Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Re: Question for Donnie (Tom Brite, April 8 2004, 11:43 AM)

April 10 2004, 6:52 AM 


I didn’t quite complete my response to Robin Guidicy earlier. But I think his closing remarks were somewhat related to yours in that he said that those who have removed “Church of Christ” from their signs “reached a point of honesty” which “is not what we want to hear.” [He sounded somewhat poetic near the end there.]

Just a little background about me … I did not grow up in the same kind of religious environment as you did. The neighborhood was 90% Catholic … and my family went from “faith to faith”—that sounds ironic because Romans 1:17 states—“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith.” But I’ve been exposed to almost all kinds of religious beliefs and practices under the sun—Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, United Church of Christ, Church of God (Pentecostal), Assemblies of God, etc., etc.

So, from all the varied experiences in religion, I’ve been able to compare and contrast church creeds and doctrines. And I must unequivocally state that based on what I know about the truth that’s revealed in the New Testament, the little known “churches of Christ” spoken of in Romans 16:16 are the closest to the truth when compared with any of the religious groups established by humankind.

I know fully well, and I agree with you, that the church of our Lord is identified in various ways in the New Testament [key words: “New Testament”]. There are references to: … all the churches of the Gentiles …the churches of God … all churches of the saints … the churches of Galatia … the churches of Asia … the churches of Macedonia … the churches of Judaea which were in Christ … the seven churches which were in Asia. The church is also known as the family of God … the household of faith … the household of God, the kingdom, etc.

But that was during the New Testament period. There were no denominational churches with human founders then. So, a congregation in Rome or Ephesus or Galatia mentioned in the New Testament would certainly be a church that belonged to Christ—it would not be a Mormon Church or Seventh Day Adventist or Christian Science, would it?

In this day and time, the New Testament church must be identified regardless of the preconceived notions or negative impressions by those who are already affiliated with certain religious persuasions. The likelihood is that it would take much more than a friendly visit with your congregation for someone to be converted from another religion. Besides, as far as “conversion” goes, there is so much to do out there in the mission fields than within the church confines—which reminds me of the mission of the change agents and the “Community” churches, i.e., to have a conglomerate of “believers” coming together from various already-established churches in a locality or region or neighborhood. I would like to put the mission statements of “Community Churches” to the test out there in real mission fields where the gospel of Christ is unheard of. I would like to see how the “scheme” of converting the converted works in a Buddhist country. I would like to see the change agents subvert the Roman Catholic Church for a change.

The probability is that when, for example, “Oak Hills Church of Christ” changed its name to “Oak Hills Church” [side note—it would not surprise me if appending the word “Community” was strongly under consideration] … that twisting of the New Testament truth, such as in Max’s version of the purpose of baptism, had been involved in the scheme of things. Otherwise, what the “Oak Hills Church of Christ” bunch was all about to begin with would remain unchanged in the minds of those with preconceived notions of that church. Do you see my point?

I still believe that given the circumstances that many people in “Christianity” generally believe that “one church is just as good as another,” it is in accordance with New Testament teachings that the Lord’s church is uniquely identifiable. For example, I think that this would make an excellent church sign because it is a statement of truth: “The church of Christ at Madison meets here.” It is less “offensive” [if you insist] but it identifies with the name of Christ being its head and founder.

Let me know if I’m misunderstanding you. But I gather from you, Tom, that church identification is of little or no significance to you. If this happens to be the case, i.e., if you feel that with you affiliating with and becoming a member of “Fairview Church” which has changed its name from “Fairview Charismatic Fellowship Church” (with or without you knowing it) does not matter, what can I say? Do you see my point?

Believe me, I understand all the misrepresentations about the church. But dropping the name of Christ for the purpose of “political” correctness or socio-cultural accommodations is not the way to proclaim the truth about the church that the New Testament speaks of.


 Respond to this message   
Tom Brite
(no login)

Re: Re: Question for Donnie (Tom Brite, April 8 2004, 11:43 AM)

April 10 2004, 6:16 PM 

Donnie, I believe that I do see your point and it does make sense to me. Thank you for sharing your past experiences from your youth. You are to be commended for the stand that you are taking and I can understand where you are coming from.

I think there was a time following WWII when denominational names were very important to people. From my reading of history, people were more grounded in their various denominational doctrines. It was also a time when there was a large surge in church attendance overall in the US and the churches of Christ benefitted from this attendance surge more than most. That is what lead Time magazine to declare that we were the "fastest growing denomination in the US. That fact is very much debatable. I have heard varying stories of how they came to that conclusion, but needless to say, we along with all other religious groups benefitted from that surge in attendance.

I guess my point, at the risk of being accused of spreading lies for someone by Ken, is that I am less concerned about the name on the building as I am the content of the teaching. If it is possible to eliminate or bypass prejudices, be they right or wrong, by modifying the name on the building, then that is what I believe we ought to be willing to do to reach others for the cause of Christ. I am not sufficiently aware of research to determine if the churches that are doing this are successful in their efforts. There was a time not too long ago, when I did not feel this way. I was very adament about the name "church of Christ." That was my heritage and my heart felt belief.

However, I am aware that the attendance at Oak Hills has increased from @3,500 to @5,000 since the change/modification of the name. It seems that Amarillo South has also seen an increase although it appears to be a smaller percentage increase. I would be interested to see any studies that exist to determine if other churches such as the ones in Nashville and Little Rock that have modified their names have experienced similar growth.

I could go on and may at a later time. I do not want to dominate the discussion. Thanks for your attention.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Re: Re: Question for Donnie (Tom Brite)

April 11 2004, 1:27 AM 


I had not looked at this site for some time as most of the post don't do much to build me up.

However, Several things about this whole thing make me sad. I am saddened by the fact that some are discarding the Name "Church of Christ) from their designation (not just their building). I have always been proud of the designation "Church of Christ", However, I have not held that as the official "NAME". As far as I can determine Jesus never named His church. He just said it was His. The term "Church of Christ" is a possesive term, not a Name. It describes who the church belongs to. We must be honest and admit that for all praticaL purposes the term "Church of Christ" has been denominationalized. No one (unless it is a very small group of us) would even argue otherwise anymore. Yes, this is sad it had to come to this.
It is also very sad that a element has so conducted themselves and at the same time called themselves "Church of Christ" that the sinners around us have developed such a bad taste. This may not totally excuse their bad taste but the fact remains it has happened and there is enough blame to go around. If the figures you gave on Oak Hills is correct, it really is sad that the community around had such a bad taste that the changing of the Name would make such a difference. I am sure there are other things envolved.
I ppersonally have known those who left the church and will never return because of some of the fussing that we have been noted for. Yes, I know that may not be a good excuse; there is fussing in all churches to some degree.
Did not Jesus say, that offenses would come, but woe to the one that causes the offense?

I challenge us all, to take a honest look at ourselves and make sure we are not a part of the problem. If we are, may God have mercy on us.

Sorry, but I have now laid myself open for the wrath of WHO KNOWS WHO!!!!!!



 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for Donnie (Ray Pippin, April 11 2004, 1:27 AM)

April 12 2004, 7:38 AM 


What a coincidence that somehow you took time to look at this site once again. I agree that in your case, there’s probably not much from the posts you read to build you up. [Let me tell you that you’re almost as smart as I am. Just kidding, Ray. ] I know from talking with you that you know a lot about God’s truth and that you will defend the truth when someone perverts it.

It’s been stated numerous times that the main thrust in restoring New Testament Christianity has been to reject denominationalism. The change agents, on the other hand, have done just the opposite—making the church behave just like another denomination by compromising the truth and “borrowing” certain beliefs and practices from others. It is of utmost importance that we recognize the “scientific” fact that “nothing happens without a cause. ” The internal “fussing and fighting” is all caused by the famous change agents operating in the brotherhood—they’ve been busily attempting to “transform” the church that belongs to Christ. If they could just quietly leave the church alone and start their own or join the denomination(s) of their choice, we would not be encountering problems about “strange” doctrines and “charismatic” practices and culture-driven changes in the church.

I’m not into church names because if it is a church that the New Testament speaks of, then, it is a church that belongs to Christ. I completely agree with you that the “church of Christ” should be referred to as an entity that belongs to Christ. The preposition “of” must be recognized as the keyword in the phrase in order to have a proper understanding of the church belonging to Christ—not belonging to a human founder. I have illustrated the point that a good “church sign” (which is necessary because of varying religious groups around) could be something that is in the form of a statement—e.g., “The church of Christ in Madison meets here.” We are not in the first century period when the church of Ephesus was understood to be one of the churches of Christ (Romans 16:16). I gave Tom an illustration that there is no way to tell if “Fairview Church” has changed its name from “Fairview Charismatic Fellowship Church” or if “Fairview Church” has changed its name from “Fairview Church of Christ.” The significant point is in the way that the church can be identified—e.g., is it the church that belongs to Christ or is it the church founded by Joseph Smith?

In Max Lucado’s situation, he has reached a point of no return, unless he comes to his senses. Lucado’s view with regard to the purpose of baptism resembles that of the Baptist doctrine, i.e., baptism is “for” the remission of sins in the same sense as “because one’s sins have already been forgiven at the time that he accepts Christ as his personal Savior; then, he is baptized later on. ” So, Max can argue forever that it is for the remission of sins—but as an after-the-fact. But we know fully well that one is baptized for (meaning “in order that” or “so that” or “toward” or “unto”) the forgiveness of sins. He is a Trans-Baptist; therefore, Max’s Oak Hills Church is very well accepted by those of kindred minds.

Thanks, Ray, for explaining what it means to be identified with the church that BELONGS to Christ—which is difficult these days when the name of Christ is dropped. Let’s just keep in mind that there are well-known individuals in the brotherhood who are damaging and destroying the church. But the church will survive.

Donnie Cruz

This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address on Apr 12, 2004 4:15 PM

 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Re: Re: Re: Question for Donnie (Tom Brite, April 10 2004, 6:16 PM)

April 11 2004, 2:49 AM 


I hope you realize that in my earlier post I was not trying to diminish the significance of being identified with the church that the New Testament speaks of. As I mentioned earlier, for example, the “churches of Galatia” in the first century unquestionably were “churches of Christ” in the same sense as stated in Romans 16:16—“… The churches of Christ salute you.”

Furthermore, I would like to re-emphasize that being able to identify [with] the church spoken of in the New Testament would not be a problem in this 21st century … IF NONE of over a thousand religious Catholic and Protestant sects and denominations worldwide existed. But, as you and I know, that is not the case.

Tom, you may continue to esteem Max Lucado as much as you like. I would not even doubt the possibility of Max’s Oak Hills Church in Texas surpassing the 16,000 membership count of Rick Warren’s Saddleback Community Church in California. At this juncture, there’s no point in bringing up the adulterated gospel he is teaching—you know it. But the point is that the truth should never be compromised for the purpose of filling up a big auditorium to full capacity—either in church identification or in doctrine.

Tom, I don’t recall you ever mentioning the “name” of the local church you are currently affiliated with. But may I ask you this. If Rick Warren’s Saddleback Community Church were located in your city, would you unhesitatingly leave the church “of Christ” in ________ [if that’s still the case] and become a member of Rick Warren’s church?


This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address on Apr 11, 2004 3:23 PM

 Respond to this message   
Chris Harper
(no login)

Just a thought...

May 12 2004, 11:37 PM 

About all the names issue...

I wonder if you guys know that the word "Church" is a mistranslation (from a German word) and that the real translation should be "Fellowship," which is what our Spanish-speaking brethren use in the term "Iglesia."

So the name issue while important is actually based on a slight fallacy. We should really call ourselves the "Fellowship of Christ." It's actually more appropriate in my humble opinion.

Anyhow, interesting site you've got here.

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Re: Just a thought...

May 12 2011, 12:28 PM 

Is the word "Church" really a "slight fallacy?" Since "Church," "Assembly," and "Fellowship" are all synonyms that most congregations use (even the unscriptural denominations call themselves by similar names), then preferring "Fellowship" over "Church" is just a "slight quibble."

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

shame on YOU!

April 8 2004, 10:10 PM 

Who are you to dictate what churches put on their sign? You are a DEAD breed. Get over YOURSELF.

Carpenter's Church is an OUTREACH arm of Broadway Church of Christ. They minister to the drug addicted, prostitutes and down-trodden in the inner city of Lubbock, Texas. And, I am sure that you know ALOT about that Donnie considering the things you post here. The name of their church is NOT your concern. Take care of your own and leave us ALONE.

Your constant ranting is getting very BORING. You do not see the CHRIST for what he REALLY is.


 Respond to this message   
Kenneth Sublett
(no login)


April 9 2004, 4:44 PM 

Jeff, there are many MINISTRIES but they are not remotely related to the Synagogue of Christ which is a School of the Bible. In the ancient world you could found a home for lepers, and you could be an evangelist, but one ministered to the FLESH and the other ministered to the SPIRIT.

The church ministers to its own faithful who are in trouble--even jail--for no guilt on their own. While people are free to form ministries to homosexuals with aids it is a COLLECT and DIVERT of the funds of honest students: that means dishonest and divisive. You cannot be a CAR SHOP FOR THE LORD without diminishing or eleminating the church as SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE. The ekklesia or synagogue was for HEARING EVIDENCE and making DECISIONS: it, like the Hebrew synagogue, never had a praise service and never sunk into the SOCIAL GOSPEL.

Two institutions have two separate purposes: the church teaches the Biblical Psalms and other material and people return to the other 167 hours of their lives to "sing AND make melody" in their human hearts.

If the church does anything but collect from those who HAVE PROSPERED during the week to help those WHO ARE DESTITUTE it is LADING A BURDEN on people for which Jesus died and for "ministries" (the old pyramid scam of David). Remember, that when Jesus comes it will have as many prostitutes or poor or homosexuals as before you DIVERTED your work from TRAINING SOULS for a heavenly realm which is in another dimension where FLESH does not exist. In the meantime you have radicalized the church and NO ONE is training souls for the eternal dimension.

JD IT IS NOT A CHOICE: YOU CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN SYNAGOGUE (EKKLESIA) AND BE ANYTHING MORE THAN A GATHERING (SYNAGOGUE) TO GIVE HEED TO THE PUBLIC READING OF THE WORD, TO EXHORT THAT WHICH IS READ AND TO INDOCTRINATE THAT WHICH IS READ. THE LORD'S SUPPER IS TO SHOW FORTH (TEACH OR PREACH) THE DEATH OF CHRIST. YOU CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN SYNAGOGUE IF YOU LUST TO AROUSE THE FLESH. You should be free to be a SECT or SECULAR benevolent society (as Phoebe served the Greek government) but you ARE NOT free to steal the church houses of widows who purchased the property to be a CHRISTIAN teaching Society. You cannot steal and be a Christian: you cannot promote "music" or rhetorical preaching without performing the language-defined roles of SORCERERS and therefore PARASITES.

There is nothing you can use to contradict this almost universal view. The priests, who called themselves the church of Christ, left all and went out into the pagan districts to FOUND SCHOOLS of reading and writing and human skills SO they could understand the Bible. Your group IS NOT a Christian Synagogue because it fails in every test. Early teachers--being honest as Paul commanded--taught you the Bible or rhetoric and you could, if you wished, pay them for their teaching. If you hire a piano teacher at $10 an hour, she CANNOT invade your house and be paid for 40 hours a week.


 Respond to this message   
(Login biblesays)

Someone should tell Jesus

September 26 2007, 4:50 PM 

Someone should tell Jesus that He should not have been spending His time worrying about taking care of people's physical needs, especially not to then have their attention to teach them about their spiritual needs. Since they are totally separate you know, and the "church" shouldn't be involved in worldly stuff. Hum? Do you think if we were MORE involved in the people of the world, we might actually teach some of them them gospel?

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublet
(Login Ken.Sublett)

You ain't jesus

May 13 2011, 10:36 PM 

Jesus tended to GO OUT and minister to the people: you can go and do likewise but that was not a patternism for an INSTITUTE. He said not to let your hand know what my hand was doing when we give alms.

If you do it on an institute basis not more than 10% of the "lord's money" will get into the hands of the poor.

 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Re: shame on YOU! (by jd, April 8 2004, 10:10 PM)

April 10 2004, 6:54 AM 


Sorry, I didn’t mean to bore you. I was simply trying to illustrate a point regarding what a search engine is capable of doing with a given set of parameters.

Even if I dictated [which I do not] what needs to be put on the church sign, I doubt very seriously that anyone would pay any attention to me.

Where I didn’t have a question before about Carpenter’s Church, I certainly do now. You brought it up, so the readers, including myself, need further clarification. Is it a church or a congregation in itself then? Is it a ministry with a church name? Is it a church branch with Broadway as the Mother church? Your response is optional, since I realize I must leave you alone—as you said. You’re right; I have no business interfering with your ministry.


 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Needing to apologize.

April 9 2004, 1:30 AM 

I really need to apologize for my earlier comments on this website. I had hastily read some of the comments without understanding what was really being discussed. I arrived on this site while looking for congregations in the Florida area. Our son has recently moved there and I was searching for congregations that appeared scripturally sound. I suppose the key word is "appears" since one cannot tell any more simply by the name. I am a christian, a member of the Lord's church, and I am so saddened by all the apostasty. I apologize for my misunderstading of the matters at hand and add my prayers to all the others for Satan to be defeated. Jan

 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Re: Needing to apologize. (Jan, April 9 2004, 1:30 AM)

April 10 2004, 7:01 AM 

Dear Jan,

Thank you so much for your response. Personally, I cannot accept your apology. Do you know why? There was nothing to apologize for. Instead, let us count it a blessing that your initial post has served to allow us to remind others that we are doing the best we can to thwart the efforts of the change agents in our midst. The “Church Transformation Movement” advocates have undoubtedly abandoned the principles of restoring the New Testament church, as well as their allegiances to the church that belongs to Christ. I honestly believe that God’s will for the church needs no improvisation, that God’s scheme of redemption is unalterable, and that compromising the truth in order to seek cultural approval is unacceptable. No one should be opposed to changes and to change methodologies, especially while keeping pace with the ever-changing technological advances. But when changes alter or compromise God’s truth, then, we should be cognizant of these changes and not implement them.

We are delighted to hear that you are a Christian, a member of the church of our Lord. Hopefully, you have been able to find the congregation you were looking for in the Florida area. Have you already checked the following links?

I concur with you. Many times the best we can do is on the basis of what “appears” to be scripturally sound. Even that has to be put to the test. Contrary to the objectives of the various movements to seek secular or cultural approval and political correctness, we are to seek only the truth and God’s approval. II Timothy 2:15—“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” We don’t need Rick Warren’s approval or Max Lucado’s.

Donnie Cruz

This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address on Apr 10, 2004 9:24 AM

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Jan said:

July 22 2004, 7:49 PM 

QUOTE BY JAN: Iagree. I was looking for info on the lord's church when I came across this. I am saddened and appalled by all this. I'm sure satan is very happy! You people had better re-read the scriptures and understand why our savior died on the cross! All man's petty jealousies only put them on the broad way. SHAME,SHAME SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bender here: No, shame shame shame on you for trying to silence us. Shame shame shame on you for not being Berean in your walk. Shame shame shame on you for using the politics of guilt against the Lord.


 Respond to this message   
(Login biblesays)

re: i was just surfing...

September 25 2007, 11:10 AM 


Let me allow the bible to speak for itself....

Matthew 15:1-3
1. Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2. "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3. Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Colossians 2:16-23
16. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; _the reality, however, is found in Christ._
18. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.
19. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
20. Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:
21. "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"?

22. These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.
23. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Now who do these passages apply to? "THEY" who do things differently than "WE" think they should be done? Or "WE" who CONDEMN "THEY" who do things differently than "WE" think they should be done?

 Respond to this message   
Another surfer
(no login)

It is most concerning . . .

May 16 2004, 2:04 AM 

I, too, was searching "Church of Christ" links, and came upon this site. It matters not what my intentions were with my searches. If I was to search for "Satan" it would not make me a believer or a follower, so there is no need to jump to conclusions. I will pray for all members of your congregation, your families and your friends. I will pray that you find the Way, the Truth and the Light. I will pray that your in-fighting will be replaced by truth, that your proof texts are better understood, and that your intolerance is replaced with the love of Jesus.

You are a non-denominational church - yet claim to be the only church where the members will go to heaven.

You are not saved unless a CoC minister baptizes you - yet there is never any mention of this in the Bible.

You observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday - yet bread was not broken until after midnight, making it Monday morning that the Lord's Supper occured. Additionally, Passover is only observed once per year!

Works = salvation. The CoC claims to have the members that will go to heaven, yet you do not know for sure if you are 'saved.'

Please consider your ways. Stringed instruments are not the enemy of God, and you will never be able to prove that in the Bible.

Make a joyful noise unto the Lord. ...and may God have mercy on all of our souls.

There is no need to respond, as I will most likely never happen upon this site again.

God bless us all.

 Respond to this message   
Chris Harper
(no login)


May 16 2004, 9:33 PM 

Actually we don't believe half of what you just said....

Anyone can baptize anyone for instance...although many do choose to be baptized by a can also be done in any body of water, even in a deep bathtub, as long as you're completely submerged...

 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Re: It is most concerning . . . (Another surfer, May 16 2004, 2:04 AM)

May 17 2004, 1:48 AM 

To another surfer,

I wish you had come up with original ideas. The following expressions are commonly used by the change agents and their disciples:
  • … Pray that your in-fighting will be replaced by truth.

    [RESPONSE: The truth of the matter is that the change agents have added to the New Testament truth certain creeds and beliefs which they have imitated or borrowed from their denominational neighbors.]

  • … That your proof texts are better understood.

    [RESPONSE: Quoting scriptural references that disprove the change agents’ borrowed denominational tenets is strongly opposed by them. Change agents are often too willing to take passages out of context just so they can align themselves with denominationalism.]

  • … Intolerance is replaced with the love of Jesus.

    [RESPONSE: The love of Jesus, my friend, is not the issue. New Testament Christians should be intolerant toward false, human doctrines.]

  • … A non-denominational church - yet claim to be the only church where the members will go to heaven.

    [RESPONSE: Nice try! Going to heaven is not by groups or organizations. Only each INDIVIDUAL believer: (1) whose redemption in the blood of the Lamb was obtained by being immersed with Christ in baptism and (2) who has persevered and remained faithful to the end … will receive the crown of life.]

  • … Not saved unless a CoC minister baptizes you - yet there is never any mention of this in the Bible.

    [RESPONSE: Hmmm! The apostle Peter should have baptized me, eh? You’re correct on who does the baptizing should not matter—but where did you get your idea? I know of no member of the church who believes or makes that assumption—that a “CofC minister” must do the baptizing. However, it is the truth that redemption is not obtained prior to baptism.]

  • … You observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday - yet bread was not broken until after midnight, making it Monday morning that the Lord's Supper.

    [RESPONSE: Acts 20:7 is no speculation. “The disciples came together to break bread” upon THE first day of THE week. That Peter continued his speech until midnight does not change the day “when” the disciples came together to break bread. Your speculation about “Monday” certainly does not allow for the observance of the Lord’s Supper on Thursday or Saturday, either.]

  • … Works = salvation. The CoC claims to have the members that will go to heaven, yet you do not know for sure if you are 'saved.'

    [RESPONSE: It is clearly stated in Romans 3:[25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. The initial redemption is assuredly for PAST SINS and (you’re correct) good works were not required to obtain that salvation. After that, then what? Philippians 2:12—“Wherefore, my beloved, … work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” James 2:17, 24 ,26—“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. … Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. … For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” Revelation 2:10—“… be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”]

  • Please consider your ways. Stringed instruments are not the enemy of God, and you will never be able to prove that in the Bible. Make a joyful noise unto the Lord. ...and may God have mercy on all of our souls.

    [RESPONSE: This forum is full of articles and discussions dealing with MUSICAL WORSHIP and musical instruments. I’m sure you believe that the Lord was speaking to the dead instruments to “make a joyful noise unto the Lord.”]

  • There is no need to respond, as I will most likely never happen upon this site again.

    [RESPONSE: There’s some hope in “most likely never” … so, please respond by saying that you did not visit this site again; otherwise, we would assume that you had. Oops! Is the preceding statement making sense?]

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

RE: It Is Most Concerning...(Another Surfer)

May 17 2004, 4:21 PM 

I appreciate Donnie Cruz's response to "Another Surfer." While Surfer summarily dismissed the site and desired no response, as if s/he would never return here again (human nature says otherwise), it is important that someone with knowledge of the Scriptures made a response for the benefit of other readers, who otherwise may have taken Surfer's misguided comments to heart.

 Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

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;

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)

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others

FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter