"Some brethren are just on a witch hunt," defenders of apostates like Max Lucado affirm. Of course, such a flippant accusation is absurd on the face of it--as if most preachers wouldn't prefer spending time on other areas of endeavor. But even if the charge were true, in this case, we've found one. A witch, that is. Truly, Max has somehow cast a spell over quite a number of brethren.
So what follows is a portion of a speech that he made at Trinity Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas, and, yes, I have a tape of the entire "sermon" in case anyone thinks the transcribed portion below was taken out of context. [Why is it that faithful gospel preachers must be scrupulously careful about documenting one false teacher, but we may be lumped together, indicted wholesale, and summarily dismissed by thoughtless phrases such as witch-hunters (without any evidence whatsoever)?]
Max Lucado: "But the longer I've been in this battle, I've noticed that there are some curious soldiers who share these foxholes with us. For example: there's an Anglican by the name of C.S. Lewis, whose books put muscle in my faith; a Presbyterian (of all people) by the name of Stephen Brown, formerly of Key Biscayne, Florida (somehow I got on his tape mailing list), and he helped me understand the sovereignty of God; another Presbyterian by the name of Frederick Boettner, who writes books somewhere in Vermont, helped me see the passion of Christ; a former Catholic priest named Brennan Manning convinced me that Jesus is relentlessly tender; a Nazarene by the name of Jim Dobson helped my family skills; a pastor of the Evangelical Free Church named Chuck Swindoll helped my preaching; a Baptist in Miami taught me about grace; a Pentecostal in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, helped me understand prayer."
"Some day, when we all get to heaven, I'm going to finally learn the name of some radio preacher who was on the air in 1978. I was home working in an oil field job, wantin' some extra money. My faith was very fragile. I had more questions than I had answers, and I was literally at a crossroads as to whether or not I was going to believe. While making some deliveries for an oil field company in a pickup truck, I could only pick up one radio station. I don't know if that's because of west Texas or because of the truck, or both. But that one radio station had a radio preacher, and in fifteen minutes, he put the heart and soul of the faith in a little sermon on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. And all of a sudden I realized it wasn't what I knew, it was Who I knew. And I pulled over to the side of the road and rededicated my faith. [It] may have been a Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, or an angel. Or all four!"
Anyone should be able to read these words of Max Lucado's and understand that he accepts all who abide in religious denominations as brethren, Christians. Never mind if they were immersed, sprinkled, or whatever. If they claim to be a Christian, that's good enough for Max. The following observations are in order.
First, does not the Bible teach the grace of God?Who made the Baptists the guardians of this doctrine? In fact, when they teach salvation by grace and faith ALONE, they have perverted the Biblical doctrine. Did Max get his false ideas of salvation from them? Does not the Bible proclaim that God is sovereign? Must we go to Presbyterians to get a clue? Is the Bible so mysterious in its teaching about prayer that we have to import teaching from Brazil? Perhaps if Lucado had spent more time in the Book and less time with popular authors, he might have learned a great deal more than he currently knows.
Second, It's too bad that in all of his gleaning he never found anybody to teach him a love of the TRUTH. Those lacking such a love cannot be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). Since he is so influenced by the writings of men, too bad he never read The Bible Only Makes Christians Only And the Only Christians by brother Thomas B. Warren. In fact, Max did not see fit to credit even one faithful brother with enough knowledge to teach him anything.
Third, the fact that these men have written some helpful things does not make them brethren.
Fourth, it does matter what you know as well as Who you know. Who (Jesus) said it matters what ("If you continue in My word, then you are My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31-32). [See also Romans 16: 17-18 and 2 John 9-11.]
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "What Max Lucado Says About Max Lucado (1/7/96)."
——————————————————————————————————————————
garysummers@spiritualperspectives.org
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 67.32.207.145 on Jan 17, 2004 11:58 AM
In the religious section of the The Dallas Morning News on April 13th of this year [1996] Max Lucado took center stage. The article written by Anne Belli Gesalman (entitled "Jesus as the Everyman") leaves the reader wondering if she is Lucado's publicity agent. Included are several columns of praise for the popular author.
Now certainly she has every right to interview such a well-known personality, and Max undoubtedly appreciates any positive exposure he can get, but somehow between the two of them a tremendous disservice has been done to the Lord and His church.
She begins by describing a sketch of Jesus which hangs in Lucado's office. Perhaps this is not the greatest point in the world, but one wonders who drew it: Peter, James, John? Perhaps Paul doodled it while in his prison cell? Where would one get a picture of the Lord 2,000 years removed from His physical presence? And why doesn't Max know any better? Name anyone else masquerading as a preacher that has a picture of Jesus hanging in his office.
But wait. This sketch is unique. According to Anne, the Jesus in this picture is laughing hysterically. She comments: "But it's the one that Mr. Lucado keeps in mind each time he sits down to pen another chapter in one of his inspirational books," and "Indeed, it's Mr. Lucado's portrayal of Jesus in a relaxed, Everyman sort of way" that has made him so popular (1G).
That's interesting. Did Jesus laugh hysterically?
First of all, the word hysterically does not appear in the Bible; laughing does. Ironically, Jesus is never in the New Testament described as laughing (what would you expect for the "man of sorrows"?); He was, however, laughed at (Luke 8:53). He did make two statements about laughter. "Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh" (Luke 6:21). "Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep" (Luke 6:25). Perhaps Max has "lightened up" a little too soon and should consider spiritual matters more seriously. Is he making Jesus an "Everyman" or a "common man"? Certainly, his sketch of Jesus laughing hysterically lacks Biblical authority.
Devoutly What?
This mischaracterization of Jesus is prominently displayed at the beginning of Gesalman's article. After the attack on the Lord, His church is the next target. "While Mr. Lucado is devoutly Church of Christ (he's minister of the Oak Hills Church [of Christ] in San Antonio), his books are nondenominational and sometimes include references to principal figures in other Christian denominations" (1 G).
There can be no question that the church of Christ, a name derived from the New Testament (Matt. 16:18; Rom. 16:16; Eph. 1:22-23, 4:4, and 5:23), is being equated in this sentence with man-made denominations. This inaccurate usage of the phrase is an insult to Jesus our Lord and a slap in the face of those truly trying to be non-denominational.
The church of Christ, as described in the New Testament, was built by Jesus; He yet remains the head over it. The Lord's church has nothing to do with denominations which are unauthorized by God and established by men. Those who are genuine Christians today have no desire to be part of a denomination and recoil in horror at the thought. We just want to be Christians and are satisfied to be part of the church, the temple, the household of God.
We do not have a denominational structure, national conventions, or policy making boards. We are autonomous and subject only to the Scriptures, which are God's revelation to man. We believe that the Scriptures are inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and that they alone authorize what we do and what we teach (Col. 3:17).
To say that someone is "Church of Christ" (and shamefully some brethren do it) is the equivalent form of saying that someone is Methodist or Presbyterian. Such terminology implies that the Lord's church is a man-made denomination, which in turn casts a poor reflection upon our Savior.
In the second place, Max Lucado is not devoutly "Church of Christ" in any sense. He certainly is not a devout member of the Lord's church, as described in the pages of the New Testament. He fellowships those who teach doctrinal error, something that Jesus did not do (Matt. 15:12-14, Matt. 23), nor Paul (Rom. 16:17-18, 1 Tim. 1:18-20, 2 Tim. 2:16-18), nor Peter (2 Peter 2:18-22), nor John (1 John 4:1, 2 John 9-11), nor Jude (vs. 3-4). Max speaks to various denominational groups and praises what they are doing. He treats all who have never been baptized for the forgiveness of sins as brethren--because he thinks they are! So he is not a devout member of the Lord's church.
But if he thinks the church of Christ is the same as a man-made denomination (and he most assuredly does), then he is still not very devout, because he fellowships indiscriminately all the other denominations--scarcely the philosophy of a "devout" partisan. If the reporter wanted to characterize accurately Max' relationship with the church of Christ, she might be surprised to learn that true brethren do not fellowship him because of his unrepented heresies. As people bought by the blood of Christ and instructed by the New Testament concerning genuine fellowship, we find it impossible to abide by the Word and fellowship one who blatantly transgresses it.
How ironic that the reporter calls his books "non-denominational" (which they are not; if anything, they are inter-denominational) and then treats the genuinely non-denominational church of Christ as though it were one.
The Secret Identity
Consider some of the final comments recorded in this article from Julie Mantai, the manager of a large "Christian" bookstore in The Woodlands, just north of Houston. "Lucado books don't stay on the shelves very long. Christians of all sorts buy them" (4G). What does she mean by "Christians of all sorts"? Tall ones, short ones, male, female? No, she means denominational "Christians."
She goes on to say: "I don't think anyone knows he's Church of Christ. I'm Episcopalian, and my priest quotes him in at least two or three sermons a month" (4G). [That's scary--to think that Lucado's literary placebos are put on a par with the Scriptures.] Here, once again, the Lord's church is treated as a mere denomination. No doubt, those who admit to being members of one would like to think that every other religious group is the same as they are, but such is not the case among those who respect the truth.
There is a reason that many people do not know Max' religious background. For one, it never shows. Who could ever read anything by Max Lucado and find anything in it that would connect him with the Lord's church? Certainly, he never teaches anyone about how to be saved. What book has he written in which he discusses baptism for the remission of sins, as Peter did on the day of Pentecost? He doesn't even believe it himself ("devout" person that he is), and we know that he does not believe it because he counts nearly anybody as a Christian (except perhaps some of his "legalistic" brethren). It matters not to him if they were sprinkled as children or just prayed the "sinner's prayer." They are all Christians to him because he abides not in New Testament teaching. No, no one would identify Max as one of us--because he is not one of us.
Lucado does not teach (and therefore does not believe) that one must (after repenting of sins) be baptized in water by the authority of Jesus in order that they might be forgiven; he does not teach that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from our sins when we are baptized (Acts 2:38); he will not affirm that the Lord adds us to His church (Acts 2:47); nor will anyone ever hear him say that there is but one church (Eph. 4:4). And what has he written about the Lord's Supper, correct worship, etc.?
Members of the Lord's church are quite happy that Max has maintained a secret identity. The less association with us, the better. Max has opted for popularity and what he calls "unity." He has, however, union at best; true unity would involve all of us coming together and abiding by the doctrine of the New Testament. Agreeing to ignore Biblical teaching, if it can be called unity, is the Babel kind.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "MAX AS THE EVERYMAN (5/19/96)."
A few weeks ago in the early morning hours, between unconsciousness and dawn, I had a vision. Of Max Lucado. He was meditating diligently over what to write in his next denominationally-endorsed, best-selling book.
The first problem was finding a catchy title. Readers respond to creativeness. Should it evoke wondrous anticipation (When God Whispers Your Name) or describe God in seemingly conflicting terms (Gentle Thunder)? For a moment, Demanding Grace appealed to him as a title, but then he remembered that he didn't believe there were any conditions placed upon grace. Which is what made him so popular in the first place.
"Oh, well," he sighed, "I don't really need to have a title or a theme yet. Maybe it'll come to me after I write a few chapters." He pulled out a file filled with illustrations that he had accumulated since he completed his last book. Some were anecdotal stories involving his kids. Others were Bible stories he had made modern equivalents out of. Hey! There's a thought. "If I do this often enough, some day I can publish the Modern Equivalent Bible. It would be a little like the Cotton Patch, only better, since I'm writing it."
Then he pulled out his "testimonial" file. These consisted of comments from people who had abundantly praised him for his words of wisdom at workshops or who had written letters to share with him some of their difficult struggles. Or to thank him for helping them to overcome them. As he shuffled through some of these, one in particular caught his attention. It was written in "graceful" handwriting. By one who'd seen the light.
"Brother Lucado, I used to be so legalistic, but after reading your books, I feel truly liberated. How could I have been so deluded to think that obedience had anything to do with my salvation? For years I told my denominational brethren that they needed to be baptized to have forgiveness of sins. they needed to be baptized to have forgiveness of sins. Needless to say, they didn't like me very much. But now that I've discovered that Acts 2:38 doesn't matter any more and that we're all guests on board the same Fellow-Ship, I'm really enjoying Christianity. After all, if they say God is their Father, that's good enough for me. Oh, and guess what? All those people who used to hide when they saw me coming like me now. This is so much better than being rejected all the time. It feels good to have so many brethren now. Thanks so much for opening my eyes."
Letters like these sure compensated for the petty criticisms he received from his legalistic detractors. "I suppose every age must be cursed with a few Pharisees," he chuckled to himself. Then he made a note to fit into this book a few choice words about Pharisees.
After several minutes of sorting through the files, MA$ had jotted down some notes. "That ought to do for an outline--20 chapters with 20 simple points. Best to stick to the formula. No need to confuse the reader with logical arguments or cumbersome details that might stretch their mental capabilities. Why give them filet mignon when they can only handle strained applesauce?"
Then came the hardest part of all--reading the Bible to find Scriptures to fit the stories. Fortunately, intense study was not necessary for simple points.
(In connection to this article, please read, "Poetic License Gone To Seed".)
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "A Vision of Max Writing (1/12/97)."
Have you allowed the use of sarcasm and conjecture [your own assessment] to override Mr. Summers’ message? Please re-read the paragraph quoted and highlighted in blue. The scriptural purpose of baptism in Acts 2:38 is no longer being taught by Max. The last time I checked the Scripture, it’s evident that the unconverted who obeys the gospel must be buried with Christ in baptism in order to have his sins remitted and is risen with Christ to begin newness of life. You very well know that one is not baptized because his sins have already been forgiven—which baptism serves no purpose as an after-the-fact occurrence. From many of the articles posted on this board related to Max, it is evident that he has compromised the truth and has become adept at twisting the truth. Mr. Summers did just fine in presenting the facts!
Donnie Cruz
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 68.154.171.63 on Jan 23, 2004 9:45 PM
D.C.: "Have you allowed the use of sarcasm and conjecture [your own assessment] to override Mr. Summers’ message?"
If you'll notice closely, I had nothing to say about Mr. Summers' other posts. The one I commented on used CONJECTURE to "make up" what Max was "probably" thinking when we was going to write his new "best-seller."
Donnie, I didn't say I disagreed with the WHAT so much as the HOW. Have you become so enamoured with some of the regular posters here that you'd defend any method of criticism they might employ? Can you not at least lend a little credence to what I'm saying?
Christ promises that He will not “fail” or “forsake” a child of God (Heb. 13:5), but a Christian can “fail” and “forsake” the Lord! Max Lucado and his apostate followers at the Oak Hills church in San Antonio, Texas, have just recently officially dropped the name “church of Christ.” Those faithful to the Lord and His church have known for years that Max Lucado is a false teacher and an enemy of Christ. Lisa Harrison Rivas, staff writer for the San Antonio Express-News writes in the Saturday, September 6, 2003 paper these words: “Max Lucado hopes renaming his church, opening new campuses and adding musical instruments to the worship service will help bring more people to Christ.”
The staff writer is correct in calling the congregation “his” or Max's church because any group who spurns the Word of God certainly does not belong to Christ! One is reminded of the Lord saying, “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 who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).
The report continues with the staff writer saying, “Oak Hills Church of Christ is now Oak Hills Church, and although the name has changed, Lucado said the church's core values will not.” Lucado is quoted as follows: “When it comes to strategy, when it comes to approach, we want to do whatever seems most effective at the time ... That's what these initiatives are: changes of strategy, not changes to doctrine or core values” (emph. MLW).
Lucado abandoned most of the Lord's teaching or doctrine (cf. 2 John 9-11) long ago. His statement, however, of “these initiatives” not being “changes to doctrine” reveals his disdain for the Lord authorizing singing as an act of worship. Max has successfully convinced his loyal followers that instrumental music is an option or expedient and not a doctrinal matter. The Lord teaches otherwise (Matt. 26:30; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2;12; James 5:13), and Max's church was singing until the pied piper convinced them to change by adding the instrument. It is a tragedy that “about 4,000 worshippers each Sunday” are content to follow Max down the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:14). The Lord has commanded His followers to “sing” -- not “play” or “make music.”
Vic King, minister of missions at Oak Hills, “said the staff doesn't expect a lot of members to leave over the changes.” Neither do I! Isn't it sad that it is so very difficult to convince brethren with the Word of God that they are in full-blown apostasy? King goes on to say, “It's the sign that we are changing...We are changing to a sign that more accurately reflects who we are.” This is only doubletalk from those who cannot bring themselves to be honest false teachers! At least Lucado tells the truth in saying that “some find the Church of Christ name to be an insurmountable barrier.” He continues saying, “A common comment from new members is this: ‘We would have come sooner, but we had to get over the name of the church'.”
What a sordid mess and a stench in the Lord's nostrils! How it must grieve the Savior to have traitors boast of loving Him while changing the sign because some are embarrassed by the name church of Christ. Who died for the church? Was it Max? I think not (Acts 20:28)! Who is the head of the church? Is it Max? No, it is the Lord (Eph. 1:22-23)! Since Christ purchased His church of which He is head with His blood, why would it be an “insurmountable barrier” for folks to attend a congregation that wears His name? Mark it down, and mark it down well. Those who must “get over” a congregation wearing the Lord's name have never genuinely obeyed the Gospel and been converted to Christ.
The staff writer continues, saying, “Most Churches of Christ feature only a cappella singing, a tradition King says is based on the absence of the use of instruments in the New Testament churches. But for the first time, Oak Hills will add instruments to a new Sunday evening service, which will be geared toward young adults and will begin early next year” (emph. MLW).
A cappella singing is not some man-made tradition. It is a God-given command! It is true that Max and Oak Hills are adding to the worship -- something God has forbidden man to do (Rev. 22:18-19). Their motive is crystal clear -- the attraction of “young adults.” It is a pity that so many today are more interested in attraction than conversion.
The article ends noting that Lucado is asking the “members to spend the next 40 days praying about these and other initiatives.” It would be much better if all of Lucado's followers could spend the next three days in the belly of a great fish so they might be convinced to repent and come to their spiritual senses (Jonah 1:17-2:10).
Our prayer is for more members of the body who truly love the Lord and have no desire to drop Him from His church!
5810 Liberty Grove Rd.
Rowlett, TX
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 68.19.205.168 on Jan 28, 2004 9:38 AM
Being one of the most popular devotional writers in the denominational world is no small feat. To head the best-seller list, one would have to write in such a way as to not offend, or convict anyone of sin. Basically, all one would have to hold is a belief in God and in Jesus. A church affiliation might disturb some and keep them from laying down the cash to purchase your books. So, one would never write in such a narrow fashion as to teach that there is only one true church; one baptism; that church membership is essential to salvation; that the New Testament is the pattern; and most of all, one would never write the Bible only, makes Christians only, and the only Christians.
Max Lucado, preacher at the Oak Hills Church [of Christ] in San Antonio, Texas, does not recognize the lines of fellowship that God has drawn in the Bible. After all, when one denies the Bible as the pattern, certainly, one can adjust the lines to suit himself. Brother Lucado endorses the sectarians. He has done so for quite a while.
WILLOW CREEK COMMUNITY CHURCH
Toward the end of his article in Wineskins, entitled, "A Dream Worth Keeping Alive, Liking the Fruit But Not the Orchard" (January/February, 1993. p. 17-20), Max Lucado reveals to his readers that he has preached at the Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago. Max describes this church as "an immense non-denominational fellowship." Brother Lucado describes his experience with them as follows: "Each evening before the assembly a group of elders would meet to pray with me. I asked the elders to tell me about themselves. 'I used to be a Baptist, but now I'm just a Christian,' one shared. 'I grew up a Methodist,' stated another, 'but now I'm simply a believer.' 'I was Dutch-Reformed,' said a third, 'but now I just follow Jesus.' And this went on around the table. Both nights. And both nights I thought to myself, 'That's our line!' That's what we in churches of Christ are supposed to say. What I heard in Chicago must have been akin to what early restorationists heard all around the country: 'We aren't the only Christians, but we are Christians only.' How about that for "unity in diversity?"
It is rather interesting that brother Lucado tells us that he met with the elders of the Willow Creek Community Church and prayed with them before he spoke. We wonder if there were any women elders present in these meetings? According to Willow Creek's leading preacher, Bill Hybels, "my daughter is 11 years old, and it's great for her to see women role models in the church. It's important to me that she knows there can be a place for her in church leadership some day, somewhere" (Daily Herald, Suburban Living, Wednesday, May 18, 1988). The same newspaper article reveals "another striking feature about Willow Creek is that women are in positions of power. Three of the eight church elders are women." Brother Max, did a woman elder lead a prayer for you? Do you also accept women in positions of power, or did you try to teach them out of their errors?
DENOMINATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Brother Lucado seems to have no problem with preaching for and fellowshipping denominations. He has spoken at St. John Neumann Church, Trinity Church Family Center, First Presbyterian Church (See Behold The Pattern, Goebel Music. p. 113-127), and the Willow Creek Community Church.
UNITY DAY WITH THE BAPTIST CHURCH
Brother Lucado continues his associations with the denominational world. In the March 25, 1995, issue of the San Antonio Express-News, was an article announcing a "Unity day" on April 2, 1995. This event was a pulpit swap between Max Lucado and Rev. Buckner Fanning, the preacher at Trinity Baptist Church. It transpired as planned. Brother Darrell Conley referred to this event as a "Tragedy in San Antonio," and rightly so! Elder Benjamin Franklin spoke of the sinfulness of exchanging pulpits with denominationalists, giving the example between a gospel preacher and a Roman priest.
The book of God forbids the saints from keeping company with such a man, or eating with him, or to bid him God-speed. We can meet a Romish priest and treat him as a citizen, if he is one, a neighbor, or gentleman, but we do not know him as a preacher of Jesus, or as a teacher of saints, or as a Christian. He bears no such relations as these to us, and we recognize him in none of these relations. (A Book Of Gems, p. 209)
Brother Franklin viewed the sectarians correctly, non-Christians! To engage in fellowship with them, is having fellowship with the "unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5:11).
Cases of joint fellowship with the sectarians by apostates have taken place over the years in various locations. Now that many brethren have rejected the Bible as a pattern, they have lost sight of the distinctiveness of the church of Christ. With no guide from heaven, no lines of distinction, and no Bible authority, men will seek fellowship with anyone who claims to believe in God.
We cannot endorse Max Lucado because the Bible forbids fellowship with false teachers (Titus 3:10). Christians must oppose heretics and their influence. Lucado works through his books, his speeches, and his association with various denominations. He has his own Max Lucado video series and is even getting into congregations via the video series "Raising Faithful Kids in a Fast-Paced World" by Paul Faulkner. Departing from the faith happens over a period of time, and faithful brethren have seen it coming for years. Many bright, talented gospel preachers leave the faith once delivered to the saints and embrace modernism and liberalism. These factors have contributed to the reality that the churches of Christ are experiencing a major division within her ranks.
13 Preston Estates
Paintsville, KY 41240
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 68.154.178.7 on Feb 8, 2004 2:02 PM
A week or so ago, I received an e-mail from my dad with Oak Hill church's Mission Statement for 2003 attached. It would seem that Max Lucado has had a “vision” (page 2, paragraph 2).
“As the details of this vision crystallized for me, I shared them with our elders. They prayed, pondered, and tested the ideas and, ultimately saw them as God's will for Oak Hills.” (page 2, paragraph 3)
“We call you to dedicate the next forty days (August 31 to October 9) to prayer, asking God to give us all strength to obey his call. Like the Apostle Paul, we desire to say, 'I obeyed this vision from heaven.' (Acts 26:19 CEV)” (page 2, latter part of paragraph 3)
“Another major initiative is excellent pastoral care. Our elders are facing their privilege with renewed vigor. They are re-evaluating and re-organizing, seeking to shepherd the church through Life Groups.” (page 4, last paragraph)
This document continues on with the different changes to the various worship services that Oak Hills will provide. But the most notable change is the following:
“Let's seek to remove any barrier that would hinder a person from hearing the Gospel. Our seventh initiative calls for an alteration of our name. We can reach more souls by modifying “Oak Hills Church of Christ” to Oak Hills Church”. We do this for two reasons:
To follow the New Testament example: New Testament churches employed a variety of names, never clustering under a common banner other than Jesus Christ (See addendum)
To reach more souls for Christ. While we deeply appreciate our heritage in the Churches of Christ, we recognize the hindrance the name creates for some. A common comment from new members is this: “We would have come sooner, but we had to get over the name of the church.” This is a barrier that need not be.
We recognize the emotional struggle this decision spawns for some. Please know this choice came after careful, extended prayer and thought.” (pages 11 & 12)
I would like to express my appreciation to Max for finally dis-associating himself from the church of Christ. Now maybe the brotherhood can finally breathe a sigh of relief knowing Max Lucado has finally shown his true self to the world.
Thanks Max.
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 67.32.210.12 on Feb 12, 2004 9:01 AM
Max is totally ignorant about the Bible, or consistent with KICKING Christ of the sign, is with his friend Rubel Shelly "working out" their NEW version of Scripture for OUR CULTURE (which they are alert enough to know "has changed.")
As "believeth not" meant "baptizeth not" Max's REPUDIATION of what Jesus, Peter, Paul and church history said until 1525, Max calls a holy God a liar!
Max and the group are ignorant about MUSIC which when attached to religion always meant "women or effeminate males." It is the MARK of CAIN whose name means "a musical note."
As the new MOTHER CHURCH using DISCIPLING or SHEPHERDING is a PK spin off of the old Crossroads or boston movement which intends to get everyone under the thumb of the CORE LEADERSHIP of professionals all utterly condemned by Jesus, Paul and church history.
A "minimally ethical person" would have declared HIS new loss of faith and left the church. Do you subscribe to the idea that it is ok to STEAL THE CHURCH HOUSES OF WIDOWS in the name of supporting "rhetoricians, sOPHISts (serpents), singers and musicians all known as sorcerers and therefore PARASITES who will go back into hell if John in Revelation 18 is correct?
Jesus built a SCHOOL where He would teach through His word where TWO OR THREE gather or synagogue. You are defending a most pagan, ignorant and superstitious form of religion prophesied as that of the Babylon Whore.
Do you believe in JUST JESUS? If so then you agree to the wholesale repudiation of what JESUS TAUGHT and inspired.
How much good will all of your bickering do? Rather than spending your time criticising those who are actively pursuing their Lord (And they do so with all of their hearts for the Lover of their souls), try spending your time encouraging and building others up. Church of Christ members seem to have a difficult time doing that. Max Lucado loves the Lord. I see no fault in him, but I am not the judge, and neither are you. I trust with all of my heart that my Lord and Savior, the One I love, will grant all of the grace needed to cover any wrongdoing of those who truly love and pursue him. But if you know everything, and all of your doctrine is right, yet you don't love the Lord passionately, what have you to show that will put a smile on His face. And yes sir, by the way, my Jesus does smile. He laughs hysterically. He WAS a man of sorrow. But he has set His kids free. NOW, He is the Father of joy. And my Father at that, my Dad. He delights in us and calls us "beloved". He dances, he sings. He is madly, crazy, passionately in love with us. That is the point. Your "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up".
Re: Don't Miss the Point (by Laurel Walker, March 10 2004, 1:31 AM)
March 11 2004, 7:48 AM
Laurel,
I’m reminded of a pop song, “What’s Love Got to Do with It,” the chorus of which says: “I've been thinking of a new direction, but I have to say I've been thinking about my own protection.” I envision Max as smiling and laughing when he sings a similar song.
It takes more than the kind of “love” which, by your definition of the word, is something that many of those even outside of Christ also have or do. It would be presumptuous to think that anyone who exposes someone else’s doctrinal errors does not have love. To the knowledge of many in the brotherhood, Max Lucado has gone way BEYOND “thinking of a new direction” while STILL “thinking about [his] own protection.” Aren’t you aware that Max has been going with the Baptist flow and denominationalism, which translates to virtually leaving the church on his own volition? What we wish for Max is for him to return to his love for the church and love of the truth—instead of being ashamed of the church that bears the name of Christ by not defending its cause and instead of compromising the truth to gain the support of the denominational world.
There’s no bickering going on—you see, we can’t even get Max’s attention. Let’s not get that confused with our “contending for the faith” or “mark[ing] them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid[ing] them” (Romans 16:17).
Donnie Cruz
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 67.32.199.67 on Mar 11, 2004 8:07 AM
FALSE TEACHER "MAX LUCADO" TO SPEAK AT TEMPLE BAPTIST CHURCH
March 19 2004, 1:52 AM
FALSE TEACHER "MAX LUCADO" TO SPEAK AT TEMPLE BAPTIST CHURCH
Dan Goddard
No faithful eldership or faithful college president would allow such a false teacher as Max Lucado to appear on any program sponsored by them.
The following article appeared in the Observer and Eccentric a local newspaper for the Detroit, Michigan area. The Temple Baptist Church located in Livonia, MI; a suburb of Detroit, will host a Leadership Conference in April of 1999. Max Lucado will be one of the featured speakers. The article states: "Lucado senior pastor of Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas, has authored such books as 'Six Hours One Friday' and 'A Gentle Thunder.' Max is a pastor and an extremely well-known author."
Now that Max has long since shown his true colors, will members of the churches of Christ keep inviting him to speak on their lectureships, hold gospel meetings and appear on their college campuses? Will "we" keep on buying his books, which will in part produce money for his works of error? It is true that in some places we are no longer a people of the Book. No faithful eldership or faithful college president would allow such a false teacher as Max Lucado to appear on any program sponsored by them. If they did they would be in violation of such passages as 2 John 9-11. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."
One wonders what good if any it does nowadays to warn members of the Lord's church of such things. It seems to me that so few are listening to any such warning because Max and others like him keep on appearing on church of Christ sponsored events. These fellows like Max want to hold on to Jesus with one hand and the Devil with the other. They want the endorsement of our Lord Jesus Christ while at the same time wanting the endorsement of the denominational world. You can't have both. Not according to Matthew 7:21-23, "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. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Paul was one who believed in warning people of the dangers coming on the Lord's church in the first century as he would try to warn the elders in Acts 20:28-31, "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. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."
Can we do no less?
___________________________________ 29511 Bock St.
Garden City, MI 48135
“Seek the Old Paths,” Vol. 10, No. 4
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 68.19.193.173 on Mar 19, 2004 8:11 AM
The kingdom of Israel had been divided for more than 75 years. Those who ruled over the northern kingdom all walked in the ways of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel commit a great sin (2 Kings 17:21). The kings of Judah, at first, tended to be obedient to God. Jehoshaphat began his reign very well, until "by marriage he allied himself with Ahab" (2 Chron. 18:1). What sadness the reader experiences, therefore, to discover that, when a good king over a faithful kingdom went to visit one of the most wicked kings ever, he said, "I am as you are, and my people as your people; we will be with you in war" (2 Chron. 18:3).
The only appropriate response seems to be to scream, "Jehoshaphat! No! What are you doing?" God, through the prophet Jehu, did rebuke the king of Judah: "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you" (2 Chron. 19:2). To draw the contrast even more sharply, someone might have pointed out to Jehoshaphat the following facts: "We in the southern kingdom have tried to please Jehovah. We have not set up idols--golden calves-- as they have in the north. We still have priests from the tribe of Levi, as Moses commanded, instead of from every tribe of Israel. Our worship is centered in Jerusalem, as it is supposed to be, not in Dan or Bethel, as in the north (see 1 Kings 12:25-33). We have clung to the truth in these matters for generations. We have told the Israelites over and over that they are not walking or worshiping according to the will of God. And now, O king, you visit the wicked Ahab and say that we are as they are. Aarrgghh!! How can the truth mean so little and your compromising be so great?"
Anyone who can understand that situation should be able to understand the problem that members of the churches of Christ have with Max Lucado, as it relates to his guest appearance on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson on Monday, April 2nd. This program for years has been the epitome of false religion. Its hosts not only ascribe various types of behavior erroneously to the Holy Spirit, but they also deny the fundamental and plain teaching of the New Testament concerning the role of baptism in salvation.
So imagine how faithful members of the Lord's church feel when Max Lucado claims to be one of us and compromises everywhere he possibly can. As the interview came to an end, Pat Robertson said: "Max, it's a joy to have you. We just thank God for the gift He's given you, my brother." Max replied: "I thank God for you. I sure do." This mutual love fest occurred while they were shaking hands. Should Max love those who hate the Lord? [Of course, no faithful preacher of the Gospel would ever be invited to appear on the 700 Club.] But Max is now a pastor, also. We have no way of knowing if he has been appointed as an elder (pastor, bishop), but he did claim to be one in the denominational sense of the term. One of the first questions Robertson asked was: "Are, are you pastoring at all? " Max responded eagerly: "I am. I am. I'm a full time [pastor] at the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas." This information was purposely elicited, despite the fact that it was in the form of a question. It had already been flashed on the screen: "Max Lucado: Author/Pastor." How embarrassing for true Christians. As we all wished to admonish Jehoshaphat, one can envision preachers everywhere yelling at Max, "Do you know how many times we have had to explain that we are preachers and not pastors? How can you identify yourself as one of us and claim to be pastoring a church of Christ?" Of course, what could be expected from someone who has already given up the Bible's teaching on salvation and worship? Max apparently delights in perpetuating ignorance of the Truth.
Max Theologian
Max presented an interesting, if erroneous view of Colossians 2. Following is the conversation that occurred on this same program.
The gospels don't refer to the nails, but Paul, in the epistle Colossians, chapter two and fourteen, says that Jesus canceled the debt that held the charges against us. He took it and nailed it to Christ's cross. And so the picture there, you know, Pat, is so powerful. The, the, the list of my sins and your sins has been nailed to the cross, and and the blood of Christ has blotted out, the Bible says, covered all of those mistakes. What a powerful image that is.
It is true that Jesus took our sins upon Him and paid the price for them, but that is not what this verse says. First of all, the subject of the verb is God, not Jesus. God (the Father) is the one in verse 13 who made us alive together with Christ; He is also the one who wiped out the handwriting of ordinances.
This handwriting of requirements (ordinances, KJV) is not a list of our sins. The Pulpit Commentary states: "This bond (with its decrees can be nothing other than 'the law' (Eph. ii. 14-16; Acts xii. 38,39; Rom. iii. 20; vii. 25; Gal. iii. 21, 22, etc.)...Ó (20:4:89). Strangely, after citing all of these verses that pertain to the Law of Moses, this commentary then says that they do not refer to that law; but they obviously do. The correct view is stated in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries:
The cancellation of the bond was effected by Christ's death. Thus it is pictured as being nailed once and for all...to the cross. Hence, the cross which meant the death of Christ meant also the death of the law which ceased to have its power over the people of God. Because Christ not only perfectly fulfilled the law, but also stood in the sinner's place and accepted in His own Person the penalty due to the one who breaks the law, the very bond itself has been cancelled (70).
Daniel Denham, in his chapter, "Holding Fast the Head," provided the following research for Studies in Philippians and Colossians, edited by Dub McClish:
William Hendriksen properly observes that "in the clearly parallel passage (Eph. 2:15) what has been abolished through the cross is not 'a certificate of indebtedness with our signature on it' but 'the law of commandments with its requirements'." Hen-driksen, quoting F. W. Beare, adds, "It represents simply the law as a written code.?" The Judaizers, who had heavily influenced the Colossians, had brought them into bondage of the law of Moses and, thus, Paul sought to impress upon the minds of his readers the fact that the law was no longer extant as the rule of faith and practice for anyone, let alone the Gentiles! The word rendered "ordinances" refers to the "decrees" and commands of that document. These were "against us" and "contrary to us" in that the law "condemned, but could not save" (247).
It is not the list of our sins, therefore, that was nailed to the cross; it is the law itself.
Max Pentecostal
Max tries to blend in wherever he goes (like a chameleon); so we should probably not be surprised by the following comments designed to support the charismatic movement:
I was really struck by the symbolism of, you know, when Christ's side was pierced by the sword, blood and water came forth.
At this point Pat Robertson chimed in, "Right." Apparently, neither of them knows that Jesus' side was pierced with a spear. The Greek word translated "spear" appears only once in the New Testament--in John 19:34. Thayer says that the Greek word refers to "the iron point or head of a spear; a lance or spear." The word translated "sword" appears 29 times in the New Testament; it is used four times in Matthew 26, thrice in Mark 14, four times in Luke 22, and twice in John 18. The two words are not the same, nor are they defined the same. Max continued:
And you know, throughout the New Testament water represents the power of the Holy Spirit, and the blood represents, of course, the redemption that we have. And they come together, you know, as a picture of what God wants to give you and gives, gives me. And that is, forgiveness and power. But not forgiveness with no power, not power with no forgiveness; but they come at the same time.
What? One wonders if Max has any clue as to what he is saying. Water represents the Holy Spirit throughout the New Testament? What does that make John 3:5 say? Must one be born of the Spirit and the Spirit? When John was baptizing in water, was he really baptizing in the Holy Spirit? When Peter asked of Cornelius and those with him, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" was he advocating that those who had received the Holy Spirit should be baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47)? To what does "the washing of regeneration" refer, which is linked with the renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)?
One might make a case for "the rivers of living water" representing the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-38), but certainly water does not stand for the Holy Spirit throughout the New Testament. The word translated "water" is found 79 times; perhaps Max could write a book about all those alleged times water stands for the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, when the disciples were on the sea of Galilee, Jesus came walking to them on the Holy Spirit. Are we to give a cup of the Holy Spirit in the Lord's name (Mark 9:41)? Is it the Holy Spirit who is raging in Luke 8:24, and the Lord rebuked Him? When the disciples went into Jerusalem to prepare the Passover, did they really find a man carrying a pitcher of the Holy Spirit (Luke 22:10)? Did Jesus turn the Holy Spirit into wine (John 2)? Did Jesus meet the Samaritan woman by a well that contained the Holy Spirit (John 4)? Let Max prove conclusively that water refers to the Holy Spirit even 5 of the 79 times. Water can have an occasional symbolic meaning--but certainly not enough to substantiate Max's extravagant claim.
Not only does the water that comes from the side of Jesus in John 19:34 represent the Spirit, according to Max (and virtually no commentator agrees with him, the Holy Spirit in turn stands for power (the blood standing for forgiveness). So we are given forgiveness and power together, he claims. So, the Holy Spirit does not just indwell us; he gives us some sort of power. Max did not elaborate as to the kind of power that is. Is it direct Spirit-on-spirit power? Or is it the power to work "miracles" or "speak in tongues"? Or does he mean that we have the power to overcome sin?
Max Broadcaster
Pat Robertson was delighted to inform his viewing audience that the 700 Club would be replaced by a special program on "Good Friday," April 13th. He asked Max to say something about it.
It's a He Chose the Nails [his bestselling book of last year, gws] television special. It's Jesus, Pat, from beginning to end. It's all about Christ, and some powerful music, some heart-changing music, uh, some of the the best artists in America, like Twila Paris and Wes King, some of them have written songs to go along with this. It presents the cross of Christ from beginning to end.
Needless to say, some members of the church who are Max's devoted fans will be shocked that he would use instrumental music to accompany this "special," but it will scarcely be news to anyone who has been paying attention to his past compromises.
Yes, Pastor Max has chosen to fight on the side of the spiritual Ahabs of the day. He delights in being in their midst and fellowshiping with them. Surely he does not mind all the honors he receives, either. As Jesus might say, "Assuredly, I say to you, he has his reward."
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "MAX PASTOR (4/15/01)."
[The following article is cited from POWER, a monthly publication of the church of Christ in Southaven, MS. Emph. by D.C.]
LUCADO PUTS NEW FACE ON CHURCHES OF CHRIST
By Robert Dodson
This is the subtitle of an article on the front page of the religious section in The Dallas Morning News on Sunday, November 21, 1998, by staff writer, Paul R. Buckley. Newspaper stories sometimes don’t get the story right. But this one is right on the mark! It begins by telling us that Max Lucado has heard the old joke about the church of Christ thinking they are the only ones going to heaven, but that he believes there really are Baptist, Methodists, and Catholics there. The article says "that more and more church of Christ members are thinking what he’s thinking." Lucado says:
People in the pews, even many preachers, have begun to regard professing Christians at the church down the street as the real thing. Even if they sing their hymns with organs. Even if they take communion quarterly rather than weekly, even if they are sprinkled rather than dipped.
In the article, Lucado makes a telling confession, saying "I don’t think that a lot of the more strict teachings ever became a part of my DNA." According to the article, one of those "strict teachings" was the belief that baptism is "by immersion and for the forgiveness of sins." If Lucado never accepted this, was he ever one of us? To hear Lucado tell it, he was saved ten years after his baptism by listening to a denominational preacher on the radio.
Lucado says, "We are saved by grace. Baptism is a response to God’s gift, not a way to earn God’s gift." Apparently, Lucado believes that if baptism is a condition that one must comply with in order to be saved (as the scriptures teach—-Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21), then salvation is earned and cannot be of grace. However, "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11). Yet, all men are not saved; only those who obey the gospel of Jesus Christ will be saved (2 Thess. 1:7-10; Hebrews 5:8-9; Romans 6:17).
The article further states that Lucado is pleased that the churches of Christ are changing. The Oak Hills church where Lucado is minister uses mechanical instruments during some weeknight services, according to the article.
The article is also accurate in identifying the position of several other preachers among us. First, it points out how that Robert Oglesby (minister at Waterview church of Christ in Richardson) believes that baptism is commanded for the forgiveness of sins, but will not go so far as to mark Max Lucado as a false teacher. Why won’t he? Doesn’t the Bible teach us to warn others about such wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:28-30; Romans 16:17-19; 2 John 9-11)? Unfortunately, many preachers are as silent as a tomb about what’s going on in the brotherhood of Christ.
F. LaGard Smith (law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California) is also mentioned in the article. Reference is made to his book entitled "Who Is My Brother?" in which he suggests "Mr. Lucado is unwittingly leading his readers astray." The article perceptively points out that though LaGard "cannot easily regard [denominationalists] as Christians" that "he acknowledges God has the prerogative to do as He wishes on Judgment Day." Yet, God has already told us what He is going to do on Judgment Day and God cannot lie (Titus 1:2)!
The article does a fine job in describing the churches of Christ as "A brotherhood of independent congregations that claim no authority but the Bible…nothing more or less than the church of the New Testament founded by Jesus." But, then there is C. Leonard Allen who says "It’s not so simple as all that." Allen taught theology at Abilene Christian University for 15 years. His attitude about the church is well characterized. According to Dr. Allen, "its founding fathers were swayed not just by the Apostle Paul but also by the philosopher John Locke, among others. The result: a tradition that stumbles along with an Enlightenment hangover, claiming all the while to be nothing but a first-century church."
The article further states that Allen and Lucado like to think they are a part of restoring "a more ecumenically minded" tradition. It’s sad that a newswriter seems to know more about what’s going on in the church of Christ than we do. Many brethren will not heed the warning cries of faithful gospel preachers. Perhaps, they will listen to the newspaper.
This is the headline for an article carried in The Christian Chronicle, Vol.60, No.10, October, 2003. This issue also contained an announcement that the Oak Hills church (formerly "of Christ") has made the decision to include in its worship services, one service that incorporates the use of mechanical instruments to accompany the singing. This article’s writer goes on to point out that in doing this, the Oak Hills church is following the lead of four other of the largest churches of Christ in the U.S. who have made the same decision since 2001.
Max Lucado has been "pulpit minister" of the Oak Hills church for 15 years, and his association with denominations is legendary. He has exchanged pulpits with the First Baptist Church preacher in San Antonio, been a featured speaker at Promise Keepers meetings, and not long ago engineered for the Oak Hill church a lecture program featuring speakers from different denominations in the area. Lucado is on record as believing salvation is by "faith only" and stating that baptism is an act of obedience that transpires after one has been saved, not in order to be saved.
I have a preacher friend in Arkansas, who like me, grew up on a farm before the day of tractors and farm herbicides. In his homespun wisdom, he made the observation that nothing broadens one's outlook on life so much as watching the sun rise over the back end of a mule as he follows a plow up and down cotton rows. The gem of wisdom that he passed along to me was, "When you quit plowing, that’s when the weeds and grass take over." The point that I'm trying to make in telling you this is, that Oak Hills hasn't been plowed for 15 years! That's why the weeds and grass are taking over.
The writer of the Christian Chronicle article took the pulse of some whom I suppose he regards to be leading figures in the brotherhood to get their take or reaction on these large churches introducing instrumental music in the worship.
Flavil Yeakley sees it as “five isolated tragedies."
John Ellas sees "a small trend related to music tied to a larger trend,” that being the willingness to reevaluate previous theological positions, “with many coming to different conclusions.”
Mac Lynn sees the shift in attitude about the instrument as being only one indicator and says, "Many churches are less concerned with markers that historically distinguished Churches of Christ." He lists among these "historic markers," (Mac needs to learn the difference between what is historic and what is Scriptural) singing, baptism for remission of sins, weekly communion, church organization, and men in church leadership roles. He concludes that, "Most of the markers are still in place, but the attitude toward their essentiality has changed." What he overlooked is the fact that apostasy begins with an attitude of disrespect for the authority of the Scriptures (1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:1-5).
Earl Edwards says that the instrument seems to have been added on the premise that "anything not expressly condemned in Scripture is acceptable---and since instrumental music is not specifically condemned, it is OK. Such reasoning assumes that all silence is permissive (never prohibitive)." He then makes the observation, "If that were true, infant baptism and many other things would be OK as well." Edwards is correct, for there are no passages expressly forbidding sprinkling for baptism, counting beads while praying, or substituting ham for the bread in the communion service. The Hebrew writer (Hebrews 7:14) argued that silence is prohibitive, not permissive.
Rubel Shelly says that he is "deeply committed to a cappella music," that he would "oppose anyone's effort to introduce it into our congregational worship at Woodmont Hills," and that he is "not about to champion instrumental music for the Church of Christ."
However, if you think Rubel is going to be an outspoken opponent against its use in worship, forget it. Hear him, "But when someone wants me to go further and to condemn to hell someone who doesn't agree with my view, or to criticize congregations that choose to use instruments because they believe it will assist their outreach in a community different from mine, I have no interest in pursuing the discussion." Rubel concludes, "Instrumental music and the atonement are not of the same status or consequence to the human soul and its eternal welfare."
When it comes to determining what is Scriptural and what isn't, why does Rubel make the difference "a community different from mine" and his? Could it be that his community, Nashville, is where they conducted the Clubb-Boles and Hardemen-Boswell debates that sounded death blows to the music question, and that too many memories of it remain there for him to get on the bandwagon at this time?
And how did he arrive at the conclusion that the atonement and instrumental music aren't "of the same status or consequence?" The atonement came by the blood of Christ (Romans 3:24-27; Ephesians 1:7), and we receive it by "walking in the light" (1 John 1:7), which equals obeying the "law of faith" of Romans 3:27. Since there is no divine authorization for instrumental music in worship, one cannot use it and walk in the light, and when he ceases to do so, he is no longer cleansed by the blood that is essential to atonement; so how does he arrive at the conclusion that they aren't of equal importance? One thing is certain, he didn't use the Scriptures.
The remainder of the Christian Chronicle article cites reasons given by churches that have introduced the instrument into at least one of their services. The article’s author concludes, "The churches that have added instrumental services cite a common motivation--evangelism and outreach. All report increases in attendance since the switch." This is what happens when we measure growth in numbers. We cease to be interested in a "thus saith the Lord" and become more concerned about what packs the pews.
I used to love to read Max's books now i wouldn't buy one for the world, it is so sad to see strong brethren bite into the idea that anything goes in the spiritual world. I have a daughter who turned this way and they have four children, baptism can wait and it is so fun to go where the music is hep and fun. Makes a mother sad to see and we need to pray for the church but the faithful who care what God wants will not be turned away. He is still in control and Max is just a man who most likely got too big for his britches and feels important. To stay humble is a big job in this world but i hate to tell Max he no longer sounds humble to me and for the people he turns astray he will be responsible for along with their own selves. We can't look to man for our answers and that is what so many do. Prayers are so needed these days, i knew Ira North and i know he would be very sad to see what he started turn out to be so worldly. Man have numbers there but not saved people. God help us all. Love in Him, Grace
Thanks for posting. I was just wondering when you finally realized that marks of apostasy were evident in Max’s teachings and writings.
Max is still a strong individual … but for the wrong reason and purpose. In case you haven’t read it yet, there’s another thread that deals with Max’s view of baptism—“Trans-Baptist Max Lucado/Oak Hills Church—Baptism…”
Max is one of the most Godly men I have ever met. You guys remind me of the firing squad standing in a circle with the convicted man in the middle. You are doing youselves more harm than the one you are shooting at. Like a friend told me after my sixth child was born "you need to get a Nintendo."
Tim Farmer
Dalton Ga
Who became a change agent first—Tim or Max? That should explain how and why one has learned or is learning from the other.
By the way, Tim, no one here ever questions someone else’s “godliness.” We question the motive of someone or anyone whose mission is to transform the church into something that it is not, and we are saddened by the HARM OR DAMAGE done to the church as a result of this effort. Now, I am trying to figure out who, between the two of you, despises the church more:
Tim, you have vocally expressed how you detest and despise the church of Christ you “grew up” in, and you’re not even aware of the wounds you yourself have inflicted upon the church you have left.
Max no longer believes that one is baptized in order to obtain redemption (the forgiveness of sins) in the blood of the Lamb. Rather, although he still believes in baptism, he now believes and teaches that baptism is administered as an “act of obedience” on the part of someone who is either already a Christian or not yet a Christian—it does not matter to him. He agrees with the doctrine of reciting the sinner’s prayer to “receive” Christ as his personal Savior, thereby, forgiveness of sins is granted at that moment, even before baptism. Max is also responsible for newly identifying (perhaps against the will of many of its members and former members) the church he now serves as senior or executive pulpit minister as the “Oak Hills Church” [formerly “… of Christ”]. One of the congregation’s worship groups uses instrumental music—I wouldn’t be surprised if this was Max’s original scheme.
So, let’s turn around this “more harm than good” bit. Change agents like you and Max are dividing the church by imposing your subversive mission to transform the church against its will—so, there’s MORE HARM THAN GOOD in that subversive process.
Unlike Ellen G. White of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church or Joseph Smith of the Mormon Church or Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science—who all started their own and founded these churches, Max Lucado did not start his own [where he should have], but rather has not only apostatized from the church, but has also authorized himself to improvise God’s plan for the church, causing division and confusion in the brotherhood. You, too, Tim. Haven’t you and Max learned to leave the church alone?
Donnie
Once again I quote Paul as the champion of change. Let the word of God speak.
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
I have been called an agent of lucifer, and about every other slander imaginable for simply and plainly holding up the word of God. You guys are afraid of change because you are not used to it. That is fine, but what angers me as it angered Jesus and Paul is that you write canonical law where it is not written and condemn to hell those who do not believe exactly as you do. I do not hate the church of Christ. I do not hate any of the posters on this site. What I despise is narrow minded nit picking disguised as the gospel. Paul said he would do anything for the sake of the gospel. Why can't you see that the model of worship in the church of Christ was originated sometime after 1830 in America and is not as they did it in the first century. We can never know exactly how they did it in the first century. Paul's teachings are full of teaching on examining ourselves and giving our gifts to God according to the grace God gave us. It is insanity to think that one can't give a musical talent to their God with praise and thanksgiving because some idol worshipping whore had a flute two thousand years ago. It makes me crazy thinking about it.
The church of Christ has a lot to offer the lost world. Churches like Oak Hills and Madison have forged ahead unafraid of change and following the great commission and the teachings of Paul and finding the gifts and talents of every member for the kingdom. It is an exciting time. Your guys are going to be surprised who you see in heaven.
Redeemed by the blood of the lamb
Tim Farmer
Nintendo may not be powerful enough. January 13 2005, 3:03 AM
Tim,
Who became a change agent first—Tim or Max? That should explain how and why one has learned or is learning from the other.
By the way, Tim, no one here ever questions someone else’s “godliness.” We question the motive of someone or anyone whose mission is to transform the church into something that it is not, and we are saddened by the HARM OR DAMAGE done to the church as a result of this effort. Now, I am trying to figure out who, between the two of you, despises the church more:
Tim, you have vocally expressed how you detest and despise the church of Christ you “grew up” in, and you’re not even aware of the wounds you yourself have inflicted upon the church you have left.
Max no longer believes that one is baptized in order to obtain redemption (the forgiveness of sins) in the blood of the Lamb. Rather, although he still believes in baptism, he now believes and teaches that baptism is administered as an “act of obedience” on the part of someone who is either already a Christian or not yet a Christian—it does not matter to him. He agrees with the doctrine of reciting the sinner’s prayer to “receive” Christ as his personal Savior, thereby, forgiveness of sins is granted at that moment, even before baptism. Max is also responsible for newly identifying (perhaps against the will of many of its members and former members) the church he now serves as senior or executive pulpit minister as the “Oak Hills Church” [formerly “… of Christ”]. One of the congregation’s worship groups uses instrumental music—I wouldn’t be surprised if this was Max’s original scheme.
So, let’s turn around this “more harm than good” bit. Change agents like you and Max are dividing the church by imposing your subversive mission to transform the church against its will—so, there’s MORE HARM THAN GOOD in that subversive process.
Unlike Ellen G. White of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church or Joseph Smith of the Mormon Church or Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science—who all started their own and founded these churches, Max Lucado did not start his own [where he should have], but rather has not only apostatized from the church, but has also authorized himself to improvise God’s plan for the church, causing division and confusion in the brotherhood. You, too, Tim. Haven’t you and Max learned to leave the church alone?
I believe Max was a late bloomer of the Operation 68 to Brazil. I watched that bud and bloom and IT HATCHED OUT SPIRITISM. The stuff hit the fan when Max returned. Max's man in Brazil, like SHELLY, now preaches JUST JESUS to the Brazilians who have more ZEAL than the church.
The Jews BELIEVED that Dionysus was to be the son of God Zeus whom they LUSTED after in the temple worship as the Abomination of Desolation. We told you that the BRANCH of the terrible ones or the Abominable branch meant "a song with instrumental accompaniment." Jesus refused to be INITIATED.
The CLERGY were the only ones who lusted for lustful, musical worship but the people opposed. In fact, for all of their faults the synagogue was a way to QUARANTINE people away from the perverted priesthood who were also MURDEROUS if you, like Jesus, refused to BOW to BAAL.
Hebrews 11 speks of the women whose husbands and fathers had been TORTURED because they refused to bow. That means to be BATTONED to death on a DRUM FRAME. That is, they stretched their hide and the MADE THEM INTO a musical instrument. Job says: 17:6 He hath made me also a byword of the people; and aforetime I was as a tabret.
People just lie when they say that PAUL would do anything to SAVE SOME SOULS and they are wont to say of the new style worship. We TOLD you that Paul was outraged when they wanted to perform the ZEUS sacrifice for them. The Pattern had been Jesus who refused to BOW when the clergy boy-girls PIPED the Dionysus song.
I told you that Paul's TRUTH was that he would NEVER impose a perverted WORSHIP RITUAL on STRAIT people in order to suck in those of lust for STRANGE FAITH. Tim boy, wants you to BELIEVE that Paul would do what WE told you horrified him. The EKKLESIA or synagogue as opposed to rituals in RELIGIONISM, in fact, FORGOES EVERYTHING but "speaking with one MOUTH and one MIND that which is written." YOU GUYS deliberately introduce things using a CHILDISH sense of LIBERTY even when you know and do with a high hand "sow discord" and become MUSICAL SECTARIANS. You, Tim, are TRAPPED as he message of books like Enoch, Jubiless, Adam and Eve and three dozens versions which I have posted: Satan used music to pervert and MAKE FALL the faithful even though they were warned that there was NO WAY BACK into the presence of the LIVING WORD.
2 Maccabees 6
1 - Not long after this, the king sent an Athenian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their fathers and cease to live by the laws of God,
2 - and also to pollute the temple
in Jerusalem and call it the temple of Olympian ZEUS,
and to call the one in Gerizim the temple of ZEUS the Friend of Strangers, as did the people who dwelt in that place.
Of Ganymedes become all things to all people
GANYMEDE stands for ANYBODY who, like his Two-Spirit native brother, the coupan of the sub-Arctic Konyagas, stands "drinking in the light of the moon, the stars, absorbing all its brilliance and splendors to become a man of god."
"Upon hearing that Ganymede was to be cup bearer as well as Zeus' lover, the infinitely jealous Hera was outraged. Therefor ZEUS set Ganymede's IMAGE among the stars as the constellation Aquarius, the water carrier. Aquarius was originally the Egyptian god over the Nile. The Egyptian god poured water not wine from a flagon.
"All of Zeus' scandalous liaisons have allegorical meanings. Zeus' torrid affair with Ganymede was a religious justification for homosexuality within the Greek culture.
Before the popularity of the ZEUS and Ganymede myth spread,
the only toleration for sodomy was an external form of goddess worship.
Cybele's male devotees tried to achieve unity with her by castrating themselves and dressing like women. ."While Platonic love needed women for regeneration purposes (grow the attendance/) the PHILOSOPHER used this myth to justify his sexual feelings towards his all male pupils.
These "ministers of the gods and goddessess" were castrated and they claim they did a SEX CHANGE. These harpist and flutists were male and female PROSTITUTES. They fooled the fools into believing that MUSIC-INDUCED feelings which FACILITATED sodomy "bound flesh and spirit together." Now THAT would "save more souls" and the TEAMS would not have to do a VIRTUAL song and dance as the universally understood HAREM OF THE GODS.
"During the fourth century the Jews came under the influence of Greek Rationalism. In 332 BC Alexander of Macedonia defeated Darius III of Persia and the Greeks began to colonize Asia and Africa. The founded city-states in Tyre, Sidon, Gaza, Philadelphis (Amman) and Tripolis and even in Shechem. The Jews of Palestine and the diaspora were surrounded by a Hellenic culture which some found disturbing,
but others were EXCITED by Greek theater, philosophy [includes music], sport and poetry. They learned Greek, exercised at the gymnasium and took Greek names. Some fought as mercinaries in the Greek armies.
In Romans 15 Paul OUTLAWED pleasuring or exciting one another in order to DO SYNAGOGUE which was not a pagan worship center. In HEBREW the reproaches which fell on Jesus means nakedness and sodomy. Jesus was REPROACHED also by the MUSICAL MOCKING of the Levitical Warrior Musicians when JUDAS failed as Psalm 41 prophesied.
"Thus some Greeks came to know the God of Israel and decided to worship Yahweh (Iao) alongside ZEUS and Dionysus. Some were attracted to the synagogue... There they read scriptures, prayed and listened to sermons (explanations).
The synagogue was unlike anything else in the rest of the ancient religous world. Since there was no ritual or sacrifice, it must have seemed more like a school..
"By the second century BC this hostility was entrenched: in Palestine there had even been a revolt when Antiochus Epiphanes, the Selucid governor, had attempted to Hellenize Jerusalem and introduce the cult of Zeus into the temple....
"In the second century BC Jesus Ben Sira...made Wisdom (Sophia, ZOE)
stand up in the Divine Council
and sing her praises:
[See how Sirach defines music as warfare or TEMPLE CLEANSING:]
she had come forth from the mouth of the Most High as the Divine Word by which God had created the world... Wisdom leaving God to wander through the world in search of humanity, it is hard not to be reminded of the pagan goddesses such as Ishtar, Anat and Isis, who had also descended from the divine world in a redemptive. "When monotheists fell in love with Greek philosophy, they inevitably wanted to try to adapt its God to their own." (Armstrong, Karen, A History of God, p. 67f)
This is the SECRET of the ZOE CONCEPT facilitating the use of music, instruments, dance, drama and WOMEN to manufacture a sexual-like WORSHIP. Jesus died to defeat the pagan's FEMALE GODDESS SUBSTITUTE. It has always been known and still means that "only women and effeminate males fall into the trap."
Tim, I don't know why you insist on a scheme and a scam which had NO OTHER MEANING than the perverted worship of homosexual gods and goddesses by the "ministers of the gods." You will find NO exception.
Paul would NEVER do anything remotely similar to pagan worship---in or outside of the assembly. Forseeing that people like Shelly would teach even worshiping like the Jews to win the Jews, God had Paul utterly REPUDIATE honoring humans by the proposed ZEUS SACRIFICE. This was part of the Abomination of Desolation being repeated in the end times and marked by the PLEASURING Tim cannot grasp in Romans 15. It is quite disturbing to think that people PROPOSE that by listening to and watching THEM they can bring you CLOSER to God. Because the "chamber of God" for FREED disciples, the Jewish model would make it a DEATH SENTENCE to attempt to LEAD someone into the new PLACE of the human spirit or HEART with MUSIC which--no one can dispute--has its origin or legendary origin with LUCIFER who was successful in stealing many angelic souls and causing them to FALL.
You might want to read John Mark Hicks proposal that the Lord's Supper be a "banquet for god" accompanied by a jubilating service.
The Spiritual or Rational mind asks: "To what are you POINTING, Paul?"
Euripides Helen notes: Chorus
When she made an end to banquets for gods and the race of men, Zeus spoke out, APPEASING the [1340] Mother's gloomy wrath: "Go, holy Graces, go and with a loud cry take from Demeter's angry heart her grief for the maiden; [1345] and you,
Muses, with song and dance." Then
Kypris, fairest of the blessed gods, first took up the rumbling
voice of bronze and the drum with tight- stretched skin; and the goddess smiled,
[1350] and received in her hand the deep-toned FLUTE,
PLEASED with its loud note
That is what Paul warned about in 1 Cor. 13 He also said that KNOWING CHRIST meant that CHRIST didn't PLEASURE Himself and the SCHOOL of the Bible cannot PLEASURE itself. The simple definition of PLEASE implicates anything which would AROUSE or cause excitement or FOCUS the attention on the performer. That is what Martin Luther said because that is what PAUL said.
Euripides Ion I am ashamed before the god of many hymns, [1075] if he, the sleepless night watcher, shall see the torch procession on the twentieth day, beside the springs with lovely dances,
when the starry sky of Zeus also joins in the dance,
[1080] and the moon dances, and the fifty daughters of Nereus, in the SEA and the swirls of ever-flowing rivers, celebrating in their dance [1085] the maiden with golden crown and her revered mother;
where this vagabond of Phoebus' (Abaddon-Change agent) hopes to rule, entering upon the labor of others.
[1090] You who turn to music and sing in discordant hymns our beds and the lawless, unholy loves of Kypris, see how we surpass in piety [1195] the unjust seed of men.
Let the song recant and let discordant music go against the beds of men! The descendant of ZEUS [1100] shows his ingratitude, when he does not breed children for the house in common with my mistress;
showing favor to another Aphrodite [ZOE, etc], [1105] he has found a bastard child.
(1353) You made burnt offerings that were neither right nor holy, in the chambers of the gods,
[1355] and you have incurred the wrath of the great mother, child, by not honoring her sacrifices.
Oh! Great is the power of dappled fawn-skin robes, [1360] and green ivy that crowns a sacred thyrsos,
the whirling beat of the tambourine circling in the air,
hair streaming wildly for the revelry of Bromios, [1365] and the night-long festivals of the goddess. . . . You gloried in your beauty alone.
Bromious: "The thunderer" or "he of the loud shout", an epithet of Dionysus.
Those who call Jesus, Paul and Martin Luther a liar on this issue INTEND to steal your church just as MOTHER LUCIFER caused the fatal FALL from heaven and in the garden of Eden: the serpent was a MUSICAL ENCHANTER.
Ken I had this question ask about Hebrews 12:16. I wanted to ask you if you could supply or suggest some sources of study on this Greek word "porneia".
What I'm looking for is an article or reference that shows that "porneia" is broader than harlotry, prostitution, whoredom or incest. In other words, homosexuality, beastiality, etc. I believe it was Gary Workman in answering a question during a forum in the Brown Trail Lectures one year where he stated that he believed that it did. If you are able to find something on this topic I sure would appreciate it.
G4202
ðïñíåßá
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry:—
fornication.
Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
The word FORNICATOR is much broader:
Pornos (g4205) por'-nos; from pernemi , (to sell; akin to the base of 4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by analalogy) a debauchee (libertine): - fornicator, whoremonger
This word is most often used in the literature with anthrôpos which is often used as an expression of contempt: Hey Man, sirrah! you sir! And these men were often slaves who PERFORMED musically and otherwise whereas free men would never be caught performing.
Here is how the word is used both literally and by analogy:
1 Cor 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co.5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co.5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat.
1Co.6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Effeminate is malakos which includes: e. of music, soft, effeminate, m. harmoniai. Harmonia incldes: IV. in Music, stringing, musical scale, of the planetary spheres 4. harmonian logôn labôn a due arrangement of words, fit to be set to music
The people HOPED that John wore SOFT CLOTHING and Jesus would SING AND DANCE when they PIPED. Soft is MALAKOS:
Malakos (g3120) mal-ak-os'; of uncert. affin.; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); fig. a catamite: - effeminate, soft.
1 Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the LAW is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti.1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with MANKIND, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound DOCTRINE;
The NEW STYLES giggle about teacher of DOCTRINE when "everyone knows" that the only thing that counts is GOSPEL. Well, the gospel brings good news that if you are NOT one of these guilty of FALSE DOCTRINE then you can be saved. If you are ONE OF THESE then there is A LAW AGAINST IT and Grace or Chara or Charismatic will NOT save.
In Revelation
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Porneia (g4202) por-ni'-ah; from 4203; harlotry (includ. adultery and incest); fig. idolatry: - fornication.
In Hosea in the Greek:
Hosea 4:10 For they shall eat, and not have enough: they shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase: because they have left off to take heed to the Lord.
Hosea 4:11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.
Hosea 4:11LIV "Wine, women, and song have robbed my people of their brains.
That is exactly the message of Amos 5, 6 and 8 as well as Isaiah 5.
In Demosthenes:
[200] then the junior clerk, doing the dirty work of public offices for a few shillings a month: and at last, not so long ago, the parasite of the greenrooms, eking out by sponging what you earned as a player of trumpery parts! [leader of the chorus] What is the life you will claim, and where have you lived it, when such is too clearly the sort of life you really have lived? And then the assurance of the man! Bringing another man before this court on a charge of unnatural crime! However, I will let that go for the present. First read these depositions.Depositions
We have noted and noted and noted that the theatrical and musical performers were all known as PARASITES when they pretended to work religious magic.
Porneuo (g4203) porn-yoo'-o; from 4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (lit.) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (fig.) practise idolatry: - commit (fornication).
Porne (g4204) por'-nay; fem. of 4205; a strumpet; fig. an idolater: - harlot, whore.
Hate to say it and say it and say it but when about half of the audience FLEES from their own property you have PROOF of the universal fact that to say MUSICAL or THEATRICAL performer in a religious sense was to say PORNE. Because all rhetorical speaking or music is a second or third-order level of truth meaning "Let's pretend" we can grasp why God always associates pagan WORSHIP with spiritual adultery. The whore of Revelation proves the point:
Rev 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Craftsman or Technites includes persons versed in religious practices, Id.Cyr.8.3.11; anthrôpos t. logôn, as a sneer. This points directly to Dionuson., theatrical artists, musicians as well as actors, trickster, intriguer. This includes an "organ player" and is associated with WORK and with HOPLON which is a CARNAL WEAPON or LIFELESS INSTRUMENT.
DOESN'T THIS SOUND LIKE A JUBILEE?
Demosthenes:[192] To show you, then, that these men are the basest and most depraved of all Philip's visitors, private as well as official,--yes, of all of them,--let me tell you a trifling story that has nothing to do with the embassy. After Philip had taken Olynthus, he was holding Olympian games,1 and had invited all sorts of artists to the religious celebration and the festival.
Note: 1 Not the great Olympian Games of Elis, but a Macedonian festival held at Dium. The date is probably the spring of 347 B.C.
Well, I do run on. However, a disciple LOOKS to where Paul POINTS because we know that a small book could not give us all of the story. So, stir up my curiosity I feel the need to document as much as I can find at the moment. However, reading Romans one makes it all pretty clear without reading those OLD DICTIONARIES.
Being called a “change agent” is not another “slander imaginable.” You should be proud of that calling and distinguishing mark, just like the prominent change agents in the brotherhood are—sorry, but they describe and identify themselves just that and are proud of it. Maybe, you are proud of it too … I’m not sure. Perhaps, a “secret change agent” is a better designation for you? After all, the scheming methodologies change agents use are subtle, hard to detect, slow and gradual—they all result in subversion, confusion and division among members of a given congregation that implements them.
You have accused Bible students in the church as taking passages out of context. Well, Tim, you’re an example of one [who has either left the church completely or is staying to divide and confuse others in the church] whose interpretation of I Corinthians 9:20-23 is out of context.
You label Paul as “the champion of change.” A champion of “change from what to what,” eh? Being “like one” or being “as one” does not mean “becoming one” or “being one.” To the Jews who had the law of Moses and to the Gentiles who did not have the law of Moses, Paul did what he had to do for the purpose of gaining or winning them to Christ or to be under the law of Christ. In our culture, one has to understand, for example, the nature of the Muslim religion, to even get a chance to convert a Muslim to Christ—i.e., without becoming a Muslim.
The problem with change agents like you and Max is that you imbibe certain denominational errors and practices and simply forget or have no desire to leave them where they belong. Your friend Max has already done that with regard to baptism, tithing, etc., not to mention the use of instrumental music in “teaching and admonishing” one another the word of Christ. He is even very thrilled when addressed in public as “Reverend.” You know, for that type of baptism doctrine, why not join any of the denominations that believe and practice it? With tithing, why not become a Seventh Day Adventist or join a denomination of your choice? Why not be a part of those who use instrumental music in their assemblies? The church is not the repository of imitated or borrowed doctrines.
Uh-oh, members of the church of Christ are narrow-minded and legalistic. And there is no narrow-mindedness in the denominational world? Tim, I know that you are much more intelligent than to even assume or believe that. Each religious body has its own idiosyncrasies—you know that. And each religious body wants to be left alone—the reason why ecumenical movements have not worked. That’s the reason why there are always problems, confusion, division, etc., when dissident members impose their changes upon others within a religious group.
No, Tim, no one here is afraid of change. But the church should be warned against and should not welcome changes that alter God’s truth or improvise His will for the church. The church should not implement changes that cause strife and division, even if they are non-salvation issues. Yes, Tim, the number or order of songs can be changed—no one will argue that point. Yes, Tim, it’s fine to use the projector and the big screen. Yes, Tim, it’s OK to adjust the air-conditioning/heating temperatures to reduce expenses. Yes, Tim, it’s just fine to assemble in someone’s home or in a school auditorium to study God’s word.
How did they do it in the first century? They simply preached the gospel of Christ. You must know that the early disciples did not use Rick Warren’s “church growth” scheme. They did not use Max’s and Rub’s “believe and do as you please” doctrine. They did not entertain the “seekers,” but they went about teaching “seekers of the truth.” I honestly believe that Oak Hills has had a share of its own problems—and theirs is not necessarily a success story, you know. And Madison has not yet recovered from its fall.
Tim, I’m posing this question to you once again. At least, please comment on the paragraph from another thread [plus another paragraph]:
“Why are you still here? There are religious bodies in your community that believe, teach, and practice the very things you are seeking. They would applaud your liberation from legalism and welcome you with open arms. They would bathe you in love and acceptance. The tension that you feel within yourself and that you are creating within and between others could be alleviated in one swift and decisive move. …
“Would it not be more reasonable to join a denominational group that pleases you and then work to have them change their name to "church of Christ" while keeping all else the same? This would cause a good deal less disturbance than the other way around. It would seem to be a move more consistent with the kind of unity that you profess to believe in. Even if you, and others who are like-minded, are successful in convincing a number of people to adopt your ways you will not have contributed to greater unity. Those of us who are committed to what we sincerely believe to be the old paths will have to separate from you (or you from us) and you will have become the hammer that drove one more wedge of division (a thing that you profess to despise) into what you consider to be the larger body of Christ.”
So, what comprises the body of Christ? Never mind. I’m certain that you’re thinking of the “ecumenical church” that embodies any form of “Christianity,” including Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Christian Scientism, etc. But if you’re excluding these from your concept of the body of Christ, we deserve an explanation from you. If not, yours is a distorted view of the body of Christ, according to the Scriptures.
Although this post avers the common knowledge in the brotherhood that Max has been sowing discord in the church he still claims to be a member of [well, he has actually dropped the name “of Christ” from what is now Max’s Church], my main purpose here is to briefly inform the reader about something else.
Here’s one example of what the denominational world thinks of Max the pseudo-Baptist. Quoting from the “Fundamental Evangelistic Association,” affiliated with the Fundamental Bible Church, it is obvious from the title of the article, “Inclusion of Church of Christ Materials in Bible-Believing Churches Is Dangerous,” that Max is not welcome and that the teachings of the church he left are dangerous:
“Fundamentalists must also beware of the writings of Max Lucado, the extremely popular communicator of religious ideals. While he is often embraced as a theologically conservative evangelical, Lucado is a minister of the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas, and has been a seven-time featured speaker at Pepperdine University's Lectureships (a long-standing Church of Christ ministry). He is also applauded by Abeline Christian University, another stalwart Church of Christ-related institution. Lucado does not intend for his books to indoctrinate but rather to appeal to as wide a readership as possible with his positive approach to a somewhat generic method of Christian living. The problem with accepting Lucado's books or relying upon the writings of anyone who is not straight on basic theology, however, is that one opens the door to lending credibility to the errant beliefs of the writer. Truth mixed with error never profits the child of God.” [Foundation Magazine: March-April 2000]
Dennis, what would you advise Max that you claim “has done much for the body of Christ”? Max and Rick Warren, your other mentor, share the same scheme—the “positive approach to a somewhat generic method of Christian living.”
Tom, while living in Seattle I was aware of Operation 68 which intended to get 68 missionaries to Brazil by 1968. I din't worry too much about it because Garner Ted Armstrong had decided that the end would come in 1965. I watched a $20,000.00 investment vaporize. I saw a large bag of gem stones return but didn't get my cut. Some of the people decided being in business was more fun than being evangelists. I wish them well. I also watched the birth of the Pentecostal movement from the snake handlers to up town when Dennis Bennet called down fire on the Episcopal church.
I know some people involved and it didn't all turn out good. As I remember it Max was a late bloomer and had to get educated and do his two years of service before they would accept him. When he returned the thingy with Max, Don Finto, Steve Flatt, Rubel Shelly and others broke out with the THE APOSTOLE helping to fuel the Jubilee movement. I always wondered who was ordained by whom to be new 13th apostles or prophets. The latest thing in Brazil is the Just Jesus movement defined by Dennis Downing and I believe sponsored by Oak Hills.
I always wondered if the Spiritists didn't get into Max as I know they did with others? Any printable background?
Ken, I am going to send you an email off this site. I would not appreciate people posting my personal information in a public forum, even if most of it might be available elsewhere online, but I do want the readers to know that I am responding to your inquiry.
While its indeed sad that denominations exist, one positive note is that the smarter ones are fervently opposed to Pope Maximus Lucado. The reason that this is good is because I know folks in the denoms, the Presbyterians in general. And they have a tendency to be studying people. Hopefully some of them will find their way out of that church. If Pope Maximus had his way they would all just stay where they are and continue on to the road to hell.
Max Lucado is doing wonders for the kingdom as opposed to you poor feeble minds sitting around in your own filth flipping epithets at all who think differently than your narrow minded creeds. You all should be ashamed.
Take if from a C of C preacher's kid from TX. Max is NOT who you think he is. Have you been to Max's church? Have you been around him during all his "epiphanies" about the bible? If so, you would know that Max Lucado is NOT the man you think he is. He isn't even sure of his own beliefs as he changes them about every 5 years or so.
You would know that he has changed his beliefs as his notariety and financial position have increased. You would know that he allows non-christians to lead the church and teach classes. You would know that his single's class go to clubs after church. You would know that there is an extreme lack of biblical study at the church but there sure is a lot of studying over Max Lucado's writings. What salesmanship!!!! Wow, and I thought I was good at PR.
Beware calling a false prophet a Christian. Satan is beautiful and sounds so wonderful. For those of us who grew up around the Max Lucado Church and have friends that still attend, don't EVER tell us how wonderful Max is. For you show your lack of Faith and understanding. You show your disregard for the Bible and for your fellow Christians.
Max has almost single handedly destroyed the C of C and the word of God with his arrogance and belief that he is our present day "savior" - come to show all the rest of us how stupid we were to take the Bible so literally and simply. Only Max seems to have an understanding of what Jesus truly wanted for the Church. Isn't he special?
Beware those who come with a slick image and a "new" understanding for they are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are the false prophets we have been warned about. They have come to split the Church up and cause confusion. They have hardened their hearts to God's Word and only see what they want to see. An easy, breezy view of the Bible. But it makes for a great show!
Sorry this is so blunt but I am tired of hearing how wonderful false preachers are when I know the truth. It's just too much to stomach sometimes.
PPB
Yes I have attended Max's church. My mom and sisters attend there. I have heard him speak many times. I also know that the Oak Hills church is elder led and Max is not the king there. He does not market his books there, but does uses his sermon series for furture books. His teachings are pure and biblical. His books have taught and comforted millions of people. To say he is not a christian is a lie that we do not have any business speaking.
A local misleading elder got wound up in Max. He gave it to a friend because they were well on the way to DIVERT the church into apostasy. I told my friend: "If you can get past the first chapter I am going to put the Gender Cops on your trail." Sure enough, he gagged on the first smooths and slicks and turned it back in.
Matt 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matt 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Matt 10:36 And a mans foes shall be they of his own household. [church]
Matt 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Matt 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
JESUS, if you remember, is the only COMFORTER: Max is not.
Paul said that our weapons are NOT Carnal Weapons which are Lifeless Instruments but
2Co.10:4 (For the weapons [hoplon=instruments] of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
2Co 10:6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
2Co 10:7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christs, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christs, even so are we Christs.
The elders are under SPIRITUAL DOMINATION. When Max gets a VISION to take the name of Christ off the sign and DENY CHRIST, and gets a VISION (from Farmer's Branch White Paper full of black lies) he CONFESSES that the changes were made by a CONCENSUS. That means that Max beat a simple majority and the gutless elders have PLEDGED to NOT oppose ANYTHING the majority VOTE decides. Not even heresy and lying, cheating and stealing the church house of widows. It also took a LONG TIME so some heavy handed coercion was going on.
Homer, Iliad
So saying, he led the way, and the other followed, a godlike man. And from them--even as the din ariseth of woodcutters in the glades of a mountain, and afar is the sound thereof heard-- [635] so from them went up a clanging from the broad-wayed earth, a clanging of bronze and of hide and of well-wrought shields, as they thrust one at the other with swords and two-edged spears. Nor could a man, though he knew him well, any more have discerned goodly Sarpedon, for that he was utterly enwrapped with darts and blood and dust, [640] from his head to the very soles of his feet. And they ever thronged about the corpse as when in a farmstead flies buzz about the full milk-pails, in the season of spring, when the milk drenches the vessels; even so thronged they about the corpse
The end-time Prophecy is that Apollo or Abaddon or Apollyon will DIG UP his muses or LOCUSTS to make musical war of the Prostitute worship (Reve 18:22)
Greek: Class-Euripides-Ion.html.
Strong though thy beak beyond the feather'd kind,
My bow shall reach thee. Towards the altar, see,
A swan comes sailing: elsewhere wilt thou move
Thy scarlet-tinctured foot? or from my bow The lyre of Phoebus to thy notes attuned
Will not protect thee; farther stretch thy wings;
Go, wanton, skim along the Delian lake, Or wilt thou steep thy melody in blood.
Look, what strange bird comes onwards; wouldst thou fix
Beneath the battlements thy straw-built nest? My singing bow shall drive thee hence; begone,
Or to the banks of Alpheus, gulfy stream, grace
Or to the Isthmian grove; there hatch thy young;
MELODY or PSALLO was never a MUSIC WORD: it spoke of pollution and warfare. That is why Bible 101aaa can READ Paul to say make melody IN THE HEART and do not let it BREAK OUT into "Music" or you will be a DEMO of the perfersion of the Holy Whore. It is all prophesied for the END TIMES. And you are a Warrior for Apollyon. Apollyon also shoots LOVE ARROWS and you have probably been pricked in the heart.
It is UNIVERSAL TRADITION that "singers and musicians were the HAREM OF THE GODS." THAT'S why you are PLEASURING which Jesus refused to do and Paul OUTLAWS before we can GLORIFY GOD with one MIND and one MOUTH speaking "that which is written."
Ken
Ken
Max has written books that comfort. He is not the Comforter. He has not denied God or Jesus. You are injecting supposition and rumor into urban legends about Max. And your postings on music are getting old and are not based on any reasonable biblical doctrine.
God in Christ comforts through His Word. I say what agrees with the Bible and 100% of church history says. And the pagan literature agrees with you guys that you can worship a Spirit God with your bodies when Jesus said that you MUST worship in the NEW PLACE of your Spirit.
I have shown that all of the proof texts are deliberately distorted and that all musical terms and names of instruments point directly to a perverted form of paganism and telling God: We will NOT listen to your words. When you are listening to and watching the TEAM (one of the first heresies) you CANNOT HELP but give your attetion to THEM. Because worship in Paul's writings is to GIVE HEED TO THE WORD or "that which is written" you DELIBERATELY PLAN NOT to listen to the words of Christ which are Spirit and Life. That simply is proven and you cannot dispute it.
That is why Max comforts you. However, being a good guy does not count: I say that Max has gotten himself out on a limb by comforting people by fictionalizing the Word which Scripture says "Must be taught as it has been taught." The Bible and contemporaneous literature says that he CANNOT GET BACK UP.
I say that his views on baptism have no counterpart in the Bible or church history. He simply does not--and I believe CAN NOT--read the text for what it says anymore. That is the meaning of MUSIC in the oldest stories contemporaneous with the Bible and written by Hebrews who understood words like TOUCH in the garden of Eden and HANDLE as when Jubal handled instruments WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
Your task is to point out one case where God either commands or commends instruments as a form of congregational worship. Your task is also to prove a negative which I have gracefully done FOR you because your elders WILL NOT teach you. That is, I have searched MOST of the existing Greek, Hebrew and Latin literature trying to find ONE person who thought that music had any place in the Christian assembly or synagogue or school of Christ. Therefore, your leaders just made it up or got a VISION and used what Paul called madness to deliberately sow discord among brethren and steal the church house of widows. There is no exception to the rule that when you drift off from Paul's direct command to SPEAK the inspired Word and begin to wax poetic by singing beyond the normal inflections of the voice it is a MARK that the facilitator has gone effeminate and the EFFECT is to spread the virus of effeminancy to his AUDIENCE.
Your task is to show why you WILL NOT believe a half dozen examples which CLEARLY identify instruments and pretty singing as rejecting the Words of God and/or does not show that they treated men like Ezekiel and even God as they would a singing and playing prostitute--male or female.
I have--I am positive--the single largest collection of documents NOT written by me beginning with Babylonian tablets which may date 2,000 years before Moses was commanded to write a Law to help preserve the BODIES in the midst of Babylonian or Canaanite Baalism.
I have never seen a jot or tittle which does not connect to paganism--that includes the temple animal sacrifices as imposed to lead Israel into captivity and death--with ritual perversion.
I have three dozen versions of the story told in the BOOK OF ENOCH defining why God will come with ten thousand of His angels to execute vengeance. THAT is because people allowed Satan and a Jubal-family to use MUSIC and more to seduce the faithful people away from the Living Word which guided them.
This explains why the serpent in the garden is not a snake. The word means a Musical Enchanter just as in Revelation the word points to SOPHISTS or comforting speakers. The FALL points to the use of brass which produced those shrill, hissing sounds which people TRAFFICKED as the presence of the gods. That is why one word means Play the flute, steal your vines, pollute and prostitute.
Paul confirms this by saying that Eve was WHOLLY SEDUCED as a bride is seduced BEFORE her husband gets to her--about the same time. That is why Cain (meaning a musical note) is said to be OF that wicked one.
CUNNING defines David's playing which could drive Saul out of and into madness called PROPHESYING. David's PRAISE word most often means to MAKE HIMSELF VILE.
The danger of looking to a human and giving him honor and his taking it always ends up with him and his worshippers being consumed by worms (i.e. the king/queen of Babylon who went into hell to rest on a bed of maggots along whit his harpists and harpists."
That is why you claim to read the evidence and cannot ACCEPT even one word connected with music and grasping that they ALL speak of pollution, prostitution and perversion.
Why would a Holy God command YOU to make music when the totality of evidence, inside and outside of the Bible, condemns it for its mind-altering and perverting power?
Why does a large percentage of the OWNERS abandon their "houses of widows" when the singy-clangy singers and players begin. Max promised just SOFT STRINGS in an out of the way room! Has he kept that promise?
Believe me, the devil ALWAYS uses ANGELS OF LIGHT while ALL faithful preachers and disciples are despised and rejected by men. That is a MARK you should use and not what you feel.
PPB, I assume when you wrote Tim you were actually meaning Tom.
Yes, I do know Max. I have been a guest in his home several times. He has been in mine. I know what I am talking about from first hand knowledge. I would strongly disagree with your assesment of him, and I believe anyone who knows him personally would also disagree with you.
You are VERY incorrect in your assumption. He is held in VERY poor regard by most brethern of the Church and MANY, MANY ex-members of his Church. Being nice does not make one a Christian. Being a smooth salesman does not make one a Christian. Christians don't dislike him as a person outside of religious issues - they dislike how he has given up on the TRUTH. He is delightfully smooth and engaging. Just what Satan was looking for to lead Christians away from God.
However, even my children can read the Bible and realize that Max is not following God's word. Why is that? Aren't we to be like children when it comes to believing in God? I truly believe (unfortunatley) that he is a thorn in the side of God and has caused great pain for God. I pray for him and his soul. I wish he would turn back to God and I wish he would realize how far off he is from the Word. But sadly, he won't. He seems to think he is smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us, even though we are just as educated and intelligent as he is. Why is it that those of us who tried to see it Max's way realized he was wrong? Why is it that we could see that he was going away from God and his Word? Why couldn't Max and why can't you?
You are blinded by his personality and are not seeing what is behind it. The truth is that he deserted God by failing to teach the Word as God meant it to be taught. By shortcutting and going around issues that would not bring as many members to the building.
I understand that you like it the easy way; many of us wish it was much easier. Max makes going to Heaven a wonderful event that almost all who call on Jesus will be a part of. Unfortunately, he has forgotten the actual scriptures. Jesus does NOT agree with Max. Paul does NOT agree with Max. Peter does NOT agree with Max. But of course, since Max is such a nice guy he must be just as inspired if not more than Jesus, Peter and Paul, right?
Many are those who will search for the narrow gate and few there are that will find it. Many will believe, preach and teach his Word and yet, Jesus will say he didn't know them at the time of judgement for they did not follow the Lord's will. I wonder what Jesus was talking about here?
Beware false prophets! Is Satan not beautiful to behold? Are his words not sweet to the ear? The sweeter the sound the more you should stop and listen for that is when your hackles should be up.
Truth as you see it PPB. See... what you and the "doctrinally correct" coC "brethern" fail to understand is that the coC does not have the market cornered on bible interpretation. The arrogance of the coC toward scriptural hermeneutics (i.e. only their interpretation is correct) never ceases to amaze me.
You folks rely on hermeneutic traditions that did not exist before Stone/Campbell. And even they did not view the scriptures in the way the coC does now. You rely on MEN like Lipscomb, Walter Scott, McGrarry, Franklin Camp, et. al. and oral TRADITIONS to TELL you how to interpret scripture and apply the MADE UP hermeneutic of command, example, and the evil "neseccery inference". You believe the coC doctrine and interpretation because that is what you grew up hearing and continue to parrot from pulpit after pulpit each Sunday. If you grew up Baptist, or Catholic, you would be just as dogmatic that their doctrine is correct. I have never been to a mainline coC yet that recognized any other group as being christians except themselves.
Max is a good, christian man. But, from this toxic web site i gather the majority opinion from the "brethern" that only those who go to an "approved" coC are christians.
What arrogance you people have!!
I knew a guy named Kent one time: Clark Kent. Everyone hated the old traditionalist as a mild mannered reporter of the TRUTH.
However, when this guy zipped into a telephone booth and came out wearing UNDERWEAR they just fell in Love with him. Oh, oh, oh Maxey! The musical PLAYERS did that at Mount Sinai but God said that they were JUST LAUGHINGSTOCKS. When God pours out HIS wrath he sends BUFFOONS and LOCUSTS to lull you to sleep and STING you to death: it leaves a MARK.
Unknown to Lois Lane--the FEMININE principle called ZOE or LUCIFER, the singing and harp playing prostitute; the BEAST and FEMALE instructing principle--when Clark turned into SuperMax he became vulnerable to Kryptonite.
Max's JESUS was sent to earth in a VIAL OF LIGHT which just passed through Mary: Jor-El sent his son to earth in a rocket ship.
Green kryptonite induces lassitude and inertia and death if you don't WAKE UP. Now, Apollo who is our Abaddon or Apollyon has MUSES or musical performers. They are the locusts and have a scorpion sting in their tail but which was called their TONGUE in the classics John alluded to in Revelation. Their job was to cause the workers to be lulled to sleep in the SUN by the use of music defined as OUTWARD odeing and making music by beating their wings against their breast. Or, if wingless rubbing their LEGS together.
Now Kent S(uperman), here is where you repeat the Max, Shelly, Change-agent merry band of men MANTRA which is a deliberate LIE but they know that fools can be fooled:
Kent Turned Superman now afflictable by KRYPTONITE which is thought to work because it was an APHRODISIAC comparable to Spanish Fly. They THOUGHT that it was like MUSICAL viagra (endorphins) but it just IRRITATED and created the "spiritual anxiety created by religious rituals" Jesus died to SHUT UP:
You folks rely on hermeneutic traditions that did not exist before Stone/Campbell. And even they did not view the scriptures in the way the coC does now. You rely on MEN like Lipscomb, Walter Scott, McGrarry, Franklin Camp, et. al. and oral TRADITIONS to TELL you how to interpret scripture and apply the MADE UP hermeneutic of command, example, and the evil "neseccery inference".
Superman, did YOU know that Lucifer who claimed to be the twin SISTER of Jesus the Logos had a BRESTPLATE which was MISSING some of the precious STONES. In their place S/he SUBSTITUTED Pipes and Tabrets and from his/her role as the king/queen of Babylon she also had VIOLS. That is, Lucifer came equipped with something MORE POWERFUL than Kryptonite: wind instruments, string instruments and percussion instruments. Wind instruments meaning "to play the flute, steal your inheritance, pollute and PROSTITUTE." Kinda like the word for David's naked musical dance and the word LUCIFER. String instruments mean to MAKE SELF VILE. Percussion instruments such as the Tabret or tambourine gave its name to Solomon's MUSIC GROVE which is a name for HELL where the musical prostitute worship and her performers will RETURN about now (Rev. 18:22)
Did you know that Rubel Shelly says that JOHN just lifted the LOGOS concept from Greek Philosophy. Well, their logos was MERCURY or HERMENES as in HERMENEUTICS. He was the messenger of the gods and the psychopomp: the conductor of dead souls into hell as Rubel says his musical ministers can help conduct you INTO THE PRESENCE of God.
Well, Super, you are caught with your UNDERWEAR DOWN: Remember what John warned about "stay AWAKE and keep your clothing with you?" As they would say in our LOVE-RIDDEN church "outside the camp": That is a PACK OF BALD FACED LIES.
My guess is that YOU are riding on the Backs of widows in a church of Christ and that YOU have your STINGER (called tongues) in the backs of widows whom you are riding TANDEM with the rest of the STAFF INFECTION known as Revelation PLAGUES meaning "running sores." The POSTMODERN guys say that our eyes have evolved and just SHOOT away truth from a document Jesus might have handled. However, MAX gonna get VISIONS and force the elders to comply and lie about EVERY musical concept in the Bible and ignore ALL of the evidence which MARKS it with telling a holy God: "SHUT YO FACE." They can DO this because there IS NO TRUTH but we (Shelly, York, etal) gonna PARTNER with God with OUR NEW GLASSES and we gonna get youse some NEW STUFF. In this MAD THEOLOGY -- now being repudiated as a PRANK -- actually believes that it is OK TO LIE "CAUSE WE GONNA SAVE MORE SOULS." They are EATING Kryptonite or the Sacrifice made to Baal Peor which was the dung of a previous worshipper rubbed on the idol's NOSE.
The BIBLE totally affirms the fact that God has a right to and does COMMAND what He wants people to do AS worship and there PROHIBITS what He has not commanded.
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 1Co.4:6
First Peter 1 PROVES that God is competent to TEACH what He wanted to teach and Peter left us a MEMORY because Scripture is NOT subject to private interpretation which means FURTHER EXPOUNDING. Paul told Timothy go GIVE ATTENDANCE (a worship word) to the public READING of th Word and then explain any doctrinal content and exort them to obey it. That is what the early church did LONG before preachers and HermeNEUTS came on the scene. Paul said that the elders "mus teach that which has been taught." That works very well if you HOLD SYNAGOGUE as Paul demanded in Romans 15 where he OUTLAWED pleasuring which means exciting singing which is connected to heresy.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. John 8:20
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Jn.8:44
If you will consult the following you will see that the Bible teaches what churches of Christ teach and what ALL SCHOLARLY writings and the founders of denominations TAUGHT before Thomas Campbell tried to reform church as A SCHOOL OF CHRIST and worship as READING and dialoging the word.
It is TRAITORS of the cause they get paid for guarding that LIE LIKE WOLVES. They know that they are LIARS or they woud not have enough brains to eat and defecate.
Kent S - don't you belong on the Ex-Church of Christ website? You seem to have the same opinion as the Kent S there.
By the way, Strong/Campbell was NOT the first Christian in this world so why would I rely on his teachings or anyone else? I do not refer to any of those you mentioned as I can read...
In fact, I don't know many C of C's that rely on anyone else's interpretation. Guess what? We all can read by ourselves! Wow...
Many brethren seem to think that bigger equals better. Those who are champions of change seem to operate under the illusion that this is the case. Since they now control many of the larger churches among us they presume they must have the better approach. Since they control our largest universities, they must be wiser, smarter and more in tune with the times.
If it is the case that bigger equals better, then surely Catholicism must be better than any other church, including the Church of Christ; but then Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and even animism all have more adherents than do we. Per this logic, they must be better! If bigger is better then many denominational bodies are larger than us and hundreds of denominational congregations are bigger than our biggest change churches, therefore folks should seek membership in them since bigger means better!
Is an author better or best because he is most popular and a best seller among the general population? Some imply that since Max Lucado is a popular, best- selling author, he must be saying and doing things right. But if this were the case, Chairman Mao was the greatest writer of our life-time. His little red book, the Thoughts of Mao has circulated many millions of copies.
The fact is, big says nothing about moral or spiritual qualities, whether of a business, a church, a school or an author. In fact, sometimes the ingredients that contribute to worldly success in numbers are deception, compromise; a message that is pleasing to the worldlyminded, rather than to God. The fact is, big only proves that a thing is big. It proves nothing about the rightness or goodness of the thing or those who made it big! Paul wrote, “If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).
Is a teacher better, wiser, more to be listened to or preferred because he has earned a Ph.D. from Harvard, Princeton or some other elite university? No doubt, in the secular realm, a degree from such a prestigious school is a real plus. In the world of denominationalism, where the Bible is always of secondary consideration, a degree from those top schools demands high respect. We read of “knowledge that is falsely so-called” (I Tim. 6:20). But in God’s church, where Christ is the supreme and only head; where Scripture is the absolute and only authority; where loyalty to Jesus, his church and his Word trumps all worldly attainments and knowledge; a Ph.D. from a great university of the world is of minimal consideration (John 12:48). In fact history will reveal that the Lord’s church has suffered more from highly educated men than from common folks; from brilliant men filled with arrogance and pride than from the ordinary men, of ordinary educational attainments (I Cor. 1:21, 26-27).
Today it is not those ordinary preachers, toiling away in the their local communities, that are giving us grief. The chaos and disruption is primarily flowing out of our Christian Universities and led by those change leaders who are so proud of their advanced degrees. We have had and now have well-educated men in our ranks who are yet humble servants of the Master, who love the church and respect the Word. But we also have a band of intellectuals who are deficient in all these areas. If they have their way the walls of Zion will be undermined and brought crashing to the ground. Big does not equal better nor does sophisticated equal right. At the end of the day, it is loyalty to Christ, love for his church and respect for his Word that makes a man a worthy leader of God’s people.
In the FAQs section of Max’s Oak Hills Church website, we find:
7. Where and when do you have instrumental accompaniment during your worship service?
A capella (non-instrumental) worship is offered at the Sunday, 9:00 a.m. assembly. All other worship services are instrumental. For information regarding these, contact our Minister of Worship, Jeff Nelson, 698-4650.
It wasn’t too long ago when instrumental music was used only in one assembly—sort of experimental. Now, its use is a dominant force under the leadership of MAXX.
No church of Christ has ever been INFILTRATED and DIVERTED without arm twisting and LYING about every trace of Biblical or historical fact. It is interesting that Paul OUTLAWED "pleasuring" which in all of the SABBATH DAY WORSHIPS turns charismatic.
NO CHURCH can adopt the heresy of the Musical Worship Team without knowing that they can SOFTEN UP the church to accept instruments. Most of the OWNERS will have been chased away. The SEEKERS sucked in by the MUSICATORS "standing in the holy places claiming to be gods" will have NO SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLES and will gladly VOTE in favor of what they already believe.
The word Paul used is intimantly connected in a series of words in the Greek definitions and literature.
Lift UP (pleasure) BY SINGING (same root) TO HERESY To a DEMAGOGUE TO KLEPTOMANIA.
ALL arousal singing is clearly defined in the literature as SORCERY or WITCHCRAFT. Not surprising that the Navigating the Winds of Change and the "Emerging" church heresy repeats the same PATTERNISM as WICCA.
For instance, part of Max Lucado's CLAIMED vision originated at Farmer's branch: too late to be Biblical and too local to be from heaven.
Max exists because he turns BIBLICAL FACTS into SILLY FICTION:
Oak Hills Church of Christ Elders?: The elders want to provide you with a statement
about a question that may have been raised.
That question has to do with the use of musical instruments
in our worship.
After many months of careful study and consideration,
the elders unanimously concluded that |
there is no Biblical prohibition
of the use of mechanical instruments in worship.
We believe that they didn't study the Bible. Rather, they were SHEPHERDED by the STAFF and believed what is abut 100% anti-Biblical and anti-Christian.
UNANIMOUSLY works this way: let's say that we have 9 elders. 5 vote FOR instruments and 4 are violently opposed. The MAJORITY trumps GOD and the 4 have SOLD THEIR BIRTHRIGHT for a mess of red beans called HONOR. They have to SHUT UP and not make a peep. That is how they can CLAM that the elders are UNANIMOUSLY. You will note that the FICTION WRITER did not say "ALL OF THE ELDERS."
Farmer's Branch Church of Christ: The Need For This Consideration
This presentation regarding
what the leadership of the Farmers Branch Church
believes concerning vocal
and instrumental musical expression
has been produced as
a response to SINCERE questions
posed by GENUINE disciples
who are a part of the HERITAGE
of the Churches of Christ.
The LEADERSHIP is not longer the ELDERS. Rather, it is usually the Dominant Pastor and HIS changelings-hirelings which HE has collected after FIRING the Deacons and emasculating the ELDERSHIP.
f course, this is not usually true: the usual ploy is to VISION and do a survey. The questions are leading and since many churches are CULTS using mind control, most of the flock have been truned into SMELLY SHEEP and know that if they do not BOW when Baal speaks they will lose their RANKING among the "leadership."
Max Lucado: After many months of careful study and consideration, the elders unanimously concluded that
there is no Biblical prohibition
of the use of mechanical instruments in worship.
This is slicker than I when I first read it. To say that the Bible DOES NOT PROHIBIT would seem to say that the Bible MUST state: "Thou shalt not use instruments." Sometimes Scripture speaks in PARABLES to delude those who have no love for the truth. However, from Genesis to Revelation the use of INSTRUMENTS is a mark of those who try to seduce people away from the Word of God. Sowers of Discord and musical SECTARIANS have always used THE LAW OF SILENCE.
I received the following e-mail:
Ken, I read your message this morning on the CM website regarding the decision at Oak Hills on Instruments. One thing that I wanted to point out, and it has been several years since that was done, but the "unanimous decision" to which they refer, was the unanimous decision among the Elders that remained after they had the study.
Not all Elders were in agreement on the decision and the ones that did not agree resigned.
I do not recall specific names at this point, but I believe there were at least two who resigned. I do remember that one was Paul Slatton, one of the best guys you could ever meet. He has since passed away due to cancer, but he immediately left for the Northside congregation. [I remember him telling the others that the issue was not whether IM was prohibited, it was whether it was authorized.]
Northside now has attendance of @900 and at least half of those are former Oak Hills members.
That would prove that about 450 of the OWNERS at Oak Hills choose to abandon their "investment" and family and friends. That means that 450 VOTED AGAINST the deliberate sowing of discord. That means that SOMEONE decided to OFFEND 450 of those and an UNTOLD NUMBER who refused to be CHASED OUT of their own property.
Max Lucado:This was a major move and we came to it CAUTIOUSLY. I remember Charles Prince preaching on the topic of Christian unity and urging us to "not consult our fears."
God calls us to do the same. Over the last few months, I've SENSED our Master URGING us to expand our dreams for San Antonio. He calls us to a fresh VISION: a vision of a city-impacting church.
As the details of this VISION crystallized for me, I shared them with our ELDERS. They prayed, pondered, and tested the ideas and, ultimately saw them as God's will for Oak Hills.
Well, we now have a witness who confirms that this was all a big lie: it did not originate with the elders, the elders were DISCORDED and driven away as a vote which SHOULD trump that of a hireling-changeling. Max has gone ALL THE WAY because he choose to rest on turning God's Holy Word into paganistic fiction.
We have had other inputs and feedback showing how they planned to add CAMPUSES by seducing other churches of Christ using the Promise Keepers infiltrate and divert scam.
Max Lucado:"Recognizing the POWER of contemporary music, these new assemblies will be instrumental. A soft keyboard beneath an altar call, the sound of a cello during communion service...these tools enhance outreach. After fifteen years and several thousand sermons, I am convinced instrumentation reaches HEARTS.
That is the undiluted TRUTH: both the BOW and LYRE were the instrumentation of Apollo who is the Abaddon or Apollyon of John's Revelation. The MUSES are the LOCUSTS of John's symbolism and they have been unleashed to AFFLICT the people and DRIVE THEM into groups determined by the MARK. Apollo--as the Greek version of the Lamech family--was the FATHER of the TWANGING bowstring to send a SINGING arrow into the LITERAL HEART of people. That is why he is called the FAR SHOOTER. He also used his lyre to shoot LOVE ARROWS.
The SOUND of the cello during communion service INTENDS to silence the HEARTS of the individuals so that they CANNOT POSSIBLY think about the Death of Jesus and the PERFORMING ARTIST at the same time: that is INTENTIONAL "heart shooting." The GLORY naturally ACCRUES to the HANDLER (meaning without authority for Jubal) who as the king/queen of Tyre was Lucifer and called the "SINGING AND HARP PLAYING PROSTITUTE."
Kardiai.Eph.5.19 the kardia or the seat of feeling and passion, 3. mind
Tox-euma , atos, to, A. arrow, metaphor, of songs and words
The tender ripeness of summer fruit is in no way easy to protect; BEASTS despoil it--and men, why not?-- [1000] and brutes that fly and those that walk the earth. Love's goddess spreads news abroad of FRUIT bursting RIPE . . . . So all men, as they pass, [1005] mastered by desire, shoot an alluring arrow of the eye at the delicate beauty of virgins.
Am.8:2 And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A basket of summer fruit. Then said the Lord unto me, The end is come upon my people of Israel; I WILL NOT again pass by them any more.
ALAMO! Apollo has landed. We KNOW that Max got his VISION from the Farmer's Branch White Paper. We have noted elsewhere that such discord comes from "Males" who lack power whatever their income AND "their chief disciples: WOMEN." ZOE or LUCIFER as the "singing and harp playing prostitute" is called the BEAST and the female instructing principle.
hey travis,
Yea, really dark over here!
I just like messing with these idots! LOL
You know, if they wouldnt take this crap so serious, i wouldnt mess with them as much. Besides, they are not interested in real debate, only shouting down those they disagree with.
I stumbled upon this site while I was researching information about the church of Christ. My husband has been a member of the c of C for 25 years, and I attend another church. I have always struggled with the dogmatic, legalistic approach of the cofC. I know you have strong feelings (that's for sure!) about your beliefs, but I would encourage you to pray as you read your Bible and allow the beauty of God's word to penetrate you heart. God has definite commandments that we must follow, but we need to be careful not to make "the traditions of men" into "commandments of God."
My understanding is that your husband is still a member of the church that you referred to as being “dogmatic, legalistic” in its approach to … what? I’m wondering if he is aware that this is what you really think of the church he has been a member of for so many years. I’m also wondering (since you didn’t say for whatever reason) about what this [another] church where you attend that is not legalistic, e.g., is it a Community Church, Pentecostal, Christian Church, etc.?
Speaking of “strong feelings about your beliefs,” I’m appalled that you have made an exception to yourself in this regard. It seems contradictory to me in that if you didn’t have “strong feelings about your [own] beliefs,” it stands to reason that you wouldn’t be too critical about the “legalistic” church that your husband is a member of.
It is very possible that you do not understand what determines “legalism.” “Pharisaical” and “legalistic” are common buzz expressions among liberal theologians and their disciples when they have difficulty accepting biblical truths and doctrines that do not conform to THEIR way of thinking. These are the same folks who are opposed to many of Paul’s teachings and admonitions to the various churches of Christ in the New Testament era and who, therefore, identify Paul and other NT writers as legalistic as well. Is that an accurate and a fair way to label the apostles who clearly warned the early churches about the impending apostasy even during that period?
I also feel the same about what you perceive “traditions of men” to be. Churches of Christ are opposed to traditions of men, contrary to what you’ve learned—again, from liberal theologians. The Holy Scripture plainly teaches Christians to adhere to the teachings of the apostles—these are “apostolic teachings” and not “traditions of men.” The Catholic teachings concerning worship of the Virgin Mary as the “Mother of God,” the evolution and rise of the papacy, the priesthood, the idols, veneration of the saints and prayer for salvation of the dead are just a few examples of “traditions of men.” Do you see the difference?
Believe me, we try our utmost to adhere to God’s Word—probably the main reason why we’ve been labeled “legalistic.” If we are legalistic because of our adherence to God’s teachings and commands found in the Scripture and the Scripture alone—then, that is just fine with me.
Dear Donnie,
Thank you for taking time to respond to my post. I consider myself first and foremost a Christian. I grew up attending an Assembly of God church. I currently attend services on Sunday morning and Wednesday night at an Assembly of God church and I go with my husband to the church of Christ on Sunday night and for weekly Bible study. I am sorry I didn't explain myself better in my earlier post. My husband does understand how I feel about the church that he attends. In an effort to unite our family(we have an 8 year old child), I attend services with him on Sunday nights and during a weekly Bible study. My husband is one of the most dedicated, sincere Christians I know. (That is why I married him even though I knew we had different religious backgrounds. He says that he married me for much the same reason, thinking that if I studied the Bible more, I would no doubt come to see it like he sees it.) It breaks my heart that after years and years of sincere, devout Bible study I haven't come to see things as he does. I definitely appreciate your dedication and sincerity and I apologize for the hurtful aspects of labeling someone else's belief system as legalistic and dogmatic. I feel strongly that the gospel of Christ has been watered down by most religious bodies in an effort to appeal to current humanistic leanings. I strongly feel that Biblical concepts cannot be changed or ignored simply because the reader doesn't agree with what the Bible says. Based on scripture I firmly agree with the cofC on many points: The inerrancy of the scripture and its divine inspiration, the virgin birth, sinless life, ultimate sacrifice and marvelous resurrection of our precious Lord, the necessity of "not forsaking the assembling together" of ourselves, the plan of salvation, including confession, repentance, water baptism,(Although I was taught that water baptism was "an outward sign of an inward conversion", I have come to believe, after much Bible study and prayer, that water baptism has been sorely overlooked by most preachers today. I still struggle with three situations in the Bible: 1)Cornelius and his family were "filled with the Holy Spirit" and spoke in tongues BEFORE they were baptized in water 2) In Paul's conversion the scales fell from his eyes BEFORE his baptism in water 3) In the account of Abraham, Paul writes that "righteousness was imputed to him BEFORE his physical circumsion. However, throughout the new testament the command is repeated "Repent AND BE BAPTIZED" and there are numerous references to "buried with him in baptized", "baptized into Christ." I therefore think that baptism must be kept in its New Testament context and be stressed with confession and repentance. (I think most people outside of the cofC struggle with this issue because they view it as downplaying the grace of God and sacrifice of Jesus, but from my studies with many cofC members I have found that most of them clearly see the grace of God and the blood of Jesus as the "price" of our salvation, and baptism as the means of "encountering the blood".) I digress...
What I struggle with is the concept of the necessity of strictly recreating and following the pattern of the early Church. The Bible clearly states that we are to follow in the doctrines and traditions of the apostles so I understand the desire to fulfill this command. However, after studying the New Testament in its entirity, I understand the concept of following in the apostle's doctrine differently. For simplicity's sake, I will state a few of the things I don't agree with the cofC on, based on what I read in the Bible: 1) The concept of strictly duplicating the pattern of worship used by the early church. Based on Christ's teaching ,after being confronted by the Pharisees about his disciples plucking the ears of corn, that "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man", it seems to me that Christ is making the point that while the commandment to "Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy" had been a divine commandment, the Jews had taken the divine commandment and interpretted what keeping it holy meant, making countless rules that must be adherred to, missing the point that the Sabbath Day was divinely appointed as a day of rest FOR man. I see this same mindset in many members of the church of Christ. I struggle with why some things are stressed and others aren't. The early church didn't have buildings, much less fellowship halls because they were living, in most cases, under extreme persecutions. But now, buildings and fellowship halls are accepted. Women are forbidden to speak in services based on Paul's instructions, but women aren't forbidden to wear gold and silver or plait their hair. I don't mean to sound so petty, but I don't understand why some scriptures are emphasized while others aren't. 2) The strict forbidding of musical instruments in worship services. The New Testament does not forbid musical instruments expressly. The command to in Ephesians 5:19 "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hear to the Lord" is first of all, not linked to a worship service situation. Secondly, the instruction to sing doesn't preclude the use of instruments. This is one issue I feel has become a "tradition of men" in the cofC that isn't clearly a "commandment of God." The use of musical instruments in the Old Testament in worship to God, the presence of musical instruments in heaven as noted by John in Revelations, the notation of music as part of the celebration of the return of the prodigal son, indicate God's acceptance of musical worship. I agree that historically the early church did not worship with musical instruments (neither did they own a building in which to worship) but I don't find any commandment forbidding it. I think that we can clearly worship God without musical instruments and I personally wouldn't mind if we never had musical instruments, but I don't agree that it is Biblically forbidden.
There are several other points I would like to make, but I have to get my son to bed! I am sorry if I have offended you. When I did my earlier post, I had been reading several other posts and I guess I was just heartsick that there is such a difference of interpretation of the scriptures. I know that we live in a world that is suffering and hurting and it is my deepest desire that sincere Bible believers could come into unity of understanding. I will pray for you and please pray for my family and me.
Thank you very much for explaining your situation very well. I appreciate your sincerity and honesty and the willingness and interest in the study of God’s word. I must say your post is so “loaded”—and there are yet “several other points [you] would like to make”—that I don’t know where to begin. I realize how busy we are with our jobs and with the seemingly countless and endless activities and tasks … daily.
I would much like for you to continue to have the awareness of this website’s objectives. I feel that as you continue to patiently and openly search for answers and browse for information, you will learn how and why this site came into existence. It is our plea to warn congregations which have not yet been infected with this spiritual disease of division that it is simply not worth implementing culture-driven and controversial changes. Probably the reason why we haven’t dealt with very specific doctrinal issues as much as we should, such as the conversion of Cornelius and other matters that you mentioned…. But I strongly believe that despite the seemingly conflicting passages in the Bible and other “mysteries” that may seem beyond our comprehension, there are no contradictions in salvation matters so long as we are “… rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15).
Meanwhile, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to this special study. We’ll take time to do this, and I hope for your understanding and patience.
Thanks so much for the kind post, Donnie. I am sorry I stumbled onto the wrong site for my needs. (I understand the concerns of many members of the church of Christ in light of the massive changes happening throughout some of the churches of Christ. Although I currently have more in common with the more liberal churches you are concerned about, I understand that Christians have to be diligent in fighting for the true gospel and for the true cause of Christ.) Even if I don't see eye to eye with my husband, I know he shares your concerns about what he views as liberal changes in area churches of Christ. I will continue to study and read and I appreciate your kindness. Hope you and yours have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Hello Concerned Friend,
Ater reading your comments to Donnie I was interested that you are in the "Assembly of God." I have an Assembly of God background: spent may hours listening to men who would begin their message with: "God has spoken to me, and this is His message to you today." I have a collection of Jimmy Swaggart tapes: "Living Beyond Sin." We, who are old enough, remember "brother Jimmy" blew into New Orleans long before Katrina.
Most Assembly preachers will tell you that because they have been baptized or "slain" in the Holy Spirit they "no longer sin." I forget the number of "alter calls" that I made. I would hear of the "experiences" of those who would make these trips to the alter and how "good" they felt on their return. "Anointing of the Spirit." This never happened to me, and the sad part: I would see many of these individuals on a regular basis outside of church and you would never know by their life style that they had encountered the Holy Spirit in an alter call in an Assembly of God meeting.
Isn't it interesting that Saul of Tarsus met the risen Lord on a dusty road in Syria, yet he had to "go into a street which is called Straight" and find out from a preacher by the name of Annaias what he must do to be saved? I mean, you can't make that up. If Saul did't have a Holy Spirit "experience" after seeng that "light from heaven there is no chance for old Jack, or Jimmy Swaggart if you get my drift.....
I am sure Donnie will explain what happened at the household of Cornelius.....but, here is something for you to think about: look at verses 14-15 of Acts chapter 11.
Here, we find Peter back in Jerusalem "rehearsing" to his Jewish brethern why he had gone into the house of a Gentile and eat with them (after all, this was "unlawful" Acts 2:28). Peter said: "Who shall tell you WORDS, whereby you and all your house shall be saved: and as Peter began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them as on us in the beginning." So, we can deduct from Scripture it takes "words" or "apostolic words" to be heard by a sinner and be implemented to be "saved." Would you agree?
Question: Why did Peter emphasize "the Holy Spirit fell on them as on us in the beginning" as he began to speak to Cornelius and his household? We know the "beginning" spoken of by Peter here, was "Pentecost."
The day the Spirit "fell on the twelve" at Pentecost was approximately ten years before Peter was "sent" to Caesarea (makes you wonder why the Holy Spirit didn't just go and save Peter the trip.) Can you explain why Peter had not seen this manifestation of the Holy Spirit since the "beginning" if Holy Spirit baptism was or is an everyday "experience" as taught by the Assembly of God in alter calls? Surely, Peter would have seen this in the rapid growth of Christianity after Pentecost! This must have been a different manifestation of Holy Spirit baptism than what read about in Samaria; for it took the "laying on of hands" by Peter and John (Apostles) in Samaria (Acts 8:18) for those good folks to receive the Holy Spirit. No alter call.....Wonder why Philip didn't save Peter and John the trip from Jersaleum and "anoint" the sinners there in the Holy Spirit? I see Benny Hein on TV doing something that even Philip couldn't do. Make you wonder? ....It did me, "You can fool some of the people some of the time..." I'm sure you get my drift.....We can anticipate Donnie answering your questions....I wonder if after the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius, he became an apostle? Many today in the CofC teach that this was the "credentialing of the apostleship"...interesting, what do you teach Donnie?
Jack
Dear Jack,
I have attended an Assembly of God church in Texas and I have visited at a number of Pentecostal churches and unfortunately I have seen a great many inconsistencies like you mentioned. I personally have never heard the comment about the preachers being unable to sin after being slain in the Spirit. (The minister at the church my husband attends said he had heard that the Assemblies of God taught you had to speak in tongues to be saved, but I have never heard that either. And no, I do not sleep in church!) I have seen charaltans and impostors who have claimed to have supernatural powers, but who in my opinion, are fleecing sincere but misguided people, in an effort to gain material wealth for themselves. (I personally can't stand to the vast majority of TV preachers who claim to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" and see the glaring inconsistencies in the lifestyle they live and preach.) I am appalled at the prosperity teachings that are so overwhelming present in so many messages. (I want to talk back to the TV and say, "Yeah, Jesus said "Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head," and Paul, who was clearly called to be an apostle and "thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than you all" was beaten, shipwrecked, imprisoned and martyred for the cause of Christ...not exactly prosperity in material things but clearly prosperous in spiritual blessings.) I digress again...
Having said all of that, I am so sorry that you have had such unfortunate experiences in an Assembly of God church. I too have responded to several altar calls and I have had times when I personally did not feel any "moving of the Spirit" and other times when I felt a might move of the Holy Spirit. I understand that the cofC thinks that all manifestations of the Holy Spirit ended when the apostles died or when the Bible was complete, but I interpret the scriptures, such as Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 13:10, 1 Cor. Chapters 12 and 14, differently than the cofC. After reading Paul's epistles, it is clear (at least to me) that speaking in tongues was a integral part of the New Testament Christians' lives. He taught that, however, speaking in tongues in a worship service, was not profitable however, unless there was an interpretation. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit as noted in Acts occurred on those in the upper room as noted in Acts chapters 1 & 2 (where based on Acts chapter 1 & the beginning of chapter 2, I always thought there were approx. 120 people in the upper room at the time of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but which I understand, based on Acts 2:14, my husband and members of the cofC understand there to be only the 12 disciples filled) was on Jewish believers and the outpouring of the Spirit as noted in Acts ch. 10 at Cornelius' house was to Gentiles. (My comment about Cornelius and his household being "filled with the Spirit" BEFORE they were baptized in water wasn't focusing on "speaking in tongues" but rather on the theological paradox of how God's Spirit could "fill" someone who was still a sinner, or who hadn't been baptized in water yet. I am sorry that once again I didn't make myself clear (I've been told before, by my sister, that I ramble, and apparently I do!) but what I was meaning to say is that even though in my heart I struggle with those three instances I mention, I struggle with the multitude of other scriptures that seem to imply that righteousness is not imputed UNTIL baptism, so I think it is best to err on the side of safety, and stress the direct command of baptism as an immediate step after confession and repentance.
Once again, I have household duties that I have to attend to (that's a fancy way of saying I have to do laundry,) but I appreciate your taking time to respond to my post. I realize now that this forum is designed for another purpose and I just stumbled onto it inadvertently, so I will try and not bother ya'll anymore. I would like to you to know that there are sincere, seeking people who may not come to all of the same conclusions as the cofC. Maybe one day we will all be able to have the wonderful unity that Jesus prayed for us to have and that Paul encouraged us to strive for.
Dear Jack,
I responded in part to your post earlier, but I didn't quite finish my response. It is my understanding that the cofC teaches that the Holy Spirit manifestations mentioned in the Bible were mainly as "signs" to unbelievers and to lead the believers in the "ways of truth" before the New Testament as we know it was completed. From your post and from what I have studied about the cofC viewpoint on this issue, the Holy Spirit was imparted by the laying on of hands of the apostles and so I understand your argument with what you saw at an Assembly of God church. I am clearly no Bible scholar and as I mentioned earlier, I am diligently studying in an effort to try and understand my husband's viewpoint and to see if our differences are genuinely "salvation points" because I want our family to be able to go to church together and work for the Lord in a more concerted and effective way. The things I struggle with are:
1) Based on what I read in the scripture, the role of the Holy Spirit was indeed to provide a sign of the veracity of the gospel that was preached. However, the scriptures also say that the Holy Spirit would endue them with power Acts. 1:8. (Clearly this power is seen in the mighty change noted in Peter, who went from being a dedicated believer who nonetheless denied the Lord under fear or persecution (at Christ's trial and death), to a mighty fearless speaker who boldly preached the gospel on the Day of Pentecost. Speaking in tongues also "edified the believer" as Paul noted in 1 Cor. 14:4. In verse 14:15 Paul mentions praying "with the spirit, and ..with the understanding also." This prayer language seemed, based on scriptures, to be an edifying experience that profitted the person speaking in tongues and not merely a sign to unbelievers.
2) I am running out of time again so I will compact my points: The Bible states that we are "led by the Spirit", "the Spirit will lead us into all unity" and other works of the Spirit that are not merely tied to signs to non-believers. I am not trying to convince you of anythings here, or engage in "vain disputes" or "doubtful disputations," I am just giving you my background teachings and readings that have left me feeling that while the Assemblies of God may have some false leaders who abuse the role of the Holy Spirit, I feel that the church of Christ overlooks or bypasses the Holy Spirit as something that was for "back then" and that ceased to be of importance. I think the Holy Spirit still draws people to Christ, gives us power to overcome the enemy. In my current intense Bible study, I have prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide my understanding. I don't mean to in any way downplay the importance of the Holy Scriptures which are God's word to the world, but I think it is important not to downplay the Holy Spirit of God that can lead us into all truth.
I'll quit now and I don't mean to quibble with you. I guess I just want you to know that there are some people who are not charlatans (or however you spell that word!) that sincerely believe differently. I think when dealing with others who may interpret the scriptures differently than we do, it is important to study and discuss matters in a loving manner that would glorify God. Except on rare occasions, Paul dealt with members that were being led astray by first greeting them, then saying somethings they had done correctly, then pointing out the areas that they needed to change. Jesus, likewise dealt with individual sinners in a compassionate, loving way and only displayed his anger at those who were desecrating the temple by making it a money making area instead of a house of prayer. (Sounds like some TV preachers I know...I digress.) I really will try to leave yall alone now and I apologize for my rambling posts. I appreciate Christians who are zealous for God and who seek to do his will. I know that making it to heaven, and taking as many others with us as possible is the only thing that really matters in this life and I will continue to "study to show myself approved of God" and I hope you all will too. I will pray for all of you and your families and please pray for my precious family. Your Concerned, Struggling, but Still Studying, Friend, Sharon
Speaking in tongues also "edified the believer" as Paul noted in 1 Cor. 14:4. In verse 14:15
There were 70 "nations" to whom Abraham and his descendants were to be a blessing. The Greeks recognized only 5 LANGUAGES but 70 "tongues." This was not gibberish but minor dialects. The Greek literature is filled with examples of "tongues" and they were all someone's known language. The exception was the uncovered prophesying by the women in 1 Cor 11.
First: One of the scams as a MARK of all of the pagan oracles was that the PROPHETESS often literally went insane from drugs or music. Her MADNESS (a word used by Paul) was the answer to a request to KNOW what they could not know for which they were often stripped of all of their money. First they used insane goats and then virgins. Because the virgins were always getting raped they picked women over age 50. That is why Paul OUTLAWED making younger widows supported by the church. Modern arousal singers are actually "intoxicated" by self-induced endorphins.
Second: The PRIEST had peeked at the "sealed" question and just made up a RESPONSE.
Third: The "singer" put the response into hexameter verse and sang it to the customer. Generals often went to war based on false information. Getting visions or trying to see into the future was a terminal sin.
THEREFORE, for those (mostly Mad Women) just out of paganism, Paul established both AROUSAL SINGING and SPEAKING in an unknown language as a MARK. Don't trust them because they are probably going to hit you up for money.
This end-time religionism using all of the CRAFTS of ancient paganism is detailed by John in Revelation 18 and can be seen in ANY church which employes a preacher-person who claims some insight, singers or musicians. That is why we must be literate enough to see the MARKS so that we do not make the same mistake of the first advent.
The ONLY way to guard against these scams was that NO ONE was permitted to speak anything in the ASSEMBLY or synagogue which could not be understood even if the person had to "haltingly" translate their own message OR have another person 'interpret or translate.'
Paul mentions praying "with the spirit, and ..with the understanding also." This prayer language seemed, based on scriptures, to be an edifying experience that profited the person speaking in tongues and not merely a sign to unbelievers.
Jesus commanded and Paul defined worship in the PLACE of the human spirit. Tongues were MINOR DIALECTS and not gibberish. Paul commanded speaking THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN or Scripture which is Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual songs. The purpose was to TEACH or EDIFY or EDUCATE. The method was with ONE MIND and ONE VOICE because they were able to TEACH ONE ANOTHER.
Speakers of self-composed songs or sermons would be identified by Jesus as "children of the Devil" because they speak on their own. By defining SCRIPTURE as the ONLY resource in the ekklesia which had ALWAYS been true, Paul would OUTLAW speaking anything not Scripture.
Most of the people in Corinth were moving in, out or through. Therefore, there were many of the known tongues or dialects spoken. The work Phoebe did at Cenchrea was for the church of Corinth. Her official position was to settle or transient people because they were not "just" and had no right to plead their case.
Furthermore, all ancients believed that THEIR native dialect had supernatural power with the "gods." At Pentecost part of the "madness" was that unlearned men not trained to teach about God (praise) in the Hebrew were doing "liturgy" in the WRONG LANGUAGES. Hebrew and Latin were especially powerful in history. Latin is STILL the "tongue" outside of America.
The Greek and Latin literature makes it very clear that TONGUES were "barbarian" dialects as opposed to the Koine as a LANGUAGE. People naturally wanted to pray or sing or make some statement in their native dialect or tongue. However, others would not be EDUCATED and could not endorse it and it might possible be Cursing God.
Paul's SPIRIT or the "mental disposition of his mind" would tend to speak Koine Greek. Because only he--and none of the Corinthians--had the supernatural power of "languages" he matched what came from his mouth and mind with his SPIRIT.
If I attended a country where the custom was to allow people to speak the WORD to edify one another, I would speak my "tongue" because that is the only one I know. If the assembly (synagogue) understands only Russian then the communication would be LIKE the gibberish or uncovered prophesying Paul controls in the first part of First Corinthians 11.
However halting, if I CAN speak my "mental disposition" or spirit in Russian, then I SPEAK so that I can interpret with MY spirit. Otherwise, I am permitted to speak in the tongue known as English IF someone else can translated for me. Notice that Paul begins with IF: this is hypothetical.
1Co.14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, MY spirit prayeth, but MY understanding is unfruitful.
My understanding in foreign language might make me feel good but I communicate NO edification and the ASSEMBLY or SYNAGOGUE was a SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE and had no singing or praying RITUALS. There are no supernatural or magical singing-speaking rituals in the assembly and this is the CLEAR MARK God left us. My speach must produce FRUIT and not a "private experience."
1Co.14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Paul spoke in MANY minor dialects because He had been giving that power as a post-resurrection witness of Jesus Christ to be an apostle. A Latin Cornelius speaking about God in Hebrew or "Judean" amazed the doubting Jews: he did not speak GIBBERISH. That was seem by Peter as a SIGN that the gospel had ALWAYS been for "the nations."
However, with Paul the tongues were utilitarian. Speaking with the mind or understanding means VOCALLY.
1Co. 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
1Co.14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding,
that by my voice I might TEACH others also,
than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
1S.1:13 Now Hannah, she spake in her heart;
only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard:
therefore Eli thought she had been drunken.
That is because the gift of minor dialects is utilitarian so that anyone who CLAIMS the gift should be TESTED by the Word and should NOT be doing it in a church but in RUSSIA or India or they are frauds.
And that is because the ROLE of the church is to TEACH: DISCIPLES do not do ritualistic worship needing mediators in song and sermon but STUDENTS just as the synagogue always existed and outlawed loud singing and instruments as the Qahal, synagogue or "church in the wilderness.
The MARK is of the Beast: ZOE has been the secret code by which the TECHNE-crats have sowed discord of a Biblical Proportion. Zoe is Lucifer who was the "singing and harp playing prostitute." Zoe was known as the BEAST and "the female instructing principle." Both the Old and New Testament establish SCRIPTURE: if they DON'T "teach it as it has been taught then they are MARKED."
Is.8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
The following defends the MUSICAL MASTERS but laments that they probably violated the Lynn Anderson law of "Prayerful Brinkmanship." That is you slink like the SERPENT in the garden of Eden who was the Musical Enchanter or "singing and harp playing prostitute." You SHOULD Not, like the "youngers" as Madison get CAUGHT in your naked, mid-air leap to bring on the GRACE of a "a Holy Theater." They don't grasp that GRACE is CHARIS which in all of the MUSICAL rituals was a brown eyed prostitute. From a defender of The Wicked Witches of the West we hear the "you should be more careful and NOT wake up the good men of the house." Right from the first drip of the spigot the LIE is that making church into a COMMUNE and adding music as the most expensive, legalistic, superstitious and PATTERNIST practice known from Cave Dweller 101aaa.
The freedom or LIBERTY or REST Jesus die to give us is FROM the defender of bread stealers: That REST means 'stop the preaching, stop the singing, stop the music" which is defined as STOP the PANIC which is what music CREATES;
Thank goodness for the new breed of preachers that look beyond the human efforts of men to see the grace and freedom that even those of us in the CoC can enjoy...
Belmont in Nashville was a shock when I first attended as a visitor but I recognized Don as an exceptional man of God..And respect him but wish the congregation would tone down on the style of worship...not their faith and salvation...
I'm thinking that I would feel the same way about Max if I attended the service there....Yes,styles of worship should be carefully placed before initiating them on us narrow minded members....As liberal as I am.I would suggest a worship leader that could bring the acappella voices to a height that would be an unbelievable sound with so many people attending,and leave off the instruments...yet,bringing instruments in is no sin if the congregation wants it....However,a full blown band during the Lord's supper would be overdoing it..in my opinion...not sin just poor judgement....
I've hugged Rubel and told him personally how much I appreciate him...I hope to be able to do the same for Max..
Let's not shoot our superstars...
The defender of rank paganism defends LOUD A cappella. Well, he won't grasp that this was the perverted, castrated French singers imported to be USED in the Sistine Chapel where instruments were outlawed for OFFICIAL Catholic masses.
Second, they invented ORGANUM which was a legalistic end run by having a VOCAL BAND where they often made ANIMAL SOUNDS or other weird vocal noise as SECRET CALLS the Cynics used to attract mates like the Coyotes do in my valley.
Third, the very idea of a SUPERSTAR is a vile repudiation of Jesus Christ Who calls the twos and threes to COME LEARN OF ME. Jesus CAST OUT the performing ministrels LIKE DUNG and Paul OUTLAWED the PLEASURING for the synagogue.
James proved that SHOWING PREFERENCE of person makes the CROSS of Christ of none effect because you are GUILTY of all of the tenets of the Law of Moses.
2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
By definition a HIRELING is one who is HIRED to do more than go and "teach that which has been taught." One who CORRUPTS the word REPUDIATES it and just makes up his own songs and sermons. Jesus called them LIARS and "sons of the Devil."
A CORRUPTER is a TRAFFICKER which is the Lucifer (Zoe) principle of the "singing and harp playing prostitute."
Kapeleuo (g2585) kap-ale-yoo'-o; from kapelos , (a huckster); to retail, i.e. (by impl.) to adulterate (fig.): - corrupt
kapêl-euô
A. to be a retail-dealer, drive a petty trade... kapêleu' drive a trade, chaffer with your vegetable food Hdt.1.155
II. c. acc., sell by retail, ton herpin Hippon.51 .
2. metaph., k. ta prêgmata, of Darius, Hdt.3.89; k. ta mathêmata sell learning by retail, hawk it about, Pl. Prt.313d; k. ton logon tou theou 2 Ep.Cor.2.17 ; so eoiken ou kapêleusein machên will not peddle in war, i. e. fight half-heartedly, A.Th. 545; k. têi Chariti tên amoibên Epicur. traffic in grants of citizenship, [CHURCH MEMBERSHIPS] of prostitutes, playing tricks with life, [p. 876] corrupting it, AP9.180 (Pall.).
When you hear GRACE CENTERED you know that FREE GRACE frees us from prostitute and sodomite RELIGIONISM. CHARITIE is the base of CHARISMATIC and all "exciting a cappella singing" is CHARISMATIC and therefore PERVERTED and PERVERTING.
The word ADULTERY and KLEPTO is associated with this verse. The concept of arousal singing to produce the outlawed PLEASURING is also connected with KLEPTOMANIA by the "heretics" who LIFT YOU UP to carry you away for THEIR OWN PLEASURES.
Hdt.1.155 Heredotus: Cyrus told how to take the FIGHT out of the enemy: [4] But pardon the Lydians, and give them this command so that they not revolt or pose a danger to you: send and forbid them to possess weapons of war,
and order them to wear tunics under their
cloaksand knee-boots on their feet,
and to teach their sons lyre-playing [kitharizein]
and song [psallein] and dance
and shop-keeping [huckstering].
And quickly, O king,
you shall see them become women instead of men,
so that you need not fear them, that they might revolt."
The Zoeites (Luciferians) felt the PRESSURE to bring in an expert to debunk the ABSOLUTE connection between the singers, flute players, MIMICS and homosexuals plying their TRADE in stolen church houses. By IMITATING they can perform the ACTS and send the vocal signals and, as parasites, get the fools to pay their FEES.
Again, the Wicked Witches of the West and their few Warlocks will STING you if you go on to tell them:
2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
2 Cor 2:17NKJ For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ
prosmoicheuô ,
A. commit adultery in addition, Vett.Val.118.35.
Similar Latin:
adultero , a-vi, a-tum, 1, v. n. and
I. a. [id.], to commit adultery, to pollute, defile.
I. Lit., absol. or with acc.: latrocinari, fraudare, adulterare, : jus testamenta falsa supponere, : qui dimissam duxerit, adulterat, Vulg. Matt. 5, 32 : matronas, Suet. Aug. 67 ; cf. id. Caes. 6.--Also of brutes: adulteretur et columba milvio, Hor. Epod. 16, 32 .--As verb. neutr. of a woman: cum Graeco adulescente, Just. 43, 4 .--Freq.,
II. Fig., to falsify, adulterate, or give a foreign nature to a thing, to counterfeit: laser adulteratum cummi aut sacopenio aut faba- fracta-, Plin. 19, 3, 15, § 40 : jus civile pecunia-, Cic. Caecin. 26 : simulatio tollit judicium veri idque adulterat, id. Lael. 25, 92 ; id. Part. 25, 90: adulterantes verbum, Vulg. 2 Cor. 2, 17 .--Poet. of Proteus: faciem, changes his form, Ov. F. 1, 373 .
That is why the Bible and ALL of history calls them PROSTITUTES or SODOMITES: they even RETAIL that which Jesus died to give us FREE OF CHARGE.
Grace means JESUS PAID IT ALL. If to the Musical Ministers (cast out like Dung) we OWE then we REPUDIATE grace and WORSHIP the Grace-Centered Mother Goddess whose AGENTS as Wicked Witches of the West have scorpion stingers in their tails.
Interesting Mr. Sublett, but you are way over my head.
I am still but a "babe in Christ."
One can tell that you are a five talent man.
Getting back to the Holy Spirit: Why do you believe "Peter and the rest of the apostles" spoke in tongues at Pentecost? Why not Hebrew, all these men were Jewish? Greek was spoken by all who were there. Why speak in the tongue of those from "every nation under heaven?"
When the question was asked by "all who were amazed" "What does this mean?" (verse 12 of Acts 2)
Peter said, "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." After reading Joel 2:28-29, I can find nothing of "tongues." I note that Peter did not say: Why, men, we have just been baptized in the Holy Spirit and we feel.... so good! I'm sure you will want this wonderful feeling too! No, Peter said "save yourselves from this crooked generation." What did he mean by that remark? Nothing about "praying and asking Jesus into your heart;" seems this would have been a great spot for a prayer meeting, but Peter never mentioned "prayer" to these "devout Jews" before "they that gladly received his word were baptism."
Since their were only "about three thousand souls that gladly receive Peter's word:" does this mean the Spirit did not "regenerate" the greater multitude of men who were there? Were only the "elect" chosen by God at this time?
Just what did happen at Pentecost Mr. Sublett?
Thanks in advance.
Jack
Interesting Mr. Sublett, but you are way over my head.
I am still but a "babe in Christ."
One can tell that you are a five talent man.
Getting back to the Holy Spirit: Why do you believe "Peter and the rest of the apostles" spoke in tongues at Pentecost? Why not Hebrew, all these men were Jewish? Greek was spoken by all who were there. Why speak in the tongue of those from "every nation under heaven?"
Hebrew and Greek were LANGUAGES to the pilgrims but they were aware that these were not Phds from Rabinic U in Jerusalem. Like me, they probably were lucky to be able to speak "Tennessean" and everyone knew it: maybe they smelled like fish?
Acts 2:7 And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?
Galilean was probably JUDEAN or the common Hebrew of the time. These people may or may not have known Hebrew or Koine but THAT was not the point: the point was that this would be the SIGN that the Apostles (only) were given the power to speak the TONGUES which were minor dialects. We know of none but the "Peter standing up with the eleven" who spoke in tongues in the entire Pentecost experience. That is because the SIGN would be in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the uttermost parts (the Gentiles). Like the prophesying in the wilderness: "they prophesied but did not do so again."
The AMAZEMENT was also that Hebrew was the liturgical language and communicating with the Pilgrims was not the object of the clergy as long as they knew where to put their cash. I suspect that most who came for Pentecost didn't expect to learn any new or old truth. Sorta like going to a workshop of Postmodern preachers and having a street person tell you the story of Jesus.
The Jews were upset that anyone could praise the JEWISH God without using HEBREW. I think that it meant that the gospel is "word pictures" and carries, as Calvin thought, its own "spirit." Anyone could "teach that which had been taught" without the Jewish clergy.
These Apostles spoke TONGUES which is NEVER gibberish other than that called "prophesying" which was arousal singing or using instruments: modern praise songs are "speaking in tongues" or prophesying or Lord, Lord saying.
Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Acts 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia,
Acts 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
These "tongues" were the native dialect or the "language" of someone:
Dialectos (g1258) dee-al'-ek-tos; from 1256; a (mode of) DISCOURSE, i.e. "dialect": - language, tongue.
When the question was asked by "all who were amazed" "What does this mean?" (verse 12 of Acts 2)
Peter said, "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." After reading Joel 2:28-29, I can find nothing of "tongues."
To some people Hebrew was also a TONGUE or dialect. People from Babylon would NOT EXPECT their Akkadian or some other language to be spoken in Jerusalem. Because they all heard in their own language I betcha that they compared notes: one said "they preached in my Babylonian tongue." The other one said, "Yes, and they spoke in the language of the Elamites." And the third popped up and said: "Yes, BUT these are not the brightest flames on the candlestick."
Acts 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Acts 2:13 OTHERS mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
No one would see this as CHARISMATIC SUPERIORITY: maybe madness or drunkenness unless someone explains. So, the pilgrims didn't know and the Jews said: "simple, they are drunks, you know that only drunks would be street preachers." What the unbelieving Jews heard MIGHT have sounded like the drunken gibberish of a "prophesier."
Joel had prophesied terrible things to happen as SIGNS of Messiah. There would be an outbreak of people 'prophesying' and Zechariah informs us that these charismatic prophesiers would be killed by their parents if they prophesied after Messiah came. We know that God deliberately bypassed Philip's "prophesying" daughters.
The prophecy of TONGUES was given only to the Apostles as signs which would FOLLOW their preaching. And we know that these signs followed ONLY when an apostle was present and ONLY among the GROUPS of people and NEVER again. Only the "prophesying" was prophesied by Joel and I think that this is a SIGN against both the Jewish "widow riders" and the sorcerers or soothsayers which most of the "singing" words implicates.
We know of NO WOMAN who ever spoke in tongues even in the presence of an apostle. Even speaking "native dialects" was outlawed because it did not edify which means instruct.
You will notice that Peter DISCOURSED and did not sing and clap. Apparently only the hostile Jews needed to know that they had SLEPT through the classes on the First Advent.
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the ELEVEN, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Acts 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Acts 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Acts 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man APPROVED of GOD among you by MIRACLES and WONDERS and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
So, even with all of those Phds the Pharisees were ignorant and by calling these lowly men DRUNKS may have blasphemed the Spirit.
Even after the Samaritans had been baptized the SIGN had not been performed among them. It required an Apostle to PROVE that this message was APPROVED BY GOD by a miracle. The Samaritans did not do any supernatural things again.
I note that Peter did not say: Why, men, we have just been baptized in the Holy Spirit and we feel.... so good! I'm sure you will want this wonderful feeling too! No, Peter said "save yourselves from this crooked generation." What did he mean by that remark? Nothing about "praying and asking Jesus into your heart;" seems this would have been a great spot for a prayer meeting, but Peter never mentioned "prayer" to these "devout Jews" before "they that gladly received his word were baptism."
Whatever may have transpired as a giant outbreak of ecstatic practices Peter does not single ONE of them out and lumped them all as an EVIL generation.
You are correct and I have noted that NONE of those who received the gift of what I believe to be A holy spirit or A conscience cleansed by God ever spoke in tongues. Cornelius had been touched and lifted up by an Apostle. When the SIGN had been performed to GENTILES -- where they MUST have spoken Hebrew or the doubting Jews would not know -- Peter commanded that Cornelius be baptized because Peter had been sent to tell him WHAT HE MUST DO. If he MUST be baptized then it cannot be optional.
Paul could speak in "dialects" but he said that he WOULD NOT DO THAT in church. Elamites traveling through Corinth were forbidden to speak or pray in THEIR tongues unless they could translate it or had another person who could.
In 1 Peter 3:21 Peter says that Baptism is where we REQUEST a good conscience or A holy spirit. Request means to PRAY or ASK. So, baptism IS the way we PRAY for God to remit our sins. Amazing, Lucado takes the ONLY act which is defined as our REQUEST to be saved and repudiates it and says that we are saved by just calling God FATHER. I still wanna try that on Bill Gates.
Since their were only "about three thousand souls that gladly receive Peter's word:" does this mean the Spirit did not "regenerate" the greater multitude of men who were there? Were only the "elect" chosen by God at this time?
Just what did happen at Pentecost Mr. Sublett?
Thanks in advance.
Jack
We have some history about the festivals held in Jerusalem. Originally they had been more like MUSTERS of draft aged males than a religious ritual. Most of the people probably went for the excitement. Others like the Ethiopean were dedicated. The REMNANT concept always meant a TINY fraction of the masses practiced righteousness and social justice. If a few thousand out of the million who are said to have died in Jerusalem says anything it says not to go hanging out with the popular masses.
There are several clear definitions of the ELECT in the prophets. Paul also defines them. They were a tiny REMNANT which had not bowed to Baal. All of the elect or chosen passages prove that they had not been UNelected for deliberately repudiating the Word and being unjust. Paul identifies the Jews who FEARED GOD and WORKED RIGHTEOUSNESS as ACCEPTABLE. He defined the Gentiles in about the same way. Therefore, the ELECTION happened at Pentecost when God CALLED or INVITED people who had followed the chosen path and they CALLED BACK by "calling on the name of the Lord." Jesus added the baptized to the EKklesia or the CALLED or elect.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
I believe that Peter preached the gospel which means NOTHING Unless you know the GOD and His history you are preaching. Those who heard the speaking in tongues did not receive any sense of cleansing so they ASKED Peter what they MUST do. Because Peter did not call Jesus a liar, he told those who who BELIEVED that they should repent and BE BAPTIZED. This was FOR the remission of Sins because Jesus had assigned baptism as the time and place where people CALLED UPON His name and REQUESTED the remission of sins which would give them A holy spirit or as the same Peter said in 1 Peter 3:21, A good conscience or a "conscience" sprinkled FROM its evil by God.
Being baptized is equated to being CONVERTED and that means to "return to the starting place" or in the Latin to "return to one's nativity" or be adopted. Down through history baptism was called the ENLIGHTENMENT because they understood Jesus to promise that they would receive A good conscience which is A holy spirit which is defined as a CO-PERCEPTION. Paul in 2 Cor 3 told the Jews that they would not be able to read BLACK text on white paper until they were converted.
The people at Pentecost had their sins remitted or washed away which would give them A holy personal spirit because all that was unholy would be removed. This meant to be regenerated. While there was great joy there was no supernatural manifestation.
Great Joy is often a calm inner peace or assurance which those who have rejected baptism can NEVER have because they will need bigger and bigger doses of EXPERIENCE to give them the HIGH before they crash on Monday morning.
1Pe.3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
I would WORRY a lot about people who LUST to build bigger and bigger "barns" because they may just be housing "cows of Bashan." I don't believe that you will ever need a very big house or band of cult masters to house and regulate the tiny remnant in any community.
Sorry about the quick, rough notes: I can repent tomorrow. Ken
Thanks Ken, I really appreciate you taking time to answer my questions about Pentecost. Not having any training in Scripture it is refreshing to communicate with a scholar.
Holy Spirit baptism is very interesting to me as one who has studied his way out of the Assembly of God "run and gun" preaching.
When you study Jesus' rebuke to the Jew (those of authority) in Matthew 23 we see the term "generation of vipers" used by Jesus as "condemnation" to temple centered religious leaders who committed the consummating national sin of killing the prophets: and would kill the Son. Interesting, Jesus' answer to these men of authority when they said, "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." His answer must have raised the hair on their heads: "Wherefore you are the witnesses unto yourselves, that you are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill you up then the measure of your fathers, you serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?"
I note Jesus' parable in Matthew 21 of the "wicked husbandmen" when He said, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits therof, And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parable they PRECEIVED THAT HE SPOKE OF THEM." (He was.)
This is the same outfit that went out to hear John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness. John blistered their rear-ends by call them a "generation of vipers."
I believe we see the message at Pentecost by the inspired Peter, preaching the funeral service of national Israel.
I see the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" as a "Judgment." I do not see the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a blessing in the New Testament. John the Baptist prophecied that the baptism of the Holy Spirit would "first" come upon "the Pharisees and Sadducees." If all we knew about the baptism of the Holy Spirit came from Matthew 3:10-12 would anyone want this baptism of "fire?"
When do we see this "fire?" Let's look again at the beginning of Peter's message: "And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come."
The Jew would not see this "Hebrewism" as the "Second Coming of the Lord" as do the Assembly of God "scholars."
First, we see this type of hebrewism as an Old Testament formula for the judgment of a city or a nation BY God. I direct your attention to Ezekiel 32:7 the destruction of Egypt by Babylon; Isaiah 13:10 the destruction of Babylon by Media; Isaiah 34:4 the destruction of Edom; Ezekiel 34:12 the destruction of Jerusalem; Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:16-21 the judgment of national Israel.
Those Jewish Christians who would "read and understand" the Lord's warning of Matthew 24:15ff to "flee into the mountains and to let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his coat, etc.," when Titus and his Roman armies entered into Jerusalem and destroyed the city the Christians were gone. Not "raptured" as so many preachers use this passage to advance their dispensational premillennial school of eschatology.
The "great and notable day of the Lord" would be the beginning of His work through the apostles which began at Pentecost. To the Jew first, which began in Jerusalem and then, unto the Gentile which began at Caesarea. Peter has now used the spiritual "keys" (given to him by Jesus) to open the gate to the "kingdom of God" to the Jew and also the Gentile. He preached "water baptism" to both nations. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." There is no other way into this "kingdom" that I can find in the New Testament. "Verily, verily I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheep fold, but climeth up by another way, the same is a thief and a robber."
Again, thank you Ken for your teaching on Acts.
Jack Mann
Well, Jack, that makes TWO of us whom they brand insane. How does it feel? Thanks for the Scriptures: I will add them to my collection. Needless to say, when God pours out His Spirit you may not want to be the recipient. It seems to me that when preachers "preach that which has been preached" they will look where the N.T. writers POINT and not be diverted by popular theology. It is a very late theology and not the love for the Word which makes faithful churches want to LOOK LIKE and SOUND LIKE the world's SPIRIT to "win the world." Men like Luther and Calvin would call them fanatics.
There is so much information in the Bible and in the contemporaneous literature such as The Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees and a library of opinion down through history which MARKS the agents of the Devil. While the opinions are not inspired they agree with the Bible for those who can read BLACK text on white paper. Jesus calls the Devil their father because "they speak on their own." Isn't it amazing that people have declared the Bible obsolete and claim to be partnering with God to get a new set of Scriptures and the MASSES love to have it so. The language is so powerful that you have to beleive that Jesus and John were not using figurative language. Remember, that Jesus spoke in parables to the MULTITUTES to keep them from hearing the message. THAT makes the hair stand up on my head when I think that the world is filled with prophet killers and Christ destroyers. Isn't there a PANIC to see who can get the name of CHRIST out of their presence?
When God had fulfilled the prophecies of JUDGMENT against all but the remnant which was elect because they were righteous and just, the dominant clergy (which were not faithful Israelites) saw this as a JUDGMENT AGAINST THEIR LAW AND THEIR PLACE. They clearly understood Stephen's JUDGMENTAL SERMON against the Temple.
Because the SIGNS were validated by the dispersion of the nation, and because the signs did not continue among the faithful, I worry about people like college professors and the ZOE GROUP calling for the SPIRIT and FIRE to fall on them. I think that God may already be burning them UP and burning them OUT because their new style worship always MARKED a certain gender bent. God's wrath means ORGE which also defines the charismatic "rituals" of the 'idolatry of talent.'
Zec.14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
Je.5:14 Wherefore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.
2Th.2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
They missed the FIRST ADVENT and I see no reason to think that people will grasp the SECOND ADVENT except with a backward gasp. As Amos told Israel: "God will not pass this way again."
Each of those passages are filled with dynamite. Old men "dreaming" was also a judgmental sign of "enchanting" means of hearing from God. However, the message was that they should HEAR HIM meaning Jesus Christ.
Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done;
and, ye that are NEAR, acknowledge my might. Isaiah 33:13
The sinners in Zion are afraid;
fearfulness hath surprised the HYPOCRITES.
Who among us shall dwell
with the DEVOURING FIRE?
who among us shall
dwell with EVERLASTING BURNING? Isaiah 33: 14
When the Lord shall have washed away the filth
of the daughters of Zion, and
shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof
by the SPIRIT OF JUDGMENT
and by theSPIRIT OF BURNING. Is.4:4
These were all JUDGMENTAL SIGNS AGAINST THE JEWS and not "commands, examples and inferences" for us. The Pharisees REJECTED the counsel of God by refusing to be baptized. As a result of ignoring the SUPERNATURAL proof on the day of Pentecost perhaps a million Jews were killed in Jerusalem and most of them were probably BURNED UP.
I see all of the hustling among the MISSIONAL MADNESS building cults or communes and defense of Located Missionaries trained as "Prophets, Chanellers and Facilitators" to become CHURCH STEALERS FOR JESUS as fear and panic and NOT a place I want to be or INFEST my funds.
It might not be too late to get a DEGREE in "Minister of Burning at the Stake" or MBS
Ken, again I appreciate your scholarship. This thread began with "Defending Max and Madison." Paul stated in his letter to the Christians at Cornith: "If any man thinks to be a teacher or spiritual (apostle) let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandements of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant." Paul is saying, that if a man is unwilling to yield to what he has written there is no other appeal to be made to him.
I believe it is vital that one interpreting the scripture be fully conversant with hermeneutical rules of literature and be in a truly open and nonpartisant or prejudicial state of mind. Freedom from bias is absolutely indispensable. Hermeneutical freedom is, in the first place, freedom from all intellectual presuppositions. It is, in the second place, freedom from every moral bias such as the lack of candor or sincerity. Any writer or interpreter of literature must be free from the dogmamatism of other as well as exempt from the dogmatism of his own.
I believe the mental qualifications of the reader or interpreter are also referred to as the subjective condition of reliable exegesis. God, the Author of revealed truth, indisputably intending to be understood, for the benfit of mankind, that nothing short of a false exegesis involving the neglect or deliberate repudiation of the principles of hermeneutics can obscure the true sense and meaning of the Devine Word. Simply stated, there can be no difference of opinion as to the meaning of bibilical texts if every reader will practice a few basic hermeneutical rules of interpretation.
In my mind, the very reason the U.S.A. is so deeply involved in the Middle East is the gross interpretation of the scriptures now being held by many conservative, evangelical churches which support the state of Israel in occupied Palestine. A very few "authors" and their non-hermeneutical interpretation of Old Testament Scriptures are responsible for many well-meaning "Christians" aligning themselves with Zionism and its adherents, and against the truly aggrieved and maligned Palestinian Abrab People. It is difficult for the Press in this country to sort out the terriost from the common man in the Middle East: so they have grouped them all together.
This country is paying a very dear price for Biblicial ignorance in more ways than the general public is aware.
I believe the very leaders of this nation since WW2 have been persuaded by influential preacher's with their "doomday" rhetoric (that has an open invitation to the Oval Office, and the floor of the Senate) and the myraid of books flooding the market, especially those "Prophecy" or Last Days" booklets found in nearly every Christian Book Store and in many personal libraries of Evangelical ministers. I personally know the Assembly of God churches thrive on this rhetoric, and many (to my surprise), I have found in the Church of Christ having this dispensational premillenial eschatological theory that believes the New Testament answers to the Old, that modern Jews are the people of God first--the church second, and that modern Israel's official hatred of Christ notwithstanding. Grace bows to race, faith to flesh.
Interesting that the "unconditional support of Israel" is one of the planks in the Moral Majority platform and its leader Jerry Falwell, a constant guest on the nightly news. This support occupies the mindset of the leaders of Promise Keepers.
Israel has long cultivated "Christian" leaders in this country to preserve the good will. The state of Israel follows the advice of Ben Gurion that Israel should always have at least one world power to rely on, and America is it. Israel is under the Arab gun and cannot survive indefinetly without American support. Due to the Israeli lobbiest in Washington, pro Arab legislation is bitterly contested in Congress. Just as no one is more anti-Christian than a Zionist, no one is more pro-Israel than a dispensationalist. From the ranks of the latter, in fact, the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem with branch offices in the U.S. and many other countries.
Embassy spokesman Jan Willem Van Der Hoven makes it his mission to persuade Jews to go and live in Jerusalem and die for Jerusalem if necessary. If Israel would announce plans to build a temple, dispensationalists in the West could be expected to finance it immediately.
Israel-the-key-to-prophecy is dogma for such denominational bodies as the Assembly of God and Independent Baptists, Messianic nationalism has its disciples everywhere. Hal Lindsey, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Rex Humbard, Oral Roberts and bill Graham are joined by a hoste of lesser lights to fill the air and book pages with: modern Israel fulfills prophecy and "if the Bible is true, Israel will never fall." In the minds of the watching and listening public, the credibility of the bible is being tied to the political fate of an anti-Christian state. The most ambitious prediction are delivered with a hard and fast "the Bible says!" This is why I feel it is very important to know what happened at Pentecost, (hermeneutically speaking)besides: "it was the first Gospel message this side of the cross."
It is very important to me, that the multitudes of authors are totally unaware of the hermeneutical rules and thusly readers are believing and receiving distorted, bias interpretations which amount to nothing more than the doctrinial persuasion of the denominational writer.
This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!
...........................THE BOOK
What Happened At the Madison Church of Christ?
There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.
This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison
Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource
references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least
you will recognize the signs early on.
Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't
know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.
Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was
one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.
It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of
it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word
of Jesus Christ.
At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority
of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly
realm.
They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and
to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.
The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan.
Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books,
seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change
so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....
At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to
be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched
through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the
"Community Church Movement"
Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready,
or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the
plans very nature, it had to be secret.
The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was
never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last
15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.
The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the
elders went along unwittingly.
This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell
something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill
in some of the timeline.
To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the
background materials in the first of the book.
This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be
printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our
web site; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison
Here is the list of players;
5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten
commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)
