Download Frost Evans Exchange - herb evans

THE FROST/EVANS EXCHANGE
Gene Frost: This is the third layer of our exchange. The exchange begins with Herb Evans’ article, “He Took
My Place,” to which I responded with “Jesus Died for Me, So That I Might Be Saved.” These articles stand alone, printed
in black type and without any interruption of comments. This is the first layer. On the basis laid in this initial exchange,
Evans adds his comments interspersed within my article. These injected comments he printed in blue type. My response,
following suit, is printed in brown type interspersed within the text. This is the second layer. Evans has now added
comments to his comments (in blue) and to mine (brown type). This begins the third layer before you, the reader. To
distinguish between his second layer and third layer, he has converted the second layer (which was his response to my
article in black type) to italics and bracketed and left the third layer non-bracketed in bold blue type. To distinguish my
third layer comments from his comments, I have set the present comments in green.
I know that this is confusing. It is not to my liking, but without consultation or agreement to the format, Evans thrust
it upon us. I hope that the reader will be able to sort out the comments. Contributing to the confusion of multiple colored
typefaces is the confusion of thoughts caused by the insertion of comments. Attention to these distractions will be found
in the text of this response.
Egregious Corruptions of the Text
FROST: Of particular concern is the liberty he takes with our articles and comments. He begins his latest comments
assuming possession and control of our exchange: “This is my exchange…” He says he will publish it, in spite of the fact
that his revisions corrupt the text. To this I have objected in writing:
EVANS: I include in my version of the exchange my format with comment designators and shades of colors to
distinguish who is saying what and when for the reader to be able to follow. I separate my paragraphs as well as
Frost’s to respond to the different points. For the most part, I do it in paragraphs and sentences rather than chop
everything apart in phrases as Frost does, interjecting his comments between the chops. If I can, I avoid Frost’s
Mickey Mouse format! He can give his version to his readers and me to mine.
Herb Evans has taken the liberty, in his article of March 30, 2011, to substantially alter our exchange prior to that
date, by—
1. Omitting his original response, “He Took My Place,” (response to Gene Frost’s three audio tapes of lectures
delivered in March 2000); without this article, the exchange is not complete. (I have restored it.)
2. Changing the format of my article of December 2010, “Exchange between Gene Frost and Herb Evans”—Evans
admits: “I changed the format…”
3. Making unilateral additions and changes to the text—highlighted words to appear as Frost’s emphases.
4. Changing the fonts, and by adding and deleting italics—“I changed some of Frost’s italics” (removed them); also
replaced words with bold type. (Therefore, I have upgraded my previous regular text to bold text.)
5. Reformatting paragraphs, thus altering the thoughts—some paragraphs are combined as one—“I run some of
Frost’s paragraphs together”; some paragraphs are divided into two or more—“I split some of them,” e.g. in the March
2011 perversion, one paragraph of 17 lines is altered into 18 paragraphs (this cannot be read as a single, free flowing
paragraph); some are spread interspersed over several pages. To aid the reader in keeping track of broken up sentences, I
place a ►GF at the end of the line to signify a break in the paragraph. To pick up the sentence, the reader must look
forward to a ►GF at the beginning of a sentence. This signifies the continuation of a sentence broken off some time
before. (In connecting sentences, take care to match lines of the same color.) In this way we can show continuity within
what was a paragraph, but which is now disjointed lines. As for breaking the flow of text from paragraph to paragraph, we
have no solution except to read paragraphs in succession, as to content, according to color.
6. Injecting comments, interrupting or altering sentences.
—all of which have the effect of disrupting a train of thought or argumentation, of shifting attention from the focus of
the thought to an irrelevant subject. This is unacceptable. What is thus presented, as what I believe, is a perversion.
I remind you that what I write is protected by copyright law. Herb Evans does not, nor does anyone else, have the
right to alter what I have written in any way without my permission. (The complete correspondence is available.)
When Evans sent his second response—my article interspersed with his snippets, I was mindful to refuse it and insist
upon a standalone article as were our first articles. However, I considered that he would capitalize upon my refusal to
accept his changed format, to claim that I had refused because of an inability to refute his argumentation and he would
boast a triumph of his presentation. I anticipated his strategy, and lest the truth should suffer, I decided to respond in kind,
interspersing comments within his response. I thought surely he would see the folly of producing such a disjointed and
confusing exchange, and that he would return to the normal format of our first articles. Instead, I find that he is delighted
to produce such a muddled and difficult exchange which most readers will lay aside without reading it. I feel that from the
reader’s viewpoint this exchange is a trial of patience, and that only a very few will have the interest and fortitude to
follow the flow of argumentation. At this point, we need no more snippets. A full discussion is much more to be desired,
which Herb Evans declined.
EVANS: Frost, after scolding me, sent me on November 11, 2010 his reformatted version of our discussion
with the point/counterpoint discussions. Then on February 11, 2012, he sent this present version of our discussion
in his new format which differs from his first reply that took him several months to reply. I will follow his format
where possible and change it to make it easier to follow. Still, I have reduced the margins to one half inch an
reduced the type font to 11 point Times Roman to save space and reduce the enormity of the size of the exchange.
Since one of the readers is color blind, I am adding poster name captions every where necessary. I have removed
some of the bold on older comments except for the commenter names and also removed the bold in Frost’s
comments. Since the page numbers now differ from Frost’s original, I have removed them since they would change
anyway with my new replies. They are still available in his original. It may be noted that in point/counterpoint
debate, steps must be taken to make the discussion easy to follow and readable with discernment as to who said
what and when.
FROST: The arrogance of Herb Evans astounds me. He claims: “What you write and send to me belongs to me.” He
assumes the right to make alterations, and says he “will have further alterations when I change it to a booklet format for
publishing.” I caution him upfront: formatting does not allow alteration of text, deleting, addition, changing, or
rearranging the order of presentation, of the text. The textual integrity of this exchange is subject to United States
copyright laws.
EVANS: In regard to copyright matters, Frost thinks that I do not have the right to altar the format for
expediency and comment differentiation for my people, while he thinks that he can change the format for his
people. He does not realize that he is using my comments in his publications. How does that square with the
copyright business. I wonder how Frost thinks that he can copyright my comments. Frost has done a good bit of
restructuring of the exchange, as well, and I wonder if he can stand up against copyright laws. I have his versions
of the exchange. They will be available upon request. In Frost attempts to reconstruct my composite post, he mixes
everything up and reinserts the things the way that he thought they should be, making it impossible to follow.
THE GREAT EVANS/FROST EXCHANGE
Herb Evans: Attachments are prior postings/exchanges with Gene Frost for purpose of reference. Blue Italics equal
Herb Evans’ previous comments. Bracketed blue Herb Evans equal Herb Evans’ additional comments which reply to
Frost’s black comments. Non-bracketed blue equal Herb Evans reply to Frost’s Brown comments. I changed the format
slightly to accommodate my non bold blue italics from my previous post. I added the writers’ names in front of their
comments for clarity. Also, I reduced the margins to a half inch and reduced the font to 11 point and still come up with
many (93) pages. I also changed some of Frost’s italics to straight print to keep them from being confused with my italics.
No doubt, Frost will whine about all this. Not only did I run some of Frost’s paragraphs together (his complaint); I split
some of them up to get around page lap over. Also, since Frost likes to nit pick my punctuation and English, I thought it
only fitting that I should reciprocate by adding my blue SIC’S to his English boo-boos throughout my reply. This is my
exchange with a Church of Christ Campbellite, Gene Frost.
FROST: As for his blue SICs to my copy, I find them sick. A [SIC] means “this; so” to show that a quoted passage,
esp. one containing some error or something questionable, is precisely reproduced. Herb uses it to note my “English booboos,” he says. However, some he uses to refer to a punctuation which is a matter of taste. Often he is absolutely wrong—
it would be interesting to learn his justification for using it. Others are used simply for a pause, to divert attention. In any
event, if he copied the quotation accurately, it is mine, and I ask patience in the reading that the message be not lost.
Anyone reading this exchange would expect a fair and honest presentation of opposing arguments and concepts, out of
which the truth would prevail. But this is not the case in this exchange. The first sentence, under the sub-heading above
(The Great Evans/Frost Exchange) by Herb Evans, is a misrepresentation, not an inadvertent or unintentional
mischaracterization, but a deliberate act which can only be described as a lie. He calls me a “Campbellite,” which I am not
nor have I ever been. In this very first sentence Herb Evans calls me a “Campbellite,” which I have repeatedly shown to
be a lie. Yet he persists. Where is the evidence for such a charge? I address this more fully presently.
EVANS: Frost wants to argue the BIBLE ISSUE and these kinds of things, but I would rather discuss the
Substitutionary Atonement. I am willing to debate the KJB issue in another venue. Yes, Frost is a Campbellite,
which I will demonstrate from Alexander Campbell’s own words in subsequent exchanges.
Exchange between Gene Frost and Herb Evans - Order of the Exchange:
1. Gene Frost, in March 2000, delivered three sermons on the Calvinistic theory of substitutionary atonement.
2. Herb Evans responded in an article, entitled “He Took My Place (The Substitutionary Atonement.)”
3. Gene Frost responded with “Jesus Died For Me, So That I Might Be Saved.”
4. Herb Evans responded, not in a second article, but within the text of “Jesus Died For Me…” by Gene Frost,
reproduced in this article. Evans’ comments are in blue type.
5. Gene Frost in this same article responds to Evans’ comments (blue type) with his (Frost’s) comments in brown
type. – Gene Frost
Jesus Died For Me, So That I Might Be Saved
Response to “He Took My Place (The Substitutionary Atonement)” by Herb Evans
Reply to Herb Evans’ Response by Gene Frost
Gene Frost: As unpleasant as is the task before me, and as difficult as it has been to have a rational discussion with
one who has proven himself to be ignorant and malicious, still we have made progress.
FROST: Herb emphasizes the words ignorant and malicious with red type face to reflect the definition and use of
“Campbellite” according to the Encyclopedia of Religion, to which we referred earlier (found in first layer of the
exchange, page 7). We have made two points basic to this issue, propositions which undermine the foundation and
superstructure of the KJV-only contention.
Herb Evans: This is typical of Gene Frost’s ad hominem and pontificated arguments and his claims of victory that
contain more insults and name calling than they do facts or Bible. As with many cultists and apostates, [the sentence ends
abruptly – Frost]
[EVANS: There was a typo, and there should have been a comma behind Bible and a small “a” in as
thereafter. Triflers are drawn to that sort of thing.]
FROST: Interesting that things of which we have accused Herb, demonstrating the factual evidence thereof, he now
charges us as being guilty, with no proof, just his assertions. Where did we refer to his person (ad hominem) without
reason? The proof of our argumentation we have presented in Scripture, only referring to his person in charging him with
sinful conduct; e.g. when he persists in calling us a “Campbellite,” without any evidence to justify the charge, and after
we denied it numerous times. When did we make an argument in a dogmatic manner, expecting it to be accepted solely on
the basis I said it? The opposite is the truth of the matter. We accused Herb of expecting us to accept his dogma, with
nothing more than his assertion.
EVANS: YAWN! Argue with yourself over this; I am not writings a book on trifles.
FROST: Evans now identifies the Landmark Bible Baptist Church as “Bible Correctors.” He seems ready to
condemn “Bible Correctors.” So, by all means, he needs to expose and censure the Landmark Baptists as heretics. But will
he? I seriously doubt it.
What is a “Church of Christ-er”? I know what a “Church” is. And I know who “Christ” is. But what is a “Christ-er”?
This is the language of Ashdod! If you are trying to refer to me, I am a “Christian”; neither a Church nor a Christ-er.
EVANS: Unfortunately, Frost does not want to be called anything by way of affiliation; he would rather
remain non-denominated or nameless. If the truth be known, he cannot get along with most Campbellites
regardless of their denominated names.
EVANS: Nevertheless, I prefer to discuss that Bible issue separately as I indicated in my first response. This
discussion is supposed to be about the “Substitutionary Atonement.”
FROST: in consigning men to their eternal destiny. I am just thankful that Herb Evans is not my judge, nor will we
be judged by his theology. (James 4:12, John 12:48.)
Gene Frost: The question still remains, what evidence do we have that the King James Bible is inspired? Even when
the apostles and prophets received and wrote the revealed word by direct revelation, proof was needed before an
unbelieving public would believe that what they taught was revealed from and by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:3-5). And so
“they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.”
(Mark 16:20; emphasis added.) Miracles attended their revealing of the inspired word. Was the claimed inspiration of the
KJV confirmed with miracles and signs? The answer is, no!
Herb Evans: What “word” were they using when they confirmed it with signs and wonders? Was it he spoken word
or the written word? Was Mark 16:20 written then? Does Frost confirm the word with signs and wonders? Did the
apostles and prophets always “write” the scriptures? Or did they dictate them to scribes, who wrote down the dictations.
And did such scribes add there own words, such as Tertius, who wrote down Paul’s words as well as words of his own?
FROST: These questions are designed to undermine the inspired revelation of God’s word. They are typical of
modernists. Herb, do you really not know the answer to your quibbles?
God confirmed the word that was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, whether spoken or written. (2 Thess. 2:15)
EVANS: NO! They were designed to show that Frost cannot answer without destroying his distorted view of
inspiration as to only what was originally written.
EVANS: Rom 16::22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.
FROST: What’s your point if not to challenge the thought that Paul’s epistle was inspired? Do you deny that Paul
was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do you deny that what Tertius penned was approved by the Spirit? Do you
know that Tertius did not have the gift of prophesy? Would Paul have to write every word in his letter for it to be Spiritapproved? Is Rom. 16:22 cited to contradict the statement I made that the writings of the apostles and prophets were
inspired, that here was a portion of his letter not inspired? What is your point, and how does your quibble differ from the
modernist who makes the same?
EVANS: My point was that Tertius’ words were inspired as well as were the oral, written, copied, and
dictated words of God.
FROST: Tertius was Paul’s amanuensis. Often Paul authenticated his dictated letters by writing the salutation with
his own hand:
“The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand. (1 Cor. 16:21)
“The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.” (2 Thess. 3:17)
Herb, do you really have a problem understanding the process of revelation or, as seems more likely, do you ask
questions just to distract? Or, do you to seek some quibble to use to confound or ridicule, or perhaps just to consume my
time in answering? This was the tactic of Jesus’ enemies. They asked many questions with no real interest in knowing the
answer. (Luke 11:53-54)
EVANS: Frost is the quibbler, who does not understand the process of inspiration which even include the
words of an ass and a false prophet.
FROST: Note: not every KJV-only advocate takes the extreme position Evans does.
“Within the King James-only movement the issue [one Bible only] is regarded as doctrinal, although different
doctrinal emphases might be discerned. At the extreme end of the movement are those who believe that God ‘reinspired’
the King James Bible, or the Textus Receptus; that all versions that are translated into other languages should be
translated from the King James rather than from the Greek and Hebrew, that the King James is actually superior to the
Greek and Hebrew texts and can correct them; or that people who have been led to the Lord from one of the modern
versions of the Bible (they would say ‘perversions’) are not really saved.” (Kevin T. Bauder, “Introduction,” The Issues at
Hand, page 18.)
[EVANS: Note: Not every Campbellite takes the extreme position on the Bible that Frost does or the
Substitutionary Atonement. And now, we know what Frost’s extra scriptural authorities are, Kevin Bauder says!
WHOOPIE!]
FROST: The KJV, as good as it is, is not inspired and to claim that it is inspired is not factual, but is a statement of
faith. Evans admits that the KJV was not confirmed by divine miraculous signs. So where is their evidence that the
translation of the Scriptures in 1611 and the refinement in 1769 are inspired? “Ultimately it all boils down to faith.”
Without the confirmation, their claim is baseless.
[EVANS: It all boils down to whether one believes that there is an inspired, preserved Bible extant. Herb
Evans believes there is; Frost does not believe that there is, or refuses to tell us where an inspired Bible is at.]
Herb Evans: The extreme Herb Evans never said that the KJB was RE-INSPIRED!
FROST: Who said you did? That you are at the extreme end of the KJBO movement, according to Kevin Bauder, is
noted in that whereas you do not use the term re-inspired, you say that the Bible was first given in languages of which we
have no certain knowledge, by direct inspiration; and was given again, this time in English in the KJV, by preserved
inspiration. These are two processes of inspiration; some call this inspiration and re-inspiration. So what’s the
difference? Evans does not call his preserved inspiration re-inspiration.
EVANS: The differences are that there was but one inspiration and many copies and publishing and
recreations of God’s word. Check out the second writing of Jeremiah with additional words. Check out what
Tertius adds to Paul’s words in Romans. Frost might also check out what Balaam’s ass says. Who cares what
Bauder says?
EVANS: Why does Frost quote every one else without quoting completely and accurately what Herb Evans says?
FROST: It may be because Evans does not tell us completely and accurately what he believes. We get a snippet here
and there. These snippets, he says, “fully state my position,” which is not so.
EVANS: What does Frost want, a book longer than what we have? I write enough to answer and refute your
questions. What you assume you assume! What Frost is sore at is that Herb Evans does say enough of what Frost
wants him to say in order to find a chink* (no racial slur intended) in Herb Evans’ armour in which he can
capitalize on.
EVANS: Did all the Bible writers confirm their word with signs and wonders? Let us deal with all this textual
material separately. Does Frost believe in an inspired eclectic text? Is his argument of Autographs originating in Hebrew
and Greek not based upon faith? At this juncture, let us rather deal with the topic of discussion, which is the
Substitutionary Atonement.
FROST: Prophets were endowed by the Spirit, and showed by miracles and signs that they were sent of God and
therefore their words were true, whether written or given orally. (John 3:2, Eph. 3:3-5) There was no need for every
utterance and every writing to be independently confirmed.
EVANS: Where is your verse in the Old Testament apart from those miracles that were done before Moses
wrote the law? So, anyhow, do you believe that the unconfirmed (by miracles) Books of the Bible were given by
inspiration as well? I do. Nevertheless, you don’t have those original utterances and writings. What now?
PART 1 SNIPPED
I removed Part 1 again in that I do not plan on arguing the Bible issue all over again. I will answer Part 2
with a few of the KJB exchanges only to maintain the whole of part 2. Frost wants to leave Part One in; I want to
take Part One out; I will accommodate Frost by discussing it in a separate venue. Here, I will have my way and
answer what I wish, however.
—2—
The Text Applied
Gene Frost: Evans argues that the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures are unreliable, and likewise are the
English translations, all except the KJV of 1769; but even so, the understanding ultimately is determined by the advocates
of the KJV-only. Hebrew and Greek texts carry weight only when used in harmony with KJV-only theology. The English
is subject to 1828 definitions, but it, also, only when in harmony with the KJV-only theology.
Brow-beating, rather than reason, is the vehicle promoting the issue. Now we come to the crux of the matter. Much
of our disagreement comes from the meaning of terms used in the KJV. When we both take the same text and reach
different conclusions, how can we settle the issue with confidence as to which conclusion is the meaning of the text?
[Herb Evans: I only have one final authority, and that is the KJB. I do not engage in Bible correction or weasel
wording from extra scriptural sources.]
FROST: In fact, you often give your own definition with no backing from any extra-biblical sources. You have
rejected Hebrew sources, and Greek sources, and English dictionaries when they contradict what you purport the Bible to
teach. You cite them when they support your position.
EVANS: I reject extra-biblical sources as being absolute truth in light of the King James Bible and its truth.
EVANS: If Frost and I are going to settle this, we will do it in English and forget about the Hebrew and Greek, and
what Professor Whachamahamaczysz says. We are responding to Frost’s forcing his views into the underlying languages
when we can no longer tolerate such hype. Sophistic and philosophical reason does not impress us. We can settle it with
you being wrong and the KJB correct.
FROST: Herb is guilty of the very thing of which he accuses me. He assigns his own definition to terms, and then
cites texts where the term is used to claims that the KJV teaches what he says!
EVANS: Yes, I continually compare scripture with scripture while Frost compares theologians with
theologians. I give the benefit of the doubt to the KJB.
Gene Frost: First, we need to understand that in order to fully grasp the meaning of a particular term in the English
translation, we need to know what is the original term since the same English term may represent any number of words
found in the original, with as many varying connotations. For example, there are twenty words in the Greek New
Testament, all of which are translated “bare” in English, each conveying a different connotation—that of carrying a load,
or of being unclothed, or of being pregnant, etc. In some words [SIC] distinctions are subtle; nevertheless [SIC] the
understanding is enriched, [SIC] and may be enough to distinguish truth from error. But Herb Evans limits our
understanding by alleging that the original terms cannot be ascertained, based on the assumption that the Greek texts are
so corrupted as to be useless. So forget about distinguishing connotations. He says of all Greek (Hebrew) texts, “throw
’em away!”
[EVANS: But “bear” never means to “bear” someone else’s burdens per Frost.]
Herb Evans: They are not all entirely corrupt, but why sift through garbage in the hope of finding a silver coin?
FROST: Herb, tell us how the KJV translators created the KJB. Did they have an intact inspired source? Or, did they
sift through corrupt texts (“garbage” he calls them) and accidently find a perfect translation?
EVANS: The translators used pre KJB English Bibles, Latin, and the other foreign versions. They then
compared the result to whatever Hebrew and Greek that they had resulting in being 90% Tyndale. They did not
take 5,000 Greek manuscripts, pieces, and scraps and make less than 5 % of them into an eclectic version.
EVANS: This practice of Frost assuming that the English is wrong and [NOT] to be preferred over what he thinks
the Greek means is mere false presupposition.
FROST: This sentence makes no sense: GF assumes that the English is wrong, yet it is preferred over what he thinks
the Greek means. Duh.
EVANS: I left the word “NOT” out. But when corrected, it makes sense. See above in bracket, and see if it
makes sense now.
EVANS: I am well aware of the many connotations of the words and the games that Church of Christ-ers, Calvinists,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the cults play to advance their views and agendas.
EVANS: They will not get away with it by running to what someone says about the Hebrew and Greek, as a
basis for twisting the English in places, while leaving other places alone which use the same Hebrew and Greek.
The Hebrew and Greek are not useless; I often use such tools to correct heretics, cults, COC, and Bible Correctors
to prove that the KJB is correct while all of its Bible Correcting enemies are wrong.
Gene Frost: Anyone familiar with the King James Bible knows that it has words that are now archaic, and there are
identical words with different connotations, all of which demand correct definitions for the text to be understood. Yet
Evans rejects all sources outside of the English language of 1611. One cannot consult Hebrew or Greek terms from which
the English text is translated. They are all corrupt, he says, and he insists that we throw away the Hebrew/Greek text and
Hebrew/Greek dictionaries … “throw ’em out.”
Herb Evans: We suggest that Mr. Frost obtain Laurance Vance’s book on “ARCHAIC WORDS.” Archaic words
are not wrong – only old, but they still are correct. One might discover that most of those so called archaic words are still
used today. Even the word “LET” as it is used for a net ball in the game of tennis is used today.
FROST: (Actually, it is derived from “prae-” (pre-) and “venire,” to come: to go before.)
EVANS: You mean like Jesus anticipated Peter and talked before him, knowing his thoughts.
FROST: So, according to Evans and company, we cannot gain a fuller understanding of a Bible word by comparing
other English translations, or by learning what the translated word means to those who understand the language.
EVANS: You can do that if you do not contradict or undermine the KJB in the process when tempted.
FROST: Nevertheless, Herb says, “yes, throw out your Greek dictionary and buy a 10 cent English (sic)
paperback…”.A modern English dictionary? That is a problem, in that English is an evolving language, and there were
many words in 1611 which do not mean the same thing today (e.g. “prevent,” “quit,” “conversation,” etc.). Some are
archaic and are generally unused in common conversations, but Herb has the answer for this also. Learn what the English
word meant at the time when translated. Of course, but this itself is a problem. Few have access to etymological
dictionaries, which assign dates to the changing definitions, to enable them to determine word meanings as used in 1611.
Or, one may obtain an old English dictionary, from the same time period as the translation. Since Herb uses a later King
James Version—the particular edition he recommends was published in 1769—he recommends the Noah Webster 1828
American Dictionary. Now this ought to settle how to find correct English definitions. Well, not quite, but we are making
progress.
Herb Evans: Old English is much easier to learn and understand than Hebrew. Well, there you have it. Frost likes
the modern perversions to gain a fuller understanding of the Bible word meanings. Yes, at times, the old English
dictionaries are handy tools, if one is not as careless as Frost. Still, if Frost would read Gail Riplinger’s books, he would
find many corruptions in the lexicons and dictionaries based upon what some erroneously thought that the Greek and
Hebrew said. The Topic is Substitutionary Atonement, in case Frost has forgotten. Incidentally, the English Bible
“prevent” means pre-event as when Peter prevented Jesus, the idea being “anticipated.”
FROST: (Actually, it is derived from “prae-” (pre-) and “venire,” to come: to go before.)
EVANS: Yes, Jesus’ words came before those of Peter as He anticipated what Peter was going to say. YAWN!
SNORE!
Gene Frost: The problem now is, we followed his dictum and sought the meaning of “atonement” in Romans 5:11.
Webster’s Dictionary 1828 defines atonement as: “agreement; concord; reconciliation, after enmity or controversy,” and
cites the very text of Rom. 5. Yet Evans does not accept this definition in the very dictionary he recommends! He says,
“However Gene Frost says that Webster defines it…” No, it is not a question of the way I represent Webster; I quoted
Webster precisely in the manner, or way he wrote it. To offset his own authority, defining the English of the KJV with
Webster’s 1828 dictionary, Herb cites three translations which have the word “atonement,” although he doesn’t tell us the
word from which each is translated. He denies others the right to ascertain the meaning of an English word by consulting
other “corrupt translations,” but he does! In so doing, he repudiates the 1828 Webster Dictionary: ►GF
[EVANS: Was I supposed to tell you what the Greek word was that it was from? Does Webster define
“reconciliation” as “atonement?” I do not deny Frost the right to define anything. Nor did I challenge Frost’s
definition, incomplete as it was.]
Herb Evans: Webster is not my “FINAL” authority nor is it inspired; the KJB is my “FINAL” authority. Where they
agree – fine! Where they do not, I hold to the KJB. It is my practice to use the favorite tools of the cults, heretics, and
Bible Correctors against them even as I do Mr. Frost.
Heretofore, I have not rejected any Webster definitions but rather noted some Gene Frost incompleteness. Still, I do
not endorse or recommend everything in Webster. Webster’s definition of atonement is fine as far as it goes, however,
there is more. See Webster’s definition of “reconciliation.”
Rom. 5:10, 11 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being
reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
we have now received the atonement.
Obviously both words “atonement and “reconciled” are used in Rom. 5:10, 11 with the same underlying Greek word
being used in the English passage as also does the Hebrew to English in the O.T. They are often interchangeable in both
languages.
EVANS: “I never endorsed … Webster … or any corrupt version or corrupt lexicon when wrong.” – Herb Evans
FROST: The above line is part of my article, published in brown. It is the reference following the colon, where I
show that “he repudiates the 1822 Webster Dictionary:” [I now replace it, to be read following the brown paragraph
above.]
EVANS: I do repudiate the non-existing 1822 but not the 1828! I like the 1828 Dictionary! It calls atonement
reconciliation and reconciliation atonement. Also Webster and the early pre KJB Bibles all have atonement in
Romans 5:11. Thank you Jesus! So, what did you show here to be a repudiation of Webster? That it is not
inspired? That it is not always correct? That the definition of “atonement” was fine as far as it goes. Yawn!
►GF FROST: “I never endorsed … Webster … or any corrupt version or corrupt lexicon when wrong.” (He
includes Berry, W.E. Vine, the Septuagint, and Strong’s).
FROST: The following underlined sentence I did not write. Speaking of Herb: (He includes Berry, W.E. Vine, the
Septuagint, and Strong’s -- Frost).
FROST: Are they not all wrong? Let him name the ones which are right.
EVANS: They are not all wrong and not all right, something like you.
FROST: He deliberately deleted the quotation (which is his) from its context, and replaces it with the statement in
brown as though it was mine. This is a dishonest tampering with the text. He pressures me to make a response. Is it not so
that I may not catch him in his devious effort every time? I wonder how many I have let slip by unnoticed. The ones I
have discovered have resulted from a meticulous comparing the present text with the previous layer.
EVANS: Here we have the great judge of motives. Even Frost’s posts of the same things do not agree. We do
not know if those were intentional, but we give him the benefit of the doubt, because we have more grace than
Campbellites. But we plead “SLIPSIES!” I am dealing with a nit picker. And it is a wonder that I have anything
correct with having to follow Frost reconstructions, dictates, and complaints.
FROST: Are they not all wrong? Let him name the ones which are right. How does he determine they are wrong? In
particular, how does he determine when the Webster 1828 Dictionary (which he recommends as giving correct
definitions) is wrong? It can only be when Webster rejects his theology, since no other “authority” is involved. He admits
as much. We have the King James Version, edition of 1769, but no assistance from other translations (either in English,
Hebrew or Greek). How then can the Bible student know the meanings of Bible terms?
EVANS: Where did Webster reject my theology? Webster’s Bible agrees with the KJB. Again, my judgment is
based upon the comparisons with the KJB. Your authorities (and mine) are only wrong when they disagree with
the KJB.
FROST: Immediately I give “Evans’ answer: which he deletes, leaving only the source reference, standing alone
following two of his paragraphs (in blue). I will leave the reference where he places it, but will repeat it with the deleted
quotation. Read the paragraph above (brown type) and then the following:
EVANS: Since Frost is my accuser, I guess that he is my devil. With Frost, it can never be an oversight.
FROST: Evans’ answer:
EVANS: “It is the (sic) preacher’s job to be apt to teach and give the sense of a given passage.” Barry Davis’ 64
Questions, no. 12, LandmarkBibleBaptist.net.)
Herb Evans: No, they are not all wrong in all places. Still, they are the work of men, dead men for the most part, and
they are fallible, uninspired, and biblically wrong, having errors in many places. Webster even made his own translation.
It is odd that the Webster’s translation is just like the KJB in regard to the disputed words. Still, you can start learning the
meanings by comparing scripture with scripture.
FROST: So Herb suggests that the works of men may help, except when they are wrong. Duh. And how do we
determine when they are wrong? When they contradict the teachings of KJBO theologians.
EVANS: NO! Only when they contradict the KJB; they help a great deal when then support the KJB English.
SNORE!
FROST: Where then can one turn to learn the meaning of Bible words?
EVANS: Have you ever heard of the BIBLE? Line upon line, precept upon precept?
FROST: That’s why we have Herb Evans and his ilk! Isn’t this a marvelous arrangement? Like modernists, they
undermine one’s faith in the Bible, while claiming to honor it, and when their disciples cry out in despair for help to
understand, here are the teachers of the movement. They will tell you what the words mean. And once they have defined
the terms, you can find their theology taught on every page! Let one define the terms of discussion, and he can prove
anything!
EVANS: Hardly! You have Herb Evans to catch Frost when he tries to correct the KJB as well as other preKJB Bibles in regards to line upon line and precept upon precept.
EVANS: Rom 5:10, 11 For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much
more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. – Webster translation
FROST: (We will address these terms in the second part of this exchange.)
EVANS: We can’t wait! Bet you don’t!
Herb Evans: I am not a Landmark Baptist, but I stand by what I said that the preacher is to give the sense of the
passage according to Nehemiah 8:8.
FROST: Talk about the subtlety of the serpent! Herb shifts from how to determine the meaning (definition) of
uncertain words used in translating from a foreign language into English to giving the sense of a thought expressed in
one’s native language. It is the difference between translation and exegesis. He quotes Nehemiah 8:8 to claim that when
he defines a word, whether from a particular translation of Scripture or from KJBO theology, he is following the example
of the priests of Israel. Not so!
EVANS: The English preacher is not giving the sense of the passage in Hebrew or Greek but rather in
English, the English reader's own language. It is just like the Hebrew priest giving the sense of the passage in their
own Hebrew language. Excuse me! I did not know it was subtlety to refer to the scripture.
FROST: The Levites read to the people the law, written in their own language, and gave them an insight into what
was said so that they had an understanding of the intent and application of the law. This is far cry from the context of our
discussion. Herb says that where the King James Version uses a word unfamiliar to the reader, he cannot seek the
meaning by reading other English translations of the same text, or by reading a dictionary in the language of the source
document, even when a dictionary study of the English is confined to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. If it contradicts Evans’
theology, it is rejected Herb says to throw out everything except the KJV text. How then does one know what any
particular word means? He cannot use any of the aids common to literary investigation.
EVANS: Well, one thing that Evans can do is to make sure that he is not taking someone’s word for things.
Also Evans can also prevent heretics and apostates from snookering him. However, trusting source material that
agrees with the KJB is often in order. Still, I prefer to do my own research in regard to controversial
interpretations. The rule is if they contradict the KJB, stay away from them.
FROST: Herb says that “you can start learning the meanings by comparing scripture with scripture.” That’s fine,
start there, but when can he conclude his learning, assured that he knows what is said? With no other resources, Herb says
this is the “preacher’s job.”
EVANS: YES! Unless one is in a Brethren church!
EVANS: The preacher can do so by comparing scripture with scripture, since the scriptures cannot be broken (John
10:35). Obviously, Nehemiah assumed that role.
Neh 8:8 They read from the book . . . and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.
Frost is the one that makes the novice and lay persons subservient to lexicons. He is hardly ANY kind of “BIBLE
ONLY” but would rather pick and choose from anything that supports his views rather than discussing the content of the
verse itself on its own merits.
FROST: Herb, are you capable of telling the truth? You pretend to know what I believe and teach, but as you admit,
you really are just speculating.
EVANS: More so than you! Still, to use a word is to have Frost apply it to everything you say.
EVANS: “By only hearing your tape, it was difficult to know everything that you believe. I had to speculate and
read between the lines to cover all the bases.” – Herb Evans.
FROST: This is just more of your blow, to misrepresent, build a straw man, and boast ad nauseam. His charge that I
“make the novice and lay persons subservient to lexicons” is absurd. Herb, on the other hand, makes all translations of the
Bible (in English and other languages), all Hebrew and Greek MSS, all dictionaries and word studies, and probably all
cats and dogs, subservient to his theology, and for the most part (if not in total) he says, “throw ’em out!” Herb doesn’t
know anything about my teaching process. He makes baseless statements, hoping that some wild assertion will resonate
with the reader.
The charge that I “pick and choose from anything that supports (my) views rather than discussing the content of the
verse itself on its own merits” is absurd for the reason that “my views” are gleaned from and based upon what the Bible
teaches. I do not study lexicons with a personal agenda.
EVANS: SNORE!
FROST: The meaning of Bible terms and expressions, not mentioned in the Bible, found in theological dictionaries
(lexicons), I reject! So, who is it that believes and teaches what is foreign to the Scriptures to choose support for
preconceived views in rejecting Scripture. Au contraire. I study the Bible to know God’s will and God’s wisdom, to which
I submit my thoughts and will to do His. When thoughts are introduced, I neither accept nor reject them upon what I
would like to believe, but rather I subject them to what God’s word says. When I determine that doctrines and practices
are contrary to what the Bible teaches—as with an “inspired translation” or “substitutionary atonement,” neither of which
are even mentioned in Scriptures, I reject them! Who defines words not even mentioned in Scripture? Herb, thou art the
man!
EVANS: Is this discussion about Herb Evans or the SA? Or is it propaganda Bologna (Greek for Baloney)?
FROST: And this reference to “lay persons” is also foreign to Scripture, not just the word but the concept also. It
refers to a laity, ordinary people, as distinguished from ordained religious professionals. I do not belong to some elite
clergy class and do not consider myself aloof from “lay persons.” I resent the snobbishness and arrogance of a clergy!
[EVANS: Have it your way! I distinguish the pulpit from the pew, since I am not of the Brethren group!]
EVANS: “By only hearing your tape, it was difficult to know everything that you believe. I had to speculate and read
between the lines to cover all the bases.” – Herb Evans.
Gene Frost: Want to know what various Bible terms mean? Ask Evans, or the teacher who persuades you to become
an advocate of the KJV-only. Rules for understanding, according to Evans and company: ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost’s “according to Evans” rhetoric expounds on the rules of others as if Evans endorsed them.
FROST: I don’t know anyone who would subscribe to the following “rules.” They are gleaned from Evans’ writings.
It would be interesting and enlightening to see him counter each one of these with a true rule of understanding.
►GF FROST: • Don’t consult a dictionary, not even an etymological dictionary, defining the word in the period of
time it was used. If he recommends a dictionary, be sure to ask if he accepts the definition, in case he rejects it. English
definitions are valid only when in harmony with KJVO theology and Herb Evans.
• Don’t read a term, and its context, in another translation of the same passage. Any translation other than the King
James version [SIC] (preferably the 1769 edition) is corrupt by fiat. (However, the truth is: by reading synonymous terms
one finds various shades of meaning, and has a richness of understanding that cannot result from reading an isolated
term.)
Try it with words you encounter in daily communication. Look at a word in a dictionary and read only the first
synonym in the definition, and limit your understanding to that definition. Do so with every word. It won’t take very long
to realize how shallow your understanding of day to day conversations has become.)
• Don’t learn the source word, i.e. if you read a word in the New Testament that you do not understand, do not find
the source word in the Greek text, and do not read its definition in a Greek lexicon or word study.
• What to DO: As you read your Bible, ask the KJV-only preacher what every term means. Over a period of time you
will become so indoctrinated that you will have no problem in thinking as does your mentor and in spouting the party line.
Note to the reader: Do you understand now why some insist upon a KJV only? It allows teachers of error (such as
substitutionary atonement promoters) to define words on their own, without fear of being contradicted by other
translations and definitions of terms. Here is the admission of truth as to why some want those they teach to have no input
outside the text of the King James version [SIC] and their own explanations. No wonder teachers of false doctrine want
this leeway to introduce their doctrines through their definition of words. Herb acknowledges that some “have discovered
that if they are allowed to define (or redefine) Bible Words, then they can easily establish their pet doctrines and theories.”
He should know. “Moreover, any error in definition can mean a more serious error in concept.” That is exactly what we
are trying to head off. (With this insight, now read my first reply with Evans’ response.)
Herb Evans: What we have here is (SIC) sarcastic charges and insults by Frost which pretend to speak for Evans
and KJO’s in regard to their supposed rules, painting Evans with a broad brush without the benefit of quotes.
FROST: (Evans doesn’t like SIC, and I will leave them off, but for now, “there they is.”)
EVANS: Oh, I like sics if they are for the goose as well as the gander.
EVANS: Obviously, Frost is ignorant that one of the strictest KJO's, Dr. Peter Ruckman, is one who teaches Greek at
his Bible Institute in Pensacola Florida. His former PBI Greek teacher, Laurance Vance, has written a Greek study book.
Herb Evans does not redefine words but stays within the confines of the several dictionary definitions and how words are
used in the scripture (in context), while Frost picks and chooses one definition of several with which he wants to run.
Frost denies my final authority, the KJB, which is superior to his extra-scriptural authorities. It does not seem like Frost
relishes the challenge to discuss the Bible issue separately apart from the topic at hand.
FROST: Absolutely untrue that Gene Frost denies the King James Bible. Who is refusing to discuss Bible issues
now, even though he raises them? Right! Herb Evans
EVANS: Right, he just likes to correct part of my final authority with outside sources. Any time now, you can
get to the Substitutionary Atonement. I hope so, for I am tiring of the off topic stuff just to fill pages.
FROST: Who is refusing to discuss Bible issues now, even though he raises them? Right! Herb Evans
EVANS: Herb Evans discusses the Bible issue all the time; he just does not like to mix two or three different
discussions at once, page after page after page, “over and over and over.” That reminds me of "Little Richard,"
and Frost is probably that old.
EVANS: Herb Evans does not redefine words but stays within the confines of the several dictionary definitions and
how words are used in the scripture (in context), while Frost picks and chooses one definition of several with which he
wants to run. Frost denies my final authority, the KJB, which is superior to his extra-scriptural authorities. It does not
seem like Frost relishes the challenge to discuss the Bible issue separately apart from the topic at hand.
FROST: And this reference to “lay persons” is also foreign to Scripture, not just the word but the concept also. It
refers to a laity, ordinary people, as distinguished from ordained religious professionals. I do not belong to some elite
clergy class and do not consider myself aloof from “lay persons.” I resent the snobbishness and arrogance of a clergy!
EVANS: Well I distinguish the pulpit from the pew since I am not one of the denominated “Brethren.”
Gene Frost: Want to know what various Bible terms mean? Ask Evans, or the teacher who persuades you to become
an advocate of the KJV-only. Rules for understanding, according to Evans and company: ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost’s “according to Evans” rhetoric expounds on the rules of others as if Evans endorsed them.
FROST: I don’t know anyone who would subscribe to the following “rules.” They are gleaned from Evans’ writings.
It would be interesting and enlightening to see him counter each one of these with a true rule of understanding.
EVANS: It is easy to establish some thing if you have a final authority. But if you don’t you have to search for
someone who agrees with you. What is your final authority?
“Extra-Scriptural”
FROST: Evans refers frequently to “extra-scriptural sources” and “extra-scriptural authorities.” None of the sources
we have quoted claim to be “extra Scriptural,” meaning additional, more than, or outside of what is usually regarded as
Scripture (in our situation the Bible, Old and New Testaments). To refer to them as such is to accuse them falsely. I
certainly do not regard them as additional Scripture to the Bible, nor as authorities. The reader may note that no one calls
them as such, except Herb Evans. This is probably one of his sneaky ways of falsely charging others without them being
aware of it … but is done for the benefit of his choir! Unless corrected, its repetition may be regarded as an admission that
non-biblical sources are accepted as equal to the Bible. So let’s get it straight: ALL authority belongs to Christ; He alone
has power to author our faith, to command, to exact obedience, and to judge. In Him is vested legislative, executive, and
judicial power.
EVANS: You have substitutes (excuse the word) for scripture! But God magnifies His word above His Name
and tells us that if they speak not according to His word, it is because there is no light in them (Isa 8:20).
FROST: References to works of men—which Evans uses also—are not authoritative. (There is a proper use of the
word “authorities,” not as used in this exchange, but in an academic setting which acknowledges the abilities and
expertise of the one who is cited, and where civility is observed.)
EVANS: And there is a proper use of the word “proper.”
FROST: In falsely identifying secular references as extra-Scriptural authorities, Evans meets Evans coming back!
He says he “does not redefine words but stays within the confines of the several dictionary definitions and how words are
used in the scripture (in context)”! So he says! We ask him, What dictionaries? Hebrew, Greek, and English?
EVANS: I use Wigram’s Englishmen’s concordances of Hebrew and Greek for controversial issues. I like to
rub Bible Correctors’ noses in Vine and Young’s and Strong’s. Of course, I like Webster 1828 as well.
FROST: Are these dictionaries you use “inspired by God” OR, do you use “corrupted lexicons and dictionaries, and
other imperfect, uninspired, fallible, extra-scriptural sources,” including “the work of men, dead men for the most part”?
EVANS: NO to the first question and YES to the second. None are perfect or can hold a candle to the KJB.
FROST: And what are they? Are they books written and published by KJBO advocates, who teach Greek in their
seminaries? Surely not! We don’t need the Greek. “Throw it out!”
EVANS: Actually, I don’t use language books by KJBO’s, but I do use Larry Vance’s book on archaic words.
FROST: Besides, what good is it? These teachers of Hebrew and Greek cannot even prove that the Bible was
written in Hebrew and Greek. It might serve KJBO teachers better to teach students to read Hieroglyphic script, or Coptic
script, or Arabic. After all, you know that the Old Testament might have been written in an Egyptian language; right,
Herb?
EVANS: Now, you are getting it! Still, KJBO’s teach both Greek and Hebrew to handle Bible Correctors and
Campbellites and other curbstone language experts. The good is reinforcing the KJB. But then, Frost cannot even
prove that the Original Autographs were written in Hebrew and Greek, why not Egyptian since Moses was
schooled in the schools of Egypt? Also, before that, Joseph feigned not understanding Hebrew when he required an
interpreter to talk to his brethren in Egypt.
Gene Frost: In March, 2000, I delivered three sermons on the Calvinistic theory of substitutionary atonement, a
theory which says that, on the cross, Jesus took upon Himself all the sins of all mankind to become the object of God’s
indignation and vengeful wrath. There, we are told, He suffered the humiliation and pain of divine rejection, by which the
Father’s anger was assuaged; the guilt of sin was paid, and the lost were freed and assured eternal life in the glorious
afterlife of heaven. Thus, Jesus made all sins His own so that the elect might claim the righteousness of Christ as their
own. In all of this, man was passive; all was accomplished by God’s grace alone. However, not all men are recipients of
God’s grace. Calvinism teaches that grace is limited, determined by God’s election before the world began. All men are
predestined to enjoy eternal life or endure eternal separation, determined by the capricious act of God, without any input
from man of what he might believe or do.
[Herb Evans: I am neither a Calvinist nor a TULIP and deny all five points of Calvinism. Still, I am refuting Frost’s
denial of the Substitutionary Atonement, which Frost is now engaged in “off topic” pontification.]
FROST: I find that Evans’ defense of Substitutionary Atonement is based to a great extent upon other errors he
embraces. He may want to distant the theology of Atonement from KJO-ism, but they are linked in erroneous
suppositions. Doctrines not significantly related are those Evans’ himself introduced. His real complaint is not that they
are off topic, but that I refused to ignore them and allow his boastful claim of making arguments go unanswered. If
perchance I overlook such, I assure the reader it is an unintentional omission.
EVANS: Denial is not an argument and neither are pejoratives, accusations, and associations. I just wish that
you would say something – anything!
Gene Frost: You may question, where does the Bible teach all of this? It doesn’t. In the three lessons mentioned
above, we have attempted to show wherein the truth is compromised in order to advance a doctrine that neither glorifies
God nor contributes to one’s salvation. ►GF
[Herb Evans: Denying something without documentation does not prove one’s position. But Frost demands that
Herb Evans document everything that he says. I guess that is fair!]
FROST: It is only fair that he respond in kind. His assertions do not qualify as arguments.
EVANS: Just what do you think that you have been doing?
►GF FROST: The reader is encouraged to first hear the recorded lessons, and then to read the article by Herb
Evans, followed by this reply [the first level of this exchange].
[EVANS: At this late stage, it is not possible unless you send a written transcript of your audio.]
EVANS: “I have no comment on this, since I am not a Calvinist. My own views on the vicarious or substitutionary
atonement of Jesus Christ will be found throughout this document.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Herb Evans’ reply is most disappointing, not only because it is poorly expressed, but also for the fact
that he does not candidly set forth his faith. I had hoped, which was in vain, for a profitable exchange in Scripture study.
Instead he has chosen a format and tactic designed to confuse. Instead of a coherent presentation of what he regards to be
the truth, he counters with snippets, which the reader, if he is to understand the concept which Evans believes, must piece
together as he reads through his comments. ►GF
[EVANS: I always disappoint Frost when I don’t give him a hook to hang his hat on. But Frost keeps probing
for more.]
Herb Evans: Herb Evans is not writing a treatise; he is engaged in a debate
FROST:—without a debate format: no propositions, no order of response, no observance of any “rules of
controversy” (cf. Elements of Logic, chapter 16, by Levi Hedge)
EVANS: That is because this debate evolved. It started with my critique of Frost’s audio tape. Nevertheless,
with Frost’s chop jobs, can he really talk about snippets?
EVANS: —with Gene Frost. More hype from Frost! What is really going on is that Frost is picking and choosing
Herb Evans’s snippets rather than Frost debating Herb Evans’ complete comments point/counter point.
FROST: Can the reader believe this man? He picks and chooses what word or fragment of a sentence or argument he
wants to refute and counters it with a snippet (a clever retort, or quibble, or sneer), rather than debating the complete
comment or argument. Yet when “Herb Evans’ snippets” are noted, exposed, and answered, he complains! To
accommodate the well-known idiom, we replace “sword” with the “snippet”: He that lives by the snippet shall die by the
snippet. So quit your whining and complaining.
EVANS: Of course, Frost exercises his “double standard” rights.
EVANS: The only thing from Frost that is substantive, in regard to Substitutionary Atonement, thus far, is his
charges, insults, and verbose denials.
FROST: He denies that my responses are substantive. He needs to heed his own words, stated above: “Denying
something without documentation does not prove one’s position.” Better that he would debate than grouse.
►GF FROST: He states, “My own views on the vicarious or substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ will be
found throughout this document.”
FROST: Interesting comment. We can find his views on the vicarious or substitutionary atonement in this exchange.
That’s correct—only in this exchange. You cannot find his views in the Scriptures! His views are not God’s revelation.
EVANS: But Frost had said only snippets are found in the exchange, so how did Frost find my views? Still,
thus far, none of Frost’s negative views are found in regard to the Substitutionary Atonement in this discourse.
What are found so far are his Bible issue denials.
Gene Frost: You can find a snippet here and a snippet there, which together possibly might convey a view of what
he believes … possibly, but then again possibly not. I have concluded that he does not want the reader to fully understand
his position. He hides in the shadows and takes pot shots; and raises questions that only create confusion. He makes
statements which he later contradicts; and throughout he begs the question—he assumes what he must prove.
Herb Evans: How about some specific examples! This exchange is not a doctrinal dissertation. Herb Evans tries to
condense arguments rather than wax verbose like Frost. The snippets and scriptures of mine are understood by those who
want to understand them. Frost’s assumptions, conclusions, and characterizations of Herb Evans mean nothing and are not
arguments.
Gene Frost: This exchange follows the three sermons I delivered on the Calvinistic theory of substitutionary
atonement, which he presumes to review and refute. He acknowledges the subject of these sermons, adding that “most
non-Calvinist believers also believe in the substitutionary atonement.” Now he says he has no comment since he is not a
Calvinist. But he did not, neither [SIC] in his first response nor in this latest, tell us what Calvin taught about
“substitutionary atonement” with which he disagrees and considers to be in error. Even so, he is a non-Calvinist who “also
believes” in substitutionary atonement, as did Calvin. Now, I suppose we are to figure this out from the snippets here and
there in his responses. How long must these exchanges continue before we can expect to get the whole picture? My
impression at this time is that Evans is not writing to fully instruct anyone unfamiliar with the substitutionary debate, but
is playing to the gallery to hold those already deceived by this unsavory doctrine which blasphemes my sinless Lord and
Savior (who never possessed sin, never guilty of sin)!
Herb Evans: In regard to Frost’s attempt to associate me with Calvin, I am not a Calvinist, and I care not what
Calvin taught.
FROST: Shall I treat his denial of being a “Calvinist” in the same way he treats my denial of being a “Campbellite”?
EVANS: Why not! Be my guest, if it ever gets Frost any closer to discussing our initial topic, the
Substitutionary Atonement.
EVANS: Still, I am engaged in refutation of Frost’s denial of the Substitutionary Atonement and grow weary of his
off topic changing the subject to escape the inevitable. I am not bound to tell Frost what Calvin taught on the atonement,
since I don’t even know or care what he taught. I never said that I have “NO” comment on the vicarious atonement, since
I say plenty on it in this reply. Nevertheless, I have “NO” comment on Calvin’s views or what he believed and do not
desire to engage in another “OFF TOPIC” discussion to further Frost’s “muddy the water” approach in regard to the topic
that we are supposed to be discussing, i.e., the Substitutionary Atonement.
FROST: (like “Campbellism”?)
EVANS: Like baptism and the Bible issue!
FROST: What Herb is unable to counter, he calls “off topic.” He arrogantly tells me what I can answer in his
tirades, and what I must not address. In the first place, he is not in charge of this exchange.
EVANS: I can’t tell Frost what Frost should be answering. I can tell him what he should be addressing –
The Substitutionary Atonement. That is a fair and ethical admonition. Still, Frost does not accept admonitions or
advice to a fault.
FROST: In the second place, the so-called “off topic” subjects are ones he introduced and misrepresented, and now
wants dropped, without any correction or apology, when I expose the fallacy of his arguments. Let the reader go back to
Herb’s original article to me, “He Took My Place,” where he can find in the very first three paragraphs references to
“Campbellite preacher,” “Campbellite’s arguments,” “
Campbellite church,” and “‘work for salvation’ Campbellite,” all of which he discusses later with gross
misrepresentations and vitriolic slander. After we exposed his slanderous accusations, demanding proof of his charges
which are still baseless, he was not willing to abandon what he now calls “off topic,” he replies, “Nevertheless, the rest of
this exchange will determine that you are a Campbellite…”
EVANS: What Frost calls arguments are really non-connected side issues to the SA. Baptism is somewhat
topically connected in that Campbellites try to use the underlying Greek word “EIS” and their version of the
English word “FOR” in order to force their false theories of water baptism. Still, obviously, Frost wants to
continue those “off topics,” whereas Herb has tired of them and wants to get to the Substitutionary Atonement.
Introduction
Gene Frost: When I first read Herb Evans response to my articles, I wrote the following: “If vilification carries the
battle, then my adversary is victorious; [SIC] But if Scripture and reason win the day, he has failed miserably!”
FROST: [Evans has distorted the above, as I will point out in short order.]
Gene Frost: His response is no better. It is a confirmation of this statement.
EVANS: How is this response? YAWN!
Herb Evans: Well, thus far, all the vilifying has been mostly on Gene Frost’s part.
FROST: (“All”— the entire or total—has been “mostly”—for the greatest part.)
EVANS: SNORT!
EVANS: Our English critic has placed a semicolon where a comma should be and placed a capital B where it should
not be. If Frost is going to nit pick my punctuation, he should at least clean up his own punctuation, grammar, and spelling
to be consistent. We shall post more SICS, in regard to Frost’s English and punctuation boo-boos, later.
FROST: This problem is of Herb’s own making. He runs two lines, which were separated, together as one. In the
original, the statement is:
“If vilification carries the battle, then my adversary is victorious;
But if Scripture and reason win the day, he has failed miserably!”
These are stichometric lines. I will not take the time to explain this to Herb. Let him look it up himself. He can begin
with defining stichometry. If he would leave off trying to find some advantage by reformatting my articles and comments,
he would not make himself look silly.
EVANS: Yes, blame it on poor Herb. Frost is the victim and he is possibly a Democrat that uses big words to
muddy the stream!
Gene Frost: Making reply to what is addressed to me is made difficult by the fact that my respondent addresses me
as a “Campbellite,” which I am not. I believed in the Lord years before I ever heard the term. Then I had to inquire as to
what a Campbellite is. Not knowing any Campbellites, I had to consult a dictionary or encyclopedia for a definition. I
learned that it had reference to a preacher named Alexander Campbell and those whom he influenced. Since I am not of
that number, nor do I believe or practice anything that is peculiar to him, I could not be a Campbellite. My faith and
religious convictions come from the Scriptures. ►GF
[EVANS: Yeah, supposedly, Alexander Campbell’s doctrine did too. Still, you are fellow traveler to his
baptismal views. ]
EVANS: Which Frost has yet to define.
FROST: —O.K., let’s define “Scriptures” for Herb. We will use the dictionary he endorses: “the books of the Old
and New Testaments; the Bible. The word is used either in the singular or plural number, to denote the sacred writings or
divine oracles, called sacred or holy, as proceeding from God and containing sacred doctrines and precepts.” (Noah
Webster, American Dictionary of theEnglish Language, 1828.)
EVANS: WOW! Now we know what the Scriptures are! Except for where the Scripture that saith unto
Pharaoh in the Old Testament. But what is the Bible? In what language?
►GF FROST: I certainly do not believe what Evans attributes to Campbell or his supposed disciples; namely, that a
Campbellite believes …
• that one “works for salvation.” (Eph. 2:8-9)
[EVANS: This is new to me. I thought Frost considered baptism a work that washed sins away, as well as an
obedience to command works. That certainly would contradict Ephesians 2:8, 9 but what does Frost care about
contradicting and correcting the scriptures?]
FROST: • in being an “anti-atonementer.” (He defines “anti” as counterfeit or substitute, [SIC] but does not define
what an “atonementer” or “counterfeit-atonementer” is. I perceive that Evans creates his own vocabulary and supplies
definitions to his own liking.) (Rom. 10:2-3)
[EVANS: Well, it is something like a substitute Christ or anti-Christ (Auntie Christ).]
FROST: Your [SIC] is wrong again, Herb. It follows a comma before an independent clause, in a complex sentence,
which begins with the coordinating conjunction “but.”
The seven coordinating conjunctions used as connecting words at the beginning of an independent clause are and,
but, for, or, nor, so, and yet. When the second independent clause in a sentence begins with a coordinating conjunction, a
comma is needed before the coordinating conjunction. (Purdue Online Writing Lab). The subject of each clause is “he.”
(Don’t expect me to correct every [SIC] you inject. They are too numerous. I will ignore them, except when the use is
egregious.)
EVANS: That is strange, since my spell checker catches and calls them errors.
FROST: “He defines ‘anti’ as counterfeit or substitute, but [he] does not define what an ‘atonementer’ or ‘counterfeitatonementer’ is.”
►GF FROST: • that there “is power in the TUB.” (Never heard of that before Herb Evans used it.) (Rom. 1:16-17;
2 Pet. 1:2-3)
►GF FROST: • in calling, or being called, a “Southern Catholic.” (Another invented term.) (Matt. 5:11)
EVANS: [SIC] – Capitalize bullets
FROST: Here you go again! The bullets each complete the sentence:
“I certainly do not believe what Evans attributes to Campbell or his supposed disciples; namely, that a Campbellite
believes …” You could number the bullets for the same effect. Obviously, you have no literary style.
EVANS: A high school dropout, like me, with no formal Bible training, does not need a literary style. Herb
Evans just gives it off the cuff with no frills. Still, I trow that I have had more articles published by others than
Frost has had published by others.
Gene Frost: These are things Evans says are true of Campbellites. Obviously, I am not one. In fact, let Herb Evans
name one thing that I believe, or practice, that originated with Campbell, and I will renounce it.
Herb Evans: 1. be dipped or be damned!
FROST: Where did you find this statement from Campbell. I am not familiar with his writings, but I don’t believe
he, or anyone else, would make a statement like that. One is damned by reason of his sins, for his transgression of law (1
John 3:4), not because he failed to believe and be baptized (Mark 16:16, John 3:18). One must believe and obey to be
saved. A refusal to believe is not what damns him. Jesus did not come into the word to condemn unbelievers, who are
already condemned in sin. He came to save men. Upon rejecting Him they remained in a lost condition. They rejected the
only means whereby they could be saved.
EVANS: I answer Frost and what does he do? - He demands exact language and objects to doctrinal
metaphors. Frost equivocates with the word “obey” instead of a universal command to be “baptized.” Let Frost
state categorically that a believer does not go to heaven unless he is baptized. Obey what? The Gospel? Give us a
list of all those obedient works that you say are demanded to be saved or to get one’s sins remitted. If Christ is the
ONLY MEANS be which the lost can be saved, what does that say about baptism”
FROST: “God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed
in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:17-18)
Christ, “being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:9).
The “Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction
from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess 1:7-9).
HERB EVANS: 2. No salvation without water baptism!
FROST: “… God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were
saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:20-21).
Baptism is commanded. (Acts 2:38, 10:48) Jesus said,
“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same
shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a
commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting:
whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” (John 12:48-50)
“…the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them
that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (2 Thess. 1:7-8).
EVANS: There it is, Baptism saves us according to Frost, in his be dipped or be damned doctrine. Frost does
not realize that the salvation here is figurative. They were saved by the ARK (CHRIST) and not the water
judgment. They were SAVED by the ARK. Christ is what this figure of the ARK stands for.
EVANS: 3. reluctance to acknowledge the Trinity.
FROST: “Trinity” is not a Scriptural term. As it refers to God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, I am
at this moment researching. I have now found this same day a statement by A. Campbell that contradicts the calumny
directed against him. From his book, The Christian System, page 174, he wrote:
“In the Law and in the Gospel these sacred and mysterious relations and personal manifestations of God are
presupposed and assumed as the basis of the whole procedure. ‘God created all things by Jesus Christ, and for him.’ ‘The
Word was in the beginning with God,’ ‘before all things,’ and ‘by him all things consist.’ ‘God created man upright.’ Man
sinned: all became mortal: our nature became susceptible of evil. It is in this respect fallen and depraved. ‘There is none
righteous—no, not one.’ God the Father has chosen men in Christ to salvation ‘through the sanctification of the Spirit unto
obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus; and ‘promised,’ to such, ‘eternal life before the foundation of the world.’”
I find no reluctance and no denial. Herb, do you find other personalities in the Godhead? Do you disagree with Campbell
… OR are you a Campbellite?
EVANS: Since the Campbells hung out with the Baptists for a while, and were baptized by a Baptist preacher,
I do not know when he said the above. Nevertheless, I think I have Frost here since he does not deny the charge in
regard to the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit as ONE God. Frost can clarify my charge against him by affirming or
denying that He believes in the triune God Head. Still, there you have it. Because the word trinity is not found in
scripture, we cannot believe in a triune God Head made up of three persons.
EVANS: Those are three commonalities!
FROST: And three misrepresentations.
EVANS: Whether a Church of Christ denomination, the Christian Church denomination, the Disciples of Christ
denomination; they are all Campbellites by virtue of being influenced by Campbell. Frost should read their history. Of
course, like Baptists, there are differences among the Church of Christ-ers . . .
FROST: Is this something like Baptist-ers?
EVANS: YES! Something like that! But Herb does not deny the term “BAPTIST” or his heritage. Apples and
oranges!
EVANS: . . . the denominated Christian church, and the Disciples of Christ. Some do not allow music in their
churches, and some do allow it.] Go ahead and say that the Psalms have no authority for music in the N.T.
Gene Frost: Herb, here was your chance to make your case. Where is the evidence for your charges? You fail
because your slander is unfounded. Every time you call me a “Campbellite,” you lie—A lie, regardless of how many
times it is repeated, is still a lie! I know no nicer way to say it. Reasonable and honorable men know it, and refer to you as
ignorant and uncivil, as I have quoted.
[EVANS: Frost cannot change his heritage by denying it. Baptists count those who believe that there is a
salvific merit in water baptism and count them as Campbellites. And they are even called “Water Dogs,” if Frost
prefers that instead.]
FROST: When you say that Campbell started the Lord’s church (or church of the Lord, or church of Christ, Christ’s
church, or church of God, or God’s church)—notice every time I refer to the church I honor Christ; it is His church (He
built it, purchased it, is the Savior [SIC]* of it, the head of it, etc., Matt. 16:18, Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:23, Eph. 1:22-23)—you
blaspheme Jesus (just as the Jews blasphemed the Holy Spirit in calling Him the spirit of Beelzebub). Nor do you honor
Christ in calling yourself a “Baptist,” a member of the “Baptist church.” By the way, in two responses, you never “took a
look” at your Baptist church origin. Is this “something that (Baptists) never want to do”? *
[EVANS: I could never honor any church composed of power in the TUBBERS or composed of the doctrine of
devils known as “Be Dipped or be Damned” and “There is power in the tub.” Christ, indeed, started the local
church but not an invisible church of your view.]
FROST: The [SIC] above … is this improper? Is Christ not the Savior of His church? Is this the wrong word?
Following your advice to learn the meaning of an English word, consult Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, this is what I found:
Savior: “One that saves or preserves; but properly applied only to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, who has opened the
way to everlasting salvation by his obedience and death, and who is therefore called the Savior, by way of distinction, the
Savior of men, the Savior of the world.”
Herb, do you not believe this? You will not call Jesus Savior? Is the problem that the letter “u” is missing from the
archaic spelling (Saviour)? Tell us plainly: is the spelling of 1611 inspired? Is a modern spelling a corruption of the text?
This [SIC] business of yours is getting SICK!
Evans: When I discuss anything with folks, it is on King James Bible terms basis or nothing. Savior is the
spelling of the perversions and not the spelling of the KJB “SAVIOUR.” Now, you can either like it or you can
lump it!
Herb Evans: I never said that Alexander Campbell started the “Lord’s church” but rather that he is the source of the
denominated Church of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ which are not the Lord’s churches.
FROST: Yes, you say. And we know that you do not tell the truth, as we have proved.
EVANS: YAWN!
EVANS: Baptist churches are churches of God . . .
FROST: (One wouldn’t know it by the name. There’s no honor to God in the name “Baptist.” Where in the
Scriptures do we find “Baptist church” or in the plural, “Baptist churches”?
EVANS: Well, since there was a Baptist that prepared the way and material for the church in the Gospels,
before the terms “Churches of Christ” or “Churches of God” were used, I guess we have to call that something
(how about a Baptist Church?) which Christ afterwards called MY church. YAWN!
EVANS: . . . and churches of Christ in regard to their biblical doctrine.
FROST: A name means nothing without true doctrine.
EVANS: That is why Church of Christ-ers are false teachers. Did you not know that the church in the
Gospels and thereafter was a church with biblical doctrine? This was long before Pentecost or before there were
Pentecostal churches called the Church(es) of God and Campbellite churches called the Churches of Christ,
Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ all which are about 18 centuries too late. – Burp!
FROST: Churches which practice true doctrine, wear the name of Him who is its author! Individual members are
called “Christians” (Acts 11:26).
EVANS: Acts 11:26 says that they were first called Christians there. Do you mean that there were no
Christians until then? And do you mean that there were no true doctrinal churches until the terms “church(es) of
God” and churches of Christ” were used. The Disciples of Christ have a better argument than that. And let us not
forget the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am not sure whether Joseph Smith came on the scene first or
Alexander Campbell.
EVANS: I also believe that Jesus Christ started the true “Church of Christ”
FROST: —as the builder, it is “of Christ” and not “of the Baptist” or “of a Baptist.” (Matt. 16:18)
EVANS: John the BAPTIST prepared the way and the material for Christ and baptized them. Do you believe
that baptism and the Lord’s Supper can be practiced outside of the church? Or do you now believe that there was
a church in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. If not a church, what was it, especially when Jesus and the disciples sang
in the church or congregation and also took the Lord’s Supper?
Psa 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
Heb 2:12 . . . I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Matt 26:30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Mark 14:26 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
EVANS: — (which are always found in the plural in scripture, and/or the true church of God.
FROST: the singular of which is “church” (singular) (but never “of the Baptist,” or “Baptist church”).
EVANS: For a fellow who disdains someone reformatting your stuff, you certainly take liberties in chopping
mine up and interjecting your remarks. I have restored my comment in blue above. Nevertheless, there is never a
“church of Christ” mentioned in scripture, only churches of God, which the Pentecostals claim. Still, do you have
more right to claim either term instead of the Baptists? It was a Baptist who prepared the way and the material for
Christ. Was it John the Christian or John the Baptist if you want to play word games?
FROST: Herb, tell us, are the “seven churches in Asia,” whom Jesus addressed—the church in Ephesus, in Smyrna,
in Pergamos, in Thyatira, in Sardis, in Philadelphia, and in Laodicea—churches of Christ collectively, and individually a
church of Christ?
[EVANS: Not collectively except in the sense that the husband is the head of the wife standing generically for
all husbands. Nevertheless, each Baptist church is to be reckoned as non collective among other Baptist churches.
Still, there is no collective Baptist church so denominated. Is the Church of Christ so denominated?]
EVANS: Nevertheless, let us hear Frost’s history of the origin of Baptist churches, which predates the late history of
the “Johnny come lately” Church of Christ-er assemblies, [another Frost Chop job corrected -Evans.]
FROST:—apparently this is “something that (Baptists) never want to do” while they make their hollow boasts which
I am not; never heard of them. Jesus established His church long before anyone can find any reference to a “Baptist
church.” Evans speaks of a “history of the origin of Baptist churches.” If he has the documentation, let him present it.
Give us names, dates, and places where the first Baptist church was established. He cannot find the origin of a Baptist
church before churches of Christ, which are cited in the New Testament. No Baptist church is mentioned in the New
Testament. Churches of Christ today are the same in name, faith, and practice as you read about them in the Bible.
If Herb attempts to connect a chain of Baptist churches through the centuries to validate his claim of authenticity, he
will have to be infallible. All others before him have failed because there is no unbroken chain! In the words of a
renowned Baptist historian:
EVANS: Jesus established His church before the terms “churches of Christ/churches of God” were coined.
FROST: “The attempt to show that any religious body has come down from the Apostles an unchanged people is of
itself an assumption of infallibility, and contradicts the facts of history.” (Thomas Armitage, “Preface,” A History of the
Baptists.)
[EVANS: Herb Evans does not demand link chain Baptist churches. Baptist type churches were called many
names through the centuries. But we are anxious for Frost to find a church before 1800 that is denominated
“Church of Christ” other than in the way that Baptists and others generically refer to their Christian churches.]
Gene Frost: In your obsession with Campbell, you surely know that he never established a church, even though his
distracters make the false claim. Most of what I know about Campbell I have learned while examining the slander against
him and researching the facts. I found this statement when researching, on the internet, your question of whether he
founded a church. Campbell wrote:
“I have always repudiated all human heads and human names for the people of the Lord, and shall feel very thankful
if you will correct the erroneous impression which your article may have made in thus representing me as the founder of a
religious denomination.” (Richardson, Memoirs of Campbell, II, 441)
Now where is your proof that he did indeed establish a church, which he denied? Give us primary sources, not
statements by false accusers such as yourself.
[EVANS: Campbell was never baptized for the remission of sins (the way Frost believes), for he was baptized
by a Baptist preacher, and the Campbells masqueraded as Baptists for a decade, although not members of a
Baptist church. His father, Tom, established a society that attached itself to the Redstone Baptist Association. Tom
turned the society into a church and ordained his son Alex and licensed him to preach. Still, that did not stop him
from commenting that baptism had something to do with salvation later (quotation later!) Tom, under the
influence of Scott Walker influenced Alexander in regard to Baptismal Regeneration. Alexander became the bigger
influence in the church. See Campbell’s Baptismal regeneration! This brief summary may be found in Bob L.
Ross’ Campbellism Its History and Heresies.]
Herb Evans: Campbell may not have personally founded a church, but the COC denomination and derivatives can
be traced to Campbell historically. Where do we find Frost type of churches in history, prior to Campbell, so called by
whatever name one chooses? Frost’s obsession is to get me off topic.
We are discussing the Substitutionary atonement; has he forgotten? It is not the KJB! It is not Calvinism! It’s not
Landmarkism! It is not Campbellism or baptism or the Bible issue that is the topic, to which I responded, in regard to
Frost’s audio tapes.
FROST: —Churches of Christ are not a denomination. “Denomination,” by definition is: “A large group of religious
congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.”
We have no such organization! Each church is independent.
EVANS: You have just described an Independent Baptist Church that is a true church of Christ. The term
“Church of Christ” name is found on local Churches of Christ, much like the “Baptist” name is found on local
“Baptist Churches,” for identification.
FROST: — We have asked you to name one thing that I believe and practice which I derived from A. Campbell.
Read your Bible! It is you, Herb, who first mentioned “Campbell.” Herb Evans introduces various things in order to vilify
and prejudice. Of course, he wants free reign, to hit and run with no response. However, when we expose his dishonorable
tactics and refute his false accusations, he complains. Herb, either quit making false accusations or quit whining! I have
no sympathy for scoundrels when their own mischief backfires!
EVANS: OKAY! I will put it in Campbellite language. Frost believes that a Believer must OBEY the
command to be BUPTIZED. This is the main tenet of Campbellites from the very first one in the early 1800’s,
although some “Christian Churches” water it down to the point where they sound like Baptists.
Gene Frost: Perhaps it is Herb Evans who is a “Campbellite.” If believing what Campbell taught makes one a
Campbellite, then Herb Evans is a Campbellite because Campbell believed and taught substitutionary atonement, as does
Herb Evans.
[EVANS: Well, would that not include some of your Church of Christ brethren who do not agree with you on
it. Didn’t you debate one?]
[Herb Evans: The problem is with the history of Campbellism, its doctrine and its obsession with water salvation.
Some call them water dogs, if Frost prefers that instead!
FROST —your problem is: you don’t know what you are talking about!—]
EVANS: DITTOS! This is Frost’s solution to a form of discussion that has not yet arrived at the original topic.
FROST: “Some call them…” Herb, this is what you called me in your correspondence! I know that you would never
connect salvation with baptism, but the Lord did, placing faith and baptism before salvation (Mark 16:16). Inspired men,
in teaching the commands of Christ, did. (1 Cor. 14:36):
Peter did, when he quoted God’s command and promise under the new covenant: “whosoever shall call on the name
of the Lord shall be saved.” When his audience asked how to do this—“what shall we do?”
—Peter responded, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins…” (Acts 2:21, 37-38) Ananias did; he told Saul to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) In his epistle, Peter wrote: “God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a
preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now
save us…” (1 Pet. 3:20-21)
EVANS: I guess I might have, through force of habit, but I try not to do it too much, trying to be polite. You
will note that there is a comma after repent indicating the first part of a compound sentence. The second part is the
command to be baptized. Frost stopped before the second comma and the third clause. In Peter, it is the figure that
doth NOW save us, namely, the figure of the ark or TYPE of Christ. Water did not save them. YUP! You are a
Campbellite! We have heard a joyful sound, Water Saves! Water Saves! (Baptist song revised and adapted,)
FROST: Herb, do you ever baptize anyone? Are you obsessed with water baptism? Some people are so obsessed
with water baptism that they identify with it in their religious name, calling themselves “Baptists.” I know you are
obsessed with ridiculing it. Others also ridicule water baptism, calling those who believe in it “water dogs” and
“tadpoles.” The absurdity is calling oneself a Baptist and at the same time ridiculing others who respect baptism.
EVANS: Well, we like to honor the first Baptist, John. Actually, our enemies gave us the name centuries ago,
calling us Anabaptists or RE-Baptizers. But yes, I have baptized folks in the church that I started in New York.
FROST: On the subject, Herb comments, . . .
EVANS: Perhaps, he should read Bob Ross’ book on Campbellism.
FROST: Perhaps you would be better off, Herb, if you quit reading trash yourself. If I filled my mind with nonsense,
I possibly would come to believe as you do. Your faith comes from hearing the words of men. I have demonstrated that
my faith is not derived from men, but from the Scriptures. (Rom. 10:17) Again, I do not believe in substitutionary
atonement (or vicarious), as taught by you or by Campbell.
FROST Continued: “‘God commends his love to us that while yet sinners Christ died for us’—is that not in our
stead? This is what you and the orthodox call ‘vicarious.’ I confess I believe that Christ died for us, in our stead.” —
Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, July 1841
[EVANS: Interesting early history. Much like some of your COC buddies. You must be a COC apostate! Have
you examined his later church history around 1811 and 1812 and Alexander Campbell’s quotes beyond that? I will
post them later.]
FROST: This is what Evans believes—I do not! This is interesting: we have “Campbellite Evans” derogatorily
calling others “Campbellites.”
[Herb Evans: Well, he was bound to get something right after fellowshipping with the Baptists for a while.]
FROST: Thanks for the admission. Campbell believed in a “vicarious” death of Jesus, to which you comment that
“he was bound to get something right after fellowshipping with the Baptists for a while.” You acknowledge that Campbell
got his substitutionary theology from the Baptists. Exactly; and not from the Bible!
EVANS: Many modern day Church of Christ-ers do not believe like Frost on the atonement nor do many Protestants
and most Baptists.]
FROST: Who calls himself this? Or, are you being ugly and insulting? So? What’s your point? You refer to the
“many.” Most people are going to be lost (Matt. 7:13-14); does this give you comfort?
[EVANS: Actually, I am trying to figure out what to call you since you don’t seem to be anything specific.]
Gene Frost: I learned the definition of “Campbellite” from an encyclopedia, which I had in my library. The
following quotation in total is from An Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilius Ferm:
“Campbellites: A term sometimes applied to Disciples of Christ) a) whimsically, by themselves; b) ignorantly, by the
non-church public; c) viciously, as well as ignorantly, by the less enlightened members of the less enlightened sects.
Obsolescent, with the general advance of religious intelligence and interdenominational courtesy.”
[Herb Evans: Good! Add to that the so called “Christian churches” and the “churches of Christ” and you’ll be up to
date.]
Gene Frost: Since you say you are going to continue calling members of the Lord’s church “Campbellites,”
regardless of disclaimers, I guess you are willing to be labeled a vicious, ignorant slanderer, lacking somewhat in
intelligence and courtesy.
[EVANS: Does your suggested names and pejoratives for Herb Evans have a better ring than “Campbellite?
At least the Disciples of Christ knew their heritage, slandering themselves ignorantly per your comment.]
Herb Evans: Well, you have already labeled me with such things.
FROST: No. This is a problem with your point/counterpoint layers. The Encyclopedia reference above (in black
type) was the first mention of the character of those who call others “Campbellites.” In your response (first use of blue
type), you ignored it, and continued to slander with the term “Campbellite.” Then I posted the above conclusion, “I guess
you are willing to be labeled a vicious, ignorant slanderer.” And NOW you say I “have already labeled me…” No, not
before you had opportunity to correct it TWICE. So when you wrote this time, I had NOT already labeled you before.
This is how you use your layer upon layer responses; the order of responses become confused. Confusion helps the
demagogue. Clear and orderly discussion benefits the presentation of truth.
[EVANS: Point/counterpoint keeps an opponent honest since he cannot get away with filibusters in which he
might otherwise not get caught. Right now, I am having a problem distinguishing your color contrasts. So I
sometimes guess and change the shade to a more contrasted color on screen.]
EVANS: Help yourself! I am not using the term derogatively but doctrinally in regard to the main tenet which is
“baptismal regeneration,” which you have conceded by your comments in this discussion.
FROST: So you call me a “Campbellite,” using the word doctrinally—an adverb, a word that modifies a verb, an
adjective, or another adverb. I don’t understand; I am none of these. What word are you modifying? I thought you were
using the word as an appellation (or appellative) to vilify or to create prejudice against me. Come on now, Herb, that is the
truth of the matter, isn’t it? Baptist have trashed Campbell’s name, even as you have trashed mine, and will trash any and
all others who expose the errors of Baptist doctrines, especially KJO “Bible Baptists.” Not that Herb would get us “off
track” again, Oh, no, but he introduces another false charge against Campbell:
EVANS: Not another English lesson! You have been off track since we started. I have made repeated attempts
to get you back on track. The right track is the substitutionary atonement. How old are you? I’ll bet you drive your
wife crazy!
FROST: Being unfamiliar myself with the term and its meaning, seeing that I do not refer to baptism in this term nor
believe as those who do, I have to research how the phrase originated and the definition given it. Here is what I have
found.This term has been batted around so often that no one can give a definition that satisfies every use. Because of
misunderstandings, the Baker’s Dictionary of Theology says, “the actual phrase ‘baptismal regeneration’ is much better
avoided.” Originally the term was applied to the idea that baptism itself, standing alone without faith, saves one:
FROST Continued:
“Baptismal regeneration is the doctrine that in baptism a new birth occurs, not dependent upon faith nor age but
solely the work of Christ’s promise and the supernatural character of the sacrament and by means of which the child or
adult is ‘transplanted’ into the Christian church.” (A Protestant Dictionary, Vergilius Ferm, editor.)
First of all, I reject the concept of “sacrament.” And I find no “supernatural” attributes or power in the act of
submerging one in water, nor from any properties found in the water. Any divine results would come from God,
consequential to His promise to grant such results upon obedience to His directive.
The definition above recognizes the introduction of the term as coming from Roman Catholic theology, which
supplants the word baptismal with sacrament.
“‘Sacrament of regeneration’ is that institution of Christ by which we are reborn to spiritual life.” (Catholic
Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 259.)
Infants and children, without faith their own and yet incapable, are baptize to remove so-called “inherited sin,” and to
gain even more spiritual blessing through its mystical power.
EVANS: I did not refer to any sacrament or infant baptism. I referred to “Baptismal Regeneration,” and what
I mean by it is not subject to what others mean by it. Nevertheless, Frost could solve the problem by telling us
when a Believer is regenerated or born again. We shall await his answer. If Frost can characterize my doctrine as
“penal substitution,” I can characterize his Baptismal water doctrine as “baptismal regeneration.” Is that FAIR?
FROST: The doctrine and practice of baptismal regeneration was further spread by the Church of England. Charles
Spurgeon, famous for his Tabernacle Sermons, addressed the issue in sermon 573, delivered June 5, 1864, taking his
subject from Mark 16:15-16. After a brief apology, he said,
“I find that the great error which we have to contend with throughout England (and it is growing more and more), is
one in direct opposition to my text, well known to you as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We will confront this
dogma with the assertion, that BAPTISM WITHOUT FAITH SAVES NO ONE. … He may have baptism, or he may not
have baptism, but if he believeth not, he shall be in any case most surely damned. Let him be baptized by immersion or
sprinkling, in his infancy, or in his adult age, if he be not led to put his trust in Jesus Christ—if he remaineth an
unbeliever, then this terrible doom is pronounced upon him—‘He that believeth not shall be damned.’ I am not aware that
any Protestant Church in England teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration except one, and that happens to be the
corporation which with none too much humility calls itself the Church of England.”
Toward the close of his sermon, Spurgeon emphasizes his protest that baptism without faith saves no one by
declaring faith’s relationship to baptism:
“Again, baptism is also Faith’s taking her proper place. …Baptism is commanded, and Faith obeys because it is
commanded, and thus takes her proper place.”
EVANS: Not only does Frost distort Herb Evans comments, but Frost also twists Spurgeon's words whose
words do not say that water has anything to do with salvation by Baptism. What is said here is that faith obeys
because it is commanded, cause/effect. What Spurgeon did not say is that faith always obeys every command. It is
what Frost expects however. The thief on the cross as well as others could not obey anything due to their situations.
Others, like Nicodemus were secret disciples, at first, but they were still saved nevertheless. Spurgeon also believed
that regeneration was before baptism as I do and as you evidently do not. What Spurgeon said was that
“BAPTISM WITHOUT FAITH SAVES NO ONE” and not vice versa.
FROST: Having shown the historically accepted definition of baptismal regeneration, we now respond to Herb
Evans’ charge that Alexander Campbell believed and taught it, and that this is the main tenet of faith of “Campbellites,”
with which he falsely aligns me. I do not believe that in baptizing an unbeliever, that there is some mystical power in the
act itself which saves the sinner from his sins and at once adds him to the church and promises him an inheritance in
eternal life. It matters not what Campbell believed—my faith does not come from what he believed or taught. (Rom.
10:17) After saying that, I don’t believe that Campbell believed and taught that baptism administered where there is no
faith produced spiritual blessings. So, as I did with the origin of the terminology (baptismal regeneration), I will now
research what Campbell taught. (There is a time delay in my writing.)
Within a short while, here is the result of my investigation.
“Baptism is, then, designed to introduce the subjects of it into the participation of the blessings of the death and
resurrection of Christ; who ‘died for our sins,’ and ‘rose again for our justification.’ But it has no abstract efficacy.
Without previous faith in the blood of Christ, and deep and unfeigned repentance before God, neither immersion in
water, nor any other action, can secure to us the blessings of peace and pardon. It can merit nothing.” (A. Campbell, The
Christian System, page 60; underline added for emphasis.)
I am not a disciple of Campbell. Nevertheless, I do not take pleasure in seeing anyone misrepresented and his name
trashed, especially by one whose own character is besmirched.
EVANS: Well, first of all, Frost correctly says the design is to introduce the subjects INTO THE
PARTICIPATION of the blessings of the death and resurrection of Christ; I, as did the Baptists of Campbell’s
day, interpret that as a depiction of the same by the subjects. Still, your first underline tells us that it has no
abstract (whatever abstract means here) efficacy without previous faith in Christ and (not underlined) deep and
unfeigned repentance before God. Your next underlining tells us that neither immersion in water nor any other
ACTION can secure to us pardon and can merit nothing. The problem Frost has here is in understanding that
Campbell was talking about baptism without faith and repentance. Frost should learn to read. Campbell was not
referring to faith without baptism here and I do not disagree with him here. Nevertheless, the Campbells did not
believe in “Baptismal Regeneration” until over a decade after their church was established. For a brief history see
the following:
Brief History of Campbellism Summarized from the Book “Campbellism, Its History and Heresies”
By Bob L. Ross
Now if you want some history, Tom Campbell, it seems, had a genuine conversion to Christ without baptism
but was later immersed in 1812. He started a society that operated like a church and was rejected by the
Presbyterian synod from being taken into "Christian and ministerial communion.” Eventually, Tom Campbell
organized his association as a new church in 1811, naming it the First Church of the Christian Association of
Washington (PA). Tom baptized by immersion but stood out of the water on the bank while doing so, but he
himself had not been baptized yet. The first Campbellite church appointed Alexander Campbell, his son, an elder
and minister and licensed him to preach in 1811 and 1812.
In 1813, their church joined the Redstone Baptist Association with much resistance from the Baptists but
joined with them for 10 years during their reformation but were never Baptists. Being urged to leave the Redstone
association after sparks began to fly, Alexander joined the Mahoning association, whose churches were friendlier
to the Campbellites, and a second church was formed as the Second church of the Reformation escaping
excommunication from Redstone.
At first, Alexander took a middle of the road position on infant Baptism and saw it as an invention by man.
Later the Campbells changed their minds about it. This problem resulted in the Campbells being baptized as
“adults” by a Baptist preacher. It seems odd that the Campbells who were never members of a Baptist church
went to a Baptist preacher for legitimate baptism after they had been already baptizing their own people in their
own church, which was not a Baptist church. It seems the early COC had problems with Church names from the
beginning of their existence.
Tom Campbell, who had not believed in regeneration by baptism, under the influence of Walter Scott came
upon the ground of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and wrote Alexander bout it. Of course, the problem
now is that they had never been baptized for remission of sins, so they had Church membership, baptism but never
salvation. – Herb Evans
Alexander Campbell Excerpts from the Book “Campbellism, Its History and Heresies”
By Bob L. Ross
One of the favorite tricks of the Campbellites, when the light of truth is flashed upon their heresies, is to cry
"Misrepresentation." This they do when their doctrine on baptism is referred to as "baptismal regeneration."
Well, they can cry "Misrepresentation" all they please, but if words have any meaning at all. The following
quotations from Alexander Campbell’s article in The Millennial Harbinger:
"The only time the word regeneration occurs in the New Testament, with a reference to a personal change, it
means, or is equivalent to immersion. Regeneration and immersion are, therefore, two names for the same thing . .
. . As regeneration is taught to be equivalent to 'being born again.' and understood to be of the same import with a
new birth, we shall examine it under this metaphor. For if immersion be equivalent to regeneration, and
regeneration be of the same import with being born again, then being born again, and being immersed are the
same thing; for this plain reason, that things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to one another."
("Extra" on Remission of Sins, page 28).
"Regeneration is, therefore, the act of being born. Hence its connection always with water. The Holy Spirit . . .
calls nothing personal regeneration, except the act of immersion." ("Extra” on Remission of Sins, page 29.
"On this side (of baptism), and on that, mankind are in quite different states. On the one side they are
pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved: on the other side they are in the state of
condemnation. This act is sometimes called immersion, regeneration, conversion; and that this may appear obvious
to all, we shall be at some pains to confirm and illustrate it.” Alexander Campbell in “Extra on Remission of sins,
page 12, Baptismal Regeneration “Discovered,” -- From Campbellism, Its History and heresies, By Bob L. Ross
EVANS: It is obvious that Frost does not know anything about his Campbellite heritage except from what he
reads. Then, he cannot even get what he reads right.
Gene Frost: This is what I have experienced. Those who call others “Campbellites” are either ignorant, or they are
vicious (“just plain mean”) … or both! With an increase of religious intelligence and courtesy, they will stop the
malicious practice. It is a shame that some antagonists never achieve an intelligent and courteous demeanor. It seems that
some people never acquire the social grace in their lives, to attain an amiable disposition.
Unlike one who dies “in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet,” he dies “in the bitterness of his soul, and
never eateth with pleasure.” (Job 21:23-25)
[Herb Evans: You are the one that keeps this thing going in your so called “courteous demeanor;” I would rather
discuss the Substitutionary Atonement instead of your off topic misdirection ploys.]
FROST: Herb, in the very first paragraph of your first article to me, you called me a “Campbellite.” I corrected you
in vain. Instead of dropping it to proceed with other issues of which you are confused, you assume a hectoring stance
determined to vilify without restraint! You want to slander and move on, and whine when one does not wither under your
boisterous assertions. I find no humility or honesty in your behavior. Anyone who applauds your effort, without
repentance, will share your effort and your fate. (2 John 11, Rom. 1:32.)
Evans: I will continue to call you a Campbellite per Alexander’s own quotes. I will stop if you will stop
inferring that I am a Calvinist and if and when you stop discussing Campbellism and when you get to the debate
topic, “The Substitutionary Atonement,”
EVANS: “I was introduced to your tapes, by Phil Jackson, as an elder of the Church of Christ.”
FROST: What a sentence! Hold the prepositional phrases, “to your tapes” and “by Phil Jackson,” and we have: I was
introduced … as an elder of the Church of Christ. To whom (or in your case, to what) were you introduced? “To your
tapes.” By whom were you introduced? “By Phil Jackson.” So Phil Jackson, an elder of the Church of Christ, introduced
you to my tapes. What you say about my use of Hebrew and Greek, I must say about your use of English—it “is not very
good.” Your sentence constructions contribute to the confusion you present.
[EVANS: Charges and counter charges are not arguments. Your English is lacking as well as I pointed out
with my SICS.]
Herb Evans: Now, are we going to make this an English class instead of a discussion on the Substitutionary
Atonement? You try every other avenue to change the subject, don’t you? You will belabor English grammar throughout
this discussion, so I have taken the liberty to add “SIC’s” to your own faulty English comments. My comments are serial,
on the fly (proof read after). This debate is too long, due to your verbosity and failure to get to the point. Needless to say,
your own improper English is viewable above and throughout this reply. Don’t you have better arguments than English?
FROST: How can we have a profitable discussion if you cannot communicate? The Bible we use is in English, so
how can you understand the Bible without knowing the English? Am I going to make this exchange an English class? No,
but I will demand that we conform to English rules which facilitates understanding. Confusion is your only hope. It is
hard to believe that a man of your experience is incapable of clearly setting forth his convictions. If you did not write on
the fly, and would take the time to clearly convey your thoughts in complete sentences rather than in snippets, and leave
off your irritating vilifications, we could cover more in less time. I resent having to take the time to correct errors that
should not have been committed in the first place. I have reviewed your use of [sic], and its misuse numerous times.
Obviously, you do not appreciate my notations, most of which were necessary to alert the reader of the fact that what is
printed is precisely what you presented. Since, this is not your purpose, which appears to be to constantly distract the
reader, I will desist. If this was an English discussion, it would be most interesting to have you explain your use in many
particulars. I ask that the reader be patient, and be amused without losing your focus on the argumentation.
As for changing the subject, we made no agreement as to a particular topic. Nor have you pursued a single subject. In
your opening article, you address vicarious atonement; a “Campbellite church origin from Alexander Campbell”; Bible
correcting; sin offering and the underlying Greek text; baptism and remission of sins; works of obedience and the doctrine
of faith only; inherited sin and Adamic nature; Jesus’ instantaneous crucifixion, and eternity—these immediately come to
mind, accompanied with slurs and slander against this writer. And you have repeated them, while accusing me of
changing the “subject.” What you are suffering is the fact that I am responding to your argumentation wherever it leads,
whereas you want me to limit my response to just one topic, and to allow you to slash, slur and trash everything about the
churches of Christ and our faith and practice.
EVANS: I write off the cuff for the most part; that is how I avoid taking several months to reply as you do.
Your problem with me is that you can’t push me into a corner and get me to say what you want me to say. I don’t
give you a hook to hang your coat. English and splitting up comments is not the problem. Your false doctrine is the
problem as well as your equivocation and lame answers.
EVANS: “If you are not a Church of Christ, I withdraw the ‘Campbellite’ term.” – Herb Evans —A lie, regardless
of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!—
FROST: I am not a Campbellite, and you have not withdrawn your prejudicial attack. As long as you do this, I will
continue to call the reader’s attention to your despicable behavior.
EVANS: Continue to talk about it, and I will continue to call their attention to what you are, a Baptismal
Regenerationist like Campbell as I have shown above. Do you think that the Campbells, after they stopped
masquerading as Baptists, were Campbellites? Incidentally, does Frost know what name they finally decided to go
by?
EVANS: “If you are a member, I retain the term, whether you believe in “everything” that Alexander believes or not.
Nevertheless, the rest of this exchange will determine you are a Campbellite that in its main tenet that believes that water
baptism procures salvation.” – Herb Evans —A lie, regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!—
FROST: To procure is to “to cause; to bring about; to effect.” (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.) Our action does not
produce salvation. Salvation is from Christ, who effects or grants forgiveness to those who believe on Him, not with a
dead faith (James 2:17-19), but with a live faith that responds in obedience. In obedience faith is made perfect (James
2:20-22). Before we can obey Christ, we must believe Him, which comes by learning His expressed will in the gospel
(Rom. 10:17). This is why He commissioned His disciples to preach the gospel. (Mark 16:15)
EVANS: Frost is saying the same thing differently, namely, no water baptism -- no salvation. And no baptism
equals damnation.
FROST: “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by
the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the
obedience of faith…” (Rom 16:25-26).
Thus, Jesus is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb 5:9).
EVANS: Are we to obey in multiple things in order to be saved or to obey the gospel as commanded which
does not include baptism?
Herb Evans: Mr. Frost, keep it up; I will keep responding to your charges. “A rose by any other name . . .”
Gene Frost: Now I know where you are coming from, Herb! You believe in and quote Shakespeare! God does not
approve of lying, of misrepresenting others, and does not justify it. You seek justification in the writings of Shakespeare,
words which he put in the mouth of a love-sick girl! (Romeo and Juliet, II.2) Is Shakespeare your “extra Scriptural
authority”? You cite a number of men, uninspired quotations. I quote the KJB! You boast; I produce.
EVANS: Oh my! Yawn! Let’s make a deal! You stop and I’ll stop. The problem will then be yours because of
the unequal ratio.
Gene Frost: No, Herb, I am not a “Church of Christ.” You should know that “church” refers to a body of people. I
am not a church, but an individual. You express more confusion! Have I been added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:47), or
the church, however addressed as belonging to the Lord? Yes. The Lord doesn’t add people to the Baptist church. Can you
show otherwise—book, chapter, and verse?
[EVANS: Are you a NOTHING, NO NAME church or group? The early Campbellites could not make up
their minds about that either.]
Herb Evans: Super dodge! Frost is not a church, but he is a Church of Christ-er.
FROST: I am satisfied being called by the Bible term, a “Christian.” (1 Peter 4:16) Herb can mock “Christ” and call
me a “Christ-er,” but he will answer for it before God. (John 12:48) “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the
which ye are called?” (James 2:7)
EVANS: The early Campbellites did that too. What were Christians called before Antioch? Disciples? It seems
like the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church have a better argument than you do. At least their names are
found in the scriptures as opposed to your NO NAMED CHURCH. The question is, "Is God satisfied” with a ship
without a flag in war time.
EVANS: I believe that a true Church of Christ is a local body of BORN AGAIN and baptized believers (two
experiences and requirements for membership),
FROST: — but one process: faith made perfect in obedience (Rom. 16:26)—
EVANS: Not so unless faith and water baptism are simultaneous.
EVANS: despite Frost’s play on a nuance of language. Yes, the Lord, indeed, adds to Baptist churches
FROST: —which are not even mentioned in the Bible!
EVANS: It was John the Baptist that baptized folks in the Gospels and prepared the material that Christ used
for His church. What was the name of John the Baptist’s church? Did it have a name? Was it a church? How did
John get the authority from God to baptize? Were John’s disciples sins remitted? Were they saved? How were
they saved? Why was Jesus baptized? You like to ask a lot of questions. How about answering some?
FROST: “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)
EVANS: Therefore, if they were really John’s disciples, who were baptized unto John’s baptism, they would
have known this as well as knowing about the Holy Spirit.
FROST: After John, Jesus established His church and “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
(vs. 5) “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47) Although John baptized, as
recorded in “the Gospel,” by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he was not a Christian, nor were those baptized by him
Christians.
EVANS: Is it true that Frost believe that the church was not established until Pentecost? That would mean
that Frost does not believe that Christ’s church existed in the Gospels? If so, was Christ’s baptism different from
the non-baptized preacher’s baptism who baptized for the remission of sins? Was the baptism after Pentecost and
now for the remission of sins different from those two baptisms? Are there three different kinds of baptisms and
churches? Did Jesus accept John the Baptist’s baptism of Himself and others?
EVANS: John the Baptist was not a Church of Christ-er unless you are able to assign such a term to John with
scripture.
FROST: Nor was he a member of the “church of Christ,” which Jesus purchased with His blood. (Acts 20:28) John
preached before Jesus died.
EVANS: John was not baptized or a member of any church, so was John lost as Campbellites teach in that
situation? Still, there were no “churches of Christ” until after Pentecost, were there? And there certainly was no
Church of Christ (singular). So did not Christ purchase any individuals with His blood before Pentecost in the
Gospels? How did John the Baptist get his sins remitted?
EVANS: Church of God preachers have a similar argument as does Frost. Jehovah’s Witnesses are also prone to
prove that they are the ones by their denominated name.
FROST: Wearing the name of Christ does not “prove” that one is of Christ. It takes more. Granted that one may
make an invalid claim to the name of Christ—there are other marks of identity, that I can show which validates my claim
to be a Christian—but one thing is clear: if one does not wear His name, he cannot claim to be His!
EVANS: So you identifying with a so called “Church of Christ” may also be a false claim?
Gene Frost: You insist upon calling a person a “Campbellite” if one believes in water baptism—this is the “main
tenet.” Is everyone, who believes in baptism, as necessary in obeying Christ in order to receive a remission of sins, a
Campbellite? Are Catholics, Mormons, Pentecostals, and others who accept baptism, all Campbellities?
[EVANS: Cambellities? That is novel a novel name; I think that I will use it. They would have to be token
Campbellites, if they believe that water baptism is a must for salvation. Pentecostals don’t go that far.]
Herb Evans: I believe and accept biblical baptism. Baptists accept baptism and demand it for church membership
AFTER salvation. Nevertheless, any that get baptized or baptize to get salvation or the remission of sins are token
Campbellites even if not so denominated and that even without any Campbellite history.
FROST: : Herb, you are a joke! A “token Campbellite”? Care to define “token”?
EVANS: Shall I laugh now? HA HA HA! HO! HO! HO! HAR! HAR! HAR! A TOKEN or a distinguishing or
non-distinguishing resemblance!
FROST: What about the innumerable souls over the centuries from the apostolic age who have been baptized as
directed—Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27? How do you label them? “Token Campbellites to be”?
EVANS: Mind you, you are asking me for my label! Yes! Campbellites or at least TOKEN Campbellites, if
they were baptized in order to get the remission of sins! Still, over these centuries, what were those churches called
that baptized the way that you specify . . . before Alexander Campbell? Do you have some historical examples?
Methodology
Gene Frost: Before we examine the argumentation for substitutionary atonement by Herb Evans, the reader needs to
be aware of his presupposition and method of study. We can better appreciate where he is going when we understand
where he has been. Evans is a King James Version-only advocate. That is, he believes that only the King James version is
the inspired word of God, and that therefore it is infallible and inerrant … not the 1611 version, but only after God refined
it (a process he calls “preserved inspiration” in contrast to “direct inspiration” [50]) in subsequent editions.
EVANS: YAWN!
Gene Frost: The numbers in [brackets], here and in the next 5 paragraphs, are by Herb Evans and correspond to his
answers to “Barry Davis’ 64 Questions,” http:// kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net.) <SNIP – Herb Evans>
EVANS: “Since our issue is the Vicarious or Substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ FOR our sins, this diatribe
on what Herb Evans believes about the King James Bible and Frost’s attempted refutation thereof has been snipped, since
it is totally unnecessary at this juncture. I would be happy to discuss the Bible issue with Gene Frost in another venue
rather than muddy the water in the issue at hand. So, now, we can finally get to the issue between us.
Gene Frost: This snippet won’t work. It is not your prerogative to set and limit the issue of discussion. Others who
read this exchange need to understand why Herb Evans wants to limit God’s word to one particular edition of the English
language King James Bible, and junk all Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture along with all Hebrew and Greek lexicons.
►GF
[EVANS: It is my prerogative to answer what I wish. It is my prerogative to snip what I wish. It is my
prerogative to not be drawn into a long drawn out discussion of three different things. I have tried to accommodate
Frost above in 20 plus pages of “off topic” discussion without ever getting to my initial challenge to Frost of the
Substitutionary Atonement.]
Herb Evans: As I said, I will discuss the Bible issue separately. It is my prerogative to remove that which is not
relevant to the discussion. My snippets worked well enough to expose Frost’s change of subject and refusal to take his
“off topic” debate to another venue. It is my prerogative not to allow this to turn into a book on several subjects. After a
dozen pages, Frost still does not really substantiate his position and denial of the Substitutionary Atonement.
►GF FROST: Therefore, as Herb has excised everything I have written, down to “Part Two: The Theology of
Substitutionary Atonement,” I have restored it. ►GF
EVANS: Have it whatever way that you want it, and I will reciprocate.
Herb Evans: Frost may repeat anything he wishes; that is his prerogative. Getting me to go too far into Frost’s
change of subject is another matter. My prerogative is to ignore manipulation, trifling, repetition, and verbosity.
FROST: The following paragraph needs to be read immediately following the first paragraph (in black text) under
the subtitle, “Methodology.” Read it first, then continue here. Again Herb mutilates the original text—he combines the
first two paragraphs below into one, and separates my quotes by him and prints them in color (blue) as his change.
Evans: “It was destined to be preserved as inspired scripture, whether copied or whether translated. It was not all
written at the same time nor [SIC] preserved at the same time, however.” [34]
Frost: Herb erroneously identified the preceding statement as being Frost’s, which I have corrected. Herb, this is a
quotation from you! You mark a “boo boo” with [SIC]; so you correct yourself! However, your correction is a boo boo.
“Nor” is a conjunction following a previous negative in the sentence, which means it was not written at the same time and
it was not preserved at the same time. The structure is proper, though your concept itself is a boo boo.
EVANS: My spell checker did not like it. Did you think that I would waste my own time checking you and to
also play the nitpicker?
FROST: “Following four (some say nine) ‘editions’ of the 1611 KJV—an edition is a “version of an earlier
publication having substantial changes or additions”—finally in 1769 a text was published which KJV-only advocates say
is truly the “inspired word of God,” free of any imperfection. Earlier editions apparently only contained “portions of the
word of God” [44]—if they had been perfect, “there would have been no need for” later editions. [42] At least, Evans
says, “We will settle on the 1769 as being the inspired word of God in English.”
[Herb Evans: Frost’s charge of “substantial” change and additions from 1611 is an opinion and not a fact.]
FROST: The statements are factual.
EVANS: saying it is not proving it! Send me your facts in a separate venue.
Gene Frost: Since the inspired word is only in the KJV Bible, God’s will is revealed not in a Hebrew or Greek text,
[SIC] but only in English as defined in Noah Webster’s First Edition of an American Dictionary of the English Language,
1828. “Who needs to go to the Greek, when you have a Webster’s 1828 handy?” [57]
(Above statements in quotations [numbered in brackets] are by Herb Evans, in his answers to “Barry’s 64
Questions.”)
[Herb Evans: Neither my ancient “Barry’s 64 Questions” or anything else that Frost can scrounge up from web sites
are the topic in this venue. Nevertheless, editions and revisions are not the same things. Still, it will be discovered that
Herb Evans does not gainsay many of the definitions which Frost presents but rather has complained about the incomplete
nature of Frost’s definitions.]
Gene Frost: Whether the King James version [SIC] is the only inspired Scriptural text is crucial to our review of
Evans’ treatise. In making this determination, we must first understand the meaning of inspiration.
[Herb Evans: For Frost to deny the KJB as our final authority, he must provide us with a better final authority that is
complete, intact, and having a name. The sole authority of the KJB is crucial to Gene Frost, because his atonement
arguments cannot stand on their own merits without subject changing to the Bible issue or to Hebrew or Greek.
Nevertheless, he will never biblically understand the meaning of “inspiration” in a month of Sundays.]
FROST: Christ is the final authority. It is expressed in His word. His word is not confined to the English language. It
is expressed originally in Hebrew and Greek.
EVANS: What is your authority for saying that?
Inspiration
NOTE: This first portion on Inspiration has been snipped since it is now so mixed up and restructured and
rearranged by Frost that no one could follow it. Also, since I will I will no longer talk in depth about inspiration or the
Bible issue except in a separate venue as I do all the time and since Frost is using it to obscure the discussion on the
Substitutionary Atonement, therefore it is removed from here. I was thinking about removing the portion about baptism,
but much of it relates to the topic, especially Baptismal Regeneration, so I have included it. – Herb Evans
Part Two: The Theology of Substitutionary Atonement
Gene Frost: Herb Evans, in his opening sentence, expresses surprise: “who would have thought that the
substitutionary or vicarious or expiatory atonement of Jesus Christ would be attacked or challenged by anyone but
modernists?” The answer is easy: anyone who learned of Jesus in study of the Bible, free from the theologies of man. The
early Christians never heard of it, nor did anyone else for the first ten centuries after Christ. Neither “substitutionary
atonement,” nor “vicarious atonement,” nor “expiatory atonement,” can be found in the Scriptures! Neither does one find
“substitutionary,” “vicarious,” nor “expiatory” in the Scriptures.
EVANS: “I ran into this same dialogue of “term” denial with a Pentecostal Oneness/Jesus Only advocate who
denies the Trinity and also with a Postmillennialist who denies the rapture. Yes, the Trinity, the Rapture, the
Substitutionary atonement, the vicarious atonement terms cannot be found in the scriptures. They are scriptural doctrines
that are condensed into these one or two word terms for ease of discussion amongst those who believe them
FROST: If the terms you use, which are denied by Pentecostals, are scriptural doctrines condensed into these terms
for the ease of discussion, then “uncondensed” them and show where they are taught. If you cannot find your doctrines
taught in these or comparable terms, then give them up! Without scripture they are not “scriptural doctrines.” This is the
case of these terms you admit “cannot be found in the scripture”! The truth is, these terms are descriptive of theology, not
Scripture. Try to teach your doctrines, using Scripture and scriptural terms.
EVANS: Unfortunately, they cannot be found in one or two passages and un-condensing them would result in
many additional pages of discussion, which I do not have the time for such an endeavor just to satisfy your
insatiable desire for detail.
Gene Frost: So, you use terms which admittedly are not found in Scripture, to reference doctrines which are
believed by those who are involved in the discussion. You know that I do not believe in substitutionary and vicarious
atonement, yet you use these terms, and assume them when mentioning atonement. As noted earlier, you presume to
“prove” your theological assumptions by simply referencing texts that use the word “atonement,” Scriptures which I
believe and use in describing reconciliation between man and God.
Herb Evans: I only use extra scriptural terms to classify doctrine in a condensed form for brevity, the Trinity, the
Rapture, and etc. I do not use them to prove a doctrine. Most condensed classification is for my choir. If JW’s object to
the Trinity, I cease to refer to it and then go about proving that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
Any use of extra scriptural terms by me is done to establish a brief, condensed explanation of what is commonly believed
by the choir. Frost uses such terms on his tapes, posts, and quotes from others; why can’t I? Of course, if Frost does not
believe in a Triune Godhead (like the early Arian Campbellites), namely, the Father being God, the Son being God, and
the Holy Spirit being God, we can debate that one in a separate venue.
Gene Frost: The point we have made stands. Early Christians used terms, such as “atonement,” because it is a Bible
term. But the theological expression of “substitutionary atonement” was not used, because the concept was not developed
until a much later time. “A survey of the theories which have proliferated across the centuries will show that the biblical
data have been hammered into many conflicting shapes, often in forgetfulness of the mold which the word of God itself
provides.” (Dictionary of Theology, Everett F. Harrison, Editor-in-Chief, page 71.) This is why we cannot find in the
Bible the theology of substitutionary atonement, which you espouse. You do not read of “vicarious atonement,” “penal
satisfaction,” “substitutionary atonement,” and like terms in the Bible. If one wants to know what Bible Baptists believe,
he cannot go to an English Bible source (even a 1611 or 1769 translation), nor to an equivalent text in Greek, or in other
language translations—he will have to ask a KJV-only preacher! Remember? ►GF
Herb Evans: Because certain terms are not used in the past and are later developed into a condensed term, which is
believed as doctrine, by its proponents. Such terms do not demand that the doctrine was not believed or taught before
being so classified after the doctrine is challenged and threatened. The virgin birth, the rapture, Christ’s Deity, and the
Trinity are examples.
►GF FROST: “It is the (sic) preachers job to be apt to teach and give the sense of a given passage”—Herb Evans
(Italics added.) This is a role which you assume, so that the novice cannot make his way alone with the Bible, lexicons, or
dictionary. He must rely upon what you say! You will tell him what he must believe and practice. You are the source of
his faith! Quite a contrast to Rom. 10:17.
Herb Evans: What is the difference when someone relies on what Herb Evans says by using the scriptures and when
Frost relies on Professor Whatchamahamaczysz and/or parroting what some lexicon, dictionary, or theologian says?
FROST: In the first place, we do not find much if anything taught by Evans which comes from Scripture. He boasts
of presenting Scripture, and he may list a number of passages which have nothing to do with what he claims, but where
are the Scriptures for the many things that he says and we ask him for Scriptures?
EVANS: Well, we have finally just got into the Substitutionary Atonement. Nevertheless, where are Frost’s
proof texts that deny the Substitutionary Atonement? Seems like all Frost is doing is denying and gainsaying what
Herb Evans says.
FROST: There is a vast difference between what Herb Evans says in misusing scriptures and what a lexicon says in
defining the terms within the context of Scripture. What Evans says is from his theology, an imagined system of penal
substitution, while a pure lexicon cites meanings found in contemporary documents, which show how the word was used
in the koine Greek period.
EVANS: There is a vast difference between accusing someone of something and proving it and between Greek
bologna (Greek for baloney).
EVANS: “Neh 8:8 They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the
people understood the reading. Obviously, Nehemiah assumed that role. You are the one that makes the novice
subservient to lexicons and are not any kind of a ‘BIBLE ONLY.’” – Herb Evans
FROST: We do the same today when we give the sense of a statement of Scripture by defining the words and their
use in the sentence, and comparing it with other statements of Scripture concerning the same matter. A true sense is not
found in a theological explanation of what one wants the Scripture to teach—this is eisegesis, not exegesis.
Lexicons are instruments designed to give sense to words. They are not in contrast to understanding, but a means to
that end.
EVANS: And if lexicons are wrong or corrupt, based upon theologian’s theology, then the wrong sense is
given. Are we to believe that Frost does this from the pulpit? What did the Nehemian priests use to give the sense
of the passage?
Gene Frost: The word “atonement,” as related to Christ, is found in Scripture in Romans 5:11, but does not refer to a
vicarious substitution, but rather to reconciliation. If Mr. Evans had followed his own dictum, to define English words in
the 1769 King James Version by the Noah Webster 1828 American Dictionary, he would have known this. Whereas the
1769 KJV has “atonement,” Webster defines it as “agreement; concord; reconciliation, after enmity or controversy.
Rom.v.” ►GF
[Herb Evans: Notice how Webster renders these words in his translation (Romans 5:11).]
►GF FROST: — (The reference Webster gives for defining atonement as reconciliation, or synonymously
agreement or concord, is Romans, chapter 5, the Scripture cited above.) Apparently Noah Webster referenced the Greek
word, which he used in defining the English. Very likely he had access to the same Textus Receptus Greek text (with
various textual readings in the margin) as did the KJV translators.
FROST: (Evans changed “Apparently” and “Very likely” into red type. I have restored them, but acknowledge his
alterations. “Apparently” means readily seen; visible; clear or obvious. It is obvious that he knew the meaning of the
word in Romans 5, translated “atonement” the one time and the other times “reconciliation,” that the English has to be
synonymous, based on the Greek text. What is apparent is not a “lie.”) ►GF
EVANS: I emphasized Frost’s words because they exhibited a lack of certainty. Still Webster 1828 rendered
reconciliation as atonement as well. Webster’s Bible reads the same as the KJB as well as all the English pre-KJB Bibles.
Yawn!
[Herb Evans: I don’t deal in “apparent-lies” and “most like-lies” See how Webster 1828 defines “reconciliation?
Also check out the Webster Bible.]
FROST: —What kind of lies are they when you repeatedly accuse Frost of teaching what he has repeatedly shown is
not so? Even quotations from others you falsely assign to him?
EVANS: Obviously, Frost ignores my suggestions to investigate Webster 1828’s take on “reconciliation” and
instead comes back with accusations.
►GF FROST: — My copy of this text gives precisely the same information: the Greek word is katallagen
(accusative, feminine, singular of katallage), which is found three more times in the Greek N.T.: Rom. 11:15; 2 Cor. 5:18,
19, consistently translated reconciliation. (This we pointed out earlier, that of the five times the Greek word is used in the
Bible, only once is it translated “atonement,” and even then it refers to reconciliation, and certainly not substitution.) In
the Interlinear and in George Ricker Berry’s Greek Lexicon, in the same volume as the text, both have “reconciliation.”
Evans accepts Berry as a lexicographer. Of him, in another reference, he says,
“That is what Berry’s interlinear has, and he is somewhat of an authority.” (“Is There Power To Save In The Tub,” The
Flaming Torch, 2009.)
FROST: At this point, we are not talking about substitution; we are talking about “atonement” versus
“reconciliation.” How many times must it be translated “atonement” for you to get it? Berry has it and the Webster Bible
has “atonement.”
EVANS: What do we have here – dueling authorities?
[Herb Evans: Who cares how often the N.T uses a word? Why not consider the O.T. where the Hebrew and words
are used interchangeably for the English “atone” and “reconcile” (as well as their derivatives) and also some other
renderings. Berry is often correct, while far from perfect. Notice how Frost avoided 8:8, as Nehemiah gives the sense of
the passage without a lexicon or grammar.]
FROST: Where in the world did you get this information? We are not speaking of a book or books (that’s a quibble),
but of lexical and grammatical definitions and rules, in written form or not. How do you know that he did not give
definitions of words in giving the sense? Pray tell, how can you give the sense of a statement without giving the meaning
of the words in it?]
EVANS: My info is from the O.T. Where is yours from? Logic? The priests gave the sense of the passages in
Hebrew to Hebrews using Hebrew. American [pastors give the sense of the English passages in English using
English. Burp!
Gene Frost: Although he recommends the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, we see that Evans ignores it when it does not
agree with his theology. Although he repudiates the Greek text and Greek lexicons, Evans uses the Textus Receptus and
Greek lexicon when convenient—“O consistency, thou art a jewel!”
FROST: Webster 1828 agrees with me.
[EVANS: Did you look at the definition for “reconciliation” yet? To which Textus Receptus do you refer?]
[Herb Evans: When other extra scriptural works uphold my standard and final authority, the KJB, in its renderings, I
shall use them. When they contradict them, I shall repudiate them. That is consistency. The underlying words for
“atonement/reconciliation” are used interchangeably in both Testaments to Frost’s disdain.]
FROST: Pure slander! [Show where I ever showed a haughty contempt for the sacred text.] But you have affirmed
my point that atonement is synonymous with reconciliation—both are translated from one and the same word in the N.T.
(katallagen)—and not with substitutionary.
EVANS: There he goes again, manipulating my words. Who said anything about “haughty” contempt? Now,
withdraw your charge! I am glad that you came around and affirmed MY POINT is that the terms are
interchangeable in the Hebrew.
FROST: In other words, when the Textus Receptus and Greek lexicons agree with what Evans says the KJB means,
he “shall use them.” When they contradict him, he takes it as a disagreement with the KJB, and then he “shall repudiate
them.”
EVANS: Almost! The first comment is correct. The second comment should read when they contradict the
KJB.” Poor Frost does not know that the Textus Receptus comes in several versions, and that they are
compilations of different underlying Greek manuscripts with some Latin translated into them. We shall excuse his
ignorance
EVANS: “Rom 5:10, 11 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much
more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”
“Well, Mr. Frost neglects part of the context and immediately begins to correct the King James Bible to establish his
definition of the Greek word as “reconciliation.” -- Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Not so! Herb is so obsessed with name-calling, [SIC] he can hardly wait to call someone a Bible
Corrector, whether the Bible text or the English is under consideration. I suppose if you label someone before a choir of
gullible or brain-washed souls often enough, he will be considered guilty, even without any evidence. Herb, what about
the Bible did I say needs correcting? The only correction in what I wrote is about you. You are the one who recommended
Noah Webster’s English Dictionary of 1828 in which to find the correct definition of English words in the 1769 KJV. I
followed your dictum, and read the definition of “atonement” in the Webster’s 1828 English Dictionary, which defines it
as “agreement; concord; reconciliation, after enmity or controversy.” He references Romans 5, where he defines
atonement as reconciliation.” ►GF
[EVANS: But Frost did not read how Webster 1828 defined “reconciliation” as “atonement.”]
Herb Evans: That which Frost calls name calling is that which Herb Evans calls one’s practice of correcting the KJB
as well as identification and/or association with those who do. Perhaps, Frost needs to be consistent. See Webster 1828
where it also defines “reconciliation.
EVANS: “However Gene Frost says that Webster defines it . . .” -- Herb Evans
►GF FROST: — what do you mean “however Gene Frost says that Webster defines it?” You have the 1828
dictionary … you tell us how Webster defines “atonement”! You have impeached your own authority! ►GF
[EVANS: No! I merely gave you the rest of the story, and you ignored it!]
FROST: You give your own definition, or those you’ve learned from theologians, of terms with which offer no
proof, just opinion. When you seek some semblance of justification for your definitions, you turn to Webster’s 1828,
which you have now impeached. And you throw away all lexicons. All that is left is your opinion. And that is no use.
Those who rely upon it are building on the sand!
EVANS: What is the difference between your authorities and the supposed authorities of mine? Still, I don’t
like to refer to theologians in my studies on controversial issues, for there are always differences of opinion among
each side. I found that folks only quote their side. So, I study the KJB and compare scripture with scripture.
FROST: Of course, Webster is not an authority on the definition of words used in biblical times. We must look to
those whose studies have been in the written documents of the time in which the particular Scriptures were written.
[EVANS: And pray tell, whose written documents were those, the men who you have been quoting to me?]
FROST: The meaning of Bible terms do not change with the changing definitions of the English language. ►GF
[EVANS: True, but which terms do you have in mind that relate to our issue on the SA?]
Herb Evans: No! See Webster 1828 on “reconciliation! I have impeached Gene Frost! The underlying words are
interchangeable in the N.T. and the O.T.!
EVANS: “. . . the Webster Bible, the Bishop’s, and the Geneva Bible have the word ATONEMENT in Rom. 5:11,
just like the King James Bible.” – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: This is not an issue. We have acknowledged that the KJB has “atonement” in Rom. 5:11. We are
discussing what the English word “atonement” means in that context. You try to shift the issue, by pretending that I do not
believe the word atonement is in the text. Shame on you! [SIC] Now note your very next sentence: ►GF
[EVANS: No, I am saying that you do not admit that “reconciliation” means “atonement” according to
Webster 1828 and also the Webster Bible as well as the early pre-KJB Bibles. Were they wrong?]
Herb Evans: You may admit (concede for argument’s sake) that the word is in the text, but you intimate (hint at,
imply) that it is not as accurate in the KJB or in the pre KJB Bibles. You do not seem to grasp that they also translated the
same Greek and Hebrew words for both “reconcile” and “atone” (or derivatives thereof) in both Testaments. If Frost does
not mind the words “atonement” and “reconciliation" being used alternately in the KJB and the other pre KJB English
Bibles, why does Frost make such a fuss over it?
►GF FROST: “You may note that the KJB has both “reconciled” and “atonement” in Rom. 5:10, 11 as KJB
renderings of the Greek word.” You say that “the Greek word” (singular) is rendered (which means “to express in another
language or form; translate”) in the KJB by “both ‘reconciled’ and ‘atonement’.”! [SIC] Precisely what I have said! Now
tell us what this “Greek word” is, and in what Greek text did you find this? Also, are the word and the text inspired? Or,
did the KJV translators use a corrupt text and a corrupt word? Whether you recognize it or not, you have just exposed
yourself!
[EVANS: If it is what you have said, why pursue the Greek further. And if I have exposed myself, why is it
that you have not exposed yourself by saying that is what you said “precisely.”]
Herb Evans: No, I have exposed Gene Frost making a mountain out of a molehill in regard to the single Greek word
underlying the English words “reconciled” and “atonement and/or derivatives.”
Gene Frost: You tell the truth when you say that the same Greek word, used in Rom. 5:10-11, is translated in
English (KJB) by “reconciled” and “atonement.” This poses no problem in that “reconcile” and “atonement” share the
same definition. ►GF
[EVANS: That is what I have been trying to get across to you from the beginning.]
Herb Evans: Well, Frost seems to be backing peddling to my original premise here. The same situation occurs in the
Old Testament with the same Hebrew word underlying both English words. Still, there never was a problem until Frost
made one. Of course, they do share the same definition, something of which I have been trying to convince Frost. No need
to run to the theologians; all you need is a good concordance.
►GF FROST: With just a brief etymological study, Herb could have learned that atone is: “Made up from the
words at and one, and due to the frequent use of the phrase at oon, at one (i.e. reconciled) in Middle English. … (W)e
[SIC] actually find the word onement, reconciliation, in old authors.” (Walter W. Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary
of the English Language, page 315.) We see this reflected in the 1611 translation. In Rom. 5:10, “when we were enemies,”
“we were reconciled” (a verb); “being reconciled (a verb) we shall be saved”; by Christ “we have now received the
atonement” (a noun). First, there is the alienation; then, through Christ we are reconciled, made friends; being made
friends, we are at onement with God. This flows beautifully. From when we are reconciled (action), and being reconciled
(action), we receive the result, or state, of being at one with God, hence atonement is appropriate. You see, I have no
problem with two words being translated from a single Greek term. Herb falsely accuses me of correcting the KJB. No,
no; I accept it when the language is correctly defined. Let’s look at another example of a Greek word being translated by
two different English words in the same verse.
Herb Evans: Why would I want to do all that research and consider your double talk, when I have a Bible to
compare spiritual with spiritual rather than spiritual with carnal? So, now, all that has to be said is that it is a
substitutionary reconciliation.
FROST: HOLD IT, Herb! You say, “substitutionary reconciliation.” Where did you get “substitutionary”? Reader,
see what we told you. False teachers add “substitutionary” to atonement and repeat it so often it becomes practically one
word, and subconsciously “atonement” automatically becomes “substitutionary atonement.”
At this time we are discussing synonymous usage of “atonement” and “reconciliation.” (Read the previous paragraph
in brown type.) Now see how subtly he slips in his doctrine of “substitution.”
FROST Continued: Atonement and reconciliation are synonyms in the idea of being made friends or being at one.
They complement each other. You can express this idea with either word (substitutionary) atonement — reconciliation in
expressing the idea of making friends or being at one with someone. We can use either, but we don’t need both. So Herb
drops “atonement” (from “substitutionary atonement”), leaving just “substitutionary.”
substitutionary — reconciliation
FROST: “So now,” Evans says, “all that has to be said is that it is a substitutionary reconciliation.” Subtle, but
seriously in error. The error is that “substitutionary” is never used with either atonement or with reconciliation in
Scriptures. So where does “substitutionary” come from? It is straight out of theology, smuggled in with a misuse of the
word “atonement.” This is a fallacy that depends upon word association rather than Scripture.
Herb, you think that by merely showing that the Bible uses the word atonement, your case is made: “now, all that has
to be said is that it is a substitutionary reconciliation.” You saying it does not make it spiritual. It takes Jesus saying it (or
the Scriptures using it), to make it spiritual (of, from, or relating to God). (John 6:63) Clever maneuver, but you got
caught. Truth does not need such deception. Shame on you!
EVANS: Frost is impossible and will not allow explanatory words for brevity even though his comments and
those of his extra scriptural authorities do it also. Would you prefer reconciliation in our stead?
Rom 5:10 For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being
reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
2 Cor 5:20 Now then we are embassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in
Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2 Cor 5:18 And all things are from God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to
us the ministry of reconciliation;
Matthew 25:46
“FROST: What is the difference between “everlasting” and “eternal”? Both words are the translation of one and the
same word.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
Herb Evans: Now, Frost is getting it – interchangeable use of words.
FROST: I knew this long before you came along. Now that Herb has said he has gotten it, let’s hope that he can
demonstrate it.
[Herb chopped up the next 2 paragraphs into 22 paragraphs. Herb must realize that I am getting through to the reader,
and he must break up the thought. I have restored them, in order to retain some sense and continuity. Herb evidently needs
the confusion.]
EVANS: Talk about a chop job; I don’t like your restoration. I am restoring this to my point counterpoint
format so that the dialogue can be followed.
EVANS: Also, “atonement” is used throughout the Old Testament as well as the word “reconciliation.” That does
not constitute a mistranslation of either word in either place.”
FROST: Who is talking about “a mistranslation”?
EVANS: Does Frost now realize that both English words are proper translations of the Greek and Hebrew as nouns
and verbs?
FROST: Good! “Nouns and verbs.”
EVANS: In regard to the Textus Receptus, which one of the several is the one that Frost refers.
FROST: Whatever text they had, to which you referred above. (“You may note that the KJB has both ‘reconciled’
and ‘atonement’ in Rom. 5:10, 11 as KJB renderings of the Greek word.”—Evans.)
EVANS: You mean that Frost does not know which one they did possess, Frost being one who exalts (Frost this is not true) the Greek over the English?
FROST: It matters not. Everyone knows that Evans does not ask for enlightenment, but as a quibble to divert
attention away from the issue. If knowing the exact edition of the TR is of great importance, and deserving of lengthy
research, we will defer to Herb Evans to tell which TR, if any, was used in translating the KJB?
EVANS: Well, if Frost does not exalt the Greek over the English, he sure has fooled me.
EVANS: I never endorsed Berry
FROST: —Did you commend him as “somewhat of an authority” or not?—
EVANS: No, I used Berry as an example and introduced Berry as a tool which many count as an authority.
FROST: —Yes, you did! You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth again. Here is what you said of Berry:
“That is what Berry’s interlinear has, and he is somewhat of an authority.” (“Is There Power To Save In The Tub,” The
Flaming Torch, 2009.) This is a self-contradiction.
EVANS: NOT! That is not an endorsement. It is a statement of fact as to how many Bible Correctors regard
him. Frost has to run to another old periodical to marry one of my comments to this discussion. Shameful!
EVANS: —W.E. Vine, Webster,
FROST: — Did you recommend Webster’s 1828 dictionary over a Greek text or not? —
EVANS: No, I do not recommend anything beyond or over the KJB.
FROST: I did not ask, “over the KJB.” I asked, “over a Greek text or not?” You switched the subject, evaded the
answer, and hoped no one will notice.
EVANS: Okay! Let’s clear it up! Do you exalt the Greek text over the English text?
EVANS: I do introduce such things to folks who love extra scriptural authorities, namely, Gene Frost.
EVANS: — the Septuagint, Strong’s, or any corrupt version or corrupt lexicon when wrong. Gene Frost may not
understand that kind of consistency.
FROST: I surely do not equate a commendation and a [SIC] repudiation as some “kind of consistency”; to me it is
the height of inconsistency! Perhaps you have a problem with the word “endorse.” It means “favorable regard;
commendation”; it does not mean unreserved acceptance as absolutely correct or accurate. In any reference, anything that
is wrong is not accepted. This ought to be understood.
EVANS: In other words, Gene Frost does not understand the consistency of the commendation of something which
is correct and the repudiation of something which is wrong.
FROST: Now you are being silly, Herb. You know better. Please refrain for explaining something said with a [SIC]
“in other words.”
EVANS: Right! The term “In other words” is not in the scriptures.
EVANS: You see, with Frost, it is all or nothing!
EVANS: “Still, I do use the Bible Correctors’ own tools against them when necessary.”
FROST: First, however, you need to be sure you are engaging someone who corrects the Bible, before you rashly
hurl the charge. Now you repeat yourself (a sign of mental confusion):
EVANS: Well, then, if Gene Frost does not correct the King James Bible, then we can proceed to using only the KJB
English in our debate of the Substitutionary Atonement.
FROST: I don’t recall using any other translation. Our problem is not with the KJV translation, but with Herb’s
explanation of what it says!
EVANS: I think that you did once, but I’ll pass on it. You did not use the English; you used the Greek over the
English, which means that the English is not good enough for you.
EVANS: But Frost will not allow that to happen!
EVANS: “I never endorse Berry, W.E. Vine, Webster, the Septuagint, Strong’s, or any corrupt version or corrupt
lexicon when they are wrong. Gene Frost may not understand that kind of consistency.” – Herb Evans
FROST: At this point Herb rearranges the text. The following quotation he imports from another place in our
exchange; changes the type faces, and rearranges the order. All I know to do is to set off the corrupted section
between two red line, and restore the site (as on page 15 of the Second layer.)
EVANS: NOTE: At this point, Herb Evans again snips Frost’s rearrangement and reconstruction of things
regarding the Bible issue between Part Two: The Theology of the Substitutionary Atonement. Herb Evans makes
no apology in my attempt to make the discussion flow and be followed, since Frost apparently has no interest in
such things.
The Theology of Atonement
Gene Frost: The first we learn of “atonement” as a theological term is when it was used by Origen (c. 185-254) to
refer to a price paid by God to the devil, to free man who became enslaved to Satan by sin. According to this theory, God
offered Jesus to the devil in exchange for man’s release, a transaction he readily accepted, the devil not realizing that he
would not be able to retain his hold on the Son of God, whose deity was veiled in a body of flesh.
EVANS: “Herb Evans could care less what a dead heretic says. Still, Origen also messed with the Bible as Gene
Frost does.” – Herb Evans.
Gene Frost: It doesn’t matter that Herb Evans is unconcerned about the history of theological atonement. It remains
true that the doctrine is derived from Origen and others, and not from the Bible.
Even so, he tries to correlate Origen’s theological contribution with what he says “Gene Frost does.” The best way to
convict a liar is to challenge him. I challenge Evans to document how Origen messed with the Bible, [SIC] and document
when Gene Frost has done the same. To ignore it, we will consider prima facie evidence that his charge is baseless and
untrue. The truth of the matter is that there is a correlation between Origen and Evans. Evans accepts the idea of a
“substitutionary atonement” and promotes the theoretic assumptions of an evolving theology, as I point out: ►GF
[EVANS: It is the scripture that THROUGHLY FURNISHES one to DOCTRINE and ALL good works.
2 Tim 3:16, 17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good
works.]
Herb Evans: Frost’s own account that he related to Origen said that God paid an atonement price to the devil, and
this alone is sufficient cause to discount Origen and brand him a heretic. There are many books that demonstrate Origen
messing with the Bible. Frost is the internet researcher; let Frost do it instead of sending me on a wild goose chase. I am
not very interested in dead men that support either Frost or me or am willing to go on Frost’s “off topic” snipe hunt. My
assessment of Origen and Alexander Campbell and Frost is in regard to both associational doctrine and associational
practice.
FROST: This is an amazing confession. Origen introduced the theological concept of penal substitution, resulting in
the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Herb Evans said, “Origen also messed with the Bible as Gene Frost does.” I
countered this false accusation with: “best way to convict a liar is to challenge him.” I challenged Evans to document how
(1) Origen messed with the Bible, and (2) to document when Gene Frost has done the same. His response is “let Frost do it
instead of sending me on a wild goose chase.” In other words, he knows that I have not “messed with the Bible” as has
Origen. To try to find where I had, to prove his charge against me, he knows would be a wild goose chase, a humorous
way of saying a futile effort.
EVANS: That was not a confession; that was an “in your face” refusal to go on a wild goose chase! Let Frost
do his own research. Frost may find some stuff on Origen messing with the Bible and also on Origen’ penal self
castration and suggest that I believe and practice it. This is more hype and another misdirection play that side
tracks the flow of discussion.
FROST: How many times have we exposed this man in his unfounded accusations. The sad thing is, he calls me
names, accuses me of believing doctrines which in reality I oppose, and engages in endless manipulations of what I say,
and even after he is exposed, and sometimes admittedly so, he does not repent and apologize. A further disconcerting fact
of our exchange is there is no end (I did say endless, didn’t I?) to the errors he spouts. The exchange has taken much too
long, yet as I continue to read it I am amazed at the fallacious reasoning and conclusions. There is enough correcting to
occupy my attention for years to come. So if I fail to give attention to something that comes to the notice of the reader,
please understand and excuse the failure.
EVANS: Frost has exposed nothing except himself. But I believe that Frost is disposed to carry this on into
years to come.
Gene Frost: In the eleventh century, a shift was made from the devil to God: that it was God who had been sinned
against and offended, so the price for sin was paid to appease the wrath of God. Anselm developed the idea that God
imputed the guilt of all sins, past and future, to Jesus, so that He was rejected by the Father and suffered the full wrath of
divine vengeance, by which we are made free. His suffering was in our stead.
This is theology! It is not inspired, and so it can change with the whims of man … as it has.
Having formulated the theological system of substitutionary atonement, theologians then turned to the Bible to find
justification for it. After hundreds of years of propagating this doctrine, instilling it in the public mind, Biblical terms
began to assume theological definitions.
EVANS: “Herb Evans could care less what dead heretics or theologians say on either side of the issue. I care only
what Gene Frost says and what the scriptures say.” – Herb Evans.
Gene Frost: Mr. Evans buys into a theology and promotes it without any concern as to whether it is true or not.
When challenged, his response is essentially “I don’t care.”
Herb Evans: Herb Evans’ “I don’t care” is in regard to what sinners or heretics say or how some frame history. The
only thing that is absolutely true is the Bible. In Origen’s case, I do know what is true about how he savages the Bible.
Gene Frost: I will illustrate with the first term I referenced in The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical
Principles:
Substitution. The significance of the word, as seen in its useage [SIC], has changed:
“1. The appointment of a deputy (or successor); deputation, delegation – 1758. 2.a. The putting of one person or
thing in place of another 1612. b. With ref. to the principle in religious sacrifices of replacing one kind of victim by
another or a bloody by an unbloody offering; esp. used to designate a doctrine of Atonement according to which Jesus
Christ suffered punishment vicariously for man 1836.”
Note that the idea of one victim being replaced by another began immediately following the KJV translation in 1611.
But the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, that Christ became one in kind with the one replaced—both were sinners
abhorred by the Father (one by imputation and the other by commitment),—did not take hold in casual conversation until
two hundred years later. This is far too late to claim that the KJV translators used terms that conveyed the concept of
substitutionary atonement! Their terms took on theological meanings later.
[Herb Evans: Again, Herb Evans could care less about what Gene Frost’s uninspired history or final authorities say.
Herb Evans is concerned with the authority of the scriptures rather than with Frost’s extra scriptural authorities say.
When, specifically, was the significance of the word “later” changed? Specifically, who changed the word “substitution?”
And by what authority?]
EVANS: “Unfortunately for Mr. Frost, the word “atonement” rather than the word “reconciliation” both which are
in the KJB in Rom. 5:10, 11 were also used in the Geneva Bible and the Bishop’s Bible, both being pre King James
Bibles. It is even used in Webster’s Bible. The bloody or blood atonement and blood propitiation for our sins is well
established in scripture.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Why “unfortunately” for me? I have accepted “atonement” in both the Greek, from which it was
translated, and the English, into which the Greek was rendered, and with both have presented the truth. It is Evans who
rejects the Greek term, and the English definition, which he recommends, until it disagrees with him—then it becomes a
“corrupt lexicon.”
Herb Evans: What Greek term has Herb Evans rejected? All Greek lexicons parrot one another in their meanings
and are corrupt in some way or other. Frost just has to find out when the first lexicon originated [by homosexuals –
EVANS] and then note how the succeeding lexicons parroted from it. Frost should read Riplinger’s, “Hazardous
Materials.”
EVANS: “Exo 30:10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the
sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations:
Lev 16:27 And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make
atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp;” -- Herb Evans
Gene Frost: In these two passages from the Old Testament, Ex. 30:10 and Lev. 16:27, is the word “atonement.” The
1611 KJV translators list in their margin notes (Lev. 16:27): “Levit. 6.30,” as an alternate translation to atonement—“And
no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy
place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire” (emphasis added). The Hebrew text is the same in all three references,
and means to produce “one ment” or “to reconcile.”
The blood of animals covered sins, but could not take them away. (Heb. 10:4) We believe what the following
passages teach. Evans does nothing more than cite them.
Herb Evans: Again, Frost makes the KJB margins (as well as the preface) equal to the KJB Text. [Frost - I do not!]
Again, Frost pits interchangeability against itself. Atonement is reconciliation and reconciliation is atonement. The KJB
O.T. translates the Hebrew in both ways as also does the N.T. Greek. I accept Webster’s definition of “atonement” as
“reconciliation” and his definition of “reconciliation” as “atonement” and “expiation.” Does Frost accept both?
Reconciliation, n. 2. In scripture, the means by which sinners are reconciled and brought into a state of favor with
God, after estrangement or enmity; the atonement; EXPIATION (Webster 1828).
EVANS: Since Frost denies making the marginal notes and the preface equal to the KJB Text, why does he pit
them against one another?
FROST: Let’s look at expiation. Webster, in defining the verb form, comments: “To expiate guilt or a crime, is to
perform some act which is supposed to purify the person guilty; or some act which is accepted by the offended party as
satisfaction for the injury; that is, some act by which his wrath is appeased, and his forgiveness procured.” [Does Evans
believe there is any “guilt” to expiate?] It is telling that Herb cites Scriptures where the sinner is purified, God is
forgiving, and the sinner is reconciled and forgiven. We see this atonement first in the animal sacrifices of the Old
Testament, and then in the sacrifice of Jesus in the New.
EVANS: No! Herb Evans does not believe that one’s guilt is born by Him on the cross. Nevertheless Herb’s
guilt is removed, a byproduct of his sins being removed. Frost has a few “OR’S” in his water. Herb believes that
one’s crimes and sins are expiated but not his guilt. Herb does believe that in regard to Herb’s sins that the
Father’s wrath was appeased and pacified in this act.
FROST: Kaphar is the Hebrew word which is translated principally as atonement, and also as cleanse, disannul,
forgive, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation), etc. [Num. 35:32; Isa. 28:18;Psa. 78.38, Jer.
18:23, Deut. 14:21; Ezek. 16:63, Prov. 16:14, Gen. 32:20(21); 2 Chron. 30:18; Ezek. 43:20, Psa. 65.3(4), 79:9; Isa. 47:11;
Lev. 16:20.]
EVANS: In case Frost does not know, I have a concordance. So, I really do not need his Sunday School lesson.
Frost thinks that he will be heard for his much speaking. I like Frost’s one rendering, however, the word
“PACIFY.” Do you think Frost saw it?
FROST: To cite a few Scriptures in the Old Testament, underlining significant terms associated with the word
atonement:
Lev. 4:20—“And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this:
and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.”
Lev. 5:6—“And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the
flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.”
Lev. 5:10—“And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an
atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.”
EVANS: Frost and I have already agreed that the Hebrew word for sin and sin offering are the same in the
Old Testament Hebrew. No need to belabor it.
FROST: The phrase, “the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin … and it shall be forgiven him,” is
found also in Lev. 5:13, 16, 18; 6:7. Then we find the phrase, “make (an) atonement for,” is used of the Lord (Lev.
8:12:7), of God (Lev, 10:7), of Moses and of Aaron (Lev. 16:6, 10, Num. 8:21), and of the priests: (in addition to
passages above: Lev. 12:7, 14:29, 15:15, 15:30).
In Leviticus, chapter 16, we are told how the blood of animals procured forgiveness, etc. Was the efficacy of the
sacrifice in the suffering of the animal, the climax of which resulted in the draining of the blood? Or was the efficacy of
the sacrifice in the act itself of shedding the blood? Or was the efficacy of the sacrifice in the blood being shed and
ceremonially offered in the tabernacle (temple) as God prescribed?
EVANS: Have you noticed that none of his examples says “reconciliation” – only “atonement! I wonder what
Frost does not want you to see.
FROST: Evans has argued (however he words it) that animals were substitutionary offerings typical of Christ’s
suffering on the cross, that God was satisfied as He witnessed the suffering of Jesus. I stated in the second layer of our
exchange that “according to the theologians, actually it is Jesus’ suffering in man’s stead, His abandonment or rejection,
that appeases God’s wrath and brings forgiveness.” To which he responded: “It is what Isaac and the ram, Moses’
volunteering of self, the slain lambs, and the symbolic scapegoat teach as well as the clear statements of scripture
elsewhere.” Therefore, with the completion of his suffering, the atonement was completed. It was finished. When Jesus
cried out on the cross, “It is finished,” this is what He meant. Here are Herbs own words:
EVANS: “The phrase “it is finished” applies to everything from Jesus’ scourging until His death on the cross.”
“You see the punishment by crucifixion, God’s bruising, and being put to grief by God were, indeed, finished. The
resurrection and the ascension from earth were yet to be accomplished. Then Jesus sat down, at the right hand of the
Father, after He purged our sins and ascended after offering ONE sacrifice FOR EVER.”—Evans.
“What is finished is everything from Jesus’ scourging until His commending His spirit to the Father. Jesus had
purged our sins and carried them away.”
EVANS: Well, the RAM caught in the thicket surely was A SUBSTITUTE. The only thing that Frost seems to
dispute about is FOR WHOM actually the substitute was? Still, Frost does not understand Old Testament types.
Still, the blood of bulls and goats can never TAKE AWAY SINS. So what we have here as sacrifices that do not
actually take away sins and they were not FINISHED as was Christ’s ONE sacrifice for ever.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering often the same sacrifices, which can never
take away sins:
FROST: The atonement by animal sacrifices was not completed when their suffering ended in death, nor was
atonement for our sins complete with the suffering of Christ. Evans and company teach a perverted gospel of Christ.
EVANS: WHHHHHHAAAAATT? This comment is enough to send anyone to hell. Guess who the real
PERVERTER of the Gospel is! The atonement for our sins was complete but not the presentation of the blood.
FROST: We begin with attention to the sin offering on the day of atonement under the law.
The Day of Atonement
FROST: “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, ‘Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day
of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire
unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you
before the Lord your God.’” (Lev. 23:26-28)
1. Under the law, God had the tabernacle erected with all of its furniture. “Now when these things were thus
ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the
high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the
Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was
yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present,” i.e. a parable, a type or shadow, comparable to what was to
come. “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made
with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in
once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of
an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living
God?” (Heb. 9:6-9, 11-14.)
In showing this comparison, we first refer to what is foreshadowed in the law, and the reality in Christ. We will
briefly set forth the atonement given through Moses, followed by what is in Christ.
1. Sacrificial animals, “the blood of bulls and goats,” were offered to atone for the sins of the people under the (high)
priesthood of Aaron: Lev. 16:6, Heb. 7:11.
2. The sacrifices had to be animals without spot or blemish: Deut. 17:1.
Were sins forgiven when the animals were selected? No.
3. They suffered death on the altar before the tabernacle: Lev. 9:7, 16:18.
Were sins forgiven when the animals suffered the pangs of death? Interestingly, no mention is made of animal
suffering. Suffering did not procure forgiveness.
4. The blood of this slaughter was collected (in a basin) and carried into the Most Holy Place: Lev.
16:27.
Did the act of shedding blood bring pardon for sin? No. Blood intrinsically does not produce any moral effect.
5. Here, in the Most Holy Place, the High Priest sprinkled the blood before and upon the Mercy Seat: Lev. 16:12-15.
It was not until this presentation before God, was He forgiving: Lev 16:29-30—“And this shall be a statute for ever
unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month … for on that day shall the priest make an atonement
for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.”
Now consider the atonement in Jesus Christ, who is both our High Priest and our Sacrifice for sins.
1. The true and complete sacrifice for sins is in Jesus: Heb 10:4-10—“For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and
of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest
not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I
come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering
and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which
will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
Were our sins forgiven when Jesus determined to come to earth to be our sacrifice for sin? No.
2. Is Christ, as our sacrifice for sins, is without spot or blemish: 1 Pet. 1:19—We “were not redeemed with
corruptible things, as silver and gold, from (our) vain conversation received by tradition from (our) fathers; but with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot…” If Jesus was made culpable, blemished with
the guilt of sin, He could not have not have been our redeemer.
Were we redeemed by Christ’s sinlessness, without His need to shed His blood? His qualification to be our redeemer
did not negate His need to act in our behalf.
3. Jesus suffered on the cross: Phil. 2:8.
Was it by Christ’s suffering that redemption was effected? If so, then death was superfluous.
4. On the cross Jesus shed His blood and died: Matt. 26:28.
Was our salvation effected upon His death? Was it then that sins were atoned? If so, we were saved prior to His
resurrection and ascension. Yet the Scriptures say, “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”
(1 Cor 15:17)
5. After His resurrection, He entered heaven before the mercy seat: Heb 9:7-9—“But into the second went the high
priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy
Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet
standing: which was a figure for the time then present…”
Was an atonement for sins accomplished for man before Jesus became our High Priest and entered heaven?
6. Jesus, as our High Priest, entered heaven to appear before the mercy seat of God to offer His own blood, with
which He made atonement for sin: Heb. 9:7-9, 11-12—“But into the second went the high priest alone once every year,
not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the
way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for
the time then present … But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect
tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his
own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”
Now observe that under the law the atonement was made possible by the blood of animals, which typified the blood
of Christ: “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest
entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of
the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is
appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto
them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (Heb. 9:24-28)
EVANS: Frost certainly does not want to shorten this discussion, so that he may be heard for his much
speaking. What I am guessing that Frost is trying to show is that the atonement was not finished on the cross since
the animal sacrifices were not yet finished. Still, the animal sacrifices were never finished except in type.
FROST: Atonement for sin, under the first covenant as well under the present dispensation (Heb. 9:15), was not
complete until Jesus entered the holy place (heaven) with His own blood, as typified under the law.
EVANS: Wow! I never thought that I would hear Frost use the word “dispensation.” Perhaps, now they can
try to excuse the thief going to paradise without baptism. But then Frost believes that John the Baptist baptized to
get the remission of sins.
FROST: Each step was necessary for the atonement—His moral purity (without spot or blemish), His suffering as a
Sacrificial Offering on the cross (brazen altar), His death as He shed His blood, His resurrection and ascension, His
entrance into heaven (Most Holy Place), His role as High Priest with His own blood offered as propitiation to God (on the
Mercy Seat). All of this is involved. To have left off any one of these items would have voided the effect. This is the fatal
mistake of Herb Evans and Bible Baptists and Independent Baptists, as per his designation.
Herb Evans says that the blood atonement was accomplished at the death of Jesus when Jesus cried, “It is finished!”
As we have demonstrated, atonement wasn’t fully accomplished until He, as high priest, presented His blood before the
mercy seat of God. What was finished was His earthly ministry, which would be followed by His glorification in heaven,
even as He prayed at the last: “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast
given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
EVANS: Yes, I guessed right, but the animal blood still went into the holiest tabernacle and poured on the
Mercy Seat. Were those sacrifices, which could never take away sin, finished afterwards? If so, no more need for
Jesus! Still, after Jesus shed His blood, He did rise from the dead and did present His blood in the holiest. Yet Jesus
said, “It is finished,” on the cross and not in heaven, when His Spirit went to the Father, and His body went to the
tomb. He did not say these words at His resurrection or ascension as one would think if Frost were correct.
Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit:
and having said thus, he expired.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and
expired.
FROST: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou
me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:1-5)
When Christ comes again, He will receive His own, to bring them into everlasting life in the heavenly kingdom. He
came the first time as a sin offering; He will come the second time with eternal salvation: “So Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many”—a sin offering;—“and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin”—
not as sin offering—“unto salvation”—eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9).
2 Cor. 5:21
Referring to His first coming: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor. 5:21)
EVANS: Again, Frost perverts 2 Cor 5:21 and changing the word “sin” to “sin offering.” The strange thing
about it is that Frost does not get that from the English or the Greek, He just inserts it in the text and surrounds it
with some nice second coming platitudes, like most Bible Correctors. Thank you Jesus!
FROST: If Jesus was “made to be sin,” Himself to be the embodiment of all sins ever committed (from rebellion and
idolatry to rape and murder), then there was no unforgiven sin outside of His body. In which case He would have been
rendered unfit as a sin offering. Yet this very text that says He “knew no sin” is the one some use to claim that He was so
foul a sinner that the Father looked upon him with loathing. On the other hand, in contrast, if God made “his soul an
offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10), as the Scriptures foretold, then there is no contradiction. By His death, we are reconciled and
made righteous. Notice a parallel statement in Rom 8:3-4—“God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and
for sin”—or “by a sacrifice for sin” (KJB translators’ alternate translation),—“condemned sin in the flesh: that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us…”
EVANS: Now, comes the sophistic logic and the “Yea, hath God said(s).” So, Frost thinks that 2 Cor 5:21 is a
contradictsion of Isa 53:10 and therefore he must change it. He then injects an alternate marginal note to buttress
his claim. We ain’t buying it; IT SAYS SIN IN THE ENGLISH AND IN THE GREEK, in both places, Frosty!
Bible Corrector! HAMARTIA? Do you know anywhere in the New Testament where HAMARTIA is rendered
“sin offering” or “even “offering” or even “sacrifice?” Huh?
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
[EVANS: Here are the proof texts that I posted Frost:]
“Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for
the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Heb 9:22 . . . without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 10:19, 20 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and
living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 13:12 . . . Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
EVANS Continued: Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;
Eph 2:13 . . . now in Christ Jesus ye . . . are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
1 Pet 1:18, 19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold . . . But
with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1 John 1:7 . . . and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John 2:2 . . . And he is the propitiation [Bishop’s Bible - atonement] for our sins: and not for ours only, but also
for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 . . . he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation [Geneva – reconciliation] for our sins.
Rev 1:5 . . . Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins IN his own blood . . . [not in baptism]
Rev 5:9 . . . for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood . . .” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: All of the above Scriptures are in total harmony with what I believe. Blood sacrifices were offered
under the law to bring about atonement, or reconciliation (Heb. kaphar). Blood was sprinkled upon the lid of the ark of
the covenant, the “mercy seat” or place of atonement (Heb. kapporeth), above which God promised to meet, first with
Moses, and later with the high priest. (Ex. 25:21-22) The kapporeth typified Christ, as the place where we receive mercy
and forgiveness. (Lev. 16:15, Romans 3:25, Heb. 9:5, 7-9, 11-12) Now we are reconciled, cleansed, forgiven, purged, etc.
through the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. (1 Pet. 1:19)
[EVANS: Of course; they are only in harmony with Frost’s mental reservations. Does he believe that Christ
propitiation was an appeasement and pacification of God’s wrath? Does Frost believe that He washed us from our
sins IN HIS BLOOD or does Frost believe that He washed us from our sins in water?]
Herb Evans: Aside from double talking language lessons and platitudes, Frost allows interchangeability of the
words “atonement” and “reconciliation” derivatives in the O.T. for the same Hebrew word but is not seen in the N.T.
FROST: Evans says that “atonement” and “reconciliation” are derived from the same Hebrew word in the O.T., but
they are not seen from the same Greek word in the N.T. The Greek word from which reconciliation is derived is
katallege. The Greek word katallege is also translated atonement. Obviously they share a connotation. I do not know by
what authority He forbids this interchangeability. (Rom. 5:11)
EVANS: Frost is at it again, massaging my words. It is Frost that did not see this in the N.T. at first. I
continually pushed for the interchangeability of “atonement” and “reconciliation” being interchangeable in the
N.T. as well as the O.T. This is how the debate started after Frost did not like the word synonymous.
FROST: Perhaps the reason for Evans’ confusion is because he recognizes that the same word in Hebrew may be
translated as both “sin” and “sin offering” (or “offering for sin”) in the O.T., but He forbids the same in the Greek N.T.
And in this he is also wrong. Hebrews 10:8—
“Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst
pleasure therein; which are offered by the law…”
EVANS: While I have consistently opted for “atonement” and “reconciliation” as being interchangeable in the
N.T., “sin” and “sin offering” are not. As for trying to use Heb 10:8 to make Frost’s case, Hamartia is not used for,
offering, offerings, or sacrifice, it is not there. Hamartia is translated sin here and not sin offering.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sinG266 thou wouldest
not, neither hadst pleasure which are offered by the law . . .
FROST: The reader needs to note that for the phrase “offering for sin” there is not a Greek word for “offering.” (In
my KJB, the word “offering” is italicized.) The translators render sin as “offering for sin” in this particular text just as
they do sin in particular texts in the O.T.
EVANS: If Frost wants to put his chips on the italicized word to make it read “offering for sin offering,” be
my guest. But what are offerings for sin offering? Most Bible Correctors would not go that far to force a view.
Obviously, in 2 Cor 5:21 they neither render it offering for sin nor “sin offering” even by using italicized words.
FROST: (Of course, we do not have nearly so many references to “sin offerings” in the N.T. as we find in the O.T.,
since we do not have numerous ceremonial sacrifices and offerings. We have the one offering in Jesus, in whom we have
a remission of all sins once for all.) As in Hebrew, we may note that when a negation of sin and its results is under
consideration in context, sin assumes the privative sense (to “unsin” or remove the guilt of sin): “thou shalt make his soul
an offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10).
EVANS: Of course not! The privative sense eh? Actually there are no places where HAMARTIA is “sin
offering.” Hamartia is always “sin!”
FROST: There are certain constructions in the Hebrew and the Greek which suggest when “sin” takes on the
negative aspect. (I first included this information here for the benefit of the serious student, but it is not needed in this
exchange and would only give occasion to Evans’ to mock it.
EVANS: As a serious student, when does sin take on a positive aspect?
FROST: Where the translators thought of “sin offering” as an alternative to “sin” in the text, they put it in the
margin. Thus we find in Rom. 8:3:
“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh…”
EVANS: Oh, another extra scriptural marginal note . . . eh? It does not seem that you are any better off than
you were with 2 Cor 5:21. Let me help you with your resulting FRV translation.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sin offering flesh, and for sin offering condemned sin offering in the flesh:
EVANS: Talk about inconsistency. How much more the blood of Christ includes both reconciliation and atonement!
Mr. Frost has a bad habit of demanding only one definition of a word, whether it is in Hebrew, in Greek, or in English to
the rejection of the other definitions. What is not in harmony with Frost’s beliefs are the “for’s,” the “through’s,” and the
“by’s” in the passages under consideration. Does Frost think the Bishop’s Bible’s rendering of atonement in 1 John 2:2 for
propitiation to be in harmony with his beliefs?
FROST: Since all Bible texts, except the KJV, are corrupt according to Evans, how do they serve His purpose? Are
these “inspired Scriptures?
EVANS: When Frost can’t answer a question, he asks a question in return.
EVANS: Is the Geneva Bible’s rendering of reconciliation in 1 John 4:10 instead of propitiation to in harmony with
Frost’s beliefs? Moreover, are Frost’s beliefs in harmony with Strong’s definition of KAWFAR as “appease and pacify,
reconcile as well as Frost’s posted definitions?”
H3722 ka^phar kaw-far' -- A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively to expiate or
condone, to placate or cancel: - appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to
pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation).
Pro 16:14 The wrath of a king is as messengers of death: but a wise man will pacify H3722 it.
Gen 32:20 And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will appease H3722 him with the
present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me.
FROST: Of course, words may differ in meaning depending upon context (and syntax), Herb’s false accuations [sic]
to the contrary notwithstanding! The problem with Evans is that he notes there are differences, but ignores their contexts,
and thinks he can choose from all the different significances and put his own spin on a given sentence!
EVANS: Well, while Herb agrees with Frost, in regard to context, why cannot it be Frost that is ignoring the
context rather than Evans? And why does Frost always give the definitions that make his case while being silent on
the case of his opponent? And then there is Pro 16:14 and Gen 32:20 that he can think about (above).
Gene Frost: We emphasize the fact that we are cleansed, purged, forgiven by the blood of Christ, who gave “himself
for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour” (Eph. 5:2). In contrast, we are NOT cleansed by the
vengeful wrath of the Almighty, which He poured out upon Jesus, without restraint. (This supposedly was a hatred and
revulsion which God had stored up from the beginning, for all of the filth and evil ever committed by the entire human
race, throughout all time, past, present and future, all of which God laid upon Jesus—they became His guilt and His
blame—and for which He was rejected, abandoned, and suffered the punishment God reserved for the wicked, even His
separation from the Father forever (which Herb says only lasted “an “instant.”)
[EVANS: More propaganda and pontification. I do not need platitudes and sermons.]
Herb Evans: Aside from Gene Frost’s characterization of what others believe (without the benefit of complete
quotes), Frost avoids the word propitiation and a few of its definitions, which the Bishop’s Bible renders “atonement” and
the Geneva Bible renders “reconciliation.”
FROST: What! Is the KJB insufficient? May I now use other translations?
EVANS: You may use what you want. I don’t use other translations. I use the KJB exclusively, but I like to
refer to English Bibles that precede the KJB, when folks gainsay the KJB. Now, if Frost and I could agree as to
using only the English in the KJB, we both would be on a level playing field. But he would never agree to that.
EVANS: Frost may again consult Strong’s and Webster 1828 to discover their other meanings of “propitiation,”
i.e., conciliating favor and the atoning sacrifice to assuage his (God’s) wrath. But we suspect that Frost will continue to
insist and demand his favorite definitions, selectively picked and chosen.
FROST: Who selectively picked and chose your definitions? I notice that you use a number of sources and
recommend different secular references; I suppose these are permissible. I want to be fair, so, Herb, would you send me
your list of books with your imprimatur?
EVANS: I can only give you one – the KJB. Did you notice that I said “OTHER MEANINGS?”
Gene Frost: What is of foremost importance is [SIC] not the English words used in translating the inspired text.
Important they are indeed, but more so are the inspired words of revelation. English words change their meanings. And
unscrupulous men will so manipulate an evolving language to suit their own will.
Gene Frost Continued: The inspired text is a dead language, so that terms retain their meaning, and are to be
understood today as they were understood when selected and revealed by the Holy Spirit. Translators are not prophets
through whom God revealed His word. A translator is one employed to render written works (in this case, the inspired
word in Hebrew and Greek) into another language, our language of English.
NOTE: Frost cannot get the Bible issue out of his craw and tries to substitute it for the discussion on the
Substitutionary atonement. I am ready to give it another big snip if we do not get back to the initial topic of the
Substitutionary atonement.
EVANS: “I would like Gene Frost to tell us what the ‘INSPIRED’ text is. I care little for the conclusions of men or
dictionaries or lexicons, when they contradict the scriptures.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: The text God revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit is inspired. (Eph. 3:3-5) ►GF
Herb Evans: OH? Does Gene Frost have that COMPLETE Text? Can he name it? Where do we find the
COMPLETE TEXT INTACT that was given to the apostles and the prophets?
►GF FROST: It is to be found in thousands of MSS copied and handed down. ►GF
Herb Evans: Oh? Is that the mystical Bible in all the MSS, many which are corrupt? Which manuscripts does Frost
think are “inspired” - the 5% which were used to develop the various “eclectic” texts? Does Gene Frost have anything
tangible, complete, intact, and in one inspired volume, or is Gene Frost sending us on a snipe hunt?
►GF FROST: Now, I will ask him the same question: what is the inspired text given to the apostles and prophets?
I’m not interested in what some heretic or false teacher wants to palm off as “inspired.” I am interested in what the Bible
says is inspired (it is no translation!).
GF: FROST: Did the KJV translators have a COMPLETE TEXT INTACT in one inspired volume, or even in one
corrupt volume? If not, then how do we know that we have an accurate and faithful translation? Do we have any divine
confirmation that the translators of the KJB produced an accurate translation which is the word of God? Is the 1611 King
James Bible the COMPLETE TEXT INTACT of the inspired word of God? Yes or no? We care not about what some
fallible KJBO preacher thinks, or what he says he believes. I have the 1611 edition of the KJB, and later revisions of it,
but I do not deify the translators of it, nor make an idol of the text.
Herb Evans: Well, Frost does not answer the question but boomerangs it back? Good thing that Frost said TEXT,
because the original autographs have disappeared. We do not have the Autographs that were given to the prophets or the
apostles. The nearest thing to that would be the inspired copies (Frost - which are?) that Timothy had (which we also do
not possess) but certainly not what the apostles and prophets were given. I am also interested, in an exact text of what, as
to what the Bible says, if Frost can tells us what that specifically is. Paul wrote that ALL scripture is given by inspiration
of God. If it is scripture, it is inspired. If it is inspired as God gave the apostles and prophets, it is scripture.
EVANS: For a fellow that does not like his paragraphs separated, Frost certainly does a chop job on my
sentences. Inspired copies are what Timothy had. I am interested to know if Frost has an exact inspired text of any
kind since Frost insists upon only an inspired text that was given to apostles and prophets. I guess it is safe to say
that he does not recognize any Inspired Text extant. Therefore, it is everybody for his self to do what is right in
one’s own eyes.
FROST: Does Evans have a complete text intact as God gave to His apostles and prophets? He has nothing more
than we have. The only difference is not in the text of a translation, but is that he says it is an inspired translation … just
words. And we care nothing about what Evans says. Does he dare say that God gave the KJB just as He gave the original
autograph? He dare not!
EVANS: I have more than you if I indeed have a KJB that is complete, inspired, and intact, since obviously,
you have nothing to claim to be inspired.
FROST: 1 Tim. 3:16 refers to what was referred to at the time of Paul’s writing, not to this present time to anything
and everything that some man may call “scripture.” Jesus referred often to the scriptures in citing writings of the Old
Testament (John 5:39), the sacred writing that included the law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the psalms. (Luke
24:44) Later inspired writings were of the New Testament, and were divinely confirmed. (2 Pet. 3:16, Eph. 3:3-5).
EVANS: ALL scripture is inspired if it is really scripture. Such scripture IS profitable now, and the oracles
were given for our learning.
FROST: To relate Paul’s statement in 1 Tim. 3:16 to other writings is a gross perversion of what he says. He does
not say, nor imply, that everything which is written, is inspired scripture. Nor does he say “if it is scripture, it is inspired.”
The “all Scripture” must be kept in context: holy scriptures, which are able to make one wise unto salvation, which, of
course, ultimately would bring one to accept Christ Jesus, and thereafter furnish one well in doctrine and discipline of life.
EVANS: NO! Paul says that ALL scripture is “given by inspiration” of God. But Frost’s seems to believe that
the scriptures have EXPIRED. I say that they have not, take it or leave it!
FROST: These scriptures were directly inspired of God (there is no other kind of inspiration), and does not include
translations made by fallible men.
EVANS: What about indirect inspiration? Can we find examples of that in scripture? So, the apostles and
prophets were infallible. That is a new one. I’ll bet that Frost even thinks that the apostles and prophets were
“inspired.”
FROST: Herb is deceitful to say, “If it is scripture, it is inspired,” without any qualifications or attention to the
context from which this statement is drawn. To remove any conclusion that if the KJB is called “scriptures,” that fact
alone certifies them as being inspired, we ask Herb to answer the question, By calling the King James Bible scriptures,
can one thereby rightly and honestly call their translation in total inspired?
EVANS: Well, I have two choices. I think that it is more deceitful to say that the scriptures extant are
uninspired scriptures as Frost seems to believe. Which would get the harshest judgment, to say that we have the
inspired scriptures and not have them? Or to say that do not have them and yet really have them?
EVANS: If it is not, it is neither.
FROST: This must refer to the KJV either “Scripture” or “inspired.” If it is not either “Scripture” or “inspired,” then
it is neither. To fail to be either—and he admits that “the translators were not ‘moved’ the ‘same way’ as the original
writers—is a failure to earn for the KJV translation the status of God’s revelation through His apostles and prophets.
While we cannot say that a translation is inspired, we can say that this script is of a holy nature, being an English rendition
of inspired Script. It is Holy Scripture, not because Evans calls it holy, but because it is. Does he deny it?
EVANS: Okay! Now, there is some weasel wording for you. Of a holy nature? Does Frost think that the
modern perversions are of a Holy nature? So, now, we must needs find some UNHOLY scriptures somewhere.
Does Frost think that the Jehovah’s Witness bible is holy? Of a holy nature? I’ll let Frost sort all this out.
EVANS: Now, where do we look for Frost’s inspired scripture; in the thousands of extant fragments and
manuscripts?
FROST: Before you can look for inspired Scripture, one must know that they exist. Herb’s “Frost’s inspired
Scriptures” just don’t exist. They are a figment of his imagination.
EVANS: I have been waiting for that admission. That is why Frost does not mind correcting it, since he views
it as uninspired. So, how does Frost tell what is God given, inspired scripture and what is not? Well, he probably
guesses and consults his extra scriptural authorities.
EVANS: And then who decides what the scripture really is and what is not. Do we let some secular sinner or
religious apostate decide which is which?
FROST: No way! We are not letting Evans or any other secular sinner or religious apostate decide what is and what
is not Scripture, although he continues to say that the KJB is God’s only inspired Scriptures today. Inspired by
pronouncement!
EVANS: Nice dodge in avoiding my question! Who decides? Frost?
EVANS: Or does God decide?
FROST: He has already revealed His inspired word. Now, who dares speak for God today? Who is His vicar? If we
take man’s word for it, then criticize not those who face Rome today!
EVANS: If God has revealed it, WHERE is it? Can you tell us, or don’t you know? And if you don’t know,
why are you even discussing something you do not know? This is the problem I have with folks that no nothing
about inspiration or preservation.
FINALLY BACK TO THE INITIAL TOPIC
“Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his
horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering IN THE STEAD OF HIS SON. The
substitutionary atonement began long before dictionaries or words of men.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Substitutionary Atoners see substitution everywhere they look, except in plain statements of Scripture.
And, I may add, that Herb is not an original thinker, as he drags up every worn-out quibble. In this old illustration the ram
represents Jesus, who became the sacrifice for sinners. But wait! Isaac was the sacrifice. For whom was he to be offered,
to atone for whom? As a sacrifice, in whose stead was he being offered? Then we have the ram being sacrificed in the
stead of Isaac … a substitute for a substitution? Again, Isaac was upon the altar and the ram took his place…a sacrifice for
a sacrifice! Isaac was supposed to be on that altar; God specifically called for his sacrifice at the hands of his father…but
mankind is not appointed to be on an altar as a sacrifice (if so, for whom?).
So, the argument goes: as Isaac (representing us) was appointed to be a sacrifice, so are we appointed to be a
sacrifice; and as the ram (representing Jesus) took his place, Jesus takes our place to be the sacrifice for whom we were to
be a sacrifice. It doesn’t make sense … because Isaac and the ram are not analogous to sinners and Jesus. No Bible
reference is made to Isaac and the ram as representing anything other than themselves. [SIC]
[EVANS: Isaac typified both the sacrifice and the one to which the Ram is substituted. Frost is pretty dense
when it comes to TYPES, especially a DUAL TYPE. Yes we were appointed to hell fire, but then we were set free
as Isaac. Now, we are not appointed to wrath! It makes a lot of sense. Hallelujah!]
Herb Evans: If Evans is not an original thinker, why does Frost say that his comments and definitions are “unique?”
Who is it that keeps parroting theologians? Herb Evans? It is the non-original Frost that is the pot calling the kettle
aluminum.
FROST: The old idiom of “the pot calling the kettle black” shows the irony of a blackened pot calling a blackened
kettle black; both are alike! So when Herb says that I, the pot, call the kettle aluminum, his unique change makes no
sense. This new “idiom” is certainly unique—I never heard it before, and will probably never again. Yet in some way you
are predictable, in following old traditions. So, I guess I should say you are an enigma.
EVANS: But I was trying to be politically correct, thinking you might be a ______. Fill in the blank!
EVANS: Obviously, Frost does not understand types or prefigures.
FROST: Your problem is that I do!
EVANS: You couldn’t prove it by me after your faulty interpretations.
EVANS: Isaac was never sacrificed and therefore was not the sacrifice that God wanted.
EVANS: [God used two objects to fulfill types, Isaac and the ram (also two goats).]
FROST: If God did not want Isaac as a sacrifice, why did He order it and why are we told that Abraham “offered up
Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son”? (Heb. 11:17) When Abraham offered
Isaac, the commitment was complete in his mind, and he could only hope that God would raise him from the dead to
fulfill His promise (Gen. 21:12, 12:2-3) and he proceeded until the moment before a literal slaying. It was then as though
the deed was done; it was figuratively rather than literally. Isaac was “dead,” “from whence also he received him in a
figure.” (Heb. 11:19)
EVANS: So then Abraham offered Isaac, thinking that he was going to complete the offering with a good
outcome. Nevertheless, the completion did not transpire except with a substitute ram. Thank you Jesus!
FROST: If Evans is right, that Isaac was not the sacrifice God wanted, but the ram, then Isaac took the ram’s place
until the literal offering was made.
EVANS: But then if Isaac took the ram’s place why was the ram burned and not Isaac? That is ridiculous
logic. If God did not get what he wanted, poor God!
FROST: Isaac was a substitute for the ram until it was provided in a thicket. Of course, the question is, why did the
ram need a substitute? If Jesus took the ram’s place and the ram took Isaac’s place, and as Jesus’ was offered to atone for
the sins of men, then the ram was offered to atone for sins for men and Isaac was offered to atone for the sins of men.
That doesn’t work!
EVANS: Neither does your double talk work either. Does Frost think that he should have taken Jesus’ place?
EVANS: The substitute ram was the sacrifice that God wanted and typifies the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, who was
typified by all the slain lambs in Israel and the scapegoat who were the “propitiations” in the O. T. that appeased God’s
wrath but could never take away their sins as Jesus’ did “once” forever.
FROST: Animal sacrifices, wherein blood was shed to atone for sins in a figure (not actually, Heb. 10:4) all of
which was under the law (Lev. 17:11), typified the sacrifice of Christ and the shedding of His blood (Heb. 9:22, Matt.
26:28). What Abraham did is not identified as a sacrifice; the law is given as to the nature or purpose of the order, except
that it was a test for Abraham (Gen. 21:1) which he passed successfully: “for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing
thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” (Gen. 22:12)
EVANS: Oh no! Should the sinners have taken the place of the animals in the sacrifices? Before the law and in
the Gospels?
FROST: When Herb says in this context that I am “non-original,” he pays me the greatest compliment. I am content
to hold steadfast to the unvacillating word of God. I dare not to innovate, and introduce new doctrines, e.g. substitutionary
atonement, an instant “eternity,” a temporary heaven, etc.
EVANS: But where is the context?
EVANS: Exo 32:30 – 32 . . . Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the
LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this
people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot
me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
Moses, a type of Christ, was willing to offer himself as an atonement, in Israel’s stead for their sins, to be blotted out
of the book that God had written for Israel’s great sin.
FROST: Where did you read that Moses said, “and if you will not (forgive their sin), blot me out in their stead”?
Let’s see if I got this straight: since Moses was a type of Christ, who as antitype offered Himself to die for all mankind,
Moses must at some time have offered his life in the stead of others. Where is the Scripture?
EVANS: Those are your quotation marks not mine. I was explaining what the passage means. What else could
Moses have been asking except for Moses’ death in the event that the Lord would not forgive Israel’s sin?
Exo 32:32 . . . if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
“Did Jesus Really Bear Our Sins?”
Gene Frost: Herb Evans asks, “Did Jesus really bear our sins?” – Herb Evans
Our answer is, “yes,” when the terms are correctly defined, as I shall do. With no statement from me, he
misrepresents what I believe. He states what he wants the reader to think I believe. He doesn’t quote what I say; he
pretends to know what I believe.
[Herb Evans: That is what the Book says, despite Frost’s Garden of Eden “Yea, hath God said?” and manipulation
of the meaning of the word in regard to the atonement. Seven Day Adventists also use Christian terminology but mean
something entirely different.]
FROST: We do not question what the Book says; we believe it. We do not believe the spin that Herb Evans puts on
what the Bible says, his manipulation of terms. Jesus did “bear” our sins, but He did not possess them (to make them His
own guilt).
EVANS: More manipulation of Herb Evans’ comments. If Jesus took our sins in his own body, He possessed
our sins in His own body; “to make them his own guilt” are Frost’s words not those of Herb Evans.
Herb Evans: How the new Protestants and/or this wicked Campbellite could think that Jesus did not bear our sins
can only be attributed to their spiritual blindness and/or lost estate.”
FROST: Where did you read of anyone who thinks that “Jesus did not bear our sins”? You refer to me as “this
wicked Campbellite.” You are still ignorant and vicious (not my evaluation, though I concur), and dishonest (as I have
demonstrated in our exchange). When and where did I deny that Jesus bare our sins?
EVANS: Frost’s mental reservations here are that bearing our sins is merely carrying our sins. Let us make it
plainer. How the new Protestants and/or this wicked Campbellite could think that Jesus did not bear our sins IN
HIS OWN BODY can only be attributed to their spiritual blindness and/or lost estate.”
FROST: Herb Evans puts a special meaning on the word “bear,” to include possession—Jesus took the sins of others
to be His own, for which He was smitten, stricken and afflicted of God in their stead, taking their place. He makes bearing
sin equivalent to possessing sin.
[EVANS: The special meaning is that of the scriptures in bearing our sins “IN HIS OWN BODY.”
1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree . . .
[Herb Evans: No! Frost speaks for Herb Evans and characterizes “bearing” as “possessing,” which is not a great
play on the generic word. Still, Jesus owned our sins, once that He received them.
FROST: Hold it right there, Buster! I did not speak for you. You introduced the word “possess”! In your first article
to me, “He Took My Place,” you said:
EVANS: “We wonder how Jesus instead of ‘bearing our sin’ could ‘carry away’ or ‘remove’ the sin offering or even
our sin, if Jesus did not possess that sin on the cross.” – Herb Evans.
EVANS: More manipulation of my words! This is what I said: Sin, to Frost, now becomes the “sin offering”
instead of “sin” in the New Testament. We wonder how Jesus could bear the sin offering when Jesus, indeed, was
the sin offering.
[EVANS: The word “bear” does not, by itself, have the idea of possession in it. Still, yes, Herb Evans agrees to the
contextual, scriptural use of the word “bear” in context as possession just like the scapegoat bore Israel’s sins. Selah!
Think of that!]
FROST: I have thought about it, and your agreement confirms what I said! : “We also wonder how Jesus instead of
‘bearing our sin’ could ‘carry away’ or ‘remove’ the sin offering or even our sin, if Jesus did not possess that sin on the
cross.” — Herb Evans.
EVANS: Now, all we need to know is “WHAT was my agreement?” And WHAT did you say? And what
confirms what you said?
[Herb Evans: No! Frost speaks for Herb Evans and characterizes “bearing” as “possessing,” which is not a great
play on the generic word. Still, Jesus owed our sins, once that He received them. The word “bear” does not, by itself, have
the idea of possession in it. Still, yes, Herb Evans agrees to the contextual, scriptural use of the word “bear” in context as
possession just like the scapegoat bore Israel’s sins. Selah! Think of that!]
EVANS: I have restored the snippet that was only a partial quote. Frost is getting pretty good at partial quotes
out of context.
FROST: In your bracketed statement: (1) You deny making “bearing sin equivalent to possessing sin,” and you
accuse me of speaking for you by characterizing “bearing as possessing.” (2) Now you admit that bear does not convey
the idea of possession. (3) Even so, you revert to your the previous contention, that bear has “the idea of possession in it”
by reason of context, and you cite the scapegoat.
Now your proof-text is not in the word “bear,” but in the context of its use, an example of which is the scapegoat who
bore the sins of Israel. This you contend means it possessed their sins; “possessed” meaning they became the goat’s sins.]
Let us see (we’ve been over this before):
FROST Continued: Leviticus 16:20-22: “And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the
tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head
of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,
putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat
shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.”
EVANS: In the course of Frost baiting me in regard to “possessing” and “owning sins,” in order to try to get
me to make Jesus a sinner, many things were said back and forth; I really did not know and still do not know what
Frost is trying to make me say as he goes over it over and over again. When Jesus took our sins away, they had to
go somewhere and be possessed and owned by someone. When Jesus has them and we do not, that constitutes
possession. In regard to Frost’s semantic argument, “possession” does not necessarily mean “ownership” in a
certain sense but does mean it in another sense. They no longer belong to us if Jesus took them from us. Sin is not
something that is “owned.” When Jesus bore our sins, he bore them IN HIS OWN BODY until He paid for them.
1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live
unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
FROST: “Possession” is not in the text! Herb Evans admits this. Still he needs Jesus’ possession of our sins if is he
is to sustain the proposition that Jesus could not bear our sins (carry away or remove) if He did not possess them. So he
now claims to find “possession” in the context—the scapegoat “bear upon him all their iniquities.” The only problem is:
“upon” does not mean to possess. The preposition (al) in translation is rendered “above, according to, accordingly, after,
(as) against, among, and, as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, both and, by (reason of), had
the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-) on, over, than, through (-out), to, touching, with,”
but never “possess” or “possession.
EVANS: I would be the first to agree that “possession” and “ownership” is not in the text or even in the word
“bear” and its derivitives. But I am not obsessed with those terms. Frost, my inquisitor, is obsessed with those
terms in his game of logic as can be seen in his continual inquisition about them in order to make Evans say that
“they became His (Jesus’) own sins.” It is semantical oxymoron in one sense if it means that Jesus was now, as the
owner, responsible for those sins instead of those who committed the sins.
FROST: Therefore, Herb Evans fails to show that Jesus possessed our sins on the cross, either by the word “bear” or
contextually where it is used. Appeal to Scriptural authority fails. Herb fails to prove his assertion by Scriptural authority.
EVANS: When Jesus took our sins away, where did they go? In HIS OWN BODY? That seems proof enough
unless one’s standard of proof is beyond reason.
FROST: Is it even reasonable to suggest that the scapegoat “possessed” (owned) Israel’s sins, i.e. they became his
own sins? Could a goat be guilty of sin, of lying, stealing, fraud, idolatry, etc.? No, the goat did not become a sinner. The
Bible says that the scapegoat “shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited.” To lift, carry away, or
remove from one place to another—from the tabernacle to an uninhabited land—makes sense. It does not make sense to
say the goat “shall possess all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited.” There is nothing in the context about a possession
of anything. Accepting the Bible, without the theology, there is no problem.
When crafty men weave their web of deceit, they often become entangled in the same. Evans is snared and now he
struggles to shift the issue.
Herb wiggles in, he wiggles out; caught in a tight, he turns himself about!
EVANS: Frost is the deceitful web weaver and wiggler! Because Frost is so unreasonable, he can only see
things one way - his. Who typically bore the iniquities, Israel or the goat? Were the sins typically UPON Israel or
typically UPON the goat? Did Israel typically possess their sins any longer? Who typically possessed them? As we
said before, Frost does not understand TYPES, especially DUAL TYPES.
FROST: Herb, substitution theology is so embedded in your mind that you cannot think clearly. You know that the
word “bear” does not mean “possess,” yet you almost instinctively think “possession” when you see or hear the word
“bear” in reference to Christ. Combined with your insatiable desire to unleash a blitzgkrieg against opponents (“Smiting
Bible Correctors”), you barge ahead without caution, and in so doing confuse whose material you are reading, so that you
assign to me what actually others say. You demonstrate a lack of civility and show emotional and intellectual instability.
We have already detected that in your arsenal are weapons of falsification, misrepresentation, name-calling, and fraud.
Even so, Evans continues. It is rightly said that … One who is persuaded against his will, is of the same opinion still!
EVANS: I said before that “possession” is not inherent in the word “bear.” So why does Frost belabor it. I am
willing to stop using the word “possess” until Frost asks me it again. Frost cannot stop using the word. I am
content to say that Jesus bore our sins IN HIS OWN BODY. Any use of the word “possess” is purely explanatory
to us. Since Frost reminds us, Frost is the misrepresenting falsifier, fraud, and Campbellite. Does I have a witness?
Gene Frost: He adds, “The scriptures clearly state that Christ bore our sin, iniquity, and offenses in his own body
and that His soul was an offering FOR sin.” – Herb Evans
FROST: Jesus Made Sin: 2 Cor. 5:21.
Before discussing a favorite supposed “proof-test” of those who believe in a substitutionary death of Jesus on the
cross, and what it means, let us clearly understand the issue as to what Herb Evans and his ilk say that it means. We
summarized it in our initial article (first layer exchange):
The contention: Get it! On the cross, Jesus offered His body as a receptacle for sin in which He took possession of
all sins. They were His own. He possessed every imaginable evil. He became the composite of all that is detestable before
God. As the embodiment of sin, He was abandoned by the Father. God was rendered propitious when He fully unleashed
His wrath upon Jesus. His anger was appeased, in executing His vengeance. Thus sinners find salvation in this defilement
of Jesus, who by taking our sins to be His own was able to take our place and suffer eternal vengeance from God in our
stead.
FROST: Evans commented in the second round (or second layer) to which we just responded and emphasized his
admission of making a false claim that the Scriptures taught that Jesus possessed the sins of the world. The Bible doesn’t
say it, and he admits to that fact.
EVANS: Frost is sifting Herb Evans as wheat. Isn’t it odd that Frost often does not give Evans’ exact or whole
quote? Jesus did BEAR our sins IN HIS OWN BODY; he did not own them in the sense that He was responsible
for them or that they made Jesus a sinner. Frost will continue belaboring this possession and ownership thing for
ever, regardless of how many disclaimers and explanations that I post; Still, Campbellites are noted for that!
[Herb Evans: Now, you have it, despite the way that Frost frames it, Jesus was MADE and BECAME sin for us who
knew no sin. Thank you Jesus! Hallelujah, Praise de Lawd! Does I have a witness?
2 Cor 5:21, For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness]
FROST: Before this he had written:
EVANS: “Yes, after Jesus took upon Him the sins of others, He was punished for them. But does Gene Frost get
it?”
FROST: My reply to the above:
EVANS: Frost lives to inspect and scrutinize my comments in order to find a hook to hang his coat on.
Somehow, Frost must see an apparent contradiction here, but he does not really say what it is or where we can find
it.
FROST: Actually, substitutionary atonement theologians believe that God transferred all of the world’s sins upon
Jesus, to make Him sin personified, possessing evil and corruption of every description, and this in a moment in an instant
and unsuspecting. Caught by complete surprise, woefully betrayed and devastated, He cried in desperation, “My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46) This is the picture they paint of God the Father, a God of love and
mercy, of righteousness and truth, and who also, in an instant, redefine His character. I do not believe it! They put a spin
on the crucifixion that discredits the nature of God.
Herb Evans: Again, who cares what theologians say or believe? Or what Frost believes? What the Bible teaches is
what counts, despite Frost’s wicked characterizations that discredit God and His Son. Notice how Frost avoids the fact
that the Father MADE HIM TO BE SIN FOR US as well as a CURSE for us.
2 Cor 5:21, For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God
in him.
FROST: Yes, we agree and insist on the fact that truth of this, and any other, religious issue must be determined by
the Bible. We do not accept what Evans says, but what the Bible says. We have corrected him already where he attaches
his own definitions to English words in the Bible. When we refer to linguists, lexicons and dictionaries, it is to show that
we have a basis upon which we understand the language of Scripture. They do not constitute any authority, despite Evans
histrionics. He himself is not adverse to referring to what others say in an effort to support his position. He refers us to
Gail Riplinger’s books, to Peter Ruckman, to Laurence Vance, to the Trinitarian Bible Society, and to Webster’s 1828
Dictionary. Although he says he stays within the confines of dictionary definitions, we have already shown that he does
not. Herb Evans says that he “does not redefine words but stays within the confines of the several dictionary definitions
and how words are used in the scripture (in context), while Frost picks and chooses one definition of several with which
he wants to run.” He does what he does not allow others.
EVANS: Herb Evans refers you to those sources, because you are a researcher that belittles and bad mouths
such sources. Of course, Frost does not say where Herb Evans has operated outside of the confines of dictionary
definitions. What he really means is that I scold Frost for not mentioning the definitions other than his selected
definitions. He claims that he accepts what the Bible says but has yet to produce what the Bible says against the
Substitutionary Atonement. Instead, he picks and chooses through what Evans says as well as everyone else. Herb
Evans DOES allow Frost to post his dictionary definitions without challenging them, but Frost hates it when he is
scolded for not including all the definitions. Where has Frost shown Evans ever going out of the confines of the
dictionary for a “definition??
FROST: He consults English dictionaries, which cite how words are (were) in current use at the time of their
publication, which is of little help and at times be can be completely misleading, in understanding the language of the
original texts (as we have in copies, not the autographs).
EVANS: Why cannot Frost cite the examples of such words that I use in that way?
FROST: But when I seek to learn the confines of the primary sources of our English Scriptures, he has a tantrum.
When I “give the meaning” of a Bible text, I cite the references I use so that the reader will know how I reached my
understanding of the words and syntax and so he can go to the same and draw his own conclusion.
EVANS: Again, Frost gives no examples in regard to Frost’s revisionist and his characterized history of our
discussion. The reader is certainly getting an understanding of Frost’s opinions and slippery tactics.
FROST: Truth is not afraid of investigation. I say, “Here are the references; see for yourself!” (And these can be
multiplied.) Herb says he stays within the meanings found in several dictionaries (English, of course, since everything else
he considers to be, to use his terminology, “garbage”!) So his “throw ’em out!” is just so much show and distraction.
EVANS: That is why I investigated the truth of your audio tape and critiqued it. I do consider your comments
by theologians “garbage,” but then Frost was not man enough to include certain comments in context. Still, Frost
seems to think that English and its dictionaries are “garbage” in comparison to his extra scriptural authorities. But
understand that this is Frost’s modus operandi of debating, accusations and charges and pejoratives.
FROST: He continues, “Frost denies my final authority, the KJB, which is superior to his extra-scriptural
authorities.” When did I reject the King James Bible? Absurd. I use the King James Bible; it is my study Bible; and I use
it in the pulpit. Evans doesn’t know me—we haven’t even met—and yet he presumes to tell the reader what I believe and
teach, even though he admits that he doesn’t know, that he, in fact, “had to speculate and read between the lines to cover
all the bases.” What I know about Herb Evans’ faith and teaching is from reading the lines he has written, of his
affirmations/denials and associations, and I don’t claim to know all that he believes … he is loud in negating, but stingy in
affirming wherein what he believes must be forthcoming.
EVANS: Why is Frost allowed to fill in the blanks about Herb Evans, and Herb Evans is not allowed? That is
called inquisition! Southern Catholics do that like do the Papal ones. Why is Frost allowed to refuse to affirm why
he does not believe in the Substitutionary atonement rather than merely negating what Herb Evans says in regard
to it being true?
FROST: Did God make Jesus Himself sin, the embodiment of all the evil the word embraces, or is “sin” used in
connection with the remedy for sin?
EVANS; Now, here is an example of Frost not getting what he wants from my answers in order to entrap me
and presents his question another way by using his own words rather than mine. Jesus was made to be sin for us!
Jesus was made to be a curse for us! And Jesus bore our sins IN HIS OWN BODY! Amen! Thank you Jesus!
Gene Frost: Or, “a sin offering,” to be more fully discussed later.
Herb Evans: We shall wait with bated breath! Did God make Him to be a “sin offering” for us who knew no “sin
offering” (same Greek word - harmartia)? Frost will go to any length to corrupt and change the word of God. Is there such
a thing as an “INIQUITY OFFERING” (Isa 53:11)?
FROST: This cute comment tells me that Herb doesn’t know Bible language. He is the one who has one definition
and demands that the word mean exactly the same (definition and connotation) thing in every reference.
EVANS: Notice how the copy cat responds. Certainly, he responds not with a reply to my point but rather
with something that I have been saying about Frost. LOL!
EVANS: Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
“1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered FOR sins, the just FOR the unjust, that he might bring us to God,
being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:” -- Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Compare this picture of Jesus in theology with that of the Bible. John described Jesus as “the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) In every reference to the nature and character of the sacrificial
lamb, it is a young, innocent victim, without any spot or blemish. It is offered to God as a “sweet smelling savor,” an
offering pleasant and pleasing. That’s the picture of a sinless Jesus. It is this “Lamb of God” who became a sacrifice for
our sins. Quite a contrast to a stand-in replacement, [SIC] horribly deformed with evil, as depicted in theology.
[EVANS: Indeed, Christ is portrayed as a Lamb, a goat, a Bullock, a ram, and a serpent, each type depicting a
certain aspect of Christ’ experience and sufferings. Poor Frost still does not understand the significance of those
TYPES.]
[Herb Evans: Yes, Jesus both bore our sins and carried our sins away just like the symbolic scapegoat. Aside from
Frost’s evasion and avoidance of the passages which I posted, his devotional opinions, comments, and platitudes have
nothing to do with the issue at hand. Notice that the innocent Christ suffered not only for sinners but FOR SINS per 1 Pet
3:18. (See Heb. 7:27)]
EVANS: “Of course, when you do not like a word, you must redefine it like the JW’s do it. Fire does not mean fire!
Flame does not mean flame! And Hell does not mean hell, according to them. The important thing about Gene Frost’s
spotless lamb was that it was SLAIN FOR US. The sacrifice or expiatory propitiation for us was a satisfaction FOR sin,
therefore a sweet smelling savour.” – Herb Evans
FROST: “For Christ also hath once suffered for (peri) sins, the just for (huper) the unjust, that he might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18).
Christ suffered for (peri) our sins, i.e. concerning our sins with the intent or purpose of bringing us to God. (See
subtitle: PERI—Concerning, Pertaining, Touching, For.) The just suffered for (huper) the unjust, i.e. in our behalf to
accomplish His purpose. “For” in this text is translated from huper, with the genitive case, and conveys “the idea of
protection, care, favour, benefit, over, for, in behalf of, for the sake of.” (Edward Robinson, Greek and English Lexicon of
the N.T., page 742.) (See subtitle: HUPER in Our Behalf versus In Stead.)
EVANS: Yes, Frost defines it his way. But he does not include every definition. Jesus was the just in the place
of the unjust, the just in the stead of the guilty. Does I have a witness?
Gene Frost: Note that Herb uses the word “sacrifice” and immediately defines it, “or expiatory propitiation,” and
describes it as “a satisfaction for sin.” The JWs don’t have anything on Herb; he operates just like they do! Where does he
find expiatory propitiation or satisfaction for sin in the so-called “inspired text” of the KJV? ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost disallows explanatory commentary and demands exact wording from Herb Evans, whereas Frost
allows much more non exact, explanatory commentary for himself. Frost needs to find out what the word “propitiation”
completely means as well as to read that the LORD was “satisfied” with the travail of His soul, which was an offering
FOR sin in Isaiah 53:10, 11.
“1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
“1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for
our sins.”
►GF FROST: As he says, “When you do not like a word, you must redefine it like the JWs do it.” Not only does he
change the terms, but also the concept. According to the theologians, actually it is Jesus’ suffering in man’s stead, His
abandonment or rejection, [SIC] that appeases God’s wrath and brings forgiveness. ►GF
[EVANS: Frost is the one that quotes his theologians and not Evans. If that is not true, where are Evans’
quotes by his supposed theologians? What did Evans redefine? Where? When? I merely quoted the above
passages.]
Herb Evans: It is what Isaac and the ram, Moses’ volunteering of self, the slain lambs, and the symbolic scapegoat
teach as well as the clear statements of scripture elsewhere. The problem with Frost is not that he redefines the word; his
problem is that he picks and chooses only one definition of several definitions that supports his view. Words in every
language have various alternate meanings in various contexts. Still, some are to bear their own burden; others are to bear
each others burdens.
FROST: Observe that he gives an example of what he thinks are alternate meanings of “bear” used in the same
sentence. Without arguing the point, remember that he ridicules this when “sin” is used twice in the same sentence, but
with different meanings: of the conduct and guilt of sin and of an offering for sin.
►GF Frost: And Herb says that this suffering of the wrath of God in our stead is a sweet smelling savour. That is
man’s theory, not God’s word. That’s why we do not read the above mentioned theological terms in the Bible.
[EVANS: It is a wonder how someone can be so smart and be so blind. The use of the word bear twice in the
same sentence, having the same meaning in both places, is the same as the use of the word sin in the same passage
and having the same meaning in both places. None is so blind as he who will not see!]
Herb Evans: The sweet smelling savour was said in regard to the satisfaction for sin (Isa 53:11) by His offering and
sacrifice FOR us. God was appeased and pacified and placated by that propitiation.
Eph 5:2 . . . as Christ . . . hath given himself for us an offering AND a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
Gene Frost: “Did Jesus really BEAR (possess) our sins?”
EVANS: “Yes!” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Herb, where did you learn that “bear” means to possess (or to make one’s own)?
Herb Evans: From Isaiah!
FROST: That is not true! Isaiah does not define “bear,” nor does he mention “possess.” You think all you have to do
is repeat your theology and eventually it becomes reality. But you don’t get by with it here.
EVANS: Then I guess I learned it from Frost who is always practicing his theology. But if it is not what was
meant, let Frost define what was meant without putting something into the text that does not belong. LOL!
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Gene Frost: Did He make the sins of others (the whole world) His own?
EVANS: Again, Frost is trying for a semantical victory. Again, this all depends on whether the Lord possessed
them, as His own sins, as a sinner with those sins seen as if He committed them. Or was the possession, when He
possessed the sins of others AS His own, to pay for them. Frost is a tricky old man.
FROST: He bore our sins, took them away. Did Jesus suffer on the cross for our sins or “his own”?
EVANS: Another semantical trap! Jesus did not die for HIS OWN SINS. No one is denying that Christ took
OUR sins away. But Frost is denying what Christ did with them after Christ took them away, namely, taking them
IN HIS OWN BODY. What is the matter Frosty, can’t you get me to say what you want? LOL!
EVANS: “Yes! He took upon Him the sins of the whole world.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: We have already seen that “take” (Matt. 8:17) doesn’t mean to possess, but to take away, or carry away.
Now, where did you learn that Jesus possessed the sins of the whole world and made them His very own, to bear the guilt
and shame?
[EVANS: Let a robber TAKE Frost’s wallet and see whether the robber possesses it or Frost does?]
Herb Evans: No, the word “take” and derivatives are generic words and do not always mean possession, but Frost
will not admit that they do sometimes mean possession and are often rendered “receive.” The question is not about the
word “take;” The question is about the words “TAKE UPON HIM” and “IN His body” in regard to our sins. If poor
Frosty takes a gift that someone gives him, the gift to him cannot be his own for him to be consistent with his limited
definition of “take.” Jesus died FOR our SINS, and Jesus was also the propitiation FOR the WHOLE world’s SINS.
FROST: I can’t figure out if Herb is being deceptive or is really dense. Yes, one may take possession of something
as gift. I know when something is mine, not because I take it, but because it is a gift. I would caution any friend to be
careful when you give something to Herb, for whatever reason, he considers it to be his!
EVANS: There are a lot of things that Frost can’t figure out. Still, if you give something to Herb, like Frost
has given this point to me, I sure will TAKE it and use it.
1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins IN his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto
righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation FOR our sins: and not for ours only, but also FOR the sins of the whole world.
Gene Frost: Let’s test his argument.
Isaiah 53:4-5: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of
God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our
peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”
[EVANS: I thought Frost was going to test God’s arguments in 1 Pet 2:24 and 1 John 2:2. But alas we switch
to Isa 53:4, 5. But then Isa 53: 4, 5 is my scripture. How did Frost test either of them? Or did he test them?]
[Herb Evans: If not to Jesus, to whom did their sins belong? Frost?]
FROST: Remember this admission: Evans believes that when Jesus was offered to bear our sins, the sins belonged
to Him. They were his own; He possessed them.
“Yea verily, Christ’s OWN body bore and reconciled our sins, as His own, in our stead, and He paid and exchanged
the ransom for them with His blood.” (Italic added.)
EVANS: “When something is laid upon you,’ you possess it (or make your own).”
Jesus, “in accepting our sins, also accepted its censure and condemnation as well.”
[EVANS: One would think that Frost’s worn out argument, which he belabors over and over and over, would
tire him. But it doesn’t, no matter how many explanations and disclaimers that Herb Evans posts to the contrary.
SNORE!]
EVANS: “Unfortunately, Mr. Frost leaves off the key verse where our iniquity is laid on Jesus. I guess when
something is laid on you, you must needs possess it. Notice Isa 53:6.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: That’s right, Herb, you guessed it. No evidence, no proof … just a wild guess. Sorry, I’m just not ready
to take your guesses in the stead of truth.
EVANS: Poor Frost does not know what truth is, when he stumbles over it. BURP!
Herb Evans: More avoidance! Frost does not like the fact that Jesus BORE OUR INIQUITY, which is not a wild
guess. Needless to say, Christ did not bear our “sin offering,” which would have to be the case if Frost’s interpretation of
“sin offering” for the Greek “harmartia” in both places of 2 Corinthians 5:21 are correct (KJB).
FROST: Note the “if” in the last sentence. This is a distraction. Hamartia is translated both “sin offering” and “sin”
in 2 Cor. 5:21. This “problem” I have discussed at length earlier.
EVANS: Whose distraction? Who TRANSLATED one way in 2 Cor 5:21 and another way in the same
passage? Whose translation are you reading from, Frosty? Surely not the King James Bible! Was the King James
Bible translated incorrectly there? Or is it Frost that translates one of the places as “sin offering” even though the
KJB never does so anywhere as neither does the ASV, the Bishop’s, Webster’s, the Geneva, the ISV, the ESV, and
even the modern perversions.
FROST: “When something is laid upon you,” you possess it (or make your own). Really? When Evans teaches
about Naaman and Elisha, and how Gehazi lied to Naaman for gain, I am sure he explains what is meant when Naaman
said to Gehazi, “Be content, take two talents. And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two
changes of garments, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bare them before him.” (2 Kings 5:23) Evans must
say, “Gehazi did not receive any silver or garments from Naaman. Naaman laid the silver and garments upon his servants.
The gold and silver belonged to the servants! See? It says that Naaman laid them on the servants, and we know that
something is laid upon you, it is yours, your own!”
Herb Evans: Well, the Gold and garments were given to Gehazi, and they were his to do what he wanted to do with
them. Nothing changes the fact that they belonged to him. They did not belong to the servants as a gift anymore than
belonging to a donkey, if he would have put them on one. Unlike with Jesus, the context of Frost’s proof text clearly
shows that those things were put on the servants only for the purpose of transporting them, without those things belonging
to them or being IN their bodies. If Jesus takes our sins IN His body, then who is the owner? After our iniquity was laid
on Jesus, what did Jesus do with it? Did our iniquity belong to Him or us? Then to whom? What a Frosty strain and
stretched proof text!!
FROST: Now Herb may get it. The context shows that the gold and silver belonged to Gehazi; we do not draw this
conclusion from the word bare. Naaman’s servants simply carried the gold and garments to a tower, where Gehazi placed
them, after which he let them go. The gold and garments were not “gifts,” and did not belong to the servants, even though
they bare them. So obviously it is not true that by reason of the fact that “when something is laid upon you, you possess it
(or make your own).” What made the gold and garments Gehazi received from Naaman his own is by reason of the fact
Naaman gave them to him, even urging him to take more than he requested. We conclude that ownership was transferred,
not because they were laid on servants to bear, but because they were a gift. Now let Evans make the same application of
the language. Sins were laid upon animal sacrifices, not for them to possess as their own, but to carry them and remove
them, their blood being a type of which Christ’s blood is the antitype to “take away sins.” (Heb 10:4, Matt. 26:28)
EVANS: Here we go with “possession” again. Well, here is Frost’s favorite come back. It does not say that
Gehazi possessed them or that they belonged to Gehazi or that Gehazi owned them. What are you going to do now,
with your apples and oranges argument, Frosty? Use more Frost logic? If you are going to complain about context
and exact wording and not abide by your own rules, what does that make you?
EVANS: “Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
Gene Frost: What does this mean? ►GF (See rest of the paragraph, black type.)
EVANS: “It means exactly what it says.” – Herb Evans [Note: when it is IN your body it most likely belongs to
you. – Herb Evans]
Isa 53:6 And Jehovah hath caused to meet him, the punishment of us all – Young’s Literal Translation
FROST: (Young believed that “inspiration extends only to the original text, as it came from the pens of the writers,
not to any translation ever made by man,” Preface of the Revised Edition, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible.).
[EVANS: Note how Frost skirts the argument by telling us what Young believed. Why did he say that God
caused the punishment of us all to be meeted to Christ? HUH?]
Herb Evans: Who cares what Young believed or said if it contradicts my KJB Bible? But if Jehovah met the
punishment of us all on Jesus, how is that my problem? If the Lord is the cause of it, it seems like it is Frost’s problem.
Gene Frost: So now Herb uses what he calls a “corrupt” translation when he thinks it supports his argument. Has he
removed the Literal Translation from his list of corrupted texts? ►GF
[EVANS: Well, Frost tries another avenue of escape, when it is Frost that likes the extra scriptural authorities,
regardless of who they are, especially if they are supposed to be literal translations of the Greek, unless they
support my argument and go against Frost’s argument. Thank you Jesus!]
Herb Evans: Well, now, herein is a marvelous thing, Young translates the Hebrew word in a number of places as
“iniquities” while Frost claims the Young is a literal translation.
FROST: (Frost did not claim that “the Young is a literal translation.” Apparently Evans missed the reference to
Robert Young’s translation, I quoted above. I repeat it: Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. That’s the claim and title
which Young gave it.)
EVANS: Who cares what Frost claims? Is it a literal translation of Isa 53:6 or not. If not give us a literal
translation.
EVANS: Well, the YLT is corrupt in some of its biased and subjective renderings.
FROST: Of course, Herb has no bias: every word found in the King James Bible can only be translated by that word,
which means that the translators’ own alternate translation in the margin is a corruption!
EVANS: No! The alternate marginal rendering is an extra scriptural rendering. I’ll take the correct one in
the text!
FROST: He believes, without reason, that every word of the KJB is inspired, although he admits the Holy Spirit did
not guide them in making the selection of each word, which the translators acknowledge often involved much discussion
and no dogmatic decision was made!
EVANS: After scolding Herb Evans for doing what Frost does, Frost tells us what Evans believes. I have
plenty of reasons, none of which Frost can grasp.
FROST: While back to this topic, we ask Evans to answer the following question: Since the claim is made that the
KJB of 1611 was perfect, inspired and inerrant, why did the translators add marginal notes with alternate text? And why
did the editors of the 1769 edition leave all of the original marginal readings intact and unchanged and add 87 more?
EVANS: That makes the marginal notes all the more dangerous and untrustworthy. We will stick with the
text. Well, of course, Frost has to get back to the Bible issue, since he has little to fill this discussion up with other
than things like this.
EVANS: Still, what do we do with Young’s “literal” translation of the word as “punishment” in one place and
“iniquities” in Isa. 53:5 and 11 and dozens of other places? Are all those places also “LITERAL?”
FROST: First, I would recommend to Evans that he read the Preface of Young’s translation, and determine what he
means by “literal translation.”
EVANS: Second, I would recommend that Frost tell us instead of avoiding us by sending us on another wild
goose chase to distract us. SNORT!
EVANS: Isa 53: 5, 6 . . . and he is pierced for our transgressions, Bruised for our iniquities (H5779 – corrected
H5771), the chastisement of our peace is on him, and by his bruise there is healing to us. All of us like sheep have
wandered, each to his own way we have turned, and Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, the punishment (H5771) of us
all. – YLT
FROST: (Incidentally, I think you have confused your Hebrew references: “iniquities” Strong’s number H5779? Or,
should I comment, Poor Herb is confused?)
EVANS: Thank you for the correction. It is H5771 like punishment in the same verse. Still, being bruised for
our punishment by God would not be to Frost’s liking. See previous comment on the YLT above in blue.
FROST: Herb, you are laboring under the idea that a Hebrew (or Greek) word has only one meaning, to be used in
every reference it is found.
EVANS: No! I was referring to the YLT’s supposed literal meaning.
EVANS: Isa 53:11 Of the labour of his soul he seeth -- he is satisfied, Through his knowledge give righteousness
Doth the righteous one, My servant, to many, And their iniquities (H5771) he doth bear. – YLT
►GF FROST: Young used the Received Text from which to translate it. Is it an uncorrupted Greek text? Or, did he
accidentally render a pure and accurate literal translation from a corrupted text?
[EVANS: I have no problem with the Text here.]
Herb Evans: Poor Frost does not know that Isaiah 53:6 is Hebrew and not Greek.
FROST: I must remind the writer that the pronoun it in the brown text above was written before Herb’s comment in
blue. This is a tactic he uses with snippets. He writes a line before my statement, which as one reads (without noticing
what layer of the exchange is being used) it appears that I am commenting on his statement. This creates confusion.
The confusion here may be noted: the statement that “Young used the Received Text from which to translate IT,”
refers to “his Literal Translation,” the immediate line preceding it (both are in brown type):
EVANS: I must remind Frost that we were talking about the Hebrew of Isa 53:11 per the YLT and not a
Greek Textus Receptus. This smacks of a cover up of what the YLT says in its literal rendering. The Frost brown
was AFTER the Evans blue of Isa 53:11.
FROST: “So now Herb uses what he calls a ‘corrupt’ translation when he thinks it supports his argument. Has he
removed the Literal Translation from his list of corrupted texts? Young used the Received Text from which to translate it.
Is it an uncorrupted Greek text? Or, did he accidentally render a pure and accurate literal translation from a corrupted
text?”
EVANS: Herb will use anything against liberal gainsayers and correctors and those who undermine the KJB,
especially their own tools, for such tools are what they glorify and endorse after such things were used on me.
FROST: Just before this quotation, I had referred to the Preface. I made my comment above while still reflecting
upon the Preface, where reference is made to the Greek text, without mention of the Hebrew. (Evans -He also does not
know) —isn’t it amazing how Evans knows what I think and even what I know? He knows the thoughts and intents of the
heart that rivals the ability of my Creator.
(Evans —that the Received Text or Textus Receptus is in Greek only and that there are several of them. (So
much for Frost’s textual knowledge until he parrots someone else again!)
EVANS: Again, no quotes for Evans in context! Well, I learned such a mind reading trick from Frost. Still, he
can’t tell the difference between snide comments and calling attention to someone’s boo-boo.
FROST: Although, as I readily admit, I do not have Herb’s superior knowledge, mental agility, and ability to
penetrate the thoughts and motives of others, whether I am unfit to share the stage with him in this exchange, I leave to the
readers. By the way, your reference to “several” Received Texts is an understatement if you include Greek New
Testaments before 1633, to which the title is retrofitted.
EVANS: Since Frost is taking my comments at face value and not as tongue in cheek, I will reciprocate and
say thanks for admitting it. But how did I know that Frost would look it up? Unfortunately, Frost didn’t find the
several before 1633 even before 1611 in the different variations of Erasmus, Beza, Stefanus, and Elziver.
FROST: For his comment, “Poor Frost does not know that Isaiah 53:6 is Hebrew and not Greek,” yes, I know that
the Old Testament was written in Hebrew … but Herb Evans does not! He ventures to say that it may have been written in
“Egyptian”! So poor Evans does not know that Isaiah 53 was originally written in Hebrew. And I do know that there is a
Greek Old Testament, the LXX, translated from the Hebrew.
EVANS: Ah . . . Frost would have me here if it were not for the word “originally” that I ascribed to the
possibility of it being written in Egyptian. Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive.
FROST: Think about it. God might have recorded the history of the Jews, their laws and traditions, in the language
of Egypt. Woud he have given them a law in a language not their own? Perhaps they were taught it during their slavery.
Can you imagine Egyptian schools scattered throughout the land for the purpose of teaching Hebrews the Egyptian
language? They could attend classes in their “leisure time,” breaks from molding bricks. Would God have done this? Oh,
there is Herb’s favorite rejoinder: God can do whatever he pleases; he is God. That is true, but that is not the question.
Did God want Jewish history recorded in the Egyptian language, or is it Herb Evans who wants the Bible written is some
“lost language,” which might be Egyptian, to support his conclusions about the text sources of our English translations?
Never mind; we know that his imagination is wrong.
EVANS: Well, since we used logic to formulate our possibility, it would be wrong to disallow Frost the use of
logic. Actually, the first part of his logic here is pretty good excepting the latter part in regard to Egyptian schools
and the Hebrew slaves not found in the text, said education which is only ascribed to Moses.
Acts 7:22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.
What language does Frost think Moses wrote and spake?
FROST: Did enslaved Hebrew prophets in Egypt write inspired revelation in the language of the Egyptians? No, for
they were unable to communicate in the Egyptian language. In Psalm 81:5, we are told that God “ordained in Joseph for a
testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: where I heard a language that I understood not.” It is generally
conceded that this is a reference to the Jews who did not understand the language. To whomever it refers, we know that
Israel was isolated from Egyptian society. From their welcomed settlement for over hundreds of years, to the last when
they were virtually enslaved, there was no integration of societies or of languages. When Israel was delivered from their
bondage state, we are clearly informed: “When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange
language…”—Ps 114:1.
EVANS: After 400 years, if one is going to use logic, one would expect that the Jews would not be very
proficient at Hebrew any longer and had adapted to the strange language of Egypt before the schooling that Moses
had received. If not so, we wonder how communication was achieved to direct the slaves in building the pyramids.
Just a thought!
FROST: Herb Evans’ speculation of Prophets who did not know the language, writing to people who did not
understand the language, a divine revelation they could not read, is dead wrong! It contradicts Scripture! This is what
happens when one accepts a false doctrine and feels compelled to defend it.
It is just this mindset that accounts for the substitutionary atonement theory: God can do whatever He pleases. So
let’s suppose that God wants to redeem the lost by laying the sins of the world upon Jesus, and punish Him in our stead.
God could do that … so substitutionary atonement advocates conclude: therefore God did! They conclude therefore that
God did make Jesus our substitute! There is no authority for the conclusion. God does not say it. The very language
cannot be found in Scripture! So I place substitutionary atonement in the same category as an inspired Egyptian revelation
of God’s laws.
EVANS: Herb Evans’ speculation, and it is just that, is no worse than the speculation of Frost who believes
Adam and Eve’s conversations were in Hebrew and that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Greek. Or those large
portions of Daniel which were written in Chaldean or Syriac whichever one prefers. Chaldean words are all
through the scriptures including “ABBA” father. Frost still has not taken up the challenge to prove (from the
scriptures) that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, especially when Frost likes the Greek
Septuagint. Perhaps, Frost thinks that it was written in Greek.
Gene Frost: Since he has recommended Young’s translation of Isa. 53:6, let me recommend to the reader the
Prefaces and introductory material in the third edition of his translation. I would highly recommend the reading of it in
view of the theology of KJV-only expounders.
[EVANS: Herb Evans did not and does not “recommend” nor “highly” recommend the YLT or anything else.
Herb Evans “offered” the YLT with some questions to Frost. Frost is the one that likes extra scriptural authorities
and not Herb Evans. He can’t have it both ways citing my YLT “corruption” charge and calling my comments a
recommendation as well.]
Herb Evans: If Frost’s arguments are from prefaces and margins, he can read them himself. We are only interested
in the scriptures. Still, Solomon had some quirks as well as did certain KJB translators, something that Frost has not yet
mentioned but probably will.
FROST: Since you have raised the issue of what you call “quirks” in the Scripture text and with some KJB
translators, you need to be forthcoming instead of waiting for comments by me to which you might reply with quibbles.
You opened the box, now deal with it and explain these vagaries, while defending your claim that the KJB is inspired and
perfect. Can perfect have its imperfections?
EVANS: And Frost does not need to tell Herb Evans what he needs to do. More manipulation of Herb Evans’
comments as Frost is dying to seize upon some words to get the subject of the SA to switch to the Bible issue.
Solomon had some quirks, David had some quirks, the KJB translators had some quirks, but Herb Evans never
said that their scripture had some quirks. Again, we are only interested in the scriptures. Still, Frost is content in
operating and hiding in the periphery of what is being said.
►GF FROST: We have an inspired explanation in Matthew 8:13-17. Jesus healed the Centurion’s servant, Peter’s
mother-in-law, and then there were “brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits
with his word, and healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” He countered the efforts of Satan, restored their health and healed
their diseases. What Jesus did was a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4-5.
EVANS: “Was Jesus wounded for their transgressions in Matt. 8:13-17? Was Jesus bruised for their iniquities in
Matt. 8:13-17? Were their iniquities laid on Jesus and taken away in Matt. 8:13-17? More on this later! – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: No, not in Matthew 8, which was during His ministry, but Matthew does show what is meant by “He
took our infirmities and bare our sickness.” He lifted away their infirmities and carried away their sicknesses. ►GF
Herb Evans: Thanks for your admission that this occurred in Jesus’ ministry and life and not on the cross!
FROST: (This you say is a “partial fulfillment” of Isaiah 53, but it was also “later fulfilled.” So in both cases, Jesus
bare man’s infirmities. Whatever “bear” means it is used of their physical sickness and their spiritual sickness. You still
failed to answer the question: Does “bear” mean that Jesus possessed their physical sickness? that He became invalid,
crippled, deaf and blind, etc.? Maybe He possessed these infirmities eternally, which means he suffered it all in just an
instant?
EVANS: I don’t operate with “maybes.” Well, if this were not a partial fulfillment, did they ever get sick
again? After our sins were paid for, they were removed as far as the east is from the west and cast into the bottom
of the sea. Some suggest they were put into hell, but I can’t find anything to support that.
EVANS: The words “bear” and “bare” and “bore” and “borne” are common generic words that are used in
possessive situations as well as non-possessive situations, depending on the context and content of the passages.
FROST: What in a context will show that “bear,” which means to “possess,” one time means what it says and in
another context means “non-possessive”?
EVANS: I have been through this several times with you regarding the word “bear” and “possessions.” If all
my explanations and disclaimers are not good enough or you can’t hang your coat on any hook – tough! Frankly, I
am tired of Frost’s inquisition that asks the same questions over and over differently to get the response that Frost
wants from me.
EVANS: Matthew 8:13 – 17 is a partial fulfillment of Isa. 53:4A to be later fulfilled permanently; it is not a
fulfillment of Isa 53:4B to 53:12. The underlying word (forms of Lambano) for “take” is also rendered “receive,”
indicating possession in many passages.
FROST: What’s this? Evans using the Greek to make his point? What Greek text is he using? Why does he tell his
disciples, and those he seek to follow his teaching, to throw away the Greek (text and dictionaries) and use them himself?
This is not to correct an argument, involving the Greek, made by a so-called “Bible Corrector. “Woe unto you,
hypocrites,” Jesus said to them in His time on earth.
EVANS: I have no compunction in using the Greek to offset the imbalance of my adversary’s use of a word.
My advice remains the same “throw away the Greek.” Unfortunately, my opponents won’t heed that advice but
seek to tie my one hand behind my back; therefore I chose to meet them on a level playing field.
EVANS: A believer is to “take” up “HIS” cross. The virgins “took their” lamps. The long prayers shall “receive”
greater damnation. Jesus “received” the vinegar and it became his. Jesus “received” or took from the Father the promise
and it became His
Mat 10:38 And he that takethG2983 not HIS (SIC) cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
FROST: Herb capitalizes his in the above sentence and Scripture, which commonly indicates the pronoun refers to
Deity, which in this case would refer to Christ. If this is not what he meant to convey, he needs to say so. If it indeed
indicates a reference to Christ and His cross, then he argues that believers are to—as virgins “took their” lamps, or as long
prayers shall “receive” greater damnation, or as Jesus “received” vinegar, or as Jesus “received” or took from the Father
the promise and it became His— take up Jesus’ cross and make it his own!
EVANS: Wow! What weasel wording! My reason here was the word TAKETH coupled with possession – HIS.
Matt 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
1 Cor 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry . . .
EVANS: Mat 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which tookG2983 their lamps, and
went forth to meet the bridegroom.
Mat 25:3 They that were foolish tookG2983 their lamps, and tookG2983 no oil with them:
Luke 20:47 Which devour widows houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receiveG2983 greater
damnation.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had receivedG2983 the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and
gave up the ghost.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received G2983 of the Father the promise of the
Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
►GF FROST: As you inadvertently admit in your question, what “was laid on Jesus and (was) taken away.”
Your question relates to when iniquities were laid on Jesus and taken away, and the point is that you know that
“bear” (in Isa. 53:4 and Matt. 8:17) means to lay upon and remove.
EVANS: Frost has a real problem telling someone what they admit without including the quote or the context
or both. Frost is quite verbose when he paints himself in a corner but quite silent when it comes to something that
Frost needs to prove on his opponent. Were the sins laid upon Jesus and removed from Him? May I plainly state to
Frost that my sins were taken away after being removed by Jesus and laid upon Him and placed IN HIS OWN
BODY on the cross.
FROST: He demonstrated His power to remove all of man’s afflictions, which eventually includes sins and guilt
upon the cross.
[EVANS: He did demonstrate that. The Frost’s key word here is “eventually.” But where is “guilt” mentioned
in any of these passages under consideration?]
FROST: He did not demonstrate the theologian’s concept of atonement. He did not make their infirmities,
sicknesses, demon possessions, etc. His own. [SIC] He did not suffer these afflictions in their stead. He did not come
down with their infirmities and sicknesses, nor [SIC] demon possession. ►GF
[EVANS: Frost already has conceded that some things were removed during Jesus’ life and ministry before
the cross; Frost belabors two different time frames (apples and oranges).]
Herb Evans: Frost’s proof text does not say that Jesus bore our infirmities and sickness “FOR US” or that Jesus
became sickness or infirmity “FOR US.” For our Greek expert, Frost, the word is used here as in Rom. 15:1 where we are
to bear each other’s infirmities without actually possessing them but also to bear our OWN infirmities which requires
possession.
FROST: In the first place, Rom. 15:1 does not say that we are to “bear the infirmities of the weak” AND “our own
infirmities.” We do not find “bear” that means non-possession carrying and a second “bear” that means possession. Even
so, his interpolation doesn’t prove his point. We do not conclude possession of infirmities from the word “bear,” but from
the fact they are stated to be our own. They are already possessed by the phantom being before he is admonished to bear
them. Does Herb really think that the apostle Paul is admonishing strong Christians to bear (support) the infirmities of the
weak (they had as Paul wrote) and for them to bear (possess) the their own (they already possess as Paul wrote)?
This exchange is a teaching instrument to demonstrate how a false teacher can manipulate Bible statements and twist
existing and non-existing words to prove a definition which he has already admitted to be false. (Remember? Bear does
not mean possess.)
EVANS: Frost dances around my post in blue taken fron Galatians 6 and switches to Romans 15:1 which has
nothing to do with my comment. In Galatians 6, bearing another’s burdens does not demand possession, but
bearing ones OWN burdens does demand possession. Frost is obsessed with the words “possession” and
ownership.”
Gal 6:2, 5 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For every man shall bear his own burden.
Rom 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
EVANS: Of course, we cannot bear each other’s sins as Jesus did. The terms in Isaiah 53:4, “carried our sorrows”
and also “borne our griefs” have nothing to do with the sin atonement or the sin reconciliation or the cross, despite Frost’s
use of the word “eventually.”
FROST: Herb entirely missed the point, or pretends to, of our reference to Matt. 8:17. It was not to compare physical
infirmities with the moral guilt of sin, but to discern the divine use (definition) of the word “bear.” As Jesus bare (as used
in Isaiah 53) infirmities, so He bears our sins. It means to carry, lift, or remove.
EVANS: Frost entirely misses it by associating physical infirmities with moral guilt that is not mentioned
there. The point is that there are more than one meaning of the word “bear” and derivatives. This means that he
cannot demand his selective meaning to triumph. Personally, I cannot bear a vicious bear, which bears animosity
for me. I could shoot the bare naked bear, but then I could not bear him through the woods. Still, if I would shoot
the bear, then the bear would bear the fate that the bear intended for me. This is all too hard to bear! Un-bearable!
►GF FROST: Here we have an inspired interpretation of took and bare (present tense is bear). The same verb, bare,
in Isaiah 53:4 is also in verse 12, “he bare the sin of many.” The meaning did not change in the same context, in 8 verses.
Substitutionary atonement is not found in Isaiah 53.
[EVANS: Again, the word “take” and its derivatives and the word “bear” and its derivatives do not demand
either Frost’s concept or mine because those concepts are not found inherently in the basic word itself. That being
said, the concept of the SA is found in Isa 53.]
Herb Evans: Frost attempts to comparatively juggle the Greek against the Hebrew, citing common generic words
that are rendered in various ways in both Testaments. Even Frost’s comparison of the Hebrew and Greek words is not
exact matches from Hebrew to Greek. Indeed, the various meanings of generic words do not change, but the contextual
situation, where they are found, do change. We reject the uniform translation theory.
FROST: Can the same thing be said of Hebrew/Greek to English? Are the English words of the KJB the exact of the
original Greek and Hebrew texts? Herb is a practitioner of sophistry!
EVANS: Imagine that? Frost asks two questions, and before I can answer, Frost accuses me of his practice of
sophistry. Needless to say, whether Hebrew, Greek, or English, all three of these languages contain ambiguous
words. This gives Frost the license to make them mean what he wishes.
FROST: As for juggling the Greek against the Hebrew, it is the Holy Spirit which refers to what Isaiah spoke in
Hebrew (Isaiah 53) and translates it into Greek. You say “words do not change, but the contextual situation, where they
are found, does change.” For this reason you “reject the uniform translation theory.” I don’t know about your “uniform
theory”; I know that God says that what Isaiah wrote in Hebrew means the same in Greek, and it is not what you mean by
the same terms.
EVANS: OH? When did God say that? So, now the Holy Spirit is a translator? Amazing pontification!
Gene Frost: According to Evans, what Jesus bare, He possessed and made His own. ►GF
[Herb Evans: Frost’s Matthew miracles had to do with Jesus’ temporary healings during His earthly ministry per Isa
53:4A.The future fulfillment of Isa. 53:4B to 53:12 was yet future to Matthew 8:17. Still, it was God who bruised Jesus
and put Jesus to grief. If Jesus did not possess our removed sins, and we no longer possess them, who possesses them?
FROST: Sins have to belong to someone, according to Evans. Indeed, he says, God made all sins Jesus’ possession,
His own. Are they still?
EVANS: Is it strange that Frost does not provide “quotations” with context when Frost tells us “EVANS
says?”
EVANS: What right did Jesus have to take them, carry them away, and do with them that which He wished, if they
were not then His?
FROST: Jesus, in the Godhead, could do with sin, the devil, or any created thing, physical or spiritual, as He willed.
He is God. From whom must God obtain this “right” of which you speak, Mr. Evans?
EVANS: WOW! I did not think that Frost believed in the Triune Godhead. But yes he had the right of
Godship, and he had the right of ownership and the right of possession of anything that He took.
EVANS: Also, to where did Jesus carry them? It is our opinion that Jesus carried them as far as the east is from the
west, to the bottom of the sea, and to hell where they belong after He died. Let Frost tell us where he thinks Jesus carried
our sins.
FROST: Sorry, I do not engage in theology! I did hear one say He might have carried them to the moon. Are we
ready for this? Have we settled how many angels can stand on the point of a needle at the same time? Even so, let the
reader take note that Evans believes that when Jesus bore our sins, He removed them and discarded them! He does not
make them His own, to keep and possess.
[EVANS: Let the reader take notice that Frost does not speak for Herb Evans’ beliefs, his thoughts, his
assumptions, or his conclusions.]
EVANS: Did I really say that? Still, Frost takes liberty with what I say all the time. Well, if Frost does not want our
opinion, perhaps, he will.
Does Frost believe that the “scapegoat” of Lev. 16:21, who carried the sins away into the wilderness, is a type of
Jesus?]
EVANS Continued: “Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over
him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of
the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:” -- Herb Evans
►GF FROST: As one who believes in substitutionary atonement expressed it: whatever God thinks something to
be, in reality it is. When God imputed the sins of mankind to Christ, in His mind Christ became the consummation of all
evil and wickedness … and so, in fact, He was. [This paragraph is divided into 5 paragraphs by Evans, no doubt to
weaken its impact.] Cf. next black text. ►GF
EVANS: Herb Evans: This is one of Frost’s paranoid suspicions about Herb Evans!
FROST: [I did not say Herb Evans expressed it! Now who is paranoid?]
EVANS: Well, who divided the paragraph into 5 paragraphs, Pinocchio?
EVANS: That is the way that point/counterpoint discussion works, regardless of whether Frost likes that type of
discussion or not.
FROST: I understand why you use what you call point/counterpoint. It “legitimizes” disruption of arguments, even
separation of words within the same sentence, and allows insertion of different matters before or after an opponent’s
comments so that it appears that what he says is in response to the new insert. Your format was thrust upon me without
notice, after we both had written responses to one another. I was disgusted, and considered dropping further
correspondence unless you made your response in a standalone article as before. From your opening demeanor, I
determined that this was probably your intent so you could claim that that I had dropped the discussion because I could
not answer you. So I decided to respond in kind so that you might see the foolishness of this format, in producing a
confusing document which will not be readily read. (This was the reaction others had upon reading the former exchange.)
EVANS: Well, there goes the mind reader again. All my long discussions are point/counterpoint. What it does
is to prevent a long winded opponent from saying many things at once to avoid his opponent from catching and
answering all his filibuster points. Point/counterpoint discussion keeps verbose debaters like Frost honest, hence
his complaint.
FROST: The problem is not with legitimate point and counterpoint discussion, but with your abuse. Legitimately, a
point/counterpoint discussion is agreed to by both parties. A proposition is agreed upon, in order to maintain a focus on
the subject. The affirmative sets forth his arguments of proof in orderly fashion. Each point occupies a paragraph. The
opponent follows in suit, with each counterpoint in a paragraph following the affirmative’s point paragraph.
EVANS: Frost should have requested debate decorum at the end of my critique of his tape in my article. Still,
this debate evolved. Some of Frost’s so called paragraphs contain twenty points and each one must be addressed
where they are faulty.
FROST: To interject comments within the opponent’s paragraph to disrupt the argument, to prevent a thought being
made, does a disservice to the reader in his effort to be fair in understanding the arguments made and objections to it.
Also, it permits the disputants to complete the exchange in less time, and with greater profit for all involved. This is
desirable to those who want truth to prevail rather than confusion and selfish ambition.
EVANS: Obviously Frost does not see himself as he disrupts not just paragraphs but also my sentences all
through this discussion. I have had to correct them and assign name caption names and colors to those comments
to show who is saying what.
FROST: I want the reader, if there be such, to know that this format is not to my liking. I know that it is confusing,
which gives an advantage to the unscrupulous teacher of unscriptural imaginations of men. I just pray that there will be an
occasion for the lover of truth to read through all of the exchange and be profited with the truth. We have minimized the
confusion by presenting the exchange in layers. In fact, it will help the reader to look back to the previous exchange so as
to take note of the many unauthorized liberties that Herb Evans has taken in deletions and textual changes.
EVANS: Frost’s complaints are duly noted, but the readers already have Frost’s number. Frost has added to
the confusion rather than minimize it. Of course, Frost is used to oral debates where you cannot interrupt your
opponent but have to wait for a time limit to expire. By that time half of what has been said has gone over the
listeners’ heads. If Frost can find it, let him read my written debate in a series of letter exchanges with John R.
Rice over the Bible issue.
EVANS: Isa 53:12 . . . and he bare the sin of many . . . KJB
Isa 53:12 . . . And he the sin of many hath BORNE . . . Young’s literal Translation
Gene Frost: “Bare,” and its meaning of carrying away sicknesses (Matt. 8:17, Isa. 53:4), is the same “bare” in Isa.
53:12. Herb assigns a different definition to “bare” and assumes it to mean to “make one’s own.”
[EVANS: We have been over the words “bare” and “possession” and Matthew 8, over and over. Frost, not
having much to fill up the discussion with beside the Bible issue, must repeat these things over and over, hoping to
get a different response.]
Herb Evans: How can Hebrew words and Greek words be the same words?
[FROST: What “Hebrew” and “Greek”? You trip yourself, Herb! I referred to Scriptures in Old and New Testament,
and you respond with Hebrew and Greek, not English. So you do know in what languages the translators translated! Your
pretense otherwise is not honest!]
EVANS: Well, may I assume that Matt. 8:17 is in Greek (but originally it might have been Hebrew) and Isa
53: 4 is in Hebrew? Should I look for another? Where did I trip up?
EVANS: Could uninspired translation be involved? Herb Evans assigned nothing. It is conceded that there is nothing
inherent in the words “took, bear, borne, bore, or carry that demand possession. It is the content and context of such
common, generic words and the comparative passages that demand possession. One of the Hebrew words, H5375, is
rendered “bare, contain, took, took away, carry, and accept” (Gen 19:21; Gen. 32:20, - accept). Frost insists and demands
only one certain rendering that favors his own private view of the atonement/reconciliation. Sins accepted are sins
possessed.
FROST: Here is an important admission: there is nothing inherent in the words took, bear, borne, bore, or carry that
demand possession. The concept of possession must be entirely found in the context.
EVANS: It is just like Frost to address only part of my comments above. That is not an admission; it is
something that I believed all along. I never challenged the valid definitions of Frost. My challenge was to Frost’s
insisted dogmatic definitions which do not inherently contain such meanings.
EVANS: “1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree . . .” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: The offering of a blood sacrifice was His, in His own body, and not in another, animal or man. Having
“made peace through the blood of his cross,” “now (you) hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death” (Col.
1:20, 21-22)
Herb Evans: Yea verily, Christ’s OWN body bore and reconciled our sins, as His own, in our stead, and He paid and
exchanged the ransom for them with His blood.
FROST: Herb adds “as His own, in our stead.” When you cite scripture, your theology is not there. In comment, you
add it. There is nothing in the context of Col. 1:20-22 that demands a possession of sin. Jesus shed His blood in the body
of His flesh through death. Not a word or hint of Jesus possessing anybody’s sin. So Evans’ admission answers Evans’
assertion.
EVANS; Well, what do you think that you do when you explain scripture?
EVANS: “John 3:14, 15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted
up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Num 21:8, 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to
pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon
a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
God saw the Moses brazen serpent (SIN) on the cross rather than Jesus. That is the only reason why Jesus was
wounded FOR our transgressions and bruised FOR our iniquities and STRICKEN FOR the transgression of God’s
people.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Wow! When theologians get going, with their imaginations and speculations, there is no telling where
they will lead us. Imagine! “The only reason Jesus was wounded, bruised, and stricken is because when Jesus was nailed
to the cross, what God saw was not Jesus but Moses’ brazen serpent. Are you saying that God became so infuriated that
He went after that snake with all His fury, and then and there abandoned Jesus? What a difference, when the Israelites
looked upon that serpent they were healed of the serpents’ bite. They saw deliverance. But Herb says God saw evil …
rather than the Savior of man!
[EVANS: That pretty well sums it up. And Jesus pretty well identifies with Num 21:8, 9 in His words of John
3:14, 15. Frost is merely in denial in his demonstration of ignorance regarding the types.]
Herb Evans: Aside from Frost’s explaining away the brazen serpent type, it was the LORD that had BRUISED the
sin laden Christ and put Christ to grief per his pleasure, making His body a sacrifice and His soul an “offering FOR sin.”
Yet Frost is upset that Jesus’ ordeal on the cross is symbolized by a serpent on a pole. Yet it pleased the LORD to
BRUISE him; he hath put him to grief when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin (Isa 53:10) . . .
FROST: Herb begs the question: he merely asserts to be true what he is obligated to prove. Where does the Bible say
that Jesus’ grief in His suffering gave God pleasure?
EVANS: You mean Isa 53:10 is not good enough for you?
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an
offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days . . .
FROST: Allusion to the brazen serpent is that as those bitten by serpents could look upon it and be healed, so sinners
can look to Jesus for salvation.
John 3:14-15—“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
EVANS: Indeed. Very good! The Israelites could look to the brazen serpent be cured of their snakebites and
live. Albeit, we who are truly saved without being “bUptized” can look to Jesus without baptism and live. In fact,
Baptists have a song about that very thing, “Look and live, my brother live, look to Jesus now and live.” We sing it
all the time.
FROST: The brazen image of a poisonous viper did not suggest to the Israelites a suffering, dying savior; it
symbolized death because of rebellion, which God would remove by their obeying His order to look upon it when bitten.
The only comparison Jesus makes is that as those in peril had to look upon the brazen serpent, so sinners must look to the
Son of man. Anything more is pure speculation, the breeding ground of theology.
EVANS: Well, now we have seen Frost’s theology and revisionist view of the event. Our view is that they were
bitten because of sin, and sin was removed when they looked to the uplifted serpent. Now, we have sinned and most
look to the uplifted Saviour in order to have those sins removed.
►GF FROST: The people had “infirmities” (unsound or unhealthy conditions of the body) and “sicknesses”
(diseases). In healing them of diseases, restoring sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf, and restoring strength and
mobility to the lame, etc… ►GF
[EVANS: Well, here we go back to Jesus lifetime ministry rather than the cross.]
EVANS: “Unhealthy infirmities, sickness, and disease are much different than sin and iniquity and “chastisement.”
Gene Frost: Not when removing them. When Jesus bare their infirmities, He carried them away. No more
remembrance of them. They were gone!
[EVANS: Where did Jesus carry them away? Where had they gone? Where did our sins go except in Jesus
own body? Well, have you not already told us that the sin and iniquity and chastisement had not been removed
until baptism? That certainly is at least a difference in time frame between Matthew 8 and the cross.]
Herb Evans: But to where did Jesus carry their infirmities (whether remembrance or no remembrance)? Who put
them wherever? Now, bearing infirmities is not the same as bearing sin in that sin and iniquity were that which were
“laid” on Jesus and not the infirmities of Matthew which were not LAID on Jesus during His life and ministry. In regard
to the sins laid on Jesus, when those sins were REMOVED to Jesus, to where were they carried, and who carried them.
Who besides the owner has the authority to dispose of them?
FROST: What?! God has to make sins His own (possess them) in order to have authority to dispose of them, or to
forgive man. Evans asserts it, but the Bible does not say it! Herb has “conceded that there is nothing inherent in the words
“took, bear, borne, bore, or carry that demand possession.”
EVANS: Frost is starting to sound like a broken or scratched record. You would think if I supposedly
conceded that nothing is inherent in the words that Frost would accept it, since I merely showed how the words in
question can be used. Yes, Herb asserts it and even declares it. Nevertheless, all Frost asserts is his denial of what
Evans says.
Gene Frost: When Jesus forgives us our sins, He washes them away, i.e. “their sins and iniquities will I remember
no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter
into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is
to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of
faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb. 10:17-22;
emphasis added.)
Herb Evans: “No more offering for sin” is merely no more offering for sin – nothing more – nothing less. Evidently,
Frost must think that “our bodies being washed with pure water” is baptism. If so, could it be that Frost never has been to
the bacteria laden Jordan River or even to my home town’s rivers, less than pure, foul smelling water?
FROST: Let Herb tell us what this “pure water” is, if indeed it is water. Then tell us if it is necessary for our bodies
to be washed.
EVANS: Well, evidently by his “answer a question with a question” type response, Frost must believe that it is
baptism in pure bacteria laden water. Well, I guess that I am going to have to answer. But Frost won’t answer
forthrightly. We wonder if Campbellites sing Rock of Ages where it says, “Be of sin the double cure, make me safe
from wrath and make me pure.” The double cure is found in John 19:34:
John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and
water. Note: see 1 John 5:6
Gene Frost: Yet you say … (Here Evans interrupts two statements at the same time. It is hard to make any points
without being interrupted. Yes, of necessity I have had to follow suit; otherwise … well, just think of the situation if only
Herb could inject his thoughts, and I could only reply when his thought was completed. I think what he has done is what
he desired instead.)
EVANS: Since Frost does not example this charge, I guess we will never know what he is talking about.
►GF FROST: Jesus bare the same guilt of sin, and suffered the very same infirmities and sicknesses ►GF
FROST: This statement, “Jesus bare the same guilt of sin,” was written following Herb’s initial article in this
exchange, which reflected his thinking then, that “Christ took our sins, our guilt, and our blame.” Herb has now
highlighted in red the word “guilt.” This just emphasizes that this is what he believed but has had to retract. We would
that he would do the same to other false statements, and highlight them.
EVANS: Frost seems to be saying that he would not have said “guilt” if Evans would not have said it. Then he
quotes a snippet by me, which I still stand by but would have added a disclaimer if I had known than Frost was
going to use it. Jesus did take our sin, our guilt, and our blame. He took it all “AWAY!” Yet JESUS took ONLY
ours sins IN HIS OWN BODY and was MADE A CURSE FOR US.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written,
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Evans’ Spin on Guilt
FROST: Evans employs yet another fallacy of false teachers. He makes a play on the word “guilt” called
equivocation. You see, “guilt” is used in two senses: 1) the act or state of having done wrong or committed an offense;
culpability, legal or ethically; and 2) a painful feeling of self-reproach resulting from a belief that one has done something
wrong or immoral.
EVANS: If it be spin to deny that Jesus was culpable or had done wrong or immoral or had committed an
offense, let it be spin. Does Frost believe that Jesus was culpable or had done wrong? We believe that He was the
just for the unjust.
FROST: Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, though a miscarriage of truth and justice, in the Sanhedrin court of
the Jews. Since they did not have the authority to pronounce a capital sentence, they appealed to Pilate, the Roman
governor. Before him the Jews brought three charges: “We found this fellow (1) perverting the nation, and (2) forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar, saying that (3) he himself is Christ a King.” Although Pilate saw the weakness of their charges,
the real cause being their envy of Jesus; nevertheless, being fearful of being accused of acting against Caesar, he gave in
to the demands of the chief priests and others. Thereupon Pilate gave sentence as they insisted and delivered Jesus to be
crucified. Thus Jesus was found “guilty,” culpable and sentenced. References to guilt, as culpability, henceforth are
numbered (1) in red.
EVANS: We thank Frost for the Sunday school lesson but find Frost’s wicked conclusion that God is the same
as the Sanhedrin reprehensible.
FROST: Guilt may also refer to one’s emotion, a feeling of self-reproach. Herb shifts from one to another without
making the distinction. Henceforth we highlight references to the feeling of guilt with number (2) in red. He shifts
between the two. When I refer to (1) he counters as though I meant the second (2) use. I did not use guilt in discussing any
emotional reaction in Jesus.
EVANS: Herb shifted nothing but rather gave two examples of “guilt.” No shifting necessary, Frosty, for
Christ did not have any guilt or bore any sense of guilt, regarding our sins.
[Herb Evans: Jesus was the man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, both in life and in death. Nevertheless, where
does Frost see “guilt’ being borne in Matthew? Or anywhere? Oh! Frost accepts Herb’s comment on that. I see! Herb
Evans is the extra scriptural authority! ]
EVANS: The passage says nothing about guilt of sin; it says transgressions and iniquity in ADDITION to other
things.
Gene Frost: Remarkable! Jesus made transgressions and iniquities His own, but no guilt? I guess that Herb forgot
that he said,
“Christ took our sins, our guilt, and our BLAME.” – Herb Evans (“He Took My Sins.”)
[EVANS: Pete and Repeat were sitting on a fence; Pete fell off and who was left? Frost, of course! Just add the
word “AWAY” and you’ll have it.] Christ took my sins away, but also took my sins in his own body. Christ took
our guilt and blame away but did not take them in His own body.
1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins . . .
Herb Evans: Remarkable? It is more remarkable that there is no biblical Hebrew or Greek word for (2) “guilt.” It is
true that no one, including Frost and Herb Evans, can cite a passage where Jesus took our guilt and the word “guilt,” is not
found anywhere near the cross. The word “guilt,” however, is in the English italics in the O.T. (something that Frost does
not think is inspired).
FROST: “Guilt” is used twice in the O.T. (Deut. 19:13 and 21:9). English words, both italic and non-italic, are not
inspired.
EVANS: Poor Frost! Both words “GUILT” are in italics in the locations that Frost specified. Now he has to
retract his ARGUMENT here and also in regard to offering for sin in Hebrews 10:8, since “offering” is in italics.
See Frost’s book “Old Issues do not fade away” and his disallowing of the italicized “men” in 2 Cor 9:13. Such
double mindedness we cannot abide. We’ll not allow Frost to have it both ways.
EVANS: My choice of words was not the best, since the (1) “guilt bearing” concept is not found in Scripture, unless
one considers that Jesus bore our censure, shame (Heb. 12:2), and condemnation as well even though Jesus was the
innocent for the guilty (?), the just for the unjust. (1 Pet. 3:18) In that sense, one might say that Jesus was found “guilty”
for us although He was not guilty of committing those sins. The word “guilty” is a state where one is found “guilty” for a
crime or sin (the only sense that the word “guilty” is used in the scripture). Jesus was found “guilty” by Rome and
crucified for a crime that He did not commit. That being said: Whether one experiences feelings of (2) guilt about
something is another matter and also something Jesus never bore.
FROST: So Evans denies that Jesus was guilty in either in (1) condemnation or in (2) feeling guilty.
EVANS: Jesus was not culpable nor did He have guilt feelings. Jesus was NOT GUILTY IN PLAIN
ENGLISH, despite Frost’s semantical suggestions. Jesus was not to blame for that which He took in His own body.
EVANS: That is something that is determined by a person’s conscience, real or imagined. Jesus never experienced
any feelings of guilt of His own (whether His or ours). The closest thing to guilt feelings that we can find is found in 1
John 3:20, 21, which are that of folks -- believers already. In regard to my comment regarding our “blame” that Jesus
took, Frost might look up references on “condemn” and check out the underlying Greek which is also rendered “blame” in
Gal 2:11.
FROST: We didn’t address how Jesus felt.
EVANS: Duly noted! So what!
EVANS: Frost might also find Webster 1828 as saying “censure” and “disapprobation” which is consistent with my
comment in regard to blame. Let the reader note that my comments on guilt bearing became Frost’s final authority to be
repeated over and over again as Frost’s best argument.
FROST: Let the reader note that Evans’ comment on guilt bearing did not constitute any authority for me, nor has it
been an argument for me, neither best nor worse. You see, I do not believe that Jesus became a sinner for me, to assume
either sin or its guilt. The reason I repeat that Evans claimed that Jesus took our sins and our guilt, after he acknowledged
that he was wrong in the statement, is because he returns to the subject and introduces an alternate use of guilt, from the
act to the emotional consequences.
EVANS: I did not acknowledge that I was wrong in my statement, I acknowledged a poor choice of words and
my lack of a disclaimer (added later above). My disclaimer and explanation stands without my two renderings of
guilt.
FROST: And now he tries to shift his blame to me: that Gene Frost says (on the authority of Herb Evans) that Jesus
took our guilt. Wild in his imagination! I do not believe that Jesus took our sins and made them His own, even before I
was born and committed sin! I do not believe that He made my sins, or anyone else’s sins, His own! I do not believe that
Jesus is to blame for my sins, or the sins of anyone else! I do not believe that Jesus took my place on the cross to suffer in
my stead! I do not believe in penal substitution!
EVANS: Wonderful! Then what are you arguing about a term of your own invention and something that you
are trying to make stick to me? I believe that Jesus took our guilt away but that he did not take our guilt upon Him
self. Is that clear enough? Or would you like to keep up your probing in order to get me to me to say it yet
ANOTHER way?
FROST: Let’s make a brief summary here. Evans claims that on the cross Jesus bare the sins of the world. They
were laid on Him, being transferred from (1) the guilty. These sins became His. He possessed them! All of the sins ever
committed became His sins. Evans insists that God made Him to be sin—not a sin-offering, but sin itself! On the cross,
while suffering the penalty of sin, there was nothing good, pure, or noble to be seen, only consummate sin! There was
lying, theft, fornication, murder, sadism. Who is this to whom all of these things belong? Who is this who alone possesses
these sins, which are his own?
EVANS: Despite how Frost frames this summary, you must consider the worse case use of the words “possess”
and “his own” which I have repeatedly explained to deaf ears.
FROST: If inquiry could be made, “who is this liar, thief, fornicator, murderer, sadist?” the answer would be “Jesus
of Nazareth,” according to Evans. The very description, which does not do justice to the actual facts, should make one ill
and resentful of anyone who would so characterize the Son of God!
EVANS: What Frost means is “if inquiry could be made to Frost. “What sophistry! Jesus was no liar or thief
and no murderer, and etc. Jesus was the innocent for the guilty. Notice here that Frost is doing the talking.
FROST: This poses a problem. According to the theory of penal substitution, Jesus received and became owner of
all the sins of the world. All of these sins were committed by sinners, who were therefore guilty, i.e. responsible for or
chargeable with these reprehensible acts; deserving of blame; culpable. They were to blame, i.e. responsible, culpable.
According to the theory of penal substitution, “Christ took our sins, …, and our BLAME,” but Evans adds “but not our
guilt,” even though guilt and blame are synonymous! It will be interesting to see Herb explain the difference, how a sinner
can bear the blame for his sins, but not the guilt of his sins.
FROST Continued: But then he refers to one (2) experiencing “feelings of guilt about something,” and adds that
this “also something Jesus never bore.” When Evans claimed that “Christ took our sins” and “our guilt,” we understood
that (1) the sins (the lawless conduct, action, and deeds) were counted His, that sins were imputed to Him, and that this
included the culpability and condemnation, the sentence of blame, as well. He then said, no, he did not bear the guilt. But
then by adding that (2) Jesus never experienced any feelings of guilt of His own, he leaves it confusing. But no more. He
committed himself in this one sentence: “Whether one experiences feelings of guilt about something is another matter and
also something Jesus never bore.” “Feeling” is (2) another matter, and “also,”—in addition to; besides (1) the culpability.
Now, as we noted above, Herb takes the position that Jesus took the sins of others, along with the blame, but not any
responsibility or condemnation for them, nor did He experience any sense of guilt.
EVANS: While Jesus can be said to be an offering and a sacrifice for sin that is not what it says. It says that
He (God) hath made Him (Jesus) to be sin for us. In the New Testament, sin is not a sin offering 2 Cor 5:21 or any
where else in the New Testament.
EVANS: 1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just FOR the unjust, that he might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
FROST: Jesus became a sin offering to bring us to God; He was the Just one, the innocent lamb of God, who died in
our behalf.
EVANS: Hardly. Whether in the English or the Greek! It is “sin” in both places of 2 Cor 5:21. Nevertheless,
Frosty wants to change it with no Greek or English justification.
2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness
of God in him.
EVANS: 1 John 3:20, 21 For if our heart condemn (G2607) us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
Beloved, if our heart condemn (G2607) us not, then have we confidence toward God.
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the
cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
FROST: Herb Evans would have Jesus suffer not only the shame that was attached to a crucifixion, which the
Romans reserved for the vilest of men, but the shame of every evil act ever committed! This text doesn’t say what Evans
believes; it is connected to the crucifixion.
EVANS: Frosty would have Jesus suffering His own shame. Of what did Jesus have to be ashamed? Was the
shame that He despised His or ours? Not addressing the true Author and Finisher of our faith (It is finished!),
Frost would seem to have water baptism as the finisher of our faith.
►GF FROST: According to Evans, “He possessed them! They became His!” ►GF
EVANS: “That is correct; the sins of others became His vicariously.”
FROST: Which means that Jesus endured the guilt and the pain that was due to others.
Herb Evans: Which means? Which means? A cow is an animal; a dog is an animal, which means that a cow is a dog
per Frost editorial logic that is attached to Herb Evans’ comments, which said that the “sins” became His after being laid
on HIM.
[EVANS: The pain, yes! The guilt, no! Conclusions are not arguments.]
FROST: Herb, your “logic” is known as non-sequitur. Your syllogistic statement is a pseudo-syllogism, which
means that it is illogical. And it is not mine! Logicians must be shaking their heads in disbelief … pity.
EVANS: Well, SPOCK, that is illogical!
►GF FROST: Adding the word “vicariously” doesn’t help him at all. Just like Herb stated, “when you do not like a
word, you must redefine it,” or change it, and he does. Where does the Bible say the “the sins of others became His
vicariously”? (Vicarious is not even found in the “KJV Dictionary.”) Herb has to admit that the word is not inspired—but
it is found in works of theology.
Herb Evans: Adding the word “guilt” does not help Frost (or Evans) at all. Frost must say that the “guilt” word is
not inspired, for “guilt” is not found in Frost’s beloved Hebrew or Greek. But Frost can use Herb Evans’ comment as an
authority over the Hebrew and Greek, if he so desires.
FROST: To do so, I would have to be as disrespectful to the languages used by the Holy Spirit, in revealing God’s
will, as Herb is! This is arrogance! Evans actually considers his word “an authority over the Hebrew and Greek”!
EVANS: Which Hebrew and which Greek? Actually the KJB English is the authority over Frost. The KJB
will judge Mr. Frost and not Frost it.
EVANS: “That is why the Father forsook him. And Frost has not refuted this.” – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: Where does it say that God forsook Christ on the cross? I know that Jesus quoted what David wrote
in Psalm 22, which David acknowledged that God had not actually done. ►GF
EVANS: Where does it say that Christ was quoting David since you “KNOW?” If Frost knows, I know that
David was pre-quoting Christ.
Herb Evans: Frost knows? Does Frost know about which came first -- the chicken or the egg?
FROST: This is not as difficult as Herb wants to make it. Which came first, what David said or what Jesus said. To
use Herbs’ own expression of sympathy: Poor Herb doesn’t know that the Psalms (22:1) come before Matthew (27:46).
EVANS: The comments that came first were in Psalm 22, but also were the comments in regard to the
piercing of “MY” hands and feet occurred first in Psalm 22 as well as parting “MY” garments, therefore did they
pierce David’s hands and feet part David’s garments?
EVANS: Jesus said My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? Christ was not quoting David, David was quoting
what Jesus would say on the cross, and Jesus demonstrated the fulfilling of it.
[EVANS: The conclusions of the cross spectators seemed to be quite different than Frost’s conclusions. Frost
thinks that Jesus was QUOTING David and thinks the unsaved Jews are the ones who think God forsook Him. But
then, the text tells us that the spectators THOUGHT that Jesus called for Elijah. Others said let us see if Elijah will
take him down from the cross. Interestingly, ELOI is Chaldean, hardly a quote from David in Psalm 22:1.
Mat 27:46 - 48 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that
is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said,
This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put
it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
Mark 15:34 - 36And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?
which is, being interpreted, My God, my God [Chaldean and not David’s Hebrew], why hast thou forsaken me?
And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.]
FROST: O.K., which comes first, what David said or what Jesus would say?
EVANS: O.K. which comes first? What David said about the piercing of the hands and feet and the parting of
the garments or what actually happened to Jesus?
EVANS: Where in the gospels does any lost Jew mention that quote?
FROST: Why? Do you think one did?
EVANS: Good old “answer a question with a question” Frost! Frost seems to think that lost Jews had certain
conclusions about the Lord’s words, being the mind reader that Frost is.
EVANS: Should Jesus have said, “David’s God, David’s God, why hast thou forsaken David?”
FROST: Why do you ask such silly questions? Do you think He should?
EVANS: Why do you answer with such silly answers? Who was forsaken – David or Christ?
EVANS: Was Jesus calling on His God from the cross?
►GF FROST: But where does it say that Jesus, [SIC] or even David, was actually abandoned by God? Herb, have
you actually read all of Psalm 22? ►GF
[EVANS: Notice, again, Frost does not answer my question but rather asks another sidetrack question. The
narrative does not actually say that any more than the narrative says that David was “actually” abandoned or even
that David thought that he was. Is Frost seeking a stalemate?]
EVANS: Herb Evans: No! It does not actually “say” that either David or Jesus was forsaken in Psalm 22, for it had
not yet happened. Psalm 22 is prophetic.
FROST: You cannot say Psalm 22 “does not actually say” that David “was forsaken” because “it had not yet
happened.” When David wrote the Psalm, the feeling of abandonment had already happened with him; he wrote about it
in the Psalm.
EVANS: You can not say that a feeling of abandonment had already happened to David. Show us the word
“feeling” in the passage. Now, Frost is doing what he accuses Evans of doing. Sort of hard to explain something
without adding additional words, isn’t it?
FROST: Was it true of Jesus, rather than David, that God was “far from helping” him, that He said, “O my God, I
cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.” Was it Jesus who stated, “Our fathers
trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee,
and were not confounded.” Did Jesus, being forsaken, say, “But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and
despised of the people.”
EVANS: What you have here is the thoughts of the Lord in regard to the experiences of pain and ridicule
before the cross up until the cross and the words that Christ would actually say. Actually, Jesus said seven things
on the cross; how many were Jesus’ sayings and how many were David’s? Was it David that said that they pierced
MY hands and my feet? Instead of just asking questions, perhaps Frost should answer some. “MY” is a pronoun!
EVANS: Jesus’ cry of dismay, on the cross, was clearly the fulfillment of that prophecy as well as the parted
garments over which the soldiers gambled. Jesus’ cry was intended for the benefit of onlookers (and us) to understand
what Jesus took upon His self, in our stead, namely our punishment and abandonment which we should have experienced
as lost sinners.
FROST: This is an amazing exegesis of Scripture! When Jesus cried out (“My God, My God, Why hast thou
forsaken me?”), Herb says this was so the witnesses would understand that Jesus was suffering our punishment and
abandonment as lost sinners? This describes substitutionary atonement, a doctrine which was introduced by Anselm of
Canterbury [c. 1033-1109]. Before this time no one taught it and no one believed it. The common view in the ancient
church was that the death of Christ was a ransom paid to the devil.
EVANS: Well, now, Frost’s tactic is associating Herb Evans with heretics and apostates.
FROST: Of course, the witnesses at the cross did not have Herb Evans to expound a twelfth-century theory to them.
Amazing, is it not, that the witnesses upon seeing Jesus suffering and dying on the cross should have concluded: “He’s
dying in my stead; it was my place to die on a cross for my sins!” Or, “Jesus has paid for my sins to set me free; he now
owns my sins for which God has abandoned him and punished him!” Herb says God intended for them to understand this.
How he knows what God intended, he doesn’t reveal.
EVANS: Of course; Frost ignores the “and us” of my comments, but yes, they were to understand this then or
later as a fulfillment of prophecy.
►GF FROST: The enemies of Christ thought that Jesus was abandoned, but was He? ►GF
Herb Evans: He was forsaken according to His cry. Still, where does it say anywhere that at the cross the enemies of
God “thought” or even “reasoned” that Jesus was abandoned by God? When was David or any other saint ever forsaken
by God?
►GF FROST: You say, yes, for just an instant. Where did you read that Jesus suffered the guilt of the world, whose
sins became His, and for which He was forsaken by God the Father … for just an instant. Is it from Scripture or from
theology?
[EVANS: Frost’s has a problem other than nit-picking my metaphorical answer? What is time compared with
eternity to an eternal God? Nevertheless, eternity is the instant of God not the instant of man.]
Herb Evans: My “instant” of suffering and abandonment was in regard Frost’s suggestion that Jesus must bear our
punishment “eternally.” If Frost is correct, indeed, it would have to be for “eternity” but only if Jesus were not “eternal?”
FROST: Where did you get the idea that the eternal God cannot be or do something eternally? This is a
philosophical theology that pontificates such nonsense.
EVANS: Where does Frost get the idea that God cannot do something? I can play 20 questions too as well as
Mr. Frost!
EVANS: Yet Jesus IS ETERNAL! But where did Frost get that word “guilt” from or read it? Is that from scripture
or from Frost’s parroted theology? Where did Frost read the word “guilt” in the scripture? Oh, yes, Frost found it in the
“inspired” article by Herb Evans?
FROST: I have not referred to Evans’ initial article as being inspired, even in jest.
EVANS: I hurt to the quick!
FROST: This is his call. If he intends to be funny, this is hardly the place in that he is now enunciating a philosophy
nowhere mentioned in Scripture, but is theological from beginning to end.
EVANS: When I intend to be funny, I usually am. “Guilt” was Frost’s call, an extra scriptural word, and a
philosophical interpolation that is nowhere mentioned at the cross or in scripture the way that Frost uses it.
FROST: The word “guilt” is used in Scripture, as is “guilty” two dozen times!
EVANS: Frost should be a bull fighter. Where is guilt mentioned? When Frost tells us, I will remind him
about what he says about italicized words. The word “guilty” means culpable as well as an inward feeling. Jesus
experienced neither concept.
FROST: While on the thought of guilt: when mankind’s sin were transferred to Jesus, and you say no guilt became
Jesus’ guilt, are we to conclude that while Jesus died to remove our sin, no guilt was removed? Explain why Jesus had to
make our sins His own in order to free us, but did not need to make our guilt His own to free us.
EVANS: Now it is Frost’s “thought” of “guilt” and not the word “guilt!”When Jesus took our sins, our guilt
was gone due to the absence of our sins which were in Jesus’ own body. No sin – no guilt! No guilt – no sin!
►GF FROST: He was guilty of disobedience and rebellion, and He suffered physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
This pitiful sight of an emaciated, deformed, and tormented Jesus, shriveled and twisted by sin, disgusted the Father, who
then turned upon Him with the wrath of eternal vengeance! [End of paragraph.]
What a horrible doctrine that debases the very being of God, manifest in the body of flesh, called Jesus! I don’t
believe this for a moment, but it is what Evans argues, not in the precise words, but which encompasses them, and which
others have expressed. This is an argument of foolishness. It is the doctrine of Substitution.
[EVANS: Frost is doing the talking and says he does not believe all that. Well I don’t believe Frost’s
conclusions and characterizations either.]
[EVANS: Herb Evans is expected to provide an answer here to Frost’s characterization and sarcasm.]
EVANS: “Herb Evans never said that Jesus was ‘guilty’ of those things. He was the innocent for the guilty.
Gene Frost: But you say He died for the guilt that was then His.
Herb Evans: Again, Jesus died for our sins. That is not a demand that Christ was a sinner or guilty. Jesus was the
innocent FOR the guilty. – Herb Evans
EVANS: “And this Frost conclusion is assumed, foolish, and opinionated, on the matter as he delves in logic and
sophistry and manipulation of the words of others, rather than the Bible.” – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: With all of his maneuvering, it is not surprising that Herb is confused. Herb says, [Herb deleted the
quote; here replaced: ►GF
FROST: “Herb Evans never said that Jesus was ‘guilty’ of those things”] (in context, “disobedience and rebellion”).
►GF
Herb Evans: Another Frost partial quote of Evans. What is the context?
EVANS: “Herb Evans never said that Jesus was ‘guilty’ of those things” – Herb Evans
FROST: [This is the deleted quote, which was in brown type; Herb moved and places in blue type.]
EVANS: My quotes are to remain unchanged in blue or Green! Regardless of the colors, let Frost produce my
quote again and I will produce my disclaimer and explanation again. Regardless of how often Frost posts this, the
answer is still the same. Despite Frost’s partial or incomplete quotes, Herb Evans still says again that Christ was
not guilty of disobedience and rebellion nor was Christ the blame for our sins nor did He bear our guilt. Nor was
Jesus Christ guilty of our sins, regardless of how often Frost concludes or postulates or assumes such things that
are not in the scriptures.
►GF FROST: Disobedience and rebellion are sins, [SIC] those so charged are guilty and bear the blame. Herb also
said: [Again Herb deletes the quote, here replaced: “Christ took our sins, our guilt, and our BLAME.” (Herb Evans, “He
Took My Place.”)] ►GF
[EVANS: Yes, again, He “took” them “away.” Note that I am using Frost’s definition of “TOOK.”]
Herb Evans: Jesus, as we said, was not guilty of anything having not having committed any sins or crimes. Jesus
paid for something that He did not do. Those sins were taken IN and ON His body. Still, it is never said that He bore
anything but our sins and iniquity except the SHAME attached to them.
EVANS: “Christ took our sins, our guilt, and our BLAME.” (Herb Evans, “He Took My Place.”)
FROST: [This is the deleted quote which Herb moved and placed in blue.) [Evans- It belongs in blue!]
►GF FROST: There is no wiggle room left, Herb. To say you never said what you said, does not free you from your
self-contradiction and denial of the facts.
FROST: The above section is repeated how many times I do not know. It is by chance that we have caught what we
have. Herb’s treatment of what I have written is atrocious, but as he says this is his preferred format of exchange. I doubt
that not more than a limited few, if anyone, will take the time to read the exchange in its entirety.
EVANS: Pete and Repeat, there is no wiggle room necessary for Frost’s phantasms! Frost is hoping that no
one will read this to see Frost’s incredible paranoia and imagination. Whatever few read this discussion is
justification for engaging in it.
Herb Evans: I said what I said, but it was Frost that came to this “Jesus is guilty” conclusion based on my
comments. I guess we will have to endure Pete and Repeat making “hay” with this several times throughout this post,
since it is Frost’s only catch.
FROST: Hold on, Herb. Don’t try to shift what you said to me.
EVANS: What I said, I said, the shifting of what I said is your conclusion.
FROST: Is the contention, saying that “Christ took our sins, our guilt, and our BLAME,” your conclusion that Jesus
is not “guilty”? Have you forgotten that you also said that what Jesus “took” became His own? Is there anyone who read
that “Jesus took our sins, our guilt, and our blame,” who did not reach the conclusion that Herb Evans believes “Jesus is
guilty”?
EVANS: Now, Frost does not like my using of the word “TOOK” according to Frost’s definition. Can he have
it both ways? Christ “took” them all away.
Gene Frost: The comment of Adam Clarke is fitting here:
“To say that they were so imputed to him as if they had been his own, and that the Father beheld him as blackened
with imputed sin, is monstrous, if not blasphemous.” (Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, 1 Pet. 2:24, page 855.)
EVANS: “1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree . . .” – Herb Evans
[Herb Evans: Who cares what Adam Clarke says? Our sins and iniquity, which Jesus never committed, were laid on
Jesus being transferred to Him judicially just as His righteousness was transferred to us judicially and was taken or
received by us, who are born again. Nevertheless, our sins were NOT imputed to us.
FROST: What happened to the sins which became Jesus’ own sins, which were transferred to Him? According to
substitutionary atonement, we were freed from our guilt when Jesus took our sins, and the sins of the world became His
sins, and yet He was not guilty of sin?!
EVANS: Ah . . . Frost is beginning to grasp it. We were freed from our guilt. No sin – no guilt! No guilt – no
sin! But, yes, Jesus was not guilty or culpable for our sins. Moreover, Jesus had no such feelings of guilt. The sins
that Jesus took were afterwards deposited in the depths of the sea and as far as the east is from the west. Some
think they were dumped into hell itself.
FROST: We are not referring Jesus’ emotions (a feeling of guilt), but with His being responsible for or chargeable
for sins that were His own, deserving of blame, culpable; adjudged to have committed a crime.
EVANS: It does not matter which concept of guilt to which you refer; Jesus was still innocent, not culpable,
and not to be blamed.
FROST: How can this be?
EVANS: It must be a mystery! SNORT!
FROST: When God’s wrath turned on Jesus, did He see no guilt to be punished?
EVANS: Not that I know of; do you have a passage in mind? Or is that another Frost interpolation. The
Father saw the sins of the worlds that were to be punished.
FROST: Herb, you are in a dilemma: you claim to believe in substitutionary atonement but then you deny it. You
have abandoned the theory of penal substitution taught by others (I started to say, “of like faith,” but from your previous
denials and your claim to be independent, I wonder is there anybody else on earth who believes what you do? Do you no
longer have a choir?
EVANS: If I am in a dilemma, Frost is in a trilemma. Well, in regard to your Church of Christ buddies, who
believe as I do on the SA, they consider you to be a lone Ranger and that is an understatement. But no, I have not
denied or changed my views on the SA. LOL! One of my 007’s indicated that his daddy said that if it were not for
him Frost would not have a place to preach. So much for Herb Evans digging outside this discussion as Frost likes
to do.
EVANS: 2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their
trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.]
Gene Frost: Herb is careless in his reading. Clark repudiates the erroneous idea that sins were imputed to Jesus as if
they had been his own, his own sins. Herb uses 1 Pet. 2:24, where it is said of Jesus that of his own self, in his own body,
he bore our sins, to conclude that the sins he bore were his own sins. He equates Christ’s own body, which He offered to
remove other’s guilt, with owning the sin Himself. Yet the text clearly says that what Jesus bore in His own body was our
sins, not His own. Talk about wresting the Scriptures!
FROST: Frost and Clark have no scripture for “our guilt” whereas I have scripture for “our sin.” Tut! Tut!
Herb Evans: Gene Frost is careless using his final extra scriptural authorities and their opinionated conclusions. The
scripture repudiates Clarke’s and Frost’s denial. The sins born by Jesus became Jesus’.
EVANS: “Who cares what a dead Bible Corrector says? Or Frost’s equivocation of the word “bare.” I care what 1
Peter 2:24 says.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Herb accuses me of substituting a different meaning for “bare” than its legitimate definition in a given
sentence. Strange, in that he never defines his terms …
[FROST: Notice the disclaimer “in a given sentence.” I never disputed that meaning “in a given sentence.]
EVANS: How about “I never disputed that meaning in ANY given sentence? Will Frost accept that which I
rephrased? Or can Frost tell us as to what point Frost trying to make here? What does Frost think Evans is saying
by this?
Herb Evans: It is not the meaning of the common generic words that are rendered in various ways that is the
problem. I accused Frost of using a different meaning, in context of the disputed verses, and compared with other
scriptures. Frost seems to demand that only one meaning of the word should be valid in every place that it is used.
Gene Frost: Apply Evans’ argument to the scapegoat in Leviticus 16:20-22: “And when he hath made an end of
reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: and Aaron
shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and
all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a
fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let
go the goat in the wilderness.”
EVANS: “This is where Gene Frost gets tricky and dishonest quoting only partially the passage to obscure the word
atonement used four times in versus 16 to 18.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Speaking of trickery, Herb shifts our discussion of the word and significance of the word “bare” to the
word “atonement” and then to the word “blood,” as though anyone denies that Jesus shed His blood for the remission of
sins, by which we are reconciled to God. When we discuss Christ bearing our sins, he jumps to his theology of imputation
or transference of sin and guilt to talk about a “vicarious” suffering of Christ. This is more of his snippet here and snippet
there, mixed in with his aspersions.
[EVANS: Obviously, Frost is allowed to quote “reconciling” in the passage, but Herb Evans is not allowed to
bring it in the context of atonement. Nevertheless, the sins were placed UPON the goat that went into the
wilderness. There were two goats not included in Frost’s snippet; one goat was killed, and the live goat carried the
sins into the wilderness. Again, Frost does not understand TYPES. Both goats were TYPES of Jesus Christ death
on the cross. This is yet another dual type that Frost cannot quite grasp and with which he seems to have trouble!
YAWN!]
Herb Evans: Frost’s “muddy the water” evasive comment does not address Lev 16:20 - 22 in regard to the scapegoat
carrying and bearing the sins of Israel symbolically, a pre-picture of Christ, which Frost avoids and ignores. A scapegoat
is a person or thing bearing the blame for others. If Jesus shed His blood for the remission of sins, what else is needed? Oh
that is right, Frost thinks water baptism is also needed and that the blood is not enough or the end of the matter.
“Lev 16:16 And he shall make an ATONEMENT H3722 [appeasement, pacifier] for the holy place, because of the
uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the
tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. (17.) And there shall be no
man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an ATONEMENT H3722 in the holy place, until he
come out, and have made an ATONEMENT H3722 for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
(18.)And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an ATONEMENT H3722 for it; and shall take of
the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. (19.) And he shall
sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children
of Israel. (20.) And when he hath made an END of RECONCILING H4480 H3722 the holy place, and the tabernacle of the
congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:”
“Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for
your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. – KJB, Webster, YLT Geneva, Bishop’s etc.
Frost also neglects that the end of the reconciling is the end of the blood atonement.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Now, maybe Herb can figure out what the word atonement means. The end of the blood atonement
marked the end of the reconciling process. Therefore the atonement was made for what purpose if not for reconciliation?
[EVANS: Now, did Frost run out of words or excuses?]
Herb Evans: More semantic excuses and gymnastics from Frost. We have already shown the interchangeability of
the underlying Hebrew and Greek for reconciliation and atonement, despite Frost’s efforts to separate them. Frost also
refuses to regard the atonement/propitiation as an appeasement. Yes, the end of the reconciliation marked the end of the
atonement process. Nevertheless, the beginning and/or end of the process are not where Frost and I disagree. The
atonement process and reconciliation process are one process, rather than two, having the same underlying Hebrew word.
Gene Frost: According to Herb, the goat bare all of the iniquities and transgressions, all the sins of Israel, which it
possessed as its own. The innocent goat was guilty of blasphemy, murder, lust and adultery, stealing, lying, and you name
it! Really? ►GF
[Herb Evans: Yes, indeed! If the scapegoat did not figuratively possess those sins and carry them away into the
wilderness, who did? No, the scapegoat, like Jesus, was not guilty of those sins.]
►GF FROST: Was the goat actually punished, bearing the pain and rejection of the people’s guilt? Hardly. [SIC]
►GF
[Herb Evans: There Frost goes again, . . .]
FROST: --“Again?” The back text is the Frost’s first response (first level). See how Herb uses his interjected
snippets, to make it appear that Frost refers to his previous response? His point/counterpoint not only disrupts trains of
thought, but confuses the progression of argumentation, mixing the order of development.
EVANS: What Frost does not understand is that there were two goats in the type, but there are not two
Christs. Therefore, one goat took the punishment – death, and the other goat took the sins away to the
WILDERNESS. Poor Frost still does not understand TYPES nor grasp the teaching that is to be found in them,
because Frost is spiritually blind.
EVANS: . . . — trying to force the word “guilt” into the passage without scripture. He has even stooped to use Herb
Evans as his authority above the Bible in this respect. We are flattered! All the details of an anti-type are not required to
be contained in the type in order for a type to be a type. No, the goat was not punished except to be abandoned and driven
into the wilderness. Still, all the lamb sacrifices were punished by having their throats slit and killed – only slightly
painful AND BURNED. No, Mr. Frost, Jesus’ throat was not slit either . . . Silly! But why were the sacrifices burned?
Herb Evans’ word “guilt” is acceptable to Frost but not “vicarious.” Why?]
EVANS: “Yes, the blood of the BULLOCK and the blood of the goat both atoned (IN TYPE) for the sins of Israel
and typified Christ’s atonement/reconciliation. The live goat typified the taking of the sins into the wilderness. Both the
bullock and the goats are types of the Lord Jesus Christ.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: So what does the Bible mean when it says that Jesus bare our sins? ►GF
FROST: [My answer followed the question, but Herb cut it off to express the obvious, nevertheless to interrupt the
thought: the Bible means what it says. The problem is, Herb does not know what “bare” means and does not want the
reader to follow the question with my answer.]
EVANS: “It means exactly what it says without Gene Frost’s equivocation.
1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins IN his own body on the tree … – Herb Evans.
FROST: Every false teacher says the same after he has wrested the word to make it appear that the text affirms his
theology. However, I answered the question then in my first response (black type), as follows. Read it carefully.
[EVANS: NO! You are one false teacher that does not say the same thing.]
Herb Evans: Yes, Gene Frost has wrested the word “guilt” to embellish his denial of the vicarious atonement. The
Text teaches that my sins were borne IN Jesus’ body, in other words, Jesus body was a depository for my sins, something
that Frost cannot grasp.
FROST: Gene Frost has wrested the word “guilt”? How is its meaning distorted?
I grasp what Evans is arguing; I just don’t buy it! The problem is that he makes an argument which he does not
accept in its ramifications. He said what most theologians say about Jesus’ guilt in a vicarious atonement, that He
appeared before God guilty of the sins of the world, for which He was punished. Now he denies it and pretends that I now
accept what he first introduced. The next sentence (in black type) is my reaction to his introductory article.
EVANS: I did not and do not say that Jesus was GUILTY BEFORE GOD. That is Frost’s perverted and
preconceived conclusion. Still, if Frost would admit that he is blind, he would have no sin, but he pretends to see.
John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore
your sin remaineth.
►GF FROST: The concept of removing the guilt of sin is expressed in several different connotations of bearing,
such (1) as to lift, to carry, to bear away what has been raised—the emphasis is on removal, taking away, to lift up in
order to take away; ►GF
[Herb Evans: No, it does not say “guilt;” guilt is not sin; guilt is the good act of a non-seared conscience. It says he
bare our sins IN HIS body.]
►GF FROST: (2) as to bring, to carry, to take away, to loose or remove; ►GF
Herb Evans: Yes, among other things as well!
►GF FROST: (3) as to lift up or to offer up—used of bringing sacrifices to the altar; ►GF
Herb Evans: Irrelevant to the issue at hand!
►GF FROST: (4) as to take away from, remove, carry off.
Herb Evans: Irrelevant to the issue at hand!
►GF FROST: The Greeks jad had different words to express the various shades of meaning. ►GF
[Herb Evans: So? English has various shades of meaning for the same Greek word and has one English word for
several Greek words. Frost demands that the rules of one language follow and apply to another. Jesus bore my sins IN His
body on the tree. (Doctrine by preposition like a Church of Christ-er does it.)]
►GF FROST: When Jesus “took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses,” the truth is, He removed diseases, eased
pain, and corrected disabilities. There is nothing in the word “bare” or in the context that necessitates the conclusion that
He became afflicted with the same diseases (such as leprotic ulcers, resulting in paralysis, gangrene, and deformation),
suffered the same physical and emotional agony, and carried in his body the same crippled limbs and loss of vision, etc.
[Herb Evans: Poor Frost is stuck on stupid and cannot get off of Matthew 8 of which is a temporary precursor of
things yet future, when Jesus removes those things permanently and not merely temporarily as in Matthew 8.]
FROST: Yes, it is easier and moves along faster to contend with the wise than with the stupid, where we sometimes
have to spend inordinate time in getting a point across. We are trying to be patient with Herb.
EVANS: Time is not Frost’s problem in regard to getting a point across. The problem is his substance, lack of
refuting authority, and inability to entrap Herb Evans
FROST: The reader will note that Evans comments on what was written in the first level (in black type). His answer
follows in the italicized blue type. His comment here ignores the fact that this is his second review. The black type was
my first response. He then responded with the italicize blue. And now he responds the second time, in bold blue type, and
complains that the original response is still there, that I cannot get off of Matthew 8! [Some may think it stupid not to
recognize that my answer has been before Herb in two levels, black type and brown type; however, let’s be patient. The
man must be suffering.] The argument I made must have stuck home—Herb is still suffering! I guess he feels that I am
“stuck” on him. Yes, Herb, I haven’t abandoned Matthew 8. It is still there.
EVANS: It is comic when someone thinks that he is having victory however shallow it may be. Whatever level
that you are at, you can be sure that he will carry the same thing to the third and fourth level regardless of how
much is disclaimed and explained. Of course, that is Frost’s right but you would think he would realize that folks
are reading all his ad hominem replies and are getting his number.
EVANS: “Nothing but double speak, double mindedness, and baloney here!” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: What else can one say, who has run out of answers and quibbles? Just ridicule the argument. Don’t deal
with it honestly and honorably … just call it “baloney!” and move on. ►GF
[EVANS: From the beginning, I realized that I could not have an honest and honorable discussion with Gene
Frost.]
Herb Evans: Frost is the one who has run out of arguments and reverts back and keeps repeating his old and often
repeated arguments.
FROST: [No, Herb; the first lever in black was my first response to you. In your second response to me, you
interjected your snippets in blue type (now light italic). I then followed suit, interjecting my second response in brown
type. Your third response, which I am now answering, is in bold blue type. There has been no reverting: all three levels
have the arguments. You are reverting back in your reading! Now you see how stupid your point/counterpoint format is?
It even has you confused. I have complained; you insist, forcing it upon me … unless I refused to participate further …
and if I had, guess how you would have responded? You owe me, and especially the reader(s), if we have any at this
point, an apology for this mess!]
EVANS: Do you see? The man, Frost, cannot discuss the subject without reverting to charges, accusations,
and characterizations of Herb Evans. You can’t deal with a whiner and a complainer. Point/counterpoint
discussion has, for years, always worked for me. In point/counterpoint discussion, one cannot put anything over
one’s opponents with long verbose answers. In point/counterpoint folks are stopped in their tracks before their
horse gets out of the barn. All they can do is just keep repeating the same things over and over, hoping for a
different outcome.
EVANS: “There is no mention of the guilt of leprosy, gangrene, and deformation.” – Herb Evans
►GF Gene Frost: “Guilt of leprosy,” what is that? Leprosy is a disease, but “guilt of leprosy”? ►GF
Herb Evans: Exactly! That is my point! These infirmities were not sins which Jesus bore in His lifetime and
ministry! Guilt is not a sin, and sin is not guilt.
FROST: Logic in a tailspin! Infirmities are not sins; therefore guilt is not sin, and sin is not guilt. Really!
Does Herb “reason” that sin does not produce guilt?
EVANS: Now, Frost goes into his cause and effect argument. The argument here is whether sin means guilt,
and whether guilt means sin. Why can’t you address this simple thing, supposedly being a man of definition?
Check out the Greek on that one.
►GF Frost: There is no mention of the “guilt of leprosy,” but there is mention of the debilitating disease and
affliction of the disease of leprosy, in Matt. 8:2-4, and of palsy, fever, demon possession, and sickness (vss. 14, 15). Herb
shifts from the maladies themselves to their “guilt,” which he has yet to find in the text and explain. Even so, my point
remains: that in taking our infirmities and in bearing our sicknesses, Jesus did not make the debilitations and sicknesses
His own, thereby becoming Himself a leper, and afflicted with palsy, demon-possessed, and ill. To take and to bear
therefore do not mean that these things became His own, that He possessed them, but it means to convey and carry away,
to remove them. The word “bare,” as fulfilled in the Matt. 8, is the same “bare” quoted from Isa. 53 … and in neither
places does it mean a transference (or imputation) of the (item borne) to another, which then becomes his (his conduct and
his guilt, or favor).
[EVANS: Frost is the one who is concerned about the word “guilt” even trying to capitalize continually on one
of my early comments and belaboring it without accepting my disclaimer and explanation of it. Plainly, the
diseases were not transferred to anyone; so after Frost reads this, he will keep harping on it as if disease is the
same as sin, just as Frost keeps harping on anything I say that he thinks he can hang his hat on and belabor it to
death.]
Herb Evans: In regard to the infirmities, which Jesus took, He only partially fulfilled Isaiah. Jesus did not
permanently remove their diseases. That is yet future, but is still based upon His stripes by which we are healed and the
crucifixion in regard to the future redemption of our new bodies. Frost continues to force the word “guilt,” which he
cannot find as an inspired Hebrew or Greek word any place in the Bible. Of course, Herb Evans accepts the italics but
Frost does not.
Gene Frost: Now Herb gives the most outlandish exegesis of the passage: ►GF
[EVANS: Outlandish? You see? Frost can only characterize my arguments. He can’t address or refute them.
We are talking about the events of the cross and not the events of Jesus’ life time ministry, to which Frost desires to
intermix.
EVANS: “In Matthew 8, Jesus healed folks in order THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED WHICH WAS
PROPHECIED IN ISAIAH. Jesus did the miracle to foreshadow what would all be done on the cross of Calvary. These
folks did not have their iniquity laid on Jesus in Matthew 8. They did not have their sins bore in Matthew 8. That is the
rest of the story of Isa. 53.” – Herb Evans.
►GF FROST: What Jesus did in healing the afflicted, we are told, was not itself the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Isaiah 53; Herb says this was not done until the cross. Rather, he says Jesus healed the afflicted in order that the prophecy
might be fulfilled. “In order that” means to the end that, the end here being the cross. “Might” is an auxiliary verb, with a
future sense, expressing a degree of possibility or permission. In other words, Jesus healed the afflicted in order to make it
possible for Him to later remove the guilt of sin on the cross. This says that what Jesus did in Matthew 8 foreshadowed
the cross, and was not itself the fulfillment of Isaiah 53. If, according to Herb’s exegesis, Jesus had not healed the lepers,
restored the sight of the blind, strengthened the lame, etc., then could the prophecy of Isaiah have been fulfilled? Could
He then have removed the sins of the world?
Herb Evans: Again, another English lesson in the absence of an argument. Also, Frost does not know how to avoid
editorializing Herb’s comments and explanations prefaced with an “according to Herb.” Frost cannot read Herb’s
comments, which conceded and did not deny the partial fulfillment of Isaiah 53 in Matthew so folks could know who He
was. Apart from Frost’s manipulation of a nuance of English, Herb Evans clearly says that Jesus healed folks in order that
it might be fulfilled in their temporary healing which was prophesied in Isaiah.
FROST: There is no English lesson here, Herb. I am trying to understand what you write. Words have meanings,
and when you substitute your own ideas which the words do not convey, instead of understanding, we have confusion. In
this case, what you stated I found hard to accept that even you would affirm. Still I could not dismiss the conclusion in
that you take so many unpredictable positions that I cannot dismiss what you write because of its weirdness. It would help
if you could or would clearly state what you mean.
You write that what Jesus did (Matthew 8:16-17) was not a fulfillment of Isaiah 53, but was a precursor of things yet
future, it foreshadowed, was temporary, yet was necessary in order for the fulfillment to be realized. My conclusion as to
what you intended is further confirmed by your statement that Matthew 8 is a “prophecy of healings,” which it is not, but
is statement of historical fact.
EVANS: Now, that is a flat out lie. I never said that Matthew 8 was not a fulfillment of Isaiah 53. It was a
partial fulfillment. Frost needs to learn how to clearly state the things that I say with quotes. I don’t need Frost
commentary on what I say.
FROST: Herb also added that Jesus did this miracle to foreshadow what would be done permanently in the future.
Gene Frost needs to view the Bible usage of the word “might.” Herb’s “that it might be fulfilled” is connected to Herb’s
“which was prophesied (past).”
You used “might be fulfilled” as an auxiliary verb, as we noted, with a future sense, expressing a degree of possibility
or permission. The only sense that seemed plausible was that you viewed Jesus’ healings as making possible a fulfillment
of Isaiah 53. Actually, there is no distinct word for might, which is part of the definition of Gr. plerothe: “it might be
fulfilled.”
I perceive now that this is not what you intended, so let’s move on.
EVANS: By all means move on from the Greek and English double talk. Matthew 8 was a partial fulfillment
of Isaiah 53 with greater fulfillment at the cross.
EVANS: We will not even address Frost’s manipulation of Herb Evan’s “in order that” lest Herb Evans also become
as foolish as Frost. If the dog would not have stopped to relieve himself, he might have caught the rabbit. “IF” is a
hypothetical word that does not apply here. The prophecy of healings in Matthew 8 was partially fulfilled only to be
completely fulfilled in their future. Gene Frost has become a sophist, using dishonest, hypothetical logic to further his
views.
FROST: The “if” was not used in any argumentation I proposed, but was in question as to what you meant in your
dubious exegesis. I stated, “If, according to Herb’s exegesis” (he meant one thing or the other) … then my answer would
be accordingly. Herb is so anxious to find some flaw that he might exploit, that he latches onto the “if” and jumps to an
irrational conclusion that somehow I had used “hypothetical logic,” whatever that is!
EVANS: I am anxious to get out of this philosophical bantering that Frost loves to engage his self. It is Frost
that seeks a flaw that he might exploit. Note that it was Frost who said, “If, according to Herb’s exegesis . . .” Who
does that sound like is seeking a flaw, the initiator or the responder?
Gene Frost: He “bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” (1 Pet. 2:24) It was Jesus, the Son of God incarnate, on
the cross, not some sacrificial lamb or goat, who died for our sins. He is the Lamb of God, whose blood cleanses us from
all sin. (1 John 1:7) ►GF
[Herb Evans: True, Jesus is the Lamb of God as well as the escape goat as well and the bullock. Is it not possible
that all those animal sacrifices were types of Jesus Christ which were yet future? Or don’t church of Christ-er folks do
types easily? Yes, the Lord bore our sin and iniquity IN His body on the tree.]
FROST: There is a type of Christ in the sacrificial lamb: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world.” (John 1:29) Care, however, must be taken in aligning corresponding points of similarity.
EVANS: By all means let’s be careful!
FROST: Although the scapegoat is a favorite “type” of Christ with advocates of substitutionary atonement, there are
too many dissimilarities for it to qualify. Read Leviticus 16:20-21. First (1), Jesus is never likened unto the scapegoat. (2)
The blood of the first goat was sprinkled upon the mercy seat in the temple by the high priest. This did Jesus, as our High
Priest with His own blood in heaven. The scapegoat had nothing to do with blood of atonement. (3) The scapegoat is sent
forth after the blood atonement of the alternate goat. (Although the goat was an atonement, vs. 10, so was fine flour for
the poor (14:21); no blood was offered.) (4) All of the sins were laid on the literal head of the scapegoat. No sins were laid
on the literal head of Jesus on the cross. (5) If the scapegoat’s removal of the sins laid upon him is typical of Christ and
His sacrifice for the whole world (1 John 2:2), then the result is universal salvation and the sins of the world have been
taken away! Type and antitype is useful in impressing facts clearly in the mind and of organizing the points of similarity,
but before we label any and everything a type, we need to be careful that the similarities are there in fact, and not just in
the wishful thinking of the theologian!
EVANS: Could you spare me all this wordy bantering! Both goats are types of Christ. Have you never heard
of a dual type? I thought you learned your lesson with Isaac and the ram!
►GF FROST: God allowed Him to be taken, and by wicked hands to be crucified and slain. (Acts 2:23) He was our
sacrifice, whose blood was shed for the remission of our sins (Eph. 5:2, Heb. 10:5-1, Matt. 26:28), not our substitute who
suffered “eternal punishment” in order to appease an angry God.
EVANS: “The lambs, the bullocks, and the goat were types of this propitiation in which Jesus was made to BE SIN
FOR US in this BLOOD ATONEMENT (2 Cor. 5:21).” – Herb Evans.
►GF FROST: 2 Cor. 5:21 does not say what Herb says; compare his statement with the text: 2 Cor 5:21—“For he
hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” ►GF
Herb Evans: God made Jesus to be sin for us here. Seems like 2 Cor. 5:21 does say what Herb Evans says and also
refutes what Frost erroneously says. Frost is only saying something to say something. Still, Frost avoids the word
“TYPE” and its concept.
►GF FROST: God did not make Jesus sin personified (Himself possessing and guilty of every sin ever committed);
God does not make people sin or sinful—this is Satan’s task, and God does not abet him! ►GF
Herb Evans: All this is pure hype and denial, clothed in sophist logic. Jesus is not any “ordinary people.” Jesus was
not guilty of any sins that I committed, who am the only one am found guilty of my sins. And Satan and his minions have
absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s atonement. No man taketh His life from Christ; Christ gave up His life in our stead.
FROST: Just repeating the same thing over and over does not make it so. You state what is obvious and believed by
both of us, pretending that this is the issue, and then drop in a statement which has never been proved. We ask over and
over, where is the Scripture that says “Christ gave up His life in our stead”?
EVANS: Well, Christ did give up His life “in our stead” is the crux of our argument. I affirm and Frost denies.
I keep repeating what Frost keeps asking. And Frost keeps repeating.
John_10:15 I lay down my life for [Huper] the sheep. (Not to get the sheep)
►GF FROST: God hates sin and seeks to bring men out of sin, and I mean “all men”—He is not willing (not His
will) that any should perish but that all (not some or even most) should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9) “And he is the
propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) Therefore He has
made Jesus to be a sin offering, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. ►GF
Herb Evans: More wasted devotional platitudes about things we can agree.
FROST: Thou art the man!
EVANS: DITTOS!
EVANS: Still, Frost needs to find out what the word “propitiation” completely means.
FROST: Been there; done that, at some point in this exchange.
EVANS: ONLY PARTIALLY!
Gene Frost: Tell us, Herb, did the “lambs, the bullocks, and the goat” become sinners—filled with all
unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;
were they whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful—for (in the stead of)
the people, and suffer God’s wrath to bring about reconciliation with God? Or, were they sin-offerings?
[EVANS: Frost keeps trying to force “sin offering” into 2 Cor 5:21when both the scripture and Herb Evans
both said that God made HIM to be SIN for us. According to Frost’s rule, one’s term must match scripture exactly.
Herb Evans: Frost keeps repeating himself. The animal sin offerings were only types; Jesus is the antitype of those
animals. Neither Jesus nor the animals became “sinners” or even became “guilty.” Sinners practice sin and do not pay for
them on the cross, but rather in hell. Frost does not like the words “types” or “anti-types” or even the disputed Greek word
“anti.” Nevertheless, Jesus never became a “sinner.” One, who commits sins, is a sinner. One, who pays for the sin debt, is
a sin debt payer.
Gene Frost: Evans says, “Christ was smitten, stricken and afflicted of God FOR those who deserved such
punishment, the lost.” There is no Scripture reference for this statement because the Scriptures do not say that He suffered
in the stead of “those who deserved such punishment.” The text of Isaiah 53:4—“we did esteem him stricken, smitten of
God, and afflicted”—does not say that God afflicted the Christ. It says, “we did esteem him stricken,” etc. Did Herb
overlook the word “esteem”? It means “to value, to regard.” Isaiah foresaw what the Jews thought when Christ was
crucified; they regarded Him as one stricken or afflicted by God. And so it was. (Matt. 27:39-44) It seems that my
adversary is so determined to advance his theology that he misreads the Scriptures—this being one of the problems of
theology, which we pointed out earlier. He, and others of his persuasion, read into the text, rather than to learn from it.
►GF
EVANS: Evans only repeats what was prophesied of Jesus in Isaiah 53:4 – 12 which sys [SIC] [says] that God
caused Jesus to be:
FROST: — Isaiah does not say that God caused Jesus to be:— ►GF
[EVANS: Do you every give a complete quote of me with those two little marks on each side of it? They are
called quotation marks. ]
Herb Evans: Actually, this might be a good point, if Frost could prove that the Psalmist’s “esteem” comment
referred to lost Jews or even to be incorrect. That comment is easier to apply to Jews, who accepted their Messiah. We
believe that David’s and the Jews' believing estimation would be correct even as is ours. Still, Frost only charges Herb
Evans’ quote (repeated over and over), while avoiding Isaiah’s refutation in verse 10 and 11. Still, Frost has not addressed
God bruising Jesus or putting Him to grief.
“Isa 53:3 – 12: [3.] He is despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as
it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [4.] Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried
our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. [5.] But he was wounded for our
transgression, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are
healed. [6.] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him
the INIQUITY OF US ALL [7.] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a
lamb to the slaughter . . . [8.] . . . for he was cut off from the land of the living: FOR the TRANSGRESSION of my people
was he STRICKEN . . . [10.] Yet it pleased the LORD TO BRUISE HIM; he hath PUT HIM TO GRIEF: when thou shalt
make his soul AN OFFERING FOR SIN . . . [11.] He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his
knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for HE SHALL BEAR THEIR INIQUITIES [12.] . . . he hath poured
out his soul to death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he BORE THE SIN of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors.”
►GF FROST: Verse 10 states what God caused: made “his soul an offering for sin,” or sin offering, “to justify
many”; He bears “iniquities,” and “the sin of many” and makes “intercession for the transgressors.”
[EVANS: His soul too, but what about Jesus’ “BODY?”]
Herb Evans: Note Frost’s weasel wording to evade Jesus’ bruising and being put to grief BY THE LORD for the
Lord’s pleasure. Frost missed the fact that it was Jesus “soul” that was an offering FOR sins residing IN and ON His
body.
FROST: Reader take note: Contrast what the Bible says and what Herb says about Jesus being bruised and put to
grief. The Bible says that God was pleased to bruise him, and put him to grief: “when thou shalt make his soul an offering
for sin” (vs. 10) God took delight in the sacrifice of the Son of God when He offered His life (soul) as an offering for sin
to the salvation of every believing and penitent person. His delight was not sadistic which was satisfied upon seeing Jesus
suffering the penal death of a murderer, yea the pain, shame and sorrow of all murders combined, even all sins of every
sinner. Rather it pleased Him to see the divine plan fulfilled in securing eternal redemption for mankind through the selfsacrifice of Jesus, who for the joy that was set before him in bringing it about endured the cross, despising the shame,”
Heb 12:2. Herb, as do so many who accept the substitutionary atonement theory, focuses on the suffering as a just
payment for sin.
EVANS: Penitent? Where is that? Or is it Catholic theology? We commend Frost for acknowledging that soul
can mean life, and here it means the death of that life. Still, buried in his rhetoric, Frost is still covering up the fact
that it was God that bruised Christ’s body. Yes, Jesus gave up the life of His body and not His soul or Spirit neither
which died.
“Jesus’ life is the ransom or exchange for our souls; Jesus Christ has paid our sin debt.” (Herb Evans)
“Jesus took upon His self, in our stead, namely our punishment and abandonment which we should have experienced
as lost sinners.” (Herb Evans)
“Note: in regard to His sin debt payment, it was also finished.” (Herb Evans)
Isa 53:4, 8 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteemH2803 him stricken, smitten of God, and
afflicted . . . He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of
the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Gene Frost Annotates my terms:
1. Stricken 2. Smitten of God
-- “we,” not God “did esteem (judged) Him…smitten of God.” He was also “despised and rejected of men,” not God;
also “we,” not God, “hid as it were our faces from him.” (Isa. 53:3-4)
[EVANS: Posting a truth to refute a truth does not refute the first truth. GOD BRUISED JESUS!]
Herb Evans: Where is Frost’s lost Jew fulfillment quote in the New Testament that refers to Isaiah’s quote? Was
David a lost Jew? In fact, where is there any New Testament quote in regard to Jesus’ cry of being forsaken, other than
from Jesus Himself? Still, of course, the “we” is not either the Father or Jesus; that is a given. Yet God can be a “we,” an
“us,” and an “our.” Still, who really are the "we’s" is the question. It is true that Jesus was despised and rejected of men. It
is also true that Jesus was stricken, smitten, and afflicted of the Father. The reason for the Father’s chastisement of or
peace being on Him was “for the transgression of my people.” Of course, we can ignore Frost’s little trick of improving
on the word “esteem” with his rendering “judged.”
FROST: It could be this, or it could be that, ad absurdium.
As for this little trick of defining “esteem” as judged, I learned it from Herb: to learn the definition of English words
in the KJV, go to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. I did. So, reader, remember that in following Evans’ guidance, if you use a
definition he doesn’t like you may be called down for chicanery! He recommends Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, but there is
one greater than Webster…Herb Evans. It therefore takes its place with Hebrew and Greek Lexicons, and other
dictionaries.
EVANS: Well, it seems Frost is again either out of answers, words, or excuses, therefore here come the
pejoratives against Herb. Typical Frost!
Gene Frost annotates my terms:
3. Afflicted 4. Wounded
Jesus suffered all of the pain of being scourged, wounded, and crucified, and offered as a sacrifice, a sin offering, in
order that we might be saved in Him.
Herb Evans:
5. Bruised
Why does Frost not annotate who did this term? (Isa 53:10)? Because the LORD bruised him?
FROST: Why does Evans not annotate when and why the Lord bruised Him? (Isa. 53:10) When his soul was made
an offering for sin?
EVANS: OH? Do you mean that the Father bruised Christ’s soul? Or did He bruise His life?
Herb Evans:
6. Chastised 7. Put Him to grief
Why does Frost not annotate who did this (Isa 53:10)? Is it because it was the Lord that put Him to grief? And who
chastised the Son of God?
EVANS: “He did ALL this FOR OUR INIQUITIES and FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Jesus suffered all of the pain of being scourged, wounded, and crucified, and offered as a sacrifice, a sin
offering, in order that we might be saved in Him.
[EVANS: Frost is becoming strangely silent about what God the Father did to Jesus.]
EVANS: “Like most Campbellites” [Frost –A lie, regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!] Yawn!
“Frost has a problem with the word ‘FOR’ Yes, we do esteem these things. If we do not, we are as still lost as is our
adversary. Frost misses the ‘BUT’ [Isa. 53:5] in the passage. The above is the Holy Spirit inspired narrative not some
unsaved Jews’ viewpoint at the cross. – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: I have no problem with the text of Isaiah 53. I believe it. However, I do have a problem with what
Evans says about the text. He declares that Isaiah 53:4-12 “says that God caused Jesus to be … despised and rejected by
men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” As a result, men “hid as it were (their) faces from him.” He “was
despised and we esteemed him not,” i.e. regarded Him as of no value. Understand that this was all caused by God! But yet
(“surely,” an adversative particle) of a certain truth, “he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.” He lifted them
and removed them. (Matt. 8:17) ►GF
[EVANS: Frost does have a problem with addressing and answering what all God the Father did to His Son. Is
an adversative particle something like that which is inside an atom? Is Frost trying to wax eloquent and avoid me?
Herb Evans: You will note that Jesus had not yet borne our griefs on the cross but partially did so in His lifetime,
partially fulfilling that prophecy also. Does Frost have a problem with the LORD bruising Jesus and putting Him to grief
IN THE TEXT OF ISAIAH 53?
►GF FROST: In spite of the miracles, demonstrating His own love and concern, and evidencing the fact He was
sent of God the Father, the Jews concluded (as does Herb) that God caused Jesus’ rejection and sorrows, that he was
smitten by God Himself! ►GF
[EVANS: Wow! What doubletalk from a fellow who demands plain, clear, and honorable discussion. Does
anyone understand what Frost just said? Is he beginning to say things just to say things?]
Herb Evans: “Adversative particle? WOW! The Jews concluded? Is Frost a mind reader? And where do we find the
lost Jews at the cross even hinting such a thing. They did say that Jesus was calling “E-lias” (while not quoting David) and
mocking Christ in regard to God not saving him and bringing Christ down from the cross – that is all. Why would Jesus
call on “E’li” (Mathew 27:46; E-lo’i - Mark 15:34) if Jesus was quoting David? Why would the lost Jews say that He was
calling on “E-lias” if they thought as Frost thinketh (Matt. 27:47, 49; Mark 15:35)?
[EVANS: Watch Frost ignore and evade ELOI which does not fit David quote, especially since it is Chaldean.]
►GF FROST: “Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” (Matt. 27:39-44) The “we” here are
the sinful men who mocked Him at the cross; they concluded that He was smitten by God. ►GF
Herb Evans: Where does it say that any unbelieving Jews concluded that He was smitten of God? If we are going to
interpolate and pontificate, why was it not rather Jewish believers, believing that it was God that smote Jesus, if we must
so reason? Huh?
►GF FROST: Oh, no, Herb says: it “is the Holy Spirit inspired narrative not some unsaved Jews’ viewpoint at the
cross.” ►GF
Herb Evans: Well, it is the Holy Spirit inspired narrative, is it not? Still, Frost has not yet proven that the “we’s” of
Isaiah are the thoughts and conclusions of Christ rejecting Jews at the cross. Does Frost read minds? After the fact?
►GF FROST: So this is what the Holy Spirit says. Then we are supposed to understand that the Holy Spirit
esteemed Jesus to be smitten by God. Since the text says, “we,” we must ask who else constitutes the “we” besides the
Holy Spirit? ►GF
Herb Evans: Well, I never said that the Holy Spirit was the "we,” but if Frost wants it that way, let him have it his
way. I said that it was the Holy Spirit narrative. But the burden of proof is on Frost to force “we” to mean unbelieving
Jews concluding that which Frost considers to be wrong and a lie. Why not believing Jews believing the truth?
►GF FROST: Maybe it is Herb Evans, who says (to use his own words), “Yes, we do esteem these things.” But the
truth is: it was not the Holy Spirit who “despised and rejected Jesus,” who hid his face from him, who “esteemed Him
stricken, smitten by God.”
Herb Evans: Don’t blame the Holy Spirit for something that neither He nor I said. But I, unlike Frost, do esteem
God as smiting, bruising, and putting Jesus to grief.
Gene Frost: The judgment of those who esteemed Jesus to have been “smitten of God” was wrong, and I do not
believe that this included the Holy Spirit. ►GF
Herb Evans: The Holy Spirit aside, those who do not esteem that Jesus was smitten, bruised, and put to grief by God
are wrong and have jeopardized their chance at salvation.
Gene Frost: Those who rejected Jesus on the cross were wrong in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Isaiah
corrects their conclusion in the next sentence: verse 5, “But he was wounded for our transgressions…” In verse 4, they
acknowledged the fact that Jesus had removed their griefs and sorrows. Even so … “yet we did esteem him stricken…”
“Yet” is a conjunction (the Hebrew waw suffixed to “we”).
FROST: In contrast to what “we did esteem,” Isaiah in verse 5 uses the conjunction, “But” (again the Hebrew waw
suffixed to “he”) “he was wounded for our transgressions…” So we have “but he,” in contrast with “yet we” as Isaiah
“continues the true state of the case as contrasted with their false judgment.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old
Testament, page 509.) What the narrative is saying is, that even after the divine demonstration of the miraculous healings
performed by Him, [Sic] the Jews judged that in His trial and crucifixion He was “smitten of God.” Jesus did not suffer
for His own sins, but for others: he became that “lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29)
Herb Evans: There he goes again, quoting extra scriptural authorities again. Who cares what Keil and Delitzsch and
any German rationalist say (Heil Hitler!). Notice how Frost argues in a circle. First he claims that it was the Christ
rejecting Jews’ conclusion; then, he says that they were wrong. What did they “say” that they were wrong about? Or is it
in things that they thought but did not utter? Or is it things that Frost thinks they concluded? Then, Frost tries to imply that
Herb Evans is saying that Jesus died for His own sins (avoiding our disclaimer – that not until he took and bare our sins
did they belong to Jesus). This is pontifical editorialization of my comments, proof texts, and exegesis rather than Frost’s
own eisegesis. Watch Frost now play semantic gymnastics with the word “belong” or “possess” AGAIN!
Gene Frost: It appears that it was Herb who missed the “BUT” in the passage. He finds no contrast. I did not miss it.
►GF
Herb Evans: No, you ran to a commentary to get it as you do all your stuff. Still your Matthew 8 is before Isaiah’s
“BUT” and Isaiah’s bearing “iniquity of us all” is after the BUT. Can Frost tell us why?
►GF FROST: Christ was indeed crucified—was smitten, afflicted, wounded, bruised, chastised, and put to grief by
those who falsely accused Him and nailed Him to the cross. ►GF
Herb Evans: No, it was the LORD that bruised Jesus and put Him to grief, per Isa 53:10, and it pleased the LORD to
do so. So much for Frost’s contradiction of Isaiah! Selah! Think of that! Frost denies that which is written!
[EVANS: It seems like as if Frost’s GREEN comments are diminishing on the last few pages. Do you think
that Frost is running out of steam? Or is he running out of things to interject.]
►GF FROST: Those who beheld it regarded His plight as coming from God, which He was suffering for His own
sins. This is what substitutionary atonement advocates believe, that God imputed all of the sins of the world to Jesus. They
became His. ►GF
Herb Evans: With all that pontification, next you will be writing a commentary and won’t need the German critical
commentaries or the scriptures. Neither the lost onlookers nor I said that Christ was suffering for his own sins. Frost
frames possession with the term “His own sin” to make it look like Evans is saying that Jesus is a sinner having His own
sins.
►GF FROST: Some say He became sin Himself. He took our sins, our, guilt, our blame. They became His own, for
which God inflicted upon Him eternal punishment … ►GF
Herb Evans: Yes, Frost does not mind the word “take” or “took” as long as the word is understood only one way -as he understands it.
►GF FROST: … well, not an eternity as the Scriptures describe, as unending, because they say that this eternity
only existed an instant. ►GF
Herb Evans: Eternity does not end but can be accomplished in an instant, an hour, or a day by some one, who is
eternal God. God is timeless, and God sees everything in His ever present, present, so comparatively, a day with the Lord
is as a thousand years. Yes, an Eternal Being can “accomplish” an eternity in an instant or a few hours or a day in time.
Was not Christ slain from the foundation of the world?
►GF FROST: (Believe it? Eternity began and ended in just an instant?) We know Jesus died in behalf of many,
offering Himself as a sin offering, innocent blood shed to effect man’s salvation. The Bible describes Jesus as a sacrifice,
in our behalf, not as a substitute. (Eph. 5:2, Heb. 9:26, 10:5-12.) This is a far cry from what Herb is advocating. ►GF
Herb Evans: No Eternity did not begin or end in an instant. That is “Frost Speak!” Will Frost answer plainly without
equivocating! Does God have a past and future? Can frost differentiate between “eternity” and “eternally” and “forever?”
FROST: Time is a physical phenomena, and is itself created by God. God was before time, before the “beginning,”
and is after time, after the “end” or “last day.” He is the “I am,” eternally present. (Ex. 3:14, John 8:24, 58) In fact of
existence, there is no beginning to God, hence no past; there is no end, hence future—these are time designators. Only in a
time continuum can we speak of God in the past or in the future. I am ready to take you on with the significations of
eternity related terms. First, I want you to explain how the Sabbath is a sign between God and the children of Israel for
ever.
EVANS: Well, since Frost seems to agree that God has no past or future, I do not understand why Frost has a
problem with what I say. Only creatures of time can speak of Him in the past or the future. Still, the Word entered
INTO TIME FOR LOST SINNERS. I can’t explain a lot of things. I can’t explain an end without a beginning or a
beginning without an end. I just accept such things. (I’m glad to see some Green again).
EVANS: “The Holy Spirit says that He “WOUNDED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS” and HE WAS ‘BRUISED
FOR OUR INIQUITIES.’ The Holy Spirit also says, “IT PLEASED THE LORD TO BRUISE HIM.”
EVANS: The Holy Spirit also says that the LORD made Him an ‘OFFERING FOR SIN.’ The Holy Spirit says that
‘FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE was he STRICKEN.’” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: These statements are true. Herb’s problem is that he fails to understand that what Jesus did FOR us, He
did in our behalf. These statements do not say that Jesus became a transgressor, or was bruised because of the
wrongdoing that had become His, or was stricken as a result of sins that became His own and for which he was to blame.
The same text, from which these statements were taken, clearly states “he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in
his mouth.” (Isa. 53:9)
[EVANS: And Frost fails to understand that Jesus did not have to become a sinner or transgressor (PERIOD)
to die in our place, in our stead.]
Herb Evans: Oh! These statements are true? The LORD did bruise Christ, and He was stricken FOR God’s people’s
sins? Despite Frost’s skirting and avoiding the term “FOR” with a watered down “in our behalf,” “it pleased the LORD to
bruise Him (and put Him to grief); perhaps, Frost missed the word LORD in the passage. That Jesus was NOT bruised for
His own wrong doing is a definite given. Jesus was the innocent FOR the guilty, the just for the unjust. Rather than prove
his own views, Frost approaches doctrinal issues by trying to destroy his opponents’ proof texts by explaining them away.
FROST: Herb pretends to be surprised that I accept what the Bible says! I have never denied any Scripture, but have
many occasions to deny what he claims they mean. An example of this is found in the previous (blue) paragraph, where
Herb says that I am “skirting and avoiding the term ‘FOR’ with a watered down ‘in our behalf’.” He says I avoid the FOR
in “He was stricken FOR God’s people’s sins.” And the Scripture that says “FOR God’s people’s sins” is found where?
EVANS: In the same place that you find “on the behalf of our sins.” Does Frosty mean HUPER behalf or
PERI behalf, both of which have “for the sake” and “instead” among whatever else Frost may have in mind.
Isa 53:8 He . . . was cut off out of the land of the living: FOR the transgression of my people was he stricken.
EVANS: “It seems that my adversary is determined to avoid and ignore everything in the Isaiah passage in regard
to what he does not want to believe.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Au contraire. I believe everything in the Isaiah passage; I just don’t believe in adding to the text, [SIC]
or twisting it to conform to human theology.
Herb Evans: Then why do you twist and add “guilt” to the text? Theology from extra scriptural sources is what you
have been giving me all through this discussion. Those are your final authorities and not mine. My final authority is the
inspired word of God that I can name, hold in my hands, read, and tell where it is but which Frost cannot do any of this,
because of his denial that a complete, intact, inspired word of God is extant in any language, from His standpoint.
FROST: Herb, I don’t add the word “guilt.” It was introduced by you, remember, in your first article to me. It is a
part of the exchange, and with every added layer, it is there with other later responses. This is of your making, so don’t
complain to me!
EVANS: I can complain to you since you are the one that has been harping on it ever since, even with my
disclaimers and explanations. In 2010, you asked me to disregard a whole post in favor of a new one. I graciously
accepted your request, but you have no grace over one word even when explained.
Sin versus Sin Offering
Gene Frost: At the beginning of the paragraph to which I am referring, Evans states, “Frosty seizes on the fact that
sin and sin offering are synonymous in the Hebrew…” (Evans’ first article, “He Took My Place.”)
Hold it right there! “Sin” and “sin offering” are not synonyms. Certainly he does not state a fact. The reader will
observe that this is just another assertion without any proof. Just because Evans says it does not make it fact. “Sin” and
“sin offering” do not have “the same or nearly the same meaning.” ►GF
[Herb Evans: Come on Frosty, I said “in the Hebrew – not the English!” In Hebrew, “sin” and “sin offering” are the
same Hebrew word. You are not paying attention or are intentionally mixing Hebrew and English. Perhaps, a better word
would be interchangeable.]
►GF FROST: The action of disobedience against God and the remedy (forgiveness for the action) are not the same
thing. The words do not “contain the same idea.” Sin is the commission of wrong-doing, while a sin offering is the remedy
to obtain forgiveness of sin. As I have said before, Evans inserts his theology into the definition of terms he uses.
Theology has him so bamboozled that it will be nearly impossible to get his thinking straight. I just hope he pays
attention.
[Herb Evans: Sin is also “omission” disobedience. Still, this is my point, exactly! In English, you are correct; in
Hebrew and Greek you are not correct. So, why do you try to use the Greek word “harmartia” as a “sin offering” and also
as ”sin” in both the Greek and the English in the same verse?]
Gene Frost: Sometimes the word “sin” (Hebrew, hatta’a) is also used in reference to a “sin offering.”
“In Lev and Num the noun appears many times alternating in meaning between sin, the reality of disobedience to
God, and sin-offering, the means of removing the guilt and penalty of sin before the Lord through the sacrificial system.
In this context, the noun is closely associated with asham, which is often translated as ‘guilt offering.’” (Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament, Harris, Archer, Walthe, page 278)
The determination when hatta’a refers to sin and when it refers to a sin offering is not made in accordance to the
whim or desire of the translator or exegete, but is determined by the context. Context is all important. When the context
considers fault or failure (literally) on the part of a person, the lawless action is called “sin.” When the context considers a
remedy for sin, hatta’a is translated “sin offering” or “offering for sin.” “Sin” and “sin offering” are not synonymous.
[Herb Evans: Well, I just conceded the Hebrew’s dual usage unlike any possible dual usage in Greek or English.
Frost does not have to go to another “THEOLOGIAN’S” word book. Of course when both sin and iniquity are laid on
Jesus, what do we do? Must we count it both a sin and iniquity offering when laid on Him, in accordance with Frost’s
whim, desire, opinionated eisegesis, which is based upon mixing two languages together? Outcome based theology? ]
Gene Frost: When “sin,” used literally, results in a contradiction or makes no sense, then it is understood to be used
in a figurative sense.
[Herb Evans: And Frost determines whether it is in the figurative or if it makes sense or whether it is “sin” or “sin
offering.” Frost and his theologians then become the final authority!]
FROST: Do you mean to tell us, Herb, that you have no way of determining when something said or written in
English is figurative or literal?
EVANS: I do have a way to determine TYPES and FIGURES, but my way is usually the opposite of Frost’s
way in which his determination must line up with his anti SA view.
Gene Frost: When the single word (sin) is used instead of another word or expression (sin offering) to which it
stands in a certain relationship, this is what Grammarians refer to as a figure of speech, called metonymy. This is the case
of sin, when it is used for sin offering. E.W. Bullinger, [who believed in souls sleep – Herb Evans] ►GF
FROST: [What he said Evans chopped off, and the reader will have to go forward to the next black paragraph to find
it.]
EVANS: A metonymy? The name of one thing for another may be true in the Hebrew but not in the Greek. I
doubt if it matters to the reader as to what that soul sleeper says. And I think that Frost knows now that it matters
not to me what kind of term he injects into the scripture to gainsay or change it.
[Herb Evans: Poor Frost Gene does not know how plural singulars are used in the scripture; hence he invents such a
cockamamie explanations about “sin” being a “sin offering” in the N.T. as he parrots a soul sleeper.]
FROST: Explain what you mean by “plural singulars” and how it pertains to “sin” and “sin offering.”
EVANS: SIN is used for SINS in many passages as a singular plural. Did you mean that sin is a sins offering
or a sin offering. Not that it matters, since it says “sin.” And now, the often asked Frost question is, “Where does it
say” sin offering in 2 Cor 5:21 either in Hebrew, Greek, or English?
Gene Frost: Herb, are you suggesting that if someone is wrong about something, we should disregard everything he
says? If not, then what is your point? If so, we would have to disregard everything you have to say! ►GF
Herb Evans: No, I don’t even suggest that either Frost or Campbell or Bullinger are wrong on everything, but since
Frost uses association defamation, I feel free to do likewise by questioning Frost’s quote of heretic Bullinger.
FROST: “Association defamation”? This is rather nebulous. What are you talking about specifically? “Association
defamation,” is this something like Herb falsely associating Gene Frost with Alexander Campbell, whom Herb
misrepresents, in order to create bias and subject Frost to ridicule and slander, defamation?
I caution the reader: do not take seriously every judgment of Herb Evans in his slander of everyone with whom he
disagrees. He finds it much easier to just slander someone than to give serious and reasoned responses. If he had a
reasoned response, he would not need to be rude and crude.
EVANS: I mean like you associate me with Anselm and Origen (or anyone else that castrated himself).
►GF FROST: Your snippet here does not negate the argumentation in this section. It is a distraction, but not a
refutation. (Just curious: Herb, will you admit to ever having been mistaken in anything you have taught?)
[EVANS: SURE! I once corrected the KJB like you and taught the invisible church of all believers like you.]
Herb Evans: Well, I have no problem admitting being mistaken, if someone clearly shows it, rather than just
charging it.
FROST: (Yet you dismiss Bullinger’s study of Figures of Speech, because he is wrong, you say, concerning the
soul. Finding one wrong in one instance is enough to disqualify everything else he says. On that basis, you would have
been disqualified long ago because of erroneous teaching to which you have admitted
EVANS: Bullinger is wrong on his figures of speech and his soul sleep. Some like his treatise on numerology.
EVANS: Still, Frost has not shown my mistakes except for my vagary comment in regard to guilt.
FROST: (One thing is enough; that is all you had against Bullinger. I am not to trying to defend Bullinger,—I do not
know anything about him outside of his work on figures of speech—but I do censure your tendency to slander and vilify
anyone and everyone with whom you disagree.
EVANS: Not anyone; just Soul Sleepers, Bible Correctors, Campbellites, and Baptismal Regenerationists!
EVANS: However, I have no problem agreeing with the Hebrew word underlying “sin” and “sin offering” being
translated in English as “sin” and/or “sin offering.” I do have a problem with Frost and his “THEOLOGIANS” arbitrarily
assigning the Greek word for “sin” as “sin offering” in the N.T. to buttress their denial of the substitutionary atonement.
The question is not whether the word COULD be so translated “sin offering” in the Hebrew but whether it SHOULD be so
translated there or in the Greek and English. Arguments from extra scriptural sources are the real distraction.
FROST: Does Herb know the meaning of the words he casually tosses around? “Arbitrarily” means something done
on a whim, without reason or principle. Though I do not accept the concept of theology—and obviously do not have “my
theologians,” as Evans slanderously and mindlessly charges—I do not think them, nor charge them, with presenting their
own ideas without serious study and thought. When well-trained scholars, after prodigious research and meticulous
investigation, are able to offer a better understanding of things which assist us in our reading and study of Scripture, I give
them serious consideration, knowing that among them are some who hold biases and weaknesses that affect their
conclusions. With knowledge of Scripture, as the inspired revelation of God and as our ultimate authority, whatever
information as can be justified as an aid to understanding God’s word is welcome; in fact, is sought. Even though many
allow their efforts to be marred by faulty concepts to which the Scriptures are subjected, they may still offer help with an
expertise in certain areas, not as the ultimate source of truth but to augment concepts of truth already accepted. We do not
throw away everything because of the failure of some things. I shudder at the ignorant arrogance of Herb Evans, who
dismisses every thought that does not match his own and resorts to slander.
EVANS: Well, Herb Evans believes that your theologians are operating with faulty reasoning and bad
principle. They are operating with a biased pr-supposition and searching for ways that they can establish that
position, just like Frost does. Now, if you look for a way to establish a false thing, you will find it. Now, this all is
Frost slander of me.
►GF FROST: [Following is the quotation which Herb interrupted from E.W. Bullinger] “in his monumental work
concerning Figures of Speech used in the Bible, lists under ‘Metonymy of the Subject’ the very case we are examining.
Considering when ‘the object is put for that which pertains or relates to it,’ he refers specifically to when ‘Sin is put for
the offering for sin.’ He cites:
“Ex. xxix.14.—‘It is a sin’: i.e., an offering which atones for sin.’
“Hos. iv.8.—‘They eat up the sin, (i.e. the sin-offering) of my people.’
“2 Cor. v.21.—‘He hath made him to be sin (i.e., a sin-offering) for us.’ See Isa. liii.10. Eph. v.2.” (Bullinger, page
584.)
Evans states that sin and sin offering are synonymous for a fact, yet he ridicules the idea to assume that we believe
that the terms may be used interchangeably as a matter of personal choice.
Herb Evans: “Here is another Frosty misquote. Herb Evans said, ‘Frosty seizes on the fact that sin and sin offering
are synonymous in the Hebrew. . .’”
Gene Frost: I seized on the fact—the fact being Herb Evans says that “sin and sin offering are synonymous.” Is it
not a fact that he states that sin and sin offering are synonymous?
Herb Evans: Frost does not allow any qualification or clarification of someone’s comments but interprets them the
way that he wishes in order to do the most damage. I assumed Frost’s view to be that the words were synonymous in the
Hebrew and responded accordingly.
FROST: Once again we see your assumptions—“I assumed.” From the beginning, you have attributed to me things I
do not believe. To this degree you have built a straw man.
Your qualification, or clarification,—“in the Hebrew”—had already been acknowledged. My disagreement with you
was over the fact that you stated that sin and sin offering are synonymous. In my initial response to your article, “He Took
My Place,” the first sentence under the subtitle “Sin and Sin Offering,” I stated:
“In the beginning of the paragraph to which I am referring, Evans states, ‘Frosty seizes on the fact that sin and sin
offering are synonymous in the Hebrew…’ Hold it right there! “Sin” and “sin offering” are not synonyms.”
Herb, your quotation is the first sentence in the sixth full paragraph from beginning of the article, “He Took My
Place,” by Herb Evans. Since the issue was whether sin and sin offering are synonymous, this I addressed, and not
whether it is in Hebrew, Greek, or English. Your quibble about “in the Hebrew” was exactly that, a quibble, and therefore
a distraction. Or, do you really believe that “in the Hebrew” sin and sin offering are synonymous?
EVANS: If we would number my assumptions and yours and compare them, you would win hands down with
the highest score. Still, Frost makes no attempt at knowing what someone means; he takes the worst case meaning
available and assigns it to his opponent. How many times must we go over this stuff?
EVANS: Perhaps, I should have used the term “dual usage” or “interchangeable” in regard to the Hebrew word
rather than “synonymous.” It is my suspicion that Frost purposely misunderstood my comment. Shall I act on my
suspicions as Frost does?
FROST: Amazing! Even when I am correct, Herb accuses me of being wrong. He said that sin and sin offering are
“synonymous.” This is not so, and now he admits that he “should have used the term ‘dual usage’ or ‘interchangeable’ in
regard to the Hebrew,” but adds that I misunderstood his comment (with suspected deliberate intent). There is no
misunderstanding. Herb made an untrue statement and I disagreed. Shame on him for trying to shift the blame.
EVANS: That was a question and a suspicion not an accusation. Yours is the accusation.
Gene Frost: True, I grasped with my mind, or apprehended, that you stated for a fact that sin and sin offering are
synonymous in the Hebrew. I did not misrepresent you. I did not place your words in quotation marks, so I did not
“misquote” you. But you present a distraction. ►GF
Herb Evans: No, you merely represented me without quotation marks and said “Herb Evans states.”
FROST: (The statement without quotations was made later, following where I quoted him. Evans said I misquote
him in the statement without quotations. The reader can judge whether the statements say the same thing (not in the same
word order)—first, the quotation, followed by the questioned statement:
“Frosty seizes on the fact that sin and sin offering are synonymous in the Hebrew…”
Evans states that sin and sin offering are synonymous for a fact…
Do they not say the same thing? Does the statement without quotations misstate the quoted statement? Now is it clear
that Herb Evans does indeed state as a “fact that sin and sin offering are synonymous in the Hebrew,” whether in
quotations or not?
You post my comments quite frequently without quotation marks. I have corrected that for clarity.
EVANS: “In other words, the same Hebrew word is used for “sin” and “sin offering.” – Herb Evans
[EVANS: The problem is that Frost relishes being a Nit Picker, First Class (with an oak leaf cluster). It is what
Campbellites do. The problem is that it results in Frost and others not being able to see the forest FOR (because of)
the trees.]
►GF Gene Frost: If this is what you meant or tried to say, fine. But this does not make sin and sin offering
synonymous, “having the same or a similar meaning.”
Herb Evans: Hebrew and English are different. It depends about which language Frosty is referring – English or
Hebrew. Rather than synonymous, the word “interchangeable” would be a better choice of words. My point is that the
same words are used in Hebrew for the English “sin” and “sin offering.” Let Frost try it in Greek like Bullinger tried
(Frost’s distraction).
“But it is Frost that forces the word as a sin offering, when sin is meant, as a matter of his personal choice or the
choice of what some dead man said. Herb Evans sticks with what the English Bible says (KJB).”
FROST: We shall see.
[Herb Evans: Yeah! Sure!]
EVANS: “Frost takes a statement where sin (transgression of law) is used, and then replaces “sin” with “sin
offering” in violation of the context, thereby creating an absurd statement. Jesus was the sin offering for sin.”
Gene Frost: Let’s test your objection. I will place the definition of sin (transgression of law), as you do, in the
Scriptures I cited, and let’s see which sentence makes sense and which is absurd. This is a fair way to determine whether
one is using a word correctly or not.
2 Cor. 5:21— “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin…”
EVANS: — For he hath made him to be transgression of law for us, who knew no sin…
FROST: — For he hath made him to be sin offering for us, who knew no sin…”
EVANS: Herb never changed the verse like that; Frost changed it. “Frost takes a statement where sin
(transgression of law) is used, and then replaces ‘sin’ with ‘sin offering’ in violation of the context, thereby creating
an absurd statement. Jesus was the sin offering for sin.”
FROST: Changing the statement above from blue to red does not add credibility nor change the facts.) Somehow
you seem to think that if you can repeat something often enough, or loud (bold) enough, it becomes the truth. No, truth
does not come from dogmatism; only from God. (John 17:17)
EVANS: Despite Frost, the REPEATER IN CHIEF, stealing my lines, do you see how the color red gets
Frost’s attention, especially when he is seeing red already!
FROST: Herb’s sentence is indeed absurd because he substitutes the word “sin” for the word “us.” For he hath made
him to be (a sin offering) for SIN.” No, Herb! A “sin offering for US…” Replace “sin offering” in Herb’s quotation of
Scripture above: “Jesus was the sin for sin.” See, Herb, how you make the sentence absurd by your misquotation,
replacing “us” with “sin”?
EVANS: WRONG! It is Frost that replaces the KJB word “sin” with “sin offering.” Herb Evans was
illustrating the resulting implication. How about translating “hamartia” as “he hath made him a sin offering . . .
who knew no sin offering?”
FROST: In context (verse 20) “God” is the subject and “Jesus” is the object: so that “God made Jesus” to be sin.
“Transgression,” is a noun, and by definition is: “the act or an instance (occurrence) of transgressing.”
FROST: Is it difficult to discern the difference? Herb insists that 2 Cor. 5:21 is a statement where sin (transgression
of law) is used: “Jesus was made (transgression of law)…” What part of the law? Calvinists (not that Herb is one; they
just agree on substitutionary atonement) argue that ALL transgressions of law—all violations of law, all sins of all time
ever committed or will be committed, were made to be Jesus’. He is the personification of all evil, corruption, and
depravity! Does Herb agree or does he limit the enormity of sin that Jesus possessed? Here is the difference—we believe
that Jesus was made to be a sin offering for us.
EVANS: The difference is that Frost corrects the Bible whereas Herb Evans does not correct the Bible. If you
offend the law in one point, you are guilty of all.
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Herb Evans: Frost parrots and forces Bullinger’s N.T. Greek usage to follow O.T. Hebrew Usage. Unlike Hebrew,
Greek does not share the Hebrew’s dual usage of the word as “sin” and “sin offering.” What is done in Hebrew does not
mean that Frost can arbitrarily disregard both the English and the underlying Greek words and create interchangeable
usage in the Greek by forcing it to follow the Hebrew. I pointed out this subterfuge by my “sin is a transgression”
reference to 1 John 3:4 (below). Frost and Bullinger both ignore that the same Greek word (harmartia) is used twice in 2
Cor 5:21, dishonestly making one rendering to be “sin” and the other rendering to be “sin offering” as Frost and soul
sleeper Bullinger try to match the Greek to Hebrew. Frost manipulates Herb Evans’ comment in regard to 1 Cor 5:21
usage of “sin” twice.
FROST: No, I have not overlooked the use of hamartia (Greek) twice in 2 Cor. 5:21, although you twice reference it
as 1 Cor. 5:21 in this paragraph. (The reader be advised that there is no 1 Cor. 5:21.) Herb states that it is dishonest to
translate a Greek word, when used twice in a statement, by more than one and the same English word. Again, he is wrong.
EVANS: ALAS! Frost wins. He found a misquoted passage address. What are we going to do with such an
overwhelming argument, Still, not only is Frost a Nit Picker; Frost is also a trifler of the worse kind. At times, he
acts like an old woman. Yes, it is Second Corinthians and not First Corinthians! Great find and argument!
FROST: The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew, both of which we have translated into English. In Leviticus
5:6, following are the English, the Hebrew (reverse order), and the Greek.
English: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned, a
Hebrew:
chata’ah
Greek (LXX):
hamartias
female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an
chatta’ah
hamartias
atonement for him concerning his sin.
chatta’ah.
hamartia.
FROST: Upon examining when hamartia is translated “sin offering” rather than “sin” (as committed), we may
observe that it is in context where a remedy for sin guilt is under consideration, and is more reasonable than referring to
the guilt of sin itself.
EVANS: So, Frost is operating under reasonableness plus the corrupt Septuagint. I wonder if Frost noted that
it was a TRESPASS OFFERING in Lev 5:6. I thought Frost did not like trespass as a substitute for sin. YAWN!
FROST: Herb Evans has now “conceded the Hebrew’s dual usage,” which he avers is unlike any possible dual usage
in Greek or English.” Following this he says,
EVANS: “I have no problem admitting being mistaken, if someone clearly shows it, rather than just charging it. Still,
Frost has not shown my mistakes except for my vagary comment [Frost - erratic notion] in regard to guilt. However, I
have no problem agreeing with the Hebrew word underlying ‘sin’ and ‘sin offering’ being translated in English as ‘sin’
and/or ‘sin offering.’ I do have a problem with Frost … arbitrarily assigning the Greek word for ‘sin’ as ‘sin offering’ in
the N.T. to buttress their denial of the substitutionary atonement.”
[EVANS: Conceded? All Evans did is rephrase my words for Frost’s benefit. A concession means that
someone has backed off from something they originally believed or said. Still, Frost finds shallow victories in things
like this.]
FROST: First, a dual use of sin in Greek is not arbitrary, a choice by chance, whim, or impulse, subject to individual
judgment or preference. This is the very thing we have pressed must not be done, as we find Evans doing with
“atonement,” et al.
EVANS: That is exactly what Frost did by his biased arbitrary judgment and preference in injecting another
term into the passage under issue, 2 Cor 5:21, without the benefit of Greek or the English. Notice how Frost avoids
what he did!
FROST: Now let us try to clearly show that what is allowable in the Hebrew and Greek is acceptable in English
translations of the same words, i.e. their meanings are transferred into the English. Example at hand is Hebrews 10:6 and
8 in reference to Psalms 40:6-7. “In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. … Above when he
said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein;
which are offered by the law…” In Psalms 40, “sacrifices for sin” is translated from Hebrew chata’ah. “Sacrifices” is
italicized to signify that the word is not in the Hebrew text, only “sin” is. (The same is true of offering for sin, or “sin
offering.”) In other words, drop the italicized words, sacrifices for and offering for, and the remaining word “sin” conveys
the same thought, just like it does in Hebrew … and in Greek. The Greek translation is hamartias, sin, and refers to
“sacrifice for sin.” Nevertheless “sin” here refers to the sacrifice for sin, the same word used for both, which in not
arbitrarily selected but as determined by context. I hope that this is clear enough for Herb to concede the point.
FROST: a`marti, a, aj h sin ( e;cw a`Å be sinful); peri. a`Å often sin offering
peri, prep. with: (1) gen. about, concerning, of, with reference to; for; on account of
( pÅ a`marti,aj often sin
offering)
[EVANS: Note the switch. First Frost talks about what is allowed in the Hebrew and Greek and then
addresses and examples the Hebrew. Frosty, Hebrew and Greek are not the same. What is clear is that this is not
Greek practice in the New Testament. And Frost, remember what you said about Italics.]
EVANS: Both are nouns here, although Frost tries to make “made him to be sin for us” to read “made Him to be the
act of sin” (which seems to be worse for Frost’s view).
FROST: Herb, you’ve done it again! I do not make “made him to be sin for us” to read “made him to be the act of
sin.” This is not “Frost’s view.” I made the point in our second level (brown type) of exchange, exposing your sophistry
by defining “transgression” in 2 Cor. 5:21: “To say, as Herb has, that ‘God made Jesus to be an act or an occurrence of
transgressing the law’ is nonsensical. It is an absurd statement.” (This statement is in the following brown paragraph. It
was cut off (by Herb) from the brown paragraph above.)
EVANS: I said “tries.”Well, now that you have explained yourself. God made Jesus to be sin for us, regardless
of any act or occurrence of sin on His part.
FROST: Herb Evans referred to “SIN” in 1 Cor 5:21 (2 Cor. 5:21) as a “sin” and/or “transgression” of the law (noun
in both places). Herb Evans took that term from 1 John 3:4 (below), which has “sin” and “transgress” as both nouns and
verbs.
No; “sin” and “transgress” both function as verbs, and “sin” may be nominal, function as a noun, but “transgress” is
not and may not function as a noun. Herb, did you think that the reader would not notice the subtle switch from
“transgression” to “transgress”? (Actually, in the Greek text, both sin and transgression are nouns, and 1 John 3:4 literally
reads: “Everyone who practices sin also does lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.”
EVANS: Obviously, Frost does not mind the “transgression offering” in the LXX. And then, Frost swore up
and down that he did not use anything but the KJB. Here we find him supposedly using a literal translation, when
in reality; it is a modern perversion that talks about one that “practices” sin. Does one practice to become a better
sinner? Frost needs to study the “eth” and “est” suffixes in Old English.
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
EVANS: What a cockamamie stretch of English! It is Frost and Bullinger that fail the test but 1 John 3:4 passes his
test.
FROST: What test?
EVANS: The test of transgression-ism versus sin-ism!
EVANS: Both words in 2 Cor. 5:21 have “harmartia” in both places in the verse, as the KJB so renders the word
“sin” as well as in most every other English Bible about which we know, while Frost contradicts them.
FROST: No, I do not contradict, but I do try to understand. However, when Herb uses one and the same definition
(of “transgression”) when it is used in the text and as well when defining sin, he is contradictory.
EVANS: Frost is not trying to understand when he disagrees with every pre King James Bible extant. I gave
Frost the verse on which my comment was based. Take it or leave it. Still, Frost’s LXX says “transgression
offering” in its Greek. Is that the same as a “sin offering?” Let us see you contradict the “transgression” offering
in the Septuagint.
EVANS: 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin [sin continually per Frost – Herb Evans], and are
convinced of the law as transgressors [Transgressors continually? – Herb Evans]
Gene Frost: To say, as Herb has, [SIC] that “God has made Jesus to be an act or an occurrence of transgressing the
law,” is nonsensical. It is an absurd statement.
FROST: The way Herb has it by introducing 1 John 3:4, “transgression” is a noun, which by definition is “an act or
an occurrence of transgressing the law.”
EVANS: So is the transgression “offering” also a noun. By the way, you never acknowledged that the word
“inspiration” in both places is a noun and not a verb or an adjective although you and others seem to use it in those
ways.
FROST: Let me illustrate it another way. 2 Cor 5:21 makes the point that Christ was made to be sin [whatever that
is] so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. To be made righteous is to be freed from the guilt of sin.
EVANS: Let me illustrate, to be made righteous is to be freed from sin. To be free is to be NOT GUILTY.
FROST: Keep in mind that in whatever way Christ was made to be sin, it would be so that we might be made free
from sin, or right before God. The two positions before us are (1) Jesus was made to be sin culpable (guilty of sin), or (2)
Jesus was made a sin remedy (sin offering). People with expertise in English, Hebrew, and Greek have taken both
positions, acknowledging the viability of both. However, which is more reasonable? (1) Jesus was made guilty as one
deserving blame … so that we might be made free from sin. (2) Jesus was made a sin offering … so that we might be
made free from sin. The text reads: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him.”
EVANS: No! The only position before us is that Jesus was made to be a sin for us and a curse for us by God
(not a curse offering). All this without being culpable or guilty! Is it too hard for you to admit that God made Jesus
a curse for us?
Herb Evans: But Herb Evans has never said that; it is a Frost fabrication and false quote, trying to attribute it to
Herb Evans. SHAME! It was Frost that said it above.
Gene Frost: To say, as we contend, that “God has made Jesus to be a sin offering for us” makes perfect sense, and is
often used in the Old Testament.
[EVANS: Nothing makes sense let alone perfect sense when you correct the Bible.]
EVANS: If Frost would be consistent and demand also that Jesus knew no “sin offering” that would be equally
absurd and nonsensical as well. Nevertheless, has Frost checked out the N.T. Greek words for sin and offering? Nowhere
in the New Testament is “harmartia” rendered “sin offering,” so it makes no sense for it to be so anywhere in 2 Cor. 5:21
(which is not Hebrew).
FROST: Herb, you are not reading with understanding. In Rom. 8:3—“God sending his own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”—for sin is the translation of the Greek text for peri hamartias. The
KJB translators offer an alternate translation in their marginal note: “by a sacrifice for sin” which is the same as sin
offering. The translators point out neither the body text nor the marginal text is to be preferred.
EVANS: There goes Margin Note Marty again. I wonder what Frost would do if the margin note was in the
text and the text was in the margin, and I tried to prove him wrong by the margin note? Well, you get the point.
FROST: The same Greek text (peri hamartias) is found in Heb. 10:8—“Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings
and offering for sin thou wouldest not.” There is no separate word for “offering” in the Greek; it is derived from the Gr.
hamartias.
EVANS: Oh, is that right? No Greek word for offering? Hmmm? Well, what meaneth this bleating of G4374
and G4376? Still, God wants no part of the offerings in Heb. 10:8, for He has no pleasure in them.
Heb 10:8, 10, 18 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offeringG4374 and burnt offeringsG3646 and offering [no
Greek] for sin [hamartia, G266] thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law . . .
By the which will we are sanctified through the offeringG4376 of the body of Jesus Christ once for all . . . Now where
remission of these is, there is no more offeringG4376 for sin.
FROST: We will defer our discussion of 2 Cor. 5:21 to the section Evans entitled, “HUPER versus FOR, IN ONE’S
STEAD, FOR ONE’S SAKE.”
EVANS: We can’t wait!
Gene Frost: Therefore, as we pointed out, in the section under “Sin and Sin Offering,” which Herb has ignored other
than using this quibble to distract from a serious study: The determination when hatta’a refers to sin and when it refers to
a sin offering cannot be made in accordance to the whim or desire of the translator or exegete, but is determined by the
context. Context is all important. ►GF
Herb Evans: Again, Frost confuses and mixes the Hebrew with the Greek to excuse his [parroted] Bullinger booboo. The Greek word is never translated sin offering in the N.T.
FROST: Heb 10:17-18—“And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is,
there is no more offering for sin.” Herb, what is the difference in meaning between offering for sin” and “sin offering”?
EVANS: What is the difference between the Greeks words for “sin” and “sin offering” in the second
occurrence of “hamartia” in the same verse? HUH?
FROST: You “have conceded” (in your next statement in bold blue) that the same Hebrew word “is translated both
‘sin’ and ‘sin offering’.”
EVANS” You are always making concessions for Herb Evans. I always knew this commonality between 'sin"
and “sin offering” existed in the Hebrew, ever since I ran into the objection that “sin lieth at the door.”
FROST: It is also true that the same Greek word is translated both “sin” and “sin offering.”
EVANS: That is not true! Name the Bibles where it is so translated from the Greek!
FROST: The Hebrew writer quotes verse 5-6, saying, “Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt
offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein…” (Heb. 10:8) Heb. 10:6 reads, “In burnt
offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.” The same Greek word is translated “offering for sin” and
“sacrifice for sin,” in verses 6 and 8. (Is there a difference between “offering” an “sacrifice” in these verses, where one is
quoting the other? The quotation in Hebrews 10:5-6 (along with verse 7) is from Psalm 40:6 (7): “Sacrifice and offering
thou didst not desire … burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.” Again, “sin offering” is from the same
single Hebrew word, and its Greek counterpart is likewise from the same single Greek word. Evans will try to make a
distinction where there is no difference. His statement is just a quibble.
EVANS: Even If what Frost alleges were true, those passages are referring to the O.T. offerings and sacrifices
to which God no longer wants anything more to do or in which He no longer has any pleasure. Still, it is not true,
since independent Greek words for sin and offerings and sacrifices are used in conjunction with each other. This is
deceit of the highest order. Is it sacrifices and offerings to get sin per the Greek word “peri” or for sin or in the
place or stead of sin?
►GF FROST: When the context considers fault or failure (literally) on the part of a person, the lawless action is
called “sin.” When the context considers a remedy for sin, hatta’a is translated “sin offering” or “offering for sin.” “Sin”
and “sin offering” are not synonymous.
Herb Evans: Well, there goes Frost again, running to the Hebrew to explain the Greek. I have already discussed the
Hebrew word, and I have conceded that it is translated both “sin” and “sin offering” in the O.T. However, Frosty, 2 Cor.
5:21 is not Hebrew, Bullinger notwithstanding, but the question is will Gene Frost concede it, since Bullinger, being
dead, cannot concede or argue anything.
FROST: Evans doesn’t concede anything easily; even so, we have made progress. He admits that “sin” chatta’a in
Hebrew can rightly be translated both “sin” and “sin offering” (or “offering for sin” or “sacrifice for sin”). If he will
parallel the use of hamartia, he will see the same in the Greek. (See Parkhurst’s quote below.
EVANS: I agreed to that from the very beginning and that agreement was not a concession. No parallel exists!
EVANS: “Heb 10:8 . . . SACRIFICE G2378 and OFFERING G4374 and burnt offerings4374 and offering for 4412 SIN G266
thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are OFFERED G4376 by the law;
Heb. 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more OFFERING G4376 for SIN. G266
EVANS: What Gene is talking is about is that I asked how Jesus could bear the sin offering when Jesus was the sin
offering. Absurd only in the sense of what Gene Frost advocates above (2 Cor. 5:21).” – Herb Evans
FROST: I advocated no such thing, and Evans knows it! “Sin” and “sin offering” do not mean the same, and one
cannot be substituted for the other at one’s whim, even though they are derived from the same Hebrew word. Herb now
knows better, and has admitted it. So what he has said is a quibble and is as much against what he believes as it is against
me. Just a quibble and a cheap shot!
EVANS: Oh, what did you just “advocate above?”
Gene Frost: I hope that Herb has that figured out now.
Herb Evans: Yes, I have figured out that Frost is avoiding the different N.T. Greek words for “sin” and “offering,”
while back peddling to the Hebrew.
“While he cites two examples in the Hebrew of sin being the sin offering, he gets real tricky and dishonest and
switches to the Greek in 2 Cor. 5:21, where the Greek word specifically means “sin” and not the “sin offering.” There is
no common word in Greek for “sin” and “sin offering.” — Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Herb, you just never learn! I here cite A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament by John
Parkhurst, under the Greek word for sin, hamartia:
“V. A sacrifice for sin, a sin-offering, on which the sin was put, or to which it was imputed. (See Lev. iv.4, 15. Comp
Lev. i.4. xvi.21.) occ. 2 Cor. v.21. comp. Heb. ix.28. Isa. liii.6, 10, 12. 1 Pet. ii.24. Hamartia is used in the same sense by
the LXX. Lev. iv.21, 25, 34. (comp. ver. 8, 20, 29.) Lev. v.9, 12. And this manner of expression exactly corresponds to the
Heb. where both the sin and the sin-offering is denoted by the same word (chatta’ah or chatta’at).” [Both the Greek and
Hebrew letters, which appear in the original are anglicized. Red letters added for emphasis.]
Talk about being tricky! When I define words from the Old Testament (Ex. 29:14 and Hosea 4:8), I use the Hebrew
language in which it was written, and from which the English is translated. But when I refer to the New Testament (2 Cor.
5:21), I use the Greek language! Isn’t that tricky? You can’t get by Herb Evans; he’s on top of it! Tricky. Dishonest. I
guess I was double tricky because I quoted a reference work.
Herb Evans: Frost does not use the language that he thinks 2 Cor. 5:21 was written, namely Greek when discussing
this verse. When is Frost going to learn to use the Bible by itself and instead of running to his favorite, corrupt, extra
scriptural sources (including the Old Testament, Greek Septuagint and Bullinger)? So, Herb is tricky and dishonest for
holding Frost to the written word and the New Testament Greek of 2 Cor 5:21? Wow!
FROST: This makes no sense: after quoting the Greek¸ Herb says that I do not use the Greek, and boasts that he
holds me to the New Testament Greek. Is this Greek text that he respects the same Greek he says to throw away?
EVANS: Did you ever think that your inconsistency might have led to mine? Herb says! Produce the quote!
Gene Frost: What do we say about Herb? When he defines words in the Old Testament, he uses the Hebrew. And
when he refers to the New Testament (or Septuagint), he uses the Greek. Here’s the evidence, a sample paragraph: ►GF
FROST: (Don’t let this next paragraph break the thought! Read the preceding brown text, and proceed to the next
brown paragraph.)
Herb Evans: So, now, the corrupt Septuagint is now the final authority?
FROST: Not with me. How about with you when you use it?
Herb Evans: Now, that is tricky! Does Frost realize how many times the Septuagint is in error when compared to the
Hebrew Bible? Neither the RSV, the RV, The KJB, the New KJB, Webster Bible, Lamsa, the Geneva, Tyndale, the
Catholic Rheims, The New World Translation, or the Bishop’s Bible render 2 Cor 5:21 “sin offering.” Even the modern
translations, the ESV, and the NIV do not render it “sin offering” in 2 Cor. 5:21. Frost and Bullinger are very lonely in
that respect.
►GF FROST on EVANS: “The words ‘Kohol’ and ‘Aidoh’ are used for ‘congregation,’ but the word ‘Moadeem’
is never used for ‘congregations.’ Actually, a ‘synagogue’ can be an ‘assembly,’ (James 3:2 - see Webster, Vine, or
Strong - take your pick), or it can be a ‘place of assembly’ by extension.
“Moreover, ‘Moadeem’ can be ‘assemblies’ (Ezek. 44:24) or ‘places of assembly’ (synagogues - Ps. 74:8) by
extension. Notably, the corrupt ‘Septuagint’ translates this bible Corrector’s ‘congregation’ (‘Aidoh’) to ‘SUNAGOGE’
(synagogue) in Psalm 74:2; 82:1, and 86:14 (Septuagint numbering — Ps. 73:2; 81:1, and 85:14). Man, it is in the Greek!”
— by Herb Evans at http://herbevanskjb.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html.”
Herb Evans: Frost’s argument is that Evans quotes from the Septuagint; therefore he is also justified in doing so to
prove his agenda. Now Frost quotes Herb Evans in regard to a word, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Yes,
Herb Evans referred to the corrupt Septuagint on Herb’s blog spot, to refute a Bible corrector that denied that a synagogue
could be a congregation as well as a building. Of course, I have already informed Frost that I use Bible Corrector’s tools
against them. This makes apples and oranges in that Frost uses the Septuagint to correct both the Hebrew and English
O.T. as well as the Greek N.T. (what nerve!), but Herb Evans uses it to vindicate the O.T. Hebrew and English and to
refute Bible correctors like Frost.
Gene Frost: Now, just who is it that’s tricky, Herb? “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that
judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” (Rom.
2:1)
Herb Evans: Poor Frost still does not know the difference between Herb Evans quoting Bible Corrector sources and
authorities and Frost quoting such authorities.
FROST: Evans says, “I use Bible Corrector’s tools against them,” and adds that there is difference between when I
quote or reference Hebrew and Greek texts and when he does. That’s right. I make a serious study of the text through
which God revealed His will, from which we translate it into English, and he does not. Herb views this as searching
through garbage (to use his word). Any discussion of the Hebrew and Greek text is made to “correct” us; any arguments
makes using these textual languages he does not believe to be true—how can truth be derived from corrupt material which
should be discarded (or, as he puts it, thrown out)?
EVANS: The only difference is that Frost seeks to undermine the King James Bible, while Herb Evans seeks
to establish it. Truth can be established through exposure of opponents’ authorities. Truth can even be derived
from the Communist Manifesto as their goals are exposed by anti-communists.
Gene Frost: He admits that he engages in “language manipulation” (which no one other than himself uses) to draw
ridiculous conclusions.
[Herb Evans: Where did Herb Evans admit to that? Or is that another one of Frost’s pontificated conclusions?]
EVANS: “Frosty seems more preoccupied with Herb Evans than the issue at hand. Let Gene Frost produce the Herb
Evans quote, where he admitted “language manipulation,” or else Frost be found a liar. Mr. Frost is the one that
manipulates language. My preference is always the English, but I also can refute Frost’s Hebrew and Greek, which, by
the way, is not very good.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: I will let the readers be the judge. Herb is hardly qualified. If he were correct, doubt not that he would
have jumped on it. Where has he challenged any use that I have made of the Hebrew or Greek? The truth is, [SIC] I must
correct him!
Herb Evans: Notice that Frost does not deny his lie on Herb Evans or produce any quote. Frost just bypasses my
charge.
FROST: The fact is Frost does deny engaging in “language manipulation”! Evans tried to lay the misrepresentation
on Frost, but they were his. And Frost produced the quote! Evans is hoping that the reader has not read the previous layers
of this exchange. He tries to divert attention away from my response by placing this (blue) paragraph before my response
to leave the impression that Frost had not replied. But the truth is, the next 3 paragraphs (in brown type) are my response
which were written before the present blue paragraph. We urge the reader to read the next 3 paragraphs together as one,
which is what they were before Herb engaged in his hatchet job! No wonder he likes point and counterpoint, with more
counterpoints. Confusion is an aid to error, and we see it at work.
EVANS: If your conclusions were correct, that would be the case. But where did Evans admit language
manipulation? HUH? Frost cannot weasel word or double talk his way out of his phony charges which he partially
makes up.
EVANS: From the onset, Herb Evans has tried to keep the discussion in English and in the confines of the KJB and
on the topic of Substitutionary atonement. However, Frost has consistently opposed such discussions in English and
changed the subject to the Hebrew, the Greek, Baptism, Inherited sin, Herb Evans’ English, and the King James Bible
issue. Now, Gene Frost complains that Herb Evans does not do enough challenging of Frost’s Hebrew and Greek.
Gene Frost: In his initial response, “He Took My Place,” Herb states that I seized “on the fact that sin and sin
offering are synonymous,” and accuses me of attempting “to transfer that concept to the Greek ‘HAMARTIA’ of the New
Testament.” He then assumes that as a synonym, sin arbitrarily may be used for sin offering, or vice versa, and wonders
how Jesus could bear the sin, which he shifts to sin offering, when Jesus was the sin offering? He refers to this as
“language manipulation,” and proceeds to extrapolate further ridiculous conclusions. ►GF
Herb Evans: Yes, Frost does try to transfer the Hebrew concept into the Greek. Still, the word “arbitrarily” is Frost’s
word (here) and not Herb Evans’. Other than Frost’s “muddy water” here, Frost will not admit it or deny it? Of course
not! The Greek word occurs twice in 2 Cor 5:21, But Frost wants them translated differently.
►GF FROST: I agree that it is a manipulation of words (language), but it is not mine. First, sin and sin offering are
not synonymous terms. Herb states as a “fact that sin and sin offering are synonymous.” So he mishandles the term sin
and thinks that in Hebrew it may arbitrarily be translated “sin” or “sin offering.” That is a fraudulent definition of the
word. ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost makes no attempt to understand what someone says but rather demands exact wording, and Frost
tries to make Herb Evans say something that he has not said. Frost must consistently manipulate and editorialize and
partially quote and even falsely quote Herb Evans' comments, out of context, in order to make Frost’s arguments. Frost’s
accusation of fraud is the pot calling the kettle aluminum.
►GF FROST: He then makes a fraudulent use of the word, in having Jesus bearing the sin offering when He is the
sin offering. This fraudulent handling of terms, he describes as “language manipulation”—to handle or use (language)
with skill in an unfair or fraudulent way. This is what he does. Therefore, I said that “he admits that he engages in
‘language manipulation’ (which no one other than himself uses) to draw ridiculous conclusions.” The use and ridiculous
conclusions were all his. And that’s the truth about that!
Herb Evans: Well, if Herb Evans’ argument, in regard to sin versus sin offering, is fraudulent, so much more is
Frost’s rendering fraudulent. That was my point.
FROST: Herb, here is an admission, no doubt inadvertently made. Your point is that my argument is fraudulent,
more so than your argument, which is a tacit admission that your argument is fraudulent! You so charge, but I deny that I
argued fraudulently. The fact that you admittedly resorted to a fraudulent argument in order to counter my argument
demonstrates the truth of my argument. If it were not true, you could have countered with truth instead of a fraudulent
argument.
EVANS: Did Frost not read my word “IF?” Do you see what Frost calls an “admission?” No doubt, Frost is
trying to make up for the admission that he charged me with THAT HE COULD NOT FIND? What an inflated
ego this guy Frost has as he claims his shallow victories. Any more twisting and Gene Frost is going to look like a
pretzel.
EVANS: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Again, Frost fails to produce any complete quote more
so than yours of Herb Evans’ admission. That is FRAUD!
Gene Frost: Herb also says that his preference is English, over Hebrew and Greek, which (to use his expression) is
not very good. ►GF
Herb Evans: Again, Gene Frost fails to note that Herb Evans made that comment in regard to “Frost’s” Hebrew and
Greek as being “not very good.”
FROST: This is your expression I use to describe your English: it “is not very good.” I don’t think I could ever hear
you admit that your English is not very good. Sorry you misunderstood what I said, as I used your expression.
EVANS: Frost neglected to put quotes on the partial quote of Evans, so why wouldn’t Herb misunderstand
Frost’s comments?
EVANS: This is yet more misrepresentation of Herb Evans by Frost! And it is inexcusable.
►GF FROST: Correcting his English could be a full-time job. His syntax is flawed; and punctuation is a lost art
with him. To use Herb’s expression, it is not very good. Students in elementary grammar would have no trouble in noting
numerous instances. This does not even take into account his illogical reasoning. But this does not deter Herb in his selfevaluation.
Herb Evans: Yes, correcting Herb Evans’ English is much easier than correcting Herb Evans’ doctrine. Make it easy
on yourself, Frosty! Still, check the blue SICS in this document.
FROST: Yes, check them carefully; most are incorrect as they follow suit to the first part of the exchange. I quit
looking at them, considering it hopeless to correct them. It is more profitable to ignore them. They are inserted for show
anyway in an effort to distract.
EVANS: Oh you quit? I wonder why.
Gene Frost: It is indeed ridiculous! However, ridicule doesn’t counter the truth. False teachers cannot deal honestly
and straightforward in considering an issue; they resort to fallacious argumentation, slander, and ridicule.
EVANS: “DITTOS TO YOU PAL! YAWN!” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: You had to say something, didn’t you, Herb? Tell us who “you pal” is, [SIC] to whom you express
dittos. Or did you mean, “you, pal”? (See what I mean about your punctuation, or lack thereof? Now don’t you feel
foolish? Herb, you don’t need enemies; you are self-sufficient.
Herb Evans: Why should I feel foolish? The spell checker allowed it. You are naive! I am not the one nitpicking
English and punctuation, something I only did once in response to your English lessons, not that I cannot do more. Yes, I
did mean you. Still, it would be nice if you could refute my doctrine instead of my English. Still, I have assessed your post
and added “SIC’s to your English boo – boos.” Live by the sword and die by the sword! Frosty, keep score!
FROST: Game over; you lose!
EVANS: Not when you forfeit the score! But did you not scold Herb Evans for the word “GAME?”
For Our Sins
Evans switches prepositions; Introduces the subject of baptism
Gene Frost: Evans next calls attention to the preposition “for,” and references ten scriptures, He groups them
together as having “synonymous flexibility,” that can be defined as “in reference to,” “in place of,” “because of,” or “even
in behalf of” (although this latter is a “watered down” use). However, the ten references are translations of four words in
the inspired Greek text, denoting differing connotations of “for.” He acknowledges the differences in the English, but
offers no guide for their uses, whereas the Greek language has distinct words, expressing the differences. He makes no
reference to these original terms —“throw ‘em out”— to assume the right to define them as he pleases! But he exposes his
chicanery in doing so.
EVANS: “My purpose in posting these was to avoid playing concordance chess with Frost. . .” -- Herb Evans
Gene Frost: You haven’t avoided anything except defining the different connotations that the different prepositions
convey. Don’t just tell us you know the Greek terms for the different translations of “for”—define the terms! Your tactic
is so shallow. ►GF
Herb Evans: I am just playing around with you in the Hebrew and Greek, because I know that you do not know
what you are talking about. The scriptures define themselves; if you would compare Bible usage instead of running to
corrupt, extra-scriptural, sources to define the meanings of Greek and Hebrew, you would do better.
►GF FROST: Do you expect your followers to blindly accept your effort as answering my argumentation? This is
typical all throughout your writings. ►GF
Herb Evans: Who are my followers? I am an INDEPENDENT BAPTIST with headquarters in heaven and in my
local church.
FROST: How unlike CHRISTIANS, who have only one head (Col. 1:18). Evans claims two “headquarters,” one in
heaven and one in his local church. Our headquarters is in heaven … and there is no vicar of Christ with quarters on earth.
The more I learn about Independent Baptists, Bible Baptists, or the kind of Baptist Herb Evans is, by whatever name
they wear—thankfully, they do not wear the name of “Christ”—the worse it is.
“Atonement:” Can Only Mean “Substitution”
EVANS: Well, considering that my heavenly Christ is the HEAD of my LOCAL church on earth rather than
your mystical, invisible, church of all believers, I am comfortable with my comment. You see, Christ meets with us
in each and every local church service.
►GF FROST: You assume the doctrine of “substitutionary atonement” which to you means that all of mankind’s
sins were imputed to Jesus, that their sins and guilt now are His, for which He suffered rejection and an eternity of
punishment by God. You claim that the Bible teaches this, and to prove it you simply list [SIC] passages that use the word
“atonement” to assume that the Bible is teaching “substitutionary atonement.” ►GF
Herb Evans: That is the only kind of atonement that there is.
FROST: Great admission! Atonement can only refer to Jesus as a substitute for sinners, when “all of mankind’s sins
were imputed to Jesus, (so) that their sins and guilt now are His, for which He suffered rejection and an eternity of
punishment by God.”
EVANS: You overwork that word “admission.” Frost, and I do not mean the same thing by the same terms.
EVANS: You “assume” and “deny” like an Atone-a-tic
FROST: Isn’t Herb Evans a kick?! “Atone-a-tic!” How clever! Ha! Ha!
EVANS: A few years ago, I ran into a Baptist fellow, by the name of Miller and his cohorts who believe like
you do about the atonement and inherited sin. I engaged in a debate with them over their audio tapes and wrote an
article on Atone-a-tics. They were Baptists, believe it or not.
FROST: But … this doesn’t answer the argument. The context is about what Herb assumes. See the red type face in
the brown paragraph above? Notice how he deflects the subject from himself to me? I identify what he assumes. Herb’s
response, “You assume and deny…” So that answers it? See how easy Herb answers? Charge him with making
assumptions, and demand Scripture proof, and he replies, You assume, too! I guess that is supposed to take care of that, so
move on! His technique is so predictable and unfair. I am filled with disgust.
EVANS: Well, a fellow that affirms something is expected to prove it. But a fellow that denies something does
not have to prove anything. All that a denier has to do is try to destroy the affirmer’s arguments and proof texts.
That is not a level playing field. So when Frost charges assumption, I bounce them back IN ALL FAIRNESS.
►GF The Bible doesn’t teach this doctrine; it is found only in the theology of men who try to make it a Bible
doctrine. ►GF
[EVANS: Do you see what I mean?]
Herb Evans: The Bible does teach it, but Frost is blind to its teaching, since Frost runs to the doctrines of
theologians (unlike Herb Evans). No original Frost thought in running to Bullinger.
FROST: Does Herb cite where the Bible teaches his “substitutionary atonement” doctrine, or even mentions it? No,
he defends his assertion with an assertion (which is like Herb Evans):
EVANS: “The Bible does teach it…”
[EVANS: That is what this discussion is about; don’t you read my comments?]
FROST: Since I charge that this doctrine can only be found in the theology of man, Herb feels compelled to counter
with “Frost runs to the doctrines of theologians.” So we now charge one another. However, the difference is that I identify
the theological doctrine he teaches, whereas he uses a broad brush and hurls the term without identifying what the
supposed theology is. When he does try to connect what he calls theology to a source, he vilifies the source. He refers to
Bullinger, whom at first mention he says “believes in soul sleep,” and then he calls him “heretic Bullinger,” and as “a
corrupt source.”
EVANS: But then, Bullinger was a heretic and a HYPER dispensationalist as well. But then you are either a
heretic or an apostate as well, so what is the difference, and what does it matter?
FROST: Since he refers to “running to Bullinger,” let me examine the charge. Up to this point. Evans has referred to
Bullinger at least 8 times, and has insinuated that I rely heavily upon him. I do not know if Bullinger is a theologian or
not. If he is, I do not know what he has written or what his theology is. Herb seems to know him quite well. I have
referenced him one time, not in any theological work, but in a study of analytical linguistics. The book quoted is titled,
Figures of Speech Used in The Bible. Earlier (the reader may go back to the section, “Sin versus Sin Offering”) I made the
point that “sin” sometimes refers to “sin offering”—a point that Evans concedes is true. The single word “sin” in certain
contexts may suggest more that is associated with it, e.g. Christ is associated with sin as a remedy; He is a sin
remedy=“sin offering.” “Sin,” in such case, is not literal but figurative; the figure is identified as metonymy. We have seen
this in Hebrew, in Greek, and in English.
EVANS: Frost cannot seem to understand that the rules in one language do not necessarily apply to another.
FROST: In my study and writing I constantly check on my accuracy in using figurative terms; and I refresh my
memory. I looked in Bullinger’s book under “metonymy,” and, as I expected, I confirmed my understanding, but then,
not only the definitive use of the figure, I found the very text (2 Cor. 5:21) that I was considering. Here is the citation
(repeated from the discussion in the first level of exchange):
“E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work concerning Figures of Speech used in the Bible, lists under ‘Metonymy of
the Subject’ the very case we are examining. Considering when ‘the object is put for that which pertains or relates to it,’
he refers specifically to when ‘Sin is put for the offering for sin.’ He cites:
“Ex. xxix.14.—‘It is a sin’: i.e., an offering which atones for sin.’
“Hos. iv.8.—‘They eat up the sin, (i.e. the sin-offering) of my people.’
“2 Cor. v.21.—‘He hath made him to be sin (i.e., a sin-offering) for us.’ See Isa. liii.10. Eph. v.2.” (Bullinger, page
584.)”
I found particularly interesting the reference to Hosea 4:8, where sin most obviously could not refer to sin (the
commission or the guilt) which they could eat, but a substance relating to and suggested by sin, namely, the “sinoffering.” Herb, do you agree that we can understand “sin” to refer to sin offering without our being “Bible Correctors”?
This is not a book on Systematic Theology. It is not speculative, human reasoning to explain Biblical subjects. You
do know what “theology” is, don’t you, Herb?
With this brief reference, Evans goes wild in his speculation. Now in his mind Bullinger becomes my theologian,
whom I “parrot” and to whom I run, etc.
Why is Herb so anxious to tie me to theologians? Could it be to distract our attention away from the fact that Herb
Evans himself is greatly influenced by theologians, as I have charged him, in spite of his boast to being faithful in adhering
to the KJB? The truth of the matter is the very theory of the KJO movement is theology, as well as the doctrine of
substitutionary atonement. We witness Evans’ agitation whenever we demand Scripture for his doctrine.
Early in this exchange, Evans charged: “But it is Frost that forces the word as a sin offering, when sin is meant, as a
matter of his personal choice or the choice of what some dead man said.” He has now conceded that I was right, that “sin”
is used for “sin offering,” as we found it first used in the Old Testament. Then he added, “Herb Evans sticks with what the
English Bible says (KJB).” I replied, “We shall see.” Herb’s retort was, “Yeah! Sure!”
FROST Continued: O.K., let’s see who relies on theologians.
We stated earlier, “When we refer to linguists, lexicons and dictionaries, it is to show that we have a basis upon
which we understand the language of Scripture. They do not constitute any authority, in spite of Evans’ histrionics. He
himself is not averse to referring to what others say in an effort to support his position.”
EVANS: I agreed that “sin” and “sin offering” are interchangeable in the O.T. Hebrew, but I did not concede
it. WHEW! Frost is certainly long winded when it comes to trivia. I have read a lot of things, and I have found
fault with a lot of what I have read. Nevertheless, referencing someone’s works is not endorsing them, for I have
referenced corrupt works as well as moderately corrupt ones. Still, none of these are my final authority in the end
of it. The KJB is my final authority, and I will continue to reference all kinds of works to vindicate the KJB and to
gainsay its enemies. Hier stehe Ich! (Here I stand!) – Martin Luther.
FROST: He obviously has read books by secular authors. He has referred us to Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman,
Laurance Vance, and other authors. When I reference a source, Herb reacts not to the quotation cited as much as to the
author in an effort to silence the message by destroying the messenger!
This provokes my questioning his references: Herb, to do accept and endorse all that Riplinger, Ruckman, and
Vance—and especially Ruckman—believe and present in their writings? Shall I do with your sources quoted as you have
with mine?
EVANS: I did not try to prove things by any of the sources that I referenced. I merely gave you tips to where
you can narrow your ignorance.
►GF FROST: Your argument begs the question. ►GF
Herb Evans: Your lack of argument in regard to the atonement is second only to your “off topic” substitutions of it
with the Bible issue, Hebrew/Greek gymnastics, corrupt lexicons and Bibles, theologians, and English lessons.
FROST: I am going to leave your quibble of “lack of argument” with the reader.
EVANS: That is fine. So let it be!
FROST: The present exchange concerning substitutionary atonement is sufficient to answer your quibble. As for
“off topic,” what topic did we agree to discuss, and what subjects are off limits? Do we have a proposition? Did we decide
what the format of this discussion would be? Besides, who introduced all of these “off topics”? Your arrogance is
showing.
EVANS: We did not decide or agree to anything, but I did not realize that with Frost there is no limit to the
topics interpolated into this discussion. In the trading of pejoratives and charges alone and without the Bible issue,
this discussion could have been reduced to a third.
►GF FROST: Strange that as pervasive as the concept of substitution is said to be in the Scriptures, and a doctrine
of such extreme importance, that not once is the word “substitutionary” found in the KJV! (This is true of other terms that
are used to convey the theological concept.)
Herb Evans: Do you mean terms like trinity, rapture, deity of Christ, and the impeccability of Christ and other
“unimportant doctrines” with these terms? The words vicarious and substitutionary are explanatory classifications in
regard to Jesus dying in my place and bearing my sins IN HIS BODY in my stead.
FROST: We are discussing the word “substitutionary,” that it is not found in the Bible. Your answer is a tacit
admission that it is not a Bible term. My point is made. As important it is to your theological faith, one would think it
would have been stated many times over!
EVANS: There is that word “admission” again. Unfortunately, Frost is not much for classifying doctrines. He
is even uncomfortable with one of his own Campbellite doctrines, “Baptismal Regeneration.”
FROST: The word “trinity” (trias) is not a Biblical term, but first occurs in Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol, ii.15,
PG, vi, 1026). The Catholic Dictionary (Addis and Arnold) define it as God, numerically and individually one, existing in
three persons, really distinct from each other but each one and the same God. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is
begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. The Son is begotten of the Father from eternity,
the manner of His begetting is by the intellect. Although I believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the one
Godhead, equally Deity and each called God, I do not believe in the theological “Trinity.” I do not need the term to teach
what the Bible teaches.
EVANS: I do not need the term either, but it helps, in one word, to classify the teaching, which some affirm
and some deny. Evan Frost classifies what I believe as “Penal Substitution.”
FROST: “Rapture,” though derived from passages referring to being caught up (Acts 8:39, 2 Cor. 12:2, 4, 1 Thess.
4:17, Rev. 12:5), I do not believe in the rapture as used in premillennialism.
EVANS: Here, you miss the boat, but please, let us not add another topic to the discussion.
FROST: “Deity” is the English translation of theotes (Col. 2:9, et al., along with Godhead), as rendered more
frequently in other translations. The “deity of Christ” is Scriptural and I use the expression, which probably is readily
understood in today’s society.
EVANS: Well, see, that one is not too bad! Welcome to theological classification, since that term is not found
in the Bible that you supposedly use, namely, “deity,” which is a theological word.
FROST: “Impeccability” means “having no flaws, perfect,” and is descriptive of Christ (Heb. 4:15, 1 Pet. 2:22). As
far I know, it has no theological significance attached to it. Therefore I have no problem with its use, although most
people will more readily understand the sinlessness of Christ than of His impeccability.
EVANS: Since some are of the mind that Christ could have sinned, it does have theological significance.
FROST: Since the child of God is instructed to stay within the confines of Bible language, I strive to speak as the
Bible speaks, using Bible terms to refer to Bible thoughts and things. 1 Pet. 4:11—“If any man speak, let him speak as the
oracles of God…”
EVANS: Now, if you could only refrain from parroting the extra scriptural authorities which you have been
quoting.
Herb Evans: —a Campbellite”—A lie, regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!—modus operandi
and past time, as I pointed out that Campbellite —A lie, regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!—
(Church of Christ) like to do that in their quest to prove that water baptism procures salvation. Campbellite—A lie,
regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!—doctrine (baptismal salvation) by preposition! Frost=Nonblue!
Gene Frost: For some reason, false teachers go berserk when the subject of baptism arises, even when they raise the
subject as Herb did in his first letter to me. He had written only five paragraphs (if he counts a single sentence as a
paragraph, then seven paragraphs), when he started his slurring tactic. Baptism, and those who obey the Lord’s command
in baptism, are referred to as “power in the tub,” “power in the tuber,” “power in the tubers,” a “salvation scheme,”
“baptismal salvation,” and he summarizes his disdain for baptism: ►GF
[EVANS: Well, the only reason to discuss baptism would be because of the disputed word “FOR.” I am not
against that discussion. Still, I have left our baptismal discussion intact.]
FROST: The following paragraph is mine, which Herb changes to blue type and adds his name to it:
EVANS: That would not happen if you would not run our comments together without separate designations.
EVANS: “If Gene Frost is relying on his water baptism for his salvation in any way, he is lost and going to hell.”
FROST: (This is a loaded statement, which I do not believe. I do not rely upon an act of immersion in water to save
me; I rely upon Christ to save me.) However, these statements by Herb show his utter contempt for water baptism.”
EVANS: Wrong! I have utter contempt for those who think that salvific water washes away their sin, namely,
Gene Frost! If one washes away his sin in water baptism (except symbolically), one is not saved until one is water
baptized, regardless of how Frost equivocates.
FROST: Interesting, is it not, that Evans claims that this last sentence is his—“However, these statements by Herb
show his utter contempt for water baptism.”
EVANS: That sentence is not Herb Evans’ statement; that is Gene Frost’s statement above in red. Again Frost
misrepresents and misquotes Herb Evans. Shame!
Herb Evans: My need to identify the doctrine of the man, whom I am debating, was as great as Frost’s need to
identify me as a KJO. Well, Frosty may also come against my condensed terminology regarding the trinity, the rapture,
and the deity of Christ. Also, Frost snips many of my comments or partially quotes them in order to get them to make less
sense. In light of Frost’s complaints, my lesser offenses pale in comparison to his. Tell us plainly, Frosty, if a believer can
be saved without baptism.
Gene Frost: First, let it be clear that I did not originate the idea of baptism. I do not accept what some man (or board
of men) conceived, known as baptism. It is Jesus Christ, my Lord, who appointed it and commands it. It is found in the
Scriptures, in His revelation through the Holy Spirit. When men scorn the command, they scorn Him who is the author of
it! And I stoutly resent Herb Evans’ belittling and scorn of this command from my Lord. And I can be as stout against him
as he is in rejecting divine orders, and say in return that anyone who rejects the Lord and His word rejects any hope of
salvation. (John 12:48) We represent two diverse attitudes; one respects the Lord and speaks reverently of His word; the
other scorns what he does not understand or deliberately repudiates.
Herb Evans: Herb Evans does not scorn baptism or its proper meaning and function. Herb Evans scorns the Church
of Christ-er denomination’s baptism that purports baptism to have something to do with salvation via the remission of
sins. Baptism is symbolic and not salvific.
FROST: Baptism is not either…or.)
EVANS: NOT symbolic or salvific? Then what? Metaphoric?
Gene Frost: I suppose then that Herb would say if anyone relies on water baptism in any way he is lost and going to
hell. I do not rely on the action of baptism or the water into which one is baptized as possessing any power whatsoever to
save. Salvation is from God through Christ. ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost’s “disclaimer” dodges his other comments in regard to baptism. No one said anything about the
water’s “power” except for my funny “power in the tub” comments. +
FROST: “No one said anything about the water’s power,” EXCEPT Herb Evans did when he made a joke of it.
Admittedly, he made no serious rebuttal. He just amused himself and his choir with his ridicule of baptism, which he
describes as funny.
EVANS: In my circles it is very funny.
EVANS: “Frost thinks water baptism is also needed and that the blood is not enough…”
FROST: Evans knows better, but he pretends to know what I think, viz. that baptism is also need because blood is
not enough to wash away sins. To effect remission of sins, Jesus shed His blood. (Matt. 26:28) It was Christ, not Frost,
who made baptism conditional to receive the remission of sins (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38), so that if one is to receive the
benefits of the Christ’s blood, which was shed in His death, he must be “baptized into His death,” from which he would be
raised to “walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:3-4) When Ananias told Saul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), did Ananias think: “water baptism is
also needed and that the blood is not enough”?
This is a foolish (not funny) statement that evidences no respect for truth or honesty. It is Evans, not I, who contrasts
water and blood. Christ shed His blood in death, without which there is no remission of sins. (Heb. 9:22, Matt. 26:28) It is
burial in water with Christ, by which He remits our sins. (Rom. 6:3-7, Acts 2:38, Eph. 5:25-26.) There is no conflict in
these verses. It is Evans who creates conflict.
EVANS: There you have it. No baptism -- no remission of sins. No remission of sins – no salvation. No matter
how Frost tries to “water” it down, it ends up the same – Baptismal regeneration! If this is not a correct
characterization, when is a person regenerated, Mr. Frost? When is a person born again? That is my challenge to
you.
EVANS: “Still, these two different passages (Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38) in Frost’s argument are regarding different
situations, each having different substance, blood versus water and wine. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanseth us
from ALL sin. Certainly the water does not even help cleanse, wash, or remove any of our sins except symbolically.”
FROST: Evans says there is an exception in thinking that water does not even help cleanse, wash or remove sins, the
exception being that is it does symbolically. So water does help cleanse, wash, and remove sin symbolically. Really?
Herb, I thought you believe that water baptism could only show a cleansing and removing of sins that had already taken
place, that one is baptized because of sins removed.
(Symbolically does not negate actuality. Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection, and results actually in a
remission of sins.)
EVANS: Evans says! Evans says! Frankly, I am getting tired of Evans saying things that are not in quotes.
Water baptism does not even help cleanse, wash away, or remove sin. What water baptism does do is portray and
depict the washing away, the cleansing, and the removal of sin. Water baptism does NOT result in any of this
except in symbol of what has already been done upon a person’s salvation and new birth.
EVANS: + Frost is correct in his disclaimer that there is no power in the water. Still, everything that Frost says in
this post points to what he believes about baptism’s in regard to a “be dipped or be damned” theology. If such baptismal
efficy is not true, let Frost say once and for all that one who believes and is not baptized can still be saved if he dies prior
to water baptism.
FROST: (I have refrained from using SIC every place needed; still, do you mean “efficacy”?)
[EVANS: Note: Yes, Frost is correct about my spelling mistake. Still, I have used efficacy correctly elsewhere].
But why did Frost stop using SICS? He must have counted the ones that I used versus what he used.
FROST: Of course, there is efficacy in everything that God ordains: “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my
mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing
whereto I sent it.” (Isa. 55:11)
EVANS: I referred to baptismal efficacy, but rather than answer my question as to whether one who believes
and is not baptized can be saved prior to (or without) baptism, Frost picks on my spelling and grammar errors.
►GF FROST: To obtain salvation that comes through Christ, I must obey Him in His every command to which I am
amenable. Baptism is a command from Christ: Mark 16:15-16, Acts 10:47-48. When one of faith is baptized, he relies on
Christ to remit his sins. (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16.) All who gladly receive His word will be baptized. (Acts 2:41) ►GF
Herb Evans: One thing thou lackest! So you better start giving up family and houses and land for eternal life, if you
want to obey ALL of Christ’s precept’s and commands and sell what you have and give your money to the poor ( Matt.
19:21) like the rich man was told.
FROST: Herb, are you saying that you do not, do not even want, to obey ALL of Christ’s precepts addressed to the
living of today, especially to Christians. Did you notice, Herb, that you answered your own quibble? In Matt. 19:21, Jesus
addressed a certain wealthy young ruler. Did Christ command you to sell what you have and give your money to the poor?
If so, then you most certainly do so! If you refuse, you reject Christ. “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,
hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (John 12:48)
EVANS: Yes, I want to obey Christ in everything but I don’t, but neither do you. I posed the proposition to
you not myself, since it is you that believe as you do. Everyone that forsakes houses, lands, and family shall inherit
everlasting life. Are you among that “everyone?”
EVANS: Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and
thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Cf. Luke 18:18, 23.)
Matthew 19:29 And everyone that hath forsaken houses or brethren, or sisters, or wife, or children, or lands for my
name’s sake, shall receive a hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
I would be happy to discuss, with Frost, water baptism and command passages separately in another venue; I would
rather discuss the substitutionary atonement here (you know -- the 10 percent that Frost has mentioned in this debate as
opposed to the 90% that Frost has posted off topic). No! When one within the faith is baptized, his sins have already been
remitted, or if not, he should be re-baptized after really believing.
►GF FROST: To see clearly the absurdity of Herb’s statement, replace “water baptism” in the sentence with
“obedience to a command of Christ” (in this case the command to be baptized). We then have: “If Gene Frost is relying on
obedience to a command of Christ for his salvation in any way, he is lost and going to hell.” ►GF
EVANS: The absurdity here is Frost messing with my comments. Either baptism or obedience applies!
Herb Evans: Frost editorializes Herb Evans’ comments so easily, dishonestly twisting them into something that
Herb Evans never said. Christ commands obedience to many things, none of which even helps a person to get the
remission of sins for salvation. The only obedience that is required and is salvific is to repent and to believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ to be saved. If a person believes after getting baptized, we Baptists re-baptize him.
FROST: Evans says, The only obedience that is required and is salvific is to repent and to believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ to be saved. “Only” means without anything else. What does Herb do with confession? “For with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Rom. 10:10) Is confession one of
those “if you want to” commands?—“if you want to obey ALL of Christ’s precepts and commands,” Herb Evans. Can we
throw it out along with The Hebrew and Greek texts?
EVANS: No! We can explain your mistake here, however. Obviously, Frost knows nothing about the secret
disciple. No! Confession UNTO salvation is not necessary for salvation. It is an outcome of salvation. But how in
Frost’s scheme of things does a person confess UNTO salvation without baptism?
►GF FROST: I believe that I must rely on Christ—rather than human theology—which reliance is with full faith in
Him (as slave to Master, and is displayed in obedience) in conjunction with all the Lord demands as conditional to
salvation, in no way outside of Christ. ►GF
Herb Evans: See! Frost believes that there are other things conditional to salvation besides faith and even baptism. If
Frost believes that an outward work/act is in any way conditional to his salvation, he is still in danger of hell fire.
[EVANS: Surprise! Frost is already relying on human theology. WATER SAVES! WATER SAVES!]
►GF FROST: Thus I humble myself to be baptized into Christ, showing complete submission and obedience to His
will, in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins and eternal life that comes only in and through Him. Jesus is “the author of
eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Heb. 5:9) The antithesis Jesus stated: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth
not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (John
12:48)
[EVANS: It is hard for me to believe that Frost ever humbly did anything. Frost says the right words “in and
through Christ” but then adds other things. Still, Herb Evans was saved and then baptized. In Frost’s scheme of
things, Frost can never really know that he is saved eternally. Tomorrow, he could disobey some command and be
lost. This is no different than Catholicism. Of course, Campbellites are called Southern Catholics down there in the
South. Now, we can see why.]
Herb Evans: There he goes again. Frost thinks that one can only get into Christ through water baptism AND that
complete submission and obedience is required to everything that Christ commanded in order to escape hell fire. And we
thought that Frost was saying that water baptism was the end of it. LOL! The salvation that Frost preaches is Galatianism;
it is a faith plus works for salvation scheme that has nothing to do with salvation, and it has much in common with
Catholicism and the cults. Not even the thief on the cross gets excepted from Frost’s works for salvation scheme, even
though Christ, on His cross, contradicts Frost by allowing the thief on the cross into paradise.
“The following four Greek words, in the following passages, are indeed used in my ten examples. Still, HUPER is
used 7 times. The most interesting Greek word is ANTI or “instead of.”
1 Pet. 3:18 for (peri) sins; the just for (huper) the unjust, Rom. 4:25 for our justification (dia); Gal. 1:4 for (huper)
our sins, Gal 2:20 gave himself for (huper) me, Gal 3:13 being made a curse for (huper) us, 1 Cor 15:3 Christ died for
(huper), Matt 20:28 his life a ransom for (anti – instead of) many, 1 Tim 2:6 a ransom for (huper) all, 1 Thess 5:10 died
for (huper) us. All these "FOR’s" pertain to what Christ did for us, and Gene Frost cannot dismiss them all with word
games.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Herb wants to brush aside the seven Scriptures he presented, in which “for” is translated from the Greek
word huper. In all seven verses, it is said that Jesus suffered, gave himself, was made a curse, died, or gave his life.
Following these references to His sacrifice (death and suffering) is the preposition “for.” ►GF
EVANS: What Frost neglects is that it was God that made Jesus a curse!
Deut 21:22, 23 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou
hang him on a tree . . . (for he that is hanged is accursed of God ;) . . .
Herb Evans: Herb brushed aside nothing in these instances. Herb quoted the English "for” passages with their
underlying Greek counterparts.
FROST: Herb quotes English passages with their underlying Greek counterparts! He references the Greek? What is
this Greek text, the counterpart to the English text, which he uses? Why does he go to corrupted sources that he has
thrown out? What has he found by sifting through garbage? Remember that Evans says of all Greek texts…
EVANS: I did not say that I threw them out or was going to throw them out. I am holding on to them to
dispute with Bible Correctors like Gene Frost. Still, I did instruct others to throw them out rather than be confused
or deceived by them.
FROST ON EVANS: “All Greek lexicons parrot one another in their meanings and are corrupt in some way or
other.”
“So, yes, throw out your Greek dictionary and buy a 10 cent English paper back that tells you what love means.
Besides, the Hebrew and Greek (sic) is far more archaic than the English and much less clear, so throw ’em out.”
“They are not all entirely corrupt, but why sift through garbage in the hope of finding a silver coin?”
FROST: Does he expect to us respond to Evans’ “forcing his views into the underlying languages when we can no
longer tolerate such hype?”
EVANS: It is Frost that brushes aside the word “anti” and also the Father making Jesus a “CURSE FOR US.” If not
God the Father – whom? Frost has added nothing here by running to the Greek. Nevertheless, Frost can brush aside the
following other renderings for HUPER, PERI, DIA, and EIS.
[EVANS: Frost expects Evans to lie down when Frost quotes the Greek to Herb’s disadvantage.]
Herb Evans and the Prepositions
FROST: Prepositions have a function and, as is true with other words, may be misused. Misuse is almost a certainty
when one arbitrarily defines a particular preposition in the English Bible text according to any of a variety of meanings
the word may convey in the English, while ignoring the source from which it is translated. It is in this respect that we
encounter our difficulty with Herb Evans because he has absolutely no respect for the languages underlying the English
translations. He says to take the Hebrew and Greek, the Lexicons, and Grammars and “throw ’em out!” He refers to them
as “corrupt,” “garbage”!
“While adverbs qualify the action, motion, or state of verbs as to manner, place, time, and extent, prepositions do
also; but, in addition to this, they mark the direction and relative position of the action, motion, or state expressed by the
verb. Prepositions then attend upon verbs to help them express more specifically their relation to substantives. … But it is
true that as cases limit and define the relations of verbs to substantives, so also prepositions help to express more exactly
and effectively the very distinctions for which cases were created.” (H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar
of the Greek New Testament, page 97.)
This note is necessary in order for the reader to know that prepositions are not pawns for the exegete to be used
indiscriminately, to mean whatever he may wish them to be. They are used in conjunction with nouns, and the particular
case of the noun. To come to an understanding of a sentence where the preposition is used, the following quotation is of
value:
“In estimating the meaning of a prepositional phrase (i.e. a preposition followed by a noun) the proper course to
adopt is first consider the force of the case of the noun and then to add to this the root meaning of the preposition. The
combination of the two ideas will generally explain the meaning of the phrase.” (H.P.V. Nunn, The Elements of New
Testament Greek, p. 123.)
Thus, the meaning of a preposition in a given sentence cannot be arbitrarily chosen from a variety of connotations
which are found in various contexts. This we find to be Herb Evans’ method of exegesis, or more properly eisegesis (i.e.
instead of deriving the meaning from the word in context, a meaning of his making is put into the word).
EVANS: From the get go, Frost has been arbitrarily and selectively defining the prepositions. I merely
reminded Frost that he avoided some definitions which we will see in the following lists. Frost will ignore them.
HUPER versus FOR, IN ONE’S STEAD, FOR ONE’S SAKE
EVANS: G5228 huper - A primary preposition; “over”, that is, (with the genitive case) of place, above, beyond,
across, or causal, for the sake of, instead, regarding; with the accusative case superior to, more than. In compounds it
retains many of the listed applications: - (+ exceeding abundantly) above, in (on) behalf of, beyond, by, + very chiefest,
concerning, exceeding (above, -ly), for, + very highly, more (than), of, over, on the part of, for sake of, in stead, than, to (ward), very. In compounds it retains many of the above applications.
FROST: Huper has the root meaning of over, and is found in two noun cases: the accusative and the genitive.
With the Accusative case: it signifies above, beyond.
With the Gentive case: on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning.
Note that Evans does not reference the source of his definitions, nor does he identify the Greek text for the Scriptures
he cites, in which he finds the preposition huper. Herb, tell us what Greek text you reference.
EVANS: Well, most folks know that an E-Sword on line Bible is available with the Greek and Hebrew words
next to the English. Also the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance gives the same. If Frost would be so kind as to tell
us the proper Greek text to use and why, we might try to oblige him. Were they who were baptized FOR the dead
trying to obtain the dead or to get the dead? Or were they baptized in the stead/place of the dead?
1 Cor 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for [HUPER] the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why
are they then baptized for HUPER the dead?
HUPER FOR
EVANS: Another Greek word that Frost likes to use to disprove the substitutionary atonement is “HUPER,” which
underlies FOR, IN ONE’S STEAD, and FOR ONE’S SAKE. Unfortunately, it too is fraught with a usage that Frost does
not like, i.e., someone’s stead or sake, one thing in place or instead of another.
John 13:37 Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for [HUPER] thy sake
1 Cor 1:13 . . . was Paul crucified for [HUPER] you or were ye baptized in [EIS] the name of Paul?
1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you. . . . how that Christ died for [HUPER] our sins . . .
2 Cor 12:10 . . . I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches . . . for [HUPER] Christ's sake. . .
2 Cor 5:20, 21 . . . we are ambassadors for [HUPER] Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in
Christ's stead [HUPER], be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for [HUPER] us, who knew no sin;
Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for [HUPER] our sins . . .
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for [HUPER] us:
Php 1:4 Always in every prayer of mine for [HUPER] you all . . .
Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for [HUPER] you . . . afflictions of Christ in my flesh for [HUPER] his
body's sake which is the church:
Phm 1:13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead [HUPER] he might have ministered. . .
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy place made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for [HUPER] us:
Heb 10:12 . . . he had offered one sacrifice for [HUPER] sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
1 Pet 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for [HUPER] us in the flesh . . .
3 John 1:7 Because that for [HUPER] his name's sake they went forth . . .
HUPER in Our Behalf versus In Stead
FROST: The preposition huper is found 160 times in the N.T. (134 times with the genitive case), of which Evans
cites 15 times, and of these only two are translated “in stead,” and neither case refers to a substitutionary atonement!
The first is in Philemon where the apostle Paul sends Onesimus, a runaway slave, back to his master, Philemon, and
commends his service as a brother.
“I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: which in time past was to thee
unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own
bowels: whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the
gospel…” (Phile. 1:10-13)
Paul would like to have retained Onesimus so that he could have ministered to him, even as Paul knew Philemon
would if he were there. He therefore wrote: “whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have
ministered unto me.” In other words, Onesimus could have taken the place of Philemon, but not without Philemon’s
consent. And so he was returned to his master. The problem with the argument is the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus took my
place to suffer in my stead. It is hardly parallel in that we were not on a cross, nor were we sentenced to suffer on a cross,
so that Jesus could take our place. It is a moot question because no where does it say that Jesus ever entertained such an
idea. If there is such a passage, it would serve their cause better than supposing what could have been. Possibility does not
take the place of actuality.
The second reference is 2 Cor. 5:20, where the apostles are given the ministry of reconciliation. They appeal to men,
in the place of Christ (in whom believers are reconciled), “be ye reconciled to God.” Advocates of substitutionary
atonement are looking for passages that say that Christ takes the place of sinners to suffer for their sins. 2 Cor. 5:20 has
apostles in the place of Jesus—“we pray you in Christ's stead”—appealing to the lost—“be ye reconciled to God.”
EVANS: Despite his equivocation, the fact that Frost admits that HUPER could mean “in the stead”
completely destroys Frost’s denial of “For,” with HUPER underlying it, as meaning in the stead or in the place of
something. He Avoids and ignores my list of HUPERS like a plague (above in blue).
FROST Continued: 2 Corinthians 5:20-21
Huper, however, is found in verse 21 of 2 Cor. 5, where it is not translated in stead, but rather “made to be.” The
English rendering is questionable and is challenged with reasonable argumentation. In the first place, a literal meaning
is contradictory and inconsistent. Some would soften the conclusion that God literally made Jesus to be “sin,” that God
Himself became the source of Jesus’ sin—not Satan, but God made Him to be sin! And they do not believe that this
Scripture means He was made a sin offering by which we might be saved, but sin itself. Some, who would shy away from
the reality of God making Jesus sin, would say that Jesus was made sin only metaphorically, in a figure of speech, not
reality. But not Evans; he says that all—every sin ever committed or shall be committed—became Jesus’ own sins. For
this reason, God vented the full force of His wrath and vengeance against the consummate sinner of world, as Jesus
suffered the ultimate rejection of a Sovereign God. In taking upon Himself every sin of mankind, the guilt and
remembrance of every sin is forever removed. Is this not true, Herb? Let’s not beat around the bush; tell us: when anyone
commits a sin today does it becomes Jesus’ even as it is committed? Is it not true that God experiences no wrath; it has
already been assuaged by Jesus upon the cross? Now, tell us, can anyone be lost for his sins today?
Was His propitiation for all, or was it limited to a set number from eternity? (Tell us again that you are not a
Calvinist.) The reader understands that I do not believe the substitutionary atonement that Herb Evans espouses. The
second interpretation, which we have already submitted in this exchange, is that “sin,” when used in reference to
forgiveness or pardon, refers to “sin offering.” The first complaint from Evans is that hamartia, the Greek word for “sin,”
is never so translated. We have shown otherwise, that there is consistency in Hebrew, Greek, and English.
Herb has now admitted that the Hebrew can refer to sin or to a sin-offering, in proper contexts. It is also found in the
Greek translation of the Hebrew. Comments on 2 Cor. 5:21 by Adam Clarke is enlightening, and explains why KJOadvocates want only to deal in English and to ignore texts in their original languages. Herb, answer the argumentation in
the following, and not get hung-up on who wrote it. (This reflects what I was preparing, when I came upon Thayer’s
statement, and concluded that there is no need to duplicate the effort.) Look at the Scriptures cited and conclusions drawn.
“The word hamartia occurs here twice: …
“In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the chattaah and chattath of the
Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint
translate the Hebrew word by hamartia in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where sin-offering is
meant; and our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own
method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view
of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to
Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was with imputed sin; and some
have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinner of
mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him. And reckoned as his own.
One of these writers translates the passage thus: Deus Christum pro maxime justi, God accounted Christ the greatest
of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous, Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ
suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins; (the punishment due to them,); explained by making his soul—his life, an
offering for sin; and healing us by his stripes.
“But that it may be plainly seen that sin-offering, not sin, is the meaning of the word in this verse, I shall set down the
places from the Septuagint where the word occurs; and where it answers to the Hebrew words already quoted; and where
our translators have rendered correctly what they render here incorrectly.
“In Exodus, chap. xxix. 14, 36; Leviticus, chap. iv. 3, 8, 20, 21, 25, 25, and 29 twice, 32, 33, and 34; chap. v. 6, 7, 8,
9 twice, 11 twice, 12; chap. vi.17, 25 twice, 30; chap.vii. 7, 37; chap. viii.2, 14 twice; chap. ix.2, 3 7, 8, 10, 15, 22; chap.
x.16, 17, 19 twice; chap. 12: 6, 8; chap. xiv. 13 twice, 19, 22, 32; chap. xv. 15, 30; chap. xvi, 3, 5, 6, 11 twice, 15, 25, 27
twice; chap. xxiii.19: Numbers, chap. vi. 11, 14, 16; chap. vii. 16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52, 58, 70, 76, 82, 87; chap viii.8, 12;
chap. xv.24, 25, 27; chap. xviii.9; chap.xxviii.15, 22; chap. xxix.5, 11, 16, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38.
“Besides the above places, it occurs in the same signification, and is properly translated in our version, in the
following places:-“2 Chronicles, chap. xxix,21, 23, 24: Ezra, chap. vi.17; chap. viii.35; Nehemiah, chap. x.33; Job, chap. 1.5; Ezekiel,
chap. xliii.19, 22, 25; chap. xliv.27, 29; chap. xiv.17, 19, 22, 23, 25. In all, one hundred and eight places, which, in course
of my own reading in the Septuagint, I have marked.” — Clarke’s Commentary.
EVANS: What we have here is Frost’s verbose attempt to cloud my naked scripture examples of “HUPER”
with his verbose propaganda, thinking that saying the same things that he has already said over and over will gain
his view. He cannot resist using corrupt authorities or questioning the English with the Septuagint and Clarke’s
Commentary to which I am not interested one whit. Strong’s gave the definition of how HUPER as used in the
N.T. That should be enough. All this bulloney will not eliminate the words “stead” and “instead” as being proper
definitions of the Greek words at issue. Why does Frost not address my HUPER list above in blue? LOL!
PERI - Concerning, Pertaining, Touching, For
FROST: Why Evans discusses the preposition peri, I have no idea. It in no way supports his presumptions. It is not
translated instead or as a substitute. All of the references are in favor of what I believe and teach. (Of course, this has
been true of every Scripture he cites. I reject only the erroneous spin he puts on a Scripture.)
EVANS: Earlier in this post, Frost used “PERI” and I did not want to be an orphan. It underlies “FOR” and
is worthy of examination. Frost uses it later as a sacrifice FOR sin but that hardly can be interpreted to get sin.
EVANS: From the base of G4008; properly through (all over), that is, around; figuratively with respect to; used in
various applications, of place, cause or time (with the genitive case denoting the subject or occasion or superlative point;
with the accusative case the locality, circuit, matter, circumstance or general period): - (there-) about, above, against, at,
on behalf of, X and his company, which concern, (as) concerning, for, X how it will go with, ([there-, where-]) of, on,
over, pertaining (to), for sake, X (e-) state, (as) touching, [where-] by (in), with. In compounds it retains substantially the
same meaning of circuit (around), excess (beyond), or completeness (through).
FROST: The preposition peri is used 331 times in the New Testament, of which Evans cites 13, only one of which is
a factor in our discussion, which we will examine along with others he does not list.
Peri has the root meaning of around, and is found in two noun cases: the accusative and the genitive.
With the Accusative case: it signifies about, around, of place or time.
With the Gentive case: about, concerning, on account of
EVANS: Well, I will leave the lengthening of this discussion to Frost. I am not doing a treatise on this. I am
merely reminding Frost how these prepositions are used in addition to what he has already posted. Frost addresses
the number of times that I referenced “PERI” but did not address those thirteen instances.
EVANS’ List PERI
Mark 1:44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer
for [PERI] thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for [EIS] a testimony unto them.
John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through [PERI] him might believe.
Act 1:3 . . . speaking of the things pertaining [PERI] to the kingdom of God . . .
Act 21:25 As touching [PERI] the Gentiles which believe, we have written. . .
Act 24:24 . . . he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning [PERI] the faith in [EIS] Christ.
Act 25:16 . . . he which is accused . . . have licence to answer . . . concerning [PERI] the crime laid against him.
Act 28:30 And Paul received all that came in unto [PERI] him . . .
Rom 1:3 Concerning [PERI] his Son Jesus Christ our Lord . . .
Rom 8:3 . . . sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for [PERI] sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
2Co 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches . . . for [PERI] Christ's sake:
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for [PERI] our sins . . . also for [PERI] the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 Herein is love . . . that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for [PERI] our sins.
1 John 5:16 I do not say that he should pray for [PERI] it . . .
The word PERI underlies the words FOR, UNTO, PERTAINING, AS TOUCHING, and CONCERNING, much like
the word EIS also does some of them.
FROST: The reader will note that Herb Evans admits that in the examples he cites, the Greek word peri is used with
nouns in the genitive case and follow closely the root meaning of the preposition. There is nothing that suggests a
supposed substitutionary atonement of Jesus. When used in a context in which there is a release from, or that takes away,
or destroys sin (hamartia), peri is used before hamartias (sin).
These phrase, peri hamartias (Greek terms), are translated into English as sin offering. (Rom. 8:3) They are used to
translate the Hebrew word chatta’th, which in English is sin offering. (Lev. 7:37 [27])
Linguists, who are far more knowledgeable about Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek than I or Herb Evans, are the sources
from whom I received the information I present here. The reader will find them informative. Herb will most likely find
them objects of scorn, which is a part of our problem in our exchange or, for that matter, in any other venue.
EVANS: It becomes readily apparent that all Frost is interested in doing is either ignoring or gainsaying my
list on PERI. Still Frost cannot get rid of Christ being the propitiation FOR our sins and FOR the sins of the whole
world. As for Frost’s extra – scriptural authorities, they do not interest us any more now than they did before.
Henry Thayer:
FROST: “peri is used of the design or purpose for removing something or taking it away: peri hamartias, to destroy
sin, Ro. viii.3; didonai heauton peri ton hamartion, to expiate, atone for, sins, Gal. i.4 …; also to offer sacrifices, and
simply sacrifices, peri hamartion, Heb v.3 …; x.18, 26; peri hamartion epathe [apethanen], 1 Pet. iii.18; peri hamartias
sc. thusiai, sacrifices for sin, expiatory sacrifices, Heb. x.6 (fr. Ps. xxxix. (xl.) 7; cf. Num. viii.8; see hamartia, 3; ta peri
tes ham. Lev. vi.25; to peri t. ha. Lev. xiv.19); hilasmos peri t. hamartion, 1 Jn. ii.2, iv. 10.” (Joseph Henry Thayer,
Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T.)
FROST?THAYER Continued: In reviewing what Thayer says, note the Scriptures he cites, which I now list below.
Look at the Scriptures as you read his comments about the source language from which the Scriptures are translated.
Rom. 8:3—“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for [peri] sin, condemned sin in the flesh…”
Gal. 1:4—“Who gave himself for [peri] our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world…”
Heb. 5:3—(vs. 1) “For every high priest” … “ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for [peri] sins.”
Heb. 10:18—“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for [peri] sin.”
Heb. 10:26—“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more
sacrifice for [peri] sins…”
1 Pet. 3:18—“For Christ also hath once suffered for [peri] sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to
God…”
Heb. 10:6—“In burnt offerings and sacrifices for [peri] sin thou hast had no pleasure.”
Num. 8:8—“Then let them take a young bullock with his meat offering, even fine flour mingled with oil, and another
young bullock shalt thou take for a sin offering.”
Lev. 6:25—“This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be
killed before the Lord: it is most holy.”
Lev. 14:19—“And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from
his uncleanness…”
1 John 2:2—“And he is the propitiation for [peri] our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [peri] the sins of the
whole world.”
1 John 4:10—“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for
[peri] our sins.”
Edward Robinson:
FROST: “So in the phrase peri tes hamartias, peri hamartion, on account of sin, for sin, i.e. for doing away or
expiating sin; Rom. 8, 3 ton huion pempsas … peri hamartias.¨1 Pet. 3, 18 Chr. Hapaz peri hamartion epathe. Also
prosphora n. thusia peri ham. Heb. 10, 18. 26; aima 13, 11; hilasmos peri ham. 1 John 1, 2. 4, 10. Ellipt. Peri hamartias
for thusia peri ham. Heb. 10, 6. 8, comp. v. 26, quoted from Ps. 40, 6 where Sept. for chatta’t; comp. Lev. 5, 8. 9, 10. 2
Chr. 29, 24.”
Note: compare the references Thayer cites with the references by Robinson.
A.T. Robertson:
“So in Ro. 8:3, peri hamartias, the idea is that we may be freed from sin, from around sin.” (A.T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek N.T.)
Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker:
Peri “when used w. amartia the word ‘for’ has the sense to take away, to atone for peri hamartias (Num. 8:8) Ro 8:3
… Ch. Tou dontos heauton peri hamartion hemon Gal. 1:4 v.1 (for huper). Peri hamartion apethanen 1 Pt 3:18. Cf. Hb
5;3c. prosphora peri hamartias 10:18. Thusia peri amartion vs. 26. Eis pheretai to aima peri hamartias 13:11. To peri tes
hamartias (i.e. prospheromevov) the sin offering (Lev. 6:23; 14:19) Hb 10:6, 8 (both Ps 39:7).” (Wm. Arndt, F.W.
Gingrich, Frederick Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T.)
Exegetical Dictionary of the N.T.:
FROST: “In the phrase peri hamartias (Rom. 8:3), ‘because of sin,’ peri takes on the sense “for the
elimination/atonement of (sin).” 1 Pet. 3:18: Christos hapax peri hamartion epathen (v.1. apethanen), ‘Christ suffered for
[the atonement of] sins once for all’; Heb. 10:18 prosphora peri hamartias, ‘sin offering’; so also 10:6, 8; 13:11: peri
hamartias (prosphora to be supplied); 5:3: peri hamartion, ‘sin offering’; 10:26: ouketi peri hamartion apoleipetai thusia,
‘there no longer remains a sacrifices for sins.” (Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary.)
Of particular interest in our study of the phrase peri hamartia in Rom. 8:3:
Rom. 8:3, where the text in the JKB is “sin,”—“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”—the same translators
give an alternative translation in the margin,--“Or, “by a sacrifice for sins”—showing that in their minds the text could be
translated either way. To understand the significance of marginal references in the KJB, we need to know the rationale of
the translators:
“Reasons moving us to set diversity of senses in the margin,where there is great probability for each.”
Concerning the presence of “words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness,” they say:
“Now in such a case, does not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or
dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to
determine of such things as the Spirit of God has left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less
than presumption.
FROST/Exegetical Dictionary Continued: Therefore as S. Augustine says, that variety of Translation is profitable
for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not
so clear, must need do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” [The text is in modern spelling.]
The translators contrast their use of marginal translation to the conceit of the Roman Church, which forbade any
variety of meaning, stating:
“They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated by
one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second
bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it
were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God
be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be,
that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proves, not as much as he claims, they grant and embrace.”
(It seems to this writer that there are those in religious world who desire to stifle open debate and investigation.)
In the margin of Romans 8:3—“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”—is an alternative translation: “Or, by a
sacrifice for sin.”
The alternate, recommended by the translators of the KJV, reads: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and by a sacrifice for sin, condemned sin in the
flesh”
If an argument could be made for an inspired text of the KJV, as we have for the revelation of the original texts (2
Pet. 2:24, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 2:7-13, Eph. 3:3-5), there might some cause for the dogmatic claims of its advocates. Since
even those who are responsible for the production of the KJB advocated a continued study and consequent refinement of
what they produced, I appeal to the reasoning of the reader, and reject the boisterous and belligerent dogmatism of the
KJBO advocates.
EVANS: No thanks to Frost’s smokescreen of extra scriptural authorities. Our PERI LIST is sufficient for us.
FROST: Evans refers to the Greek preposition dia in 10 references, out of 640 times it is used in the KJB, even
though does not support his claim for a substitutionary death of Jesus. I do not know why he even refers to the
preposition, unless it is to establish that besides the translation of “for,” dia may also convey connotations of “for sake of”
and “because of,” giving elasticity to his illegitimate use of “for” in the KJB. Still, there is no Scripture that says that Jesus
was a substitutionary atonement.
EVANS: I want Frost to get a complete picture of the Greek prepositions and their underlying usage in the
English. Frost scolded me for not giving the complete picture, so I do not want him to gripe again.
DIA – For, By, Through,
EVANS: A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or
occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that),
briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though,
through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
Mark 2:4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for [DIA] the press, they uncovered the roof . . .
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through [DIA] faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness
for [DIA] the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God . . .
Rom 4:24, 25 But for [DIA] us also, to whom it shall be imputed . . . Who was delivered for [DIA] OUR offences,
and was raised again for [DIA] our justification.
Rom 5:10, 11 . . . we were reconciled to God by [DIA] the death of his Son. . . And not only so, but we also joy in
God through [DIA] our Lord Jesus Christ, by [DIA] whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by [DIA] the offence of one judgment came upon [EIS] all men to [EIS] condemnation; even
so by [DIA] the righteousness of one the free gift came upon [EIS] all men unto [EIS] justification of life.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through [DIA] the flesh . . .
1Co 9:23 And this I do for [DIA] the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
The word DIA underlies FOR, BY, THROUGH, and is used in the sense of “because of” in Mark 2:4 by the word
FOR the press and FOR the remission of sins and FOR our offenses.
Gene Frost: Herb assumed in his first response, “He Took My Place,” that Jesus possessed our sins in His own body
on the cross. In the theology of substitutionary atonement, Jesus suffered the penalty due every sin, ever committed (past,
present, and future). It is assumed that “for” means in our stead, taking our place. Now he admits that “for” in these
verses is translated from four different terms. ►GF
Herb Evans: That is not hard to admit that HUPER and PERI are all translated “FOR,” as well as the Greek word
“EIS.” My point is that you do not build a doctrine on stand alone prepositions in any language like the Church of Christers do. The word “EIS” in Acts 2:38, is not “to get” but rather “for,” “concerning" or “because of” or “in reference to” or
“against” the remission of sins if taken as terms of reference.
FROST: I know of no one who argues, I know I haven’t, that eis in Acts 2:38 is “to get” remission of sins. “To get”
is a verb; “for” (eis) is a preposition. [I know Herb hates these references to English grammar, but how else is he going to
learn? I know; he probably will ignore it. At least, the information should help the reader, so as not to get caught up in the
false religious movement Evans represents.
EVANS: OH! Well, all Frost needs to do is to stop weasel wording and put aside our fears by saying that you
don’t “GET” the remission of sins upon water baptism.
EVANS: Nevertheless, my point was that there are at least a dozen Greek words that underlie the English word “for”
in various places biblically. And these words are translated in various ways in other places, but Frost, in his blindness,
cannot see that.
FROST: I can’t believe you are making this argument, Herb. A dozen Greek words are translated “for” in English,
along with alternative words for each. For illustration, let’s say that each of the dozen Greek words have five alternative
words besides “for.” That makes the dozen words have a combined alternative-words list of 60 words. I see that; but
apparently you fail to see that this does not mean that you can select any alternative from the 60, as an alternative for any
“for” you find in the English Bible. You cannot even choose among the dozen Greek words for alternatives. The “for” in
each of the twelve translations is different in denotation or connotation from the others.
EVANS: Unfortunately, Frost cannot see how selective he has been in that respect. Moreover, Frost cannot see
how his selectiveness does not overthrow the other definitions.
►GF FROST: When he made his list of Scriptures, he made no distinctions. In fact, he does not even attempt to
define the different meanings of the four terms translated “for.” Now he lists the text references, with the Greek term for
each “for,” but moves on without defining them.
Herb Evans: We addressed the four main ones. There is no need to define them, since they all mean “FOR” in
English, and the distinctions are seen in context and by comparison in certain other places.
FROST: Here is your problem. You want all twelve words in the Greek language to mean the same thing in
English—‘no need to define them, since they all mean “FOR” in English’—with any distinctions seen in the context. Thus
you subject Greek words and Greek grammar and syntax to English grammar and syntax. Any ambiguity in the English
would be a stalemate. The solution, which might be easily settled by consulting the Greek text is ruled out. The answer
would come from the bias of the exegete. Or, as Herb Evans said, “It is the (sic) preacher’s job to be apt to teach and give
the sense of a given passage.” Does the reader see why Herb says, “So, yes, throw out your Greek dictionary … Besides,
the Hebrew and Greek is far more archaic than the English and much less clear, so throw ’em out.”
Evans and his ilk would have everyone ignorant of the history of the origin and transmission of the Scriptures and of
the languages in which they were revealed. Error thrives on ignorance. It thrives in the hands of Evans.
The reason he gives why the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures should be dumped is classic: “All Greek lexicons parrot
one another in their meanings and are corrupt in some way or other.” Imagine! Those who know and understand these
languages define words alike. They parrot definitions. Herb, do you feel the same way about English dictionaries? If they
give the same meanings, should we just throw them out?
EVANS: More HYPE rather than substance. But talking about a stalemate; that is what Frost seems to be
seeking. I am not seeking that nor am I seeking to be at the mercy of some other SINNER’s definitions.
EVANS: Still, Church of Christ-ers are obsessed with using language nuance, ambiguity, and doctrine by
prepositions to advance their views, basing their views on Hebrew and Greek prepositions.
FROST: Because we respect every word in the Scriptures, as having or contributing to the meaning of a sentence,
even so small a term as a preposition. Doctrine is not established on a single word—to suggest such is absurd. At the same
time, we do not dismiss a single word. Words, when coupled together in a sentence, affect one another to effect shades of
meaning.
EVANS: Unfortunately, Frost does not considerate the KJB as the inspired scriptures but rather ONLY a
translation. There is no level playing field there.
EVANS: Mr. Frost uses an amorphous method of rule making whose elasticity allows him to prove anything that he
wishes about anything that he wishes.
FROST: To the contrary, it is Evans that takes specific Greek words (each having its specific meaning) and dump
them all into one English word (“for,” for example), which he arbitrarily defines without regards to its original specificity.
He allows an elasticity that the inspired text does not. (2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Pet. 4:11)
EVANS: That would be the pot calling the kettle black (since Frost is not offended by it). Note the hidden
mental reservations, when Frost refers to the “inspired text,” which Frost never defines as being extant.
EVANS: Frost’s method of debate seeks to prove the opposition’s arguments wrong (without scripture refutation)
rather than prove his own arguments correct (with scripture), while using the nuances of Hebrew and Greek
FROST: Evans must assume that the Bible in Hebrew and Greek is no longer Scripture—
EVANS: Well, if Frost would tell us which inspired Bible in Hebrew and Greek, perhaps we could do better.
EVANS . . . and whatever other extra-scriptural sources he can find. According to Frost, there is only one definition
that need apply in his approach to prepositions. Such claims are far from conclusive as is demonstrated above and below:
Gene Frost: The question is, [SIC] does the “for,” as translated from these four different Greek terms, mean the
same thing? Do they reference substitutionary atonement? ►GF
Herb Evans: Sometimes, if “FOR” is found in a substitutionary context! The real question is what “FOR” means in
English when coupled with the “cross,” Jesus’ “death, “blood,” and “the remission of our sins,” since the word is
ambiguous by itself, in English and/or Greek, without any context.
FROST: That’s a mighty big “IF.” Question: Do they reference substitutionary atonement? Answer: “Sometimes, if
for is found in a substitutionary context!” If suggests doubt, contingency, maybe. Let’s remove the doubt with the next
Ques.: Is for found in a substitutionary context, and if so where is it? (We will not hold our breath.) This is an impossible
task—“substitutionary,” the word or its significance, is not found in the Scriptures!
EVANS: Well, I posted Frost my preposition lists; let him go through them again AND ADDRESS them.
►GF FROST: Did Jesus suffer and die in our stead, in our place? ►GF
Herb Evans: He sure did; that is what this is all about. Did the ram die in Isaac’s stead or place?
►GF FROST: Herb assumes so, and without defining his terms begs the question. ►GF
Herb Evans: No, Mr. Frost whether defining his terms or not, Frost presuppositions are that any of the underlying
Greek words do not ever mean “because of” or “concerning,” or “in reference to” or “against” or “UNTO” anywhere.
FROST: Where did you get this idea? It is a gross misrepresentation! Of course, there are Hebrew and Greek words
which may be translated “because of,” or “concerning,” or “in reference to,” or “against,” or “UNTO.” (I started typing in
references by each of these words, but stopped as this is unnecessary.) With a good concordance, Herb can find them. In
fact, I think he has referred to Strong’s Concordance, which he can use. His problem is, whatever English word is used to
translate a particular Greek word, Herb wants the right to supply any of all the meanings (used in any and all contexts) to
the English word “for.” This is an utterly absurd presumption.
EVANS: Frost still has not categorically admitted that those Greek words can have those other meanings.
►GF FROST: Herb believes that Jesus removed all sins ever committed to His own body; He possessed them all, they
became His. ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost frames Herb’s belief in the worst possible light and characterization and tries to speak for him.
Still, Herb does believe that Jesus took Herb’s place and that Herb’s sins and iniquity were laid on Jesus.
FROST: (Even those he may yet commit, right?)
EVANS: Absolutely! Past, present, and future sins were forgiven for salvation!
EVANS: Jesus bore my sins IN His body and On His body. When Jesus comes back, he will come back WITHOUT
SIN.
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation.
FROST: How did Jesus appear when He came the first time, with or without sin?
[EVANS: At birth – without sin; On the cross – with OUR sins.]
1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins IN his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto
righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
►GF FROST: At the cross [SIC] God looked upon Him with an intense hatred for sin. To appease His anger God
executed upon Jesus the full measure of His wrath … and Jesus died spiritually, suffered the penalty for sin: eternal death!
When Herb refers to Jesus’ death for us, he refers to the punishment Jesus suffered in our stead, in our place. He assumes
it, but the Bible does not declare it.
Herb Evans: Frost frames Herb Evans’s view in the worst possible light and tries to speak for Evans. God’s anger at
sin was indeed appeased and pacified and placated by Jesus’ “PROPITIATION” FOR Herb’s sin. Jesus died in Herb’s
place and bore the punishment that Herb should have bore (borne) the innocent Jesus for the guilty. If Frost likes
definitions, then the rest of the story is that the word “Propitiate” means -- To cause to become favorably inclined; to win
or gain the good will of; to APPEASE, PACIFY, or CONCILLIATE.
Gene Frost: We realize that words have varying shades of meaning in given contexts. ►GF
Herb Evans: Why did it take Frost so long to learn that? We have been trying to make Frost aware of that.
FROST: No; the question is, what has taken so long to get Evan’s attention. I covered this earlier (second level in
brown type). I repeat:
“However, the truth is: by reading synonymous terms one finds various shades of meaning, and a richness of
understanding that cannot result from reading an isolated term.
“Try it with words you encounter in daily communication. Look at a word in a dictionary and read only the first
synonym in the definition, and limit your understanding to that definition. Do so with every word. It won’t take very long
to realize how shallow your understanding of day to day conversations has become.”
EVANS: Despite Frost’s advice, I have learned how shallow Frost’s perception of scripture really is, especially
in the matter of salvation and the New Birth. I have not seen such lack of spiritual perception in all of Pittsburgh,
yea in all of Pennsylvania. My advice to Frost is to find a bucket of water and put his hand and arm into it. Then,
Frost should, as quickly as he can, pull his arm and hand out of the bucket of water and see how much he will be
missed after this discussion is over and done. So much for more wasted time and space!
►GF FROST: Therefore, we are careful to note the setting of each verse above, the context and the syntax, so as to
arrive at accurate definitions. We begin with the “for” Herb references 7 times—1 Pet. 3:18; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 1 Cor.
15:3; 1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Thess. 5:10—the preposition huper, which primarily means over, and used only figuratively in the
N.T. In each cited text, huper is used with the Genitive, “with the idea of protection, care, favor, benefit, over, for, for the
sake of, i.e. … as if bending over a person or thing, and thus warding off what might fall upon and harm it.” Huper is used
“often after verbs or words implying the suffering of evil or death for, in behalf of any one”; e.g. “our Lord Jesus Christ,
who died for us” (1 Thess. 5:10). (Edward Robinson, Greek-English Lexicon.) [Evans highlighted “Edward Robinson”]
Herb Evans: There Frost goes again, using his watered down “on behalf of,” copycatting THEOLOGIANS and their
corrupt works. See Gail Riplinger on the corrupt lexicons and dictionaries viewed in her book “Hazardous Materials.”
Was that Edward G. Robinson to whom Frost referred?
FROST: (Do you know a lexicographer named Edward G. Robinson, or are you trying to be cute?) Herb’s arrogance
is showing again. He calls a lexicographer in his study of Biblical languages a “theologian” and his work “corrupt.” His
flippant question shows his disdain and ridicule for someone he does not know, except that he shows some things which
Evans does not want to believe. I wonder why Evans recommends Riplinger, Ruckman, and Vance, other than that he
agrees with them. Is this the only criterion that allows acceptance of “other imperfect, uninspired, fallible, extra scriptural
sources”? Are their writings also “corrupt,” or does he believe all that they have written? If they are subject to the same
criticism as Robinson and others, how can he accept them and reject the others?
EVANS: Well, an objective reader of Riplinger, Ruckman, and Vance would weigh what they say and not
believe them word for word. Actually, I have my differences with Dr. Ruckman and Vance out there publically.
Said differences are minor compared with my differences with Frost. Edward G. Robinson smoked a cigar a lot.
Gene Frost: Concurring with the above understanding of the preposition “for” above are Lexicons by William F.
Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich; Joseph Henry Thayer; Spiros Zodhiates; et al.
As for the one reference to the Greek word anti, we have already commented upon it, and will again later when we
come to Herb’s reference to it, in particular.
Herb Evans: Spiro Zodiates? You have to be kidding! A Greek speaking friend of mine rejected Spiro Zodiates’
insistence on interpreting Greek words from their roots to get the renderings that he wanted. You can do that with the
English as well and come out with bogus meanings.
FROST: A friend of Evans rejects a lexicographer! As he says, we need to throw away all of our lexicons,
dictionaries, Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, and just listen to Herb Evans and his friends. If we have a problem, need an
explanation, just ask him, our teacher.
What is sad is that there just might be some people gullible enough to follow this man!
EVANS: What is sad here is that you did not read what I said. I said a “Greek speaking” (fluent) friend. And
the reason for his rejection was in Spiro’s insistence on interpreting Greek words from their root meanings.
Gene Frost: He states that the flexibility of FOR can be used with baptism. One can be baptized “in reference to the
remission of sins,” or “in place of the remission of sins,” or because of the remission of sins,” or “even in behalf of the
remission of sins,” “but never, he says, ‘to get the remission of sins.’” Here he betrays his ignorance or his dishonesty, or
both!
[Herb Evans: Yes, and Herb Evans still insists on “FOR” (EIS) flexibility (as with other Greek prepositions), while
Frost denies it. When the leper was to give an offering “FOR” his cleansing, was that to get the leper cleansed or because
the leper was cleansed?
EVANS: All Frost had to do was to read all of Mark 1:42 – 44 to find out that the man was already free from
leprosy and ALREADY CLEANSED before the man was instructed to go to the priest to offer FOR thy cleansing.
Now, we suppose that Frost thinks that somehow the man’ leprosy would come back and the cleansing undone if he
would not have followed through with the testimony.
Mark 1:42 - 44 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was
cleansed. . . . And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and
offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Luke 5:12 - 14 And it came to pass . . .behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and
besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand, and touched him,
saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. And he charged him . . . go, and
shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Leprosy and Cleansing
FROST: If Herb had done his homework to know about the cleansing of leprosy under the law, he would not have
made this argument. The law is given in Leviticus, chapter 14. Verse 2: “This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his
cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest,” who outside of the camp examines the leper and if he appears healed,
the cleansing process begins. The priest shall “command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean,
and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop” (vs. 4) (Note that the leper is not yet cleansed. He “is to be cleansed.”) The first
of the birds is killed over running water and the blood collected, in which the living bird, with the cedar wood, and scarlet,
and hyssop, are dipped. (Vss. 5-6) The priest “shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times,
and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
Then “he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he
may be clean,” and remain out of his tent for seven days (vs. 8). On the seventh day, he must shave off all his hair,
including beard and eyebrows, and wash himself and his clothes. (Vs. 9) On the eighth he must take two male lambs and a
ewe lamb, plus flour and oil for a meat offering.
Then “the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the
Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation” (vs. 11), where he offers a trespass offering and a wave offering
(vs. 12), followed with the sin offering and burnt offering (vs, 13). He would then take blood of the trespass offering and
“put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great
toe of his right foot,” vs. 14. Following this, he would pour oil into the palm of his left hand, and with his right finger
sprinkle the oil seven times before the Lord (vs. 15-16); and the rest of the oil the priest “put upon the tip of the right ear
of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood
of the trespass offering.” (17) What oil was left in the hand was poured “upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and
the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord” (vs. 18). Concluding the cleansing of the leper, the priest is
instructed to “offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and
afterward he shall kill the burnt offering: and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meat offering upon the altar:
and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean.” (Vss. 19-20)
Now, Herb Evans, tell us: When the leper gave offerings “FOR” his cleansing, was that to get the leper cleansed or
because the leper was already cleansed? (Lev. 14:23; 15:13)
EVANS: Well, we did a preemptive strike above, realizing that Frost was going to gainsay my blue comments
with a long drawn out, superfluous sermonette. He did so with a treatise on leprosy from the Old Testament.
Unfortunately, like baptism, the offering for his cleansing was an official testimony of cleansing and not a means to
get rid of his leprosy or to cleanse his leprosy. Now, one did that for an official proclamation for one’s cleansing on
the same order of the proclamation of water baptism. So what is that about homework? Now Frost could try to
say that Jesus cleansing was different, but who would believe him after this boo-boo?
Jesus Cleansing Leprosy
Before Jesus, who is God manifest in the flesh, came to earth and established His new covenant and announced His
will unto all men throughout the world, forgiveness was granted according to the law of Moses. However, as God, He had
the authority to forgive sins upon whatever condition He chose. Jesus had power to forgive sins and heal diseases,
according to His will, as He pleased. (Mark 2:6) forgiving sin to those under the law, He did not ignore or violate the law.
Under the law, “according to Moses,” when a man was cleansed of leprosy there was a procedure, from first
presenting himself before a priest, followed by sacrificial offerings, and official declaration. Jesus removed the leprous
flesh instantly and completely through miraculous power, and told the person cleared to “go, and shew thyself to the
priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” (Luke 5:14) Jesus ordered
the leper to observe what Moses commanded with two results: first it resulted in the cleansing, and also it provided the
proof of His miracles would be attested by the officiating priest. The miracle would not only have its initial effect upon
the witnesses as they would be convicted by what they saw, but then as the recovered leper underwent the cleansing
process which resulted in the priest pronouncing the leper cleansed, probably unaware that his testimony certified a
miracle of Jesus, would produce documented proof (not knowing of the healing) that vindicated Jesus before the very
Jewish leaders who opposed Him.
EVANS: Well, here Frost waters down the cleansing by Jesus; Let us refresh Frost’s memory! The results
were that Jesus already BOTH healed the leper and ALSO cleansed him. Therefore, the offering was neither to
heal nor to cleanse the leper, except ceremoniously. This is not unlike the testimony of washing away one’s sins in
ceremonial or symbolic baptism after on already had his sins remitted and washed away.
Mark 1:42 - 44 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was
cleansed. And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away; And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to
any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them.
EVANS: Still, I was referring to both the flexibility of the Greek prepositions as well as the English preposition
“FOR.” Frost is in great denial!]
FROST: No one denies that Greek prepositions cover a wide range of meaning, and within a term variations
according to the voice of the nouns to which they are connected. What I do deny is the flexibility that Herb assumes as he
references an English translation shared by several Greek words, and then arbitrarily chooses the English definition from
the differing definitions of the Greek terms. It is this absurd conclusion, “Throw away your Greek lexicons,” to assume
the one may choose from the different connotations of an English word and assign it to the English regardless of the
Greek word which it represents.
EVANS: My advice to anyone is to throw away anything that is relied upon more than the English Bible. If
one can’t handle such things without trying to correct the KJB, then be my guest. Nevertheless, Frost should
indeed throw them away, since he is addicted to them. Scriptures THROUGHLY FURNISH the man of God.
EVANS: “This was hardly the case of my ten examples. In this case, I was referring to the Greek word “EIS,” which
Campbellites push as meaning “in order to get” the remission of sins, in Acts 2:28, which has nothing to do with the
above ten examples, which are dealing with the substitutionary atonement. I betrayed nothing except what is in Frost’s
confused mind.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: —A lie, regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!—
Gene Frost: “For” (eis) “has nothing to do with the above ten examples,” you say? Then why did you tie them
together in your initial article? Immediately after listing the ten examples, with no distinctions made of the four different
base definitions involved, in the very next sentence you refer to baptism. You state that I (we presume you mean me)
define “the word ‘FOR’ as a watered down ‘on behalf of,’ something you will never catch a [SIC] (you refer to someone
else) saying in regard to being baptized ‘on the behalf’ of the remission of sins.” ►GF
FROST: SIC, sick! You don’t get it, do you, Herb? Try putting in the parentheses the name of the “someone else” to
whom you referred.
EVANS: Mr. Frost, You are getting to much sun!
Herb Evans: Again, why do black cows eat green grass, give white milk, and exude brown dung?
FROST: Because God created it so. Now I have a question, Why does Herb Evans act so juvenile?
EVANS: To reach the Campebellite juveniles!
EVANS: I prefer to take “EIS” separately, if given a chance, due to its 1500 plus occurrences (see below). Can Frost
tolerate the term “FOR A TESTIMONY,” “CONCERNING,” or “in the stead,” regarding the word “EIS?” Both Frost and
Robinson (whom Frost quoted) see “EIS” as “on the behalf of” (even in regard to the remission of sins), something which
I can abide if properly understood. I posted the Greek words that underlie “FOR” to point out that there were different
Greek words that were all translated “FOR” in order to make a point. Nothing else!
We challenge Frost to tell us how many times in the 1500 plus occurrences of the word “EIS” that the word means
“in order to get.” I am arguing the multiple uses of the word “EIS” of which Frost insists upon only one, but Frost can
only find but a couple of forced examples in 1500 plus occurrences to intimate “getting” or “obtaining” something.
FROST: Of course, eis is translated by a number of words, reflecting the variety of shades of meaning as it is used
with many different nouns. This does not mean, however, that eis inherently means all of these meanings from which one
may arbitrarily select a meaning of his choice (which is what Evans argues and does). This is so fundamental, I am
amazed at Evans’ naivete’ and abuse of language.
EVANS: Well, Frosty. When did Herb Evans say that the meaning of EIS was “inherently” in the word
“EIS?” It seems like I have been the only one arguing against the inherent meanings not being found in
prepositions. I thought you did not like my use of the word “arbitrary.” Is it now okay for you to use it?
EIS and PERI “FOR” the REMISSION of SINS
G1519 eis
A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or
(figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward,
before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much
that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto),
throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with
the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood . . . which is shed for [PERI] many for [EIS] the remission of sins.
Mark 1:4 John did baptize . . . and preach the baptism of repentance for [EIS] the remission of sins.
Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by [EN] the remission of their sins. . .
Luke 3:3 And he came . . . preaching the baptism of repentance for [EIS] the remission of sins . . .
Luke 24:47 . . . repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among [EIS] all nations . . .
Act 2:38 . . . be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [EIS] the remission of sins . . .
Act 10:43 . . . whosoever believeth in [EIS] him shall receive remission of sins.
EVANS Continued: Frost errs greatly in his view of how one gets the remission of sins, dwelling heavily on Acts
2:38 and the Greek preposition “EIS.” It is the blood that obtains the remission of sins and repentance and faith which
appropriates the blood and not the water. Said repentance and its resulting salvation and remission of sins and the baptism
of repentance as well as Christ’s righteousness for the remission of sins are to be preached to the world. Still, what is the
baptism of repentance but “repentance baptism” or a baptism to picture one’s repentance? Water does not obtain the
“remission of sins.”
FROST: It is the Lord who grants “remission of sins.” When? When one does as He commands. In Rom. 6, Paul
discusses baptism, which is a form of the doctrine Paul preached, viz. the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (1 Cor.
15:1-4) Whatever moral bondage existed before, in baptism was removed or destroyed so that the obedient believer could
walk in a newness of life. Or, as Paul expressed the freedom from slavery to sin to live the new life: “But God be thanked,
that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being
then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Rom. 6:17-18) They were servants of sin, but when
they obeyed the form of doctrine preached to them, then they were freed from sin and became servants of righteousness.
The power of forgiveness is not in any property of the water, but is in Christ who is “the author of eternal salvation
unto all them that obey him.” (Heb. 5:9)
EVANS: As usual more Frost platitudes and equivocation rather than addressing my comments and proof
texts. Of course, it is the Lord that grants “remission of sins.” We are not disputing that; we are disputing HOW
the Lord grants remission of sins.
EIS and PERI “FOR” a WITNESS/TESTIMONY
Mat 8:3, 4 . . . And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus saith . . . go thy way . . . and offer the gift that
Moses commanded, for (EIS) a testimony unto them.
Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for [EIS] a testimony. . .
Mat 24:14 And this gospel . . . shall be preached . . . for [EIS] a witness unto all nations . . .
Mar 1:41 - 44 And Jesus . . . put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean. And as
soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed . . . And saith . . . and offer for
[PERI] thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for [EIS] a testimony unto them.
Luke 5:14 . . . go . . . offer for [PERI] thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for [EIS] a testimony unto
them.
John 1:7 The same came for [EIS] a witness, to bear witness of [PERI] the Light . . . [Berry has “concerning”]
Heb 3:5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for [EIS] a testimony of those things which were
to be spoken after . . .
FROST: The reader will take note that neither “testimony” nor “witness” is derived from the prepositions, eis or
peri, but from the nouns themselves.
EVANS: More smoke and mirrors to avoid these passages.
EVANS: Frost does not understand that baptism is a testimony and a witness UNTO the remission of sins by
repentance and faith alone in Christ Jesus.
FROST: Do you know why? There is nothing to understand. The Bible does not say that baptism is a testimony! The
Bible does not say that baptism is a witness! The Bible does not say that remission of sins is by repentance and faith
alone! This entire statement is false! Not only false but absurd—how can both repentance and faith be necessary in order
to receive a remission of sins, and yet it is by faith alone (nothing more than faith)? This is the case of a very fertile
imagination!
EVANS: Unfortunately, Frost does not know that one cannot have faith without repentance, so his shallow
attempt to pit them against one another has not worked. One cannot believe unless one repents! The purpose of
John’s baptism was to make Him known to Israel (John 1:31) and to repent in order to believe the good news.
Mark 1:15 And saying . . . repent ye, and believe the gospel . . .
EVANS: One does not get baptized to obtain the remission of sins anymore than one makes an offering after being
cleansed in order to obtain one’s previous cleansing.
FROST: You are right about an offering. One makes an offering in order to obtain one’s cleansing. One is not first
cleansed and then afterward makes an offering to obtain the cleansing already received. The same is true about baptism:
one is baptized in order obtain remission of sins.
EVANS: Well, if you wish to keep looking foolish, then keep saying that. Here is another reminder that the
leper did not need to obtain “cleansing,” since he was already cleansed by Jesus.
Mark 1:42 - 44 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was
cleansed. And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away; And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to
any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them.
EVANS: Such outward works or acts are testimonies and witnesses to, unto, for, regarding, or concerning what has
already taken place in the believers’ hearts by the inward acts of repentance and faith,
FROST: Evans describes a dead faith; what has the sinner done to show any repentance or faith? (James 2:17-20) In
fact, he dare not demonstrate his faith … it must be faith alone. (Isn’t this what you teach, Herb?) Even though the Bible
plainly says that one is justified “not by faith only”! (James 2:24).
EVANS: The only dead faith is no faith or a pretended faith that cannot stand the scrutiny. Have you ever
studied DEAD WORKS? If not, you should. Works without real faith are dead.
Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying
again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without
spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
EVANS: EIS – FOR, UNTO, INTO
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto [EIS [repentance . . .
Mat 22:4 . . . all things are ready: come unto [EIS] the marriage.
Act 19:3 - 5 And he said unto them, Unto [EIS] what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto [EIS] John’s
baptism. 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. When they heard this, they were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus.
1 Cor 10:1 - 2 . . . our fathers . . . were all baptized unto [EIS] Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
Rom 6:3 - 5 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into [EIS] Jesus Christ were baptized into [EIS] his
death? Therefore we are buried with him by [DIA] baptism into [EIS] death: that like as Christ was raised up from the
dead by [DIA] the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted
together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into [EIS] Christ have put on Christ.
FROST: This following paragraph is pure gobbledygook! It demonstrates Evans’ use of the English.
EVANS: The parallel of the Israelites being baptized EIS/UNTO Moses and Christians being baptized EIS/INTO
Christ shows that both terms are terms of identification or reference.
FROST: Herb, you missed the analogy.
EVANS: What analogy? The gobbledlygook analogy?
EVANS: We are baptized “EIS” the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 to identify with Christ and our remission of sins
that we already possess, through faith in Him, and we are baptized “EIS/INTO” Christ in Gal. 3:27 and Romans 6:3-5 to
identify with Christ and His death, being planted in the LIKENESS of His death, just as the Israelites were baptized
UNTO [EIS] Moses and just as John baptized those with the baptism OF repentance (repentance baptism) EIS/UNTO the
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. We are not baptized to obtain repentance or to obtain Christ. There are
numerous occurrences of “EIS” being translated as “UNTO.”
FROST: “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud,
and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea…” (1 Cor. 10:1-2)
Before they were baptized in the cloud and the sea, they were in bondage in Egypt. Then they were baptized into
Moses, as their deliverer, ruler, and prophet, and became the people of God. (Acts 7:35, Deut. 34:10, Ex. 6:7) Their
relationship with God in Moses foreshadowed the relationship we have in Christ. (Gal. 3:27) Even so, we were in bondage
to sin, but then in baptism are made free from sin, to walk in newness. (Rom. 6:18, 22)
EVANS: WRONG AGAIN! They were baptized UNTO MOSES! Where do you find the word “INTO” in
regard to Moses? Now, if you allow the switch of UNTO TO INTO with Moses, you must allow the switch from
INTO to UNTO with Christ in Gal 3:27. Want to play switch?
EVANS: EIS - CONCERNING
Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning [EIS] him, I foresaw the Lord . . .
Rom 16:19 . . . I would have you wise unto [EIS] that which is good, and simple concerning [EIS] evil.
[1 Cor 1:13 . . . was Paul crucified for you or were ye baptized in [EIS] the name of Paul?]
Eph 5:32 I speak concerning [EIS] Christ and the church.
Php 4:15 . . . no church communicated with me as concerning [EIS] giving and receiving . . .
Not only is the Greek word “EIS” translated “FOR,” “UNTO,” and “INTO;” it is also rendered CONCERNING (or
in reference to). We are baptized concerning Christ and concerning His death, burial, and resurrection and also concerning
the remission of sins.
FROST: The reader is able to see the difference in what I teach and what Evans teaches. Evans claims to teach the
Scriptures, as found only in the King James translation. He boasts but does not deliver. Where in the Bible does he read
that we are baptized concerning Christ, concerning His death, burial, and resurrection, concerning the remission of sins?
He makes statements, and to save his life, much less his soul, he cannot document them with book, chapter, and verse.
EVANS: Again, Frost does not want to hear how EIS is used in the above passages. He rather wants to put the
demand of exact language on Herb Evans. Let Frost try to turn the above example “concerning” proof texts into
“to obtain Christ” or “to obtain evil.” Let Frost turn “concerning giving and receiving” into getting “giving and
receiving.” A case can also be made for being baptized in the name of “remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 by pointing
to 1 Cor. 1:13, not being baptized IN (EIS) the name of Paul.
FROST: Blah, blah, blah … ad infinitum. I am sure the reader is as tired of Evans’ exercise in foolishness as I am.
Therefore I propose to ignore his following efforts, designed not to edify but to create confusion, until he addresses an
issue in seriousness.
EVANS” I think Frost is starting to break. Gene Frost must realize that his prolonged war by preposition is
not working or holding water (excuse the metaphor).
EVANS: EIS versus FOR/IN
Act 7:21 . . . Pharaoh's daughter took him up . . . for [EIS] her own son.
Rom 1:5 . . . we have received grace and apostleship, for [EIS] obedience to the faith among all nations, for
[HUPER] his name:
1 Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for [EIS] the saints, as I have given order . . .
1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for [EIS] a sign . . .
Eph 2:22 . . . ye also are builded together for [EIS] an habitation of God . . .
Rom 4:3 - 5 . . . Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for [EIS] righteousness. Now to him that
worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for [EIS] righteousness.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by [DIA] the offence of one judgment came upon [EIS] all men to [EIS] condemnation; even
so by [DIA] the righteousness of one the free gift came upon [EIS] all men unto [EIS] justification of life.
The point of contention with Church of Christ-ers is the English preposition “FOR” and how it is to be interpreted in
Acts 2:38. Of course, Frost will not concede any definition except “to get” or “to obtain” here. Needless to say, “EIS” is
rendered in other passages not to get or obtain a “SIGN” or “OBEDIENCE” or “RIGHTEOUSNESS” or MEN or ALL
MEN or His Name or the NAME of Paul or the SAINTS or JUSTIFICATION or a HABITATION. Needless to say that
Pharaoh’s daughter TOOK Moses up FOR (EIS) her OWN son (possession). The use of “EIS” rendered “FOR” is used
“CONCERNING,” And the FREE gift came UPON all men without works.
EVANS: EIS versus AGAINST/TOWARD
2 Tim 1:12 . . . I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed
unto him against [EIS] that day.
1 Pet 3:21 baptism . . . the answer of a good conscience toward [EIS] God, by [DIA] the resurrection . . .
The Greek word “EIS” is also used in the form of “against” and/or “toward” in the sense of a reference to something.
Gene Frost: Of course not; the FOR of “the just for the unjust” is not the FOR of “for the remission of sins.” They
are translations of two different words, which you do not indicate. ►GF
Herb Evans: I am not arguing that the words, regarding “FOR, are all the same Greek words. I am merely pointing
out that there are many different Greek words for the English word “FOR.” Does Frost consider ANY one of them to be
used “in stead of?” Why do I have to indicate anything? Does Frost also make the rules in regard to what I do not do in his
black helicopter conspiracy views? [Evans - What? NO GREEN? The cat must have Frost’s prolific tongue.]
►GF FROST: You reference the Greek huper (on the behalf of), discussed in the ten examples, and substitute it
with “for the remission of sins,” which is translated from eis. You knew the difference, but deliberately confused the two.
Herb, that is gross dishonesty! You say you were referring to the Greek word eis, but you did not identify it. Besides, you
identified (in the same sentence) the “for” as is used with reference to the sacrifice of Christ! ►GF
Herb Evans: Where did Herb Evans confuse HUPER and EIS in regard to the remission of sins? Still, HUPER is
rendered “FOR,” “CONCERNING,” and “IN THE STEAD.”
►GF FROST: You add, “It seems that a Campbellite … would know better.” I can’t speak for your Campbellite,
but I can speak for myself: I know better. And you know better, but you equivocate on the word “for.” ►GF
Herb Evans: Equivocate? Explanation and clarification are equivocation? Frost is the biggest equivocator of all. But
where is Frost’s example of my equivocating on the word “for?”
►GF FROST: Further, you create even more confusion with your absurd declaration of a “synonymous flexibility.”
►GF
Herb Evans: When are you going to start giving “complete” Herb Evans’ quotes in context? I weary in searching for
the partial quotes absent of context which Frost submits to misrepresent me and obscure the issue.
►GF FROST: You realize that synonyms are words that are equivalent in meaning, and being flexible the meaning is
not rigid, but easily changed. ►GF
Herb Evans: Please explain what you mean by this with some examples in context. Also, explain why you are so
rigid in regard to synonyms and/or interchangeability of words.
►GF FROST: You then declare that “for the remission of sins” (Greek: eis aphesin hamartion) may be translated
variously: “in reference to the remission of sins,” “in place of the remission of sins,” “because of the remission of sins,” or
“in behalf of the remission of sins.” These are “alternatives,” just a matter of choice. Herb, where did you learn so much
nonsense? ►GF
Herb Evans: Well, actually I looked up the word “EIS” in many of the non-controversial passages and noted that the
wide variety of alternative usages and applications. Was that nonsensical? Has Frost done that? Again, the word EIS is
flexible but not flexible enough to be used like a Church of Christ-er falsely uses it in Acts 2:38.
►GF FROST: Have you seen any one of your alternatives in a translation of eis aphesin hamartion in Matt. 26:28?
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many in place of the remission of sins.” Or “my blood … is
shed for many because of the remission of sins”; or, “my blood … is shed for many in reference to the remission of sins”;
or “my blood … is shed for many in behalf of the remission of sins.” ►GF
EVANS: Actually, since the wine was in place of the blood, what do you think, since it is your suggestion?
Herb Evans: Well, actually, some alternatives would work here, even on the behalf of” might work in Acts 2:38, IF
PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD.
FROST: We did not ask for what Evans thinks would work, but if any of the phrases he offers are used in Acts 2:38!
His quibble is a tacit admission that he knows his definitions of eis in Acts 2:38 and Acts 26:28 are fallacious! So what
does he do now? He quibbles:
EVANS: Ah . . . there is more green! Here comes Frost the mind reader again. HE KNOWS!
EVANS: Still, you must consider that the “THIS IS,” of Matt 26:28, refers to the wine symbol for the blood that had
not yet been shed, just as the water became the symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ after the fact.
FROST: Jesus “took the cup [fruit of the vine], and gave thanks, and gave it [the fruit of the vine] to them, saying,
Drink ye all of it [the fruit of the vine]; for this [the fruit of the vine] is my blood of the new testament, which [His blood]
is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that
day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” (Matt. 26:27-29)
EVANS: What a dodge! Wine is the fruit of the vine and vice versa. Want proof?
EVANS: Does Frost believe that the wine was the actual blood of Christ that they drank at the Lord’s Supper? If so,
Frost really might be properly called a Southern Catholic with such transubstantiation views.
FROST: The fruit of the vine represented (a metaphor) the blood, and they as do we drink the fruit of the vine. Have
you got it, Herb? Now that we are past his quibble, we are back to the meaning of what Jesus said in the phrase, “for the
remission of sins.” It is not legitimately translated, and there is no reputable translation—no “edition” of the KJB—which
renders the phrase with an alternative that Herb Evans suggests recommends: “in reference to the remission of sins,” “in
place of the remission of sins,” “because of the remission of sins,” or “in behalf of the remission of sins.”
And keep in mind that whatever the phrase means, it means the same in both Acts 2:38 and Matt. 26:28.
EVANS: What a dodge! We never tried to deny its legit translation even though Frost drops the bait to do so.
►GF Gene Frost: Herb’s rule of interpretation: Take your pick! One choice is as good as another. And this from a
man who judges others in their proficiency in the use of the Greek language! (I suggest that the reader register early for
his Greek classes … you will not learn Greek like this anywhere else!)
Herb Evans: Frost must insult and characterize Herb Evans in the worse way rather than refute him.
FROST: Herb, what you find offensive is not any characterization that I may contrive, but is found in the expose’ of
your faulty exegesis of Scripture. I am willing to allow the reader to determine whether an argument is answered or not.
Gene Frost: The phrase “for the remission of sins” is used twice in the New Testament: Acts 2:38 and Matt. 26:28.
The phrase is identical in both the English and the inspired Greek text. Jesus shed His blood for the remission of sins, and
for the same reason sinners are commanded to be baptized.
Matt. 26:28 –“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed … for the remission of sins.”
Acts 2:38 –“Repent, and be baptized … in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”
EVANS: “Frosty bombs again. These passages are not identical” -- Herb Evans
FROST: — who said they were?
EVANS: —in either language, in that although Matt. 26:28 and Acts 2:38 both use the Greek word “EIS” that is
translated “FOR” in both cases.
FROST: The phrase, “for the remission of sins” —not the passages— are identical. (Herb’s English reading skill is
not very good, either.) I even paralleled them. Look at the last two sentences of my article (in the black type). Instead of
dealing with my argument, Herb, you shift the issue, and pretend that I said the passages are identical. You even had to
change the verb, from “is” to “are.”[???? – Herb Evans]
FROST: Question marks, why? Don’t you get it? Well, I explain it in the next sentence.
FROST: “Is” can only refer to a single item, in this case a single phrase; whereas you had to change it to “are,” in
order to introduce plural items, the “passages” you substitute. This was a dishonest distraction.
Herb Evans: Okay, unlike your single specific phrase, the two passages are not “identical,” and the passages do
differ in substance and content. Matt 26:28 is one passage. Still, Acts 2:38 is another passage. Therefore, being two, they
are plural passages?
FROST: –who said otherwise? Herb continues to evade the issue. He pretends that “passages” are the issue. He
refers to one and then the other to prove that there are two passages—"Therefore, being two, they are plural passages”—a
fact never disputed.
EVANS: Frost loves to quibble over semantics; so, okay the passages are different but the phrases are the
same, so that Frost does not pout.
FROST: And the fact remains that “for the remission of sins” IS a single, identical phrase in both Acts 2:38 and
Matt. 26:28. Even when acknowledging the phrase, he emphasizes that “unlike your single phrase, the two passage are not
“identical,” which was never an issue. The point is:
EVANS: Okay! We are in sync, but what have you proven, after this harangue over non-essentials, other than
the phrases are identical? So are three other phrases identical also and contain EIS, which you do not mention?
Two more phrases are repentance for the remission of sins. The third is HIS righteousness FOR the remission of
sins. You don’t like these phrases?
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance FOR the remission of sins.
Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance FOR the
remission of sins;
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness
FOR the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
FROST: Finally, Herb acknowledges the truth. Unlike the two passages which are not identical, the single specific
phrase in both is “identical,” which is the point I made. (Matt. 26:28 and Acts 2:38) And the single phrase means the
same thing in both passages! Whatever “for the remission of sins” means in Matt. 26:28, it means the same in Acts 2:38.
You never addressed the issue! All you can do is divert the issue with a quibble.
In Matt. 26:28, Jesus said, “this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
Did Jesus shed His blood (for) because sins were already remitted? Or, did Jesus shed His blood (for) in order that the
sins of many might be remitted? This is not difficult. Jesus did not die a meaningless death with regards to sins. He shed
His blood in order that men might be saved. In Acts 2:38 is the same reason as Jesus shed His blood: believers are
baptized (for) in order for sins to be remitted.
EVANS: The sins of the disciples were already remitted because the Lord’s blood was to be considered shed
by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This IS my blood (the wine) which IS shed for many for the
remission of sins. Jesus’ blood was to be considered as "is shed" for the disciples’ already remitted sins but was
also going to remit the future sins of the world and His blood was portrayed by the wine, but this fruit of the vine
did not remit sins any more than water. In Acts 2:38, the candidate’s sins were also already remitted by the blood,
no need for a second remission of sins except in a symbolic picture. Frost is mixing together two different time
frames, the past and the future and two different symbols, water and wine, although the Lamb was slain from the
foundation of the world. The sins of the disciples were already remitted because the Lord’s blood was to be
considered shed by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This IS my blood (the wine) which IS shed for
many for the remission of sins. Jesus’ blood was to be considered "is shed" for the disciples’ already remitted sins
but was also going to remit the future sins of the world and His blood was portrayed by the fruit of the vine. His
death, burial and resurrection was portrayed by water.
FROST: Herb’s problem is that he makes Matt. 26:28 and Acts 2:38 exclusive of each other, that one receives a
remission of sin by either one or the other, with the exclusion of the other. He assumes that if one is saved by the blood of
Christ, then Christ cannot save him when he is baptized.
EVANS: The key Frost word is “receives.” The sinner receives the remission of sins by faith in His blood. He
portrays that remission of sins by water baptism. That is not the problem. We are not saved by works; we are
saved by grace through faith!
FROST: He arrays Scripture against Scripture. The truth is Scriptures support Scriptures. Before anyone could be
saved, Christ had to shed His blood. (Heb. 9:22) [Evans - This contradicts those who were forgiven and saved in the
Gospels before the cross.] Having “suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all
them that obey him” (Heb 5:8-9). When can it be said that one’s sins have been remitted? When he obeys Jesus! What
does He direct man to do? He directs the believer (John 1:12, Rom. 10:17, John 6:29), to repent (Acts 2:38), to confess
Him (Rom. 10:10), and to be baptized. When one does all that is asked of him, by which act of obedience is he saved? He
is saved by Jesus. So the question is: when does Jesus save a lost soul? And the answer is: when he obeys the Lord.
EVANS: The scriptures do not contradict one another, but they must be put together carefully, not as Frost
mixes and matches them together to arrive at his views. Nowhere is obedience connected to water baptism to
obtain salvation. Repentance and belief are the obedience required for the remission of sins, plus or minus nothing.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive
remission of sins.
FROST: When Evans isolates an act of obedience and pretends that some believe that the act itself saves, and that
this is without Jesus, he does injustice to the will of God and falsely charges those who are obedient to God. This is what
he does with baptism, which is ordered by God. (Acts 10:48) He pretends that some believe that one is saved by the mere
act of being submerged in water, supposing that there is power in the water to save, and therefore they look to water rather
than to Jesus to be saved. False assumption and a misrepresentation!
EVANS: No! Herb Evans knows that some believe that the sins are not gone until water baptism which is a lie
out of the pit of hell. The conclusion to Frost’s demanded obedience is that even after a man repents, believes, and
is water baptized, the man is still not saved in that if he does not obey some other command he gets lost again. This
is what is called YO YO Christianity. Truly saved folks are KEPT by the power of God through faith unto
salvation
1 Pet 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
FROST: This is as contemptible as charging someone who believes that Jesus shed His blood in order for one to be
saved, that he believes that it is the blood, without Jesus, that saves, and that whatever blood one may cause to be poured
out is sufficient to save his soul. Does Evans believe in this faith and practice of blood salvation, that one’s sins may be
remitted by the shedding of his own blood? Would he not protest if someone accused him of believing in blood salvation,
that the power to save is in the blood, and not in Jesus? Surely he is not so dense or prejudiced that he cannot see the
unfairness of his charge concerning baptism!
EVANS: Frost may invent any scenario that he wants in order to deny that it is Jesus blood that washes away
our sins. We Baptists have a song that we sing which says, what can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of
Jesus! Oh precious is the flow that makes me white as snow . . .
For the Remission of Sins
EVANS: Mark 1:4 John did baptize . . . and preach the baptism of repentance FOR G1519 [EIS] the remission of sins.
Luke 3:3 And he came . . . preaching the baptism of repentance FOR G1519 [EIS] the remission of sins;
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness FOR
the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Heb 9:22 . . . without shedding of blood is no remission.
There is no remission without the shedding of blood. All the water in the world cannot remit sins. Actually, Frost
neglected these other passages in which the exact term “for the remission of sins” is used (above).
FROST: Yet “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” (Heb. 10:4) Faith in
blood will not save. Faith, as baptism, must be related to Jesus as Saviour. All of the blood in the world cannot remit sins.
EVANS: What we have here is more Frosty breath.
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
FROST: Who, for even a moment, thought it would? This is another diversion. I call attention to two passages that
discuss the phrase “for the remission of sins.” There is no need to call attention to other passages using the same phrase;
the two we cite are sufficient to illustrate the truth. There is no need not to read others, and if they contribute to a further
understanding, we invite Evans to take note of them. His language implies that we avoided other references—“Frost
neglected these other passages.” This is a diversion, and a cheap shot with no merit. To illustrate the absurdity of what it
suggests, just point out to Herb on any topic we have discussed the many passages on the subject that he neglects. He
claims to want a study on “atonement.” How many passages has he neglected of the over-80 number of references? Or, is
he prepared to discuss “faith” without neglecting of the 247 references?
EVANS: What? Why would Frost not want these other passages introduced? Especially since they are the
exact phrases that Frost wants! Could it be because there was forgiveness before the cross without Jesus’ blood?
FROST: This sounds like Evans does not believe Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and
preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4) Tell us, Herb, what was the relationship of
baptism and remission of sins in John’s baptism? Were the people baptized in order to remit sins? Or, were they baptized
because their sins were already remitted?
EVANS: That is an easy question. They repented and believed and received the remission of their sins and
were baptized to demonstrate their repentance through water baptism (the O.T. equivalent to sackcloth and ashes
that never forgave anyone’s sins), hence the PREACHING by John of the baptism of repentance for the remission
of sins.
EVANS: Perhaps, Frost wants to avoid the fact that if his view of baptism for the remission of sins were true, then
what we have here, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, are “the remission of sins” through water baptism without the cross or the
blood of Jesus Christ or His righteousness for the remission of sins (Rom 3:25).
FROST: Frost doesn’t need to avoid anything. I believe what the texts say! Maybe when Herb answers this question,
he will have answered his own apparent dilemma: Did Jesus forgive anyone of His sins before the cross? (A little help:
Luke 5:20-25, 7:48.) Evans overlooks the fact that John preached and baptized in preparation for Jesus’ coming. (Mark
1:3) Look at two more passages and he should be able to figure it out: Heb. 9:15 and Acts 19:4 (study the context).
EVANS: We have no argument with Frost’s use of Heb 9:15 and Acts 19:4. But in regard to his other
passages, what a wonderful choice of scripture! We have here on the spot forgiveness of sins and folks being saved
by faith without water baptism (just like now). Of course, then there was the thief of the cross and Zaccheus as
well. Then there is the matter of Mark one being the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Luke 7:48, 50 . . . And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven . . . And he said to the woman, Thy faith
hath saved thee; go in peace.
FROST: One thing further, and that is: Evans admits that “they were water baptized INTO [EIS] Christ’s body (1
Cor. 12:13).” The baptism of 1 Cor. 12:13 is water baptism!
EVANS: Notice the deception! Frost leaves off the word “symbolically” off my quote. Frost saw folks baptized
INTO Moses when it said UNTO Moses. Both of these are identifications with Moses and Christ. Would Frost
understand if someone said that a person was baptized INTO or UNTO the Catholic Church? Probably not!
One Body, the Local Church
FROST: When one is baptized in the name of Christ for a remission of his sins, he is saved, and as such is added to
the church, which is His body. On Pentecost, all who were baptized were added, a total of about three thousand. And
thereafter as souls were saved, the Lord added them to the church. (Acts 2:38, 41, 47.) He is the head and savior of the
body, the one church of Christ. (Eph. 1:22-23, 4:4, 5:23.)
EVANS: Unfortunately, Frost and I do not agree as to what the church and body are. Frost believes that the
church/body is all saved believers. Herb Evans believes that it is the local church and local body only. Those folks,
in Acts 2, were saved and had the remission of sins before they were ever water baptized and added to the local
church of Jerusalem. In regard to the name that Frost thinks a church should have, it seems that Frost’s Church
should not be the Bellview Ave. Church of Christ but rather the Louisville Church of Christ to be biblical.
EVANS: Since poor Frost can’t make his case, what does he do? He reverts back to his English lessons. Still, these
two different passages (Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38) in Frost’s argument are regarding different situations, each having
different substance, blood versus water and wine. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanseth us from ALL sin. Certainly
the water does not even help cleanse, wash, or remove any of our sins except symbolically. Romans 3:25 tells us that it is
Christ’s righteousness “FOR” the remission of sins.
FROST: Evans reasons that if baptism cleanses, the water would have to literally and physically wash the body to
remove sin. Its efficacy would be in the physical property of water. Yet it is the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from
sin. Does the blood have to literally and physically cleanse, wash, or remove sins from the body, or is this figuratively?
The problem is, Herb thinks that the only way one can be saved in water baptism is for the water to have cleansing power
or regeneration, as taught in Roman Catholicism.
EVANS: The cleansing of sins is neither physical nor figurative but is rather a spiritual cleansing. The options
are spiritual cleansing by blood versus spiritual cleansing by water. Put me down for the blood cleansing.
FROST: When Saul was commanded to be baptized to wash away sins, it was an act of obedient faith. It was not a
physical cleansing, a putting away of the filth of the flesh; it was a spiritual cleansing, a removal of sins. It signified a
burial (in water) of the old sinful self, and resurrection as a new creation to walk in a newness of life.
EVANS: Paul’s baptism, indeed, was obedience but not for the spiritual removal of his sins which happened
on the Damascus road, where Paul believed and surrendered to Jesus Christ. However, Paul’s symbolic washing of
his sins away, in a portrayal by water, is what he experienced later after his encounter with Christ.
EVANS: “In the case of Matt 26:28, however, it is the blood that is SHED FOR the REMISSION OF SINS and not
baptismal water.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Whoever thought that water is SHED FOR the REMISSION OF SINS? Oh, how this blind guide
reasons!
EVANS: Well, for Frost’s info, beside the blood, there was also water that came from Jesus body which
pointed to sin’s double cure (Rock of Ages). Perhaps, Frost can weave that into his baptismal theory somehow or in
some way.
Herb Evans: This is a Frosty ploy on the word “shed;” Frost may not believe that the baptismal water is “shed” for
the remission of sins, but Frost certainly believes that one receives remission of sins, in some way, through water baptism.
FROST: Not in “some way,” but in Christ—Christ is our Savior.
Herb made a play—the word is play, not ploy—on the word shed: “it is the blood that is shed,” as opposed to what
he accuses others of thinking: that “it is water that is shed”! It is blood and water we were discussing. Herb must have
thought this was a cute way of dismissing water, as though some thought it more important than the blood. (He tries every
trick.)
EVANS: I don’t know what to think about how you guys get to your water remission of sins. Whatever, it is
ALL WET (forgive the pun!). I told you that some Campbellites say that the water puts you in contact with the
blood.
EVANS: “. . . in either language, in that although Matt. 26:28 and Acts 2:38 both use the Greek word “EIS” that is
translated “FOR” in both cases.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: We are baptized in order that we might receive from Him a remission of sins. What Jesus did, and what
He commands are in perfect harmony. Why have you allowed Satan to fill your heart with hate for baptism?
Herb Evans: No harmony here. What Jesus did is “grace” and “mercy” What the baptismal candidate does is
“works.”
EVANS: “When one believes, what is he doing?” (John 6:28-29)
FROST: The question is flawed; it can be answered yes and no. If you knew your Bible, you would wonder how this
can be. Let me better define the question. Can one be saved without obedience, in refusing to do what God commands?
EVANS: Is it a flawed question or flawed non answer. Yes, one can be saved and not do what God commands.
If you know to do good and do it not to you it is sin. Saved folks are to abstain from all appearance of evil. Do
Campbellites sin? My hate is confined to baptismal regeneration/salvation. Again, Mr. Frost, can a person be saved
without water baptism? How about a straight “yes or no” answer?
FROST: What Jesus did is by grace and mercy. The penitent believer receives mercy in the forgiveness of his sins as
promised, when he obeys Christ’s command to be baptized.
EVANS: That is not grace and mercy. That is rewards for certain works. Grace is getting from God what you
do not deserve (HEAVEN). Mercy is not getting from God what you do deserve (HELL).
FROST: The newness of life the baptized believer receives is by the grace and mercy of God. (Rom. 6:4) When one
is baptized into Christ, it is by the grace and mercy of God that he puts on Christ. (Gal. 3:27) What God gives to man is by
His grace and mercy. What man receives from God is by His grace and mercy. Would you say that when one does what
God say, he earns his pardon?
EVANS: Man cannot earn grace, mercy, forgiveness, pardon, or salvation. These are FREE! By grace are ye
saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is a gift of God, not of works. If it is by grace, it is not by works.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works,
then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
FROST: Now look at what Evans disdains and rejects. When one is baptized according to God’s command, this is
“work” (Acts 2:38, 10:47). Evans would have us to believe that all works, or obedience, before one is saved from his old
life and conduct, is somehow wrong. He even speaks harshly, saying that one who obeys the command of God to be
baptized is bound for hell.
EVANS: “If Gene Frost is relying on his water baptism for his salvation in any way, he is lost and going to hell.”—
Herb Evans.
EVANS: Good works are not wrong! Obedience is not wrong. Nevertheless works or obedience to obtain
salvation are wrong and will send men straight to hell fire.
FROST: The way in which I relied on water baptism was in trust of God—I saw nothing in the water to save me, nor
any connection of being absolutely freed from sin and baptism except for God Himself, but I doubted not that God could
and would do as He promised. I relied upon Christ to be my Savior, to remit my sins when I was baptized as He
commanded and promised. I placed no confidence in baptism to save me, saw nothing in water that could remove
sins. I placed my hope in Jesus who promises salvation to all who by faith obey Him. (“Though he were a Son, yet
learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation
unto all them that obey him,” Heb. 5:8-9.) I put my trust in God: that if I was baptized to be saved (Mark 16:15-16, 1
Pet. 3:21), I would be saved from my sins; that if I was baptized for a remission of sins (Acts 2:38), my sins would be
remitted; that if I was baptized, calling on the name of the Lord, to wash away my sins (Acts 22:16), my sins would be
washed away; that if I was baptized into Christ to put on Christ (Gal. 3:26-27), I would put on Christ; that if I was buried
with Christ in baptism, to come up in a newness of life (Rom. 6:4), I would be raised to walk in a newness of life; that if I
obeyed that form of doctrine (death, burial, an resurrection), to be dead to sin (Rom. 6:17-18), I would free from sin and
become a servant of righteousness. But Herb Evans tells me that this will not do. I must not rely upon my trust in God to
do what He says. If I rely on doing what God commands because I trust Him and do as He wills, I am lost and going to
hell. That is Herb Evans’ judgment. I am thankful that he is not my judge!
EVANS: Note Frost’s contradiction in red. Born again regenerated believers trust in God before their water
baptism. Were you regenerated or born again at or during your water baptism or before water baptism? Do you
even know what it is to be born again?
FROST: I believed His word before and I believe it now, that I must live by faith in doing His will. By faith I live by
the grace of God. I think it foolish indeed that one would teach that he must refuse to obey in order to show faith and
dependence upon God. I cannot tell this faith from the faith of the devil. Show me your faith without your works, and I
will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:18) These works are the “works of God,” which in doing no man can
boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)
EVANS: Again, Wally the word twister is at it again. Who said anything about “refusing?” Still, your
comment exposes your “DO” religion as compared to my “DONE” religion. *See Addendum – Works Justification.
FROST: What God commands, and what God promises, and what God does, is by His grace and mercy. For the
grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we
should obey His will, to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world. (Titus 2:11-12) Jesus was asked, “What
shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye
believe on him whom he hath sent.” (John 6:28-29) Believing is a work of God. We are not speaking of the works of men,
works of the law, of any deed of one’s own will, of which he might boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)
“But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:35) In obeying
the Lord, the Scriptures say that Jesus is my Savior. (Heb. 5:8-9) I will trust the Lord and reject Evans.
EVANS: Indeed! After a man is saved, grace does teach a person to do good and to separate from the world.
Still, you are right, when we believe; we are doing the work of God but not the works of God. Baptism, however, is
the work of men. Baptism is a work of righteousness, but neither it nor any other work of righteousness which we
have done can save us. God saves us by His mercy when he regenerates us. Frost, have you ever been born again?
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
EVANS: Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which IS shed for [PERI] many FOR [EIS] G1519 the
remission of sins.
“In the case of Matt. 26:28, Jesus uses the wine symbolically to portray His future blood shedding. Note that Jesus
says ‘IS’ shed and not will be shed in reference to the remission of sins.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: What are you saying? First you say that Jesus, in instituting His memorial supper, used wine to portray
His future blood shedding. Then you say that Jesus says “is,” and “not will be shed,” which is future, “in reference to the
remission of sins.” From the time Jesus spoke, the crucifixion was future, the next day. He did not speak of two different
events in which He would shed His blood. You apparently are trying to make an argument on the tense of “is,” a present
participle in Matt. 26:28, which again shows your ignorance of the Greek language.
[EVANS: What would Frost do without Greek to fall back on? I gave Frost what it says, let him take it or
leave it or try to correct the Bible again. Frost shows his ignorance that Jesus Christ IS the LAMB OF GOD slain
from the foundation of the world. In God’s eternity, it was a done deal.
[Heb 4:3 . . . the works were finished from the foundation of the world.]
Herb Evans: The actual shedding of Jesus’ blood is future from the Lord’s Supper. The symbolic reference (wine) to
Jesus blood is in the present, at the supper. As with water baptism, the Lord’s Supper must not be confused with what it
symbolizes. However, the one common thing in both of Frost’s proof texts is that they are both symbolic representations.
One uses wine and the other uses water. From eternity’s standpoint, Jesus blood IS shed from the foundation of the world
in God’s ever present, present.
Gene Faust (Who is Faust, that he is on your mind?):
EVANS: That was another heretic, but that was a mistaken misname.
Gene Frost: In the Greek language, time “is not the original [SIC] nor the general idea of what we call tenses. … We
must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the forms of the tenses as well as the matter of syntax.” (A.T.
Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N.T., page 343.) “The two ideas in the verb are action (or existence or state) and
affirmation. The one essential idea in the verb is the affirmation.” (A.T. Robertson, in his Grammar, with H. Hershey
Davis, page 284.) Jesus is not emphasizing the time of His death, but the affirmation of its purpose: to make possible for
the many, a remission of sins. Herb, being the scholar he professes to be, knows this, but prefers to ignore it. He “throws
out” the Greek, which allows him to flaunt the rules of grammar and syntax and to assert his own theology. I know that he
will scorn this insertion, but I have not included it for his sake, which would be casting forth pearls; rather, I hope that it
will be of some value to the earnest seeker of truth.
Herb Evans: Oh, Mr. Frost, please spare us the Greek lessons that you copycat from THEOLOGIANS. In English
time is involved in the tenses. One pearl, which I might cast, is the fact that ALL scripture IS (and not was) given by
inspiration of God and IS (not was) profitable. Nevertheless, Mr. Frost, please do not bother me with italics here.
Gene Frost: Herb fares no better with the English. When Jesus said, “IS shed,” He did not suggest that His blood
was then, at that moment, being poured out, any more than He meant His body was being sacrificed as He spoke: “my
body which IS given.” (Luke 22:19)
Herb Evans: Correct! And Herb Evans did not suggest that the blood was already shed, except in the symbolic
representation of the future shed blood, the bread, as His body IS also broken in a symbolic representation of His future
broken body.
Gene Frost: “The present [tense] is sometimes used of the future when the future is thought of as present.” (Jonathan
Rigdon, The English Sentence, page 133.) When Jesus referenced the crucifixion, it was upon him. Events which would
culminate in His death were already underway. Within 24 hours, He would be dead. The time was upon Him … not
literally present.
Herb Evans: Jonathan Rigdon? Who is he? Yawn!
FROST: He was a grammarian, but his name is not the important thing. What you need to know, and the reason I
quoted him, is because what he taught is important in communicating in the English language. Your boredom probably
goes all the way back to your school days. Too bad.
EVANS: You could be right about my boredom. But then you would also be right about Einstein’s boredom if
you referred to it.
Gene Frost: Jesus, in establishing the Memorial of His death (very soon to be upon Him), emphasized the purpose
for which He was being offered: “for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28). Whatever time element is involved
does not negate the fact that Jesus died in order that we might have our sins remitted. All of the quibbles in the world
cannot deny this fact! ►GF
Herb Evans: Then stop quibbling! “SOON” is future the last time I checked it. Still, I like my pontification better
than yours! Yawn! Burp!
FROST: Crude. Herb, you just burped in the face of every reader. Quibbling in your case likely causes indigestion
and creation of gas. Etiquette would cause one to suppress the expulsion of gas. I could refer to Emily Post, but you
probably would get no further than inquiring as to whom she is (or was), and would be bored to tears to hear what she
said.
EVANS: Well, if it does not go beyond burping, then you may worry! You might as well add Emily post to
your host of extra scriptural authorities.
►GF Gene Frost: The point we made remains unscathed: The phrase, “for the remission of sins,” in Matt. 20:28 and
Acts 2:38 is identical in both the English and the inspired Greek text. Jesus shed His blood for the remission of sins, and
for the same reason sinners are commanded to be baptized.
Herb Evans: My argument is also unscathed, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, as being identical with your two proof texts.
Actually, in my view of the Substitutionary Atonement, it still all boils down to what the word EIS/FOR means in all
cases of the” remission of sins.” Israel did not yet experience Jesus’ blood, so did their baptism save them? Or remit their
sins?
“FOR the remission of sins”: Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Matt. 26:28, Acts 2:38
FROST: I do not pit Scripture against Scripture. Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 are alike in one particular unto Matt. 26:28
and Acts 2:38, but they are not identical. Mark’s and Luke’s accounts are of John’s preparatory message, in which he
preached a baptism of repentance, enabling them to know and recognize Jesus as being the Christ. (Acts 19:4) With the
coming of Christ and His death (Matt. 26:28), believers were baptized “into His death,” the form of His death, burial, and
resurrection. (Rom. 6:3, 17, 1 Cor. 15:1-4.) Both John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism were “for a remission of sins.” The
efficacy of forgiveness (remission of sins) is in the blood of Christ, which effected absolute forgiveness for those who
obeyed before His coming and as well as for those following His death. (Heb. 9:15)
Mark 1:4—“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
Luke 3:3—John “came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins…”
Believers under John obeyed the call for repentance, in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah, with the promise
of a remission of sans.
When Christ shed His blood on the cross, it was so that the whole world, those who lived before and after His
sacrificial death, might attain a remission of sins.
Matt. 26:28—“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
After Christ came, manifesting Himself as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:21, 36), believers repented and were baptized for
a remission of sins.
Acts 2:38—“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”
Observe that the effect of baptism in all four Scriptures is exactly the same—“for the remission of sins” (eis aphesin
hamartion). The phrase means the same thing in all four verses.
FROST Continued: The problem with Evans is: he is not sure what the word “for” means. Evans argues that it
could be any of the meanings assigned to “for” in as many places as it is translated in the KJV: “in reference to the
remission of sins,” or “in place of the remission of sins,” or because of the remission of sins,” or “even in behalf of the
remission of sins.” He ignores the root meaning of eis, even though he states it from Strong’s Concordance: to or into
(indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.)
Herb talks about flexibility, as though in any way it may be translated in given contexts it may be so translated in
every context that he desires. No way! He knows better, though he pretends and argues otherwise. Our proof: the phrase
“for the remission of sins.” He cannot honestly and forthrightly tells us what it means in Matt. 26:28. The best that he can
do is to revert to his theology.
EVANS: Actually, there are elements of truth in your above wordy synopsis. These passages of mine are exact
phrases as well, regardless of the spin that you put on them by way of differences. Still, the stink that you are
making over Acts 2:38 as compared to only Matthew 26 is wasted effort. To understand what the word FOR means
in the four passages, we must consider the time frames of what was said. Whereas, you want to compare Matt
26:28 (before the cross) with Acts 2:2:38 (after the cross). Those who had their sins remitted in the Gospels were
the past of Matt 26:28. Nevertheless Acts 2:38 was the future of Matt 26:28. So, what we have here is the past
remission of sins versus the future remission of sins being mixed together by you. Since the symbol for the blood
could not obtain the remission of sins for anyone, the wine must be in reference to the remission of sins in regard to
not only those who already had their sins remitted but also for those whose sins would be remitted in the future.
Still, you have skipped Romans 3:25 for whatever reason. It is different from the other similarly phrased passages
in that it is HIS righteousness FOR the remission of sins and NOT BAPTISM for the remission of sins.
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
EVANS: Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
FOR [EIS] G1519 the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
This is a compound sentence, compose of three separate sentences. Actually, Frost missed two passages as follows:
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance FOR G1519 [EIS] the remission of
sins.
Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance FOR G1519 [EIS] the
remission of sins;
My Bible says that “whosoever believeth” shall receive the “REMISSION of sins,” and that occurs before water
baptism. I believed, I received the remission of sins by Christ’s blood, and then I was water baptized – Herb Evans.
Gene Frost: Herb, your problem is, [SIC] you don’t know what a true believer is. Not everyone who has just any
degree of faith is saved. The devils believe, but we cannot say they are saved. (James 2:19)
“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; cf. Matt. 10:32-33.)
Herb Evans: No! It is Frost who does not know what a born again believer is. Just how much faith is needed in order
to be saved? The faith of a grain of a mustard seed or less?
FROST: Satan’s faith is strong enough that he recognizes and acknowledges God’s power and judgment, enough so
that he trembles. That’s more than can be said for many “believers.” Even so, God describes Satan’s faith as dead. Why is
it dead? Because it is without obedience (as illustrated by Abraham, who was justified by works when he offered Isaac as
God had commanded him). Yet Evans wants to defend a dead faith, a faith without obedience. There is not even a “grain”
of life in a dead faith.
EVANS: It is very interesting that Gene Frost defines a faith without works here as being a “dead faith,” and
especially interesting since he admits that some folks in the gospels were saved by such a “dead” faith alone. Still,
neither Satan nor his minions had placed any faith in or on Jesus Christ. In fact, they did not need any faith since
they KNEW that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and tried to kill Him at His birth. Believing intellectually that
something exists does not necessarily mean that you trust in that something. Still, there is such a thing as “dead
works” to worry about; we suppose that such works are descriptive of Frost and all his works for salvation.
FROST: On Pentecost, Peter answered the cry of the people who were moved by the gospel, “What shall we do?”
DO? Evans says you DO nothing! Faith alone (a dead faith) is enough. Yet the people responded when Peter replied,
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). He further
testified and exhorted, saying, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:40) SAVE YOURSELVES! He
urged them to DO something. What they were to do becomes obvious by what they did: “they that gladly received his
word were baptized.” (Acts 2:41) And conversions did not stop there. “And the Lord added to the church daily such as
should be saved.” (Acts 2:47)
EVANS: In Frost’s semantics quest, Frost grasps a straw regarding the word “DO” to justify his works for his
salvation scheme. Of course, lost folks want to know what to “DO.” Nevertheless, after being told that which was
“DONE” for them to be saved, they never have to wonder again as to what to DO. The Philipian jailer was told to
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou SHALT BE SAVED with no mention of baptism. He was saved then and
there. The word “DO” applies to any act whether hearing, looking, thinking, repenting, believing and etc. And I
DO BELIEVE! Still, Gene Frost may note that they were not told to save themselves from their SINS or HELL
FIRE. Also, they were not told merely to “Save your selves.” Still, the rest of the story was that they were told to
"save yourselves FROM THIS UNTOWARD GENERATION."
FROST: It is not difficult to tell the difference between the faith of Satan and others, whose faith is dead, and the
faith made perfect by works (DOING as God commands), James 2:22.
A dead faith is less than a grain of mustard seed! You see then how by an obedient faith one is justified, and not by
faith only? (James 2:24) A “mustard seed” faith is at least strong enough to trust in Jesus to save those who love and obey
Him, even if it at first is the small expression of faith in repenting and being baptized. No wonder that we read of one who
was baptized that “he went on his way rejoicing.” (Acts 8:39)
EVANS: Frost ought not to talk about Satan’s faith if he is not willing to show it in scripture. The word
“believe” does not mean “faith” unless it believes in and/or on the Lord Jesus Christ. Neither Satan nor his
minions ever TRUSTED Christ as their Lord and Saviour. An intellectual assent or head belief is not the same as a
heart belief. I believe that George Washington existed, but that is not enough. With the HEART man believes.
FROST: We read of faith in varying degrees: strong, great, little, and weak. We read of faith that saves, and of faith
that is dead. Faith alone, without obedience to God, is dead. James 2:17: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being
alone.” By “works,” James means doing the will of God, as did Abraham when he offered Isaac (which God ordered, Gen.
22:2, 9-12). Thus he was justified when he obeyed God, by which his faith was made perfect. It was then that God said
that Abraham believed. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the
altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled
which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of
God.” (James 2:21-23) Observe the fact that a faith without obedience is imperfect, and if alone, is dead, but is made
complete in obedience. Only the faith that trusts God fully enough to obey Him without reservation is strong enough to
save. (Cf. Heb. 10:39.)
[EVANS: Now Frost’s spiritual blindness causes him to grasp on to “justification by works.” That indeed is
one of the justifications in scripture along with the other nine, including justification by faith, by blood, by Christ,
and by grace (but not by baptism). Justification is a legal term that does not necessarily mean salvation. When
referring to justification, we must establish what kind of justification and justification before whom. Justification
by works has no merit in salvation or in glory before God. It is however meritorious in demonstrating one’s faith
before men, both the saved and the lost. This is why James said “SHOW ME” thy faith without works, since James
was willing to SHOW his faith by his works. Works justification is a valid Bible doctrine for testimony to others
but not to God for salvation or the remission of sins. Now, when it comes to demonstrating one’s real faith and real
salvation, James’ words well apply. A “living” faith saves us while a “dead” faith does not save us. Abraham’s faith
for righteousness was acknowledged as early as Genesis 12:1-4 and his faith and obedience was acknowledged as
early as Hebrews 11:8, 9). (*See addendum – Justification by Works)
Gen 12:1, 4 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country . . . unto a land that I will shew
thee . . . So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him . . . (see Heb 11:8,9)
Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Rom 4:2 - 22: [2.] For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. [3.]
. . . Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness . . . [5.] But to him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. . . [9.] Cometh this blessedness
then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned* to
Abraham for righteousness . . . [12.] And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only,
but who also walk IN THE STEPS of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
[13.] For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law,
but through the righteousness of faith . . . [16.] Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the
promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of
Abraham; who is the father of us all* . . . [22.] And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. (*Gal 3:6, 7)
Heb 11:8, 9 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an
inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise,
as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same.
(For James’ Justification by works see * See Addendum – Justification by Works)
Herb Evans: Being justified by works versus being justified by faith are two different things. We are justified by
faith before God, but we are justified by works before men. Like Abraham, our faith is counted for righteousness without
works. Frost’s problem is that a true believer relies only on Jesus Christ righteousness alone for his salvation and not on
his own works. Still, a believer will exhibit works not in order to be saved but because he is saved and to demonstrate his
faith. Frost has some sort of a faith plus works for salvation scheme. False professors and anyone trying to justify
themselves by any kinds of works to get the remission of sins are fallen from grace and hold to another gospel. Christ has
become of no effect to such false teachers as Frost and company.
Rom 4:1 - 3 . . . if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the
scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Gal 1:4 - 12 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the
will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him
that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As I said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other
gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to
please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 2:4, 5 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which
we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour;
that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Gal 5:3, 4 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is
become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
FROST: When the works are of the law or that originated with men. (Rom. 10:1-4, Eph. 2:8-9)
EVANS: It is not the works of righteousness which we have DONE that saves us; it is the work that Christ has
DONE for us that saves us. Nowhere in the Bible is water baptism counted as righteousness or for the remission of
sins. Does Frost believe that baptism is a work of righteousness? If it is not a work of righteousness, then it is a
work of unrighteousness.
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have DONE, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Gene Frost: When the Scriptures refer to a believer in a positive sense, it is the obedient believer, obedience being
understood. A case to prove the point: John 3:16—“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” That the “believer” here is obedient is clarified in
verse 36—“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the
wrath of God abideth on him.” The words in the text, translated “believeth” and “believeth not,” are from two different
words in the Greek language. ►GF
Herb Evans: Obedience being understood by whom? Works for Salvationists and Church of Christ-ers? John 3:16
says nothing about baptism. The requirement here is to “obediently” believe. Still, here we go again into the Greek. As
proficient as Frost pretends to be in English, he sure does not use it very much to prove anything. Albeit, Frost will use
anything but the English Bible in order to advance his wicked agenda and to denigrate the King James Bible.
Gene Frost: The difference is significant, and a reason why Herb wants to “throw ’em out.” The first is pisteuo,
common for “believe”; the second is apeitheo, negative prefix, a, to peitho, meaning “obey not” or “disobedience.”
Without the negative prefix, peitho is closely related etymologically to pisteuo, “the difference in meaning is that the
former implies the obedience that is produced by the latter, cp. Heb. 3:18, 19, where the disobedience of the Israelites is
said to be the evidence of their disbelief.” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary, vol. 3, page 124.) In other words, pisteuo is
belief, while peitho is belief expressed by obedience. What Herb claims is salvation by pisteuo alone, which is basic
Baptist doctrine, while the Bible states that salvation is bestowed in view of faith expressed in obedience, peitho. ►GF
Herb Evans: Bible Corrector Vine notwithstanding, Frost’s distinctions between believing and obeying are carried
far beyond any point one might make to gainsay being saved by faith alone. It is true that one of Frost’s two Greek words
is rendered "disobedience" and also "obey," in the KJB, especially in regard to obeying the gospel and obeying the word.
Believing the gospel and disbelieving it is regarded as obeying and disobeying. If you believe, you obey; if you do not
believe, you disobey. This has nothing to do with baptism, and it has nothing to do with being saved by faith/grace alone.
►GF FROST: All Herb can do now is rant against the language of inspiration, [SIC] and slander me. (We have
examined the Greek text of John 3:36 in translation in 1611 to the present, from the Textus Receptus, [Stephens 1550,
Elzevir 1624]; in the Westcott-Hort text, 1881; and in the United Bible Societies Greek text [Aland, Black, Martini,
Metzger, Wikgren], 1968—the English translations are faithful, whether translated as “believe … not believe” or as
“believe … not obey,” or “disobey.”)
Herb Evans: Westcott-Hort? No direct response – only a rant on the TR’s! Two rank, unbelieving, lost men, one a
Mariolator and the other an evolutionist. Frost’s final authorities do not impress me. Vine? His dictionary is most corrupt.
[EVANS: Biggest Heretics and Bible Correctors of all time!]
FROST: Frost’s foremost and final “authority” is Christ. (Matt. 28:18)
EVANS: Frost has no originality whatsoever.
FROST: No doubt unintentional, but Evans has paid me the highest compliment: “Frost has no originality.” I have
no desire to be innovative, to create something new. Unlike my adversary, my desire is to know and faithfully follow that
which the Lord has already revealed, to speak as the oracles of God. (1 Pet. 4:11) I study not how to massage the text to fit
a mold predetermined, to redefine words to conform to some theological mindset. My determination is to understand the
divine message, to know what God’s will is, and to conform my own thinking to it.
Involved are the nuances of foreign texts in which the divine will was first committed, and therefore I welcome the
fruits of in-depth study and research on the part of men and woman who have devoted their lives to a study of the sacred
text, not to blindly embrace everything they may produce, but cautiously assimilating all that proves to be sound and
reasonable. I hope that everything one learns from my teaching is God’s revelation to man, of redemption’s story of the
cross.
EVANS: My charge of no Frost’ lack of originality has more to do with not coming up with his own Bible
research rather than following the quotes of men.
EVANS: Belief is obedience, Vine and Frost not withstanding. Obviously, Frost knows nothing about the obedience
to the gospel from the heart as being sufficient obedience. Still, Frost considers water baptism to be part of his false view
of the gospel?
FROST: Mark 16:15-16—“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” When people who believe
and are baptized are saved, but those who don’t believe are not given the right to become a child of God. Being baptized
without faith accomplishes nothing, but faith wrought with works (obedience) is made perfect. (James 2:22) It is this
perfect faith, not a dead faith (faith alone), which responds to Jesus, in his being baptized (because Jesus commanded it).
(James 2:18-21) It is the true believer, who is unashamed to declare His faith by mouth and be immersed with Christ,
while the world may ridicule him, whom God calls a child of God. (Gal. 3:26-27)
Evans says my view of water baptism as part of the gospel is false. I want the reader to know what he thinks is
FALSE. Here is my view of the gospel.
The Gospel and Baptism
FROST: The GOSPEL, according to the apostle Paul, is that Christ …died for our sins according to the scriptures;
and that He was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. — 1 Cor 15:3-4
EVANS: This is the unadulterated gospel plus nothing minus nothing. Nothing about water baptism here!
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom
also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
FROST: BAPTISM, according to the gospel, is that one baptized into Jesus Christ is baptized into His death.
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.—Rom. 6:4.
As we are planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing
this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve
sin.
EVANS: Here Frost turns the water baptism, the picture of the gospel, into the gospel itself. That is the false
gospel. Poor Frost does not see that we are planted IN THE LIKENESS of His death (water baptism) and we rise
up in the likeness of His resurrection (water baptism). He also ignores that the old man; our old sinful nature is
crucified with Him in a picture portrayal (water baptism.) Since you cannot prosecute a dead man, whatever sin
our old man or our flesh committed and whatever disobedience there is in the old man or flesh in the future, the
new man will still be saved. Now, we don’t expect Frost to understand this.
FROST: One who is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with
him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he
died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed
unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should
obey it in the lusts thereof. God be thanked, that we were the servants of sin, but we have obeyed from the heart that form
of doctrine—the death, burial, and resurrection—which was delivered us. Being then made free from sin, we became the
servants of righteousness. When ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. But now being made free
from sin, and become servants to God, we have our fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is
death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Cf. Rom. 6:3-23.
EVANS: If Frost really believed the rest of this passage, he would stop being obedient in order to get or keep
his supposed baptismal salvation. If you are dead, you cannot be prosecuted. I am not obedient to get saved or to
keep saved; I am obedient because I am already saved and the new man has a desire to serve and be obedient.
Frost’s cart is in front of the horse.
EVANS: Rom 6:17 . . . ye have obeyed from the heart [not from the body in water] that form of doctrine which was
delivered you.
FROST: God’s word never touched your heart to be baptized? (Rom. 6:17) Your baptism was altogether carnal,
from the body? (Cf. Acts 10:48.) And you proclaim yourself a teacher of God’s word? No true disciple of the Lord ever
ridiculed what Jesus taught or scorned anyone for doing what He commanded.
EVANS: Notice how Frost switches from “obeyed” to “touched!” When a person is born again, he gets a new
heart and obeys from that heart in accordance with Rom 6:17. And he now does the things that God wants him to
do and quits the things that God wants him to quit in a process called growing in grace. Now, look who is ridiculing
MY baptism, which Frost hates! Baptism is not to be ridiculed nor the obedience to be baptized. Nevertheless,
baptism in order to be saved or to get the remission of sins is to be ridiculed, and I hereby ridicule it!
EVANS: 2 Thess 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the
gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel, For Isaiah [53:1] saith . . .
FROST: They had not been baptized into the death of Christ, buried with Him, and raised up like Him to walk in life
made new, free from sin!
EVANS: I thought only the Nazarenes believed that they no longer have any sin, but I guess I am wrong. The
Gospel is the good news that your sins are forgiven if you believe. But how does one get baptized INTO the death
of Christ if not by symbolic water baptism? How does one get buried with Christ if not by symbolic water
baptism? Or is this Southern Catholic transubstantiation? Campbellite Transubaptismination?
EVANS: 1 Pet 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the hose of God: and if it first begin at us, what
shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
FROST: Gene Frost: Herb, from what you say, your faith is incomplete.
[EVANS: That is your opinionated conclusion.]
FROST: And if you believe you were saved by faith alone, you are living with a dead faith.
[EVANS: That is your opinionated pontification, so if you were not saved by faith alone, you are still lost.]
FROST: Remember, Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21)
[EVANS: Assuming that we are talking about salvation, baptism is not the Father’s WILL for salvation. Belief
on Christ is the Father’s will for salvation. You better get your will changed. Personally, I prefer a TRUST rather
than a WILL
John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him,
may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.]
\Herb Evans: I am relying on my faith in Jesus Christ and His blood for salvation alone, but I still do have works
because of my faith and salvation – not to obtain them. Still, my works do not contribute one whit to my salvation. A dead
faith is to add works for salvation, i.e., Catholics, JW’s, Campbellites, Seven Day Adventists, Mormons, et al and etc., and
James 2:17-26. The will of the Father is to believe on Christ. Of course, every one that saith “Lord” does not necessarily
believe. Check out Judas, the lost pretender. Watch Frost try to refer to a verse, where Jesus refers to belief as a work.
FROST: (I will not just “try” to find the verse. Here is what Jesus said, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on
him whom he hath sent.” (John 6:29)
EVANS: Of course; the verse was already posted pages ago. It does say that, however it never says baptism is
the work of God, just belief. The work of God (singular) and works (plural) for salvation are two different things.
EVANS: Most “works for Salvationists” do that to reply to grace folks. Repentance and faith are inward works or
“acts.” Baptism and circumcision are outward works/acts. Therein lays the difference.
FROST: I am relying on Christ to save me, and by faith I trust and obey Him. “Thou hast faith, and I have works:
shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works,” James 2:18. The works of James 2, are
actions taken in obedience to God (James 2:20-23) “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith
only. (James 2:24)
EVANS: Frost is going to wear that verse out. Of course, Frost cannot grasp what I already said in that works
justify a man before men to demonstrate one’s faith. Faith, blood, grace, and Christ justify men before God.
YAWN! BURP!
EVANS: John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on
him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
FROST: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe
on his name,” John 1:12. They are sons of God indeed in Christ:
EVANS: In your words, the “GAME IS OVER!” We are not born of the flesh or men but born of God.
John 1:12, 13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God.
1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:
FROST: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:26-27)
EVANS: Well, Frost is wrong again. Usually, I run into this proof passage with invisible baptizers. But since, I
believe it is water baptism here, consider this. The first verse says that ye are ALL children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus. ALL are children of God by faith plus nothing minus nothing. Now, consider the second verse which
does not say ALL: AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIIZED INTO CHRIST have PUT ON Christ. You
see, some of these folks were saved and awaiting water baptism which is PUTTING ON the CHRIST UNIFORM
(watch Frost ask me where the word “uniform” is). Now, I am not going to run references on the “put on’s” in
scripture, but Frost can trace them to find out that it is only saved folks that “put on” spiritual things and not lost
people. The unbaptized saved folks had not yet put on Christ. Hallelujah!
Gene Frost: Yes, Peter preached, “that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of
sins.” (Acts 10:43) He did not say that “faith alone” results in a “remission of sins.” (James 2:24) ►GF
Herb Evans: If believing in Him receives the remission of sins, what need is there for something else to gain the
remission of sins if they have already been remitted through faith? Peter also did not say faith plus baptism!
[EVANS: Also, it did not say faith plus works.]
►GF FROST: The faith that saves is an obedient faith. ►GF
Herb Evans: Yes, we have already cited some scriptures in regard to an obedient faith that saves by itself.
FROST: (Before and without obedience?)
EVANS: DURING!
EVANS: 2 Thess 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of
our Lord Jesus Christ:
1 Pet 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall
the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
Gene Frost: Now, look at the very text of Acts 10. Following the divine demonstration that the Gentiles were
subjects of the gospel, and had the right to be baptized into Christ, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of
the Lord.” (Acts 10:48) ►GF
Herb Evans: They did not only have the right but the duty to do so. They were not water baptized into Christ literally
as Frost admits; they were water baptized INTO [EIS] Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12:13) symbolically to show that they were
IN CHRIST positionally due to their sins being remitted before any water baptism. They were baptized IN the NAME of
the Lord.
[EVANS: I know this is going to be hard for Frost, but we do not deny the commands of scripture whether
baptism or other things. We do deny that obedience to those commands earns the remission of sins or salvation.]
FROST: No, Herb, you missed it. One is not baptized into Christ literally, which modifies “Christ,” the literal body
of Jesus. Literal means: “Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word
or words.” One is baptized into Christ, “Christ” as a metaphor. If you take my use of “literally” to modify “water
baptism,” and think that I do not believe one is literally baptized in water, which would be tantamount to saying, “not
really” then understand that water baptism is literal, the immersion is in the element of water.
EVANS: A metaphor? Well, Frost does bring some sanity to this discussion. Getting a metaphor from Frost is
better than getting nothing. Still, are metaphors symbolic since I am pushing water baptism as a symbol and not as
being efficacious? But what about being baptized INTO His death? Is that literal, metaphoric, or symbolic? Have
you changed your mind about being baptized INTO Moses rather than UNTO Moses or can they mean the same
thing? In regard to being in Christ positionally, off hand, I would say that is like being IN ADAM positionally.
Your guess is? You may note that righteousness is not earned or of works but is a FREE GIFT!
1 Cor 15:22 For as IN ADAM all die, even so IN Christ shall all be made alive.
Rom 5:16 - 18 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to
condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by
one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one,
Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
FROST: Now you conclude that baptism in 1 Cor. 12:13 must be symbolical to show that one is not actually in
Christ, either literally or metaphorically, but “in Christ positionally” by reason of the fact that sins were remitted before
baptism. This is new facet of baptism; it shows that one is positionally in Christ, whatever that means. By the way, Herb,
what does positionally in Christ mean? Since you claim to follow the King James Bible in all you believe and practice, I
know that the Bible must teach it … but where is it?
EVANS: Symbolic baptism into or unto Christ is an identification with Christ. Being saved is a spiritual
position. Being justified by faith is a spiritual position. Having been washed in His blood is a spiritual position.
Being born again or regenerated is a spiritual position. Water baptism is a symbolic reflection of those positions
that put one IN CHRIST. Being IN Christ is not literal; it is not metaphoric; it is spiritual.
FROST: Another thing, you repeatedly state that sins are remitted before any water baptism. It is repeated so often
that I am sure all who fellowship you must believe that this scripturally stated.
EVANS: I am sure that you cannot find where sins are forgiven “after” baptism with the exception of the
symbolic “washing away” of Paul’s sins. Still, we have already discussed the woman’s forgiven sins, whose faith
saved her and the man’s sins being forgiven and Zaccheus. But all I can add to that is that Israel was confessing
their sins at John’s baptism and looking to the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.
Mark 1:5 . . . and they . . . were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mark 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
FROST: But where does the Bible teach that one is baptized to show that he has already died to sin, the old man has
been crucified and the body of sin destroyed, and that he has been raised to walk in new of life? You teach that the death,
burial, and resurrection of the believer occurs before his baptism. That appears to be your theology, but it is not in your
Bible. The Bible shows, in Romans, chapter 6, that they occur in the act of baptism:
EVANS: The Frost keyword here is “already.” Those things were first taught in Romans 6. I’m sure Frost
does not want to invalidate all the water baptisms prior to that point. Still, that is exactly what one is declaring in
symbolic water baptism. Still, folks learn about those things after they are saved. Is Frost’s “crucifixion” and being
counted dead to sin literal or spiritual? In Romans 6, water baptism is a “PLANTING” in the LIKENESS of
Christ’s death. Is that literal or symbolic and spiritual? How does one get baptized INTO Christ’s death?
FROST: 1) Those of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death (3). Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism into death
(4).a) Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve
sin (6).
b) For he that is dead is freed from sin (7).
2) We are buried with him by baptism into death (4).
3) As Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(4) We shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (5).
In baptism, one dies to sin and is buried, and then raised up to live a new life. It is this form of the doctrine Paul
preached (1 Cor. 15:1-3) that initiates a change from the life of serving sin to now serve righteousness. When it is obeyed
and he is baptized, then he becomes a new creation in Christ.
It is sad indeed that Evans wants to strip away everything that God attributes to baptism, as an act of faith in
obedience to His word, and elevates and promotes a faith before and without any obedience, a dead faith.
EVANS: I am sure that all these meanings of baptism can be found here in “LIKENESS.” What is not true is
that all these things did not happen literally and instantaneously in the baptistry but occur in the believers’ lives
through growth. The old man is crucified so that the body of this flesh can be destroyed and Christians can get a
new body. However, the Old man is still with us. Try to resist the old man to see if he still exists.
►GF FROST: What if they refused to be baptized, would their faith only have saved them?
Herb Evans: What if the dog would not have stopped to relieve himself; would he have caught the rabbit? We do
not deal in “What if” hypotheticals; we deal in scripture.
FROST: John was sent of God before Christ to prepare His way, who “did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:3)
EVANS: Well that is interesting. Do you know the point that you are trying to make?
► FROST: What if the people refused to be baptized, would their faith have saved them? Herb cannot answer this
because “what if” is hypothetical. “Suppositional, uncertain,” or not, some did refuse and Jesus answered the “what if.”
“But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him,” Luke 7:30
EVANS: Well, since Herb does not deal in the hypothetical and you do, you might ask if a hypothetical
argument can be made that they rejected the Lamb of God, the preaching of John and God’s counsel first before
they ever refused his baptism. Let Mr. Frost find a scripture passage that demands that a person must go to hell
and be denied heaven if not baptized.
GF FROST: Can we conclude that all believers, obedient and disobedient alike, are saved? ►GF
Herb Evans: We can conclude that all believers are obedient and disobedient at times, due to their flesh and the sin
that dwells in their members. Still, all genuine believers are saved, any sin and disobedience notwithstanding.
FROST: There it is: another letter of the TULIP! The believer is saved regardless of whatever sin he may commit.
Evans doesn’t believe in Calvinism, but he does believe in the Preservation of the saints, commonly referred to as
Impossibility of Apostasy.
EVANS: There is another attempt by Frost to TULIPIZE Evans, who is a ZERO Point Calvinist. I believe in
eternal security but not the Calvinist Perseverance of the saints under the P of TULIP. I believe that God
perseveres and keeps the saints. But this proves that Frost does not believe that Baptism ends it. Selah!
►GF FROST: These Gentile converts were baptized for the same reason as were the Jews: “for the remission of
sins.” (Acts 2:38) ►GF
Herb Evans: They all received the remission of sins by believing in HIM. Afterwards, they were baptized FOR or
CONCERNING their remission of sins after they believed for salvation.
►GF FROST: The apostles were ordered to “preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16) ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost overlooks that “not believing” is all that resulted in damnation here.
FROST: Of course, without faith, one in sin is condemned already. (John 3:18) A strong faith, certainly not a dead
faith, will express itself in obedience.
James 2:21-23: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which
saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” The
saving faith is an obedient faith.
EVANS: But where is the passage that states that he that is not baptized shall be damned? Frost is going to
wear out those passages from Mark and James. He needs to study justification from several different perspectives.
►GF FROST: Observe the fact that baptism precedes salvation. ►GF
Herb Evans: He that believeth and eats ham and eggs and is baptized shall be saved. Eating ham and eggs precedes
being saved in my example, but to not eat does not damn a person. That does not make either baptism or eating ham/eggs
a requirement for being saved. Neither does not being baptized nor not eating ham/eggs mandate damnation in my
example?
FROST: Consider and remember: Evans’ example is not revelation from God and has no authority. We will
presently see that it is flawed.
EVANS: Consider baptismal damnation as not being a revelation from God. I think that Frost is getting the
hang of point/counterpoint discussion, since things now are moving along nicely.
FROST: Evans tries to dismiss baptism in an illustration that makes eating ham and eggs analogous to baptism.
First, analogies do not prove; they only illustrate, and may illustrate error (as Evans’ does) as well as truth. He refers to
eating ham and eggs to represent being baptized: he that believes and eats ham and eggs shall be saved. Apparently there
is no connection between eating and remission of sins, from which fact one may conclude that eating cannot be the cause
of a remission of sins. This conclusion may be true or false. If only the human factor is involved, the conclusion is true.
But if one considers the divine factor, it matters not if there is an apparent connection, in that if God promises a result it
will occur. We have examples of this.
EVANS: Frost tries to dismiss Evans without a verse on Baptismal Damnation (belief without baptism).
FROST: God promised the fall of Jericho: “See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the
mighty men of valour.” (Josh. 6:2) To take the city, the army of Israel was order to march in silence around the city once
each day for six days, with only the trumpets of the priest sounding. On the seventh day, the trumpets sounded a long blast
and the people shouted, at which time the walls fell flat. (Joshua 6:1-21) What connection did marching around the city
have with the destruction of the walls? If only the human factor was involved, the walls would have remained intact. But
for no other reason than God’s promise, the walls fell.
EVANS: Well, despite Frost’s “analogy,” this is just outcome based theology by Frost?
FROST: Consider Naaman, a captain of the Syrian army, who was afflicted with leprosy. The prophet Elisha sent a
messenger unto him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou
shalt be clean.” (2 Kings 5:10) Immediately he was angry because this did not seem proper; he expected Elisha to do
something different. His servants reasoned with him—“if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not
have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?” Then he consented to do as God had
ordered. (2 Kings 5:13-14) As long as the human factor was involved, Naaman saw no connection between dipping in the
Jordan river and the healing of his leprosy. When he allowed the divine factor to determine his conduct, he did as
instructed and was cleansed.
EVANS: Despite Frost’s “analogy.” There, indeed, was a condition attached to Naaman’s cure. Nevertheless,
repentance and faith are the New Testament conditions not baptism. Frost, being a Campbellite tends to gravitate
toward the Naaman water here.
FROST: Now the Lord commands the believer to be baptized (Acts 10:47), the promise being a remission of sin, a
cleansing to wash away sins. (Acts 2:38, 22:16) As long as one relies on the human factor, subjecting the divine will to
human rationalization, he will refuse to be baptized in order to be free from sin (Rom. 6:5-7) because he cannot see the
connection between the command and the promise. He will rationalize, what does immersion in water have to do with a
spiritual cleansing and rebirth? (Or whatever the command of God may be: to march around a city, or to dip seven times
in a particular river, or even to eat ham and eggs.) If God orders it with a promise, be assured that if the order is obeyed,
the promise will be fulfilled.
EVANS: Water baptism has NOTHING to do with spiritual cleansing! Frost seems to think so. We are not
saved by works of righteousness but saved by grace through faith. Does Frost believe that baptism is a work of
righteousness? I do.
Luke 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your
hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and
despised others:
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
FROST: It is this rationalizing on man’s part that prevents many souls from being saved. It encourages
disobedience. It is the insistence to rationalize, to subject everything to human understanding and will, that has created a
discipline of theology. Theology is not a revelation from God, but is the product of human wisdom, which descendeth not
from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. (James 3:15)
EVANS: It is Frost’s rationalization and sophism that is damning his self and his church members with this
Baptismal Regeneration heresy. Of course, we always allow the possibility that a person can get saved the right
way and then fall into such false teaching and heresy. It is hard for us to believe that is the case with Frost in his
man made salvation that is little different than the cults and Roman Catholic apostasy.
►GF FROST: Herb has it reversed. ►GF
EVANS: DITTOS
FROST: Herb deleted the next sentence, here restored:
►GF FROST: Why didn’t Jesus say, “and is not baptized shall be damned”? ►GF
EVANS: “Why didn’t Jesus say, “and is not baptized shall be damned”? – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: Because without faith, they had no right to be baptized; “he that believeth not is condemned already.”
(John 1:12, 3:18) ►GF
[EVANS: However, That would demand that he that believeth not and is not baptized is condemned already,
or he that is not baptized is condemned already, since Frost considers faith alone as not pertinent to the issue but
rather faith plus baptism. Frost cannot have it both ways.
Herb Evans: We agree with Frost’s statement. But my corollary to it is that one who also has not had his sins
remitted by faith alone does not have the right to be baptized.
Gene Frost: The lack of faith is cause enough for one to be lost; no need to talk of obedience to someone who
doesn’t even believe Him whom we must obey to be saved.] Jesus is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that
obey him.” (Heb. 5:9)
[EVANS: Then why mention the cause for damnation by baptism at all in Mark 16:16, when that is already
understood?]
Herb Evans: This is correct as far as Frost goes but is irrelevant. However, when someone obeys the gospel (minus
water baptism), one’s sins are remitted and they get eternal salvation before baptism.
Gene Frost: Paul, himself, was a [typo removed] convert. When Jesus appeared to him, he asked, “Lord, what wilt
thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”
(Acts 9:6) For three days Paul (then called Saul) prayed and fasted. There can be no doubt that he believed … yet he was
not saved. ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost tells us that Paul believed on Christ but was not saved. That is a lie out of the pit of hell. The
moment Paul and others repented and believed, they were saved and had their sins remitted before any of them were
baptized.
FROST: Then why did not Ananias tell Paul he was already saved? He did not. He was sent to tell Paul what he
must do.
EVANS: Why didn’t Ananias tell him he was saved after he baptized Paul? Why did no one tell anyone that
they were saved before or after baptism? Why does Jesus tell us that those who believe are NOT CONDEMNED
and SHALL NOT come into condemnation if Paul was still condemned? Why Does Jesus tell us that those who
believe HATH [present tense] eternal life” rather than shall have eternal life upon baptism? Why did Jesus tell us
that those who believe pass FROM DEATH UNTO LIFE, if Paul did not have life? Frost did tell us that Paul
believed; did he not? Did Paul really have to complete that faith with baptism? The fact is a saved person HATH
the witness in himself, and God’s Spirit witnesses with the spirit of saved folks. Did Paul make Jesus a liar? Or is
Frost making Jesus a liar?
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned . . .
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son HATH [present tense] everlasting life . . .
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, HATH
everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from DEATH UNTO LIFE.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me HATH everlasting life.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
1 John 5:12 He that HATH the Son hath life . . .
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may
know that ye have eternal life . . . 1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God HATH the witness in himself:
he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
►GF FROST: He had yet to be told what he must do. ►GF
FROST: Evans interrupts, and stifles the answer. The Scriptures, unlike Evans, gives the answer. He was told what
he must do:
“Then came Ananias who said, ‘And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling
on the name of the Lord.’” (Acts 22:16) Again, observe that baptism precedes the washing away of sins. False teachers
reverse it.
Herb Evans: Frost neglects that Paul asked what wilt thou have me do and not what Paul must do to be saved (Acts
9:6). Unlike Paul, the jailer asked, “What must I do to be saved?” The jailer was told to believe on Christ and he shalt be
saved but not to be baptized to be saved, although he did just that afterwards. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou
shalt be saved . . .” – Acts 16:31
FROST: Is it true that the apostle Paul told the jailor “to believe on Christ and he shalt be saved but not to be
baptized to be saved”?
EVANS: Yes it is true, unless you can find him saying that in the record. Frost now argues from silence!
FROST: When was anyone ever told in the Scriptures not to be baptized? Especially so, when they are commanded
to be baptized! (Acts 10:48) Did Paul ignore Jesus who commanded what was to be preached?
EVANS: In Acts 16:31! Our nitpicker’s rule is if it is not in scripture he did not say it. Then Frost asks a
stupid question to cover up his lack of scripture. Okay, Frost, produce the scripture where the jailer was
commanded to be baptized! BURP!
FROST: Compare what Evans said Paul told the jailor to do with what Jesus told Paul to preach: “He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved, but”—since without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11:6— “he that believeth not
shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16)
EVANS: Compare that with Acts 16:31 with no mention of a command to be bUptized. Mark 16:16 is not a
command either; it is info.
FROST: Evans neglects to tell the reader that Paul was not told to believe, that it was not necessary in that he
already believed and confessed Jesus as “Lord.” But believing and confessing Jesus did not meet Jesus’ order which
included faith and obedience.
EVANS: Ananias did not tell Paul to believe, but why would Ananias baptize a non believer. So if Frost
acknowledges that Paul was a believer, was he a lost believer or a saved believer? Obedience to do what? Jesus told
Paul to go to Ananias; Paul did that. Is he still unsaved at that point even though he obeyed? Ananias called him
BROTHER SAUL! Now, don’t give me that Jewish brother nonsense! Could it be that Paul was a lost “chosen
vessel” in Acts 9:15? More important here, Paul is an un-baptized “chosen vessel” with a Christ name bearing
ministry and commission before his baptism!
FROST: (Mark 16:15-16) Jesus had said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21) Paul believed, confessed
Jesus to be Lord, but still at the time did not know what he was to do, and so he asked what to do. Jesus said he “must do”
as he would be told, which was to act without delay, “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name
of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) If you asked Evans today, “As one who believes and confesses Jesus to be Lord and Christ,
what must I do to wash away my sins?” would he tell you to do what Jesus said?
EVANS: Still, There goes Pete and Repeat sitting on a fence; Pete fell off, so who was left? Gene Frost, of
course! Before Jesus was ever baptized, Jesus told Ananias what Paul MUST do without any mention of baptism.
Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
FROST: The reader can read the passages and see that I have related the truth, whereas Evans denies that the
believer is to “be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” He teaches a devil’s faith—“the
devils also believe, and tremble”— that one has no obligation to obey Christ in order to be saved. He is wrong because
faith alone is dead. (James 2:17-24)
EVANS: Of course, when Frost gets in trouble, he starts lying about Herb Evans. Herb Evans never denied
that a believer should be baptized or should not call on the Lord. Believers have been calling on the Lord in the
beginning of the Book of Genesis. And Herb does not deny that believers should “wash away their sins’ in symbolic
baptism as Paul did after some delay. Talk about “slander!”
►GF Gene Frost: Then came Ananias who said, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) Again, observe that baptism precedes the washing away of
sins. False teachers reverse it.
Herb, contrast your “experience” and claim with what the Bible says.
EVANS: FAITH (BELIEVE)——REMISSION OF SINS (SAVED)——BAPTISM (OBEDIENCE) *
BIBLE: FAITH (BELIEVE) ——BAPTISM (OBEDIENCE)——REMISSION OF SINS (SAVED)
FROST: * Baptism is obedience following one’s belief.
EVANS: This is true!
FROST: One does not obey God when he changes the order of God’s command and puts baptism after one is saved.
EVANS: The order is to first repent; the second is to believe; the third is to be baptized.
FROST: God’s order is for one to believe, after which he is to be baptized and is thereby saved. (Cf. Mark 16:16)
EVANS: No God’s order is to 1. Repent 2. Exercise faith to be saved 3. Be baptized concerning the remission
of sins that has already occurred upon salvation.
Herb Evans: Of course, Frost is the typical Church of Christ-er with this kind of characterization. Still, Frost has
accurately portrayed the difference between himself and Herb Evans and has mistaken that his position is that of the
Bible. However, False teacher Frost’s statement in regard to Acts 22:16 that baptism precedes the washing away of sins
does not realize that water baptism does not precede the actual washing away of sins. The washing of Paul’s sins away in
Acts 22:16 IS THE SYMBOLIC WASHING AWAY OF SINS by someone who has had one’s sins remitted by faith and
washed away by Jesus blood (before water baptism).
FROST: How can one whose sins are already washed away (PAST) be told to wash away your sins (FUTURE),
calling on the name of the Lord to be saved (FUTURE with the washing away of sins—“whoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32, Acts 2:17, 21) When he is already saved—and this be symbolic? Symbolic of
what? Where is the Scripture for this? I read of such language in Bible Baptist theology, but not in Scripture.
EVANS: How does a black cow eat green grass and give white milk and exude brown dung? Frost can ask
“how/why” questions until doomsday and still fail to make his case. The time element to which Faust is trying to
object to is faulty. Paul’s sins were washed away twice - once upon salvation on the Damascus road and twice when
Paul symbolically washed his sins away in water baptism. Frost removes such symbology from scripture.
FROST: When Herb Evans talks about following Scripture, it is just blow.
EVANS: SNORE!
EVANS: Frost neglects or ignores or evades the fact that Ananias calls Saul ,"BROTHER," since Ananias
recognized that Paul was already saved, a chosen vessel (9:15; 22:14), and a proper candidate for believers’ baptism in
Acts 9:17 BEFORE Paul [typo removed] was baptized (9:18). Church Campbellites, when confronted with this, will
excuse it as being a term for a Jewish brother, a stretch that is not to be found in scripture any more than an unsaved
Gentile is to be called a brother by any saved Gentile.
FROST: Stephen addressed the Jewish Council, after which they stoned him to death. He said to these wicked
leaders of the Jews: “Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he
was in Mesopotamia …” (Acts 7:2) Were these men who murdered Stephen “already saved,” chosen vessels? (Acts 7:54)
Later, when Paul appeared before the Council, perceiving that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees,
he cried out, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am
called in question.” (Acts 23:6) Did Paul recognize the Pharisees as already saved, since he called them “BROTHERS,” or
was he addressing a Pharisee as a Pharisee?
Thereafter, the apostle Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto
them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I
delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans” (Acts 28:17). Were the prominent Jews called
“brothers” because they were saved? Who among the saved are “our fathers”?
EVANS: Frost would have a scriptural point if Stephan was not politely addressing the Jewish council some of
which may have believed like Nicodemus. So, Stephen is careful to address them as 1. Men 2. Brethren and 3.
Fathers in one passage. And then there were the false brethren. What a Frost stretch and strain!
FROST: The word, “brother” is used in Bible of …
1. the son of the same parent or parents, Matt. 1:2; Luke 6:14;
2. a cousin or near kinsman, Gen. 13:8, 14:16, John 7:3, Acts 1:14; X
3. one of the same stock or country, Matt. 5:47, Acts 3:22, Heb. 7:5; X
4. a fellow-man, an equal, Matt. 5:23, 7:3; X
5. one beloved, 2 Sam. 1:26; X - O.T.
6. Christians, as sons of God, Acts 9:30, 11:29.
(A Dictionary of the Holy Bible, American Tract Society, 1859).
EVANS: We have annotated the above with red X’s due to one or more faults or mistakes. The word
“brethren” can be used between lost brethren and between Jewish brethren and between brethren of the same
persuasion. But Frost cannot find anyone in the N.T. being addressed as Brother _____, except Brother Saul in
Acts 22:13 and Acts 9:17. Moreover Paul was a “chosen vessel” prior to his water baptism.
FROST: Herb has been corrected before on his assumption because he has a prepared answer, and states it before I
make the point. He says that for a Jew to address a fellow Jew as “brother” is a “stretch,” i.e. this application of the term is
questionable or unreasonable. Apparently, he never looked at the references cited above where “brother” is used of one as
being “of the same stock or country.” I suggest that the reader read these passages. And I add another, clearly to the point:
“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 13:26)
I have proved my point. Now, Evans, prove that “BROTHER” is limited to those who are saved in Christ.
Why do we have to waste our time in doing the homework Evans should have been doing through the years?!
EVANS: Unfortunately, Frost does not realize that Paul is addressing both saved and unsaved Jews. Notice
that Paul addresses them as MEN and brethren. I have proved that “only a saved man is ever addressed as
“BROTHER _____.” The word “brethren,” obviously is used in a generic or general way but “Brother” is used
specifically.
EVANS: Act 9:17, 18 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said,
Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost . . . and [Paul] arose and was baptized.
FROST: Before this, Saul “trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said
unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” (Acts 9:6) When Ananias was sent to
him, he was told what to do—up until this time, he was still in his sins, not knowing what to do.
EVANS: Well, how does Frost support that opinionated conclusion and pontification? Does it say that! Frost
already told us that Paul was a believer. Frost believes that unbaptized believers go to hell, so at that point Paul
was going to hell fire as an unbaptized believer until he was baptized.
EVANS: Act 22:12, 13 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews
which dwelt there, Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I
looked up upon him.
FROST: Up to this time, he had not been told what he must do.
EVANS: Well, he was told to receive his sight. Seems like Ananias' delay to baptize him put Paul in a
precarious position of dying and going to hell.
FROST: Then Anaias told him, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling
on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16)
EVANS: But did blind Paul, who had to be helped to travel along the Damascus road into the city, go to the
house of Judas for a while until Ananias found him there and then healed him of his blindness? I would say that
constitutes some delay. If during this time, Paul had been hit by a car on that Damascus road, according to
Campbellites he would have went to hell fire not yet having been water baptized.
EVANS: “Please do not give me any of that church of Christ bull about the blood having to come in contact with the
water.” --Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Who are you quoting, or more likely misrepresenting?
Herb Evans: Church of Christ-er denominational members and radio preachers, who explain their water salvation in
this way.
EVANS: “As a former Lutheran, I am through with such fairy tales.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: I can’t say that you have improved yourself. I can’t read about a Lutheran Church in the Bible, nor can
I read about a Baptist Church in the Bible.
Herb Evans: Do you ever read about “John the Baptist” or was it “John the Church of Christ-er?”
FROST: Have you ever read about “John, a Baptist”?
EVANS: What is that supposed to do - make me forget my ricochet question?
EVANS: The Pentecostal “Church of God” folks try to use a Frost kind of argument to prove that they are the ones.
Even Herbert W. Armstrong did that as well with his “Worldwide Church of God.”
FROST: Evan’ inference is that John was a Baptist, i.e. a member of the Baptist church. If so, then don’t confuse it
with the church of Christ. John had prepared the way for Christ and had left the scene of activity on earth when Jesus
promised, “I will build my church.” (Matt. 16:18)
EVANS: INFERRED? Your question provoked my response. Still, John the Baptist prepared the material for
Jesus’ Church. Are you saying that the baptisms of John were invalid in regard to Jesus’ church? Were any of
those baptisms repeated aside from the supposed disciples of John in Acts 19? Was Christ rebaptized?
FROST: “Baptist” doesn’t refer to a church affiliation; rather it describes his vocation as one who baptized. He was
not one of a party, group, sect, or church, “a Baptist,” but preeminently and exclusively “the Baptist.” We read of no other
person, so recognized as a Baptist, much less as “the Baptist.” People who call themselves Baptist today, do so, not
because they are distinguished in their community as one who baptizes, but as a member of a church which is named after
the act of baptism. I ask Herb, is the Baptist church so called because of its practice of immersion or because it is named
after the person of John?
EVANS: No, Baptists were first named by their enemies as “Anabaptists” because they rebaptized. The prefix
was dropped through time. Still, regarding John the Baptist’s name, do you mean like Jesus the Carpenter? Or
Judas the Iscariot. Or Simon the Peter? Can we say that “John Baptist” was John’s actual name?
Matt 14:8 . . . she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist’s head in a charger.
Luke 7:20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou
he that should come? or look we for another?
FROST: Because a church calls itself by a scriptural name, in and of itself does not prove that the church is “of
Christ” as identified in the Bible.
EVANS: I could not agree with you more! So with the COC churches!
FROST: However, if a church does not bear a scriptural name, then you can know that it is not “of Christ,” the
church identified in scripture.
EVANS: I could not disagree with you more. No! It does not say that, so don’t affirm it unless you can do so
the way that it is written.] There is no “Church of Christ” identified in the scripture. There is only the generic
identification in the plural. And that term was introduced in the New Testament much later than you would admit.
EVANS: “Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall
receive remission of sins.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Yes, the penitent, obedient believer, but not the devil and those who follow him.
[EVANS: Whense comest this word “penitent?’ From Southern Catholics?]
Herb Evans: Note that Frosty’s so called non-obedient form of believe is used in Acts 10:43 to receive the remission
of sins. It did not say whosoever is baptized shall receive the remission of sins. Who said anything about the devil that
never put his faith and trust in Christ? Salvation here is through His Name. Moreover, the new birth is to as many as
received Him – to become sons of God (John 1:12, 13). The devil never received or trusted Christ by faith. Believing and
trembling is not necessarily heart belief.
FROST: John 1:12—“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on his name…” Herb, tell us how one invokes this right or power to become a child of God indeed. Do you
agree with the apostle Paul: Gal. 3:26-27—“ For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For”—this is the
reason he could say they were children of God—“as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
We may note that Peter did not enumerate all that is expected of the believer.
EVANS: So, therefore Frost argues again from silence! It is not there but yet it really can be so?
FROST: According Evans’ presumption, since Peter did not state anything more than “believe,” nothing more is
expected or required! He assumes that the believer is not an obedient believer, who is ready by his conviction to do all that
the Lord orders.
EVANS: According Frost’ presumption, even though Peter did not state anything more than to “believe,”
much more is expected or required! He assumes that if any believer is not an obedient believer, not yet being
baptized. Well, Frost, we saw your short list; let us see your long list on all that the Lord commands for salvation.
FROST: Notice something else Peter did not say. He did not say “that through his name whosoever repents and
believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”
EVANS: Still, one cannot believe unless one repents. Also, repent and believe are joined in many places
without mention of baptism.
Mat 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans
and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
EVANS: Nothing is said about (Frost—repentance or--) baptism, in Acts 10:43, as saving anyone here or anywhere
else. Frost intimates the concept of baptism here with his “obedience” word and ignores the fact that whosoever believeth
receives the remission of sins.
FROST: I ignore no such thing. I know that the believer receives a remission of sins. Our difference is: which
believer is blessed, one with a dead faith (“faith without works is dead,” James 2:20) or one whose faith is alive (“by
works was faith made perfect,” James 2:22)
EVANS: Dead Faith is NO faith or a pretended faith - not an unbaptized faith. Your worry is dead works!
EVANS: This is why intellectual believers, unlike heart believers, are not saved. Devils not only believe
intellectually and tremble, but they actually “know” and tremble, but they do not trust Jesus as their Saviour.
FROST: No; theirs is “faith only,” and “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” James 2:24. Sadly, the
devils are not alone in their failure to obey.
EVANS: How preposterous to think that the devil has faith or that his believing something is the same as a
human being. The devils believe such things because they know them.
FROST: Jesus does mention believe and baptism to be saved (Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
EVANS: Frost cannot explain, except feebly, why it says nowhere that an unbaptized believer will be damned.
FROST: It doesn’t make any difference how the Lord puts it, Evans hates the idea that God would demand our
obedience in baptism. We are often asked, Why didn’t God say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be
damned”? Because God is not instructing idiots.
EVANS: You could not prove that about idiots by what you write! God demands obedience period, not just to
baptism. But we have here Saint Frost who obeys everything that God demands, a Pharisee of the Pharisees.
FROST: He knows that if one does not believe he will not be baptized. He “that believeth not is condemned
already— John 3:18.
EVANS: Oh, come on Frost! Jesus had to discourage the Pharisees, telling them who hath warned you to flee
the wrath to come when they came to be baptized.
Gene Frost: I understand that Jesus died for many in order that they might have the remission of sins.
FROST: 1 John 2:2-5—“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and
keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love
of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.”
EVANS: Well, there you have it. Frost suggests that he keeps the Lord’s commandments. All of them? If not,
which ones? Just baptism? The verse is not about salvation but about assurance of salvation. Backsliders rarely
have much assurance of their salvation; getting back on track, solves that problem.
[Herb Evans: Jesus died for the WORLD that they might have their sins remitted and be saved. Still that “world” is
the “many,” unless one is a Calvinist. Christ made it possible for the entire world to be saved by faith.]
Gene Frost: And for the same result, sinners are to repent and be baptized: in order that they might have the
remission of sins. ►GF
[Herb Evans: Indeed, sinners are to believe and repent and be baptized and do good works but not all of these are
conditions for salvation. Only two of them are – repentance and faith.]
FROST: (And the Scripture that states “only repentance and faith are conditions for salvation” is: __________.)
God put both faith and baptism before salvation. (Mark 16:16) God put both repentance and baptism before remission of
sins. (Acts 2:30) Herb takes his theological penknife to cut baptism out of both statements.
►GF FROST: Or, to use Evans’ terminology: Jesus died for many to get the remission of sins. ►GF
Herb Evans: Herb Evans terminology, Bible terminology, is not the same terminology which Frost holds to, namely,
remission of sins by water.
FROST: Bible terminology: “to get the remission of sins”?
EVANS: There Frost goes again correcting and falsifying the Bible by replacing it with his words. And he
insists that he is not a Bible Corrector. No such terminology in the Bible! I thought Frost never said “to get;” see
his comment above in red?
FROST: Herb, did you not notice the italicized words: “in order that” and “to get the remission of sins,” used in
comparing the similarity of “in order to have” and “to get”? You ignore the argument and pretend that I compare your
terminology, which you presume I acknowledge is Bible terminology, with what I say. Far from it! No one believes or
teaches that water is a savior; the Lord is Savior. He is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Heb.
5:9)
FROST Continued: On the other hand, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, He will come “with his
mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his
power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony
among you was believed) in that day.” (2 Thess 1:7-10)
EVANS: I have been careful with extra scriptural terms, since you scolded me about them. Now, you want to
use them. LOL!
FROST: Baptism is a command of the Lord. (Acts 10:48) When the Scriptures speak of salvation (being saved,
receiving remission of sins, washing away sins), obedience in baptism is always put before the result: Mark 16:16, Acts
2:38, Acts 22:16.
EVANS: Baptism indeed is a command of the Lord but not for salvation or the remission of sins. I thought I
explained all that to you.
►GF FROST: Yet Evans’ response is, “Never!” Imagine! One, who claims a devotion to Jesus denies that He died
in order that we may have (or get) a remission of our sins! This is what happens when men wrest the Scriptures in one
area, but are then confronted in another!
[Herb Evans: There goes another partial Herb Evans quote without any context.
FROST: The context is in the preceding black text, in the first layer of exchange which you cut off much earlier. I
quote it in the forthcoming paragraphs; “stay tune!”
EVANS: Do you expect me to look up the context that you should post.
EVANS: Herb Evans never denied that Jesus died so that the world could have the remission of sins (through faith
alone). This is another misrepresentation by Frost. Nevertheless, it is much more scriptural, as well as much more
reasonable, to believe that one gets remission of sins through faith in Christ’s blood than faith in the baptismal water to
get the remission of sins.]
Gene Frost: Of course, no one believes or teaches that one obtains a remission of sins by “faith in the baptismal
water.” He is baptized because his faith in the Lord is not dead, but strong and active, so as to override every mockery of
baptism to obey this command of His Lord. Jesus grants His promise when we show to ourselves and to others that our
faith is perfect or whole, that we are not ashamed to submit to being called “water dogs,” or other invectives. Jesus told
His disciples, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you
falsely, for my sake.” (Matt. 5:11)
EVANS: The implication is strong enough. If you don’t believe it, then tell us the baptismal waters have
nothing to do with the remission of sins, and stop covering up the fact with a command to do something if that
something has nothing to do with it. What other commands have something to do with obtaining salvation? The
Lord’s Supper? Does Frost have a list? But Frost is now playing the victim. He must be a Democrat!
FROST: The point we want to specifically address: Herb says that I give a quote without any context, which is not
so! What has happened is that he has chopped up the context with snippets so that the reader (he hopes) has lost sight of to
what “Evans’ response” is. The way to expose his shenanigan is to reproduce the context:
EVANS: My snippets are in order and contain the name of the commenter and can be followed unlike Frost’s
chop jobs.
FROST: “I understand that Jesus died for many in order that they might have the remission of sins. And for the
same result, sinners are to repent and be baptized: in order that they might have the remission of sins. Or, to use Evans‘
terminology: Jesus died for many to get the remission of sins. Yet Evans’ response is, ‘Never!’ Imagine! One, who claims
a devotion to Jesus denies that He died in order that we may have (or get) a remission of our sins! This is what happens
when men wrest the Scriptures in one area, but are then confronted in another!”
EVANS: Frost is fast and loose as he charges Evans with a denial. My “Never!” was in response to Frost’s
cloaked “. . . baptism: in order that they might have the remission of sins.”
FROST: The context and the significance of the phrase, “in order that,” is the translation of the Greek preposition
eis. The first two lines of the context above refer to why (reason/consequence) Jesus died for many (Acts 26:28) and why
be baptized (Acts 2:38). In both statements the prepositional phrase means the same: in order that they might have a
remission of sins. The use of this phrase—eis aphesin hamartian”; for the remission of sins—to mean in order that one
might have (or get) a remission of sins, Herb Evans denies. He says, “Never!”
EVANS: Frost is addicted to a single definition of the Greek word “EIS” even after you call his attention to
the other definitions. Still, Frost’s definition is not one of Strong’s definitions. The comic part of this is that not
only is the phrase “in order that” not found in the 1500 plus occurrences of EIS, but is not found as “in order that”
in the whole English Bible. And you know that Frost is a stickler for demanding exact wording that must be found
somewhere in the Bible to be able to use it.
FROST: Too late to deny it now. Evans’ wrote in his opening response:
EVANS: Have you noticed how Frost imagines shallow victories even before his opponent responds to his
imagined charges? Have you also notice that Frost likes to refer to what Evans says rather than to what the Bible
says. The tactic here is to demand Evans produce scripture for Evans’ position, while Frost’s task is only to destroy
Evans’ position rather than establish his own position. This is why you have his Pete/Repeat scenarios.
FROST on Evans: “Still, the preposition ‘FOR’ has the synonymous flexibility to be used as baptized ‘in reference
to the remission of sins,’ or ‘in the place of remission of sins’ or ‘because of the remission of sins’ or even ‘in behalf of
the remission of sins,’ but never ‘to get the remission of sins.’” — Herb Evans, “He Took My Place.”
FROST: Does “FOR the remission of sins” ever mean “to have or get the remission of sins?” Herb says, “NEVER.”
Does “never” mean not at all; in no way; absolutely not, OR does Herb have another quibble for us?
EVANS: Evans still says NEVER to any supposed Baptismal command ever given in the Bible to get salvation
or the remission of sins. Frost may produce such, if such exists! Frost’s shallow imaginations beget shallow
victories!
EVANS: “Other than this baloney, Gene Frost does not understand a thing about water baptism. Of course, Frost
really is a Campbellite —A lie, regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!— who believes in baptismal
salvation. We drew him out, despite his denial. He is Church of Christ-er, a Campbellite branch of the “Power in the
TUBBERS.” If Gene Frost is relying on his water baptism for his salvation in any way, he is lost and going to hell. What
can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus [BAPTIST SONG] as opposed to the water of Jesus”– Herb Evans
FROST: Try this question—when does Christ wash away one’s sins?—and explain Acts 22:16:“And now why
tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16
EVANS: See! Nothing new here only Pete and Repeat comments even though we explain these things over and
over. Evans and Paul washed their sins away in symbolic water baptism
FROST: Jesus shed His blood for the remission of our sins. By this blood He purchased the church. (Acts 20:28)
The church consists of the saved. (Acts 2:47) All of the saved by Christ are those who obey Him. (Heb. 5:9) To be saved,
to have sins remitted, Jesus commands that one must believe, which faith comes from hearing the gospel of Christ (Rom.
10:17), repent (Luke 24:47) and be baptized (Mark 16:15-16). It is at this point of obedience that one is saved and added
to the church of the saved. By the same act of obedience, one is baptized into the church (1 Cor. 12:13), or to express it
another way, baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27), the church being the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). And since all
spiritual blessings are in Christ, no spiritual blessings are outside of Christ.
EVANS: That is all we needed, a propaganda sermonette that merely pontificates to his choir that which Frost
believes without making or proving his points. No scripture demands obedience to the command to be baptized to
obtain salvation or any other command except the command to repent and believe. So much for wasted
paragraphs!
FROST: Obedience, of course, does not minimize faith; it relies completely upon it. (Heb. 11:6) By obedience, faith
is made perfect. (James 2:22) Can one be saved with a flawed faith? You see, then, how by obedience (works or actions
ordered by God) one is justified, and not by faith alone! (James 2:24)
EVANS: Absolutely! A person can be saved with a flawed faith, but he cannot be saved without faith. The
man of God is made perfect by the scriptures. A man is justified by genuine faith, by the blood, by Christ. A man
is justified by his works before others but not before God. That is why James said SHOW ME.
FROST: The reader might note the fact that faith is connected to the remission of sins (Acts 10:43); repentance is
connected to remission of sins (Luke 24:47); and baptism is connected to remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Does this mean
that one may choose anyone of the three—faith, or repentance, or baptism—by which to be saved? Of course not; but it
does show that faith, repentance, and baptism are all related to one’s receiving a remission of his sins. (Acts 2:36-38)
What if one accepts just one of the three, and rejects the other two as being non-essential, even to ridiculing and mocking
anyone who accepts them? Could we not say that such a person is foolish to reject the counsel of God against himself?
(Luke 7:29-30.)
EVANS: Connected how? Because there is a connection with the remission of sins, does not mean that baptism
is demanded for the remission of sins. Repentance and faith are essentials for salvation; without them one is
damned. Baptism is a non-essential; the absence of baptism does not damn anyone. Still, a man doesn’t even have
to “refuse” baptism to be placed in Frost’s “damned” compartment. All one has to do, like Paul, is to be found
waiting to be baptized or have some delay taking place between faith and baptism or even death like the thief on
the cross. This is why Frost’s doctrine is not only dangerous, false, unscriptural, but also unreasonable.
Herb Evans: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, chances are that it is a duck, and a rose
by any other name is still a rose (so also is stink weed). Water can never literally wash away sin, but the blood of Jesus
can and does spiritually—but not literally—wash away sin, while water portrays the same symbolically.
FROST: The symbol of baptism is in its action—death, burial, and resurrection—not in its result.
EVANS: HUH? Its action results in portrayal.
Gene Frost: Imagine! Baptism is an appointment of God, and He commands it. Yet, Herb finds a conflict—blood is
opposed to the water of baptism. ►GF
[EVANS: There is no conflict in my mind. Both can be reconciled if one is not a Campbellite! The blood is
joined by faith and not by water! Mr. Frost, what washes away sin? Blood or water?]
Herb Evans: It is no wonder that the Church of Christ-ers are called Southern Catholics! God commanded and
appointed many things, many of which are NOT conditions for washing our sins away. Does the command “THIS DO in
remembrance of me” wash away our sins? I seem to remember something like this from some of Frost’s crowd, who
observe the Lord’s Table every Sunday. Why? Could it be to maintain their salvation? What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus!
FROST: Herb Evans mocks the Lord’s command of baptism (Acts 10:48), and now he mocks the Lord’s Supper,
which we observe on the first day of the week as did the early church. (Acts 20:7) He has the gall to ask, Why? Because
Jesus said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as
often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Cor. 11:25-26)
EVANS: When a person thinks that he is God, anything you say is mocking God. But you will notice that
Frost did not address my point of maintaining salvation by taking the Lord’s Supper (a Catholic trait). So, I will
ask Frost directly, do you take the Lord’s Supper to maintain, keep, or not to lose your supposed water salvation?
Does a person have to take the Lord’s Supper to be saved? It is a command is it not? Do the COC wash feet?
FROST: I have absolutely no respect for this man.
EVANS: That is fine; I never asked you to respect me as I have never respected water salvationists!
►GF FROST: The Bible says that Jesus’ blood was shed for (in order that we might have) the remission of sins.
(Matt. 26:28) And it says we are to be baptized for the same reason. (Acts 2:38) ►GF
EVANS: That is a bold face lie! The Bible does not “SAY” that term anywhere. Frost is the one who says that!
Herb Evans: Didn’t Frost tell Herb Evans that “IN ORDER THAT” constitutes the end of the matter, so why is
Frost adding to the shed blood if that is the end of the matter?
FROST: NO.
EVANS: So there you have it; Frost is baptized in order that he “might” have the remission of sins. And that is not
the end of the matter, since he must obey other commands in order to be saved and get the remission of sins.
►GF FROST: Both are appointments of God to achieve the same goal. Frankly, I find things appointed by God and
commanded by God to be in harmony. Herb calls this “baloney.” Even divine items receive no respect from him.
Herb Evans: Not! There is no harmony between grace and works.
EVANS: Notice how Frost ignores and avoids the additional obedience required for his works salvation.
FROST: “For by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph 2:8); “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him
whom he hath sent” (John 6:29). It is by the grace of God that we have His word to teach us and instill faith, which is a
work of God (Rom. 10:16).
EVANS: Works plural and the work of God by us believing are two different things. Repenting and believing
are the only inward ACTS that produce salvation; there are no outward acts that produce salvation. Again, there
is no harmony between grace and works plural. They are mutually exclusive
FROST: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying
ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12) The
grace of God teaches us to DO what? Deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously, and godly.
These are works of God. There is harmony between God’s GRACE and what God would have us DO (obey).
EVANS: Frost’s hole gets deeper and deeper and goes way beyond baptism. What happens, Mr. Frost, when
you do not obey everything in the commanded works? Do you get lost? Unsaved? Do you then have unremitted
sins? Tell me, when Jesus told his disciples whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever sins ye retain
they are retained (paraphrasing), is this talking about water baptism like the Catholics teach? If not water
baptism, WHAT?
FROST: Don’t confuse salvation of God with saving yourselves, and works of God with one’s own “works,” of
which he could “boast”—“For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of
works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9) Don’t confuse works of God with works of the law. (Rom. 3:27, Gal.
2:16)
EVANS: Is water baptism a righteous work which we have done? Or is it an unrighteous work which we have
done?
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
EVANS: Jesus’ blood is the only thing that obtains “remission of sins” and that only through faith. I can’t respect a
baptism that is said to get your sins remitted.
Gene Frost: Let’s take his statement above, and substitute’s Paul’s name instead of mine: “If the apostle Paul is
relying on his water baptism for his salvation in any way, he is lost and going to hell.” Ananias said to Paul, “And now
why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) “And
immediately (he) arose, and was baptized.” (Acts 9:18) Paul was baptized to wash away his sins…is he “lost and going to
hell”? Aren’t we glad that we do not have Herb Evans as our judge!
Herb Evans: If Paul was relying on baptism for his salvation, indeed, he was lost and a “chosen vessel” on his way
to hell. Fortunately, Paul was not relying on water baptism for his salvation. We have Ananias as the judge here, who
counted Saul a BROTHER before his baptism. Paul portrayed the symbolic washing of his sins away. Paul also portrayed
Jesus’ shed blood, and His death, burial, and resurrection, whether he knowingly or unknowingly did it without further
revelation in the desert.
Gene Frost: The “for” in Matt. 26:28 and in Acts 2:38, in the inspired Greek text, is yet a different “for” than those
he cited in his examples of “for.” It is the preposition eis, in the Greek, which according to George Ricker Berry (who
Evans says is “somewhat of an authority”) means:
FROST: — “eis, to the interior (opposite to ek, and correlative with en). …
— Towards, with respect to a certain result, in order to, for.
— Into, symbolically, as marking the entrance into a state or sphere…” —Samuel Green, Handbook, pages 242-243.
EVANS: Well, it seems like Frost has found some additional definitions for EIS besides his non-existent “in
order that.” Actually, such incomplete definitions are the way that Frost operates. Bravo! Now, find the rest!
Herb Evans: Pete and Repeat must be friends of Frost as often as Frost says the same thing over and over again.
FROST: (Every statement of error, which he repeatedly assumes, as the word “substitutionary”—he used “over and
over,” by my count, at least 47 times—which he attaches to atonement and reconciliation, I have tried to counter with the
truth, which Evans refers to as mantras.
EVANS: Look at Pete/Repeat with his repeated arguments, passages, and definitions, calling the kettle black.
EVANS: Frost’s often repeated mantras are the distractions and not Herb Evans’
FROST: mantras. (“Mantra” is a word in Hinduism which refers to “a sacred verbal formula” repeated in prayer or
incantation, such as a portion of scripture containing mystical potentialities. I lay no claim to having a mantra; I don’t
believe in such so-called “sacred formulas” to invoke a god, or higher power, or to cast a magic spell. That is Hinduism.
Evans says that “Frost’s mantras” [slander] are distractions, but his, Herb Evans’, are not.)
EVANS: Frost must lead a sheltered life without news or radio or TV to know how the word is used in modern
society. Eventually, the word “mantra” might get into Frosts modern definitions.
EVANS: I have no problem with the Greek “EIS” underlying Frost’s two passages, if correctly understood (Frost’s
excuse), although Frost avoided the other exact “phrase” passages that say, “FOR (EIS) the remission of sins.”
“Of course, it is these both that are different from my 10 examples that were cited in reference to the substitutionary
death of Christ and not water baptism. Frost is trying to mix two different arguments together here.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Herb, I have already shown the evidence and convicted you of mixing huper texts with eis texts. I insist
on making the distinction. ►GF
Herb Evans: Judge Frost convicts Herb Evans without evidence and feels free to post his assumptions, to bias his
case, failing to understand what Herb Evans really is saying and also to misrepresent what he says. I merely mixed the
main “FOR” texts together to demonstrate those different Greek words (rendered “FOR”) including the word “EIS.”
FROST: (How did you determine which are the “main “FOR” texts from the minor “FOR” texts?
[EVANS: Notice that Frost never ‘fesses up to his deeds but rather probes for something else that he can hang
his coat (usually with another question). It was not a determination of the main words but a guess as to what you
would like to fight about in regard to the FOR’S in regard to what Christ did on the cross.]
EVANS: There was no conspiratorial mixing of prepositions to obscure any distinctions except in Frost’s paranoid
black helicopter conspiracy theory.
FROST: And so you “mixed” your collection of “FOR texts” together. By doing this, what did we learn that was not
already understood?
EVANS: Well, since Frost never learns anything from what I post, Paleface [we] probably learned nothing
except how to pick at what I do post. I went into more detail later to satisfy Frost’s gripes; they went unaddressed.
EVANS: “George Ricker Berry is hardly an authority on everything.” – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: Is he an authority only when he and Evans are in agreement? ►GF
Herb Evans: I accept Berry, the YLT, and the Septuagint, when they are in agreement with the KJB and do not
contradict the KJB. In that event, they are close enough for government work to boomerang them back to Frost and other
Bible Correctors.
EVANS: “Still, in this case he is correct in translating it FOR [EIS] in Acts 2:38 as well as Matt. 26:28. It is “FOR”
in both places.” – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: Finally, Herb admits that the Greek, from which “for” is translated, is eis, but we notice that he
doesn’t define it. First, he said to throw out the Greek text, that it is corrupted. But now he acknowledges that “for,” in
Acts 2:38 and Matt. 26:28, is translated from the Greek text. Then he said to throw out the Greek lexicons, that the
English is sufficient, leaving it open to define as he pleases. He is unqualified to tell us on his own what Greek words
mean. ►GF
Herb Evans: Herb Evans admitted nothing, for there was nothing to admit. I simply agreed with Frost calling
attention to something that I already knew and never denied. Is Frost angry that I agreed? I have old articles on baptism
that elaborate on the Greek word “EIS” in Acts 2:38.
EVANS: “As I said the English word “FOR” is flexible, depending on the context.” – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: Yes, but only within the meaning of the word. ►GF
Herb Evans: Is Frost deaf? The definition depends on the context. Is Frost demanding that “FOR” means “to obtain”
or “to get” in every place in which it is used in the Bible? Or just in Acts 2:28 and Frost’s other two passages?
EVANS: “Also, the Greek word “EIS” is also very flexible, depending on the context.” – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: Herb, your following statement about the crook stealing chickens does not show any flexibility in eis:
you don’t even have the word “for” in your statement, much less a “for” translated from eis! ►GF
Herb Evans: I thought that Frost was smart enough to understand that I was using one of those “FOR” renderings
(concerning or in reference to) against another of Frost’s definition “in order to get” to illustrate my arguments and how
they differ from those of Frost. My examples of “EIS” in this post and their different renderings demonstrate that Frost’s
narrow and inflexible definition to advance his view is faulty.
FROST: Sorry, Herb, no one is “smart enough” to know what you are thinking. What you are talking about is
clairvoyance, not intelligence.
EVANS: Well, then, you could have fooled me for as many times as you tried to read my mind throughout this
correspondence. You knew what I assumed. You knew what I thought. You knew what I was. I would say that was
pretty smart; I really do think you are smart but unfortunately spiritually blind. Still, you did know what I
believed from the start in regard to the SA topic.
FROST: You make a mockery of a dictionary, supposing that every definition or connotation of a word may be used
legitimately in every use of it. In a given sentence a word does not have a single use, but may be understood as meaning
any one of a list of meanings. To reason otherwise is absurd on the surface. (Try it with the word “fast.”)
EVANS: Well, I am sorry that I did not genuflect to your extra scriptural authorities, but again, you
mischaracterize me. I merely pointed out that you were selective in your dictionary renderings and could be wrong
in your dogmatic definitions in certain important places.
►GF FROST: Nevertheless, I will answer your questions. ►GF
Herb Evans: Shoot!
EVANS: “Did the crook go to jail because of stealing chickens, yes
FROST: —and he would have pay the penalty to obtain pardon, or FOR (in order to have) freedom
EVANS: Not so, pardons do no require penalties, except in Frost’s world.
►GF [FROST: Herb deletes the following line:]
EVANS: or did he go to jail in order to get the chickens (sic) stole? ►GF
Herb Evans: So Frost admits that “FOR” (EIS) can mean “because of,” but he has to muddy the water by adding a
misdirection play. – Herb Evans
FROST: Of course, “FOR” can mean “because of”; in Greek it would most likely be “FOR” (HOTI) or possibly a
conjunction “FOR” (DIA) or (DIA TOUTO HOTI), but NOT (EIS). Check this out with your Greek professors as your
extra scripture authorities.
I am wondering if you are devoid of reasoning, Herb. I will try one more time; follow closely and try to comprehend.
Eis is a foreign word (Greek) which conveys a particular, limited connotation of the word “for.” The word “for” has
many connotations—most of which do not comport (agree, correspond, or harmonize) with eis.
EVANS: So, who is the judge of that since I have posted otherwise? Is the King James Bible wrong in its
various other uses of EIS?
FROST: You prostitute the word eis when you bundle all of the many connotations of the English word “for” and
think that any and all of these connotations may be used in interpreting eis (or any other Greek preposition translated
“FOR”). Or, to state it another way, it is a fallacy in interpreting the English word “for” to select any connotation
connected with any Greek preposition, which is translated “for,” and thereby determine a true meaning and understanding
of the text. To the contrary, the interpreter may not use whatever meaning he chooses and that the result will then be the
meaning. However, the truth is: conveying the correct understanding of a Greek preposition “for” is limited to a very few
of the English connotations. For one, eis (for) does not convey the meaning of “because.” To express “because” in Greek,
the proper word would be hoti, or dia, according to the context.
EVANS: Now, Frost sees Herb Evans as a pimp. Frost discovers along with his authorities that EIS is never
translated “because of” or “on account of.” Technically he is correct as far as the exact words or phrase is
concerned. Actually, there are other Greek words that translate “because of.” Nevertheless folks repented AT THE
PREACHING of Jonas. Now, did they repent to obtain the preaching of Jonah? Did they repent “to get the
preaching” of Jonah? Did they repent “in order to” the preaching of Jonah? Or simply, did they repent “because
of” the preaching of Jonah or “on account” of the preaching of Jonah? Perhaps, Frost should check out his hero,
A.T. Robertson, on this one. Anyway that you cut it, whether the Greek words HUPER, DIA, or EIS which
underlie FOR, the word “FOR” means “because of” or “on account of” or “in the place of” in certain passages.
MATT 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for
they repented at [EIS] the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Luke 11:32 The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for
they repented at [EIS] the preaching of Jonas;
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for [DIA] the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 4:3 - 5 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for [EIS]
righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for [EIS] righteousness.
Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we
say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for [EIS] righteousness.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for [HUPER] the ungodly.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children
of the promise are counted for [EIS] the seed. [not to get the seed]
►GF FROST: “To get” is future; “stole” is past tense of “steal.” One doesn’t do something in the future to get
something done in the past. ►GF
FROST: Reasoning as you do, makes you look foolish to people who know anything about translating foreign
languages into English.
EVANS: Die Bible ist doch recht, aber die Kalte is nicht recht! Ja?
Herb Evans: Is Frost saying Acts 2:38 does not mean a “future” remission of sins after a “past” water baptism?
FROST: We are not writing about Acts 2:38 here, but of one going to jail to get (in the future) chickens “stole” (past
tense) in the past. Does this make sense to you, Herb? This is your problem: in a desperate effort to justify your theory,
you make up an uninspired sentence with which to frame and conform a Bible verse, which is not even of the same
construction.
EVANS: Well, my chicken stealing analogy/illustration was not the sharpest knife in my drawer. So now,
Frost finally comes by a real admission from Herb and does not have to make one up. He can crow about it from
now on. We, however, shall proceed to the word “UNTO” and see how he handles it.
►GF FROST: This doesn’t make sense, but, then again, quibbles don’t have to make sense; they are designed only
to create confusion and deception, and to call attention away from the truth.
Herb Evans: Well, I got what I wanted with Frost’s answer to “because of.” Still, Frost’s idea of a “works remission
of sins” is exposed. Does the man steal the chickens in order to obtain the resulting jail time? Mr. Frost is resisting and
delaying the inevitable. Does the man get baptized in order to obtain the resulting remission of sins? Try your English
lesson on these, Mr. Frost. Past, present, and future makes sense to me.
FROST: The fallacy of your comparison is flawed. The issue is the preposition FOR—is it because or in order to
(get). We will parallel the two sentences with Acts 2:38:
Repent, and be baptized
FOR
the remission of sins
Did the crook go to jail BECAUSE OF ______________ stealing chickens?
The sentences are not parallel. In both there is action (repent, be baptized and go to jail), but the action is not the
same; be baptized requires one’s voluntary action, while going to jail is involuntary action imposed by another).
FROST: The action is followed by a preposition (for and because of) and the objects of the preposition (sin which
relates to stealing, both negative results). But notice: Herb’s sentence has nothing to parallel remission.) When we
complete the parallel with a term conveying the idea of remission, a synonym as forgiveness or pardon, we have a correct
parallel:
Did the crook go to jail BECAUSE OF the pardon for stealing chickens?
This sentence is not true. One is not put in jail because he is pardoned (or forgiven of the crime of) stealing. Evans’
proposed parallel is not parallel at all; it is flawed.
EVANS: Okay! Shall we talk about chickens for the duration of the discussion and end up with why did the
chicken cross the road? What about us moving on to EIS as UNTO!
Gene Frost: The following paragraph Herb reformatted and highlighted, and yet left it all in quotations as though it
is what I submitted. This is unacceptable! I will not tolerate his changing what I have written in any way. He can
comment, but he cannot change it. I have restored it, and repeated the two sentences before the quotation (now in green
type): ►GF
Herb Evans: As often as Frost has misrepresented my comments and partially quoted them and quoted them out of
context, I can’t believe that Frost is seeing a conspiracy in either my oversights or my attempt to facilitate simplicity in
doing point/counterpoint discussion. Forgive me Mr. Frost; I am sorry if I changed Mr. Frost’s beloved format and
highlights even though he is guilty of greater misdeeds.
FROST: Evans guilty as charged, admitted! His excuse: “he (Frost) is guilty of greater misdeeds. Cite the case in the
black or brown type. I have done what I now ask of him in a few instances in this latest (third layer) response so that he
might see how frustrating it is. Is this his reference to “misdeeds”? If so, then we have a confession and an evaluation of
his tactics in his so-called “point/counterpoint” format! I see not “a conspiracy,” a third party, but what I see is unethical
conduct in dishonest treatment of my responses. If he honestly seeks forgiveness, then let my distracter bring forth “fruits
meet for repentance.”
EVANS: No, guilt involved, since I sought to improve the readability of the discussion so that folks could
follow it. My format never approached Frost’s chop jobs intermingling comments from each party without name
or color designators. One member of his group saw nothing wrong with the format.
Gene Frost: The “for” in Matt. 26:28 and in Acts 2:38, in the inspired Greek text, is yet a different “for” than those
he cited. It is the preposition eis, in the Greek, which according to George Ricker Berry (who Evans says is “somewhat of
an authority”) means:
FROST: —“into, to (the interior). See Gr. §§ 124, 298. In composition, it implies motion into or towards.” (GreekEnglish New Testament Lexicon.) The “Gr. §§ 124, 298” refers to explanation sections in the Handbook to the Grammar
of the Greek Testament by Samuel G. Green, which I have in my library. Section §298 says: —“eis, to the interior
(opposite to ek, and correlative with en). …
“4. Towards, with respect to a certain result, in order to, for.
“5. Into, symbolically, as marking the entrance into a state or sphere…” - Samuel Green, Handbook, pages 242-243.
INTO as Used in the Scriptures
EVANS: Many of the following KJB “INTO” readings are synonymously stylistic, where either the word
“into@ or Aunto@ might have been chosen by the translators in certain places. Obviously, in the KJB, many of the
“INTO’s” do NOT actually mean the entrance INTO the interior of something. Jesus did not actually enter into the
mountain. We submit that “INTO” often means “in reference to” or “in regard to,” simply identification to or with
something or someone. Many verses use INTO in the sense of UNTO as with UNTO Moses. Sometime “into” and
“unto” are translated from EIS in the same verse.
John 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king,
he departed again INTO a mountain himself alone.
Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given UNTO you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and
running over, shall men give INTO your bosom . . .
Rom. 6:3 . . . that so many of us as were baptized INTO Jesus Christ were baptized INTO his death?
Eph 4:15. . . may grow up INTO HIM in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Gal. 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized INTO Christ have put on Christ.
1 Cor.12:13For by one Spirit are we all baptized INTO one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we
be bond or free; and have been all made to drink INTO one Spirit.
Gal 1:17 . . . I went INTO Arabia, and returned again UNTO Damascus.
Rom 10:18 . . . their sound went INTO all the earth, and their words UNTO the ends of the world.
1 Cor. 10:2 And were all baptized UNTO Moses in the cloud and in the sea . . .
The KJB’s Uses of AUNTO@
EVANS: More clearly than “into,” “unto” suggests “coming in contact” with something or someone.
Matt 9:6 . . . Arise, take up thy bed, and go UNTO thine house.
Mark 15:46 . . . And he . . . wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a
rock, and rolled a stone UNTO the door of the sepulchre.
Luke 2:4 . . . And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, INTO Judaea, UNTO the
city of David, which is called Bethlehem . . .
Luke 11:24 . . . When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest;
and finding none, he saith, I will return UNTO my house whence I came out.
Luke 24:12 . . . Then arose Peter, and ran UNTO the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen
clothes laid by themselves . . .
John 5:24 . . . He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
not come INTO condemnation; but is passed from death UNTO life.
John 11:54 . . . Jesus . . . went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, INTO a city called Ephraim . . .
John 19:27 . . . from that hour that disciple took her UNTO his own home.
John 20:10 Then the disciples went away again UNTO their own home.
Acts 1:8 . . . and ye shall be witnesses UNTO me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria,
and UNTO the uttermost part of the earth.
Acts 11:11 . . . there were three men already come UNTO the house where I was . . .
Heb 10:39 . . . But we are not of them who draw back UNTO perdition . . .
James 2:2 . . . For if there come UNTO your assembly a man with a gold ring . . .
Rev 6:13 . . . And the stars of heaven fell UNTO the earth . . .
Rev 9:1 . . . I saw a star fall from heaven UNTO the earth . . .
Rev 12:13 . . . And when the dragon saw that he was cast UNTO the earth . . .
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
EVANS: The word "INTO" in the OED has some 23 different meanings. The English scriptures use AINTO@
in a number of ways as do their underlying Greek word "EIS." Although, the primary meaning of our English
AINTO@ is entry into an interior, another meaning is to make contact with or against, i.e., he ran INTO a wall. In
many instances the word Ainto@ and Aunto@ are used figuratively and also synonymously and stylistically. With
such flexibility of usage, it would not be wise to force one=s doctrinal view on a private interpretation of AINTO,”
especially if it can only be forced to support one’s doctrine in one or two places. To insist on one’s preferred
rendering out of all the OED renderings is to propagate one’s bias is a serious error. The Campbellite makes this
mistake with the word AFOR,@ in Acts 2:38, which also has the underlying Greek word AEIS.@ To arbitrarily
insist that INTO always means inside something is a stretch (see examples), especially when INTO is used
figuratively or with metaphors. Most interesting are the OED renderings 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17. Note how “INTO”
is used as “UNTO” and vice versa.
Herb Evans: Why Frost’s Greek Text is “inspired” escapes us when it is an eclectic text from only 5% of the
thousands of copies and fragments extant? Were all the copies and fragments inspired or just some of those which were
used? Which ones were inspired?
FROST: This bold blue type indicates that this is Herb’s third article and has before him the correction of his
misrepresentation which resulted from his attributing to me what a fellow KJBO advocate wrote. After being corrected—
yes, over and over again, Herb—this goes beyond a mistake. It certainly takes on the appearance of a deliberate
misrepresentation, which in its worst form is a lie and sits on the shelf with calling me a Campbellite, which he cannot
even justify in its origin or define according to universal usage. Yes, over and over again, SHAME!
EVANS: When one does not know what he is talking about, how can he be misrepresented? Frost just charges
things without posting the particulars to which he alludes. After all of Frost’s silly format innovations, one needs a
roadmap to decipher them.
FROST: When I speak of the inspired text, I refer to the text inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16), written by those so
enabled (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5).
EVANS: Frost, WHERE IS YOUR INSPIRED TEXT of God? Do you have it? Does anyone have it? If not,
stop talking about and glorifying what does not exist, namely the original Autographs. Not even exact copies of the
Autographs exist. Only manuscript scraps none of which are complete or agree with one another. The printed texts
are eclectic texts from no more than 5% of over 5,000 manuscripts, fragments, and scraps that have been found,
none of which is complete or intact.
FROST: If any translation is accurate, it must reflect this text, regardless of how conveyed, in complete manuscripts
or fragments. No need now to go into the transmission of the text; it is a diversion. Suffice it to say we have the message
inspired of God. Do you disagree and affirm that the inspired text is thoroughly corrupted, hence lost, or no longer exists
in any form, hence is lost?
EVANS: I affirm that the Original Autographs are lost. So, how does one go about comparing what we possess
to something that is no longer extant to see if it is accurate? Is it true that NOW we only have the “inspired
message” of God and not the very inspired word of God?
EVANS: Still, why is Frost unwittingly helping Herb Evans to the symbolic meaning of “EIS” from Frost’s final
authorities? While I do not object to baptism “towards” or “against” the remission of sins (Frost’s excuse), does Frost
have a problem with those renderings being in the bounds of both Green’s and Evans’ explanation, especially if Green
does believe in some sort of “symbolic” baptism that Frost posts above in regard to INTO (EIS)?
FROST: Evans seems excited about Green’s use of the word “symbolically.” Before he gets too excited, he needs to
know that Green does not use the word as he does. We will go into this further in the following green paragraph.
EVANS: Frost loves to tell what people mean, whether Herb Evans, Charles Spurgeon or Herb Evans. We
can’t wait for Frost’s weasel worded and manipulated explanation by Green, as Frost reads minds beyond the
grave! Seems like the O.T. is against that!
EVANS: “Gene ought to spend more time in his Bible than in his library. This quoted explanation is well within the
bounds of my interpretation” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: (There has to be a pained grin on Herb’s face.) Let’s see.
Samuel Green defines into (eis) as directing “to the interior,” opposite to ek, “from the interior,” which graphically
can be illustrated with an arrow. Eis points toward or into (a place or state); the opposite is ek which points back from, or
out of (a place or state). It pictures “the entrance” into a state of forgiveness, as sins are remitted. Green says of Acts 2:38:
(eis aphesin hamartion) “into the remission of sins,” or, according to some, as “Towards, with respect to a certain result,
in order to, for.” ►GF
Herb Evans: Despite Frost’s eisegesis and commentary, I think that he is further apart than Green than Herb Evans
is, especially with Green’s use of the word “symbolic,” and also since “EIS” is translated “concerning” (Rom 16:19) and
“UNTO” (twice in Acts 19:3) as well as “INTO” and “toward” (Mat 28:1; John 6:17). Still, “toward” the remission of sins
is not out of the question for me, depending how far someone wants to go with that idea. Of course, Frost’s comments are
like “sin,” and [they] take you further than one wants to go.
FROST: So what does Samuel Green mean when he refers to the preposition eis, meaning “Into, symbolically, as
marking the entrance into a state or sphere (see under en, 4).”? First, understand that a symbol is “Something that stands
for or represents another thing; esp. an object used to represent something abstract.” Abstract is something “considered
apart from concrete existence.” Concrete existence is “existing in reality or in real experience; perceptible by the senses;
real; of or relating to a material thing or group of things as opposed to an abstraction.” Samuel Green gives the illustration
(omitting the Greek text):
EVANS: You tell me! Mr. Green is your authority not mine. I would guess that he means what I mean and
what the Oxford English Dictionary means by its use of the words “into” and “unto.” Still, we are glad that Frost
accepts some sort of “symbolism” in regard to water baptism as he back peddles away from my comments on EIS
in Acts 2:38 and elsewhere.
INTO in the OED
EVANS: Of course, what does the Oxford English Dictionary, the mother of all dictionaries, know?
Nevertheless, here are some of the Old English Dictionary’s definitions in regard to the word INTO as opposed to
the word UNTO:
INTO - 12. Unto, even unto, even to (a place or point); to the very. + Obs. c1205 Lay. 4298 Belin Šef his leue
broþer anne dal of his londe+to halden norð in to þare sæ. Ibid. 14099 Heo hatieð þe swiðe in to þan bare dæðe.
13+ K. Alis. 777 Bulsifal neied so loude, That hit schrillith into the cloude. 1525 Ld. Berners Froiss. II. cxxxvii.
[cxxxiii.] 382 In the chapell he was vnarmed of all his peces into his doublet. a1548 Hall Chron., INTO - 13.
Towards, in the direction of. Obs. (Cf. 10.) c1290 S. Eng. Leg. I. 345/11 Abouten eiŠte hondret mile Engelond long
is Fram þe South into þe North. a1300 Cursor M. 3384 (Gött.) Þai held+Þe landes þat lay in to þe est. c1430 Lydg.
Min. Poems (Percy Soc.) 61 Youre hertis ye lyft up into the est, And al your body and knees bowe a-downe. 1568
Grafton Chron. I. 56 The first of these foure wayes was named Fosse, the which stretcheth out of the South, into
the North. 1652 Needham tr. Selden's Mare Cl. 38 A streight line drawn+from the North-East into the South.
INTO - 14. Unto, until, on to, up to (a time or date) c1380 Sir Ferumb. 1420 Fro þat day in to þys myn herte
haþ he yraft. c1380 Wyclif Last Age Chirche p. xxvi, Fro þe by-gynnynge of ebrew lettris in to Crist+weren two
and twenty hundriddis of yeeris. c1449 Pecock Repr. 86 Into tyme that thei schulden falle into fiŠting. c1450 tr. De
Imitatione iii. xx. 86 Fro þe houre of my birþe into the daie of my goynge oute of þis worlde. 1534 More on Passion
Wks. 1314/1 Hee loued theym in to the ende. c1400 Mandeville (1839) xviii. 191 He hath also in to a xiiij mil
Olifauntz or mo. 1441 Plumpton Corr. (Camden) p. lvi, Sir William Plompton with other officers came to
Burghbrig+& with him into xxiiij persons.
INTO - 16. Unto, to (a thing or person). Obs. 1382 Wyclif Ps. cxxxiii[i]. 2 Heueth vp Šoure hondis in to holi
thingis. c1440 Jacob's Well (E.E.T.S.) 2 `oure soule, in þis pytt of corrupte watyr, nedyth to cry in-to god. c1449
Pecock Repr. 181 Sche dide a good werk into him. Ibid. ii. xx. 267 If+the freend come into him personali. 1609
Bible (Douay) Jer. xliii. 11 He shal strike the Land of Ægypt: those that into death, into death+and those that into
the sword, into the sword. 1611 Shakes. Cymb. i. vi. 167 That he enchants Societies into him.
INTO - 17. Unto (a purpose or result); in order to, with a view to. Obs. 1382 Wyclif Matt. xxvi. 28 My
blood+whiche shal be shed out for many in to remissioun of synnys. c1400 Apol. Loll. 4 He+leuiþ to wirke, & doþ
contrarily directly, & in to þe harme of his maistir. c1449 Pecock Repr. ii. vii. 181 Sche did it into the mynde of him
and+into the biriyng of him. 1502 Bury Wills (Camden) 95 Into witnesse herof+I haue put my seale.
FROST: “So we enter into Christ, actually by faith, symbolically by baptism, Christians being in Christ.
“Rom. vi.3,4: as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death.
“Compare Matt. xxviii.19, ‘into the name,’ etc.; Acts xix.3; 1 Cor. i.13, x.2, xii.13; Gal. iii.27. So Acts ii.38, into the
remission of sins, or, according to some interpreters, as (4).” [“4. Towards, with respect to a certain result, in order to,
for.”]
Entering into Christ is not concrete, i.e. we do not physically enter into the person of Christ. “Into Christ” is abstract.
When one is baptized we do not see a physical transaction. So what shows us that one enters Christ and puts Him own?
The symbol that marks the entrance into Christ, which begins this spiritual relationship, is baptism. (Gal. 3:26-27) One is
baptized symbolically, not literally, into Christ. It is the entering into Christ that is symbolic. This does not say that
baptism is a symbol. “So we enter into Christ, actually by faith”—
EVANS: OH! That makes sense . . . I guess! At least, we provoked Frost to reluctantly associate the word
“symbolic” to Acts 2:38 in some way. Come on Frost, you can go the rest of the way. Just a little bit further and
you will be there. LOL!
FROST: What shows this faith that puts one in Christ? It is baptism. Symbolic of entering Christ, which we cannot
see, is baptism. When is this faith made perfect, that can be witnessed as a symbol of entering, baptism into Christ? Ask a
Baptist, when does one enter into Christ, and he will respond, At the point of first believing! What then is the symbol of
baptism? He will answer, Baptism is a symbol that he has already entered Christ by his faith.
EVANS: It does put one IN or INTO Christ, symbolically, and baptism does put ON Christ as well. Well, now,
you might read Romans 6, where we are symbolically planted or buried. But yes! One identifies with Christ, by
symbolic water baptism, after already having been saved by faith alone.
FROST: Baptism is not only a symbol that marks when one enters into Christ, but is the means of entry when Christ
receives the sinner as His Saviour. (Heb. 5:9) It is the act that perfects one’s faith. (James 2:22) It is the transition when
the old self is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed, and one becomes a new creature and is raised to walk in a newness
of life. (Rom. 6:3-6, 2 Cor. 5:17) Before that he was a servant of sin; when he is baptized he becomes a servant of
righteousness. (Rom. 6:17-18). One who is a child of the devil, when baptized into Christ becomes a child of God. (Acts
13:10) The joy of salvation belongs to all who with faith in Christ surrender themselves in obedience. (Acts 2:41, 8:39).
Another way to look at it, baptism marks the entrance into the church, the body of Christ. When the Jews on
Pentecost heard the gospel of Christ, those who were receptive to (gladly received) the word obeyed it and were baptized
for the remission of their sins, and the number added was about 3,000 souls. “And the Lord added to the church daily
such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:38, 41, 47) What marks the occasion of one’s addition to the church? The symbol that
evidences obedience is baptism! It is interesting to note that the Baptists at one time recognized this truth. And it is sad to
note that they do differently now from what was the truth in the beginning.
“It is likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing
denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once
endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was the door into the church.’
Now, it is different…” (Edward T. Hiscox, Standard Manual for Baptist Churches, page 22.)
EVANS: It really gets boring when Frost starts sermonizing rather than debating.
FROST: To what can the true child of God refer as the time, when and where, he received a remission of his sins and
became a member of (was added to) the church. That symbol of entrance is his baptism.
EVANS: This question comes from Frost’s misunderstanding of what the church is and must be answered in
two parts. The time that I was saved is the time that I acknowledged myself as a lost sinner on my way to hell fire. I
repented or changed my mind about God, myself, sin, and hell. Then I believed and was saved and I called upon
Him for the first time IN FAITH. Next, I asked to be baptized and was baptized shortly after that. Since Baptist
churches add folks to their local churches in three ways, by baptism, by letter, and by statement that they had been
saved and baptized, I became a member of my local church by my baptism which they received. Now, as I
remember, Frost believes in a church of all baptized believers of some kind in the sky. Nevertheless, I was added to
the family of God and not the church upon salvation by faith alone. If the church of Acts 2 was not a local church,
what Frost ends up with is non local church members added to his church of all believers. Hardly COC Kosher!
FROST: Green does not refer to baptism per se as being symbolic, but to the specific incident of being baptized into.
To make anything more is to misrepresent him.
EVANS: Who says so? Frost or Green?
►GF Gene Frost: He also cites Rom. 6:3-4—“so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into
his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death…” We do not literally enter into Christ, nor literally
are buried in death with Him. Our entrance into Christ is symbolic, signifying the entry into Christ by baptism. Green also
suggests we compare “into the name, etc.” (Matt. 28:19; also Acts 19:3; 1 Cor, 1:13, 10:2, 12:13; Gal. 3:27.) Before
baptism, one is without or outside this sphere. He is baptized into it, wherein his sins are remitted. ►GF
[EVANS: Well, I believe this, especially the symbolic part. Can you go the rest of the way and admit a
symbolic portrayal of the death burial and resurrection by the believer. Frost, you seem to be back peddling and
creating new arguments as you go and as you are caught. I have just posted some rather exhaustive studies of
“into” and “unto.” Read them!]
Herb Evans: Romans 6 is a good Baptist source of proof, and Frost’s admission that we do not literally enter Christ
is valid.
FROST: “Admission” is not the proper word. It carries the meaning of “a fact or statement granted or admitted; a
concession.” To suggest that one literally enters Christ in baptism is foolish. Literally is the antithesis of figuratively, and
means to conform to, or uphold the exact or primary meaning of a word.” To literally enter into the being of Christ, the
physical body would be transferred into heaven into the very being of Jesus. Nor do we literally put on Christ. These are
figurative expressions. I have never said otherwise.
EVANS: Is that what you mean by “admission” when you use the word erroneously on me? I will now have to
apply concession to you in your admissions. Now that we have that cleared up, we can return to symbolic baptism.
EVANS: Moreover, I can abide the word “INTO” for EIS, which is also found in Romans six, if not carried beyond
its intent. A symbolic entering INTO Christ is acceptable to me, especially when Frost admits that it is not literal.
FROST: One thing that has disturbed me throughout this discussion is Evans’ references to his decisions as though
they were a stamp of approval. In promoting the KJB, he says, “We will settle on the 1769.”
EVANS: I am glad that something disturbs you. I would hope that it would have been the Holy Spirit rather
than me that disturbed Frost. Still, now Frost will go back to the Bible issue which Frost knows nothing about
unless he copies someone.
FROST: He has used expressions, as he does now: “I can abide…”; “is acceptable to me”; “100% in agreement
with Baptists.”
Determining whether something is taught in the KJB, is not in altogether in the text. Terms and concepts not even
mentioned in the Bible are said to be scriptural. At times it is Herb’s agreement that authenticates a doctrine. Time does
not permit me to go through this exchange to make note of the this process. I mention it now for the reader to be alert in
considering whether loyalty to the KJB is loyalty to the text or to the theology of KJBO advocates.
EVANS: You mean like “in order that” and “in order to have or get?” Perhaps this will help! My comments
on the KJB are declarative and are based upon what the KJB says about itself. I can oblige you in another venue
with my KJB polemics and KJB apologetics.
EVANS: So, if not literal, then what? The biblical PLANTING IN THE LIKENESS of His death is symbolic
baptism and 100% in agreement with Baptists. So, if “EIS” can be non-literal and symbolic in Romans 6, why can’t it be
non-literal and symbolic in Acts 2:38, or do Church of Christ-ers pick and choose whatever and wherever they wish, while
contradicting the KJB? Nevertheless, that is hardly the way that Green put it in his use of the word “symbolic.” Is Frost
saying that a person is not IN CHRIST until he is water baptized, which would be another lie from the pit of hell. Where
does Frost find that in the scriptures in plain exact English?
FROST: Here we go again. Words mean whatever Evans wants them to mean. When I state that baptism is not
literal, I do not say it is not true or inexact. Literal means the primary meaning of a word, avoiding figurative,
metaphorical meanings. Baptism into Christ is not literal; baptism does not put one inside the Person of the Christ.
Baptism, burial (in this case in water), is literal, but “into Christ” is figurative. “Christ” is used as metonymy: the person is
named while all that this name conveys, His relationship, cause, blessings, etc. is under consideration.
If Evans means that he was baptized literally into Christ, he has serious problems in defending his affirmation that he
as a physical being literally, actually, inhabits the body of Jesus at the right hand of God, for a beginning. He cannot
sanely affirm this (now in red).
Of course, what he does is wrest the language, to his own destruction.
EVANS: Whatever Evans does or does not do, it is enough to make Frost avoid and ignore Evans’ questions.
Nevertheless, Evans clearly says that he was baptized INTO Christ symbolically, Frost’s smoke and mirrors
notwithstanding.
EVANS: Baptism INTO Christ is to be baptized INTO (EIS) HIS DEATH (Rom 6:3). How does one do that except
symbolically? Frost will also note that some were baptized UNTO (EIS) Moses.
Rom 6:3 - 5 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into [EIS] Jesus Christ were baptized into [EIS] his
death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into [EIS] death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by
the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
1 Cor 10:2 And were all baptized unto [EIS] Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
►GF FROST: The process might be expressed like this: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
►GF
Herb Evans: We are the children of God BY FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS and not BY BAPTISM which merely
“puts on” Christ “symbolically” through our rising in newness of life.
FROST: (Baptism is symbolic of being baptized into Christ, as marking the entrance into Christ, in whom we walk
in newness of life, Rom. 6:3-7.)
EVANS: Well, I can go along with symbolic from my perspective but hardly from yours.
Frost needs to study the post salvation “put on’s” and the put off’s of the N.T. as he tries to put us on.
FROST: (Evans need to study present salvation, when one puts on Christ “being then made free from sin,” Rom.
6:17.)
EVANS: Do I have to post the “put on’s” of scripture that are commanded to already saved folks? Or can you
post your list of “put on’s” in regard to unsaved folks? Nevertheless, the way that Frost engages in his “PUT ON”
of me and his readers is the Mother of all PUT ON’s).
FROST: Context, Herb, context! “Faith” under consideration is not subjective faith, one’s personal faith, but
objective faith, “the faith of the gospel” which produces subjective, personal faith. (Phil. 1:27, Rom. 10:17) This is the
faith which was once delivered unto the saints and for which we are to earnestly contend (Jude 3). Read the context of
Gal. 3:16-29. In verses 26-27, Paul contrasts “the law,” which was given 430 years after the promise to Abraham (at Mt.
Sinai) with “the faith” (vss. 17, 21-22).
EVANS: Notice the fellow that does not like extra scriptural terminology and how he uses it! Frost scorns my
use of “Genuine faith” but uses “objective” and “subjective” faith? What weasel wording it is with which Frost
comes up! What strange terminology! Can Frost find such in scripture? Faith in Romans ten is with the heart or if
Frost will allow it, HEART FAITH!
FROST: They were “under the law” until the time that “the faith” was revealed (vs. 23). So the law served as a
schoolmaster (or tutor) to bring them to Christ (vs. 16), the one promised (vs. 16). Now, “after that faith is come, we are
no longer under a schoolmaster,” the law (vs. 25). Paul is showing the Galatians that they are no longer under the law, but
are now Christians in Christ. The conclusion is: you are not children of God by the law (in Moses), but “ye are all the
children of God by faith (in Christ)!
EVANS: Who were they? Here Frost cops a plea in regard to Jewish believers. Gentiles were never under the
law. Hence, the law had nothing to do with Gentiles coming to Christ, except for the law written in their hearts.
FROST: Gal. 3:26-27—“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Verse 26: For the readers who do not wear the blinders of the KJBO theology, the fact that “faith” here is objective,
and not subjective, is further confirmed by the fact that the definite article is in the Greek text: “the faith.” By the faith
establishes the means whereby they, each one, became a child of God—by the faith rather than by the law. Where, in or
by whom, they are children in Christ—not in Moses, and certainly not without Christ. How were they “in Christ” is
answered in the very next sentence.
Verse 27: “For” is a conjunction “by which a reason is introduced of something before advanced.” (Webster’s 1828
English Dictionary.) This is idea is conveyed as well in the Greek language by the word gar: “It adduces the Cause or
gives the Reason of a preceding statement or opinion” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon).
Paul states that the Christians in Galatia were children of God by the faith in Christ. How could he draw that
conclusion? What reason did he have to say they were in Christ? Did he have a symbol of the transaction whereby it was
achieved? “Ye are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For”—here is the reason for the statement—“as many of
you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” He could say that they were in Christ because they had been
baptized into Christ!
EVANS: Now the gainsaying of Frost regarding these verse is apparent, and his ignorance of verse 26 telling
us that ALL were children of God by FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS. However, verse 27 tells us that AS MANY as
have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. You see the ALL were children of God by faith, but only those
children of God, who were baptized, had “put on” the Christ uniform. Putting on Christ is something that unsaved
folks cannot do without the Holy Spirit indwelling them.
FROST: Evans does not think well of baptism. Where Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says of Christians,
“We are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” The reason being we were baptized into Christ… Herb Evans says,
“We are the children of God BY FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS and not BY BAPTISM…” Quite a contrast. And Herb goes
further to say of “BAPTISM which merely puts on Christ ‘symbolically’ …” “Merely” is a putdown—“nothing more
than; and nothing else.” (“Mere” relates to something “small, slight.”) In baptism one “merely puts on Christ
symbolically.”
EVANS: Do you see the forced conclusion by Frost’s characterized definition? Herb Evans loves water
baptism in its proper place as the portrayal of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and as the symbolic
washing away of our sins in water baptism. Consider Frost’s view of baptism deemphasized by my word “merely.”
FROST: There is a symbol in baptizing, which we discussed; I don’t think Herb understands it. Does he scoff at
putting on Christ because, as he says, it is symbolic? Is he prepared to say that putting on Christ is literal, that one wraps
himself up in the Person of Christ? I’ll leave it there. Any way he turns, he exposes his theology for what it is.
EVANS: Ever since Frost was challenged by Sam Green’s use of the word “symbolic,” he has back peddled
and tried to get out of giving a straight answer on it, hence this double talk of a symbol that is not really a symbol.
Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
►GF FROST: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:26-27) Outside of
Christ, one is not a child of God. One is a child of God as he is “in Christ.” ►GF
EVANS: Frost avoids Rom 13:14 and its admonition for a believer to “PUT ON” the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet
Frost will deny that such a person is saved but then turns around and affirms that such puts on Christ by baptism.
Herb Evans: Notice how Paul switches from “ALL” to “AS MANY.” We are ALL the children of God BY Faith in
Christ Jesus. Frost has crippled himself by citing this passage of scripture. Evidently, some had believed on Christ in
Galatia, but not all had yet been baptized although they had all been saved and become children of God by faith. Thank
you Jesus, Amen! Does I have a witness?
FROST: Don’t blame Jesus. Your exegesis has all of the Galatians addressed saved, but only a lesser number of
them had put on Christ or even were “in Christ.” Remember those baptized were baptized into Christ and put on Christ.
Now, Herb, your theology has saved persons who are out of Christ and have not put on Christ. Since “all spiritual
blessings are in Christ” (Eph. 1:3), you have a real conflict! Is baptism for the remission of sins not a blessing? Can one be
“in Christ” without the blessings of Christ (including eternal salvation)? Or, can one enjoy all spiritual blessings without
Christ? OR have you considered, Herb, that ALL and AS MANY are not in contrast, constituting two groups?
EVANS: Why blame Christ when I can blame you for your ignorance of “ALL” and “AS MANY.” If you will
not concede that a child of God can be saved by faith without yet portraying Him in baptism, there is no hope for
you. The “ALL” are children of God by faith. The “AS MANY” are only the ones who have been baptized.
Gal 3:26, 27 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into
[EIS] Christ have put on Christ.
►GF Gene Frost: Paul states how one gets into Christ. First, he is instructed in the faith, the body of teaching which
produces faith (Rom. 10:17, Gal. 1:23, 1 Cor. 16:13, Eph. 4:45)—the article, the, is in the Greek text: the faith. [I know
that Herb hates the Greek; this is because it keeps the mind on track, and does not allow the spins which false teachers
need in order to establish their theology.] Faith in context is in contrast to the law (Gal. 3:22-25). The point we need to
understand is: how is Paul able to say to the Galatians, to whom he writes, that they were “in Christ,” and had become
children of God? He explains: “For [Gr. gar, giving the reason or cause] as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ.” They did not literally enter into the being of Christ; the entering was symbolical [modifying into], as
they entered into a spiritual relationship of the saved, the sphere to which Christ adds the saved. (Acts 2:47, Eph. 1:22-23.)
Paul states how one gets into Christ. First, he is instructed in the faith, the body of teaching which produces faith (Rom.
10:17, Gal. 1:23, 1 Cor. 16:13, Eph. 4:45)—the article, the, is in the Greek text: the faith. [I know that Herb hates the
Greek; this is because it keeps the mind on track, and does not allow the spins which false teachers need in order to
establish their theology.] Faith in context is in contrast to the law (Gal. 3:22-25). The point we need to understand is: how
is Paul able to say to the Galatians, to whom he writes, that they were “in Christ,” and had become children of God? He
explains: “For [Gr. gar, giving the reason or cause] as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
They did not literally enter into the being of Christ; the entering was symbolical [modifying into], as they entered into a
spiritual relationship of the saved, the sphere to which Christ adds the saved. (Acts 2:47, Eph. 1:22-23.)
Herb Evans: Despite Frost’s double talk in Greek and English, Paul did say that one was a child of God BY FAITH,
therefore IN CHRIST per even Frost’s own rules. The entering Christ was not literal as Frost says, but a saved person is in
Christ POSITIONALLY, in a spiritual relationship, once that person believes in and on Him and Him alone. I suggest that
Frost check out the “PUT ON’s” commanded to the saved people in scripture. Baptism, indeed, is putting on Christ, the
Christ uniform of baptism, to walk in newness of life as well as some other “put on’s” that we are supposed to do after
salvation.
“Did Frost ever ask Samuel Green if he believed that the water procures the remission of sins? Is Green a
Campbellite?—A lie, regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie! Or is he a Protestant who believes in
Baptismal salvation?” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Samuel Green wrote his book in 1886. ►GF
{EVANS: What does the date have to do with anything?]
Herb Evans: Since you are a great researcher; what did Green say in his 1886 writings about any water salvation?
“Yes, I was symbolically water baptized toward or UNTO the remission of sins.
Act 19:3, 4 And he said unto them, UNTO [EIS] G1519 what then were ye baptized? And they said, UNTO G1519 John's
baptism.
►GF Gene Frost: Interesting that you bring this us [up] [SIC]; it provokes a question: Was John’s baptism
symbolical? Of what?
Herb Evans: It should provoke an answer to my point on “UNTO,” rather than a question. John’s baptism was a
symbolic prophecy of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world and that the Messiah should be made
manifest to Israel.
FROST: Interesting that Evans makes unto (eis) to look forward (a prophecy) “that the Messiah should be made
manifest,” but “how,” you now say [next sentence] was not yet revealed.” So, at one time baptism does not refer to the
past to something already done or accomplished; then out of the other side of his mouth, he contends that baptism is for
sins already forgiven.
EVANS: It is interesting, isn’t it? But no fretting, for the use of UNTO is in reference to or in regard to.
Albeit, we have another partial quote manipulated by Frost. What was not revealed was THE WAY that the Lamb
of God would take away the sin of the world [this is stated in the next blue]. But in your time frame argument, the
believers that were baptized had already had the remission of their sins by believing. Granted, they did not know
or realize everything that we know and realize today, but that is also true until Paul revealed to us what WE know
now. It is called progressive revelation, but since you do not like such terms, I’ll not explain what they mean.
EVANS: How the Lamb would do that by the Lamb’s death, burial, and resurrection was not yet revealed. More
interesting is that Frost should evade and avoid “EIS” being translated “UNTO.” Does Frost think that Israel’s sins were
removed through water baptism alone without the blood or the events of the cross? If so, why was the cross necessary?
God spiritually washed my sins away, and after, I symbolically washed my sins away.
Heb 9:22 . . . without shedding of blood is no remission.
Gene Frost: Since Herb claims that he was “symbolically baptized,” I would like for him to tell us: Did God
“symbolically” wash away your sins? Do you no longer have the sins after baptism that you had before you were
baptized?
[EVANS: I really think that Frost must be a lawyer with his incessant probing and inquisition of Herb Evans;
Frost has become my inquisitor and perhaps he really is a Southern Catholic. Still, Frost keeps me sharp in my old
age. Yes, my sins were washed away in symbolic water baptism and said baptism was performed by men, both my
baptizer and me. So, Frost must attribute his kind of remission of sins to the works of men and not the work of
God. God saved me not baptism!
Herb Evans: In baptism, like Paul, my sins were washed away by faith alone.
FROST: (This makes no sense. If sins are washed away by faith alone, then it is not in baptism. If in baptism sins are
washed away, then it is not by faith alone.)
My sins were washed away by God and not by water, upon my faith in Christ, prior to my baptism. (Cf. 1 Pet. 3:21.)
Now, that was not hard. Must the poor thief have died and gone to hell, since he only believed and said LORD but never
had the opportunity to be baptized in water?
Gene Frost: I have just now, this day I write, been reminded of a Baptist’s response to Baptists who make the
argument that baptism is a symbol. I think it appropriate to again give attention to J.W. Wilmarth’s study of baptism, in
view of so-called symbolic baptism. He writes: ►GF
[EVANS: I think it appropriate for Frost to again give attention to the scriptures rather than Wilmarth.
LOL!]
Herb Evans: So, Evans is supposed to throw away his KJB per what Willmarth and his other theologians say about
salvation by water?
FROST: Wilmarth used the KJB, but he did not isolate the English text and “throw away” the source texts in
Hebrew and Greek to allow false teaching to go unchallenged.
EVANS: Some of the cults use the King James Bible as well! BULLY for them! Most everyone did in 1886.
FROST: J.W. Wilmarth writes:
“But there is an explanation of eis in this passage [Acts 2:38], current in oral and newspaper polemics, which it is
necessary to notice. Connected with the idea of symbolizing Remission or with the shadowy concept of an ‘immersion
into a profession of remission,’1 it makes eis here equivalent to on account of, and represents Peter as meaning: Be
baptized … [not in order to, but] on account of remission of sins. That is, because your sins have been remitted. To this
view there are insuperable objections.”
[Ftn 1: ”’Baptized into a profession of,’ etc., if it has any real meaning, must be equivalent to ‘baptized on account of
a [past] remission.’ … ‘Baptized into the fact of remission,’ an equally cloudy rendering, must mean ‘Baptized so that
remission may become a fact’; i.e. in order to remission. So, baptized into a state [or, sphere] of Remission’ can mean
nothing but ‘baptized so as to have the remission of sins.’ We are not baptized into any thing, literally, except water.
There are but two interpretations of this phrase—in order to, etc., and on account of, etc. for which last there is no
authority.” (Baptism and Remission, page 302.)
[EVANS: WELL, since neither of the terms, “in order to” or “on account of,” are found in the King James
Bible makes his point MOOT or a stalemate!
FROST/Willmarth: A Baptist scholar of renown, J.W. Willmarth, wrote this treatise on “Baptism and Remission,”
published in the Baptist Quarterly, July 1877. His opening comments on the Meaning of Eis, is very informative and
should be of benefit to Herb Evans and to the reader. “EIS signifies into the space within. General English equivalent,
Into.”
“The conception common to them all is that of a space (literal or metaphorical) defined by limits. The state of being
within it is expressed by ev. Motion from the within into the without by ek; motion from the without into the within by eis.
‘The prepositions,’ remarks Crosby, ‘have primary reference to relations of place, and are used to express other relations
by reason of some analogy, real or fancied—many similar extensions of use appearing in our own and other languages.’
Every Greek preposition, then, has a definite signification, ‘primarily referring to relations of place,’ and thence, ‘by
analogy,’ applied to all sorts of other relations; but always in a manner not only analogous to, but derived from, its
ground-meaning as to relations of place, and therefore always in harmony with it. The old idea that Greek prepositions are
used in the New Testament in an indiscriminate manner, meaning ‘anything you please,’ has long since been exploded.
EVANS: I think it is of more benefit to Campbellites to store this in their anti-Baptist arsenals. EIS signifies a
lot of things in a lot of places. Of course, we have already covered the Greek words and the way that they are used
in the scriptures. But Frost only recognizes one way. One will have to show Wilmarth my list of all the Greek
words and their discriminate usage in heaven. You say, “What if he is not in heaven?” Well, in that case you show
him my list!
FROST/WILMARTH: “It does not, indeed, follow that we can always translate a Greek preposition by a uniform
English equivalent. The reason is, not that the preposition has changed its radical signification, but that the thoughts and
conceptions of men, in different ages and countries, run in different channels, are cast in different molds. Consequently
arise peculiar forms of speech and use of words, which we call idioms. Sometimes patient thought is required to ascertain
what exact form of conception is expressed by the use of a Greek preposition; but when ascertained, we find that the
preposition is used in harmony, strictly so, with its distinctive meaning. We may be obliged to translate it by an English
preposition of different meaning, or to alter essentially the form of expression, in order to bring out the meaning of the
whole sentence in our idiom. But it remains true that the Greek preposition retains its radical signification; and that the
Greek idiom, in which it is used in harmony with that signification, is capable of being reproduced in English by a
paraphrase. These observations are made to settle, in the outset, the right mode of dealing with Greek prepositions. They
are fixed, not variable quantities. They are blocks of granite, not masses of soapstone which we may hew into any shape
supposed to be required by exegetic or dogmatic necessity.” (Willmarth, Baptist Quarterly, July 1877, pages 297-298)
In a footnote relative to “Eis in Matthew xxvi.28,” he states:
[“The use of eis to denote aim, object in view, purpose, is very common and natural. It is directly derived from the
physical idea of motion towards a given space in which it rests and terminates” (page 299).]
EVANS: Frost must be running out of his own material. Now, he is repeating his extra scriptural authorities.
What if the aim or purpose or intent of baptism is the portrayal of the remission of sins?
Herb Evans: This all is very interesting to quote dead men who cannot be challenged. I never knew any Baptist to
think that baptism procured the remission of sins. I guess if one can find Protestant baptismal regenerationists, one might
also be able to find a Baptist regenerationist . . . if indeed Willmarth is one. But it takes a lot of nerve for Frost to scour
clean back to 1877 AND 1886 to find some one to support his views, when many of Frost’s contemporary Church of
Christ-er brethren do not even accept Frost’s view/denial in regard to the substitutionary atonement. We shan’t bother to
track them down, since we prefer to use the scriptures in our arguments. Baptists, unlike Frost, believe in “being born of
the Spirit” for salvation rather than “being born of the water” for salvation. (Frost - Cf. John 3:5; Eph. 5:25-27; 1 John
5:6-8.) Notice that “baptism” is a death and burial and NOT a birth. Being born of water is the natural birth, but being
born of the Spirit is the new birth, the spiritual birth.
[EVANS: I am ignoring Frost’s flinging of mingled green scripture addresses without any rationale’ of which
he injects into my comments.]
FROST: (Did Jesus say, “Except a man be born of water and be born of Spirit,” making two births? Or, did He say
be born (one birth) of water and of the Spirit? Did Jesus say to grown men, “Except a man be born (a natural birth) … he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God?” In other words, if you have not been born … you cannot enter. So Jesus told
Nicodemus that the first requirement to enter the kingdom of heaven is to be physically born?
EVANS: Actually, I agree with Frost here. I expected him to say that the new birth was water baptism. I agree
that the water birth is a physical birth and that folks must be spiritually born. Well, now all that is left is for Frost
to tell us where and when that spiritual birth occurs. This should be interesting!
EVANS: I just wonder if Frost, like some Church of Christ-ers, Frost believes that being born of water means
baptism.
Gene Frost: Whether it is the English Bible or the Greek Testament the KJV translators used, or authoritative
sources Herb Evans claims to respect, the conclusion is the same: “for the remission of sins” means into or in order to, the
purpose or aim being, remission of sins.
EVANS: There Frost goes again! Frost mind reads my claim! I do not respect Frost’s conclusion or the
rendering “in order to.” The word “into” will work for me in the sense of “unto.” And purpose or aim will only
work if the aim and purpose are correct. If the aim and purpose are the portrayal of the remission of sins – then
fine. If not – SNORT!
[Herb Evans: Well, obviously, neither Frost nor Willmarth knew about how “EIS” was rendered (UNTO) in regard
to John’s baptism in Acts 19:3, 4 and many other places in the New Testament.
FROST: Herb, you sound like a child upon learning something new, claiming that he now knows what no one ever
knew before him! “Look what I know! You never knew that, did you? Nah, nah, na nahah!”
EVANS: Is that all he can say about “UNTO?” Giddiness is the sign of someone about to have a nervous
breakdown.
EVANS: “Now, after all that irrelevant stuff, Frost needs to produce a quote from Willmarth that says that he
believes that Acts 2:38 means water baptism to get the remission of sins.” – Herb Evans
FROST: Evans says, “Frost needs to produce a quote from Willmarth …” Why? Does he mean to say that I need to
do this if he is to believe? I need to produce the quote to prove what I said? If I do, does this mean that I need nothing
more, the point is confirmed? Well, I try to please … so let’s produce the quote which Evans requests, namely what
Willmarth says about Acts 2:38, baptism, and remission of sins.
EVANS: Since I do not know Willmarth; I need a confirmation that WilmartC believed that. Since he is a
Baptist, I know of no Baptists that believe that baptism remits sins with the possible exception of some liberal
American Baptist Churches.
FROST: Under a subtitle, Meaning of Eis in Acts ii.38, Willmarth writes:
“These words are Peter’s answer to unsaved, but awakened sinners, forced by pungent conviction of guilt and danger
to ask, What shall we do? i.e. of course, do in order to secure forgiveness of their great sin. It is natural to suppose that
Peter told them what to do in order to secure that end. And he uses the very same phrase used in Matt. xxvi.28: eis aphesin
hamartion, unto remission of sins. Is it possible to doubt that eis here marks the relation of certain acts to the end sought
and purposed, namely the Remission of sins?” (Page 300).
A footnote prior to this quotation is noteworthy, and should be helpful to the reader:
“The use of eis to denote aim, object in view, purpose, is very common and natural. It is directly derived from
the physical idea of motion towards a given space in which it rests and terminates.” (Page 299; n 2).
Evans states the meaning of eis in the title of a subtitle he wrote: “EIS – FOR, UNTO, INTO”. Whereas the KJV
uses “for” to translate eis, the American Standard Bible uses “unto,” which conveys the same prepositional direction of
towards and into a given space or state where it rests or ends. This can be symbolized by an arrow (from left to right) into
(the object of the sentence).
EVANS: While your comments seem to indicate whatever Willmarth believed about the Greek on this, it does
not demand that Willmarth believed that you get remission of sins through water baptism. Now, curiously, both
you and Willmarth indicate that “FOR” can be in the sense of “UNTO” in Acts 2:38. Although I have little respect
for the ASB, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the ASB uses “UNTO” and not “FOR.” Thank you! But I
would have expected that Frost would have found a Bible that said “IN ORDER THAT” rather than a Bible that
made the case that I had just given Frost, in this post, in a few paragraphs regarding “INTO” versus “UNTO.”
BAPTISM AND REMISSION
By Rev. Jas W. Willmarth, Pemberton, N.J.
EVANS on Willmarth: Now, if Baptism alone were connected with the promise of Remission, we should be shut up to
the belief that sin is actually and only forgiven at the moment of Baptism. But it is associated with Repentance and Faith,
which precede it by an appreciable, and in some cases, a considerable interval of time. The general drift of Scripture seems to
indicate that the prodigal is actually forgiven as soon as he returns; instances are on record where divine assurance of pardon
was given on the spot. It is not asserted that pardon is always delayed till Baptism, or that it is actually bestowed in the act, or
that 1 Hebrews vi. 4-6. it is invariably refused to the unbaptized. The Gospel simply guarantees pardon to the penitent believer
baptized. Baptism does not necessarily fix the exact moment of forgiveness; it assures of forgiveness. So that whoever neglects
or refuses Baptism has not the certainty of being forgiven; and whoever properly receives it, has such certainty. Perhaps we
may suppose that God, in his own mind, forgives the sinner when he repents, justifies him when he believes; but as a judicial
act of his government, declares or pronounces his sins forgiven in Baptism, both by virtue of his written word, and by the
sealing of his Spirit. Naturally, the believer awaiting Baptism, whether for a few moments or many days, is likely to feel peace
and joy; but Baptism increases and assures both. It remains through life a memorial of God's covenant with the obedient soul.
Note: This answers my question about whether or not Wilmarth believes baptism saves. Frost posts much
of what Wilmarth said, which seemingly backed up Frost. Nevertheless, this is what Frost did not print from his
same source. Can you guess why he did not post these comments? – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Willmarth exposes the misuse of prepositions, the misuse of which Evans is guilty. No wonder he wants
the reader to think that it is irrelevant. Obviously, he cannot refute the truth; just call it “irrelevant” and move on!
[EVANS: Obviously, neither Willmarth nor Frost objects to “UNTO” as a misuse of the preposition “EIS.” As
UNTO and IS RELEVANT HERE!]
Herb Evans: More obviously, both Frost and Willmarth do not concede or admit how “EIS” is used in more than
1500 places in the New Testament and not as Frost’s selective definition is misused. Attempting to demand or insist upon
one way to render it is very foolish. No, Mr. Frost, don’t move on; continue to demonstrate your error! And then there is
the reference to your Green quote on “symbology.” Is that also TRUTH? If the word “EIS” demands the meaning of “in
order to get, is it correct to say that we are baptized in order to get “repentances?”
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water UNTO [EIS G1519] repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier
than I whose shoes I am not worth to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
FROST: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH, published in brown type is part of an original paragraph which Evans
has chopped up into numerous paragraphs.
EVANS: My formatting is much more readable than Frost’s chop jobs. Frost must realize that I reply to his
posts, which I reduced to non-bold, in the same color that he uses but mine are IN BOLD. We have enough colors!
Gene Frost: However, Herb, since you request,—“what Willmarth says about Acts 2:38, baptism, and remission of
sins—here it is, not that you will believe it.
FROST: Let me inject this comment before continuing. I am impressed by Mr. Willmarth, not with his theology—he
is a Baptist—but with his honesty and intellectual integrity. He exegetes passages (for the most part, as I read after him)
with a respect for what the Bible says, even though it goes counter to Baptist doctrine.
EVANS: Well, I am not so sure that you established that he was saying what you mean about water salvation;
that is why I asked for an exact quote on it. But, forget it, I found one of his quotes above that proves my guess.
FROST: “The meaning of eis in Matt. xxvi. 28, beyond all question is IN ORDER TO. Christ shed his blood in order to
the remission of the sins of others—"the many." What but IN ORDER TO can it possibly mean here? In order to the
remission of sins—their own sins? (This paragraph is interrupted, but continues in the following brown paragraph :) ►GF
EVANS: Willmarth’s “In order to” does not match Frost’s “In order that” or “in order to get!” That is why I
hesitated to agree that Willmarth believed as you do. From my perspective, “in order to” and “unto” are not a
problem if they mean unto a portrayal of the remission of sins or in order to portray the remission of sins.
Herb Evans: Frost forgets that he defined “in order to” as the end of the matter.
FROST: (I gave no such definition. Produce the quote. Evans, you are not just editorializing; you put words in my
mouth! If you had the truth, you would not have to do this to uphold your error.)
EVANS: You defined “in order that” and “in order to” AS IF it were the end of the matter. Is that better?
EVANS: So, if the shed blood is the end of that matter to get the remission of sins, why add water baptism to do
what has already been done by the blood?
FROST: Pure sophistry! “Water baptism” is not added to “remission of sins.” God place baptism before “remission
of sins.”
EVANS: No, I said “why add water baptism to do what already has been DONE BY THE BLOOD.
EVANS: Not only does Frost believe that water gets you the remission of sins, but he now unwittingly implies that
the wine gets you the remission of sins.
FROST: (Where does this come from? It would be interesting to know Evans’ thinking process that led him to
surmise this absurdity.)
EVANS: Well, since there is only blood and wine in Matthew 26 in regard to the remission of sins but no
water, I guess a process of elimination is in order. Still, Frost gainsays my timeless and eternal God, in which
everything happens in His ever present. But notice that Frost evades and ignores the wine as symbolic of Jesus
blood without it yet happening in their time for future believers. The sins of the disciples were already remitted
because the Lord’s blood was to be considered shed by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This IS
my blood (the wine) which IS shed for many for the remission of sins. Jesus’ blood was to be considered as "is
shed" for the disciples’ already remitted sins but was also going to remit the future sins of the world and His blood
(the wine), but the fruit of the vine did not remit sins any more than Frost’s water. In Acts 2:38, the candidate’s
sins were also already remitted by the blood, no need for a second remission of sins except in a symbolic picture
(You know like the leper’s healing and cleansing!). Frost is mixing together two different time frames, the past and
the future, and two different symbols, water and wine, although the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the
world. Wine portrays the blood, and water portrays the death burial and resurrection.
EVANS: Of course, I count the wine in this verse to be symbolic of Jesus blood, since Jesus had not yet shed His
blood, and the wine/blood refer to the future “remission of sins” which would be shed in time, but it is clear from that
Jesus was slain in eternity from before the foundation of the world per God’s word.
FROST: (not actually or literally, but in God’s purpose [prosthesis].)
EVANS: Oh! Then it was artificial?
►GF FROST: In answer to earnest inquiry Peter points out a course of action which will tend towards, and result in,
the forgiveness which they desire; he directs them to take that course for that purpose. He assures them of other blessings
besides remission, if they obey; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (vs. 38). He encourages them to obedience
by precious promises (vs. 39), and solemnly warns them of the peril of disobedience (vs. 40). Three thousand gladly
received his word, were baptized, were added to the church, and rejoiced in the assurance of forgiveness and the hope of
eternal life. Everything unites to render a mistake as to the force of eis almost impossible. Everything compels us to assign
to it its obvious, natural, distinctive meaning, as used to denote the purpose of actions. It here marks the purpose for
which, the object in order to which, the inquirers of Pentecost were to repent, believe and be baptized.” ….
EVANS: Save the sermon bulloney and platitudes for your parishioners. You know, the ones for who you are
really writing this.
Herb Evans: Again, Acts 2:38 is a compound sentence composed of three sentences. (1.) “Repent, (you understood)
(2.) and be baptized FOR” (in reference to, because of or on account of) the remission of sins, (3.) and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost.” Folks, in Acts 2:40 - 42, were baptized because they repented, believed and they were saved and
then they were added to the church. Nothing more, Frost’s revised version not withstanding!
FROST: Where does Acts 2:40-42 state that “because they repented, believed and they were saved” in that order?
EVANS: Faith without repentance is Frost’s “dead faith.” A man cannot believe unto salvation until a man
repents. What Frost is doing with this delaying tactic is probing for new material on which to pounce. Where does
Acts 2:38 show the order with the word “faith?” or that they were saved by being baptized? Now, Frost will run to
Mark (AGAIN) for a passage to prove it, a passage where there is no command to be baptized. Even after
repentance, faith, and water baptism, Mr. Frost does not believe that folks are eternally saved.
Matt 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans
and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
Mark 1:15 . . . The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of
refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
FROST: Think! When the people learned that with the coming of the Lord one could call upon His name to be
saved (Acts 2:21), and were told that God had made that same Jesus, whom they had crucified, both Lord and Christ
(2:36), they were pierced in their hearts (2:37a), and so they cried out, “what shall we do?” (2:37b) There can be no doubt
they sought forgiveness. Does it make sense to think that Peter told them to be baptized because they were already saved?
EVANS: YOU THINK! They were convicted as being Christ crucifiers and it was hard to kick against the
pricks like Paul, but Peter could not know what was in their hearts nor could it be said that they were yet saved.
FROST: Observe the wresting of the text. Evans separates “repent” and isolates it from “be baptized … for the
remission of sins.” He makes baptism of no consequence as concerns the question; whether they are baptized or not does
not affect their salvation. Thus Evans’ exegesis is that the people are commanded to repent with no reason as to what it
will accomplish being stated. So what is important, but not why, is stated in one word (“repent”), while 18 words are used
to state what has nothing to do with obtaining a remission of sins.
EVANS: Notice Mr. Frost, with all of his English prowess, does not acknowledge that Acts 2:38 is a compound
sentence with separate clauses. This was a sermon with many other words besides “repent” (see verse 40). Frost
would rather ignore the text in its context. You see, what was necessary was for them to repent, to gladly receive
Peter’s word, and be baptized. Don’t wrest the text from its context by forgeting the “gladly received his word,”
Mr. Frost.
Act 2:38 - 41 [38.] 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. [39.] For the promise is unto you,
and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. [40.] And with many
other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. [41.] Then they that
gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them [the local church] about
three thousand souls.
FROST: Willmarth continues the same paragraph (see past brown type): “Finally, suppose we force eis in Acts ii.38
to bear the unnatural and unauthorized meaning of ‘on account of.’ After all we have gained nothing. (This paragraph
continues, but is interrupted.) ►GF
EVANS: Still, in actually, I am not debating Frost but rather Willmarth whom Frost parrots. Nevertheless, in
English those terms are accepted uses of the word “FOR.” For brevity and a sharper knife, we have left our
chicken analogy and move on to EIS and other issues.
Herb Evans: I don’t force Acts 19:3 to mean “UNTO” or “CONCERNING” (Rom 16:19 - another way of saying in
reference to). Can we discuss those 1500 plus places where “EIS” cannot be forced to mean “to obtain” or “in order to
get” and then compare them to your couple of forced examples above?
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water UNTO [EIS G1519] repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier
than I whose shoes I am not worth to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Act 19:3, 4 And he said unto them, Unto [EIS G1519] what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto [EIS G1519]
John's baptism.
►GF Frost: Willmarth continues same paragraph: Other passages there are which cannot be explained away.
Thus our Saviour said, just before he ascended the heavens: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. We shall
hardly dare to tamper with his royal word and make it run, He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized. And unless we
do thus change his saying, we have, by the highest authority, an importance attributed to Baptism certainly not less than
that given to it in Acts ii.38, translated according to its obvious meaning. What then is the advantage of violently torturing
eis the construction and the context? (This thought is further developed, but is interrupted.) ►GF
Herb Evans: Well, I guess Frost has run out of his forced “EIS” passages and repeats again what I have already
answered. Frost does not even know what the Saviour’s “royal word” is let alone where it is at. He that believeth and eats
corn flakes shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned.
FROST: Willmarth continues with the next paragraph: “We conclude without hesitation, and in accordance with
such authorities as Hackett, Winer, Meyer, etc., that the proper rendering of eis aphesin hamartion in Acts ii.38, as in
Matthew xxvi.28, is unto, for, i.e., IN ORDER TO, Remission of Sins. [Herb breaks into the thought:
Herb Evans: Well, now, Frost seems to accept his authorities for “EIS” as “UNTO.” But will Frost accept
“concerning” as another meaning to “EIS?” My authority THROUGHLY FURNISHES THE MAN OF GOD so that he
needs no other authorities but the one final authority. Thank you Jesus! Hallelujah! Praise de Lawd! Amen! Does I have a
witness? Work on that English, Mr. Frost! Still, in the name of consistency will Frost agree to a “for the remission of sins
offering” in Acts 2:38?”
FROST: If by “offering” you refer to Jesus, that He shed His blood “for the remission of sins.” I have been pressing
Evans to recognize that the offering of Jesus on the cross was for, or in order that, we might have a remission of sins! Yes,
and for the same reason, to accomplish the same end, we are to be baptized into Christ “for a remission of sins. (Matt.
26:28, Acts 2:38) Evans has been striving vainly to make the same expression in both texts—“for the remission of sins”—
mean one thing in Matt. 26:28 and something else in Acts 2:38! He agrees that “for a remission of sins” means that Jesus
shed His blood in order to that we might receive a remission of sins, but when baptized is for the same reason, he changes
the text to mean because.
EVANS: I merely offered my chicken analogy to show how the English word “for” can be used in English in
the sense of “because,” which analogy is now moot, considering my posting of the places in which EIS is used in
that sense. If Frost forces an objection to Matthew 26:28 as meaning “in order to get the remission of sins,” he is
the one with the problem. If Jesus procured the remission of sins by or with His future blood, why is it necessary to
procure the remission of sins again by or with water? Still, sins are not remitted until one believes in the blood
which makes remission of sins possible to the unbeliever. It does not secure it; it is secured by repentance and faith.
FROST: He acknowledges that I know that eis may be translated UNTO in proper context. Our problem is that he
thinks that he has the right to use UNTO, CONCERNING, BECAUSE et al. in any and every context, and that is not so,
as anyone who is vaguely familiar with translating any foreign language, knows. Regardless of a variation of terms that
may be made in to particular contexts, there is basic idea in eis.
EVANS: Well, Frost was mighty slow in acknowledging that EIS can mean such other things, formerly
maintaining that his selective definitions are the ones etched in stone.
FROST: The only reason Herb cannot accept the truth is for his aversion to baptism, and I cannot understand why
since Jesus commanded it! Not I, or any mortal man, but Jesus! And he scoffs at it.
EVANS: Hey PAL, I accept the truth; it is you that have the problem. I have no aversion to baptism except to
gain the remission of sins. After being saved, with my sins remitted, by faith alone, I requested to be water
baptized.
►GF FROST: Willmarth continues: “Acts ii.38 is a very important passage—the key-note of the New Testament
teaching as to obedience to the Gospel. For the first time inquiring sinners throng the inspired Twelve with the question,
What shall we do? on their lips; and the answer is invested with the great significance of the first formal direction given
by the apostles to inquirers. The occasion was striking and wonderful; and here we may well believe was furnished a
precedent which all the primitive preachers of the Gospel were sure substantially to follow. This much is clear from the
passage before us: that there is a relation between Baptism and Remission; and such a relation as warranted and required
Peter to use the language which he did. He meant what he said.” (J.W. Willmarth, Baptism and Remission, pages 301,
306.)
Herb Evans: Herb Evans has no problem with their question, “What shall we do?” Our problem is what they were to
do FOR WHAT! We also have no problem with the “grace for grace” (which came by Jesus Christ) as a relationship of
baptism concerning the remission of sins from John’s baptism up until Acts 2 by repenting and believing. Next they were
to be baptized FOR (concerning, in reference to their remission of sins, never a works relationship taught by false teachers
such as Frost.
EVANS: Not by WORKS of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us – Titus 3:5
Gene Frost: Willmarth believed in substitutionary atonement, apparently from theological conclusions, which had
precedence over Scriptural necessity.
EVANS: Forget about Titus 3:5; it is only scripture; ignore it and let us get back to Wilmarth.
Herb Evans: Yeah, sure! Take some of Willmarth’s comments to support your views, but side step that which
Willmarth believed on the atonement. That seems like something that Mr. Frost has been accusing Herb Evans of doing?
FROST/Willmarth: “Suppose one of his chosen ones, moved to penitence, but dying before Christ is made known
so fully that he can " believe on him"; or believing, but dying before it is possible to be immersed. Is he lost? God's
covenant binds us in obedience and preaching. We have no right to vary the terms of the Gospel by so much as a hair's
breath. But he is free, if he will, to exceed his promise.” (Willmarth, page 321)
To accommodate the theology of election, Willmarth reasons that God is free to go beyond His revealed word. If
such an one is saved, he is without ever having the assurance of his salvation.
Baptism, he reasons, “assures of forgiveness. So that whoever neglects or refuses Baptism has not the certainty of
being forgiven; and whoever properly receives it, has such certainty.” (p. 320)
Even so, he adds, “Every person quickened by the Spirit will infallibly desire to obey the whole Gospel. There is,
therefore, no inconsistency here. In Baptism the soul ‘lays hold of that for which it was laid hold of by Christ Jesus,’ and
fulfils a part of God’s eternal decree by consecrating itself forever to him, and receiving whatever of promise and of
blessing the Lord bestows in Baptism.” (p. 320)
[EVANS: Well, what have we here? Frost is watering down "salvation" in order to promote and replace it
with merely "assurance" of salvation? I guess the thief on the cross might have made it without baptism after all.]
FROST: At this juncture, we ask Herb, “What certainty do you have of salvation? Since you reject the “whole
gospel,” which according to Willmarth includes the necessity of baptism in order to be forgiven, there is not that infallible
desire, which questions any quickening by the Spirit. It appears that you are wrong in your contention, and it is rejected
from both sides of the issue!
[Since Herb separated the following footnote from the text by Willmarth, we now insert it back before his comment.]
In a footnote relative to “Eis in Matthew xxvi.28,” he (Willmarth) states: “The use of eis to denote aim, object in
view, purpose, is very common and natural. It is derived from the physical idea of motion towards a given space in which
it rests and terminates” (page 299).
EVANS: My certainty of salvation is dependent on my having the witness in myself, even the Holy Spirit, who
testifies with my spirit. My baptism testifies to me nothing; it can’t even speak!
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath
made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
Herb Evans: The whole Gospel? The whole Gospel! Faith plus baptism? Frost believes that baptism is a part of the
gospel! So, now, was the unbaptized thief on the cross consigned to hell, as a lost man, or did he merely lack assurance?
FROST: Had the “whose gospel,” the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4), been preached to him?
EVANS: Frost’s question suggests that no one in the gospels had the whole gospel preached to him. Even
though John the Baptist baptized “for the remission of sins,” and even though John preached the Lamb of God
that taketh away the sins on the world. Tell, me Mr. Frost, when did the whole Gospel of the death, burial, and
resurrection for the remission of sins first get mentioned? Oh! Paul first mentioned it in Corinthians! Obviously,
Frost does not know what the gospel is let alone the whole or full gospel (a term not mentioned in scripture).
Frost’s doctrine’s implication does not allow anyone’s sins to be forgiven prior to Corinthians. The gospel for
Frost’s information is the good news or glad tidings, the good news that your sins can be forgiven. The Gospel
began in MARK 1:1-4 with John the Baptist proclaiming Jesus Christ (the son of God) as the sacrificial Lamb of
God that taketh away the sin of the world, and the good news that their sins may be remitted through the Lamb of
God (slain from the foundation of the world).
Mark 1:1 – 4 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and
preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
John 1:29 . . . John seeth Jesus . . . and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
FROST: Herb denies baptism as part of the gospel, which Jesus ordered to be preached (Mark 16:15-16). Does he
now deny Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection are part of the gospel? Maybe he should define it and tell us of what it
consists. (See what I commented about earlier, that what is taught in the Scriptures must await Evans’ approval before we
can accept it? He is cutting off important truths necessary to one’s salvation.)
Mark 16:15-16— “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Matt 28:19-20— “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world.”
EVANS: Unfortunately, Frost traps himself in his own words. Sorry Frost, but according to you this could not
be the whole gospel since the death, burial, and resurrection as the gospel was not mentioned until Corinthians.
Moreover, until then Frost implies that no one had the WHOLE Gospel. Of course, Frost can argue from silence!
EVANS: Did the thief have the remission of sins? Is Frost prepared to contradict Jesus, who told the thief that
“TODAY” the thief would be with Him in paradise?
FROST: While alive on earth, Jesus had the power to forgive sins upon whatever condition He pleased—with His
death, the terms of His will must obeyed. “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the
testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.” (Heb.
9:16-17). Today we refer to His will under the new covenant. Jesus lived under the law of Moses and observed the law—
those He healed of leprosy were told to “shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded.” (Matt 8:4)
EVANS: While we concur that Jesus could do anything he wished, both then and now, I trow that Frost is
mixed up with his covenants. Unfortunately, Frost’s proof text applies to those under the FIRST TESTAMENT, as
Frost ignores the context of the passage. Christ is the TESTATOR of the Old Covenant but the MEDIATOR of the
New Covenant or Testament. The New Covenant or Testament was instituted by Christ before His and the thief’s
deaths on the cross. Does the ceremonial cleansing of the Lord’s Supper precede the blood cleansing of the cross?
Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is
shed for you. Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; 1 Cor. 11:25
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the
redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the
promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Heb 8:6 - 8 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a
better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then
should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws
into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better
things than that of Abel.
FROST: When a certain lawyer asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus asked him what was written
in the law. The man answered that one is to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” soul, strength, and with all thy
mind,” and to love thy neighbour as thyself. (Luke 10:25-27) On another occasion a certain ruler asked Jesus what he do
to inherit eternal life, and He replied, “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not
steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother”; etc. He replied, “All these have I kept from my youth
up.” Upon hearing his reply, Jesus said, “Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” (Luke 18:20-22) Yes, Jesus lived under the law and taught
others to do so also.
EVANS: Really, would Jesus grant eternal life to the rich man or anyone for giving all that he had to the
poor? Can one earn salvation that way? Frost is so blind that he cannot see that Jesus was endeavoring to show the
rich man that he had not kept the law (which no one can keep). That is why it was a Jewish schoolmaster
FROST: In no instance did Jesus say, “You can do nothing! Obedience has nothing to do with your salvation!” Why
is it that today when one who inquires what he must to be saved, or to inherit eternal life, he is directed to a thief on the
cross? When did you ever hear a Baptist, or Calvinist, or the kind, telling someone to be saved “like the ruler who sold his
goods and gave to the poor”?
EVANS: Notice that it may have been the question that the rich man asked based upon his Frost type
thinking, but Jesus did not promise the rich man heaven or eternal life if he did something. He promised him
treasure in heaven, which only belongs to saved believers, who have no treasure until saved. Eternal life could not
and cannot be gained by doing anything other than repenting and believing
FROST: Jesus required nothing of the thief; there was nothing the thief could do to demonstrate his faith.
EVANS: Now, Frost looks as if he is getting it. But the thief did the same thing as Paul, he cried Lord!
FROST: Herb, if the thief had been free when he met Jesus and was “commanded to be baptized,” and refused—“I
will be saved by my faith alone!”; “I will not do anything to be saved!”; “I am passive in my salvation, and to be saved
God will take me as I am … or not at all!”—would he inherit eternal life? Do you believe that Jesus is “the author of
eternal salvation unto all them that obey him”?
EVANS: Here we have a hypothetical situation by Frost to buttress his views. No deal! I do not deal in Frost’s
imagination or hypotheticals.
EVANS: Even those who are saved, who have believed and were water baptized, sometimes lack assurance due to
some other sin or disobedience. Are they lost because of a lack of assurance?
FROST: This paragraph was separated from its context. Go back to the last paragraph in black, a footnote quotation
from Willmarth: Whether it is the English Bible or the Greek Testament the KJV translators used, [SIC] authoritative
sources [SIC] Herb Evans claims to respect, the conclusion is the same: “for the remission of sins” means into or in order
to, the purpose or aim being, remission of sins.
I hope the reader will read the following paragraph carefully: ►GF
EVANS: Back to Frost’s Baptist idol; readers may turn back but I am moving forward in this lengthy exercise
in futility, especially when all he desires to do is to massage my comments in order to probe for newer results.
[Herb Evans: Don’t be surprised if I do not answer dead men who cannot be questioned. I will merely say that some
of these definitions that are used here do not conflict with my views if understood correctly. The terms “in reference to,
regarding, because of, toward, concerning, against, and/or “UNTO,” are perfectly in line with the many dozens of times
that “EIS” is used literally or figuratively. But Frost continues to demand but one definition in regard to “EIS” in selected
places intimating the remission of sins through water baptism. What ever happened to the definition of “UNTO” to which
Frost agreed (above)?]
►GF FROST: This is a clear explanation of how Herb Evans exegetes Scripture, of how he determines the meaning
of words in a particular passage. Earlier in this exchange, he said,
EVANS: “It is the preacher’s job to be apt to teach and give the sense of a given passage.” (Herb Evans)
EVANS: “The preacher can do so by comparing scripture with scripture, since the scriptures cannot be
broken (John 10:35).”
“Still, you can start learning the meanings by comparing scripture with scripture.” (Herb Evans)
[EVANS: Here we go back to this again. Doesn’t Frost have anything new?]
FROST: Here is how he does it. He takes all the meanings which a word may have, and he takes them to be
synonyms, so that the use of a word in a sentence may be assigned the meaning of any of the synonyms.
EVANS: WRONG! I do not take all the words to be synonyms. My reference to their different renderings
should show a dunce that I do not believe that. They mean different things in different contexts. Frost’s
characterization and conclusion, again, is mistaken.
FROST: He takes the Greek word eis and notes all of the meanings it can take in various sentences. Now he can take
a sentence with eis and choose any one of the several English translations used to define it in other contexts, and this gives
him the meaning of the sentence he desires.
EVANS: Now, this is a bit better characterization. The only thing wrong with it is Frost’s biased phrase “in
other contexts,” which he only is authorized to determine. When Herb Evans is not debating, he interprets
scripture with scripture. However, with Frost you must fight fire with fire and show him his possibilities of being
wrong in his selective definitions. Now, who is the reasonable one?
FROST: He says there are “dozens of times that ‘eis’ is used literally or figuratively” and complains that I demand
but one definition in regard to ‘eis’ in a selected place. (I do contend that a word in a particular sentence conveys a
particular thought or idea, which is limited to a single word in translating it, or where a shade of meaning allows a limited
choice of terms. I do deny that every possible connotation or shade of meaning may be substituted at the will of the
interpreter.) Thus Herb says that eis in a particular sentence may be given any one of all the definitions which may be
used to translate eis in specific contexts. Not every word from different contexts may used in just any and every context.
For eis he contends that the exegete may choose from any one of the dozen different meanings, viz. in reference to,
regarding, because of, toward, concerning, against, and/or unto. If there is no conflict (after massaging and spinning the
word) with what the exegete wants the text to say, then the definition is proper. Therefore, his specific argument with eis
is that “baptism for (eis) remission of sins” may be explained to mean—and take your choice:
FROST Continued:
One is baptized in reference to a remission of sins;
One is baptized regarding a remission of sins;
One is baptized because of a remission of sins;
One is baptized toward a remission of sins;
One is baptized concerning a remission of sins;
One is baptized against a remission of sins;
One is baptized unto a remission of sins;
EVANS: Of course, Frost will produce his summation but will not produce the quote for his characterized
summation of my possibilities and doesn’t even use quotation marks when charging Evans. This is Frost’s idea of
fair and honest discussion. I gave those word definitions as alternate terminology possibilities to Frost’s postulated
EIS definitions. At least, my “FOR/EIS” terminology is used that way (Frost’s italics) in scripture, granting that
the English word “FOR” is ambiguous.
FROST: Yet he does not allow every translation of eis. Why accept some translations and not others? What is the
basis for accepting or rejecting a particular translation of eis?
EVANS: Wrong again! I posted the many renderings of EIS and even Strong’s uses as found in the KJB.
What I rejected was Frost’s “in order to get.” I might even accept Frost’s “in order to” as “in order to the
portraying of the remission of sins in symbolic baptism, from my perspective (not his), but “EIS” is never
translated “in order to” or “in order to get or obtain.”
FROST: He says (in the following paragraph): “some of these definitions that are used here do not conflict with my
views,” and therefore he accepts them. If they do conflict with Evans’ views, then he rejects them.
EVANS: What a dishonest twister of words! Is it within Frost’s ethics to implement those kinds of
characterized conclusions to my comments to prove his case? My point was that I can abide certain of those
definitions from my perspective rather than from Frost’s. I think it is about time to make Frost aware of his sin:
Mark 12:13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
FROST: After all, he warned us: “It is the (sic) preacher’s job to be apt to teach and give the sense of a given
passage.” Therefore, with respect to remission of sins, he rejects to obtain, to enter into, toward, that … might, for the
purpose, to the end, and other words translated from eis.
EVANS: Wrong again. I only reject “to get or obtain,” since it is not found in scripture.
FROST: How silly his argument is can clearly be seen when made in the English language.
EVANS: Silly is as silly does! Is it as silly as Frost’s “Nah, nah, na nahah?”
FROST: Can we find a word which may be interpreted with different terms, and then assume wherever the word is
used, we may substitute the term of our choice.
EVANS: No! Why do you do it?
FROST: Consider the word “fast”: a fast horse (moving quickly); the clock is fast (time somewhat ahead of the
actual time); the colors are fast (resistant, as to destruction or fading); he is on a fast (to eat very little or abstain from
certain foods; the glued joint held fast (in a secure manner; tightly); he is a fast with the ladies (flouting conventional
moral standards; sexually promiscuous). Is it true, as Evans reasons, since fast has many different meanings, whenever it
is used we have multiple choices of definitions to assign to it? Such an outcome would be absurd!
EVANS: I guess Frost would like a “fast” baptism. Frost’s adjectives and adverbs, in regard to “fast,” which
he chose in order to be analogous to a preposition is absurd. So much for Frost’s outcome based analogies, which
are much worse than the chicken analogy that I chose to combat Acts 2:38.
FROST: “Now, Gene is purposely avoiding the substitutionary atonement issue, shifting the argument to a verbose
fussing over water baptism.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Herb, you introduced the subject of baptism in your initial response, “He Took My Place,” and made it
a part of this exchange.
[EVANS: Frost thinks that if I used a word, that gives him license to belabor it, paragraph after paragraph
and page after page, to muddy the water of the debate topic. Does he realize folks will read this?
Herb Evans: Do my passing comments, which I made, in regard to Frost’s Campbellite doctrinal affiliation give
Frost a license to filibuster baptism and go off topic in regard to the Substitutionary atonement, which we are supposed to
be discussing?
FROST: Frost has the right to answer every false doctrine that Herb Evans introduces! Whatever is introduced is on
topic. There was no agreement as to what would be discussed, or restriction as to how the issue is answered, or the format.
If Herb would have suggested this, the exchange would be much better organized, instead of the rambunctious approach
he took and to which I object.
EVANS: Ah . . . Frost. I did not challenge your right to answer. I challenged your right to filibuster other
topics to avoid the initial topic and to repeat such things endlessly even after they have been disclaimed and/or
explained. Nevertheless, I do think the word “baptism” has some interesting links therefore I yielded some words
to Frost, hoping that Frost would not stretch the yield. Being reasonable with Frost, however, causes him to
imagine weakness and to use such surrendered points of mine as his argument.
EVANS: Now, does Frost count himself so void of argument on the substitutionary atonement that he does not
address it 90% of the time while devoting only 10% to it? I have offered to discuss baptism and the Bible issue in a
separate venue, but Frost ignores my plea in favor of replacing our topic of discussion, for the most part, with these other
things.
FROST: Does Evans think that Frost and the readers are so stupid as to accept his dictates? Of course, he would like
to misrepresent and slander everything about his opponent, the body of Christ to which he belongs, and his faith, without
any restraint. If he did not want this exchange to go where it has, then why did he open the doors? Now that he is being
answered, he whines. Did he expect that his rude manner of discussion would discourage any response, and thus allow
him to falsely boast of his ability?
EVANS: Does Frost think that Evans or the readers are so stupid to see that Frost is only substituting other
material to fill the gap, covering up his weak, empty denials of the Substitutionary Atonement. Anyone can deny
anything! The only ability that Evans has is to see a con a mile away since Evans was a high school dropout and a
street kid in Pittsburgh who finally was forced into the military by a city squire; it was either the military or jail.
EVANS: Of course, that is Frost’s prerogative, but it makes Frost look pretty bad, since he would rather discuss
baptism, the Bible issue, inherited sin, and Herb Evans’ English, rather than the topic at hand, namely, the Substitionary
Atonement. I do not wish to scold Frost’s English and misuse of punctuation as Frost scolded me (except with my added
SICS)
FROST: . . . most of which are incorrect, so much so I quit correcting his “cvorrections”; they should be obvious to
the reader.
EVANS: You know why you stopped “SICKING” me; the ratio looked to bad for you.
FROST: What looks bad is the fact that Evans wants to hit and run, and refuses to answer the arguments I make
against the numerous false concepts and arguments he introduces. He makes a feeble effort with quibbles and moves on,
declaring that he would be willing to discuss them in a separate venue. Then why did he not wait to introduce the matters?
Yes, I am taking much more time than I would like to engage in this effort, but knowing somewhat of the reputation of
KJBO debaters, I thought it best to deal with it as I have, in spite of his whining.
EVANS: Here is more hype without being specific. Okay Frost refuses to answer my arguments. Two can play
that game. When frost says “introduces,” he means a word that he can key in on or a word that is “mentioned.”
and therefore, he feels he then has license to make a filibuster of it. I mentioned baptism twice in my article.
Herb Evans: “But the rest of the story is that I conclude that Baptized “EIS” also means baptized “UNTO” and
aims towards the symbolic remission of sins. When a person has repented to the receiving of the remission of sins, he gets
water baptized to demonstrate that he has so repented, believed, received Christ and received the remission of sins. ”
FROST: I call attention to the fact that Evans shifts “symbolic” from baptism, which would make the act the symbol
(which is the error most Baptists make, but Herb is “independent”), to making remission of sins symbolic. A symbol is
something that represents something else. I understand that he means that remission of sins is not actual or factual (being
symbolic), but of what is it symbolic, what does remission represent? It is enough that he denies that there is an actual
remission, removal or forgiveness, or sins! Imagine, the apostle Peter answers people who are convicted of sins, and who
ask what to do, and tells them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, but he did not mean really, actually,
only figuratively (not referring to the baptism, but to the remission of sins)! Remission of sins is figurative?
EVANS: The act of Baptism is symbolic. Baptism is the symbolic portrayal of the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ; the symbolic portrayal of our identifying with Christ and His death, burial, and
resurrection; our symbolic crucifixion and resurrection with Christ; a symbolic planting in the likeness of His
death; the symbolic washing away or remission of our sins; a profession of repentance; a profession of salvation;
an initiation into the local church, and etc. It is the LIKE FIGURE of the ARK!
Gene Frost: By inspiration, Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Who gives you the authority to remove God’s revealed words. Who made you a Bible
Corrector?
TRUTH: (1) Repent, and (2) be baptized (3) for the remission of sins.
PERVERSION: (Repent, (3) for the remission of sins, and be baptized. <
[Here is where Frost inserted a period (RED) and rearranged a comma.
Evans: Who gave Frost the authority to remove the comma? And what about the word “EIS” being rendered
“UNTO” and “CONCERNING?”
FROST: I DID NOT REMOVE ANY COMMA. But if I did, did I introduce error into the text? Does the presence
or absence of the comma make a difference, a difference between truth and error?
EVANS: Sometimes! Ask a JW!
FROST: The comma is there—“Repent,”—where do you find another comma, or a missing comma, in what I
quoted? The only possible omission of a comma, that I can see is from the 1611 KJV (commas in red): “Repent, and be
baptized euery one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes…” [Note there are two commas.] But in
the 1769 KJV, there is one comma: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins…” Since he claims that the 1611 KJV is inspired, who gave the revisers in 1769 authority to delete one
of the commas (that is Evans’ complaint)? However, if the 1769 is inspired after this refinement, then the 1611 edition
was wrong. This is interesting.
EVANS: You rearranged the phrases along with the comma and inserted a period after baptized and
attributed your invented perversion to me. I emboldened the period IN RED above with a left handed arrow
behind it. In case you don’t know it, you are using an old Campbellite punctuation trick.
Act 2:38 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.
FROST: Are the commas and all punctuations supplied in the English “inspired”? (What about capitalized and
italicized words?) Evans is in trouble either way he answers. Now, if the commas in 1611 set off a parenthetical clause,
then repent would be for the remission of sins. This would make repent required of the ones addressed, and it would be
for the remission of sins, which according to Evans means because of sins remitted. Peter told the people to repent
because their sins were already forgiven? If the removal of one of the commas resulted in a false statement, then the 1769
translation teaches a false doctrine! Now, Herb, tell us: which text is correct—the 1611 translation or the 1769 revision?
Either answer destroys the “preserved inspiration” argument.
EVANS: See how Frost tries to squirm out of things? He gave this explanation not realizing that he put a
period after baptism. Now, we have to check the 1769 and the 1611 for commas and periods, since they are not in
the Greek. Why do we have to do this? Because Frost decides to change the KJB! I usually ignore stuff like this
unless I am dealing with a manipulator. After saying that it was a phrase and not a “clause,” Frost now calls it a
“parenthetical clause.” You can bank on it that Frost will change the subject when challenged on something. Like
clockwork! Well let us see what the diagrammed sentence looks like?
Ye| repent
|and
One
| be baptized
\every \of you
|
\
\for
|
\in
\
remission
|
\ name__
\the \of
|
\
\
\sins
|
\the \of Jesus Christ
|and
|
ye_ _|_ shall receive | gift___
\the \of
\ Holy Ghost
\the
EVANS: Also let us see what the compound sentence clauses of Acts 2:38 are and mean in the Greek!
First Clause:
Ye [understood] – subject, second person plural number
Repent – verb, second person plural number, imperative active voice
Second Clause:
everyone of you –subject, third person singular number
Be baptized – verb, third person singular number, aorist passive imperative voice.
unto the remission of your sins – modifying phrase
Third Clause:
Ye – subject, second person plural number, future, indicative voice,
The gift if the Holy Spirit – direct object of verb
Gene Frost: You may, as do some theologists [SIC], improperly separate “repent” from the rest of the sentence
because of the comma (in English), but on what pretense can you separate “be baptized” from “for the remission of sins”?
[EVANS: I only know that “Repent,” with YOU understood is a complete sentence and a clause of the
compound sentence of Acts 2:38.]
Ezek 14:6 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from
your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations.
Ezek 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord
GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions . . .
►GF [FROST: “Theologist” is a proper spelling, though not as often used now as we find in older writings.
(Webster’s New International Dictionary [second edition].) I should not have expected Evans to know this. Sorry it made
him [SICk], but he has learned something he didn’t know. I will go through my response and make any correction needed
so that we may be spared any further interruptions, or “corrections.”]
EVANS: Well, excuse me! If I would have known that you would use Old English, I would have let it pass. I
thought Old English was just for KJB Onlies. I better update my spell-checker to accept your old English word!
Herb Evans: You are as bad as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who say that the thief was told, “I say unto thee today, thou
shalt be with me in paradise,” thus shifting the comma one word. What is a “theologist?” It is Frost who uses theologians
and not I. Want to check out that score? Although Frost’s word order is correct, Frost counts number 2 and 3 as two
separate clauses rather than the one phrase that I hold to, “(2) be baptized for the remission of sins.” I believe that one gets
the remission of sins by repentance and faith, but I do not subscribe to Frost’s posted “perversion (above)” which Frost
seeks to dishonestly tack on to Herb Evans.
FROST: Evans asks, What is a theologist? As defined in the Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary: “THEOLOGIST,
n. A divine; one studious in the science of divinity, or one well versed in that science.” A “Divine” is: “1. A minister of
the gospel; a priest; a clergyman. 2. A man skilled in divinity; a theologian…” It is getting tiresome to have to explain
everything to Herb, when just a little initiative of his own would save me and the reader a lot of time.
EVANS: I checked you out in the Webster 1828. OKAY! Still, why should Herb Evans have to exercise the
initiative on an uncommon word, when Frost could have use the common word? That would have saved both of us
some time! Why go back to the Old English which Frost disdains?
FROST: He accuses me of using theologians, and denies that he does. Now I wonder if Herb knows what “theology”
is in a practical sense. I would like to see his definition. While he determines the answer, I will offer this hint: a
“Theologist” (theologian) will expound his theory in terms that best describe his concept rather than in Scriptural terms.
The world would call one a Scripturalist or Biblicist, who relies on the Bible for a foundation of his philosophy of life.
However, to avoid any secular inclusion in the definition, I am satisfied to call myself a Christian, as one who speaks as
the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11, 16). Now who is it that is a theologian, who speaks of substitutionary atonement, of
vicarious suffering, of “preserved inspiration,” of “eternity in an instant, etc., terminology unknown in Scripture?
EVANS: Well, dear reader! Mark it down! All the folks that Frost quoted are NOT THEOLOGIANS; they
were scripturalists and Biblicists. Have none of them, including Frost, coined any unscriptural terms? You better
believe it! It is not only the Baptists and the KJB Onlies that do such things. Now, if I had quoted Dr. Ruckman or
Gail Riplinger, unlike Frost, I would have been quoting theologians. But I didn’t quote anything REFERENCE
works. So, what am I now? A Biblicist? A Scripturalist? Or are those words merely Frost’s theology?
FROST: Next, referring to the paralleled quotations (the TRUTH and the PERVERSION), Herb, you are confused as to
the difference between a clause and a phrase. You use them just opposite to their meaning. (I’ll not submit another
English lesson; look them up in a dictionary or elementary grammar.) There are not three clauses, but three phrases. They
are (1) Repent, (2) be baptized, and (3) remission of sins in that order. Theologians change the order, thus creating a
perversion of the passage. If Evans can’t get this right in his native tongue, how does he hope to understand the use of eis?
EVANS: The one thing that Campbellites have in common is that they never surrender a point. Well, there
you go, Frost denies that Acts 2:38 is a compound sentence despite the conjunctions and the punctuation. He later
calls it a “parenthetical clause.” So, you see Frost does not like the punctuation or think that they are clauses, in a
compound sentence hence the end around to the Bible issue versus punctuation. Frost would like to get rid of the
commas so that he can combine the first two clauses, but they cannot be combined because the subjects all differ in
person and number and the verbs differ in person number and voice all making it impossible to force a compound
predicate. Frost would make the modifying phrase “for the remission of sins” to modify “repent,” but Frost would
have to get rid of his “in order to,” since it would belong in the second clause. If it is there, however, Frost will
have to get rid of “repent” as being “in order to the remission of sins,” since it must then stand alone. Campbellites
can’t have it both ways, modifying both “repent” and “be baptized,” since it cannot modify in two different
clauses. Perhaps, Frost can look at the Greek clauses and acknowledge or reject the following Greek! Then, while
he is at it, he can check a little English diagramming again which we have repeated from above.
First Clause:
Ye [understood] – subject, second person plural number
Repent – verb, second person plural number, imperative active voice
Second Clause:
everyone of you –subject, third person singular number
Be baptized – verb, third person singular number, aorist passive imperative voice.
unto the remission of your sins – modifying phrase
Third Clause:
Ye – subject, second person plural number, future, indicative voice,
The gift if the Holy Spirit – direct object of verb
Ye| repent
|and
One
|
be baptized
\every \of you
|
\
\for
|
\in
\
remission
|
\ name__
\the \of
|
\
\
\sins
|
\the \of Jesus Christ
|and
|
ye_ _|_ shall receive | gift___
\the \of
\ Holy Ghost
\the
FROST: To use his comments: we don’t care what you believe! What we want is Scripture, not “I believe,” “I
accept,” “my views,” etc.
EVANS: No! What Frost wants is another extra scriptural authority to back up his errors.
►GF FROST: There is nothing in the Greek text or in the English that will warrant it. What the Scriptures state is
the truth. Your change is just that: Herb Evans’ change, and it is a perversion!
Herb Evans: You are the one that removes the comma in English, and you may not understand the English concept
of “you understood,” English expert that you think that you are. Still, what does baptized UNTO repentance mean “to
obtain repentance?” The problem is yours! My authority is the English Bible (KJB) and not other languages, since I am an
English speaking American. Perhaps, I should get Mr. Frost together with me and my Greek speaking friends to see how
well he does.
FROST: Do they speak koine’ Greek or modern Greek?
EVANS: Would Frost know the difference? Does Frost want to talk more about the relocated comma and the
added period? Notice how Frost addresses my side comments while ignoring the main ones?
EVANS: “Mr. Frost just wants the word to mean what he wants in order to establish his agenda” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Herb, “thou art the man!” ►GF
Herb Evans: DITTOS! Tit for tat! You kill my dog; I’ll kill your cat.
FROST: (You know when you debate a KJBO-advocate … they have such clever responses. No Scripture, but they
are entertaining, they think.)
EVANS: I have posted many times more scripture than Frost has posted.
►GF FROST: I have not made up a single definition; references I give are documented. I have no agenda. ►GF
FROST: I haven’t picked a definition of my liking; it is not a matter of choice. Eis does not have a variety of
meanings to use in every context, from which to choose in translating the Greek into English. Although in a very few
given contexts it may be translated “against,” it cannot be so translated in every text. The Greek eis is defined as …
—“a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose
(result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases” (Strong's Numbers and Concordance).
—“a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for,
among.” (Thayer's Greek Lexicon).
—“a prep, governing only the accusative with the primary idea of motion into any place or thing, and then also of
motion or direction to, towards, upon, any place or object. The antithesis is expressed by ek, out of.” (Edward Robinson,
Greek and English Lexicon.)
FROST AUTHORITIES Continued: —“indicating motion into a thing or into its immediate vicinity.” (Arndt,
Gingrich, Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon.)
—“eis aphesin hamartion, for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven Mt 16:28; cf. Lk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Ac 2:38.”
—“prep. governing the acc. with the primary idea of motion into any pace or thing; also of motion or direction to,
toward or upon any place, thing. The antithesis is expressed by ek, out of.” (Spiros Zodhiates, Complete Word Study
Dictionary.)
—“expressing entrance, direction, limit, into, unto, to, upon, towards, for, among” (G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual
Greek Lexicon of the N.T.)
Baptist scholars know this to be true, as we have noted: “The use of eis to denote aim, object in view, purpose, is
very common and natural. It is derived from the physical idea of motion towards a given space in which it rests and
terminates” (Willmarth, page 299.)
EVANS: Frankly, I am tired of arguing with Frost’s dead and extra scriptural authorities, who are not
around for me to question or to challenge. Since Frost is unable to formulate his own arguments but rather plays
copy cat, I no longer feel the need to respond to such authorities. I probably should have deleted Frost’s internet
procured arguments from whomever they are, including everything from the Baptist Quarterly of July 1877,
where Frost gets more than a little material. I can look that stuff up myself without being force fed. Incidentally, I
wonder if Frost read Willmarth calling Church of Christ-ers “Campbellites” more than a couple time, something
that Frost objects to when it comes from me but not from Willmarth.
Herb Evans: We are not talking about making up definitions. We are talking about picking and choosing the sole
definition that you demand for “EIS” which is not the meaning in all 1500 plus places where “EIS” is used, in order to
force your view, which, yes, it is an AGENDA, for you Frost not to allow “EIS” to mean anything else but what he wishes
it to mean.
►GF FROST: I want to do what God says, just as God says it! I do not study my Bible simply to find justification
for what I want to believe and practice. I did not come to the conclusion that baptism is for (into, or unto, or order to
obtain) a remission of sins. I see by your comment here, and throughout our exchange, that you have searched through the
various translations of eis—as you say pick and choose— to reach your conclusion, not because of the context it is in, but
because it is the conclusion you want.
Herb Evans: DITTOS! You would not believe as you do, if you did want to do what God wanted you to do.
Baloney!
FROST: I have presented a reasonable case for my conclusions; honesty will allow no other. You on the other hand
merely assert and “prove “it by repetition and ridicule of anything else.
EVANS: “If Gene wants to debate baptism in a separate venue, we can do so . . . Ah . . . to save time and space.” –
Herb Evans
Herb Evans: No response from Frost, since his reply to me could then be reduced 10 pages, if he would eliminate
his off topic filibusters.
FROST: You assert what is “the topic” to be discussed. Produce the evidence which shows what the topic of our
exchange is, outside of your dictatorial assumptions. You complain because this study is not going as you had planned.
You thought you could huff and puff and be the big bad wolf and scare us away with slander, misrepresentation, and name
calling. This has become the hallmark KJBO promoters.
EVANS: From the beginning, from my first article, “HE TOOK MY PLACE!” I challenged Frost’s audio
taped denial of the Substitutionary Atonement. Nothing was on that tape about the Bible issue and there was only
my passing mention of baptism in two places. Perhaps, there were references to “Campbellites. What else could I
call them and Frost, since Frost and some of his group choose no specific denominated name. Frost, being a
Campbellite and a Bible Corrector, clearly had other agendas besides my original objection to his denial of the
Substitutionary Atonement, with which I have had to endure. See end of discussion for my original article.
Referencing the Greek
Gene Frost: Evans’ effort to disjoint my response intensifies, as he runs paragraphs together as one, and disconnects
sentences by forming new paragraphs, plus changing type faces that identify quotations which disrupts the continuation of
a thought or argument. He shows no respect, calling opponents by names and terms they do not accept. As we continue, I
am not a “church of Christ preacher”; [SIC] I am a preacher of the gospel of Christ.
Herb Evans: Short and to the point paragraphs are expected in point/counterpoint discussion; otherwise, it distracts
from the points and opposes brevity of discussion. Frost abhors such point/counterpoint because it keeps Frost honest and
saves space in Frost filibusters. I left most of Frost paragraphs intact and kept such changes to a bare necessary minimum
to facilitate clarity in our point/counterpoint discussion. Still, there are no paragraphs in the Greek. LOL! Yawn!
[EVANS: Was not that a fair comment of mine about no paragraphs in the Greek in light of Frost’s “no
Commas in the Greek” comment? LOL!]
FROST: Snippets do no facilitate clarity nor develop full and complete understanding. Snippets certainly do not
insure honesty—they have not with Evans.
EVANS: Frost must be used to formulating essays in his ORAL debates, hoping that his opponents will forget
half of what he said by the time of their turn and make an equally long essay to answer him. Evans challenges him
on the spot to his errors/points. He is not used to that! In formal oral debates you can be windy and stall for time.
Gene Frost: Evans states: “This church of Christ preacher disdains the word ‘atonement’ and ‘ransom’ in the
scriptures …”
FROST: Where the man comes up with these statements so foreign to the truth I do not know, except that if he told
the truth about what I really believe he would have no case. We have already discussed “atonement.” I believe what the
Bible says about it.
EVANS: Frost discusses things reluctantly when forced to do so. It was Herb Evans that called his attention to
his favorite word “reconciliation” and derivatives as being the same underlying word as atonement and derivatives
in the Hebrew and Greek. Frost slowly back peddled and claimed this was his idea all along.
[Herb Evans: The kind of atonement, ransom, and propitiation that Frost believes are not really atonements,
ransoms, or propitiations at all, and his sins have never been removed by his baptism. They can only be removed by
repentance and faith “alone” appropriated to Christ’s blood, without works. Frost has a blind spot when it comes to grace.]
FROST: Notice that we have the same tune over and over, which began with assertions in the first place. Herb put
alone in quotation marks—sins can only be removed by faith “alone”—and where in the Scriptures can he read about faith
alone?
“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17)
“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24)
How can Evans with a straight face pretend to be telling the truth, when he says that one is saved by faith alone,
when the Bible says that faith alone is dead, which doesn’t save anyone?!
EVANS: It6 is dead faith that is alone not living faith. Poor Frost does not have the slightest idea why the same
tune is sung over and over again. For instance, how many times has Frost sang this tune with the same proof texts?
Of course, we understand that Frost only has a handful of proof texts for his views. He only has two proof texts on
believing and being baptized and repenting and being baptized, the only two passages that link with salvation and
the remission of sins, therefore he tries to get extra mileage from them by repeating them over and over again. Of
course 30 plus to Frost’s one, the scriptures provide that link to salvation by faith without the mention of water
baptism. There are no universal “COMMNANDS” to believe and be baptized to be saved or to get the remission of
sins. Neither Paul’s baptism nor the Jews’ baptisms in Acts 2:38 are universal commands. Frost proof text from
Mark 16 is not a command at all. Where is Frost’s list of universal commands to folks to be baptized?
EVANS: “No, Frost has not discussed “atonement,” Gene has skirted it with dead men’s quotes, dictionaries,
discussions about baptism, the Greek, Calvinists, and Campbellites . . .—A lie, regardless of how many times it is
repeated, is still a lie!. . . . And Frost has not made one valid point in regard to the real issue of my article.”
Gene Frost: Herb, obviously you don’t know a valid point when you see it. I will let others who read this be the
judge.
Herb Evans” DITTOS! Tit for tat! You kill my dog; I’ll kill your cat.
FROST: See how well snippets work for Evans?!
EVANS: Can you see how Evan’s comments are snippet, but Frost’s pejoratives are not snippets. YAWN!
Gene Frost: In desperate need to find substitutionary atonement, he refers to the word “ransom.” According to
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, the word means:
“The price paid for procuring the pardon of sins and redemption of the sinner from punishment.
“The Son of man came—to give his life a ransom for many. Matt. xx. Mark x.”
I believe this, but Evans does not.
EVANS: “Oh, Yes, Herb does believe that and even much more which Frost does not believe.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: It is the “much more” that negates Webster’s definition. Herb does not believe that the giving of His life
was the ransom which procured the pardon of our sins. No, his theology demands more. He wants to make Jesus’ death a
“penal substitute,” which I state in my next sentence, which he cuts off. Now, Herb, without a quibble or a spin, tell us
plainly: do you believe that Jesus’ sacrifice of His life was a ransom sufficient to procure a pardon of our sins and redeem
the sinner from punishment? Or, do you believe that in that death, Jesus suffered the divine wrath of God, having obtained
all of the sins of the world as His own, and for which He was punished? When you stated you believed the Webster
definition and then added “and even much more,” you confirmed what I said! Sneaky, yes, trying to make the reader think
that you limited your faith to the King James translation and terms defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Oh, no, you
believe much more than the KJV scriptures! You have also embraced substitutionary theology, and now try to put a spin
on the word “ransom” to include it. I do not appreciate your duplicity.
Herb Evans: In keeping with Frost’s insistence of only one definition of a word, Frost gives us partial definitions.
Frost neglects Webster 1828’s much more, “The money or price paid for the redemption of a slave, or for goods, captured
by an enemy; that which produces the release of a prisoner or captive, or of captured property, and restores the one to
liberty and the other to the original owner.” Since Frost likes extra scriptural authorities, the Online Bible puts it this way,
“what is given IN EXCHANGE for another as the price of redemption, a ransom.” The price that was paid, the ransom of
Jesus’ blood and chastisement is the ransom that was in our stead. Nothing hard about this! Still, who needs extra
scriptural authorities, when you can compare and reference “ransom” and other words throughout the scriptures? Putting it
another way, sin is a debt that must be paid for by the sinner or by someone else (Matt 6:12 – 15; Gal 5:3). Jesus’ life is
the ransom or exchange for our souls; Jesus Christ has paid our sin debt.
FROST: Evans quotes what he calls extra scriptural authorities in an effort to promote a theological concept of
ransom. He wants us to think that he studies only the Bible, that all his arguments come from the Bible, that he has no use
for comments of men. Since he cannot “prove” his position by the Bible, he references his extra scriptural authority on a
pretense that “since Frost likes extra scriptural authorities…” I have no authority for what I believe and practice other than
Christ; all authority is His! I consider what others may say, not because they possess any authority but to share in their
knowledge of languages and exegesis to enhance my ability to learn the inspired word. Sometimes I am profited with
insights otherwise unknown, and a great deal of the time I reject the material presented.
EVANS: Yes! I consult others. I consult others in difficult matters to check up on my thinking to see what
kind of holes others may be able to poke into my reasoning and interpretation. Long ago, I stopped looking up
what others have said in order to adopt a belief for myself. I also consult others to see if I can poke holes in their
theories.
FROST: What Herb presents from his authorities is the theological Substitutionary Atonement theory. I call to the
readers’ attention the fact he quotes no scripture that mentions it. What he does is deceptive. Stating his proposition, he
lists two scriptures, neither of which affirms what he says. The closest they come is that the passages use the words
ransom and debtor, words which do not mention nor teach penal substitution. This is a ploy of false teachers: strongly
affirm a proposition, after which write a string of scripture references that have nothing to do with the subject. People who
do not pay attention conclude, “He must be right: look at all the scriptures he cites.”
EVANS: Our sin debt and the ransom by Christ FOR US is an integral part in Christ’s substitutionary
atonement. Does Frost think that man has a sin debt or that it must be paid? If so, who pays our sin debt?
EVANS: Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came . . . to give his life a ransom for many.
Gal 5:3 - 5 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is
become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the
Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
FROST: No need to highlight in red; I believe these passages. One is not justified by the law, but he is justified by
grace through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8, Gal. 2:16), a living obedient faith and not by a dead faith:
“by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24)
EVANS: Where can I find this “OBEDIENT FAITH” by works to salvation in the scriptures, since neither
James nor Paul says anything about salvation or remission of sins in those passages in regard to obedient works for
salvation or remission of sins?
Gene Frost: He needs a passage that teaches that Jesus was a penal substitute, who became the embodiment of all
sins.
[EVANS: Now, Frost switches from faith concepts to characterizations of “penal substitutes.” Frost needs a
verse that an un-baptized believer goes to hell or else is damned. Will Frost accept the challenge to list his verses as
such, and I list verses regarding repenting and believing to obtain eternal life or heaven and prevents hell.]
Herb Evans: Well, if Frost can’t see the Lord bruising Jesus and putting Him to grief in Isaiah 53, then there is no
hope for Frost.
FROST: Oh, I didn’t see Isaiah 53 in the list. And what is the verse in that chapter that mentions penal substitution?
Bruising and grief are descriptive of Jesus’ suffering on the cross, but this does not equate to His suffering the penalty due
others, for all their sins which became his own, and being rejected by the Father. And shamefully Herb tries to intimidate
others to embrace his errors with the threat to either accept it or “there is no hope” for you!
EVANS: That verse was not about others bruising Him, it was about GOD BRUISING HIM and PUTTING
HIM to grief! Note Frost term “penal” is Frost’s and not mine.
EVANS: “I have already produced those scriptures”—perversion of Scriptures—“and have included a few more in
this answer.”
Herb Evans: Is scripture posting, with scriptural rationale’, a perversion as bad as an incomplete or partial
definition? Or is it more a perversion than the Bible correcting theologians’ corrupt interpretations of the word of God?
FROST: What makes a perversion is not in posting a scripture, or trying to understand scripture, but the
misconstruing or distorting its message. Nor is it a question of which perversion is worse.
EVANS: It is not the scriptures that Frost has posted but his misconstruing and distorting the words not the
message and not vice versa that make it a perversion. Man, with this guy making the rules, we are all done for!
FROST: If indeed Evans has posted the scriptures which teach that “Jesus was a penal substitute, who became the
embodiment of all sins,” will he please post a list of such passages?
EVANS: If Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 are not good enough to prove a substitutionary Atonement, then re-read
the discussion. Moreover the term “penal substitute” is Frost’s term, and it also is not found in the scripture.
Gene Frost: Not finding it in the English, he turns to the Greek text. Remember he wants to throw out the Greek, …
except when he thinks it will be of benefit in promoting his agenda.
Herb Evans: I will throw out the Greek if Frost will not refrain from using it. I refer to the Greek only because Frost
thinks that it is the final authority. Would Frost consider an English ONLY debate without his extra scriptural authorities?
FROST: Interesting! Evans will discard the Greek if Frost will not restrain (hold back or curb) using it. I guess this
means that he will throw away his Greek Bible if I promise to use mine. (I’m not sure that he always means what he says.)
EVANS: What is more interesting is that Frost will not accept my challenge. Now, Frost, after learning his
lesson, is now guessing what Herb means. Bad guess! Herb Evans keeps his on line Bibles of different languages for
his future encounters with Bible Correctors. I never said that I would throw away any of my Greek Bible or my
Greek reference books. I must keep them for guys like Frost.
EVANS: “Again, I need only my English Bible. Still, when folks like you and other Campbellites —A lie, regardless
of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!— get Greek-ified, I use your own tools on you. I prefaced my Greek
comments with “FOR OUR CAMPBELLITE —A lie, regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!— GREEK
EXPERT . . .” – Herb Evans
►GF Gene Frost: He references Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45 the same passages that Webster cites. “Ransom” in
the Greek text is lutron. In the Semantic Domain of words signifying “Release, Set Free”—the first of which is luo: “to
release, to set free”—lutron is defined as “the means or instrument by which release or deliverance is made possible —
‘means of release, ransom’.” This is what Jesus did as our ransom.►GF
EVANS: I guess Frost does not want to use 1 Tim 2:6 where “ransom” is “antilutron,” which give us a ransom
of one thing in place of another, namely, the price of the release or freedom in an exchange. In this case the price
was high! CHRIST’S BLOOD! The ransom and redemption are sometimes the same word in the Hebrew and are
related to the word for atonement.
Exo 21:30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give FOR the ransomH6306 of his life
whatsoever is laid upon him.
1 Tim 2:6 Who gave himself a ransomG487 FOR all, to be testified in due time.
EVANS: “Just for the record, I did not mention the Greek in those ten example passages. Frost did in his response.”
Herb Evans: That is exactly what the Lord Jesus did; Jesus Christ released and set us free by offering His body and
blood as the price of the ransom in exchange for redemption and our sin debt, as a propitiation, if you please -- He took
our place.
Gene Frost: The English “ransom” and Greek lutron, as defined by lexicographers who are not disciples of
substitutionary theology, offer him no support. He is not finished. He says …
EVANS: Are you saying that those who call attention to “antilutron” and “lutron” followed by the Greek
“anti” are automatically disciples of the SA?
EVANS: — “the significant thing about Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45 is that the ‘ransom’ (LUTRON) is followed by
the Greek word ‘ANTI’ for the English ‘FOR.’ Moreover, 1 Tim. 2:6 is even more specific in the Greek, saying ‘ANTILUTRON.’”
[Herb Evans: Many Lexicographers and dictionarians are not even born again and operate strictly from a secular
standpoint without knowing the spiritual content of a word as compared throughout the scriptures. 1 Tim 2:6 does not
belong to Frost; it belongs to Herb Evans. LUTRON is the price of redemption. ANTILUTRON is the substitutionary
price of redemption. I guess that Frost never heard of the substitute Christ(s) (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). See
comments under “Symbolic ANTI figures later)]
FROST: Well, now, here is something which is new: there are “substitute Christ(s)” And Herb is right; I never heard
of a Substitute Christ or of substitute Christs. I suppose this is another one of those theological concepts Herb comes up
with from time to time.
EVANS: Frost pretends that he never heard of the antichrist and antichrists. However, they are very real
biblical personages. Nevertheless, we need to explore the Greek word for antichrist or anti-messiah.
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are
there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
FROST: In the following Scriptures Herb lists, all confirm that Jesus was a ransom, that He redeemed us, and gave
Himself for us, but in none of them does it say that He was a vicarious, penal substitute. He produces what is not
controverted, but assumes what needs to be proved.
EVANS: Well it is nice to know that Frost does not object to the price for redemption and our ransom as
being the Lord’s life and the Lord’s blood. It is also good to know that Frost does not dispute that there has been
an exchange of one thing in the place or the stead of another, which required Jesus to become a sin and a curse for
us. It is also good that Frost does not very strongly dispute our take on the Greek word “ANTI” as it used in the
scriptures. But perhaps, Frost may yet dispute it.
Ransom and Redemption and Substitution
“Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came . . . to give his life a RANSOM for many.
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree:
1 Tim 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity . . .
1 Pet 1:18, 19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from
your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb
without blemish and without spot:
Rev 5:9 . . . thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people,
and nation;
Well, who is now running to the Greek and back to Prof. Whatchamahamaczysz? For the record, I prefaced my
Greek comments with “FOR OUR CAMPBELLITE (—A lie, regardless of how many times it is repeated, is still a lie!—)
GREEK EXPERT . . .”
FROST: What the Scriptures state, without being wrested, will outweigh any human comment. It is when Herb uses
terms not in the Scriptures, or Scriptural terms he twists and confounds, that I need to go to qualified linguists for
clarification. Once I know what a term or phrase legitimately means, I know what the Scriptures teach. My faith comes
from the Scriptures. I do not look to a KJBO preacher to “give the sense of a given passage,” especially when I know that
he is unqualified to expound the truth!
EVANS: Frost can go anywhere he wants for anything he wants; the end result will be that Frost is WRONG!
He’ll go anywhere to avoid addressing the lists of scripture that I post.
FROST: Herb Evans’ counsel: “It is the preacher’s job to be apt to teach and give the sense of a given passage.”
Evans claims to follow the KJB only, but he tell those he teach to throw away all lexicons and textual aids, and when they
come to terms or phrases they do not understand they can look to him, the preacher. It is his job to give the sense to any
given passage.” I have a better solution for his students (disciples, followers, or whatever they are called): When you have
difficulty in understanding the sense in a given text, throw Herb Evans away and learn to use lexical and linguistic aids!
EVANS: No! YOU can throw away everything that contradicts my King James Bible. But since Frost does not
think that a pastor has any role in this, let Frost continue in LA LA Land, while we believe our Book.
EVANS: Jesus death was a ransom, a vicarious substitution, reconciliation, and propitiation. We are set free
because Christ paid the ransom with His incorruptible divine blood as an exchange. Redemption and ransom go hand in
hand. He took our place. He was a curse for us.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Interesting, how in listing Bible related terms, he manages to slip in his theological terms—“ransom, a
vicarious substitution, reconciliation, and propitiation. In the Bible I read about the ransom, reconciliation, and
propitiation … but still, where is the Scripture that mentions “a vicarious substitution”? The Bible terms are sufficient in
conveying the effects of Christ’s sacrifice. But they do not include this concept of a vicarious substitution! ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost has yet to completely define “propitiation,” and Frost is carefully avoiding the term “redemption.”
These terms along with “ransom, propitiation, bear, bare, and for” are inextricably linked together to one another in the
scripture to present a substitutionary or vicarious kind of atonement. Why cannot Herb Evans use words or terms upon
which the discussion is based, since Frost and his “theologists” use and dispute them?
FROST: I do not use Herb’s terminology (as legitimate definitions) and (then) dispute them—I use them to dispute
them! If KJBO theorists and Calvinists did not use theological terms, we would not have them to dispute!
EVANS: It seems like Frost was not anxious to dispute the “corrupt” Calvinist Willmarth but only to use him
for Frost’s ends. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
EVANS: Where is Frost’s scripture for the word “guilt?”
FROST: (“Guilt” a theological term?) Have you forgotten that you introduced it? If a term is a legitimate synonym
or definition, there is no problem. I did not have a problem with the word “guilt”—it is not a theological term—but you
did because it exposed the fallacy of your argumentation.
FROST Continued: Evans wants me to interrupt the discussion to define words for him. Perhaps this is the place to
look at the terms Propitiation and Redemption in particular, though we have referred to them in the general discussion.
They, Evans says, are linked to “ransom,” “bear,” “bare,” and “for” to present a substitutionary or vicarious kind of
atonement. This is a tacit admission that his theological atonement is not found in any one term, but “inextricably linked
together” he thinks he has a claim. I guess we will find “substitutionary atonement” between the words in the linking,
something like reading between the lines.
EVANS: Seems like my question was simple and brief enough. Seems like the answer would be also simple and
brief to answer where is Frost’s word “guilt” in scripture? Nevertheless, now, we must endure a Frost harangue to
find out where it is at, interrupted only with Frost’s muddy water. I wanted no Frost theological definition; I
wanted the location of the word in scripture.
Propitiation
FROST: If we will allow the use of the English word in the King James Bible to determine the definition of
propitiation, we have only three verses to examine: Rom. 3:25, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10 (see below). Without any
external support, how do we define propitiation? In the English alone we would not know that these three appearances are
translations from two Greek words (or in Evans’ case, possibly Egyptian or some other language). Even if the KJB was
inspired (2 Tim. 3:16), which Evans admits it is not, we would not know that the other verses, outside of the three, are
linked.
Now we can go to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, but even this is an uninspired extra scriptural source, and Evans finds
extra scriptural sources objectionable. But allowing it, as a dictionary it only tells what the word meant in 1828, which
may not be what the original text would mean in English. The only way out of this dilemma is to declare the 1828 English
Dictionary inspired, which is not the case. Of course, this problem is not mine. I accept the reading of the KJB and
supplemental reading of the underlying Greek texts.
---------------A CHALLENGE--------------With this problem clearly in the court of Evans and company, the burden of defining the word propitiation is his.
Heretofore, we have defined terms, using all supplemental aids of a Greek text, Greek grammar and syntax, with Greek
lexicons and etymological dictionaries, we are comfortable with the knowledge that we have a correct reading and
understanding of the Bible. Evans has taken a purely negative role to try to discount what we believe and practice. If he
has what he claims, an inspired English text—we have the same text, the only difference being we do not claim what
cannot be defended—and the ability to accurately give the sense of any given text, then let him give us the definition of
these terms, along with the documented source of his conclusions.
Until he does what he demands of us, I care not to receive any further communication from him. I find dealing with
religious charlatans a waste of time.
EVANS: I guess that means that this is the end of the discussion. I’ll say good bye ahead of time.
-----------------------------We have the verb form (Gr. hilaskomai) used only twice, and the noun as well (Gr. hilasmos), twice. Another noun
from the same root (hilasterion), referring to the atonement cover placed on the top of the ark of the covenant, is used
twice.
Hilaskomai is found in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10:
1 John 2:2—“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
(1 John 2:2)
1 John 4:10—“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for
our sins.”
There is nothing textually that tells us what propitiation means. We will try the verb:
Hilasmos is found in Heb. 2:17 and Luke 18:13:
Heb. 2:17—“Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful
and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”
Luke 18:13—“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon
his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”
From these references we learn that Hilasterion is found in Rom. 3:25 and Heb. 9:5:
Rom. 3:25—“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness
for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”
Heb. 9:5—(Ark of the Covenant): “And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot
now speak particularly.”
From the three instances where “propitiation” is used, we find no alternative words which can help us with a
definition. However, if we pick up the Greek text Evans has thrown away, we find in the other three references additional
English words: reconciliation, merciful, and mercyseat.
FROST Continued: “Reconciliation,” we learn from other passages, is a work of God in that He removes the enmity
between Himself and man, made possible by Christ who wipes away (atones) our sins, so that we are enemies no more.
This removal of sin, which results in peace with God, is effected through our faith and submission to Christ.
Rom 5:10-11—“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom we have now received the atonement.”
2 Cor 5:18-20—“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us
the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their
trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as
though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.”
“Merciful” (to have mercy) is an emotional reaction to the suffering or affliction of others that grants an undeserved
demonstration of kindness or forgiveness.
Rom 11:30-32—“For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded
them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”
“Mercyseat” refers back to the lid of the ark of the covenant: Exodus 25:10-11, 17-18, 21-22; Lev. 16:11-14, 15, 1617. It is also referred to as an “atonement cover”: it is here that sins were atoned (wiped away). In Rom. 3:25, Jesus is “set
forth” as the place of atonement.
Let us briefly look at the word atone (atonement) to complete the picture of “propitiation.”
“Atone” (atonement) is translated in the KJB from the Hebrew kaphar, where it is also translated often as reconcile
(reconciliation), clean (cleanse), and purge, and less often as pacified, forgiven, pardon, put off, and disannulled. The
mercyseat was the place where the blood of the sin offering was brought before God and sins were purged or wiped away,
forgiven. In the New Testament, Christ is our “mercyseat,” where sins are remitted.
Rom 5:11—“And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received
the atonement.”
From the above word associations, we determine that to propitiate (hilaskomai) is to atone, to have mercy upon, to
purge sins, remove enmity, and establish peace (harmonious relationship). I find no reference in Scripture that would
conclude that propitiation is synonymous with substitutionary atonement or penal satisfaction.
In sin, man has alienated himself from God. “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the
world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:4) It is man
who separated himself from God, and not God from man. We need to be reconciled to Him!
The underlying principle of the divine-human relationship is love on the part of God. “God so loved the world…”
(John 3:16) “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8) As
sinners we come under the sentence of death. (Rom. 6:23) We must remember that “the face of the Lord is against them
that do evil” and that “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (1 Peter 3:12, Heb. 10:31) While God is
uncompromising in His relentless hatred of sin, still there is love in which He is “longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)
The pictures of God we find from the middle ages, as a scowling and intense Being of fearful countenance, full of
hate. This is not the picture of the Bible, although it fits the rhetoric of many today. Some even yet picture God prior to
sending Christ, which is the greatest expression of love, as a God full of the hate of sin He had stored for centuries,
including every evil deed of every persons who ever lived, is alive, or will come to live on earth. These people believe that
God’s vehement anger could only be appeased by its full release upon a victim who would stand in the stead of every
sinner, whom they say is the Son of God. We are told that God’s wrath has been appeased. If this be so, and all my sins
and all other’s sins (past, present, future) are nailed to His cross and removed, then why is God angered by sin today?
What sin(s) yet remain in need of forgiveness? Can I do anything today that will so anger God that He will punish me
with eternal separation from Him? (This is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement versus reality.) Calvin saw the
problem and he developed a theology of limited atonement and predetermination. But Evans doesn’t believe in Calvinism.
Or does he, and just refuses to call it what it is?
NOTE: This is how Frost likes to debate Herb Evans with a pontificated sermon that would require another
sermon to answer it! Frosty is really addressing the members of his congregation with this. Frost just sent me a
formal CD that he will, no doubt give them. – Herb Evans
EVANS: Now, Frost, in answer to our question, has sermonized and made a filibuster of the words
"propitiation" and "atonement," and "reconciliation," so our question is still where is Frost's “theological” word
“guilt” in the scriptures? No answer here! Sins were nailed to His cross? No! Ordinances were nailed to the cross!
►GF Gene Frost: If we burned all theological writings, and everyone spoke as the Bible speaks (1 Pet. 4:11), would
we be hearing this language of Ashdod? To ask the question is to answer it.
Herb Evans: “That’ll be the day” that Frost burns all his theological writings (with apologies to John Wayne). Frost
would then have to use only the scriptures, and certainly we would be hearing the language of God as opposed to the
language of the “theologists!”
FROST: (What theological language have I used to teach what I believe and practice, which cannot be discovered in
Scripture, but is traceable to some theologian? The reader will be the judge of who is teaching theories that have come
from man and who is teaching the will of God as revealed in Scripture.)
If only Bible terms were used in this exchange, Evans could not write about vicarious, penal substitution, instant
eternity, and a host of other words or concepts. I suspect he would develop a nervous twitch before he could finish a
dozen pages of copy.
He wants the reader to think he only employs words found in the KJV Bible. If I laughed out loud every time he used
a non-Biblical term (theological term), by the time we finished the discussion I would be hysterical!
EVANS: Still, Frost does not get hysterical about his theological terms or his extra scriptural authorities.
Evans can still say that He died for me; He took my place.
Gene Frost: Herb likes to put out statements and references with no order, and then assume that he has established
some point, when, in fact, he only engages in confusion. Do not think this is without design. Above he references
translations of six different Greek terms, without distinction. In his initial response, “He Took My Sins,” Herb writes
under the subtitle, The Blood Atonement and Ransom, in which he confounds the words. He throws into one paragraph of
six lines: atonement, ransom, inherit sin, forsaken, and reconciliation. All of this, I am called upon to unravel and make
some sense of it all.
Herb Evans: Gene Frost is obsessed with faulting and characterizing Herb Evans’ motives and procedure. Of
course, poor Frost does not grasp the relationships between Bible words, saying the same things over and over.
FROST: We did not refer to your terms as related, but as to meaning. So atonement, ransom, inherited sin, forsaken,
and reconciliation are “saying the same thing over and over.”
EVANS: Those words were being said over and over due to your incessant probing for answers.
Gene Frost: Evans says that in 1 Tim. 2:6, anti is prefixed as antilutron, and suggests that it is used to mean
“counterfeit or substitute,” hence vicariously, or in one’s stead. However, there is no translation that I am aware of, having
checked over two dozen, which translates anti as either counterfeit or substitution. Some lexicographers, who believe in
substitutionary atonement, and who are anxious to find some possible degree of validity of the theology, suggest that anti
here is substitutionary. Others disagree. Time and space does not permit a lengthy study of the controversy.
EVANS: Oh, it used to mean that? I suggest that you keep looking in your history books.
[Herb Evans: Herb Evans agrees with the folks that believe it is “substitutionary;” Frost agrees with the folks who
do not. Still, I am not content with a stalemate. Did Frost ever hear of the anti-christ(s) Does the anti-christ come on
behalf of Christ, for Christ, or as a substitute and counterfeit Christ? Will the anti-christ come to obtain Christ?
FROST: The root meaning of anti is face to face. The first imagery that comes to mind is of face to face in
opposition, one against the other. Let’s see the description that John makes in the four references he writes.
EVANS: Well, my head is still spinning as to where Frost got this “face to face” root meaning, but if Frost is
allowed to deal in root words like Spiro Zodiiates (imaginary words in Frost’s case), I could do the same in English.
The Greek word for “ransom” and “in the room of” and also the word “for” in certain places is the Greek word
anti (G473).
G473
ἀ ντί
anti an-tee' - A primary particle; opposite, that is, instead or because of (rarely in addition to):
- for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
G500
ἀ ντίχριστος antichristos - From G473 and G5547; an opponent of the Messiah: - antichrist.
FROST: 1 John 2:18-19—“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even
now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us;
for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made
manifest that they were not all of us.”
An antichist is one who is not in fellowship with God’s people, but has separated himself from them and from the
faith and unity that characterizes them.
1 John 2:21-22—“I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie
is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the
Son.”
Antichrists abandon the truth, and give credence to a lie. In particular, they deny that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God.
1 John 4:1-3—“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false
prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and
this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
FROST Continued: Anti-christs are false prophets or false teachers; they are not of God.
2 John 7—“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
Antichrists are deceivers. It is obvious that they are against Christ. Until Herb Evans came along, I never heard
anyone even suggest that an antichrist might refer to some who comes on behalf of Christ, or someone who is for Christ,
or a substitute (or replacement) for Christ, or as a counterfeit (or fraudulent imitation) of Christ. How did Evans fail to
know that anti means “against”?
Evans: While many of the traits that Frost expressed are traits of the antichrist and antichrists. However, the
main characteristic of the antichrist and antichrists are imitators of Christ. While the antichrist will indeed be an
opponent of Christ; he is mainly an imitator of Christ, an anti-messiah.
Matt 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. [Also Mark 13:6
EVANS: “Why? You had time and space for a lengthy discourse on Campbellism and baptism? Try this one!”
Gene Frost: The controversy is among theologians. I have neither the time nor patience to wade through all that
theologians argue because, first, I do not rely on theology, and, second, antilutron is used only one time: 1 Timothy 2:6.
And here it is translated “ransom,” which the Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines as “the price paid for procuring the
pardon of sins and the redemption of the sinner from punishment.” ►GF
Herb Evans: Frost’s problem is not time but scripture.
FROST: — Herb, who just produced Scripture to show you what antichrist means? You didn’t have a clue. You
suggested the anti prefix might mean “on behalf of,” or “for,” or “as a substitute.”
EVANS: We suggest that Frost run some references on “redemptions” in the scriptures. Substitutionary redemptions
are that which requires an “EXCHANGE” price – a ransom!
FROST: You keep suggesting what I did years ago. And do you know, I never found one Scripture that mentions
“substitutionary redemptions”! You say that my problem is time; what is yours? Have you not had enough time to learn
that the Bible doesn’t even mention your theology (well, not yours as the author, but what you have been deceived to
accept)? Or have you had the time, but have failed to apply yourself to the task of studying the Bible to learn better?
EVANS: Frost never realizes that he uses theological words, while scolding Herb Evans for using them. Frost
pretends that he only uses the scripture for his theology but he also uses extra scriptural terms and authorities to
explain his self as do others. The man just does not see himself; he only sees others. Well, I am not going to lose any
sleep over it. YAWN! SNORE!
Gene Frost: There is no hint here of something done vicariously, or instead of another, or by substitution. When he
wants the freedom to define words as he pleases, so that he may present his substitutionary theology, he appeals to the
generic terms in English that allows some leeway.
Then he says, “throw out the Greek,” text and lexicons! Otherwise, when it appears useful, he introduces it and puts
his spin on it. On the subject of ransom, he shelves the English text and produces the Greek, which, as we have seen, he
doesn’t use very well.
[EVANS: Unfortunately, whether English or Greek, with a man like Frost, you cannot get through to him in
any language. Anti means “instead of,” “in the room of,” and it also means “because of” as well as do the Greek
words “eis, dia, peri, and huper” in certain places. Frost’s insistence on dogmatic standalone definitions of these
five Greek words is a pipe dream.
Herb Evans: The Spin-Meister Frost talks about spin! Frost still does not realize that Herb Evans’ final authority is
the KJB. If Frost’s final authorities agree with the KJB then fine! If they do not, well yes, throw them out.
Gene Frost: Rather than waste my time following the trail of theological controversy, let Herb present the proof of
his assertion that antilutron means “counterfeit or substitute,” in referring to a release or deliverance by substitution.
Where does he find his definition outside of theological guesswork, [SIC] and in translations and legitimate definitions?
(Note to the reader: re-read my response uninterrupted by Herb’s distractions.)
Herb Evans: Frost has wasted an inordinate amount of time correcting the King James Bible’s legitimate definitions.
Frost is a fine one to talk about guesswork. Still, theological controversy and debate are the Church of Christ-ers’ stock in
trade. Herb Evans desires to stay in the framework of the Bible not in the guesswork of Frost’s final authorities. Frost
wants to know where I find my definition of “ANTI” as a substitute or something instead of something else. Where else
but in the scriptures? The definition of “ANTI” is a substitute of something or instead of something. In some instances, it
is used as “Against” but hardly so in my examples.
FROST: Look again at my question and Evans’ answer. Question:
EVANS: “Frost wants to know where I find my definition of ‘ANTI’ as a substitute or something instead of
something else.”
FROST: Evans’ answer:
EVANS: “Where else but in the scriptures?”
FROST: Then why did he not cite the Scriptures where it can be found? Could it be that he knows that the word
“substitute” (“substitution” or “substitutionary”) are not in the KJB, and is just trying to bluff? Further, he says that he
“desires to stay in the framework of the Bible,” but obviously he stifles that desire and looks into—surely he would not
stoop to a Greek lexicon, or other “extra scriptural source,” which he refers to as garbage—his theological sources.
EVANS: Probably because Frost does not ever wait for me to post them, they have been posted above. I
stooped to the Greek if it augments the English KJB. Still, Frost is always complaining about the English and
challenging me with the Greek and the Hebrew. But then Frost would like to use the Greek while I remain silent
about it. You know, tie one hand behind Herb’s back to get a level playing field. Unlike Frost, what I do is post the
underlying Greek word or Strong’s number in the English text where it can be easily seen in my lists of proof texts.
All that is happening with Frost’s extra scriptural authorities and their quotes is that they just take up time and
space, while Frost does not want to accept standard reference works.
SYMBOLIC (ANTI) FIGURES
FROST/THAYER: ANTI: a preposition followed by the genitive:
1. properly, it seems to have signified over against, opposite to, before,
2. indicating exchange, succession, for, instead of, in place of (something)
a. universally, instead of Luke 11:11
b. used of that for which anything is given, received, endured: Matt 5:38
c. of recompense Rom 12:17
d. of the cause wherefore, Luke 12:3
e. of succession to the place of another Matt 2:22.
(Thayer’s Greek Lexicon)
EVANS: Well, Thayer does not seem to favor Frost as much as Frost would like. See what I highlighted in red;
Not too bad for a Bible Corrector!
EVANS: Matt 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of [anti G473] [Berry says
instead] his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither:
FROST: Archelaus was not a substitute for Herod. Herod died, vacating the office, after which Archelaus reigned in
the place, or room, of his father.
EVANS: Where does Frost get that Herod vacated the office by death. Is that your theology? It is not in the
Bible! It is not Italian, for it is not in there. Obviously, Frost interpolates to get the best outcome results for his
view. Would Frost agree that Christ died in the room of or in the place of sinners?
EVANS: Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye FOR [anti G473] an eye, and a tooth FOR [anti
G473] a tooth:
FROST: No substitutionary atonement here.
EVANS: NO! It was not meant to be there. But what is it - “an eye in order to get an eye?” A tooth in order to
get a tooth?
EVANS: Mat 17:27 . . . take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a
piece of money: that take, and give unto them FOR [anti G473] me and thee.
FROST: No substitutionary atonement here.
EVANS: NO! It was not meant to be there. Was he to give money to them in order to get Christ?
EVANS: Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom FOR [anti G473] many. (also Mark 10:45)
FROST: Ransom is not substitutionary atonement.
EVANS: Of course it is; it is an exchange of one thing for another. In this case a ransom is a payment! Christ
bought us back and redeemed us with His life and blood.
EVANS: Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a
fish, will he FOR [anti G473] a fish give him a serpent?
FROST: No substitutionary atonement here.
EVANS: NO! It was not meant to be there.. Was he to give him a serpent to get a fish?
EVANS: Rom 1:27 receiving in themselves that RECOMPENCE [ANTIMISTHIAN] of their error which was meet.
FROST: No substitutionary atonement here.
EVANS: NO! It was not meant to be there! In other words, in place of their error they received recompense.
NOTE: EVANS: 1 Cor 4:6 Removed; inserted by mistake.
EVANS: 2 Co 6:13 Now for a RECOMPENCE [ANTIMISTHIA] in the same . . .
FROST: No substitutionary atonement here.
EVANS: NO! It was not meant to be there! A recompense is one thing put in place of another.
EVANS: 1Tim 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom [anti-lutron] for all, to be testified in due time.
FROST: No substitutionary atonement here.
EVANS: Ah . . . but it is - Christ in the place of us. Do you see how a debate with Frost works; my job is to
prove what I say. Frost’s job is to deny what I say. Some debate – eh!
EVANS: Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into [EIS] the holy place made with hands, which are the figures
[ANTITUPA] of the true; but into [EIS] heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God FOR [HUPER] us:
[EVANS: Obviously, Christ did not enter into heaven in order to get us but entered in our place. The type of
the tabernacle was a FIGURE or symbolic REPRESENTATION of heaven itself. Jesus was the anti-type of the
high priest as he entered the holiest.]
FROST: Heaven, in which is God’s presence, is the type of which the (most) holy place of the tabernacle is the
antitype. Christ is not entered into the holy place of the tabernacle which men made (according to God’s pattern), rather
He entered heaven now to appear in the presence of God. There is no substitutionary atonement here.
EVANS: Frost correctly defines the TYPE of the holy place of the tabernacle as the anti-type of heaven, but
Even the word anti-type goes against Frost’s teaching. The TYPE is a “REPRESENTATION” of heaven. A TYPE
is something that takes the place of something else by representing it.
EVANS: 1 Pet 3:21 The like figure [ANTITUPON] whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting
away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward [EIS] God . . .
FROST: Preceding an antitype (baptism) in verse 21 is the type verse 20: “God waited in the days of Noah, while
the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” Noah, his wife, and their three sons and
their wives—eight souls—were saved from the destruction of the antediluvian world and the wicked inhabitants by the
flood waters which lifted and carried the ark into the new world. As the type in which souls were saved by water (of the
flood), the antitype is baptism which “doth also now save us”!
EVANS: It is incredible that Frost should regard the water as the TYPE of that salvation from the flood. The
ark, which is a TYPE of Christ, saved them and was the LIKE FIGURE. Safety is in the ark and Christ. It is about
the blood and not the water. But when you are blind, you are blind!
EVANS: “Anti” is also combined in Heb 9:24 (anti-tupei) to get the word figures from which we get types or
representations. By the same token, anti-tupon is found in 1 Pet 3:21 to get the like figure in reference to baptism. So,
here is a proof text for baptism being a figure or a symbol. LUTRON is a ransom, the price of redemption.
ANTILUTRON is the substitutionary price of redemption or ransom. Obviously, the word ANTI is used in the sense of in
the room of and one thing for another or a substitute for something else. It is used for TYPES of its ANTITYPE.
FROST: Herb is so used to assigning whatever meaning he desires to terms that he fails to consider the context, in
particular the structure of a sentence. Peter (1 Pet. 3:21) writes about how in the days of Noah “eight souls were saved by
water,” adding immediately, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us,” comparing the two as type
and antitype. He does not say that baptism is “a figure or a symbol.” Herb then ignores Peter’s antitype that like the eight
were saved by water, so “baptism doth also now save us.” He declares in contradiction to what Peter writes, baptism is a
symbol of salvation already received. Not so, and Herb Evans cannot produce a Scripture that says that it is.
EVANS: Frost thinks those 8 souls were save “BY Water” and they were but not the way that Frost thinks.
Frost needs to look up the Greek preposition on that one. The English understanding is “via water” or “through
water” just like it is in being saved “BY FIRE.” They were actually saved from the flood, FROM its water by the
ark.
EVANS: “Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket
by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering IN THE STEAD OF HIS SON.
Gene Frost: I will present the latest among lexicographical works, and recommend a study of this very point. ►GF
[Herb Evans: I thought Frost was not going to waste his time. Here is where Frost ignores and evades the
substitutionary ram in the Hebrew and switches to the Greek, using a misdirection play.]
Gene Frost: Under the sub-domain of words expressing Benefaction (the act of conferring aid of some sort), the
prepositions huper and anti are defined by Louw and Nida as follows:
[Herb Evans: Here come the Theologians again. Frost must not care how words are used in the Scriptures.]
►GF Gene Frost (Louw and Nida): “huper (with the genitive): a marker of a participant who is benefitted by an
event or on whose behalf an event takes place — ‘for, on behalf of, for the sake of.’ … ‘he gave himself on behalf of our
sins’ Ga 1.4. In a number of languages, one cannot speak of ‘doing something on behalf of sins’; only a person can be
benefitted by an event, and therefore one must translate ‘who gave himself on behalf of us who had sinned’ in Gal. 1:4.”
(Greek-English Lexicon, Vol. 1, page 802)
“anti (with the genitive): a marker of a participant who is benefitted by an event, usually with the implication of some
type of exchange or substitution involved — ‘for, on behalf of.’” (Op. cit., page 803)
For a fuller discussion of these prepositions, and of the subject of substitutionary atonement, I recommend a reading
of Reconciliation, by Maurice Barnett.
[EVANS: Oh well, another extra-scripture Expert Theologian telling us about language translation.] Where
does Frost find Christ giving Himself “on behalf of our sins” in the English King James Bible? Certainly, not in
my King James Bible!
[Herb Evans: Well, now, except for Frost’s over emphasis of the term “on behalf of,” this definition of “anti” in
regard to exchange and substitution is great, but I recommend rather the reading the King James Bible in context, namely,
the RAM exchanged or substituted in Isaac’s stead. Indeed, Jesus gave Himself FOR our sins in our stead in the same type
of exchange. Thanks for the quote Frosty!]
Gene Frost: Let the reader take note, that after all of the efforts to justify the substitution theology, nowhere does the
Bible state that Jesus possessed all of the sins of the world; that He bare the guilt of every sin of every person, who has
ever lived and yet shall live, as His own; ►GF
EVANS: Christ did not bare our sins on our behalf; Christ bore them IN HIS OWN BODY!
1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins IN his own body ON the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live
unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
FROST: [Evans deletes the rest of this paragraph, here re-inserted: … or that God poured out his wrath upon him
with vengeance, to suffer eternal punishment. According to Scriptures, to save us from the consequences of sins, Jesus
died on the cross in our behalf, whereby we are reconciled to God, granted forgiveness, and given the hope of eternal
life.”
EVANS: God bruised His Son and smote Him.
Isa 53:4, 5 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten
of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he [GOD] hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his
soul an offering for sin . . .
[Herb Evans: Let the reader note that this sarcasm about Jesus bearing guilt is based on comments by Herb Evans,
taken from an older article (not much older; it was the first article in this exchange), which became Frost’s final
authority to be repeated over and over again as Frost’s best argument. My choice of words in regard to “bear” was not a
good one, since the “guilt bearing” concept is not found in Scripture. My choice of words should have been that he bore
our. No one, including Frost and Herb Evans, can cite a passage where Jesus took our guilt.
[EVANS: Note: I replied to Frost’s audio tape with the article that he has. It was not the first posting, since I
took an older article and massaged it and adapted it to Frost’s audio tape. My original article was the result of a go
around with some anti Substitutionary Atonement Baptist years before Frost.]
FROST: Bear or bore, what’s the difference except in tense? One is present tense and the other past tense. Changing
“bear” to “bore” doesn’t save you, Herb. A choice of words, bear or bore, didn’t cause the your [SIC] problem. Your
problem is in your substitutionary argument that all of mankind’s sins were transferred onto Jesus, that they became His
sins, and with the sins, of course, came the guilt and the blame for the commission of those sins! Here is what you wrote
(the reader can go back to the first article you wrote):
EVANS: “Christ took our sins, our guilt, and our BLAME.” — Herb Evans.
[EVANS: I wrote this long before I knew what kind of a nitpicker that I was going to deal in this discussion. It
is an old article that predates my revision that I posted FROST. I just adapted it to Frost.]
FROST: You were wrong and admitted it. Instead of leaving it alone, you try to make me to be the one guilty of
pressing the issue, which you pass off as just a wrong choice of words, between “bear” and “bore.” Even so, you still
haven’t corrected the fact that you teach that Jesus took our SINS, our guilt, and our BLAME. You admit that “guilt” was
not there, which is attached to anyone’s “own sins,” but you still believe that all sins became Jesus’ own sins.
EVANS: Frost is telling stories again without any “admission” quote. I never admitted anything except that it
was a poor choice of words and that I should have put a disclaimer to it. See my earlier explanation, where I say
that He took our sins, our guilt, and our blame “AWAY.” Christ took our sins away, of course, but that is all that
He took IN His own body. Frost is the one who believes that Christ took our “guilt,” a word not found in scripture.
Still, Christ was the innocent for the “guilty,” a word that is found in the Greek and the Hebrew. Guilt goes away
when one’s sins go away. It is not attached to “anyone’s sins” but you may cite verse and chapter if you can find
that terminology anywhere. When Christ comes for me, I will be unblameable due to Christ’s death.
Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his
sight:
FROST: Whatever happened to the guilt of wrongdoing?
EVANS: I don’t know! Does Frost know what happened to it? Does Frost now use words that are not found in
the Hebrew and Greek and English contrary to his rules?
FROST: Have the saved been freed from (the consequences of) sin, but are still guilty?
EVANS: No! But “guilty is a different word. The saved are neither guilty nor should they have feelings of guilt
of their past sins. As for sins after they are saved, they become guilty again; still the blood of Jesus cleanses ALL
sin.
FROST: If they are not guilty and Jesus is not guilty, where is the guilt for the murders, the rapes, the lies, the thefts
multiplied by the thousands? And who is to BLAME? Herb, substitutionary atonement is bankrupt … why not just let it
alone? It can’t be patched up.
EVANS: Frost treats the abstract as if it were something tangible. Again Jesus took MY guilt and MY blame
AWAY as well as MY sins. Peter, a saved man, was still to be blamed (Gal 2:11) for his hypocrisy after salvation
for his new sins.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love:
FROST: It is said that Jesus was the innocent for the guilty, the just for the unjust. (Who says it? No one recorded in
the KJB said that “Jesus was the innocent for the guilty.”
EVANS: It is not a problem to find the world and the lost guilty before God. And it is not difficult to find
Jesus to be innocent and sinless. Therefore the simple combination of facts will yield my comments. Still, I forgot
that Frost deals in exact phrases when it comes to his opponent but gives himself a pass when Frost does not have
an exact phrase. Still, Frost probably can find my exact phrase by going to the word “guilt” in the Hebrew and/or
Greek. Still, it does say the just for the unjust in exact phraseology. So now, the question is, does Frost believe that
Christ was just and innocent as well? Does Frost believe that the world and the lost are all guilty? If so, Frost’s
problem is solved.
Mat 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us?
1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God,
being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
EVANS: There are no Hebrew or Greek words for the word “guilt,” and “guilt” is not found anywhere near the
cross. However, the word is found properly in the English italics in the O.T., but the KJB italics are something that Frost
does not think is inspired.
FROST: (Herb refers to English italics in Deut. 19:13 and Deut. 21:9, which Evans also says are not inspired
according to 2 Tim. 3:16. Italicized or not italicized has nothing to do with it.)
EVANS: EVANS never said that the KJB italics were not inspired. I do not allow Bible correctors to use italics
since they do not accept italicized words in the English KJB. Still, Frost’s obsession with the Hebrew and Greek
voids Frost’s argument when they are absent. Moreover, the word is not in the New Testament or anywhere in
reference to the cross or what Jesus bore. So, Jesus did not bear “guilt” on the cross according to Frost’s rules,
which I insist upon to him who makes the rules.
EVANS: That being said, the sinless and innocent Jesus, in accepting our sins, also accepted its censure and
condemnation as well. Jesus was charged and found guilty of a crime by the authorities, but Jesus was not guilty. “Guilty”
is a state where one is responsible for a crime or sin (the sense that “guilty” is found in scripture). Whether one
experiences feelings of guilt about something is another matter and also something Jesus never bore. That is something
that is determined by a person’s conscience, real or imagined. Jesus never experienced any feelings of guilt of His own
(whether His or ours). Still, I am not into psycho babble. Frost can explain where he gets his guilt feelings.
FROST: You are far more qualified to explain where you get your guilt feelings, so we await your answer.
EVANS: Nice Frost rebound that went out of bounds. Sorry, but I get to shoot a two pointer. GO TEAM! How
does Frost know that I have guilt feelings? I certainly do not feel guilty about exposing Frost and his Campbellite
doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
EVANS: Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the
Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the
cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
FROST: Let Evans tell us if “shame” in these passages are exactly the same.
EVANS: Well. Let’s see! S-H-A-M-E in Heb 6:6; S-H-A-M-E in Heb 12:2. They seem to spell the same word in
both passages.
Gene Frost: . . . or that God poured out His wrath upon Him with vengeance, to suffer eternal punishment. (This
partial sentence Herb cut off far back (scroll back to the last copy in black type.)
[Herb Evans: This is a sarcastic characterization of what Herb Evans said. Jesus is an eternal Being, and it is a small
thing for the eternal Lord to bear all the punishment, which should belong to sinners, for eternity, in an instant, since God
is not a creature of time as we are, although Jesus stepped into time from eternity for a season, but retained His deity, The
God man returned to eternity after his resurrection but retained his humanity.]
FROST: Evans says that Jesus stepped into time for a season to become the God man, but retained His deity; He has
stepped back into eternity, and has retained His humanity. So, as He was on earth, so is He now in heaven, still the God
man. Kindly explain this:The disciples saw Jesus following His resurrection: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he
shewed them his hands and his feet.” (Luke 24:39-40) He was the God man. It was this same God man who “returned to
eternity after his resurrection,” you say, and “retained his humanity.” Please note that the disciples saw Jesus when he
appeared to them following His resurrection; they saw and touched Him.
EVANS: What is there that needs an explanation? He is the God/Man in the New Testament, after He arose,
after He ascended, and now! He will be the God/man in the future when He comes back on a white horse! I don’t
see what Frost’s problem is. Jesus was both God and man; Jesus is both God and man; Jesus shall be both God
and man. If you will, God was manifest in the flesh FOR US! Jesus had to be related to man to die for man, my
kinsman redeemer.
FROST: After Jesus had ascended, He retained His humanity that they witnessed. Years later, John writes,
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall
appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2) What Jesus’ appearance will be, when he makes
his appearance (Acts 1:11), is not known, only that it will not be like he was when they saw him on earth. What we do
know is that we will be changed to be like him, which has not appeared. Paul describes the change: “For our conversation
is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may
be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto
himself.” (Phil 3:20-21) Therefore it will not be a body of flesh as they last saw him.
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the
twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall
be changed.” (1 Cor. 15:50-52)
EVANS: It still escapes me where Frost is going with this unless Frost is suggesting that I am suggesting that
we shall be come God Men like Mormons to which I say “NO!” We shall be like Him but not have any nail prints
in our hands and feet. We shall have new glorified bodies like unto His glorious body. However, if Frost is
suggesting that Jesus did not have a glorified body or that we are not going to have a new glorified body at the
rapture, Frost is all wet (pun intended).
FROST: Now, to Evans’ complaint concerning what he said. After calling it “sarcasm,” which does not answer the
argument: did God pour out His wrath upon Jesus with vengeance, to suffer eternal punishment? That’s not sarcasm from
me; it is the doctrine you teach!
EVANS: Do you want to put these words in my mouth for me to answer the question with your biased
comment or would you like me to use my own words? Or do you have a quote by me that teaches this as a doctrine
in the way that you characterize it?
Gene Frost: According to the Scriptures, to save us from the consequences of our sins, Jesus died on the cross in our
behalf, whereby we are reconciled to God, granted forgiveness, and given the hope of eternal life.
EVANS: Using Frost’s rules, where does it say that Christ died on our behalf? HUH?
[Herb Evans: This expression “in our behalf,” as Frost uses here, is a mere watered down, weasel wording of Jesus
dying IN OUR STEAD or PLACE.]
FROST: There is a difference between something done in one’s stead or place and in one’s behalf. Where is the
Scripture that says Jesus died as the sinner’s substitute, or in his stead, or by taking his place?
EVANS: I see a difference. Still, according to Frost’s rules, where does it say that Christ died on our behalf?
HUH?
EVANS: “Well, since you like lexicons and dictionaries so much. Catch a Strong’s definition!
EVANS: G473 ἀντι anti an-tee - A primary particle; opposite, that is, instead or because of (rarely in addition to):
- for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.”
FROST: What’s this? You haven’t thrown your Greek lexicons away? This is what I have been showing the reader.
Herb Evans uses the Greek and Hebrew when it is to His advantage, when his assertions are rejected and we do not allow
his definition of the English, and proof is demanded.
EVANS: No, I have not thrown the Greek and Hebrew away when they agree with the KJB nor have I thrown
my language reference books away. Nor did I say that I would! When did Herb Evans say anything about throwing
away any lexicon? Frost is even willing to literalize my colorful illustrations to make his point. The solution to
Frost’s problem with the Hebrew and the Greek is to not throw away the English! The English is what we
understand and speak. Even the Greeks do not understand what their Greek Bibles say, according to our
missionary that we sent to Greece.
FROST: I know that there are Calvinist lexicographer’s, or who accept some items of the TULIP, who slip in the
word substitution, which usually [I cannot say always, because I have not examined all lexicons] do so not in the defining
of words, but in their comments (which promote their theology). These are detected and opposed by other lexicographers
(which here includes all who are proficient in the Greek or Hebrew language).
EVANS: Well, Calvinists, when they get away from TULIP, have some pretty decent stuff. Look at Spurgeon
and Whitfield.
Gene Frost: Anti is a preposition, which originally meant opposite, and eventually came to “indicate that one person
or thing is, or is to be, replaced by another instead of, in place of,” as seen in Matt. 2:22: “in the room of his father
Herod.” (Walter Bauer, Greek–English Lexicon (Arndt & Gingrich, rev. by Gingrich and Danker.) The preposition
basically denotes in the place of.”
In the definition of anti, the lexicographers of Bauer’s Lexicon begin each of the three sections of a discussion of its
usage with “in the place of,” as (1) when one thing is replaced by another; or (2) when one thing is equivalent to another;
or (3) when this meaning develops into in behalf of (to become huper). Nowhere is anti defined as transference of
conduct, or the consequence of conduct, to another. The English word substitution carries the same thought:
“The act of putting one person or thing in the place of another to supply its place,” i.e. to supply, “To fill up, as any
deficiency happens.” In the case cited above, Matt. 2:22, when Herod died, the position of king was voided, leaving that
place empty for Archelaus to fill. He reigned in the place, or instead (compound of in and stead, place), of his father.
[EVANS: Man, you repeat your extra scriptural authorities a lot.]
Herb Evans: I don’t know why Frost hazarded this quote which supports the position that I have been advancing all
along. Jesus died in the place of sinners or in their stead, just like RAM and all the lambs. Just carry your thought over to
Jesus in that He died in our place or instead of us. If it works for you, it works for me.
FROST: Evans thinks that the quotation from Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker supports his position “Jesus died in the
place of sinners…” No, he wants to take the definition of FOR from the underlying Greek anti, and apply it to Christ’s
death. The only problem is, the Bible doesn’t use anti in verses relating to His death for us—Rom. 5:6, 8; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2
Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Thess. 5:10,—but huper which means in behalf of, for the sake of, or because of, on account of, meaning
the aim, purpose or objective of an action. Herb pays no attention to context. If a word is used that may be defined as he
likes, he will take it and substitute it in the place of the original used by the author.
EVANS: Yeah, I heard this song before. I heard it when Frost tried to tell us what the Bible really meant in
the Hebrew and Greek. Now, he is going to tell us what his final authorities really meant. The aim or purpose was
to portray the remission of sins. Still, there goes Frost again with his partial definitions. Let him show where
HUPER means in behalf of in regard to Christ’s death. In fact, HUPER translates but a few times as “on the
behalf” of something. Where are Frost’s verses “in behalf of” and “on behalf of” in relation to His death or the
cross? But contrary to Frost’s comment, “anti” is related to Jesus’ death in the following:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom FOR [anti G473] many. (Also Mark 10:45)
FROST: Herb, do you realize what you are saying? Animals were offered as sacrifices, but you just said that they,
like Jesus, died in the place of sinners, and this I deny. Yes, Jesus as the lamb of God, died as the sacrificial lamb under
law. Now in your analogy, which is it? (1) Jesus took our place as victims under a death sentence? or (2) Jesus took the
place of the lamb as a sacrifice in our behalf. Jesus did not take my place on the cross! I was never sentenced to die on a
cross. He died in my behalf. You mix your metaphors!
EVANS: Frost does not know how to provide his opponent’s quotes when he decides to misrepresent him.
Frost can deny anything he wants. That is his method of debate. Who is cursed that hangeth upon a tree? Jesus
bore the hell that I was sentenced to experience on the cross. My hell was paid for by the Lord Jesus. Obviously, if
your words are worth anything, were you sentenced to hell fire? If you were, how was that sentence canceled? To
what did the O.T. BURNT OFFERINGS refer? Huh?
FROST: Next, Evans reintroduces his analogy of the ram and Christ. We refuted his ram argument earlier. He refers
to over and again, and so I will deal with it further.
EVANS: Frost was the one that mentioned ANIMALS . . . AGAIN! Should I have ignored him? Or should I
have reminded him of the previous animal, the ram?
FROST: An Analogy
An analogy is a form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to
be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
Evans needs to understand something about an analogy. An analogy does not prove an argument, it only illustrates it.
An analogy may be appealing and reasonable, but is it valid? The reader, as well as Evans, needs to know that not every
analogy is true. Logicians warn:
FROST Continued: “Analogy is an unsafe ground of reasoning; and its conclusion should seldom be received,
without some degree of distrust.” (Levi Hedge, Elements of Logic, p. 85)
Some would even say that there is no such thing as a an argument from analogy:
“Analogies illustrate, and they lead to hypotheses, but thinking terms of analog becomes fallacious when the analogy
is used to as a reason for a principle,” (Monroe C. Beardsley, Practical Logic, p. 107)
“While an analogy is a useful means of explanation, it does not constitute proof. Argument by analogy tends to
evoke a predictable emotional response because it is usually based on accepted symbolism…”
“By drawing analogies, you are manipulating the reader into thinking about the comparison rather than the original
subject. Use analogy to clarify or enhance your argument but do not deceive yourself into thinking you are proving it.”
(The UVic Writer’s Guide: Logic and Argument; Dept. of English, University of Victoria.)
All we need to do in order to expose the fallacy in Evans’ argument is to show the flaw in his reasoning:
In refuting conclusion from analogy, the only thing demanding attention is the point of resemblance, — the point
upon which the analogy is based. Unless there is a law or principle that holds for both classes at this one point, the
analogy is defective.” (Denney, Duncan, McKinney, Argumentation and Debate, p. 81.)
EVANS: Well, then I illustrated my SA and explained my SA with a so called analogy with Isaac and the ram
and with the two goats. However, they were really TYPES rather than analogies. So, it seems that Frost would
disallow us from using TYPES as arguments even though he also argues from TYPES. Here is Frost’s “analogy.”
FROST: If Evans is right, then Isaac was not the sacrifice God wanted, but the ram was. Therefore Isaac was a
substitute for the ram until it was provided in a thicket. Of course, the question is, why did the ram need a substitute? If
Jesus took the ram’s place, in the analogy, and the ram took Isaac’s place, and as Jesus’ was offered to atone for the sins
of men, then the ram was offered to atone for sins for men and Isaac was offered to atone for the sins of men. All three
were substitutes. That doesn’t work! The analogy is flawed.
Again, consider that Abraham “offered up Isaac” for a burnt offering. Contrary to what Evans says, that “Isaac was
not the sacrifice God wanted, but the ram,” the Scriptures tell us otherwise:
“Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there
for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.” (Gen. 22:2)
Abraham obeyed and God said:
“And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” (Gen. 22:18)
Again, we are told that Isaac was offered:
Abraham prepared to sacrifice Isaac, made the journey with the wood and fire, he placed him upon an altar, and with
ever intent and purpose, he stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. God accepted the offering before
the overt act. God did not replace him. If Evans wants to argue that he didn’t really offer him, that he was slain upon the
altar, we will let him argue with God about that. All I know is:
“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only
begotten son” (Heb. 11:17).
I have always understood that God said what He wanted and needed no man to speak for Him. God wanted Abraham
to offer Isaac. If He had really wanted him to offer a ram, He would have said so. Evans says that Isaac was substituted for
what God really wanted. Now where does he read this in Scripture?
It was after Isaac was offered that Abraham saw a ram caught by his horns in a thicket, and offered it instead of his
son. In his analogy, Evans has the ram taking Isaac’s place as a substitute, which would mean, as a sacrifice. The ram, in
his analogy, however, represents sinners, condemned under the curse of sin, whose place Jesus took as a substitute. If the
ram was a substitute of Isaac, then for whom was Isaac a substitute? for sinners, condemned under the law (before the law
came by Moses)? This analogy is so flawed!
All of the histrionics over the ram amounts to nothing, except perhaps to demonstrate the frustration of Herb Evans in
search of some “proof” for his substitutionary atonement theology!
EVANS: It is really pitiful when someone gainsays the scripture by saying God wanted and intended a certain
sacrifice but did not get what he wanted. The Calvinists will shriek over that one. How blind and lost can a man be
to not see that Isaac as being Abraham’s only begotten son, who was a TYPE of God’s only begotten Son, the Lord
Jesus Christ. God never wanted Isaac killed or burned and devised a way to avoid it. Nevertheless, Abraham did
obey and OFFER his only begotten son but made him no offering, for the angel of the Lord stopped Abraham and
the sacrifice of Isaac by providing a ram, since this was only a test to see what Abraham would do. Abraham knew
if he went through with it, God would still bring Isaac back. For Abraham said that God would provide a lamb.
We have posted the account and listed after it the facts concerning this event. Yes, Abraham really offered his son,
but God switched the offering. It is amazing what people will do to gainsay clear cut scripture. The ram was also
the TYPE of Christ fulfilling the remainder of the DUAL TYPE as being the substitute for Isaac IN HIS STEAD or
in his place. Of course, Frost does not understand TYPES let alone dual types.
EVANS Continued: Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had
received the promises offered up his only begotten son . . .
1 John_4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the
world, that we might live through him.
Gen 22:1 – 16: [1.] And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him,
Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. [2.] And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest . . .
offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. [3.] And Abraham rose up early in
the morning . . . and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering,
and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. [4.] Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes,
and saw the place afar off. [5.] And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will
go yonder and worship, and come again to you. [6.] And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it
upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. [7.] And Isaac
spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, And he said, Behold the fire and the wood:
but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? [8.] And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a
burnt offering . . . [9.] . . . and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid
him on the altar upon the wood. [10.] And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. [11.]
And the angel of the LORD called . . . and he said, Here am I. [12.] And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad,
neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine
only son from me. [13.] And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket
by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son . .
. [15.] And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, [16.] And said, By myself have I
sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
1. The Lord TESTED Abraham would withhold his only son or not (Gen 22:1)
2. God told Abraham to offer his son (Gen 22:2)
3. Abraham offered his only begotten son by faith (Heb. 11:17)
4. Abraham expected to return with his son (Gen 22:5)
5. Abraham laid the wood on Isaac just like the wooden cross was laid on Christ (Gen 22: 6)
6. Isaac asked where the lamb was (Gen 22:7)
7. Abraham told Isaac that God would provide the lamb for the burnt offering (Gen 22:8)
8. Abraham laid Isaac on the wood bound just as Christ was laid on the cross bound (Gen 22:9)
9. The angel of the Lord (no ordinary angel - God) stopped Abraham from killing Abraham (Gen 22:12)
10. Abraham, knowing a sacrifice should be made, took the ram and offered the ram in the stead of his son.
Gene Frost: I have no problem with Strong’s definition of anti, when instead and substitution are correctly
understood, without any theological spin.
Herb Evans: How about understanding Strong’s words, as he Strong wrote them, rather than re-interpreting them for
him. How does Frost correctly understand Strong’s “in the place of another” or “substitution?
Gene Frost: If Jesus took my place and your place on the cross, then it was our fate to die on a cross. But this is not
so; neither of us was sentenced to die on a cross. Jesus died in our behalf, as a sacrifice. ►GF
Herb Evans: Notice how Frost frames his arguments with sophistry! No, Mr. Frost, it was not our fate to suffer
death and punishment on the cross as Jesus did! It was our fate to burn in hell. Still, did you ever wonder what all the
BURNT offerings in the Old Testament were about or what they depict? Certainly, it was not our fate to die on the behalf
of someone else, nor could we have died for someone else’s salvation being the sinners that we are.
►GF FROST: Would you say that Jesus took our place as a sacrifice? Neither of us could qualify as a sacrifice for
sins. (Heb. 9:26)
Herb Evans: Ah . . . Mr. Frost, neither of us was ever intended nor destined to be a sacrifice like Jesus. Sinners like
you and I were destined and intended for one thing (EXCEPT FOR GOD’S INTERVENTION) and one thing alone –
death and punishment in hell. How dare you equate man’s fate to that of Jesus? Are you so void of integrity that you
would impugn the Saviour’s mission and purpose?
FROST: Hey, that’s your position! Do you equate Jesus’ fate on the cross to man’s fate (death and punishment in
hell)?
EVANS: NO! That is your false characterization of my position. If folks do not believe on Christ will they go
to hell fire? Or will they go to the cross to be crucified? If they shall go to hell to be punished, then why is Christ
punished on the cross? Because Jesus Christ took my hell on the cross! Or is Frost unable to see any connection
between the two punishments or the O.T. BURNT offerings that portray Christ’s sacrifice by death? Ding Ding!
Yes, I do equate and link Jesus fate on the cross to my punishment in hell fire. Don’t You?
What Shall Take Away Our Sins?
Gene Frost: Redemption, remission of sins, sanctification, reconciliation, forgiveness—all terms describing the
effect of Jesus’ sacrifice—are made possible through the blood of Christ, which He shed on Calvary. Evans needlessly
lists several passages affirming the same, as though there is a disagreement here. Obviously, he does not know what I
believe … he is just determined to find something he can challenge. He can mark this down: if the Bible teaches it, I
believe it. Where we disagree is where he puts a spin on God’s Word, to read into passages his human theology.
EVANS: “By only hearing your tape, it was difficult to know everything that you believe. I had to speculate and read
between the lines to cover all the bases. So, if there is overlap in our beliefs, then fine! Still, it is you that should talk
about spin by manipulating the Greek, quotes of dead men, lexicons, and dictionaries rather than trying see how terms
and words are used in the scriptures.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: You falsely charge me: I do not quote men, lexicons, and dictionaries rather than trying to see how
terms and words are used in scriptures. It is precisely in an effort to understand the meaning of scriptural words and terms
that I consult sources that determine and demonstrate their proper uses. You do the same when it favors your theology.
You otherwise throw them away, and arbitrarily supply your own definition! Re: different inspired Biblical words, which
are translated by a common English word, you lump together and assign the identical meaning to each.
[EVANS: No! I do it when my King James Bible is being corrected or undermined. Frost can always take up
my challenge to only use the English KJB without any other authorities.]
Herb Evans: If you were really trying to see how terms and words were used in scripture, you would search for their
usage in the scriptures and not copycat extra scriptural works of men in order to be “parrot” them, rather than being a real
student of scripture. Frost prefers to view biblical words in “stand alone” fashion, rather than in their Bible settings.
FROST: We have shown by Scriptures the significance of Biblical terms, and have exposed your efforts to wrest
terms to conform to your teaching, and, further, we have shown the meaning of underlying terms in foreign languages the
apostles and prophets used, which confirm the Scriptural uses.
EVANS: The poor deceived man does not realize that he has exposed himself. Where does it say that they
originally used those languages?
Inherited Sin
FROST: Herb Evans writes: “This church of Christ preacher … contradicts Jesus and the Bible by flatly affirming
that lost men did not inherit sin from Adam.”
My immediate reaction is: Where did Jesus, or the Bible, say that men are lost because they inherited sin from
Adam? Where did Jesus say sins are inherited?
Inherited sin, to the theologian, is a guilt which was first experienced by Adam and Eve, when they rebelled and
disobeyed God; a guilt which is imputed to all their descendents, from the beginning to the end of time, and is passed on
from generation to generation.
EVANS: “Where do I find that verse and chapter?” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: I did not quote a verse. Rather I described “inherited sin,” the guilt of Adam and Eve resulting from
their rebellion and disobedience, which supposedly was imputed to all their descendents, even to the present time. It is not
found in any chapter and verse of the Bible, which is why I do not believe in “inherited sin.” ►GF
[EVANS: Oh? You did not quote a verse on “guilt” but you expect to get one for something else from me?
Now, that is fair! I sure did not mention the word guilt in an Adam and Eve’s context; you did.]
Herb Evans: Where did I say that any guilt, which was experienced by Adam and Eve, was inherited by all their
descendants? Scripturally, death and sin were inherited by their descendants. Transmitted guilt is not found in the Bible as
Frost alleges.
FROST: (Neither is “Transmitted sin” found in the Bible. When we started this exchange, you believed that “Christ
took our sins, our guilt, and our BLAME.” Why did you change?
EVANS: No! You need to re-read my repeated explanations to your repeated conclusions. I asked, where did I
say that any guilt, which was experienced by Adam and Eve, was to be inherited? HUH?
FROST: The Hebrew, Greek, and English texts read then just as they do now! It is not enough that the Bible teaches
the concept, supposedly; it must express the doctrine in the precise words. How about the precise words for other socalled concepts, such as “inherited sin,” “vicarious atonement,” “substitutionary atonement,” et al.?)
EVANS” Why should I be the only one bound to use precise or exact words, when Frost won’t comply with his
own rules?
EVANS: That is why I do not believe in inherited “guilt.” In fact, the word “guilt” is not even found in the Hebrew
or Greek.
FROST: And your conclusion?
EVANS: My conclusion is that “guilt” is not there in the Greek or Hebrew.
FROST: Therefore, can we say that there is no guilt in sinning?
EVANS: You can say anything you wish; proving it by the Bible per your rules is another matter. Yawn!
FROST: Therefore, when our sins, supposedly, were transferred to Christ, there was no guilt for Him to bear in our
stead?
EVANS: Now, you got it!
FROST: Then as souls are condemned, we can say that God condemns people who are without guilt?
EVANS: You can say anything you wish; proving it by the Bible per your rules is another matter. There are
folks who have seared their consciences and have no guilt or shame. Visit a prison sometime!
FROST: Now who is a Bible Corrector?
EVANS: Gene Frost!
FROST: If there is no Hebrew or Greek word which is translated into English as “guilt,” so what? Who needs the
Hebrew or Greek? Is not the KJB perfect? (Sound familiar?)
EVANS: It is Gene Frost that needs them, since it is Gene Frost’s rule not Herb Evans. Herb Evans believes
the KJB is perfect but will only dialogue from the KJB without extra scriptural authorities that do no thoroughly
furnish the man of God to doctrine. Are you game! It is you that claim that you do need an exact word to prove a
doctrine; where is you exact word “guilt.”
FROST: “Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go
well with thee.” (Deut. 19:13; emphasis added.)
“So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the
sight of the Lord.” (Deut. 21:9; emphasis added.)
EVANS: Frost cheats! Frost does not accept italicized words, so his argument here is rejected. However, even
if it were accepted, how did they put away such “guilt?” By killing the GUILTY ONE (Deut 19:12, 13)
FROST: Look at it again. Can one be held “responsible for the commission of an offense”? (Prov. 19:5)
EVANS: Yes! And by your word “responsible” you are conceding that one is GUILTY (culpable).
FROST: Does one experience a “remorseful awareness of having done something wrong”? (Luke 22:61-62)
EVANS: I thought we were in Deuteronomy. But where is the theological phrase “remorseful awareness?” In
Luke? Man, it is fun to see Frost on the other end of his own rules, demands, and restrictions. I learned your game!
FROST: If you answered yes to these questions, then you acknowledge the guilt that accompanies a transgression!
These are dictionary definitions of guilt. He is guilty, and this word is used fairly frequently in Scripture. One who is
guilty bears the guilt. Now we ask Herb, if one is guilty of sin, is there any guilt that he bears?
EVANS: The interesting part of Frost’s rules is the ultimatum that he gives if you do not let him put words in
your mouth. Where does Frost read that the one guilty MUST bear the guilt? Guilty folks often do not bear
anything due to their seared consciences. Saved folks do not have to bear any guilt for past forgiven sins.
EVANS: It is sin and death that are inherited and not guilt. There is sin in the flesh, the body, and the members,
whether saved or not, until we get our new redeemed body (See Ex 34:7).
FROST: At this point we must challenge Herb Evans to define sin. My Bible states that “sin is the transgression of
the law.” (1 John 3:4) “Sin” may be used as a verb and as a noun. Sin as verb is an action of transgressing the law of God.
As a noun it is an offense, a violation of divine law. One cannot inherit an action; an effect of the action, yes, but not the
action itself. One cannot inherit an offense or a violation; the consequence or guilt, yes, but not the offense itself. Others
who believe in “inherited sin” recognize this and they use the expression for inherited guilt because of sin.
EVANS: Well, that is nice! One cannot inherit sin but one can inherit guilt even though guilt is not mentioned
but sin is mentioned. Here come more extra scriptural authorities by Frost!
FROST: 1. Calvinist theologians state that sins are inherited from Adam in two ways:
“1. Inherited Guilt: We Are Counted Guilty Because of Adam’s Sin.”
“2. Inherited Corruption: We Have A Sinful Nature Because of Adam’s Sin.”
— Wayne Gruden, Systematic Theology, pages 494, 496; (emphasis added.)
2. The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter VI.2, states in reference to the Fall of Adam and Eve:
“They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted
nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.”
3. And, of course, there is John Calvin himself:
“Our acquittal is in this that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of
God, (Isaiah 53:12.) We must specially remember this substitution in order that we may not be all our lives in trepidation
and anxiety, as if the just vengeance which the Son of God transferred to himself, were still impending over us.”
– John Calvin, Institutes, BK 2, CH 16.5.
Christ the archetype. “Wherefore, in order to accomplish a full expiation, he made his soul to ‘asham, i.e., a
propitiatory victim for sin, (as the prophet says, Isaiah 53:5, 10,) on which the guilt and penalty being in a manner laid,
ceases to be imputed to us.” – John Calvin, Institutes, BK 2, CH. 16.6.
EVANS: So Frost and his TULIPS talk about something that is not there, while Herb talks about something
that is there and Herb is using theology but they are not. That’s fair!
FROST/CALVIN: “He, I say, took them away, and no other; that is, since he alone is the Lamb of God, he alone is
the offering for our sins; he alone is expiation; he alone is satisfaction. For though the right and power of pardoning
properly belongs to the Father, when he is distinguished from the Son, as has already been seen, Christ is here exhibited
in another view, as transferring to himself the punishment due to us, and wiping away our guilt in the sight of God.”
– John Calvin, Institutes, BK 3, CH 4.26.
This is another one of those rather wide-spread doctrines which is given a unique aberration by Herb Evans. The
difference between a Calvinist and Herb Evans on this point is that the Calvinist accepts the consequences of his
affirmation, admits the problem and seeks a reasonable explanation for the apparent contradictions, while Evans makes
the affirmation, but makes no effort to reconcile the apparent contradicts within it, and simply denies the existence of a
problem. What he is blind to is apparent to all who sincerely seek the truth. We need to know how it is that after one
commits every imaginable sin, they can be transferred to Jesus without any guilt being attached, and still He is punished
in full because of and in the stead of those who are guilty.
EVANS: Absolutely! Well, I sort of like this quote by Calvin.
FROST: Note this inherited sin:
EVANS: Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
FROST: This Psalm has been understood with various conjectures, suggested by reason of a general disposition
toward man’s moral constitution.
1. Those who assume an inherited disposition toward sin picture David lamenting his great sin, supposing that by
nature he had a bent upon doing evil. He imagines himself as having a predisposition from the earliest of his existence,
even as he was formed in the womb. From his birth through maturation he had no experience with righteous thought or
conduct, unlike the youth to which Jesus referred:
“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 19:14)
“Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever
therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive
one such little child in my name receiveth me.” (Matt. 18:3-5)
Christians are fondly referred to as “little children” because of their innocence, purity of heart, and humility—
childlike qualities.
“I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.” (1 John 2:12)
As he confesses his sin, David begs to be made clean.
“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take
not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.” (Psalm 51:1012)
“Renew” (hadas) means causatively, to rebuild. The word is used in the sense of "repair" or "rebuild" referring to
cities (Isa 61:4), the temple (2 Chron 24:4, 12), and the altar (2 Chron 15:8). It is also used figuratively. Under Samuel the
kingdom was renewed at Gilgal (1 Sam 11:14). David wanted a right spirit, equivalent to a clean heart, renewed within
him (Ps 51:12) —Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
“Restore” (shoob) means to return, “to cause to return, to restore to a former condition.” — Wilson’s Old Testament
Word Studies.
David was estranged from God, in deep remorse, and prays to be repaired and renewed with a clean heart; returned to
the state it was before he sinned. How could he return a state he was never in? This does not comport with an evil,
depraved heart as my antagonist claims.
2. I would be more inclined to think of David’s lament as coming from His having been overcome by temptation and
its abiding presence. He was born into a world of sin. This was his environment, from his first moments of life until the
time of his death. He was conceived and his mother carried him (before he was born) in a sinful state. “In” means “Within
the limits, bounds, or area of. To or at a situation or condition of.” —American Heritage Dictionary.)
EVANS: You can always tell when Frost is in trouble; he muddies the water with windy gainsaying of
scripture. The Psalmist IMAGINES . . . eh? All this bulloney and Frost still cannot address Psalm 51:5 in regard to
being conceived in sin. Was that not David that said that in regard to himself?
EVANS: Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
FROST: Evans argues that he went astray, speaking lies, as soon as he was born. I do not. I sinned, but not before I
reached a maturity of accountability. I understand the hyperbole of David.
EVANS. So, now this is a hyperbole. No! Evans is not arguing with Frost; the scripture is arguing with Frost.
Frost is saying that children cannot sin until they reach maturity and/or accountability. Accountability for what?
SIN? Where does it say all this?
EVANS: Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall
many be made righteous.
FROST: The spin those who believe in inherited depravity put upon this verse is by reason of Adam’s sin all are
born depraved sinners. If that be so, then by reason of Jesus’ obedience (Heb. 5:8-9) all are born righteous. This is
universal salvation! In both cases, man is altogether passive. What proves too much proves nothing!
EVANS: While Frost gainsays the passage and explains it away with spin. The poor man is in denial, and his
whole strategy is to deny everything that I and the scripture say. No, Mr. Frost, it does not say ALL, it says
MANY. The first “many” means “all” that are born; the second “many” means all that believe.
EVANS: Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
FROST: Paul, in addressing the saints in Rome, admonishes them to not allow sin to reign (basileuo, to rule or have
predominance) in their body. The verb is a present, active, imperative. The active voice means that the subject performs
the Action or is the State described by the Verb. This is expressed in English by “let not,” i.e. do not allow, or to give
permission or opportunity for, sin to rule…” This makes the person responsible for the sin in one’s life. However, Evans
cites the Scripture in an attempt to prove that one has no control, that he is born a depraved sinner. Of course, Herb is
wrong about it. If the Bible indeed taught hereditary depravity, it should be easily and clearly found, and one would not
have to wrest the Scriptures as does Evans and others of his persuasion.
EVANS: This is addressed to a saved person and tells him not to let the sin that is in his mortal body or flesh
to reign in it. The Holy Spirit is to reign. Does Frost sin? I did not know that Frost went so far as to deny sin in
one’s flesh either before or after salvation.
Rom 8:3 – 13 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh
FROST: We have amply discussed this verse earlier. Cf. subtitle: Romans 8:3.
EVANS: You may have and you may have not, but I am going to “amply” discuss it here. Jesus Christ is
sinless, but we are not. We are sinful flesh; that is why it is said that Jesus Christ came in the LIKENESS of sinful
flesh. If not, who is the likeness based upon? Who is the sinful flesh?
EVANS: . . . For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh. . . So then they that are in the flesh
cannot please God. . . . And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of
righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the
dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to
the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds
of the body, ye shall live.
FROST: Expressions like “to live after,” “do,” and “deeds” are descriptive of one alive, and not of one just born with
a depraved spirit.
EVANS: So, what is the flesh, in which one lives, who is repugnant to God? And why? Why does a believer
have to kill the flesh? Does that mean suicide? If not, what?
FROST: The context is of contrasts, between living a godly life of him who walks after the Spirit and one who lives
in sin fulfilling the lusts of the flesh: “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the
deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Rom. 8:13-14)
EVANS: So, does Frost admit the lusts of the flesh that lead to outward sinful deeds of the body? Is lust sin? Is
looking on a woman to lust after her a sin?
FROST: The following verses are preceded by: “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy
to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
manifestation of the sons of God.” (Rom 8:18-19)
EVANS: And your point is what? The body is corrupt and it also like the soul and spirit requires redemption
and they must await that glorious redemption. Eph 2:3 tells us that we “were BY NATURE children of wrath”
because of the sins of OUR FLESH and MIND.
EVANS: Rom 8:19 - 23 . . . the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the
glorious liberty of the children of God . . . waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
EVANS: Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
EVANS: “Sin is not guilt and guilt is not sin. Let’s not quibble.” – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: Can you have the one without the other? ►GF
Herb Evans: Absolutely! Otherwise why would God seek to make men guilty of their sins before Him?
FROST: God seeks to make men guilty—which (1) in feeling, emotionally, or (2) by sentence, culpable?
EVANS: When Frost does not have an answer, he reverts to asking a question instead of answering the
question.
FROST: The only way any of this could make any sense is for you to equivocate. God is not seeking (1) to make
men emotional before Him, but (2) men will be sentenced and punished before Him.
EVANS: No! God introduced the law so that they would become JUDICALLY guilty before God with a
realization of what sin was and written down, since God winked at much before the law (Acts 17:29, 30).
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that
every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
►GF FROST: Does not guilt result from sin, and the commission of sin result in guilt?
[EVANS: Sometimes but not always!]
FROST: To say the one implies the other. They are correlative terms. ►GF
[EVANS: Frost 3:16 based upon Hezekiah 4:32]
Herb Evans: Sometimes, in some folks, but not always due to some having seared consciences. Still, the law is
written in the hearts of men, but it may be excused, suppressed, and nullified by sinful man. No . . . ahem . . . guilt and sin
are not synonymous or even interchangeable. A man can sear his conscience.
FROST: Law is written not to evoke (1) emotional reaction, but to (2) make men culpable. (John 15:22, Gal. 3:19,
Rom. 4:15, 7:8, 1 Tim. 1:9.)
EVANS: To judicially pronounce them guilty!
FROST: The fact that some sear their conscience is proof of the fact that sin produces guilt, or a remorseful
awareness of having done something wrong, and so to stifle or eliminate the reaction they deliberately harden their heart
until there is no feeling. The fact that men do this does not prove that sin does not create guilt.
EVANS: Why do you argue against culpable guilt versus emotional guilt and then turn around and argue
emotional guilt. No, rather, it is proof that a man has a conscience but can sear it. Did Jesus bear our consciences?
You will have a worse time finding that location.
EVANS: “Folks [some] become guilty because of sin.” – Herb Evans
►GF FROST: And when they sin, they become guilty. ►GF
Herb Evans: Not always and not everyone!
►GF FROST: It follows therefore, that for the doctrine of inherited sin to be true, the sin of Adam and Eve resulted
in their guilt, so if their sin is inherited, so is their guilt. ►GF
Herb Evans: A dog is an animal; a cow is an animal; therefore a cow is a dog. So much for sophist logic!
FROST: I guess you wish you had a real response. Does your choir really think you are clever?
EVANS: I have a real response, but I am trying to be polite. “IT FOLLOWS is a conclusion and leads Frost to
a conclusion of his own invention.
►GF Gene Frost: And you admit it—“Christ took our sins, our guilt, and our BLAME.” – Herb Evans,” “He Took
My Sins.” Have you forgotten, or have you changed your theology? (This was a diversion to interrupt the flow of
argumentation from the preceding paragraph.)
[EVANS: How often are you going to repeat this (not having anything new) even after my disclaimer and
explanation WHICH YOU IGNORE? YES! Jesus took our sins, our guilt, and our blame. He took them “AWAY.”
The best part of your imagined victory is that it has no bearing on our issue. Note:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take AWAY their sins.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take AWAY sins.
Heb 10:11 And every priest . . . offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take AWAY sins:
1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take AWAY our sins; and in him is no sin.]
Herb Evans: The word “guilt” is not in the Hebrew and Greek, Frost’s sacred languages.
FROST: (Herb, can’t you make a point without misrepresenting me? It is not the language, the Hebrew, Greek, or
even English that is sacred, but the revelation of God, which He revealed through men by the Holy Spirit.)
EVANS: OKAY! WHERE? Where is God’s Revelation by the Holy Spirit on this word “guilt?” In the
ENGLISH italicized words? If it is not in the Hebrew or the Greek, how is it that it does not matter about the
Hebrew and Greek to which you cannot refrain from referring?
EVANS: So, if Frost wants to support his view with my poor choice of words, repeating it over and over, let him be
my guest. After all, what other argument does he have? Christ did bear our shame, however.
►GF FROST: Through Adam’s fall, the human race supposedly fell from communion and favor with God, and
became wholly defiled and corrupted in nature, whereby every person is born utterly indisposed, disabled, and made
opposite to all good, and is wholly inclined to all evil. Thus all men, by reason of original and actual sin, are alienated
from God and are destined, without reconciliation and forgiveness from Christ, to eternal separation and punishment.
[Herb Evans: Man, did I say all that? Well, much of this sarcastic characterization is true, but if Frost is going to
attribute something to me, let him quote me in the terms, in the exact terms, which I expressed such things.]
EVANS: “Now, you are getting it . . .” – Herb Evans
FROST: I wrote the paragraph (in black) before I learned from you that you do not believe in Hereditary Total
Depravity.
EVANS: I do believe in inherited corruption of the flesh, depravity of the flesh if you wish, but I do NOT
believe in TOTAL DEPRAVITY. I say so in the next blue. But I never wrote all that stuff. Frost reads too many
Calvinists.
FROST: You do, however, believe in the Adamic nature, but now do not subscribe to the idea that one is born
alienated from God or is destined, without without reconciliation and forgiveness from Christ, to eternal separation and
punishment. This comes as a surprise since you seem to be as adamant as a Calvinist, but not near as consistent or
reasonable.
EVANS: I do believe in the Adamic sin nature. I also believe if a lost man with this nature does not get saved
that he is alienated from God and destined to be punished with eternal separation from God in hell fire. Now,
please allow me to say things in my own words rather than be obligated to answer your baited questions that probe
for new material and slips. Remember! I have your number.
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Gene Frost: I have understood the folly of a so-called “inherited sin” for a long time. Never believed it, because no
one could ever show me where the Bible taught it. As you have asked, “Where do I find that verse and chapter?”
[EVANS: The exact words or the teaching?]
Herb Evans: Well Frost is about to learn something in this post about inherited depravity (which is not total).
Gene Frost: Herb defines “bear” as possessing, making it one’s own, and so from birth he was inherently evil,
corrupt, and alienated from God. ►GF
[Herb Evans: Oh, here we go back to the three “bears.” Instead of editorializing Herb Evans, why not print his exact
quotes in context? As Frost shall soon learn - man comes forth speaking lies from birth - born a sinner.]
EVANS: “Defines’ is not a correct term nor is it correctly framed in regard to my insistence that God laid upon
Christ the “iniquity” of us all and therefore possession. – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: We will quote Herb himself as he defines—“to explain what a word is understood to express”—the
word bear: ►GF
Herb Evans: It is about time that Frost quotes Herb Evans. Frankly, we are tired of Frost’s insults, partial quotes,
and misrepresentation.
►GF FROST: “We wonder how Jesus instead of ‘bearing our sin’ could ‘carry away’ or ‘remove’ the sin offering
or even our sin, if Jesus did not possess that sin on the cross. … The scriptures clearly state that Christ bore our sin,
iniquity, and offenses IN his own body and that His soul was an offering FOR sin. Christ was smitten, stricken and
afflicted of God FOR those who deserved such punishment, the lost.” (“He Took My Place,” Herb Evans.)
►GF FROST: At birth he bore the iniquity of his father, who did from his father, and he from his father, all the way
back to Adam. Because of Adam’s sin he was inherently totally depraved, and predestined to bear the iniquity of his
father.
EVANS: It is humorous and amazing that Frost wants to inject his words to characterize my comments. Does
he really believe that he is getting away with it? I said nothing about anything being predestined, and I did not say
“totally” depraved, although I do believe that man is depraved from birth, coming forth speaking lies from the
womb. Also, I never said that they bear the iniquity of the father. Frost is setting me up for his future plans and
rhetoric. Man inherits sin from his parents; sin is in the human DNA and/or genes.
[Herb Evans: Notice Frost avoiding sins IN Christ’s OWN body, returning to his “no inherited sin” from Adam
mantra.”]
EVANS: “Hey, if you want a proxy inheritance of sin, be my guest! Sin inheritance still came from Adam any way
that you look at it. It is in your members and genes and flesh. Needless to say, Jesus did not inherit any sin from His
Father and no one said He did for Jesus received innocent divine blood and not human blood.” “-- Herb Evans
Herb Evans: In your partial response avoid addressing sin in our flesh and members and also OUR sins in Christ’s
body. Still, why didn’t Frost differentiate between Christ (the second Adam) and Adam? Death and sin were inherited
from the first Adam.
Gene Frost: Sin is in the blood! But not in Jesus, Herb says, because He has “divine blood and not human blood.”
Our blood is different, and not the same! However, the Bible says otherwise: “as the children are partakers of flesh and
blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same” (Heb. 2:14). ►GF
Herb Evans: The rest of the story is that Jesus did not partake of human blood. Jesus partook of God’s blood, since
the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in a virgin, Mary. And then the Bible tells us that Jesus was made “in the likeness” of
sinful flesh only. To imply that Jesus had blood just like ours or sinful human blood is blasphemy. Sinful human blood
could never pay for our sins. It must be sinless blood of our Lord and Saviour, conceived in a virgin by the Father.
[EVANS: Frost thinks that Jesus’ blood is sinless and innocent, only because Frost thinks human blood is
sinless and innocent. He reasons that if ours is sinful blood then Jesus’ blood would be also. There is absolutely no
reason for Jesus to be born of a virgin other than for Jesus to be both God and man. God’s Spirit and God’s blood
were conceived by the Holy Spirit without a human father into the womb of a woman. Since the virgin birth was
the only means by which one could obtain innocence and sinlessness, only the sinless and innocent blood of Jesus
Christ is able to pay for sin. So then, Frost comes along and falsely suggests that everyone is born sinless and
innocent until they are mature or come to the age of accountability. The implication of Frost's theory is that any
sinless, innocent, unaccountable child could have been our Saviour and died on the cross for our sins. Now,
something is wrong with this, either such a conclusion or else Frost’s premise. My contention is that all sinful flesh
comes from sinful blood, and sinful blood is in all sinful flesh. Nevertheless Jesus’ flesh is different than the flesh of
man by virtue of His virgin birth. In regard to flesh and blood, still not knowing what Frost believes about Jesus’
resurrection body and our future new body, may we say that Jesus’ blood was poured out with no more references
to His blood thereafter. Now, the reference is to His flesh and bones. You see flesh and blood, usually a term for
human kind, cannot inherit heaven; only flesh and bone can inherit heaven. Mary could not touch Christ after His
resurrection, because Christ had not taken His blood to heaven to pour on the mercy seat. Frost claim that heaven
is where “IT IS FINISHED for Jesus and tells us that Christ’s ministry on earth is what is meant by his words, “It
is finished.” Of course Frost must not know about the Lord’s resurrection and second coming ministries on earth.
Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall
enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have.
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not
with flesh and blood:
1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth
corruption inherit incorruption.]
God the Word’s Spirit was Made Flesh as the Second Adam but Sinless
EVANS: Does Frost know there is a difference between being born after the flesh and being born after the
Spirit? Does Frost even know the difference between the flesh and spirit?
1. God the Word was made FLESH and manifest in the FLESH and dwelled among us.
2. God sent His Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh FOR SIN and to condemn sin in the flesh.
3. Jesus the man gave His life for the life of the world.
4. Jesus did what He did IN the BODY of His FLESH to present us UNBLAMEABLE.
5. Jesus abolished in His FLESH the enmity the law of commandments contained in ordinances.
6. As in the O.T our heart circumcision [without hands] was what put off our body of sins without water.
7. Christ’ flesh was the temple veil that was ripped from the TOP to the BOTTOM and not vice versa. 8.
Christ was put to death in the flesh suffering FOR SINS [not to get sins] as the just for the unjust.
9. Jesus came in the flesh and went away in the flesh into the tomb, while His Spirit went to the Father.
10. To not confess that Jesus comes in the flesh makes one the spirit of antichrist. Christ also went by the flesh.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us . . .
John 6:51 . . . the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Rom 8:3 . . . God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable . . .
Gal 4:28 - 29 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after
the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
Phil 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit . . . and have no confidence in the flesh.
Col 2:11 . . . the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ: [handless handless water baptism?]
1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.
Heb 10:20 . . . he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God,
being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1 John 4:2, 3 . . . Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1Jn 4:3 And
every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit
of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Man Born after the FLESH, is Sinful, Corrupt and Different than Jesus’ Flesh
EVANS: Man’s flesh is different than that of Jesus, not being tainted by human blood. Would Frost like to
say that the following flesh traits pertain to Jesus’ flesh?
1. The unsaved Israelite had the motion of sins worked in his members and they brought forth death.
2. Paul said that no good thing dwelled in him.
3. Paul said that he served the law of sin with his flesh.
4. The flesh has filth in need of cleansing.
5. The flesh lusts against the Holy Spirit and is contrary to Him.
6. Some O.T saints, who were born after the flesh persecuted those who were born after the Spirit.
7. The saved once were the children of wrath in the lust of the FLESH, fulfilling them.
8. The saved were once lost and DEAD in TRESSPASSES and SINS their hearts still uncircumcised.
9. Man’s flesh is so bad that it spots their garments. We doubt that about Jesus.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members
to bring forth fruit unto death.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me;
but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God;
but with the flesh the law of sin.
2 Cor 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the
flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one
to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 4:23, 29 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by
promise . . . he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together
with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
FROST: One can learn a lot (of useless ideas) when he lays his Bible down and listens to the theological blather of
Evans. He boasts of His devotion to the King James Bible, but then he spins his fabric of human speculation. He refers to
“sinful human blood” and “human blood” to differentiate from “innocent divine blood” and “divine blood.” Where in the
Bible do we find these phrases? They come not from God … but they are spouted by theologians with a theory to support,
and the more they try to support it, wilder are the claims!
The Bible doesn’t tell us all about the coming of Jesus, His birth. Now Herb Evans tells us “The rest of the story”!
EVANS: “The rest of the story is that Jesus did not partake of human blood. Jesus partook of God’s blood, since the
Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in a virgin, Mary.”
FROST: Reader, did you get that? Did you take note of the Scripture reference? No, and you won’t.
EVANS: I did not think that Frost would require the hereditary genealogy of Jesus through Mary or the
technical ancestral genealogy through Joseph to prove that Joseph was not His real father. Yet is Frost questioning
or denying the virgin birth? It was the Holy Spirit that conceived Jesus in Mary not a male sperm. Joseph was His
step father and He was, as supposed, the son of Joseph. Obviously, Frost does not know that a baby gets the blood
from one’s father and not his mother. The nourishment comes through the umbilical cord but not the blood. God
was the Father of Jesus. That is not theology; that is Bible supported by biology, and chemistry.
Matt 1:20 . . . the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not
to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered . . . The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest
shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
FROST: Imagine, God in heaven has blood! Herb, you deny being a Calvinist, though you sound like one. Are you a
Mormon? Or, did you dream this up all by yourself?
EVANS: There goes Frost again lying about Herb saying that God in heaven has blood. Shame on you, Frost!
You must be a Campbellite!
FROST: I grant that Evans is slick. Notice how he dismisses Heb. 2:14? He says, “And then the Bible tells us that
Jesus was made “in the likeness’ of sinful flesh only,” by which he means that Jesus made only in a likeness of sinful flesh
as opposed to divine flesh. “Sinful flesh” is not a reference to a kind of flesh, but is figurative way of referring to sinful
persons who indulge in “sins of the flesh” (Col. 2:11).
EVANS: More gainsaying by figures! More of what Herb “means” stuff. Let the passage say what it says, “the
likeness of sinful flesh.” Where does Frost find “divine” flesh anywhere? Of course, I do not remove parts of what
Frost says as he does me. Frosts double dealing is deceitful. Frost told me one time that he liked honest and
honourable debate. How I dismissed Heb 2:14, in regard to no human father, is found repeated in the next blue.
EVANS: The rest of the story is that Jesus did not partake of human blood. Jesus partook of God’s blood, since the
Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in a virgin, Mary. And then the Bible tells us that Jesus was made “in the likeness” of sinful
flesh only. To imply that Jesus had blood just like ours or sinful human blood is blasphemy. Sinful human blood could
never pay for our sins. It must be sinless blood of our Lord and Saviour, conceived in a virgin by the Father.
FROST: A good commentary on sin and the flesh is found in Rom. 8:1-14, too long a quotation to appear here,
which nevertheless we encourage the reader to pursue. The Scriptures contradict Evans, for it says plainly that Jesus took
blood, the same as we have, to be made like unto His brethren:
EVANS: Too long? It is not as long as some of your filibusters that hardly contain any scripture. Now look
what Frost the Bible Corrector does with the scripture in his juggling act. Frost says, “it says PLAINLY that Jesus
took blood, the SAME BLOOD as we have, to be made like His brethren.” It does not say that (let alone “plainly);
Frost is lying again. Of course Jesus partook of flesh and blood, but it does not say whose flesh and blood.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part
of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
FROST: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the
same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
EVANS: Jesus and men are both partakers of flesh and blood; this much is true. But whose “same” flesh and
blood do men partake of; and whose flesh and blood did Jesus partake is the question? Not even humans get the
same flesh, blood, DNA, and genes let alone Jesus. Now, prepare to get another Frost Greek/English smoke study.
FROST: And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took
not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be
made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people.” (Heb. 2:14-17) Verse 14:
“Forasmuch as” (epei) is conjunction of cause, meaning “since, seeing that, because” epei oun, “since then.”
“Partakers” (koinoneo) = “to share with others.”
“Took part” (metecho) = “to share or participate.”
Verse 17:
“To be made like” (homoioo) = “assimilate, i.e. compare; passively, to become similar.”
EVANS: This says nothing about blood but rather the SEED of Abraham [through Mary and not Joseph). It
is correct that Jesus was made like unto His brethren. Jesus was Mary’s seed! The SEED of the woman! Can Frost
tell who is Satan’s seed?
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
FROST: Here it is plainly declared that the children of God, whom the Lord calls His brethren, share in the nature of
flesh and blood, and seeing this to be so, Jesus likewise shared the same. He had to become like his brethren in every
respect to be a merciful and faithful high priest. Evans has to deny this text (Heb. 2:14-17). He does not believe it. To the
contrary, he teaches that Jesus did not partake of the same flesh and blood as we have.
Evans: Jesus was a partaker of flesh and blood and made LIKE unto his brethren. Still, Frost has to gainsay
it! Jesus did look like an ordinary man but so did the angels and the Theonphanies. He was the GOD/MAN!
►GF FROST: Since we have the “same” blood, then either sin was in the blood of Jesus and therefore He inherited
sin, OR it is not true that sin is in (or transmitted) by blood. Herb’s theology is flat wrong. Contradicting Scripture makes
Herb is a false teacher.
[EVANS: Notice how Frost, the false teacher, begins his circular argument by assuming that we have the
SAME BLOOD as Jesus! Then he matches his false conclusion with what I said about inheritance.
FROST: Humans, Evans says, inherit “sinful flesh” and “sinful blood,” but not Jesus. In fact, Jesus had divine
blood; “Jesus partook of God’s blood.” And where did he find this: in the Bible? or in Evans’ Theology?
EVANS: The same place that Frost found his mangled quotes of Heb 2:14. Frost does not realize that he has a
theology not found in scriptures, so humor him.
Herb Evans: Since we have defanged Frost’s comment, this prospective circular argument has no teeth. Blood was
not transmitted to Jesus by man; therefore Jesus did not have sinful blood. Sinful blood could not redeem or pay for sin. If
humans did not have sinful blood, they could shed their blood for the sins of others. Still, we wonder if Frost condones the
sacrifice of innocent (sinless in his eyes) babies. If so, the aborigines have solved the problem by throwing these babies to
the alligators.
Gene Frost: Does He still have blood in that same body which, Herb says, “to this day, Jesus must bear … because
of what Jesus did for man”? (“He Took My Place”.) ►GF
[EVANS: No! Jesus no longer has His blood in His body. He is flesh and bone but no longer is flesh and blood.
You see He poured out both water and blood from His side FOR me on Calvary. After rising from the dead, He did
not allow His self to be touched until he ascended. I speculate that He poured His blood on the mercy seat in
heaven upon His ascension. Thank you Jesus! Hallelujah! Praise de Lawd! Amen!]
Herb Evans: Jesus became the God/man, and never ceased to be the God/man, except in His spirit being separated
from His body. He remains the God/man from His resurrection throughout eternity. He is the God/man, God and human
but never with sinful flesh or blood.
FROST: “And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” (1 Cor
15:49-50) In Jesus’ case, it is reversed: as He has borne the heavenly, He now bears the earthy. “Now this I say, brethren,
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God…” To the contrary, says Evans; divine flesh and blood has already
entered into heaven! And what about God’s blood, that Jesus received through Mary? And where did he read that?
EVANS: More misrepresentation of Herb Evans’ comments. Where did Frost read that Jesus went into
heaven with His blood in His body after He poured it out on Calvary? If Jesus’ blood is in heaven, it is on the
mercy seat. Moreover, Christ did not inherit heaven; we do that! Does I have a witness?
►GF FROST: Herb says that sin is not just in the blood; it was also in the genes and flesh. Did Jesus also have
divine flesh, with divine DNA? If so, what part of His being on earth was human?
Herb Evans: No, Jesus had sinless flesh and blood and a sinless soul and spirit. Genetics and DNA do not apply to
the virgin birth. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Gene Frost: The apostle Paul, by divine revelation, would say that Herb is wrong! That his concept of inherited sins
is false! In Rom. 1:3, he writes that Jesus Christ our Lord “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Was
David’s DNA (genes) and flesh sin? If so, then Jesus inherited sin. If not, then the doctrine of inherited sin is again shown
to be false.
[EVANS: Sin is in the DNA and/or genes because of the blood. It is transmitted by the blood regardless of
what this heretic and apostate false teacher says. Hey, I can call names too!]
FROST: “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17)
Herb Evans: Like unto His brethren in what way? Since Jesus had no earthly father, he must be related to man
through the genealogy of Mary as the kinsman redeemer. One does not inherit sin through His mother but through the
father. Made like His brethren? How? Made as a sinner? Does Frost really want to go there? The Bible tells us that we
shall one day be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is, sinless, as we shall also be. We shall have a resurrection body
without sin and without this present sinful flesh and blood.
GF FROST: I do not believe in “inherited sin.” I do not believe that I and all others are subject to punishment for
sins we never committed. ►GF
[Herb Evans: No one will go to hell for Adam’s or anyone else’s sins without committing their own sins. Still, men
are born sinners.]
EVANS: “Believe what you want! What I want from you is what you can prove — not what you cannot” — Herb
Evans
Herb Evans: Who cares what Frost believes or disbelieves. We care what Frost can prove or disprove, and that
seems to be not very much.
FROST: Herb, you have this turned around…wrested, if you please. I do not believe in “inherited sin” for the reason
no one can prove it to be so. You say you care about what I prove or disprove. On the theology of “inherited sin,” I have
done both. I have disproved the theory with God’s own words: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear
the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” (Ezek. 18:20) I can prove that one is not born a sinner:
“God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” (Eccl. 7:29) He is made in the image likeness of
his Creator. (Gen. 1:27) God is the Father of our spirits. (Heb. 12:9) We are not born depraved. Children are innocent.
(Psalm 106:38; Matt. 18:3)
EVANS: Here comes another Pete/Repeat! The son shall not bear the INIQUITY of the father, but he shall
bear the sin of ADAM through his father. If that were not true, Frost would not die, but Frost is going to die. Frost
has proved nothing except that he can get false conclusions from both Herb Evans and scripture.
FROST: Now, Herb, disprove that man is made upright, that God fathered our spirits free of sin. Then prove that
God fathered depraved souls, that a child does bear the iniquity of his forebears, that he is guilty of sin before he commits
sins.
EVANS: No, only Adam was upright before he fell! God did not father our bodies. You don’t seem to
understand that proving something, believing something, and denying something are not all the same things.
Gene Frost: Faith is not what I want it to be. Faith pleasing to God is derived from His word. (Rom. 10:17) ►GF
EVANS: Well, you are doing a mighty poor job of what you want to do. False doctrine, heresy, and apostasy
do not please God. And as to deriving from God’s word, you don’t seem to be getting very much on spiritual topics.
Treating the Bible as a text book as you do, you do come by a lot of unrelated facts and trivia.
Herb Evans: What is the LORD’S “word of God” and where is it specifically? You still have not answered that.
FROST: The word of God is found in the revelation God gave to His holy apostles and prophets, and is found in
what they taught. “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which
ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also
in you that believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13)
EVANS: OH? Have you received the word of God that God gave to His holy apostles and prophets? Where do
you keep it? Does it have a specific name, since you talk of the word of God in generalities?
FROST: Now, Herb, you tell us what you think is the “word of God,” and where it is specifically.
EVANS: I don’t think; I know that the word of God, the scriptures in English, are the King James Bible. The
perversions that radically differ cannot ALSO be the word of God and only contain some of the word of God.
Either we do not have the word of God or it is somewhere extant. Again, where and what is the word of God
according to Frost? Frost, you are becoming so transparent, even a JW can see through you.
FROST: If you say it is found in the KJB, then acknowledge that I have presented nothing else in this exchange, and
have cited it. Herb, we are not going to play your game. If you do not know the answer, or even if you think you do, drop
it! The reader should know the answer … unless his mind is so warped by KJBO theology that confusion reigns supreme.
EVANS: Well, not quite! Indeed, you have sometimes used the word of God in this exchange but not as often
as you have used your extra scriptural authorities Nevertheless, there are “KING JAMES USERS” and there are
“KING JAMES BELIEVERS.” Frost uses the KJB while he gainsays and corrects it. That is Frost’s “game.”
►GF FROST: If we “let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4), then we cannot believe what Herb teaches
about sins being transmitted by blood and flesh, and about so-called “divine blood,” inventions of men to bolster human
theology. “Every man” who teaches it, is “a liar.”
Herb Evans: I guess “every man” includes Gene Frost, making him a liar as well. Let God be true and every man a
liar.
FROST: Rom. 3:4 does not say that “every man is a liar.”
Herb, are you so devoid of reason that you do not understand Rom. 3:4? that you understand the apostle Paul to say
that every man is a liar, or that God needs our permission (“let God”) before he can be true?
EVANS: It teaches what I said “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” It does not say or teach, as Frost says,
that “every man who teaches it ‘theology’ is a liar.”
FROST: It must be obvious to the readers that you are not serious, but treat the Scriptures frivolously, and this to
waste my time.
EVANS: I have wasted my time with a man that frivolously gainsays and corrects the scripture. I was as
serious, even more so than Frost, in my responses.
FROST: I will treat Herb seriously now that he really does not know any better. Herb, Paul is contrasting what God
says, which is always the truth, with what man says, which is not always the truth, only when in agreement with God.
EVANS: Well, if Frost would have put it “generally,” to begin with, I may have given him a pass, for that is
basically and generally true, except that man came forth from the womb speaking lies, and Frost is included in
that. And from what we see in this discussion, Frost is included as being a liar in the verse in question.
FROST: Now which are we to accept and believe? When you accept and acknowledge what God says, you let God
be true in your response.
EVANS: Then why does Frost not let God be true?
FROST: To say that God is wrong, and the teaching of man is true, you make out that God is a liar.
EVANS: So why does Frost make God a liar?
FROST: The point is made: whatever God says, that’s true. Whatever man says that contradicts God is untrue, so
that whoever contradicts God is a liar. This is not “every man” simply because he is a man, but every men who contradicts
God.
EVANS: Well, clearly, Frost has made the point that he is included in Rom 3:4. SNORE!
►GF FROST: Herb is not opposing Gene Frost—he takes exception to the word of God!
Herb Evans: Tell us what and where the word of God is specifically to which you tell us that Herb Evans takes
exception?
FROST: Read the exchange. I have called attention to it in reviewing your responses.
Poor Herb, he is the poor man with a lantern, seeking to find the truth. It is found in God’s revelation to man. (2 Tim.
3:6, 1 Cor. 2:7-13) If you will read the exchange on the KJBO, you will learn that it is in the inspired word.
EVANS: Well, then, the problem is solved if Frost can produce the “INSPIRED” word. Still technically, the
word “inspired” is a “NOUN” in the only two places that it is mentioned and not a “verb” or an “adjective.” Pure
water is given by “distillation” also a noun. The scripture was given BY INSPIRATION. So, since Frost is such a
stickler for exact words and phrases, we would be pleased if Frost would use the word correctly. Now, at times, we
have in the past also use the word “inspired” as a verb or an adjective, as Frost has, but then we, unlike Frost,
know what folks mean by such a use and often placate them and excuse ourselves, if they are true to His word.
FROST: And Herb Evans, nor any other theologist, has the right to redefine “inspiration.” The concept of “DIRECT
inspiration” and “PRESERVED inspiration” is not Scriptural; it is the invention of men, created to beg the question.
EVANS: Herb Evans never redefined inspiration Frost did as soon as he called it the “inspired” word and did
not produce it. “Preserved” is a word that is joined to God’s word which Jesus said would not pass away. Now we
have a choice in what is preserved. God’s “inspired word” or God’s uninspired word? God’s “inspired scriptures”
or God’s “uninspired scriptures?” Put it all of this together to spell “P-R-E-S-E-R-V-E-D I-N-S-P-I-R-A-T-I-ON”
from our KJBO perspective. Frost needs to read Palms 119 regarding God’s preserved word.
EVANS: Isa 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and
my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor
out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
FROST: It is devilish, wicked, because it seeks to glorify the works of men in contradiction to what they themselves
say about it. They promote a good work to an extreme whereby the work itself is becomes an idol. They idolize a good
effort and result to the point that blind devotion replaces reason.
EVANS: There is only one devil and one wicked person and one idol in this Frost/Evans discussion, and his
initials are . . . ►GF!
FROST: Back to “inherited sin,” from which Evans wants to distract us.
EVANS: Is it Evans who wants to distract us? It was Frost that re-introduced “inspiration” over and over. So,
who is the big distracter other than Frost?
►GF FROST: I do not believe that if death were to take us as we first entered the world, in a matter of days or even
hours, we would then stand before the judgment of God to be eternally punished for no fault of our own … we had
inherited our guilt. The Bible does not teach this, but to the contrary: ►GF
EVANS: There goes Frost again violating his own rules and becoming a theologian by using a word (“guilt”)
that is not in the Hebrew or Greek. We shall not be punished for Adam’s sin except by death. Nevertheless, we
shall be judged for our own sins. Even Frost acknowledges that children must come to the “age of accountability,”
even if he cannot find that term in scripture. If they die before that, they will not be punished for Adam’s sin.
Herb Evans: Again, who cares what Frost believes or disbelieves? We care what Frost can prove or disprove, and he
has done a pretty shabby job of that. Unaccountable babies and children go to heaven when they die like they did ever
since Christ took the saved from Abraham’s bosom to heaven after Christ resurrected.
FROST: I have really been surprised in this exchange, how the doctrines of substitutionary atonement (transference
of sin) and inherited depravity have been revised. Historically, inherited depravity was total, and the guilt of sin was
inherited and not contingent upon overt conduct. Now Evans is teaching that an infant is not born estranged from God and
tainted with sin his own, as Herb says but contradicts, even in his DNA.
EVANS: Since I never believed in TOTAL depravity but only depravity but not the guilt of sin except in
culpability (guilty per the scriptures), how could I have revised it? Frost is just “surprised” and annoyed that he
cannot use the Calvinist terms on Herb Evans.
FROST: While Evans follows the conventional doctrines of penal substitution, inherent depravity, etc., he interjects
many unique twists and turns.
EVANS: I guess Herb is an unconventional “theologian;” that is the best that I can guess!
FROST: Hades being emptied after Christ was resurrected, is an example.
EVANS: It seems that Frost wishes to add more and more other controversial topics to this discussion to
further muddy the water. So be it!
Mat 27:52, 53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of
the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
►GF FROST: The Bible versus “Inherited Depravity”
FROST: Ezekial 18:20—“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither
shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of
the wicked shall be upon him.”
The soul who has not sinned “shall not bear the iniquity” of another who has. That is, the innocent shall not “sustain
the effect, or be answerable for; as to bear the blame” (or fault, crime, or sin)—as defined by Webster’s 1828 English
Dictionary. I have to wonder if Evans ever consults the dictionary he recommends. ►GF
EVANS: I don’t know how often that I am going to have to repeat my answers, but here goes another attempt
to repeat my words AGAIN!
EVANS REPEAT: Here comes another Pete/Repeat! The son shall not bear the INIQUITY of the father, but
he shall bear the sin of ADAM through his father. If that were not true, you would not die, but you are going to die.
You have proved nothing except that you are able get false conclusions from both Herb Evans, others, and the
scripture.
EVANS: “Ezekiel refers to practiced sin that is not inherited and not inherited sin from Adam. Paul said that sin was
in his members and in his flesh.” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: There are two classes of sin: inherited sin and practiced sin? Where do I find that verse and chapter?
►GF
EVANS: Well, I guess I get it in the same place from which Frosts gets his “unaccountable babies and
children.” Frost, you little rascal theologian, you!
Herb Evans: Frost cannot tell the difference between fathers bearing the iniquity of his sons, who practiced iniquity,
and the sin of Adam, who could not be the father of his son’s practiced sin.
FROST: (I would love to see this sentence diagrammed. It is so convoluted; it makes no sense.)
EVANS: Nevertheless, you will find Acts 2:38 diagrammed twice on your behalf. I also included the Greek
clauses in their tenses and voices for your benefit.
EVANS: Adam’s sin is inherited; practiced sin is the sins that you do in your life.
Practicing Sins versus Inheriting Sins
FROST: Evans evades the question: There are two classes of sin: inherited sin and practiced sin? Where do I find
that verse and chapter? (Herb, “chapter and verse” refers to the Bible. We can read about sin people commit in the Bible
and/or we can read about sin in works of theology. Where did you learn about “inherited sin” as versus practiced sin? If
you say, “The Bible,” then cite the book, chapter, and verse. Where do I find that verse and chapter about inherited sin
versus practiced sin?)
EVANS: As soon as you objected. I replied to it above. Here it is repeated. “Well, I guess I get it in the same
place that you get your ‘unaccountable babies and children,’ you little rascal theologian, you!”
FROST: Herb Evans, however, does give us some important insight in his theological “inherited sin,” and that is: (1)
sins which one commits (the overt acts) are not inherited sins; (2) one is not condemned for inherited sins, but only for
practiced sins. Therefore “unaccountable babies and children go to heaven when they die…”)
EVANS: Now, you got it, and you can now use my info on the next guy, as you collect Baptist come backs.
FROST: Evans realizes that fathers do not bear the iniquity of their sons.
EVANS: YUP!
FROST: Adam could not be the father of his son’s sin. His sin is inherited. Does this make sense?
EVANS: YUP!
FROST: Regardless, Herb is wrong. Fathers do not bear their son’s sins, nor do sons bear their father’s sin.
Ezek. 18:20—“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son…”
EVANS: How can Evans be wrong if Evans does not deny Ezek. 18:20 and realizes it is valid scripture? It just
does not say anything about the inherited sin from Adam. Frost was wrong in applying it to Evans view, since
Evans does not believe that anyone inherits his father’s iniquity. Adam’s sin is another matter!
EVANS: Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
FROST: David was born in a sinful world. Some contend that he was born from an adulterous relationship. It
matters not at the moment of what the situation was when he was born, other than was conceived and born in sin. The text
does not say that he was conceive and born a sinner, that iniquity and sin were his when born. I guess if the text said that
he was born in a pumpkin patch, Herb would possibly say that he was born a pumpkin.
EVANS: Well, now the FROST is upon the pumpkin.
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
FROST: Is this literal or hyperbole?
EVANS: NO!
FROST: How many infants do you know that began to speak as soon as they were born? Were they born speaking
the same language or the language of their parents?
EVANS: Frost must never have had any babies. They pretend (lie) that they are hurting to get attention.
Pretense is lying! Just believe the scripture, Frost, rather than trying to gainsay, improve upon it, and/or
undermine the thus saith the Lord(s).
EVANS: Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were MADE SINNERS, so by the obedience of one
shall many be made righteous.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
EVANS Continued:
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness . . .
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if
ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Rom 8:19 - 23 . . . the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty
of the children of God . . . waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of
the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
[EVANS: Frost wants no part of these passages. The only thing good about this debate is to watch Frost
squirm and dig further and further into the hole he has been digging for himself.
►GF FROST: I can read of sin being practiced, e.g. 1 John 3:8—“He that committeth sin is of the devil…”
The word from which committeth is translated is a verb (present tense, active, participial), which describes sin as
being actively and continually practiced. ►GF
Herb Evans: Well, here is another English lesson to which Frost is wrong in his view of the “–eth” suffix which does
not demand the continual act which Frost claims and demands.
FROST: Herb, what are you inhaling, drinking, or taking?!
EVANS: Surely, not Campbellite shine!
FROST: I never expressed a “view of the ‘—eth’ suffix,” much less did I “claim and demand that it denotes a
‘continual act’”!
EVANS: You expressed “He that committeth sin is of the devil . . .” The suffix “ETH” is in that. Your view of
“ETH” is either wrong or you are correcting the King James Bible with Greek. As for you never claiming and
demanding that it denotes a continual act,” you said above in brown that commiteth describes sin as being
CONTINUALLY PRACTICED. You also said (in the discussion of transgressions), (“Actually, in the Greek text,
both sin and transgression are nouns, and 1 John 3:4 literally reads: “Everyone who practiceS sin also does lawlessness,
and sin is lawlessness.”—Frost) Does 1 John 3:4, as Frost uses it, mean to “practice” TRANSGRESSING THE
LAW? Here, Frost may say that sin is lawlessness, but Evans saying sin is transgression is not allowed by Frost.
FROST: Committeth sin in 1 John 3:8 refers to sin being practiced, not because of the spelling of committeth, but
because “the word from which it is translated [which is poieo] is a verb (present tense, active, participle), which describes
sin as being actively and continually practiced.” The action of commit—whether in the past, present or presently active,
or future—is not determined by –eth being added to, which is nothing more than the way people spoke in the 17th century.
Herb, you just don’t read well.
EVANS: There you go again, saying that sin is “continually” (my red highlight) practiced. I guess you have to
practice sin in order to get good at it. Still, you are getting good at practicing Bible Correcting. If you do not mind,
I will trust my faithful word rather than your Greek gymnastics, which you think are better than the KJB Learned
Men’s renderings.
FROST: Many years ago, I heard this —eth argument made in debate by a Baptist preacher. He used it to “prove”
the “impossibility of apostasy” of believers, contending that the “–eth” on believe (“believeth”) meant that the believer
could never lose his faith. Is that where you are going, Herb?
EVANS: Since I do not believe that it is impossible for a true believer to get into false teaching and apostasy. I
have no comment on his argument. You still have not placed your stamp of approval on the English “ETH” and
what it means and whether it should be changed.
FROST: I thought that this silly argument had long since been buried, but I guess not. At least it is on your mind;
you introduced it, not I.
EVANS: Watch Frost weasel word on this! I never used that argument! I use “ETH” in regard to
“Committeth,” not apostasy; “ETH” is in the KJB text. “Practice” is not, but “practice” is in the perversions.
FROST: To see the foolishness of the argument, consider the raising of Lazarus.
EVANS: Have you noticed Frost’s use of “silly,” “foolish,” and etc. to bolster his arguments and views?
FROST: When Jesus came to his grave, He said, “Take ye away the stone.” Martha, the sister of him that was dead,
saith unto him, “Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.” (John 11:39) “Stink” means that he
emitted a strong foul odor. If the “eth” means continued action and could never cease, then “stinketh” meant that he had
this terrible odor which he could never lose! Poor Lazarus after he had been raised! He carried an odor he could not lose!
Yes, it is a stinking Baptist argument that needs to be buried!
Evans: You are the one as well as other Bible Correctors that use the word “continual” and not I (except to
object). Still I don’t think that Lazarus who “stinketh” was “practicing stinking.” LOL!
FROST: The reader needs to know that Evans has been pressing me to close the exchange, without opportunity to
examine all that he has written.
EVANS: When have I done that? Do you have the quotes? I will send the disk of this discussion {my format)
to you, and you can do what you wish with it.
FROST: This fallacious and silly argument on the suffix –eth, which Evans says I claimed and demanded, could
easily have gotten by me. Now, I wonder how much I will overlook, not because there is anything difficult about it, but
simply because I tire of Herb’s foolishness and wasted effort in this exchange and want to be done!
EVANS: You see? Herb is fallacious and silly and foolish, like clockwork, when Frost has no argument. Frost
is fortunate that he is not on a desert island with only a King James Bible.
EVANS: Frost needs to look up “Old” English words.
FROST: You sound like a kid who has just discovered the evolution of language, running up to adults, “Did you
know…?”
EVANS: Here come the childish aspersions and pejoratives.
EVANS: I suggest that Frost read Laurance Vance’s book on the so called archaic words and how many of them are
used even in our world today.
FROST: One doesn’t need to buy a book on archaic words in the KJB; such lists abound! I wrote a treatise on the
subject 64 years ago; this is nothing new.
EVANS: The best part of the book is that Vance proves that most of the words are not “archaic’ and can be
found used in modern books, newspapers, and magazines.
EVANS: He might also go to a tennis match and listen to the calls in regard to “let” balls (net balls).
FROST: I’ve played tennis most of my life, and knew that “let” meant to hinder or restrain, just as it is in the KJB.
EVANS: Bless your heart. I am going to give you 5 points for that. But what if you did not know about
tennis? What would you do about the word “let?’ What would you do about the word on a desert island with only
a King James Bible and without your Greek and Hebrew, without a dictionary, and without a lexicon and without
all your extra scriptural authorities? Interesting prospect!
EVANS: Frost might also run some references on “–eth” words and see whether “continual action” is demanded in
them.
FROST: Herb might do this, and waste his time.
EVANS: Frost might run references on the “ETH” word, inserting practice where the suffix “eth” is used.
EVANS: For a self proclaimed English expert, Frost does not show me much, when it comes to understanding old
biblical English
FROST: Herb, when did you claim to be a—“self proclaimed”—English expert? I never claimed any expertise in
English, but neither did I resign to be an uncaring slouch in handling the word of God. What I know, I know and pretend
nothing else.
EVANS: Oh! Excuse me! You just like English experts whom you can parrot! Forgive me! I lost my head not
having an exact term of scripture in mind.
►GF FROST: Therefore, it is otherwise translated (I know that you hate having your theology contradicted, but for
the benefit of people who want to know the truth): “One who practices sin is of the devil” (NASB, NET); “Whoever
makes a practice of sinning is of the devil” (ESV); “But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the
devil” (NLT); “Whoever continues to sin belongs to the Devil” (TEV). Now, where do we read of “inherited sin,” other
than as you and other theologists [SIC] render it?
EVANS: I wondered when you would get to the perversions. You missed the ISV and the NIV. Should I allow
the modern English perversions to correct my KJB and my theology? Does that make any sense? Ah . . . you found
a few perversions which says “continues, practices, and keeps on” in regard to sinning. Do they make you feel
comfortable? I guess my comments on “ETH” were not so silly or foolish after all.
Herb Evans: Well, we cannot find the term “continue to sin” or “practice sin” in our KJB.
FROST: Have you looked in the verse following where “blood” is mentioned?
EVANS: Well, I guess the word “practice,” not being found in the KJB or the Greek, is conceded and another
Frost question is being asked. The word “divine” is not used but 3 times in the N.T. - for divine service, divine
power, and the divine nature. I am sure that Frost will agree that they mean the service of God, God’s power, and
the nature of God. Since Evans does not use “divine blood,” perhaps he will allow God’s blood instead, since Jesus
is God, and especially since Frost used the word “divine” about two dozen times, throughout this correspondence.
Herb, however, only used it but once in order to respond to Frost use of it. I normally use “God” and not “divine”
and “Godhead rather than the divinity.” Still, I am okay with “divine” if folks really mean “God” by it.
Unfortunately, that is not always the case with anti-Trinitarians. The question before us is whether or not
ordinary man or an innocent child can shed his blood for the remission of sins of another or whether only the blood
of Christ, which we consider “God’s blood,” can be shed. If an innocent cannot do that, WHY NOT? I have
questions and points to be made from these passages as follows:
The Blood of Christ
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mark 14:24 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great
tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they
loved not their lives unto the death.
2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be
partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he I pure.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not
with flesh and blood:
1 Pet_1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
God’s Blood or Mere Man’s Blood?
1. Was the Blood of the New Testament Jesus’ blood? Is Jesus God. Was that Blood God’s blood?
2. Was the Lamb of God - God in heaven? Was the blood mentioned of the Lamb of God - God’s blood?
3. Are the saints’ robes washed in the blood of the Lamb or in “baptism?”
4. CAN a prospective saint be washed in the blood of an ordinary man or in an unaccountable child?
5. What is the difference between the blood of man and the blood of God?
6. Can a person overcome by the blood of the Lamb OF GOD or by baptism?
7. Can a person overcome by the blood of an ordinary man or by an unaccountable child?
8. Can a person overcome by or be washed in water by the hands of a Baptizer or by himself?
9. What is the difference between human blood and God’s blood?
10. Now, may we say that Jesus had both the NATURE of GOD and man?
11. If Jesus has the nature of God when and where did He get this nature? At Birth? If so from who?
12. Did Jesus get His divine nature in eternity? If in eternity, did it not happen at His birth?
13. Does a lost man have the same nature of God in his lost condition? Does man have any divine nature?
14. What is the difference between the nature of God and man?
15. May we ask if Jesus’ blood was PURE at birth?
16. May we ask if anyone else’s blood was pure at birth?
17. What makes an ordinary man’s blood pure?
18. How does a lost man get pure?
19. What is the difference between Christ’s pure blood and a lost man’s pure blood?
20. Did Jesus purchase the church with His own blood?
21. Can a lost person or a saved person or an unaccountable child purchase the church with its blood?
22. What is the difference between their blood and Christ’s blood?
23. Would it have been possible for God to sacrifice an innocent child like Isaac on the cross instead?
24. Why was it Jesus that had to come and die on the cross? Was it really necessary?
EVANS: All the corrupt modern versions by Bible correcting . . . ah . . . “theologists” are wrong with such
renderings.
FROST: What about corrupt modern theologists who are wrong in correcting the Bible where it says that Jesus took
part of the same flesh and blood as did the children of God?
EVANS: If so! I do not pay the attention to them or you when you do. You might as well have asked “What
about the Pope.”
EVANS: Get the Greek for that these and expound on it, and I will provide you with ridiculous examples! I would
like to take this up thoroughly in a separate venue as well.
FROST: (I know. You “could’ve said,” but not now.)
EVANS: NOT NOW!
EVANS: Frost can escape being “of the devil” by using these corrupt versions, but he can’t get away with it by using
the KJB. And Frost claims that he is not a Bible Corrector. As we said before, you can jump over the moon, if you bring
the moon down low enough.
FROST: You’ve lowered the moon, but not enough to clear it … but you keep jumping to no avail!
EVANS: Okay, Bible Corrector, but I can prove by the Bible that the moon is not made out of green cheese.
Gene Frost: We might ask, how could one—who is forgiven by Christ, had his sins removed never to be
remembered against him, and who now possesses the righteousness of Christ (according to Herb’s theology)—father a
child with his wife—who also possesses the righteousness of Christ—and transmit the corruption, depravity, and guilt of
his progenitors? ►GF
EVANS: It has to be a miracle! He even makes black cows, eat green grass, give white milk, and excude brown
dung (much of which is in Frost’s points).
EVANS: [Frost must not believe that believers possess the righteousness of Christ and therefore must contradict the
scriptures in that regard.]
FROST: To the contrary; it is Evans who does not believe.
EVANS: I believe that the righteousness of Christ was imputed to me upon my new birth. I’ll bet Frost does
not believe in that imputation before and even after baptism. In fact, I am wondering whether he believes in the
new birth at all or even knows what the new birth really is.
FROST: We questioned him to explain how that one who is righteous can transmit depravity. His answer is, “Frost
must not believe…” The question was not what I believe.
EVANS: We think that is all Frost knows how to do is ask questions. He certainly does not know how to make
his case. But it is the transmitted sin of Adam that results in depravity. Is it true that Frost doesn’t sin?
FROST: We questioned Evans how a righteous soul can carry and transmit corruption, depravity, and guilt. By his
refusal to answer, I must figure out what it is that he does believe. Is this it? The sinner when forgiven by Jesus does not
himself become righteous, but retains the corruptions, guilt, etc., so that any righteousness that comes from Christ is just a
veneer of purity, or a cloak of Christ’s personal righteousness, under which his rottenness of sin is covered, but not
removed? Is this it? Why is it, Herb, that I have to press to learn what you believe? Why do you dodge, slip and slide?
EVANS: Yes, Frost keeps asking the same questions over. Suggestion - get some new material. The believer’s
flesh and body are not righteous until the redemption of the body. The imputed righteousness of Christ is imputed
to one’s soul and Spirit, and not one’s body; neither the soul nor spirit can transmit anything. Burp!
EVANS: “How does a black cow, eat green grass, give white milk and exude brown dung?” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Good answer, for those who are willing for quibbles to replace Scripture. Don’t you wish that the Bible
actually taught it, so that you need not resort to trivial riddles? I remember hearing this one while in kindergarten. I
thought it clever then. But, really you should put away childish things.
[EVANS: Thank you; I thought so; that is why I used it again to your repeat questions. Don’t you get tired of
asking the same things over and over, hoping that I will make a slip?]
FROST: We asked Herb, Why do you dodge, slip and slide? His explanation is a question, How does a black cow,
eat green grass, give white milk and exude brown dung?” The answer is, God created the cow to eat grass, give milk, etc.
Is this why you dodge, slip and slide, Herb? God created you to do this? Are you blaming God for your deviousness? Oh,
here it comes.
EVANS: Well, since Frost does it, I thought that I was allowed. LOL!
Herb Evans: Ask a ridiculous question and get a ridiculous answer. It is not the righteous “soul” that transmits the
inherited sin. It is the sinful and very unrighteous “flesh” that transmits the inherited sin. Such simple entrapment
questions are more befitting to Sunday school!
FROST: (How you spent your time in Sunday school may explain why you are so poorly prepared now.)
EVANS: Yeah, with reasonable folks you can spend valuable time WITHOUT GUILT? Want to use the word
again? LOL!
FROST: You are being ridiculous. And this because the question is ridiculous?
EVANS: Your question or mine!
FROST: I notice you put “soul” in quotations to pretend you did not know the question, that you thought I meant the
soul, or spirit being of man in the body of flesh. The Bible uses “soul” to describe the being of one, body and spirit, as
“eight souls were saved by water” (1 Pet. 3:20)
(Herb, do you suppose that the “souls” were saved by water, but not the bodies? Why can’t you be serious and deal
with issues, instead of introducing cute quibbles that distract and delay? The reader can see that you use the tactics of a
charlatan.
EVANS: You are the only charlatan here as well as being the chief distraction. The last person that called me
a charlatan was upset that I did not believe in the GAP theory. No, I learned 50 years ago that “souls” COULD
MEAN “persons” from the JW’s. Are you a JW in disguise? The soul is used in other ways as well. Man is
tripartite having a soul, a spirit, and a body. I will not bother to teach you the difference but will just give you
another scripture or two to deny and gainsay and correct. Why don’t you see what the Greek says! Pneuma,
Psuche, and Soma! Like the Hebrew words the Greek words are often used interchangeably in various contexts,
but here are soul and spirit and body (joints and marrow) in both passages.
EVANS Continued: 1 Thess 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole
spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to
the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents
of the heart.
►GF Frost: Can sin and depravity be transmitted from righteous forebears? ►GF
EVANS: “No! They receive it from unrighteous forbears; all have sinned!” – Herb Evans
FROST: Herb, you are dancing around on this one.
EVANS: What you really mean is that I am not answering your probes the way that you want for the purpose
of getting more material.
FROST: Correct me if I am wrong, and show wherein I am wrong and then state it correctly.
Evans: I have been doing that.
FROST: You believe that sins inherited from Adam are transmitted through the male to all his offspring, and they to
theirs. However righteous he is before God makes no difference; he is still depraved with all of the sins from Adam and
his posterity to each and every human being. Sin is in every human being, in his flesh and in his blood, and this sinful
flesh remains and can never be cleansed! It cannot be cleansed by blood of Christ or by anything else.
EVANS: This is correct when you are talking about the FLESH. It is not correct when you are talking about
the soul or spirit or whatever you think we possess. We believe to the saving of the soul (not the whole person yet)
and ultimately the saving of the body at the resurrection/rapture.
FROST: When you answered the question whether sin and depravity can be transmitted from righteous forebears,
and you answered “no,” you were not being honest with us, were you? Did you use mental reservation, reasoning that no
one is righteous in the flesh, again knowing that I, and many of the readers, do not believe in your theological doctrine of
inherited depravity, and you do not qualify your statement so that we could understand the twists and turns of your
reasoning? So, to clarify it further, tell us plainly,
EVANS: Okay! I’ll play your “you ask and Herb answer” game for a while more. I‘ll bet none of them get to
read my final comments here unless I send the comments to them. I believe that the sin of Adam is transmitted by
the flesh from father to father. That is why Jesus had no sin, because Joseph was not His father. I don’t believe that
a father’s personal iniquity or sin or transgression can be transmitted that way. Now, wasn’t that a simple solution
to your “entrapment question.” Still, the consequences of sins of the father are passed on. Sound familiar?
FROST: Do you believe that whereas all human beings are sinful, without recourse or remedy . . .
EVANS: So far so good!
FROST: blood, and all their members and DNA—they are depraved sinners?
EVANS: From my perspective, “depraved” means an altered or corrupted state without any ability to refrain
from sin. Do you see it as something like a maniacal state? Yes, everyone is a depraved sinner back to Adam.
FROST . . . some can be righteous in conduct while in the substance of their existence—in flesh,
EVANS: Outwardly? Yes! Inwardly and in the Flesh? No! If you know to do good and do it not, it is sin. Paul
was blameless but a sinner and was all the following bad things in the flesh. Of course, an outward righteous
conduct or personal sanctification can be attained. But then there are the self righteous and those going about to
establish their own righteousness like the Campbellites and Pharisees. Still, in their flesh there is no good thing,
and the flesh is corrupt in its altered state from Adam.
Php 3:5, 6 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the
Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness
which is in the law, blameless.
1 Tim 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I
did it ignorantly in unbelief
FROST: And do you believe that no one can be righteous and acceptable to God in body souls and spirit while living
on earth?
EVANS: Your question is partially framed per your views, so you will have to ask me from my perspective. I
believe that anyone can be righteous in regard to salvation by repenting and believing in the Lord Jesus Christ,
having His righteousness imputed free. When one is truly born again without baptism, that person is born again
and abideth in HIM and sinneth not (does not sin). In fact, that soul cannot sin. Frost, if you sin, you do not abide
in Him nor are you born again. Do you sin? I do not sin nor can I sin; now, get over the shock of that comment.
Understand that I am talking about my inner or inward man, the NEW MAN, the NEW NATURE, the partaker of
the divine nature, and the NEW CREATURE, all which do not sin and cannot sin. The flesh still sins and will sin
until Jesus or death comes. Lost Bible Correctors can take their “practicing” and “continuing” to sin to hell with
them. Believe me! Human sinners need no practice at sinning.
EVANS Continued:
1Ki 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) . . .
2 Chron 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) . . .
Ecc 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God.
1John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth
himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
2 Chron_6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them,
and deliver them over before their enemies . . .
Ecc 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. .
►GF FROST: What sins remain in the righteous after God forgives? ►GF
EVANS: The sins of the FLESH.
Gene Frost: I repeat the question to emphasize the answer. What sins remain in the righteous after God forgives?
EVANS: The sins of the FLESH.
Herb Evans: Repeat all you want. The sins of the flesh will remain in my old body until my new body.
FROST: We are not speaking of the weakness of the flesh, its proclivity to sin, but the corruption, depravity, and
guilt that results from sin (transgression of God’s law).
EVANS: What weasel wording is this “weakness of the flesh?” What do you mean “we,” Paleface? In the
corrupt, depraved, SINFUL flesh, there is NO good thing! The flesh’s “proclivity to sin” comes from Adam?
EVANS: Rom 8:19 – 23. . . the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the
glorious liberty of the children of God . . . even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body.
EVANS: “. . . The sin in one’s members and flesh . . .” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: Let everyone who reads this exchange understand the doctrine of inherent depravity, as believed and
taught by Herb Evans and those associated with him! One is born a sinner, inherited from his forebears, and can never
get rid of it. Not even the blood of Christ can cleanse the flesh and blood of a human being, saint or sinner.
Someone you might consider to be righteous, [SIC] actually remains inherently unrighteous. Amazing! Is this your own
private conclusion and doctrine, or is it what other Baptists believe also? I don’t believe it because the Bible denies it!
Bible believers don’t believe it!
[EVANS: Don’t you love how Frost partially quotes me out of context and puts words in my mouth, hoping
that I will agree to his entrapment conclusions? Then Frost, after that, mixes his conclusions with my partial
comments. I highlighted them in red! That is Dirty Pool from a man that pleads for honest and honorable
discussion. Frost claims Herb Evans believes we can never get rid of our sins or depravity even through the blood
of Christ. What blindness, ignorance, or plain dishonesty. I will get rid of those things when Jesus comes and raises
from the dead my new body and redeems my body at the rapture. Then I will no longer have this sinful flesh,
namely, my VILE and CORRUPT BODY, but will have a new body like unto Jesus’ body.
Phil 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body . . .
1Co 15:40 – 50: [40.] There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one,
and the glory of the terrestrial is another . . . [42.] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption;
it is raised in incorruption: [43.] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in
power: [44.] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
body. [45.] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit. [46.] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is
spiritual. [47.] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. [48.] As is the earthy,
such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. [49.] And as we
have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. [50.] Now this I say, brethren,
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Herb Evans: Let everyone who reads this understand that Herb Evans believes in the inherent depravity (not total)
of a sinner before salvation and also the sins of our flesh and our sinful members in which there is no good thing. Paul
recognized the sin that was in his members and flesh and how they hindered his service for God after the sinless inward
man. Sin is in our flesh and our members; however, Christians are not to allow sin to reign in our bodies but rather to
mortify the deeds of the flesh. That body will one day be delivered from its bondage and corruption by the redemption of
our resurrected bodies to which we await. The flesh can never be cleansed by anything and must be destroyed. Other than
blood, not even baptism can cleanse the filth of our flesh but rather baptism is an answer of good conscience toward God.
FROST: Herb raises two interesting questions. First, he says that he believes in the inherited depravity of a sinner
before salvation. What is this salvation, when the depraved body is destroyed or when sins are forgiven?
EVANS: The body is saved after the flesh is destroyed in death and when Jesus comes to give me a new body.
Then redemption is complete with the redemption of the body. The soul and spirit are already redeemed upon
repentance and faith. Upon salvation, the body is not yet saved!
FROST: If when the flesh is destroyed, then depravity would be the same for both.
EVANS: Are you asking me or telling me per your rules? A saved person’s sinful flesh and depravity are
present realities; they end at death or at the rapture.
FROST: By mentioning the “sins of our flesh,” you may be making a distinction between the depravity of a sinner
and that of the believer, that there is some change when one is saved in present time (as distinguished from when the flesh
is destroyed).
EVANS: I am making no distinctions between the flesh of a believer and the flesh of an unbeliever. Either way
the sinful flesh is depraved. The distinction is that the believer’s flesh has no more dominion over the believer,
since he is a new creature indwelt by the Holy Spirit by which the new nature has dominion over the flesh.
FROST: Is there a change in the depravity of a sinner when he believes? If so, then what is the difference, as
concerns depravity, between the sinner and the believer? We know, from your perspective, that both retain the depravity
of the flesh they had when they were born.
EVANS: There is no change in the flesh from an unbeliever to the flesh of a believer. The flesh is flesh.
However, there is a change from the OLD MAN to the NEW MAN, and now the flesh no longer has to be in charge
or in dominion.
FROST: What we know now is that depravity remains as long as does the body, both saint and sinner are depraved
alike.
EVANS: Only in their Flesh. The NEW CREATURE is not depraved. The NEW NATURE is not depraved.
The NEW MAN is not depraved. The fleshly Old Man is depraved.
FROST: There seems to be no immediate consequence with inherited depravity, which they share alike. For all
practical purposes, inherited depravity is of concern to both alike, not in the consequence of judgment which
determination is made of practiced depravity. KJBO-ers are different from others who believe in inherent total depravity.
Herb says that their concept of inherent depravity is not a total depravity.
EVANS: What it SEEMS is not what it IS to blind deniers. I hardly know any Calvinists that are KJBO,
except one or two. I guess that God must have not predestined the KJB along with everything else. Perhaps, Frost
can give us a list of some Calvinist KJBO’s?
FROST: We need some more informative snippets to be sure of what the KJBO-ers believe—I know not what else
to call them except “the KJBO cult.” It is not a church—I find no connections or fellowship between the independent
groups. (It sure would have helped if Evans had been forthright with me and identified who and what he is. This exchange
could have been completed in half the time, or less, it is taking now.)
EVANS: Frost will ever be probing for snippets for more negative material, but we have his number. The only
cults in this discussion are the baptismal regeneration cult and the Bible Corrector cult. Frost cannot even find any
Campbellite connections between his own groups and Alexander Campbell let alone accurately find valid
connections between Independent Baptist KJBO groups who have plenty of fellowship with each other but often
lack formal connections.
“Righteousness of Christ”
FROST: Before we get too far away from your aside remark earlier—
EVANS: “Frost must not believe that believers possess the righteousness of Christ and therefore must contradict the
scriptures in that regard”
FROST: —let the reader understand that I referred to “the righteousness of Christ according to Herb’s theology.”
From what he has said so far in this exchange, he cannot believe that a human being, whose nature is sinful, who is in a
sinful body of flesh and blood, can be righteous. The common view among Baptists is that one may receive the personal
righteousness of Christ as a cloak, so that God may then look upon such a one as being righteous (seeing only the
righteousness of Christ). This description does not appear in Scripture, only in theological explanation.
EVANS: AGAIN, I do not believe that my comment is as you conclude. Old Dishonest Denny is at it again!
I’m a righteous saint with sinful flesh, but my righteousness is that of Christ. The scales are on Frost eyes so that
he cannot see spiritual things. He cannot understand or discern between inner righteousness and outward
righteousness. Nor can he understand what someone says in the spiritual vein.
FROST: I believe in righteousness (a state of being right with God) which is of Christ. (Rom. 1:16-17, 10:1-3) In
obeying Christ, we are saved from sin, then to stand before God as right. This righteousness is not just a veneer of
covering, but in fact approved by God.
EVANS: I knew Frost’s righteousness was based upon works, mainly and namely baptism. Still, in that Frost
really did not have the imputed righteousness of Christ that one gets the moment that he repents and believes.
Mercy and grace righteousness is what Frost lacks.
Titus 3:5 NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE, but according to his mercy
he saved us . . .
FROST: (I know that Herb scorns obedience by which one is made right with God, but it is a deception. Don’t let
him deceive you!)
“Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” (1 John
3:7)
This righteousness is one’s own; God through His forgiveness makes one righteous. He is righteous because he is
right with or before God.
EVANS: Herb does scorn works obedience for or to earn salvation for the remission of sins, but Herb does not
scorn “obedience” per se.
EVANS: Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 7:15 - 25 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do
that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in
me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform
that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that
I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is
present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man
that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the
mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
FROST: Let’s repeat Paul’s conclusion: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh
the law of sin.”
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom 7:248:2)
Herb, you skipped verses 1 and 2 of chapter 8. We understand why.
EVANS: How could I have skipped them if I was still in chapter 7? Frost could have at least waited until I
finished chapter 7 to begin Chapter 8 to complain. Does Frost call continuing with the theme of chapter 7 as
intentionally “skipping” these verses? Frost, you are a piece of work! Still, Frost does not address chapter seven or
its content. Frost tries to explain it away with the fact that there is NOW NO CONDEMNATION to them WHICH
ARE IN CHRIST JESUS. That is a favorite verse of mine since I have been in Christ Jesus since I repented and
believed. Sin dwelled in Paul, in his members, and in his flesh! Paul served and delighted in God and his law
AFTER THE INWARD MAN. However, he served the law of sin with his flesh.
When I did come to chapter 8, 8:1 and 8:2, which had nothing to do with the law, Paul claimed to have kept
the law. Still, Paul was wretched due the law of sin which Paul’s flesh served. Lest we ignore Frost’s ploy, let’s
placate Frost and view 8:1 and 8:2. Then we can continue with the theme of chapter 7, namely, the flesh versus the
spirit which I had posted in blue. Frost must surrender in 8:1, 2 either that a believer, who is IN Christ Jesus, has
“no condemnation” or the possibility of said believer walking after the flesh and not the Spirit. Frost must believe
can go back into condemnation and get out of Christ as well. NO condemnation means NO condemnation IN
Christ Jesus! Believers will never be condemned again or get OUT of Christ after being IN Christ.
Rom 8:1, 2 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and
death.
EVANS: Rom 8:3 – 8 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled
in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit . . . For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;
but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is
life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
FROST: (This is not literal flesh. The Roman Christians, although in the literal or physical flesh, Paul says in the
very next statement, “But you are not in the flesh.”)
EVANS: Exactly! It is not the literal or physical flesh; it is the flesh nature from Adam that is under
consideration. But that is not the problem Frost has in answering Rom 8:3-8. It is the OLD MAN which consists of
the carnal mind and spirit and lusts of the flesh. The contrast here is the spiritual mind that is not in the flesh
versus the carnal mind which is in the flesh. These are the real distinctions between believers and unbelievers and
even other believers, the NEW MAN versus the OLD MAN. The old man is the flesh, but it does not go away upon
salvation, that is why Paul laments the fight between the two. The flesh prevented Paul from doing the things that
he wanted to do and also provoked Paul to do the things that he did not want to do. Paul lamented and exclaimed,
“Oh wretched man that I am.”
EVANS: Rom 8:9 – 13: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now
if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the
Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that
raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore,
brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through
the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
FROST: Evans tries to make his case concerning the literal flesh by citing reference to the flesh used figuratively, of
the seat of carnal appetites and desires, of sinful passions. Since not all appetites and desires of the flesh are sinful, we
must take care not to associate the physical body of flesh with being inherently evil. This is where Evans and others make
their mistake. By relating to sinful activities of literal flesh, they take gigantic leap to assume that all literal flesh is sinful,
and add “inherently so.”
EVANS: Frost makes things figurative when he wants to while Frost rejects the true figures and types of the
scripture. Herb Evans made his case, but Frost bombed. The reason that a believer is said not to be “in the flesh” is
because that he either is walking in the Spirit or because the Spirit of God dwells in him and he lives in the Spirit.
When a believer walks or lives after the flesh, he may get a death sentence like certain folks did get death in the
scriptures. Frost, however, is not correct that the term is used figuratively. Paul’s comment was that no good thing
is in the flesh. The flesh is, indeed, the seat of carnal appetites, sinful lusts, thoughts, but does Frost not think that
they are sins or that they must be acted out to be sins? To look on a woman to lust on her is to commit adultery in
one’s heart. If Frost means that all the flesh of an individual is sinful flesh, then yes! It’s even said to be a vile body.
FROST: So you, Herb, claim that sin (corruption, depravity, and guilt) of the flesh remains in the flesh even after
one is forgiven of his sins by Christ. So, then, the pardoned child of God cannot please God because he in sinful flesh,
which the devil caused with Eve and then Adam effecting not only guilt but an alteration of their genes (which are
corrupted) and, according to theological conclusion, which God cannot (or will not) remove with a present forgiveness.
Yes, Evans teaches that “sin inheritance” came from Adam: “It is in your members and genes and flesh.” The devil
was able to cause Adam to sin (assume guilt) and change his physical constitution, which God cannot/will not restore.
EVANS: Do you see how determined Frost is to sneak that “guilt” word into his question AGAIN. Remove
that and yes to the rest, with the disclaimer that the child of God can please God in the spirit but cannot please
God with his flesh or fleshly and sinful lusts and appetites. A believer can walk in the flesh in the wrong way as
well as any unbeliever. Nevertheless, the believer can have dominion over the flesh, his new nature reigning over it.
Rom 10:3, 4 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness,
have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone that believeth.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto (EIS)
salvation. [Note: concerning or in reference to salivation – not to get salvation]
[EVANS: With the HEART man believeth UNTO righteousness but with the mouth confession is made UNTO
salvation.]
FROST: Herb, you apparently have the wrong word. “Salivation” refers to “the act or process of secreting saliva,” or
“an abnormally abundant flow of saliva.”
I don’t think that confession with the mouth has any reference to saliva. If you insist that saliva, and not salvation, is
under consideration, we will be interested in your exegesis of Rom. 10:10.
EVANS: Nice catch! Now, you can go away victorious and triumphant in your pettiness. Now you gave an
excuse not to deal with it because it has a typo. Frosty can use any excuse that you want to get out of answering me.
FROST: As to the definition of FOR (EIS), why do you say it means “concerning or in reference to” rather than as
listed under your subtitle, “EIS and PERI ‘FOR’ the REMISSION of SINS”: “a primary preposition; to or into (indicating
the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.)”? By saying confession is made unto
salvation, you say that confession is made concerning (looking back to something already obtained) salvation, and not to
get (looking forward to receiving something) salvation. Is this right? Does EIS work the same way with “believeth unto
righteousness”?
EVANS: It says that WITH THE HEART MAN BELIEVETH UNTO RIGHEOUSNESS. Can that be enough
if it means to get righteousness? Frost can’t have it both ways? Must one wait until “confession” is made UNTO
salvation and then that is enough? Or must one call and that be enough? Or must one now wait for baptism to be
enough? Or must one maintain obedience to other commands to be enough? Still, I am saying that confession
UNTO salvation looks toward the salvation that one receives UPON repenting and believing by faith alone. Frost is
intimating that if a man still has not confessed UNTO salvation or has not been baptized, he is still lost. Does not
confession UNTO salvation also look back to something that has happened before baptism? If one has already been
baptized unto salvation why make confession unto salvation after or during baptism, the same problem Frost says
that I have. Earlier Frost said, “He promised. I relied upon Christ to be my Savior, to remit my sins when I was
baptized as He commanded and promised.” Still, neither Frost’s baptism passages nor this one are the cherished
“commands” for which Frost is seeking. They are rather “assurances” given to both prospective and recent
believers. Frost cannot make up his mind what obtains salvation, but he suggests a “composite” works for
salvation. Frost calls attention to EIS underlying the UNTO’S of Romans 10. Nevertheless, is Frost prepared to
accept EIS in Romans 10:10 to obtain salvation or the remission of sins by “confession” apart from baptism? Is it
true that EIS means obtaining the remission of sins by believing, confessing, and calling without water baptism?
By such thinking, Frost voids his argument in Acts 2:38. Will Frost slip back into the “all that is required - plus”
routine, even after one is baptized? Well, Romans 10 says that with the heart man believeth unto righteousness,
and that is good enough for this poor sinner. Works are not the “gospel of peace;” they are the gospel of
frustration and another gospel.
Rom 10:8 [8.] But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word
of faith, which we preach; [9.] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10.] For with the heart man believeth unto
[EIS] righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto {EIS] salvation. [11.] For the scripture saith,
Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. . . . [13.] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord
shall be saved. [14.] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in
him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [15.] And how shall they preach,
except they be sent? . . . [17.] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
EVANS: Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lust s of our flesh, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
FROST: Note that God said that the Ephesians had their manner of life in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilled the desires
of the flesh and the mind, IN THE PAST; Herb says they still were when Paul wrote his epistle! Also they WERE the
children of wrath; Herb says that at the time they ARE children of wrath. He can make statements look bad by taking
them out of context! But I remind the reader who may be convicted of sins—before he cries, “O wretched man that I am!
who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”—we have the answer: God can through Jesus Christ our Lord.
EVANS: LAME! I quoted the scripture! My argument is that they WERE the children of wrath by nature!
EVANS: Gal 5:17 - 26 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary
the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry,
witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and
such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not
inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections
and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another,
envying one another.
1 Pet 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
FROST: Do I understand your exegesis to be: “filth of the flesh” is the corruption, depravity, and guilt that remains
in the flesh? So Peter, by inspiration, is saying that although God now saves us, there is “not the putting away of the
corruption, depravity, and guilt of the flesh”?
EVANS: You must understand that the flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit the flesh. You must
understand that the works of the flesh are outwardly manifested in the above sins. You must understand that the
corrupt flesh remains the same old corrupt flesh after salvation despite your attempt to squeeze “guilt” into the
mix in your probe.
Gene Frost: 1 John 1:7, 9—“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. … If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive
us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
[EVANS: AMEN! Does Frost confess all his sins? Both of sins of commission and omission? Yes, when we
confess our sins, Christ forgives us of our sins, and cleanses us from ALL unrighteousness, and restores our
fellowship with Him, something that has nothing to do with the salvation that we already have. Still, what happens
if we do not confess all of them? Still, no one removes the corrupt and sinful FLESH through confession or
baptism. However if we say that we have [present tense] no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:7 - 10 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the
blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.]
Herb Evans: Notice how Frost avoids my comment and just says something to say something. Well, suppose that
Frost forgets a couple of sins. Will he still get absolution? – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin. Well, almost all, according to Herb. ►GF
Herb Evans: There goes Frost editorializing Herb Evans again. No, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us (our souls
and not our bodies) from ALL sin, but Mr. Frost does not understand what that means - ALL the SAVED souls. The sins
of the flesh must be confessed to maintain good fellowship, relationship as good sons, and standing with God (not to go to
heaven) but for rewards at the judgment seat of Christ or chastisement at the great white throne.
►GF FROST: There is still the inherited sin in the flesh and blood. ►GF
Herb Evans: Yes, indeed, that is why flesh and blood CANNOT inherent the Kingdom of God.
FROST: Herb, can you repeat this prayer? “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your
whole spirit and soul and BODY be preserved BLAMELESS unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thess. 5:23)
Note the body is blameless. Can that be true, or is the body corrupt and depraved?
EVANS: Of course; I can pray that prayer, since unlike you, I believe that a person (saved or lost) has a
separate soul, spirit, and body. 1 Thess 5:23 is not a verse that Frost can comfortably use as a proof text let alone
pray that prayer for the WHOLE being to be blameless (not sinless)? Will he be blameless at His coming? Sinless?
►GF FROST: If the reader believes this, he is ripe to believe anything! To any new convert to JKV [SIC] KJV-only
advocacy, you need to realize that you embarked upon a journey, and the longer you stay on this road the more susceptible
to horrendous error you become, and eventually you will swallow any and everything your “teacher” tells you. Your faith
will derive in man rather than Scripture. (Rom. 10:17)
[EVANS: That is exactly why my faith is in KJB scripture and not men like you. Still, would such a convert be
blameless or would he be lost again according to Frost’s horrendous doctrine?]
Herb Evans: Here are more Frost opinions, characterizations, assumptions, and denials rather than scriptural
arguments.
►GF FROST: If one can inherit sin from a sinful father, why can he not inherit righteousness from a righteous
father? Or, is sinfulness stronger than righteousness?
[EVANS: There is no righteous flesh other than Christ’s. There are only sinful fathers from which to inherit.]
EVANS: “If a cow is an animal and a dog is an animal, is a cow a dog? So much for sophistic logic!” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: There you have it! Herb knows sophistry when he uses it. ►GF
Herb Evans: Takes one to know one!
FROST: (Sounds like a seven-year-old on the playground!) No, one does not have to be a false teacher to see one.
(Rom. 1:22)
[EVANS: Sounds like a 99 year old’s comeback!]
EVANS: I have responded to Frost’s syllogistic snare already.
FROST: What syllogism? Do you know what a syllogism is? If so, then point out the syllogism I presented.
EVANS: I said “syllogistic snare” not “syllogism.” Do you see what kind of trouble that you get into when you
second guess me or change what I say to something that you would like me to have said? If I do not know what a
syllogism is how did I respond to you with one? Don’t you know what one is? Nevertheless, let Frost try these
syllogisms, although he did not post them. But Frost may take his pick of the false syllogism of his choice:
Syllogism # 1 One cannot inherit sin from his father.
One cannot inherit righteousness from his father.
Therefore one cannot inherit anything from his father.
Syllogism #2 One can inherit sin from his father.
One can inherit righteousness from his father
Therefore a person can inherit both sin and righteousness from his father.
Syllogism # 3 One receives Adam’s sin from his father
One can receive righteousness from Christ
Therefore Herb Evans is contradicting himself.
EVANS: A son can inherit Adam’s sin from his father and grandfather, simply because he inherits sinful flesh and
sinful members from them. Sinners do not become sinners; they are born sinners.
FROST: (Theology! No Scripture!)
EVANS: No! Theology is when you gainsay and contradict and equivocate on a person GOING ASTRAY
from his mother’s WOMB speaking lies per the Bible.
EVANS: A person inherits imputed righteousness from his Brother, Jesus Christ.
FROST: Is this imputed righteousness in his body?
EVANS: No! It is in his soul and Spirit.
FROST: Or are the inherited sins more pervasive than the righteousness of Christ?
EVANS: The rightousness of Christ that is imputed to the saved believer is capable of dominion over the flesh.
EVANS: Christ received the sins of the world IN His body, which were laid on Him by transference to Christ on the
cross of Calvary. The Lord Jesus willingly took our place on the cross of Calvary and took our sins IN and ON His own
body.
FROST: Since Jesus took our sins (our corruption, depravity, and guilt) in and on His body, and made them His own
(possessed them), does this now make the Son of God a corrupt, depraved, and guilty sinner?
EVANS: Since your question is circular, sophistic logic, which starts with your own view as to what is
involved, namely, the guilt in which you have tried to sneak into the argument. You have repeatedly tried to force
my agreement by your inquisition, in order to get me to agree to it, so please allow my own words. Jesus did not
take anything but our sins and iniquities on and in His own body ON the cross. He did not take our corrupt flesh
or anything inherited. So, no, Jesus did not become depraved or corrupt or share in our guilt or become a guilty
sinner. Again, he was the just of the unjust! The innocent for the guilty!
FROST: Is this what God saw on the cross and rejected with all the revulsion of His being? Reader, this is inherited
sin and substitutionary atonement! I don’t believe it for a minute!
EVANS: I don’t either. But these are all Frost’s biased words, question, conclusions, and sophistic circular
arguments. Now, Frost is becoming concerned about the reader. He needs to be, since the reader is beginning to see
his strategically located traps and get his number.
FROST: Did you detect the absence of Scripture that teaches it? Herb likes to list Scriptures and pretend they
support his contention. I believe every Scripture he presents, but I do not believe the spin he puts on them.
EVANS: I provided scripture, as Frost admits, but Frost gainsaid, ignored, or dismissed them.
►GF FROST: This is a mild example of the sophistry one hears from Herb. This particular one is silly. As he
continues it becomes more serious … even deadly. First thing the KJV-only novice knows, he will be preaching that the
devil’s power to deceive and defile now is greater than God’s power to save! Even the blood of Christ cannot remove the
inherent sin that is in the body!
Also consider: if this be true, that sin remains in the flesh and blood of a saint as well as in the sinner, this minimizes
the power of the gospel and the power of God (Rom. 1:16). ►GF
[EVANS: Frost learned how to copycat a new word “sophistry” from me. It may help him in future debates as
it has been effective for me in this one. But to talk about my sophistry and then use such immediately thereafter is
the height of hypocrisy. Did Evans say anything about the devil or his power or that it was greater than God’s
power to save? But regarding the saved person, greater is the Holy Spirit that is in the believer than he that is in
the world.]
Herb Evans: Another Frost editorial. Well, the devil will one day deceive the very “elect” even as he is deceiving
Gene Frost now. It is not that the blood of Christ “cannot” remove sin from the body. It is because that it does not do so
until the future resurrection.
FROST: Why not?
EVANS: WHY?
FROST: God would have all men to be saved. (1 Tim. 2:4) He died for all and is the propitiation for the sins of the
whole world. (2 Cor. 5:15; 1 John 2:1-2) The truth is Jesus saves us from our sins now: “But God be thanked, that ye were
the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being THEN made
free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Rom. 6:17-18)
EVANS: This is all true, but Frost cannot grasp the implication. At least, Frost admits that lost folks are
servants of sin, and that saved folks have a new master. Saved folks are free from sin in their souls and spirits but
not their FLESH. Now what do they do about the FLESH? Like God, they count the FLESH to be DEAD! In
human courts of law, if someone dies before he is pronounced guilty for the crimes that he committed, the trial is
over, and the prosecutor can no longer proceed with his case. So, it is the flesh that is DEAD to sin, DEAD to the
law, DEAD to punishment, and DEAD to eternal judgment. If Christ is in a believer, the body is dead because of
sin. He that is dead, however, is FREED from sin. The spirit of the new creature is alive because of righteousness.
EVANS Continued:
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God . . .
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of
righteousness.
2 Tim 2:11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
FROST: That form of doctrine they “obeyed” is the death, burial and resurrection, symbolized in baptism, wherein
“we are buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall
be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might
be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ,
we believe that we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no
more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise
reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin
therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as
instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your
members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the
law, but under grace.” (Rom. 6:3-14)
EVANS: There is nothing here for Frost! Notice that we are PLANTED together IN THE LIKENESS of
Christ’s death. How does one get buried and baptized INTO DEATH? Only by a symbolic planting in water
baptism! The OLD MAN, the OLD NATURE, is CRUCIFIED with Christ in symbolic baptism in which the
believer portrays the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and himself. His corrupt, vile, sinful, body and flesh
are to be reckoned or to considered DEAD and by death to be FREED from sin. Never again will sins be brought
against the believer in his NEW MAN.
EVANS: That is why we must obtain a new body because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Rom
1:16 says nothing about the denial that Frost is trying to force and maximize from Rom 1:16. Frost’s newly learned word
from Herb Evans is “sophistry.”
FROST: Sorry, Herb, but you are not the first sophist I have met. However, your comment is telling. You exhibit an
air of superiority. Everyone one below you is a simpleton, and know nothing until the “wise one” utters it. (Are you a
Gnostic, Herb?)
EVANS: I was not talking about meeting sophists, I was talking about using the word and COPY CATTING
IT. Are you an A-Gnostic?
EVANS: Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to
everyone that believeth . . .
►GF FROST: The power of the devil’s message, we are told, out performs that of God. In the garden, Satan
encouraged Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, whereby she and Adam were defiled, with all their offspring, a defilement that
lasts throughout time, as long as the earth stands. When the gospel of Christ is preached, and is obeyed, in time it results
in forgiveness of actual sins, but it cannot remedy the result of Satan’s message. The gospel cannot remove all sins;
inherited sins remain throughout one’s life. In other words, Satan’s word can accomplish in man, what the gospel of
Christ cannot undo in a lifetime!
[EVANS: Frost needs to check out some scripture regarding defilement.
Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which
come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
1 Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to
save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but
even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Eph 2:1 - 3 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye
walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now
worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of
our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as
others.]
FROST: This is the truth about the theology of inherited sin and substitutionary atonement.
EVANS: Frost would not know the truth if it hit him in the back side as is evidenced by his distortion of his
opponent’ words.
Herb Evans: This is an example of Frost’s editorialization of what Herb Evans believes, framed in Frost’s words,
but not in Herb Evans’ words. Nevertheless, Frost complains about Herb Evans running Frost’s paragraphs together, the
lesser of these evils.
FROST: Evans knows what he is doing. Corrupting my responses, “running paragraphs together” etc., is evil. He
excuses himself by claiming that his evils are less than mine. He is right about what he does—it is evil. But I do not so
describe what I have written. He may speak for himself.
EVANS: So, what does Frost do? He mixes parts of his sentences and mine together in my paragraphs. But
that is not evil, even though Frost has exhibited that double standard all through this discussion. Needless to say, I
have had to undo and repair his butcher jobs and assign a name to whoever made each comment. But the pot, once
again, calls the kettle black.
Gene Frost: The soul that sins, it shall die! Where there is no sin, there is life. (Rom. 6:23) God is no respecter of
persons.
EVANS: Are you in the habit of posting unassociated scripture snippets together under one address with the
lack of an address of other passages that you offer, all without any rationale’? Who is denying that the soul that
sinneth it shall die or denies that the wages of sin is death? Methinks you lack some exegesis here, Frosty!
FROST: “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall
receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong
which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.” (Col 3:23-25)
EVANS: “And your point is what?” – Herb Evans
Gene Frost: I’m not surprised that you don’t get it, Herb. But for the sake of the KJB-only novice, who may read
this while still capable of understanding and responding to truth (Heb. 6:4-6; 2 Pet. 2:14, 18-20; 2 Tim. 2:25), we need to
make the point that Jesus does. Behavior is credited by what one does.
[EVANS: Are you trying to say that you made a point here like Jesus did? I must have missed it! Still, your
proof texts have no rationale’. By Frost just flinging scripture addresses around without any rationale’ is not an
argument.]
FROST: Herb asserts that children are sinners because of what Adam did. Yet Jesus says of little children “of such is
the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 19:14)
2. Matthew 18:3—“Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven.”
The disciples had to turn, make the change from what they were, to become like children. Whatever they were, they
had to change. Was this change for the better or for the worse? Were they to become like children, who themselves were
sinners (by inheritance from Adam)?
[EVANS: So, did the children not have to be converted first in order for the disciples to emulate them (as little
children) to enter the KOH? Or do children go into the KOH without any conversion. I guess we will have to run
back to that “unaccountable children” thing that you first mentioned? So what is conversion? Conversion from
what to what? Methinks that you are missing something. See Matthew 18:4!
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have
they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and
should be converted, and I should heal them.]
Herb Evans: The Bible teaches that the natural man [child of wrath] receiveth not things of the Spirit of God, since
they are foolishness unto him. It even teaches us that we cannot know these things apart from the Spirit of God. So, what
is the solution? Yes, repent and believe in childlike faith with the innocence of children, who have not yet become
accountable for their sins.
FROST: Surely this is a contradiction! The child born is naturally a child of wrath, who cannot receive things of the
Spirit. What can he do? What is the solution? Herb says for him to repent and believe in childlike fashion which is
“foolishness” unto him. How can he repent since he cannot accept things of the Spirit. (Cf. Rev. 22:17)
EVANS: Surely, I assure you that the contradictions are only in your mind and imagination. An adult that is
born naturally cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God because they are foolishness to him. So, what shall he
do? I suggest that he do the same thing as others upon hearing the preaching of the gospel, which opens hearts and
minds; repent and believe to the saving of the soul. Naturally, when children are not at whatever age of
accountability that Frost allows, they must wait to be saved. Still, if the unaccounatables shall die before they wake,
they go to paradise as did David’s baby. I do agree with Rev 22:17, in which Frost evidently must believe that the
water of life is water baptism, but I suggest that Bible Corrector Frost read the verses 18 and 19 immediately after
it to see his sin.
EVANS Continued: Rev 22:18. 19 . . . If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written
in this book.
Gene Frost: If so, they too had been born that way, and had made a change for the better in adulthood; and now the
Lord wants them to change back? A change for the worse? Or were they to change from their present state to that which is
better: “as little children”? If so, we cannot conclude that children were sinners, totally depraved. In either case, for better
or worse, the case cannot be made for inherited sin
Herb Evans: Everyone comes forth from the womb going astray and speaking lies.
FROST: You probably began early, but I doubt that you were speaking when you came forth from the womb. Does
everyone leave the womb speaking the same language, and later convert to the language of the country into which they are
born (English, Spanish, Italian, German, French, Chinese, et al.)? Or is the language in the genes of the parents (woe to
the child whose parents were bilingual!)? I imagine you had to learn to speak (no matter what the language), just as you
learned of sinful ways and things.
EVANS: Nice dodge of what the passage actually says, which I believe and you don’t regardless of your denial
and misdirection play to muddy the water. No! They do not speak Koine Greek or Masoretic Hebrew. They do
speak lies, however, in their pretended antics to get attention. You must never have had any babies and seen them
cry while they pretended pain after that you leave the room. Still can deaf and dumb people “GO ASTRAY?” Can
they LIE? Frost must have a very low interpretation of what lying is. Frost’s far from truthful posts tend to
demonstrate that!
EVANS: Therefore, innocent children (conceived in sin) are still sinners. Children must eventually be born again by
the Spirit of God and become new creatures in Christ. However, no born again person gets rid of his old nature until death
or the rapture. In regard to a born again Christian, the old nature and the new nature live side by side in one’s corrupt body
as well as the old man and the new man. I don’t expect Frost to understand such a thing unless it has happened to him,
something that we seriously doubt.
FROST: I understand what you say, but your words are empty … words of human imaginations.
EVANS: John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see;
therefore your sin remaineth.
FROST: You say that “the old nature and the new nature live side by side in (your) corrupt body as well as the old
man and the new man.” That is not what the Bible teaches it ought to be.
When I was baptized into Christ, my “old man (was) crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed”
(Rom. 6:6). When I “put on the new man,” it was not a roommate of the old. The old was crucified; it was dead; it was
removed! I was “freed from sin.” (Rom. 6:7) I walked in “newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4)
EVANS: Well, you must have eaten something that made you dream and imagine that all this happened upon
your water baptism. You do not “PUT ON” anything until you are eternally saved. “PUTTING ON” is not for
folks who are still lost; they are for the saved to emulate Christ and to put on the whole armour of God. Now,
granted you have been giving us a “PUT ON” in this discussion. Still, do you doubt the old man still lives in the
believer? Tell us why the new man is being told to put OFF the “former” conversation of the old man that is
CORRUPT. Now, as for the creature in Rom 8:19-21 is that the OLD CREATURE or the NEW CREATURE? The
OLD MAN or the NEW MAN? What is the body of sin in Romans 6:6.
Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the
deceitful lusts . . .
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that
henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 8:19 – 21 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in
hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of
the children of God.
FROST: “In Christ, (one) is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Cor.
5:17)
EVANS: In that you have said correctly, but the flesh is not part of the new creature; the new creature or new
man doth not sin and cannot sin.
EVANS: Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
2 Cor 5:17, 18 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things
are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the
ministry of reconciliation;
FROST: (“Old things are passed away” or just moved aside for the “new man”?)
EVANS: The old man moved aside for the new man to have first dominion and the old second place dominion.
Gene Frost: “Convert” means to turn; to change from one state into another. If little children are depraved, then we
must change to “become as” they are. That would mean: unless we become depraved we cannot enter the kingdom of
heaven. And that depravity must be completely so … “total depravity”!
[EVANS: Of course, Frost assumes that conversion from depravity is meant here with nothing in the text to
suggest that, making his arguments into a logic game of reasoning. Now, we would not mind if Frost would reason
from the scriptures, but his reasoning is an entrapment type of reasoning like the Pharisees who were prone to use
it on Jesus. Folks were instructed to become as children and “emulate” their humility in order to be able to be
converted from a lost state to a saved state.
Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of
heaven.]
Herb Evans: I am tempted to resort back to the cow is a dog” logic to answer such silly sophistry.
FROST: You may as well; it’s as good an answer as you can make.
EVANS: Seems like I am the only one who is answering anything.
EVANS: No, and we do not become converted to two foot high human children.
FROST: That’s the carnal mind that thinks only in the physical and literal. The grand truths of a spiritual
relationship with God escape his notice and a spiritual life is lost. We are discussing the nature of a person, and Herb
makes application to the physical stature!
EVANS: Again, Frost cannot recognize a baby as a physical thing or recognize a spiritual thing if it hit him in
the backside. My point here is that Frost cannot randomly pick and choose any term that he wishes to mean
conversion in order to satisfy Frost’s word “depravity” that is not even there or anywhere. Note that Frost is the
one who asked me the theological question about the word “depravity not Evans. I answered with Frost’s word.
EVANS: Still, Children are still sinners by virtue of inheritance and they too must be saved and born again when
they reach an age of accountability. David’s baby died and went to paradise.
FROST: Did the baby lose its sinful flesh and sinless blood? Or, can we say that sin can enter into paradise?
EVANS: After Frost's spiritual comment, shall we go back to the 12 inch human innocents? The poor man
does not even know that bodies of dead babies do not go to heaven any more than adults bodies but rot in graves.
EVANS: Repent and be converted is the command without anything to do with baptism and refers to the new
creature produced by the new birth due to faith and repentance!
FROST: Can you not see any parallel between Acts 3:19 and Acts 2:38 and Rom. 6:3-4? (There is none so blind as
he who will not see!)
EVANS: Why? Are you about to try to force one? Acts 3:19 is my verse with no mention of baptism.
Repentance and faith and conversion all happen before baptism.
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out . . .
EVANS: Since I am not a Calvinist, I do not believe in “TOTAL” depravity nor do I play by Frost’s rules of logic.
FROST:This is obvious. I can go to standard textbooks of logic and cite the defects in your “logic.” Do you have a
book containing your Rules of Logic?
EVANS: Yes, the King James Bible!
EVANS: I was not born sinless, but I guess Frost thinks that he was born sinless.
FROST: No “guess” about it. I was born as David’s baby, and every other baby.
EVANS: Then, if you were not guessing, I was, but you must have a good memory of your innocent birth!
Gene Frost: Since this cannot be, the change is for men in sin to be converted, and to become as little children which
is the opposite of depravity. Children are innocent:
Psalm 106:37-38—“Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even
the blood of their sons and of their daughters…”
Herb Evans: Childlike innocence with its inherent capacity for faith does not demand sinless-ness or the absence of
depravity. Here is another example of Frost’s wresting scripture, by forcing one thing to be another, namely, changing
sons and daughters to children. Frost also makes conversion interchangeable with innocence.
I can accept unaccountable children as being innocent in a certain sense. Nevertheless, neither of the terms means
sinless, the absence of depravity, nor do they mean being exempt from having sinful flesh and members. The Psalmist is
describing the sons and daughters as innocent not having done anything wrong to deserve being sacrificed.
FROST: One’s “sons and daughters” are his children. Human sacrifices, in which parents participated, were usually
associated with the worship of Moloch and their offering of helpless infants and young children.
EVANS: Well, smell me! I never knew that sons and daughters, regardless of age, were innocent the way Frost
puts it. Still, I do not find infants and young children in the passage; this must be just Frost theology!
FROST: Herb thinks that innocence denotes being free from deserving to be murdered in ritual sacrifices.
EVANS: Frost has me right for a change, like Judas betraying innocent blood.
FROST: The nature of a sacrifice is to offer the clean and unspotted, not the creature which deserves to be killed.
EVANS: More Frost theology as he has his mind on legitimate O.T. sacrifices.
FROST: However, I will not press the point and grant for argument’s sake, in order to avoid needless contention,
that the sons and daughters were children of parents not their own and were older persons knowledgeable of sin. In so
conceding, this is probably… Another Frosty stretch!
EVANS: If I were a Calvinist, I would say at this point, “I’m glad that is over with!
Gene Frost: “Innocent” is otherwise translated in the KJV as: “blameless, clean, clear, exempted, free, guiltless.”
[EVANS: Am I to assume that everywhere that innocent or innocent blood or guiltless or blameless are
mentioned that unaccountable children are meant. Or should I assume that everywhere those words are mentioned
that they mean sinless? More important does Frost try to give the wrong impression of the word innocent as
usually used in the Old Testament, especially in Psalm 106: 38? What kind of innocents are these in other verses?]
Psa 106:38 And shed innocentH5355 blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they
sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
Deut 27:25 Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent H5355 person.
Job 9:23 If the scourge slay suddenly, he will laugh at the trial of the innocent.H5355
H5355 ‫נקיא נקי‬
naw-kee', From H5352; innocent: - blameless, clean, clear, exempted, free, guiltless,
innocent, quit.]
FROST: Such innocence characterizes heaven’s kingdom:
EVANS: Oh, does it now Laddy?
Matt 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the
violent take it by force.
Matt 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman
took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Matt 13:38, 39 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the
children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil . . .
Luke 13:19 It (KOH) is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew,
and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.
FROST: Matt 19:14—“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of
heaven.” Jesus said of children, “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” i.e. “of this sort (to denote character or
individuality).”
Herb Evans: Does it also constitute being sinless. Are children saved or lost. If saved, why do they have to come to
Christ to be saved as adults?
FROST: Because between childhood and adulthood they commit sin. (Rom. 3:23) Sins are not inherited. (Ezek.
18:20)
EVANS: That is nice! In my childhood, I stole but it was not an accountable sin? Matt 19:14 says nothing
about the children’s sinlessness or even their innocence. Matthew does call attention to their humility. Well, what
makes them cease to be sinless? Any ideas? When an unaccountable toddler smacks another toddler or takes away
the other toddler’s toy by force, is that a sin, an unaccountable sin, or innocence? Is that child is free from evil/sin?
EVANS: Frost’s strain to make “innocence” synonymous or interchangeable with “sinless” is apparent.
FROST: “Innocent” is defined as “A person, especially a child, who is free of evil or sin. (The American Heritage
Dictionary.)
EVANS: Here we go with partial definitions again. Innocent can also be “NOT GUILTY,” child or otherwise.
EVANS: Timothy was told to be blameless but not [told to be] sinless.
FROST: (And where is this reference: where Timothy is told to be blameless but not sinless?)
EVANS: Timothy was not told to be sinless anywhere. I will give you the “blameless” part of your question by
going to Timothy. Timothy was a Bishop, both the Bishops and the deacons were to be “blameless.” There are a
few Greek words on this, which might give you something to do in your spare time.
1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless . . .
1 Tim 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1 Tim 5:7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
FROST: “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin
transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our
sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known
him.” (1 John 3:3-6)
EVANS: Well a man, who has this hope and is able to purify himself, must not have be pure before being
purified. Still, doing so to the extent of being pure as HE is pure is no small task. But it is hard to figure why you
posted this passage, since abiding in Him demands that one sinneth not. Does Frost sin or have the hope that John
mentioned?
1 John 3:3 – 6 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever
committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for si