Women in God's Service: Women in Israel
By: Rubel Shelly & John York
Rubel says, "They didn’t do church as we do church...For one thing, they didn’t have Baptist, Presbyterian, and Church of Christ denominations."
Jimmy comments: We have tried to show the spirit of the "change agents" by the way they misrepresent the Bible, interchange words that do not have the same meaning, talk about paid women blessers, change God's word to include both men and women when it is only addressing the women.
The next few post are going to show the "mean" side of the "change agent".
Notice what Rubel just said. "...they didn't have Baptist, Presbyterian, and Church of Christ denominations."
How "mean" can one get? To take the name that God gave for His Church and list it and make it equal the names of man made organizations that did not even exist until recent years.
This is another examnple of "Rubel" using half truths in his teachings. Rubel is a "mad" preacher. Churches of Christ will not embrace his teaching and Rubel does not like us for it!
Churches of Christ would not help him with his "Billy Graham" masquerade. Poor Rubel could not deliever the crowds of people from his "denomination" and Rubel was put to shame.
No Doubt Dr. Graham asked, "Rubel, where are your people?" Thus Rubel lashes out with each opportunity to "bash" the Church of Christ.
The Church of Christ was the only Church for Christians in the first century.
"Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you." Roman 16:16 (KJV) These are the Words of God Rubel. You are "bashing" the God who died for you.
Your post has no place here. Rubel IS NOT connected to Madison. You should beat that dead horse on another forum, or better yet, you should be concerned about your actions and let everyone else be concerned about theirs. Translation: Mind your own buisness!!!!
Jimmy, you assuredly know that Rubel Shelly, Don Finto, Max Lucado and Steve Flatt aka Madison stirred up the cow pattie known as Jubilee. Jubilee had only one meaning: To affact an ATONEMENT and to RECOVER all of the personal(congregational) lands BACK to the TRIBE (Jubilee Denomination).
Rubel is THE troubler in Madison's Zion: Steve used to ditto Rubel's sermons.
Next, Rubel's Jesus Proposal REJECTS the individuals right to "read, interpret or SPEAK" anything about the new SCRIPTURES outside of the community meaning COMMUNE.
People have testified that it is dangerous to your career to enter into honest dialog questioning Rubel's 100% radicalization of the Bible which he assigns to the "little story" trash heap out of which YOU can take liberties to make up your own NARRATIVE putting yourself in the role of Moses or even Christ for your commune.
The Catholic Jubilee 2000 which kicked off Rubel's got a vision from the Virgin of Quadalupe which said that Jesus was coming to destroy all of the pagans (us) and Masons. Jubilee truly had a Vineyard (aka new wineskins) and Joel's Army hallucination where those COLLECTED back to mother goddess would dispense the REWARDS of Jesus and DESTROY His enemies.
Rubel teaches many things contrary to the written Word of God. Our next post will look at what he falsely teaches on the subject of “baptism”.
It is no wonder that he is a man without a “country” (literally meaning “brotherhood”). Churches of Christ will not listen to nor support him any longer.
Baptist, Methodist, and other denominations may accept him to a point. But they don’t want him. They can see how he has mistreated, misguided, and misused the pulpits of the Churches of Christ. They know that if he should “get in” with them that he will do them the same way.
Rubel announced that he was “stepping” down from the pulpit at Woodmont church. He said he had another job, but notice what this feller, Dan Dozier, said to the congregation on behalf of the “clearly understanding” shepherds at Woodmont.
“We're happy that Rubel and Myra are not moving," he said. "We think it makes sense for them to keep Nashville as 'home plate' on their playing field.”
Where could Rubel go? What other church would want him? Rubel seems unwilling to repent. He prides himself on his “great” knowledge.
You know he knows more then God don’t you? If you are still not convinced just wait until you read my next post.
I have talked to seven preachers over the last week and none of them were willing to allow that “wolf in sheep’s clothing” to enter their congregation. None of the seven had talked to their elders about it, but they assured me that their elders would feel the same way.
Rubel has taken money from the Churches of Christ as he furthered his education, wrote his books, and produced his tapes and lessons, yet Rubel only has bitterness for the Churches of Christ and he tries to lead his congregation at Woodmont to despise the Churches of Christ.
Notice Rubel’s comments: “Some of you are aware that some preachers and area congregations of the Church of Christ have been critical of my involvement as a member of the General Committee for the Graham Crusade. They have criticized our being a host church for training Crusade workers. They have declared themselves unwilling to participate in the Crusade in any way, shape, or form – and denounced you for being associated with a congregation that would do so.”
Rubel says “They have criticized OUR being a host church for training Crusade workers.” That’s Rubel’s way of saying to his congregation that the Churches of Christ have criticized you, are you going to take it!
Rubel has a mean streak in him for the Churches of Christ. He leads his congregation to share his feelings for us.
Let me make it clear that this writer is not criticizing the congregation, the congregation only did what the leader (Rubel) led them to believe was right.
But this congregation should take heed. It could end up like Rubel, i.e., a man without a brotherhood.
Rubel tells this story in his May 28, 2000 sermon posted on his RubelShelly.com website. I will use excerpts; you can go to the site and read it in its entirety.
Rubel comments: “Pam introduced herself to me in our lobby… one of Dr. Stanley’s sermons on obedience convicted Pam of her need to be baptized. Pam and I had a face-to-face talk and studied the Bible together, she wanted to be baptized. So she selected several friends to join us one afternoon. Dr. Ron Carrier of St. Paul’s Southern Methodist Church. Terry and Charlotte were there – they are neighbors to Pam. We assembled at the baptistery, and I asked Ron to read an appropriate biblical text. He selected Colossians 3:1. It took a Baptist preacher, a Southern Methodist preacher, and a Church of Christ preacher working together for God to bring a precious soul he had loved and pursued over time into Christ.”
In my prior post I told you that Rubel knows more then God. The above may not prove my point to everyone but you will have to admit that what Rubel did was with disregard to the written Word of God.
First of all notice what Rubel said, “It took a Baptist preacher, a Southern Methodist preacher, and a Church of Christ preacher working together for God…”
My first question is, “Who was the Church of Christ preacher?” I certainly don’t read of one being there. Rubel may be referring to what he once was. Rubel may think that he can wear many hats in the Kingdom just as some do in the world. One day Rubel will be a Methodist, next day a Baptist, and next day a Church of Christ preacher.
The Methodist will not allow him to be such. The Baptist will not allow Rubel to be such. And the Churches of Christ will NOT allow Rubel to be such. Rubel is a man without a BROTHERHOOD.
We can overlook the other two Doctors that help Rubel for the time being. I want to notice this baptism.
First of all Dr. Ron Carrier of St. Paul’s Southern Methodist Church read an appropriate biblical text for this baptism.
Being that a Methodist was in charge of this baptism, one would have to ask the question was it a sprinkle, pour, or immersion? Notice the following information taken from a Methodist website:
Q: Is sprinkling the only way that United Methodists baptize?
A: No, our church has always offered to people being baptized and to the parents of infants the choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.
Which method did Pam take? Sprinkling, pouring, or immersion? Rubel did not share that with us. So once again, it leaves one to question this “change agents” ability to understand the Word of God.
Now let us turn our attention to the time that the baptism took place and compare that with what the Bible teaches as concerning the time one is to be baptized.
Rubel says that after the Bible study Pam wanted to be baptized. Rubel then becomes the “crafty” speaker that he usually is in order to avoid saying that we “set a date” sometimes in the future to perform this baptism. How many days and hours from the time that Pam “wanted to be baptized” and was baptized, (by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion), we are not told.
Rubel says Pam selected several friends to join us one afternoon. So the baptism did no take place at the conclusion of the Bible study, even though Pam wanted to be baptized. The baptism did not take place the same day of the Bible study, even though Pam wanted to be baptized.
Rubel, knowing or having forgotten, what the Bible teaches about Baptism, disregards the Bible and “makes an appointment” even though Pam wanted to be Baptized.
When you read this you may say that maybe Pam was the one who wanted to wait. Maybe she was. But just look at some of the websites of the churches that have “change agents” for preachers. Look at the day of Easter. Chris, at Farmers Branch wrote in his bulletin several days before Easter that they would be having a baptismal service on that afternoon. “Be resurrected the same day that Christ was” he wrote. “You will never forget it!”
After Easter they not only listed the count of all those baptized but said we will be having another baptism next week. It is a fact that “change agents” make appointments for baptism.
The “change agent” Rubel make an appointment for Pam to be baptized.
Now look at what the Bible teaches as concerning the time a believer should be baptized.
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Act 16:30-33 (KJV).
Baptism is so important that a person must not wait. The keeper of the prison was baptized the SAME HOUR OF THE NIGHT. Rubel said that Pam wanted to be baptized after they had a Bible study. Did Rubel not explain this passage to her?
“Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” Acts 8:35-38 (KJV).
In this passage it seems that the subject of baptism was being discussed as Philip was preaching Jesus. The need to be immediately baptized was grasped by the eunuch so that when he spied a stream he asked the question “…here is water, what doeth hinder me to be baptized?”
These two Biblical accounts as to the time of baptism are a far cry from Rubels account as to the time of Pam’s baptism.
In the Bible there was no waiting, no appointment setting, and no showmanship.
While it may be uplifting for a congregation to witness a baptism, it is God example that the Baptism takes place as soon as one understands the need for it.
Rubel is a “change agent” out of control, i.e., not controlled by the Word of God.
Jimmy you know the story better than I: I just know what I read in his books, his sermons and his associates.
However, the change agenda finally articulated by people at Madison and by Promise Keepers when mass buddy-patting meetings began to fail was the old SHEPHERDING or INFILTRATE and DIVERT.
I have the greatest respect for someone who has fell under the dilusion of false doctrine and has just LOST FAITH proven by rejecting the Word which Paul defines as without redemption. I have respect for liberals which means that they have studied the Bible to the best of their ability and simply do not believe it. However, to ARM TWIST--as Rubel Plainly says in effect--the elders who rarely know the Bible and USE the property of old Widows as a platform for self-show and promotion puts one beyond the pale:
Charles Spurgeon said: in "The Sword and the Trowel", 1880 ' "I am told that many in the Church of England preach against her own teaching. I know they do, and herein I rejoice in their enlightenment, but I question, gravely question, their morality.
"To take oath that I sincerely assent and consent to a doctrine which I do not believe would to my conscience appear little short of PERJURY, if not absolute, DOWNRIGHT perjury; but those who do so must be judged by their Lord.
"For me to take money for defending what I do not believe--for me to take the money of a church, and then to PREACH AGAINST what are most evidently its doctrines--I say for me to do this (Ishall not judge the peculiar views of other men), for me or for any other simple, honest man to do so, would be an ATROCITY so great that, if I had perpetrated the deed, I should consider myself out of the PALE [boundaries] of TRUTHFULNESS, HONESTY, and common MORALITY.
Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it. It is our solemn conviction that there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretense of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin. As soon as I saw, or thought I saw, that error had become firmly established, I did not deliberate, but quitted the body at once. Since then my counsel has been, 'Come out from among them'. I have felt that no protest could be equal to that of distinct separation from known evil. That I might not stultify my testimony I have cut myself clear from those who err from the faith, and even from those who associate with them. Cost what it may to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty, but our duty." (15)
While the Christian church offered their building it was to suck in Rubel and CONVERT him to their view so that they could get the property: that is a time-honored ploy from the beginning.
However, you are correct, no one trusts a dupe or one who would betray his trust and SELL OUT the whole brotherhood if he had not been stopped in his tracks by a FEW people while the "brotherhood" sulked in the foyer. That is why no credible college or university offered him a landing strip after it seems evident that he had run out his rope. I have grave doubts about the co-preachers who moved their mouths while Rubel had his hand up their back.
Perhaps, RS's sermon on 4/21/05, will give one further insight into his views on baptism unless his understanding has evolved into another view by now as it sometimes tends to do.
RS says: "There is also a great deal of division over baptism. Because of certain New Testament texts about the relationship of baptism to Christ or spiritual rebirth or remission of sins, baptism has typically been associated with membership in the Christian community and/or salvation. Depending on the mode (i.e., sprinkling, pouring, immersion) involved or one’s age (i.e., infant, young child, adult) at baptism, a given believer or group might not honor a person’s baptism. She might be excluded from membership in a given church. Or she might be judged to be unsaved.
This sort of thing – identifying a single event or ceremony as the badge of Christian identity and spiritual kinship – is fully consistent with modernity. It provides a formula for including some and excluding others. It draws a clear line between those deemed worthy of acceptance and those to be left out of the community. I’m not at all sure this is how things worked in the earliest days of the church."
<Joel> Since when did a person's freewill obedience to God's will by being baptised (immersed) when he reaches the age of accountability, as revealed to us by the scriptures, for the purpose of being added to the Lord's Church, and the members' subsequent acceptance of him at that time as a fellow Christian become a matter of discrimination?
Shelly here is equating our lack of full acceptance as Christians all denominations, whether they are sprinkled, poured, or not even baptized, as arbitrary discrimination.
RS is right about one thing though. He says that he is "not at all sure". He is very confused.
Christian Love,
Joel
P.S. Also I just noted his use of the pronoun "she" instead of "he" as would normally be used to refer to a person in general in a sentence. "She might be excluded from membership in a given church. Or she might be judged to be unsaved." <Strange>
I think that what Paul was trying to say in Romans 16:16 was "greet each other with a holy kiss. The called out of Christ greet you." and not "this is what you should put on your sign out front."
Other "biblical" names.
The Way Acts 9:2
The Church at ...Acts 8:1
The Church of God 1 Corinthians 1:2
The Church of the ...... 1 Thessalonians 1:1
God's Household 1 Timothy 3:15
The Church of the Living God 1 Timothy 3:15
The Church of the Firstborn Hebrews 12:23
The Body of Christ 1 Corinthians 12:27
The Church in ....... Revelation 2:8
So let's quit getting bent out of shape over the name on the sign. The Lord is not pleased with what goes on at this website.
Puzzled: "The Lord is not pleased with what goes on at this website."
That is your opinion. But please do not try to present yourself as the vicar of Christ. Would you speak for Christ? We could apply this presumptive tactic to the following situation: Surely you can recall seeing church signs that advertise, "We don't care what you wear!" We could add, "But God does!" How presumptive we would be. How presumptive you are.
Puzzled writes: "The Lord is not pleased with what goes on at this website."
Jimmy writes: We are not encouraging anyone to worship at this website.
This website is encouraging everyone to "study to show thyself approve..." 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
This website is trying to get everyone to study the Bible "That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;" Phil. 1:10 (KJV)
This website is trying to get everyone to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world..." 1 John 1:4 (KJV)
Jimmy, Ken and Bill
I have studied and restudied and have posted detailed scriptural accounts on the role of women, instrumental music and in my last posting I listed other names that the writers of the new testament gave for the church. My more detailed postings have been stricken, ignored, censored or deleted and I can only assume that you can't think up a reasonable counter argument. A forum should be a platform for all sides to discuss and debate issues. What I see and am saddened by is the violent slander of specific individuals who just happen to have a different take on something. Scripture is Holy. Truth is specific. But one's interpretation of scripture is not scripture and that is where people on this website falls terribly short. They assume that the traditional way in which the conservative church of Christ sees things is carved in stone to be irrefutably right and everybody else damnably wrong. Such an attitude deludes and blinds people and the culprit is the great deceiver.
=======================================
MESSAGE FROM THE MODERATOR
"My more detailed postings have been stricken, ignored, censored or deleted"
The moderator thinks your honesty is in question. Post below anything you claim to have been deleted. Time to put up or ...........
You state; "violent slander of specific individuals"
Name that slander here now. Go ahead and post it.
If it's not posted it will be assumed that you are less than
credible, and the entire post will be removed.
Thank You
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 67.32.217.163 on Apr 21, 2005 6:38 PM This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 67.32.217.163 on Apr 21, 2005 6:26 PM
Puzzled please tell Jimmy, Ken and Bill just exactly what it is that you would like one or all of the three to address. My wife and I have been reading these boards daily for the last two or three months. Every time that you have asked or posted comments about women or music in the church you have been answered. Ken has post after post on these boards with information on the music question. Jimmy has one post about music. I don’t recall one from Dr. Bill, but if I looked I believe that I could find some.
But I know that all three have answered the “woman” question.
I have not seen an answer to your post about the “names for the church” yet, but it may be because you have not identified the “church” that you want a name for. What is the church called that you attend now?
It also may be that no one has had the time to completely address your post yet.
Also, if you are looking for a real study, why don’t you use your real name? It is of no interest to most people to even acknowledge a UFO on the board. UFOs are for the iBelieve-ers.
George, it is true that we have posted quite a few essays about the biblical issues of music and women. About music, I have advised people on a number of occasions at this site to study my thread "Boswell-Hardeman Debate on Instrumental Music in the Worship" at Sunday School in Exile. I read and reviewed this classic debate and posted an entire thread about the pros and cons of instrumental music in worship from a biblical standpoint. If "puzzled" has read it, s/he hasn't informed us.
We've had various people to come through here allegedly seeking biblical truth, only to bait us and waste loads of time on endless, futile debates, when it quickly becomes apparent that they have no intentions of trying to learn about or adhere to biblical standards. They only wish to argue. We present them with biblical truth, and they just deny it. People will choose to believe what they will and turn a blind eye at the drop of a hat, regardless of any mountains of biblical evidence that may be poured upon them. I don't believe that there's much we can do with such deliberately resistant people.
I just looked and found my posting that was posted on April 16 after answering PPB on the 9th. I believe I posted it on the ninth. It shows up today for the first time I've seen it, and it has added to it PPB's comments on the same posting that were made after my posting on the 9th. It looks like someone worked on a response for a week and added the response into my posting. That makes no sense. I have been called "ditto head" an agent of Satan, seen women called by implication prostitutes. If you don't agree with John, Donnie, Ken, Bill and Kevin then you are called apostate, hellbound and so on. I don't have to list any more. Just read for a while.
============================================
MESSAGE FROM THE MODERATOR
The post you are refering to was posted in the Richland Forum. It doesn't get visited often, and sometimes post can wait for approval longer because the moderators just don't visit that site often
You paranoia is unfounded. Your accusations, are equally unfounded.
In the future if you make accusations involving this site, be prepared to back them up. You will be called to task for each and every one.
I guess we can assume that your slander accusations have no merit as well.
Thank You
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 67.32.217.163 on Apr 21, 2005 9:42 PM
Puzzled I am kind’a new to this type of forum and it may take me a while to understand the expectations of you UFO’s.
Don’t give up on me!
In order to discuss these topics about which our salvation depends on, I need to know a few things about you.
1.) Do you attend a church?
2.) What is the name of the church or your denomination?
3.) Have you been a church member very long?
4.) Are you considered a church leader? A deacon? An Elder? A preacher? Member of a praise team? Church softball player?
5.) Are you male or female?
6.) Do you really want to find correct Biblical answers?
7.) Are you under 40 years of age, or are you over 50 years of age?
8.) Have you or are you now attending a preaching school?
There is a difference in the manner and in the style of the way that I answer questions. The answers will always be the same, but to a new born baby in Christ I will go into greater detail that would not be necessary for someone who has been a Christian for a year or longer.
To one who is not a member of a church, I would ask why?
If you are just an old “goat” that enjoys raising the same questions over and over again, I am not going to promise you anything.
Give me some information about yourself so I can determine the best way to converse.
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: 1 Cor 1:2
Only those who are baptized INTO Christ put on Christ and only those are saved BY Faith (Gal 3:26-27)
I thank my God alway on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; 1 Cor 1:4
Thomas called Jesus: "My Lord AND my God." Therefore, there is only one name given under heaven whereby one must be saved. Grace and truth came by
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Jn.1:14
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Jn.1:17
Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: Col.1:6
Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 2Jn.1:3
PUZZLED: The Church of the ...... 1 Thessalonians 1:1
1 Thess 1:1
PAUL, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1Th.1:1
He that is PUZZLED let him be PUZZLED still: Puzzled missed MANY more proofs that the church is the church of CHRIST. It is his body so if you call it THE CHURCH you fail to do all in HIS Name. The holy whore of Babylon is CIRCE and she used music and magical inchantments and drugs to SEEK new members.,
They also called Jesus Beel-zebul:: So, how about naming YOUR church the Church of Baal. We will name the preacher Lord of Flies. How about we call your wife Jezebel?
Jesus is the Christ of God. That is, Christ is God IN the PERSON of a human because He deals with humans in a human dimension. Nevertheless, the CHRIST of God sent HIMSELF just as he is sent as ARM or ROCK. Therefore, to be answer the invitation (electons) one must put their total confidence in Christ as the SON or WORD or visible expression of the invisible God. If you are ashamed of the name--even if others give it a bad name--then you have had your FOUNDATION flooded away. In fact, there can BE NO work of Christ in the world which does not seem contemptible in the eyes of the world:
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Matt 16:15
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matt 16:16
He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ OF God. Lu.9:20
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Matt 16:17
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matt 16:18
With the eunuch nothing could HINDER him asking for baptism after hearing the PROPHECY of Christ would be the inability to make that confession. With Cornelius, hs PRAISE of God made perfectly clear in the language of the Jews meant that no one could PREVENT his baptism. Christ is not the CENTER: Christ is THE body and He is the Living head of the body. If you put Him AT THE CENTER or the so called CORE GOSPEL that means that ALL OF THE REST belongs to me. It is a CODE WORD.
This is the same ROCK which provided the water of the Word. He is the anointed (Christ) as the seven spirits or lamps on the Menorah. If you take the NAME off you take the BRANCH out and the lights are gone.
PUZZLED: The Way Acts 9:2
Church is discipline or school: the WAY of Christ is the CHURCH of Christ
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this WAY, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. Acts 9:2
Jesus saith unto him, I am the WAY, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jn.14:6
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the WAY of the Lord, make his paths straight. Mt.3:3
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my WAYS which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. 1Co.4:17
The WAY is the church of body or school of Christ
PUZZLED: The Church at ...Acts 8:1
AND Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was AT Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. Acts 8:1
"AT" is not a name: Only God who shed His "blood" purchased the church. Christ only built one. Therefore anytime the word is used of a faithful congregation a CHURCH is the church of Christ. Removing the NAME is what all did to keep from being martyrs. If someone else brings reproach on the name of Christ--even accusing Christians of being cannabals--you don't DENY Christ even when the tigers are chewing your bones.
Rubel removed the NAME of Christ off the identifier because he removed CHRIST out of His teachings. Furthermore, it was a pouty--peevy way to SLAP the owners (including elders) in the face by trying to distance them from the church THEY preferred and sacrificed for. I say that Rubel was tolerated because of the quippy-giggly response which attracts the giggly but NON-spiritual people. Remember that he sucked up TWO churches and took them OUT of the brotherhood so that neither the gone-bad reactionaries or radical liberals would get very close. I chat with PASTORS and most of them are kindly people. That is why no Bible-believing church would allow Rubel near other than to pull in a crowd to pay of unlawful debt.
Remember that Rubel's CORE GOSPEL is "seven facts ABOUT Jesus." That is why Rubel Shelly and band sucked up some heretical view that WE SHOULD PREACH JUST JESUS. However, they cannot grasp black print on white paper: Paul said that he would KNOW only Christ and Him crucified. That repudiates people who ride on the backs of hard working people to compose and preach books and then sell them. A Paul could never be applauded. A Paul could never have that self-consumed voice and pitter-patter. A Paul would suffer and die for the gospel.
Joel point out Rubel's false teaching concerning baptism
April 22 2005, 2:36 AM
Thanks to Joel.
I had not gotten around to reading this one yet (7/21/02). The more you read what Rubel says, the more you wonder “why is he preaching?”
Rubel basically has only two messages; 1.) I’m okay, you’re okay, let’s everybody play together; 2.) Everybody in this world could enjoy fellowship with each other if it were not for the mean old Churches of Christ!
Rubel gets “mean” when he thinks of the Churches of Christ. Rubel writes, “There is also a great deal of division over baptism.”
Jimmy Comments: There is NO GREAT deal of division over baptism in the Churches of Christ. Rubel needs to PREACH THE WORD and stop studying what other religious people are doing.
Churches of Christ teach the same thing about baptism as it did in 33 A. D. Man made churches such as Rubel’s, don’t know what to teach about it. Rubel looks around and sees how other churches are practicing and teaching baptism and he brings all of this confusion before his congregation in an attempt to confuse them. Rubel needs to get his inspiration from the Bible, not from the daily newspaper.
Rubel says “See! No one knows for sure about baptism! Therefore I’m okay and you’re okay. Let’s not draw lines and we must not judge as to how a person may or may not have been baptized. Don’t bother to study the Bible about baptism, I have copies of my new book on every table in this building that you can pick up to study. The cost is 14.95 and don’t forget that there are security cameras pointed at each table.”
Rubel don’t want his congregation to know the truth. Rubel would love to have the Bible chained to the pulpit. He would like to have the only copy so no one could study and learn just how far he has strayed from Gods’ Word.
Since there are copies of the Bible around, Rubel does the next best thing to destroying the message and that is with all of these books he keeps writing. Rubel has a book for everything.
Change agents love to write books. These books never really teach anything. There are no universities using any of the books in the class room. Preaching school don’t use any of their books. After you digest one of their books all it really teaches is “you’re okay and I am okay because God says we are okay.” Okay!
Rubel has strayed from Gods’ Word, for one purpose. He intends to have OPEN FELLOWSHIP. He wants to make everybody feel a part of HIS fellowship. Any one who opposes open fellowship or belongs to the Church of Christ is wrong.
Rubel says “After all, I’ve known some people who have been baptized but who use God’s name in profane ways or abuse their children or mouth and model racism. Is the event of their baptism enough to offset their way of life? Is church membership sufficient to compensate for moral and spiritual failure? On the other hand, I know people whose baptism is defective on my understanding of the Bible but whose passion for God and uprightness of character left no doubt that they were light-years more spiritual than I am. Should I judge them to be lost? Doubt that God’s grace is sufficient to cover any defect in their theology while praising it to offset my pride or selfishness?”
Rubel forgets what it is all about. PREACH THE WORD. Stop all of the “what if’s” and just PREACH THE WORD. Good people that have rejected or accepted a baptism other then the one taught by Jesus will be lost! That is Bible! One who has become a Christian and was baptized right then goes back into the world will be lost! That is bible!
Poor Rubel, the wider he throws his loop of fellowship, the smaller the circle of fellowship around him becomes.
Rubel's message may change; the Bible stays the same
April 23 2005, 2:10 AM
Joel pointed us to Rubel's sermon dated July 21, 2002
From this sermon we have noticed some "strange teachings" concerning baptism. Comments are in the earlier posts.
Today we take our thoughts from Rubel's comparison of a “postmodern world” and a period of “modernity”.
Now you may ask “why in the world do we have to go there?” The answer is because Rubel went there. Why did he do? I am not sure? I really don’t know why Rubel says a lot of the things he says. It looks to me as if Rubel only wishes to add confusion to the simple message of the gospel. You know; you need Doctor Rubel to explain this to you!
One could just preach the gospel and leave “philosophies” out of it. As Li Chang would say, “simple.”
Rubel says “In a postmodern world, lines of demarcation are a bit more blurred than they were in the period of modernity. And in its most extreme forms, that blurriness is a bad thing. No action is really good or bad;”
Jimmy Comments: Credit to Rubel for saying “its most extreme forms” are bad. The question still remains, why bring it up? Does it really have anything to do with preaching the gospel?
We shall see. After Rubel denounces “its most extreme forms” he now introduces its “…blurred lines of distinction…” Rubel could have began his sermon at this point but he first had to lay a "false" foundation.
If Rubel had have began his sermon with the statement "I am going to talk to you about blurred lines of distinction" everyone would have know that Rubel is confused. But by doing it the way he did, many will now say "Rubel is right. It is confusing as to why some get sprinkle, other get pour, and some are immersed, and yet all are (NOT)scriptually baptized."
It seems that this is where we always find Rubel, giving us a few lines of truth, a few correct scriptural interpretations, and a lot of “…blurred lines of distinction…”
The problem is these “blurred lines of distinctions” are not blurred to a lot of folks. These “blurred lines of distinctions” are not blurred in the Bible classes that I attend.
Jesse we had professors that had no problem with explaining “baptism”. Neither Jesse nor I had problems with “blurred lines of distinctions” in reference to baptism. Jesse and I both knew and understood the purpose and meaning of baptism before we entered college.
“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” Hebrews 6:1-2 (KJV)
Tyndale renders it: “let us leave the doctrine pertaining to the beginning of a Christian man.” Coverdale, “let us leave the doctrine pertaining to the beginning of a Christian life.”
The Hebrew writer says “the doctrine of baptisms” is something that “a baby” in Christ should know! Jimmy asks "why would anyone be “baptized” if they did not understand the reason of it? Why would a preacher “preach it” if he did not understand the reason of it?"
The Hebrew writer makes it plain that Christians should know these things and “grow” on to a deeper knowledge.
Jesse says that he had better grades in college. I went back looking over some of my work and I was surprised to see how well I did in Dr. Ron Brothertons three classes. You remember Psychology l and ll and counseling.
Well we could take some “principles” of communications that could confuse and blur lines of distinctions but what would we gain? The simple gospel message is the same message for yesterday, today and tomorrow.
But notice Rubels’ conclusion about having these “blurred lines of distinctions.” Rubel says people might think “less about denominational distinctions and more about organic ties to one another. If that should happen, we might learn to think, speak, and live more as the church did in its early history than it has of late. If it should happen, we just might be more like Christ’s original vision for his church.”
Rubel thinks “blurred lines of distinctions” will do all of the above which will make us more like Christ’s original vision for his church.
Rubel knows about Christ’s visions? All I know about is what I learn from his Word. Christ has shared His Word with all of us. I do not know anyone of whom Christ has shared His original vision for His church with.
From this lesson we learn that “blurred lines of distinctions” concerning baptism are good according to Rubel. I guess one could conclude that the less we understand the Word of God, the better off we are. We would be more like the church in the “vision” that Christ shared with Rubel.
The lesson to learn from this post is that the Bible NEVER changes. The gospel that was preached on the day of Pentecost up to the time Jesus comes again will always be the same.
We close with Act 2: 38-39 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
Don’t change the gospel. Acts 2:39 says this promise (the promise God made to Abraham) is for everybody…as many as the Lord our God shall call. Anyone who is a Christian has been called this way.
Luke says “as many as” (meaning every Christian) has been called the “same” way.
Re: Joel point out Rubel's false teaching concerning baptism
April 23 2005, 10:41 PM
Answer to Anonymous, another UFO
Before I began the two threads that bear my name on this website, I sent an e-mail to the Woodmont Hills e-mail address that is on their website and informed them that such discussions would be taking place. I invited both Rubel and Wes to enter the discussion and defend their teachings. That invitation is still open.
Since Rubels' teaching is public and in the realm of public domain, it would not only be proper to comment on his teachings but also to point out some of the errors that are in his teachings. I have not commented on all of his teaching errors yet. It may take me another five or ten years to do that!
Nothing is being done in "private" by Rubel or myself. I use my real name. I use his real name. I point out real error in Rubels' teachings. He is given the opportunity to defend his teachings.
Many people read websites and it would help them by knowing that Rubel does not always preach the gospel with any consistency and often (and I mean very often) includes quite a bit of error.
We need not wait for another 9/11 to happen before we warn people that such is still a very real possibility, nor should we allow Rubel the opportunity of leading more Churches of Christ astray before we warn Churches of Rubels' out right misuse of scripture and his understanding of mankind.
so jimmy the correct answer is you've not spoken with rubel in private you've just chosen to take some things out of context and draw attention to yourself as you fix him and his church
the lord seems to have worked very well on rubel's heart as he is a great teacher. i hope the lord is working on yours and that your church is an effective in your community as his has been where he's preached.
if your ministry is not producing a lot of good fruit, maybe it's time to work in your garden instead of finding everything that's wrong with his.
like you really believe YOUR comments are going to change anything. you might be greatly overestimating your importance and influence. or is your church one of thousands and you've really got it all figured out.
encourage one another daily
Prophecy: Judas would attempt to TRIUMPH OVER Jesus. Jesus gave him the hand fed SOP (meaning like Psallo or melody) as a MARK so that Satan Entered into Him. Judas was sent running and called on the Priests who sent the Levitical Warrior Musicians to mock or triumph over Jesus (meaning instruments and loud rejoicing). Here is the MARK of a Judas character BETRAYING Jesus with an UNholy kiss:
Not Holy Kiss! Meaning of Judas Sicarri means the ASSASSIN. Stabbed people in the back in public and blamed others. Judas Bag for "carrying mouthpieces of wind instrument."
Singy-clappy-boysans NOT give holy kiss when begin to shake, rattle and roll! Judas bag also mens a THIEF and a bad, bad boy always STAMPED on forehead. Good pictures of Judas Bag. The spotted thingy with the little box on right is JUDAS BAG. Man drunk on wine or charismatic music: need oxgoad (his phallic symbol) to hold self up. Modern boys drunk on ignorance speak MEANINGFUL into microphone made like phallic symbol. Wow! Not holy kiss!
Worship of New Wineskins God by Wineskinners
Xenophon, Memorabilia
[6] Whenever he accepted an invitation to dinner, he resisted without difficulty the common temptation to exceed the limit of satiety; and he advised those who could not do likewise to avoid appetizers that encouraged them to eat and drink what they did not want: for such trash was the ruin of stomach and brain and soul. [7] "I believe," he said in jest, "it was by providing a feast of such things that Circe made swine; and it was partly by the prompting of Hermes,4 partly through his own self-restraint and avoidance of excessive indulgence in such things, that Odysseus was not turned into a pig." [8] This was how he would talk on the subject, half joking, half in earnest.
Circe forced us to worship her by being CHURCH instead of assembly! Wow! Slick! Not holy kisses from Circe. Plays music, turns you into a pig and feeds you with dung patty-cake sermons to keep you fat and happy and sqeely.
Of sensual passion he would say: "Avoid it resolutely: it is not easy to control yourself once you meddle with that sort of thing." Thus, on hearing that Critobulus had kissed Alcibiades' pretty boy, he put this question to Xenophon before Critobulus: [9] "Tell me, Xenophon, did you not suppose Critobulus to be a sober person, and by no means rash; prudent, and not thoughtless or adventurous?"
"Certainly," said Xenophon.
"Then you are to look on him henceforth as utterly hot-headed and reckless: the man would do a somersault into a ring of knives; he would jump into fire."
Rubel Shelly and Zoe Group want to worship HILLS or MOUNTAIN GODS: Call down Holy Fire:
[10] "What on earth has he done to make you think so badly of him?" asked Xenophon.
"What has the man done? He dared to kiss Alcibiades' son, and the boy is very good-looking and attractive."
"Oh, if that is the sort of adventure you mean, I think I might make that venture myself."
"Poor fellow! [11] What do you think will happen to you through kissing a pretty face? Won't you lose your liberty in a trice and become a slave, begin spending large sums on harmful pleasures, have no time to give to anything fit for a gentleman, be forced to concern yourself with things that no madman even would care about?"
[12] "Heracles! what alarming power in a kiss!" cried Xenophon.
"What? Does that surprise you?" continued Socrates. "Don't you know that the SCORPION, though smaller than a farthing, if it but fasten on the TONGUE, inflicts excruciating and maddening pain?"
"Yes, to be sure; for the scorpion injects something by its bite."
Maybe Apolly's MUSES or "musical ministers" used to INJECT sleepy time in old men while children play "ringy round he rosy" or something right in public. Muses have scorpion "bites" to give you UNholy kiss of death. Fasten on TONGUE! Awesome!
[13] "And do you think, you foolish fellow, that the fair inject nothing when they kiss, just because you don't see it? Don't you know that this creature called 'fair and young' is more dangerous than the scorpion, seeing that it need not even come in contact, like the insect, but at any distance can inject a maddening poison into anyone who only LOOKS at it?
"Maybe, too, the loves are called ARCHERS for this reason, that the fair can wound even at a distance.
Make singy-clappy ACT UP even in audience! Maybe because Apollo or Abaddon or Apollyon "Twangs bow string to sind SINGING arrow sometimes LOVE ARROWS?" Maybe because the SHOT hymns at one another to excite. Maybe need to FLEE from Sodom before too late.
"Nay, I advise you, Xenophon, as soon as you see a pretty face to take to your heels and fly: and you, Critobulus, I advise to spend a year abroad. It will certainly take you at least as long as that to recover from the bite."
[14] Thus in the matter of carnal appetite, he held that those whose passions were not under complete control should limit themselves to such indulgence as the soul would reject unless the need of the body were pressing, and such as would do no harm when the need was there. As for his own conduct in this matter, it was evident that he had trained himself to avoid the fairest and most attractive more easily than others avoid the ugliest and most repulsive.
Maybe Paul pretty smart:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess 5:21
Abstain from all appearance of evil. 1 Thess 5:22
Li Chang: when you see singy-clappy boysans throw arms, dance and prance and INJECT love into boy and girl clappers making their ARMS FLY you maybe need to look down in shame and steal your child's egg roll.
Paul speaks OF pure religion warning against IMPURE religion which involved singy-clappy-sellers of talents. When he speaks of a HOLY kiss he ELEMINATED Unholy kiss of death. Paul not command RAISE hands but raise HOLY hands: not an act of worship. He did not command a HOLY KISS as an act of worship: warned against UNholy kissing when "uncovered prophesiers" in 1 Cor 11:5 start shooting hymns to make MELODY of your money belt.
Chief priests LOVE unholy kissers: inject venum so can pick pockets of widows while making love with boy-team. Collect widow's MITES while kissy boys pass out FLEAS. ALL priesthoods KEPT boy singers and players.
Puzzled writes: <<< I think that what Paul was trying to say in Romans 16:16 was "greet each other with a holy kiss. The called out of Christ greet you." and not "this is what you should put on your sign out front." >>>
“Puzzled One”, Your discussion has raised two interesting questions to which I would like to attempt some answers.
Before the answers, please permit me to say a word or two about a previous post where you were critical of certain ones and their posts on this forum. (Actually, I gather that you are critical of the forum in general, but specifically of Jimmy, Ken and Donnie.) My posts did not appear here because I endorse this forum or any of its posters. I neither endorse nor oppose all of what any of them say because I have not read enough of them one way or another. I don’t always agree with either the tone or content of every post that I have read.
In following events and influences that affect the Lord’s church, I came upon this web-site. In doing so, I stumbled upon an old college friend, Jimmy Wren, whom I have not seen in nearly 30 years. In reading a post or two, it became obvious that some of the subject was of “change agents” as well as the errant teaching of Rubel Shelly (a preacher that I have read from for at least 35 years). It seemed like a place where I could jump in with a thought or two of my own, so you find my posts.
Now, your first question was to “other Godly names”. Apparently, your concern is with the identification “church of Christ”. You seem to also object that most “traditional” congregations of the Lord’s church use that identification when they refer to the church or place a sign in front of their meeting place.
The well-worn phrase, “what’s in a name”, has been discussed and debated for many years. But it is yet today, your very line of reasoning. It is so interesting that you post under a pseudonym, rather than your real name. I’m thinking that this is revealing, especially on this subject. You see, I am a member of the church that Jesus built (Matt. 16:18). Yes, you have correctly pointed out that in the nine or so references various identifications are used. However, since it is the intent to identify the true church which Jesus died and shed his blood to purchase (Acts 20:28), can we at least agree to use terms that will honor Him? Consider the following:
Christ is the head of the body the church – Eph. 1:22,23
Christ is the Saviour of the church – Eph. 5:23
Christ is the builder of the church – Matt. 16:18
Christ purchased the church – Acts 20:28
The church is the Bride of Christ – Eph. 5:31-33
Does it make sense to refer to this church in any way that does not give honor and glory to the One that brought it into existence and for which it stands? Certainly not! I’m not necessarily arguing for the sign out in front of my building. But for crying out loud, you can’t honestly consider what the Bible says about the church and then call it the Baptist church! By the same reasoning, any other human reference or term so generic that does not meet the above criteria.
By the way, in our culture, to refer to the New Testament church as “THE CHURCH”, is to be so GENERIC that no one really can identify it. (I’m guessing that is part of the motive, as well as to dissociate it from the church of Christ).
You would not use your reasoning in any other area of thinking. (Well, except for the obvious refusal to use your real name on your postings). I am married and have a wife. She became my bride on May 3, 1967 and on that day took my name. She didn’t take another man’s name. She didn’t refer to herself as Mrs. Jimmy Wren. She took my name because I became her husband and therefore her head (as she submits to her own husband – Eph. 5:22-24). Dear Puzzled, do you have a wife? If so, would you allow her to wear the name of another man? Do you own a home? Is your name on the Deed? I’m sure you drive an automobile and that your name is on the title.
What name is on your account down at the bank, or your retirement account? I’m sure all this might sound a bit silly to some, but the identification (NAME) really is important. It really matters what we call the church. In an environment so congested with religious error and dogma, it makes even more sense to be distinctive. Our church building is located on a street where there are thirteen different churches within a two-mile stretch of that street. Now what do you think would be a better identification to put on our sign than, church of Christ?
Your second question was “what happened to the holy kiss”? Answer: Absolutely nothing! I know you are saying that you haven’t seen anyone church folks greeting one another with a kiss lately. Let’s back up a little bit sort of like one of those movies that starts a story about adult people then suddenly reverts to their childhood. In the first century, when Paul penned the line to “salute one another with an holy kiss” there was a different custom and culture. If you recall, it was customary to greet friends and loved ones with a kiss. Judas “fingered” Jesus when he greeted him with a kiss (Matt. 26:48). It is still the custom in the Eastern countries today. But many cultures and customs are different. I have visited mission churches in several foreign countries and found different greetings. Some embrace with a warm hug, while other have their own distinctive handshake.
The simple teaching is that Christians are a community of people, assembling at differing places around this big world. Whenever we meet those of our common faith we should greet them with warmness and purity of spirit as Christ would have. These are our family, brothers and sisters in Jesus, redeemed by the same blood. We all share in the preciousness of God’s sweet salvation, all of us one in Christ. We are admonished to greet each other as such!
We still greet each other just like that where I come from. What do they do where you live?
I don't recall lobbying to call our churches Baptist. I was just pointing out other ways the ekklesia was called in the first century. I was doing this because the people on this website think that the church of Christ is the only God ordained name and if you call your church something else you are probably going to hell. I really don't think Paul was saying in Romans 16:16 that the church of Christ was to be tha names that all churches should be called.
I would use my name, but this website does not like free flowing debate and has a way of squelching those that propose ANY difference in opinion.
<Puzzled> “I would use my name, but this website does not like free flowing debate and has a way of squelching those that propose ANY difference in opinion.”
<Jimmy> Puzzled will you tell us which church/denomination you favor so we can at least know WHAT we should be discussing?
No one, on this end, writes on these boards just for the sake of “debate.” No one here is interested in winning an argument. We are teaching precious souls the right way of the Lord according to the scriptures. Your help in this regard would be appreciated greatly.
<Puzzled> “People on this website think that the church of Christ is the only God ordained name and if you call your church something else you are probably going to hell.”
<Jimmy> People on this web site know and understand that God made use of different words to describe certain event or things such as the church.
A good example: Christ was “killed”; Christ was “slain”; Christ was “murdered”; Christ was “hung on a tree”; Christ was “crucified.” As preachers both Jesse and I usually say Christ was “crucified.”
I always say “Church of Christ” because it is such a beautiful expression; it just says it “all.”
Every time I think of “Church”, I think of Christ. Every time I think of Christ, I think of His Church. A believer just cannot separate Christ (Head of) from His Church (His Body). Paul put this in his teachings throughout the Book of Romans and finally just says it so beautifully. “The Churches of Christ…”
Puzzled the only way you can understand this, is to stop thinking of spiritual things using worldly wisdom. “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Romans 12:2 (KJV) .
We are not trying to prove what is good, acceptable, and perfect to someone else. We are trying to prove it to our self’s. We are transformed by our Bible study, that is the only way our minds can be renewed, and by this we can prove what is…will of God.
Puzzled writes: <<<
I don't recall lobbying to call our churches Baptist.>>>
Jesse replies: Puzzled,I didn't take your post to say that, but you didn't make yourself very clear as to what you would call the church. Am I correct to assume that you were only arguing against calling it the "church of Christ"?What would you call it? I was simply pointing out the absurdity of the vast majority of human names applied to the church that Jesus built.
Puzzled writes: <<<I was just pointing out other ways the ekklesia was called in the first century. I was doing this because the people on this website think that the church of Christ is the only God ordained name and if you call your church something else you are probably going to hell.>>>
Jesse replies: It is not my intent to prove that I will go to hell if I call the church something other than the "church of Christ." However, wouldn't you agree that it is possible that other lost souls might go to hell if I don't help them correctly identify the true church? I am, or course, assuming that you agree that there are some false churches. Is that something about which we can agree?
Puzzled writes: <<<I would use my name, but this website does not like free flowing debate and has a way of squelching those that propose ANY difference in opinion.>>>
Jesse replies: What possible difference could that make? I have some differences in opinion, and could not care less who knows it. As long as I am allowed to post what I believe, it will be written and identified by my name. When something is not allowed because it does not concur with the current moderator's opinions, I will immediately admonish that moderator. Of course, the moderator has a responsibility to deal with certain issues such as a poster with a bad attitude or false information (as examples). For what its worth, I suspect that there are very few websites that would allow an anonymous poster to say absolutely anything without some parimeter. I welcome responses to anything that I write, from you or anyone else.
By the way, from your post there was very little disagreement with what I had written. I am assuming that you agreed with the rest of my post.
Bring on the women! Ladies day in the pulpit at Woodmont Hills church of Rubel
April 30 2005, 4:51 PM
Another visit with Rubel and Wes.
See sermon:"Discipleship at Home: Wives, Love Your Husbands" June 20, 2004.
Two newcomers to the Woodmont Hills pulpit in this lesson. Joining Rubel and Wes via large screen TV to help these two men deliver their sermon are JILL GREEN and CARLA BECKHAM.
Go read the lesson, come back here and we will start a discussion about it Monday May 2, 2005.
<Jimmy> "Puzzled will you tell us which church/denomination you favor so we can at least know WHAT we should be discussing?" I attend a non denominational church that truly has no connection to any creed or sect. It is elder led. Believers are baptised by immersion. We take communion monthly. Our worship is contemporary with a praise team and a praise band and the worship in song is absolutely wonderful and people are changed by it.
<Jimmy> "No one, on this end, writes on these boards just for the sake of “debate.” No one here is interested in winning an argument. We are teaching precious souls the right way of the Lord according to the scriptures. Your help in this regard would be appreciated greatly." What troubles me greatly is the way you and others dig in your heels and say that your interpretation is next to inspired and the condemnation that flows because of disagreement in disputable matters of opinion.
<Jimmy> "People on this web site know and understand that God made use of different words to describe certain event or things such as the church.
A good example: Christ was “killed”; Christ was “slain”; Christ was “murdered”; Christ was “hung on a tree”; Christ was “crucified.” As preachers both Jesse and I usually say Christ was “crucified.”
I always say “Church of Christ” because it is such a beautiful expression; it just says it “all.” "
