to Mrs. Jackson, then, that God’s will for equipping man with the miraculous was limited in duration as well (1 Cor. 13; Eph. 4; TGP, June 2023, pp. 20-22, “The Duration of Miracles”).
(4)
1Next please look at [TGP, Dec. 2023, pg. 34-35, para. 25, sent. 14]. 2Nothing I wrote (in my first letter) is anything less than the truth that I would espouse to anyone that challenges my faith, my relationship with Jesus, Father God and the Holy Spirit. 3Micah is a grown man and will have to make his own decisions. 4I was not manipulating my beliefs to “win Micah back” to truth. 5I just want to be specific about that. 6Micah thinks highly of you and I don’t want to be offensive in any way. 7I have read all the way to the end of your letters and reread your manuscript. 8I find that your plan of salvation mentioned [in TGP, Dec. 2023, pg. 35, para. 25, sent. 20] is not the way the Bible reads. 9You said, “no reasonable mind can get around this.” 10This is where we again, part ways in our beliefs. 11Your, or anyone else’s, “reasoning” is no match for the immutable Father God and His inerrant Word of God. 12I totally identify with your analytical mind, as I am an analytical and so is Micah. 13However we are all “created” beings with finite minds and the Creator of the Universe our Father God is infinite. 14His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. Isaiah 55:8
Reply to Paragraph 4
In sentences 1-2, Mrs. Jackson claims that nothing she wrote in her first response was less than truth. However, it certainly was less than truth to state that the Spirit was nowhere mentioned in the manuscript, as she said in her first response (cf. “Reply to Paragraphs 1 and 2” in this article). In sentence 4, she implies that she was accused of manipulating her beliefs to deter Micah. She was never accused of manipulating her beliefs. However, it was pointed out to her it was likely that, in the face of the truth, the manuscript’s exposé of her belief system could have caused her to degrade the truth anyway, hold onto her current error, and attempt to convince other parties (i.e., her son, Micah). In sentence 8, she stated “your plan of salvation” is not the way the Bible reads. All this writer gave her was what the Bible says and the way it reads. The plethora of scriptures she was given, as recorded in TGP, Feb. 2024, pp. 17-20, para. 48-53, to March 2024, pp. 24-26, para. 54-57, would be plenty to study and know what the Bible teaches on salvation. However, it was also given to her in the simplest and understandable way in the March issue in paragraph 57. Clearly, she just did not want it. In sentences 9-14, she argues against reasoning and being reasonable. She actually arrays proper reasoning against God. Such an error is exactly what charismatics are taught to abide by; if you try to reason with them with the scriptures, they chalk it up to human reasoning. However, God requires us to reason (Isa. 1:18; Eph. 5:17). Paul even set an example of it (Acts 24:25). It is sad when a person does not care they are fighting against God.
(5)
1Here is an example of man’s reasoning: Your answer [in TGP, Dec. 2023, pg. 35, para. 26, sent. 3-9] where you addressed my belief that Holy Spirit is alive….. 2What Paul is stating in 1 Cor 2:10-14 is NOT referring to a “certain number of that group” [sent. 6]. 3You are literally splitting hairs. 4This us/we pronouns is not referring to a certain number. 5The Word of God is immutable as is God. 6God is same yesterday, today and tomorrow. 7He never differs from himself. 8God cannot change. 9Nothing God has ever said about Himself will be modified from Genesis to Revelations. 10Nothing the inspired prophets and apostles have said about Him will be rescinded. 11The mutation of the fallen world is obvious. 12That’s why we need a savior. 13He does not change his mind about anything. 14He feels the same about the sick, sinful, exactly as He did when He sent His Son into the world to die for mankind. 15We have but to meet His clearly stated terms, bring our lives into accord with His revealed will and His infinite power will become instantly operative toward us in the manner set forth through the gospel in the Scriptures of truth. Malachi 3:6 16He requires no helpers. 17Adding requirements to His Gospel is really a dangerous thing to do. 18Please please consider the presumptuous assumption that your beliefs trump the main reason Christ died for us. 19Don, words in black and white have not inflection or tone and therefore seem so harsh. 20I wish we were talking face to face but we are not.
Reply to Paragraph 5
In answer to the explanation she was given of 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, Mrs. Jackson misrepresented this writer once again in stating, “You addressed my belief that Holy Spirit is alive” in sentence 1. She also only cited part of the explanation, likely in an effort to obscure the reference given to the remote context of the subject (TGP, Dec. 2023, pg. 35, para. 26, sent. 10 and following). This shows that she may have read the reply but did not care to study it through to answer it properly. In sentence 2, Mrs. Jackson makes the statement that Paul did not refer to a certain number who would receive the miraculous gifts and completely throws grammar to the wind. Again, she would have known he does if she would have studied the lesson before responding (Again, TGP, sent. 10 and following). She accused me of splitting hairs when referring to pronouns; however, in order to interpret the Word correctly, understanding pronouns is of utmost importance. After having made the same statement that God is unchanging 3 times in paragraph 3, sentences 7-10, she wasted energy on essentially repeating herself 6 times more in paragraph 5, sentences 5-10, and another 2 times in sentences 13-14.
In sentence 15, Mrs. Jackson is correct in saying we have to “meet His clearly stated terms,” so why not be baptized for the remission of sins as Peter stated to the lost Jews (Acts 2:38)? Why not be baptized for the purpose of washing away sins as Ananias told the lost Saul to do (Acts 22:16)? Why not be baptized in order to be saved as Jesus said will happen (Mark 16:16), and Peter said it does (1 Pet. 3:21)? Where does it say that baptism is not needed for salvation, as she stated in her first response (TGP, Aug. 2023, pg. 19, para. 8, sent. 5)? Where does it say that baptism is not for the remission of sins, or that sins are not washed away in baptism, or that baptism does not save? The truth is, there is nowhere in any context speaking of baptism that states this nor any other terminology to that effect. Further, in the same sentence (sent. 15), she is in blatant error when she said, “His infinite power will become instantly operative towards us.” It is clear she is speaking of a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the person, which has been proven emphatically to have been applicable only to the first century.
Finally, in sentence 18, she made the accusation that this writer’s beliefs trump the main reason Christ died for us. That is as false as can be. The reason He died for us was to save us from sin. When we sin, we deserve to die (Rom. 6:23). The only way that God’s just nature can allow us to be reconciled to Him is that a death must be had in our place. Under the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were to be made to atone for sin, but this was not sufficient and had to be done every year (Heb. 10:1-4). The perfect sacrifice had to be made once for all—for all the obedient before the cross and after (Heb. 9:12-15)—that perfect sacrifice being Jesus Christ, God the Son (1 Tim. 3:16). To come into contact with the blood of that Sacrifice, we must be baptized into His death (Rom. 6:3-5). So this writer’s beliefs do not trump the main reason Christ died for us, but to the contrary, are in full explanation as to why Christ died for us and how we are saved through that death. He died to save us from sin; we are saved from sin by being baptized into Him.
Conclusion
Clearly, Mrs. Jackson learned nothing from all the previous correspondence that was sent to her. She willed her own way and completely ignored the Lord’s. So it is clear why a reply to her second response was never made, as it would have been a waste of time and effort. The writings are only presented here to show the utter determination some people have in making religion their own way, and to possibly help some to understand and answer these false positions of men. Such answers to the clear absurdity continue in the next portion of this second response.
