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  

Al Maxey: Pronounces Plan for THE church at last!

October 27 2006 at 5:04 PM
Ken Sublett  (no login)
from IP address

Al Maxey thinks that HOLDING the harps OF GOD means PLAYING harp IN CHURCH. God HIDES himself from the WISE: these are the sophists. Jesuc called the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites: in Ezekiel 33 Christ marked self-speakers, singers and instrument players. It is tragic to see the deluded wandering around working up 'religious observations' not knowing that they are lying wonders.

[linked image]
[linked image]

For the disciple: we are to Apprehend the Word of God.

[linked image]

Al Maxey has published his PLAN for the NEW CHURCH OF CHRIST (didn't he attend a Christian Church college?): it is the same old scam that if YOU will affirm the instrumental churches and those who practice WHATEVER as long as they have been dipped in water (or maybe not since knowledge is not important), and YOU fellowship pagan instruments THEN we will all be in a UNION.

Apparently Al Maxey's predestinated task in life is to find someone like Jesus defending the LAW OF SILENCE by violating the Law so that he can add or fellowship the use of instrumental music. Like his mentors such as Leroy Garrett he hallucinates the GUILT CLAUSE which says: "I have forced the organ into your church, and no you (J.W.McGarvey) will not be able to speak against it, and if YOU leave then YOU are sowing discord."

Al Maxey rests on the false dogma that churches of Christ had ROOTS with the Stoneites at Cain Ridge in a ritual defined by fairly modern "devil worship" in Iraq. The ONLY similarity between Stone and Campbell is that they both supported the BIBLE as the only authority for faith and practice: but so did Martin Luther, John Calvin and all historic scholars. He also hallucinates that only SOME of the Reformers thought that they had ANY VALIDITY for a new church: minimal common sense according to Alexander Campbell would ask THEN WHAT DO YOU THINK WE HAVE BEEN TEACHING.

I say again and again that the Bible, Jesus and all contemporaneous literature proves that the Cainite (from a musical note) RACE as OF that wicked one survived the flood through the wives and immediately set up what we know from the Babylonian tablets as descendants who OPPRESSED others with music to be able to SELL BACK the people's own cows which they had "penned up" and kept SAFE. I know of no other explanation for people on MISSION to prove that the 100% Biblical testimony that music came with Lucifer and the message of the musicians to God is: "Shut your face, we will not listen to YOUR words." That includes Eve, Nadab and Abihu, earlier in Job 21 and many Biblical passages where MUSIC is within itself proof that people WILL NOT listen to the Words of God: Al Maxey accepting an UNAUTHORIZED salary is proof because Jesus paid it all, Paul repudiated THE LAW OF GIVING and all historic scholarship--including John Calvin and Restoration leader.

Al Maxey: A Christian Sister's Challenge

As anyone knows who has ever dared to set forth his views and convictions before the public in written form, as Campbell did in his journals, there will be those who question and challenge those convictions. Alexander Campbell received his fair share of criticism and condemnation from those who did not appreciate his perspectives. One such challenge came from an unnamed woman in Lunenburg, Virginia (now located in West Virginia), whose letter to him was dated July 8, 1837. She wrote this very brief letter to question a statement he had made in the June, 1837 issue of The Millennial Harbinger. Her question, and his response to her, have had a tremendous effect upon the thinking of disciples of Christ for generations. Some have suggested this correspondence has become his most controversial, and certainly one of his most misunderstood. It has been praised, as well as condemned, far and wide. In this current edition of Reflections I would like for us to take a closer look at this most fascinating and historic exchange, which has come to be called The Lunenburg Letter. For those unfamiliar with it, it can be read in its entirety at the following web site:

In an article entitled "Letters to England -- No. 1" (Millennial Harbinger, June, 1837) Campbell sought to motivate his BRETGHREN to cooperate with other Christians everywhere in a global effort to "promote every benevolent, humane, and charitable object which can ameliorate the conditions of human existence." He provided quite an itemized accounting of such Christian efforts, and urged believers to join hands in such endeavors.

Where he "crossed the line," in the minds of SOME, however, was in his view that we should join hands with those outside sectarian parameters, and together, as fellow believers, seek to push back the effects of the present spiritual darkness (which is our true).

ANY CHRISTIANS AMONG THE SECTS? JUDGING from numerous letters received at this office, my reply to the sister from Lunenburg has given some pain to our brethren, and some pleasure to our SECTARIAN friends. The builders up of the PARTIES tauntingly say to our BRETHREN, "Then we are as safe as you," and "You are COMING OVER to us, having now conceded the greatest of all points--viz. that immersion is NOT essential to a Christian." Some of our brethren seem to think that we have NEUTRALIZED much that has been said on the importance of baptism for remission, and disarmed them of much of their artillery against the IGNORANCE, ERROR, and INDIFFERENCE of the times upon the whole subject of Christian duty and Christian privilege.
Would you say that OTHERS were ECUMENICAL and only SOME "legalistic, sectarian, hypocrites" refused to JOIN? You COULDN'T have "joined" a Baptist or Presbyterian church without some supernatural SIGN that you were saved the INSTANT you believed or from ALL ETERNITY. You could NOT be ecumenical without agreeing with them. Therefore, Al Maxey insists that we AGREE that all "water babies" ARE SAVED.
I suggest, as with all Lunenber distorters, that Al got those words from Leroy Garrett or others. He alludes to the document but does not quote it:
Campbell: "Touching your inquiries on some matters, I hasten to observe,--that our brethren GENERALLY regard the church as the ONLY moral or religious association which they can lawfully PATRONIZE. Hence they form NOT Missionary, Education, Tract, Bible, Temperance, Anti-Slavery confederations.
The CHRISTIAN CHURCHES formed these INSTITUTES and therefore because they ADDED something not absolutely required to be a "church" THEY deliberately sowed discord and the SECTARIANS are those who ADDED something not generally held by CHRISTIANS for all of recorded history.
Can you see any difference between Al's OF SOME and Campbell's OUR BRETHREN GENERALLY? As a BODY, Campbell will MOCK people who think that he did his work believing that the DENOMINATINS were already the CHURCH OF CHRIST.

Now, honest readers will look at the list of things that CHRISTIANS as individuals can be involved with and ECUMENICAL is NOT on the list! However, IF they are good works, he has another view:

If these are good works, they belong to the CHURCH in her OWN proper character;
and every member of the church is, AS a Christian,
obliged to promote these objects as far as he has the MEANS and the opportunity.

The Christian institution, in our judgment, demands of all its subjects THEIR best efforts to put down all profanity, unrighteousness, injustice, oppression, and cruelty in the world; and to promote every benevolent, humane, and charitable object which can ameliorate the conditions of human existence.
distinctions and differences, as their fellow-creatures, as subjects of God's philanthropy, [in his next restatement he adds]
to be taught his religion, and trained for immortality, are propositions or tenets held by us sacred as the precepts of Christ.

But, back to the CHURCH as a body and NOT just individuals: he moves into things permitted by the whole church.

That the gospel ought to be preached; that evangelists or missionaries ought to be SENT OUT and sustained by THE CHURCH;
that the whole community should be intellectually and morally educated--
every child born upon our soil so trained as to be a useful, safe and honorable member of society;
that the Bible always, and sometimes religious tracts, newspapers, magazines and pamphlets
should be widely circulated in the world; that Christians should be temperate in all things,
and especially so in the use of all intoxicating liquors, and perhaps sometimes wholly abstinent;
that they should not, after communing at the Lord's table, unite in any secret, political, or moral combination with the Lord's enemies, Turks, Jews, or Atheists; that they should oppose all schemes of robbery and oppression, whether the victims be white, black, or yellow--bond servant or hired servant; that Christians should render to their servants every thing that is just and equal; that they should not, even when the laws permit them, violate or cause others to violate

The Bible identifies OPPRESSION or A BURDEN as singing songs to force people to conform or "take taxes not in warfare." Early restorers denied the role of the BUDGET and of "adding any anxiety such as DEBT. Al Maxey wants to form TEMPLES to attractg customers to hear HIS WORDS and the best way to do that is MUSIC. If we as a group pay anyone they should be SENT OUT and sustained by the church. There is no hint of a young PREACHER and Alexander Campbell calls the preachercraft as the CRAFTIEST CRAFT OF ALL.

Al Maxey wrote that Campbell wrote,"We would, indeed, have no objections to co-operate in these matters with all Christians, and raise contributions for all such purposes as, in our judgment, are promotive of the Divine glory or of human happiness, whether or not they belong to our churches: for we find in all Protestant parties Christians as exemplary as ourselves according to their and our relative knowledge and opportunities." The italicized phrase is the one that generated the letter of concern from the sister in Lunenburg.

But Campbell wrote:We would, indeed, have no objections to co-operate in these matters with all Christians, and raise contributions for all such purposes as, in our judgment, are promotive of the Divine glory or of human happiness, whether or not they belong to our churches: FOR WE FIND IN ALL PROTESTANT PARTIES CHRISTIANS as exemplary as ourselves according to their and our relative knowledge and opportunities;

Why did Al Malxey GAG? Al doesn't read further to note that Campbell spoke of "c" christians and "C" Christians.

but we cannot form a confederacy with the troops of Satan, or tax his subjects to sustain the Christian cause;
and, therefore, so long as all these associations openly and avowedly form a community on any one of these bonds of union,
irrespective of citizenship in the kingdom of heaven;

I say, so long as they hold communion with profane and ungodly persons, or with Gentiles of no creed and every creed,
because of a SINGLE point of COINCIDENCE,
whatever that point may be,
we cannot unite with them, or sail under such a flag.

Besides, if such schemes are really necessary, then has the church failed--
then the Divine institution must yield the palm to institutions merely human. (pp. 271-273)

Does Campbell's identificaton of SECTS and of those claimig that GOD FAILED because of their innovation mean that he wanted to have SWEET FELLOWSHIP with them? This is about the worst form of perversion of the truth which is USUALLY used by those who have LOST fellowship with faithful churches of Christ and, like the story of the Musical Fall in The Book of Enoch, they LUST to force their now-mortal enemies worthy of many RACA words, to be shamed into submission.

That sounds like speak where the Bible speaks and IF anyone has added anything such as MUSIC which is utterly condemned beginning in the garden of Eden and culminating in defining the BABYLON WHORE using "speakers, singers and musicians" the Campbell NEVER remotely hinted at being ECUMENICAL. The word ECUMENICAL does not appear in the Lunenberg body of correspondence.

Why do you think people want to build an ECUMENICAL CHURCH and lift isolated "evidence" from dead men but then DISTORT what honorable men wrote. The Lunenberg correspondence has NEVER been used honestly by those whose SOLE motive is to force a shotgun marriage between two religious groups which are not even of the same species. Anyone who would try to force people to "worship" with musical forms when the concept is NOT in the Bible for God's faiithful. Furthermore, all musical terms and names of instruments in a "religious" sense point to Satan as the "singing and harp playing prostitute," prostitutes and Sodomites and in sacrificial altars which were NOT Israelite but were NATIONAL systems to which God ABANDONED many because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai. The PERSONA of musicians has NEVER CHANGED in all of recorded history: wonder why people LUST to have males as theatrical and musical performers when ALL of the Greek language and Jesus identifies them as of the SECTARIAN HYPOCRITES.

More to follow..

This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address on May 24, 2013 10:01 PM

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Al Maxey: Pronounces Plan for THE church at last!

October 27 2006, 11:02 PM 

If you don't know where you have been then you probably should not be a Prophet for Prophet. Al quotes the old lie:

    Churches of Christ in Crisis: Reflecting on a Movement's Decline and Issue #268 -- Delineation of Diversity: A Sectional Spectrum Analysis of Disciples in Mainline Churches of Christ. Bro. Samuel Dawson, in his book "What Is Wrong With Most Churches of Christ & How They Can Avoid Extinction," points out at the very beginning that "In the 50 years from 1955 to 2005, Churches of Christ have dwindled from 3.0 to 1.267 million members and from 18,000 to 12,963 congregations. While the population has doubled in this same period of time, membership within Churches of Christ has declined 58%.

The census man made his first stab at trying to COUNT individual congregations and his preacher's count was too high by about half. Churches of Christ now have about 13,500 congregations and are presently suffering from the INFILTRATE AND DIVERT tactics learned from Promise Keepers and the Purpose Driven Cult. There have been a few TAKEN CAPTIVE by Al's band but churches normally do not go out of business.

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

Al Maxey's plan Part Two: surrender to the instrumentalists!

October 28 2006, 10:01 PM 

FIRST, as the bottom of the SANDWICH Al Maxey aligns himself as a PEER OF THE troUblers in Zion who do NOT believe that the Bible is inspired: Rubel Shelly claims that it all got sifted away when the postmodern era arrived and we have to "partner with God to work out our own salvation" which he and John York interpret to mean a new set of "narratives" because OUR culture has changed. Apparently the Holy Spirit whose name is "Jesus of Christ" did not speak for the Father within. THEY deny that "individuals have the right to read, interpret and speak the Word outside of the community reading." Al Maxey is quite hostile toward those who choos NOT to fellowship and therefore endorse thhose they believe to be doctrinally wrong and who have no compuncton about luring churches into fellowship but ONLY on their terms. Max Lucado had a vision to remove CHRIST from the sign and ADD instrumental music. Not bad if he had not committed the fatal flaw of using The Word and Spirit to give him authority which really came from Farmer's Branch's white paper twisting every single music term. Max denies the need for baptism.

LAST: As the BOTTOM of his thesis, I think Al invents a "fictitious letter" which gives him the authority to prove that he has never read the sad story of the Israelites whom God abandoned to a national or Gentile Monarchy from which the "synagogue" even as the church in the wilderness quarantined the people's congregation from. If Al Maxey is going to use Hezekiah's reform for the "command" for instruments, he must be warned by some one that the singers and musicians could not enter into the Temple EVEN TO CLEAN OUT GARBAGE. Far from being his authority to CONVERT TO or AFFIRM an ecumenical ONE CHURCH ORDER, he should be told that they went throughout Jerusalem and burned down all of the DENOMINATIONAL altars. In the civil TYPE there was only one HOUSE and the preachers, singers, musicians, jesters, clowns and other camp followers COULD NOT enter.

He sees harps in heaven as HIS authority to do it even though he is NOT a DEAD VIRGIN: the angel told Al if he is still living to PREACH THE GOSPEL. Any literate reader of the text will find both the harps (given by God) and the Incense (prayers or hymns from God) fulfilled as the FRUIT OF THE LIPS. This was the prophecy of Messiah as the Essenes delivered Psalm 41.

Therefore, we have the NEW WORLD ORDER bracketed by Al as one of the "voices in the wilderness" (Max Lucado in the wilderness, hee haw) as the FOUNDATION and INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC as the MEANS to achieve unity. That, apparently will stop the drain of our youth who get emasculated and mad about 6th grade and flee just as spiritual adults flee from the musicators always flashing a perverted persona and aroma.

The FOUNDATION built by Leroy Garett and some of the Phds who never quote the Bible or historical text without distortion is the PLATFORM for Al to build the church of the future. Unfortunately, if you read ALL of the Lunenberg correspondence you will discover that Al has picked just enough to force a dead man to lie. We have shown in the first part that there were undoubtedly christians among the sects but that he DID NOT endorse "sweet fellowship" with the sects. He said that if so they should call them to COME OUT OF BABYLON. I cannot say too loudly that Scripture says that when you meddle with the Word of Gor or corrupt it (sell it retain) God sends you strong delusions so that you believe a lie to drive nails into your coffin of damnation. He said that individual members could support any good work but if they WERE good works they belonged to the church. Campbell confirms that the object of any evangelist supported by the church should be SENT OUT into the community and Campbell repudiated the notion of paying a young man to write and deliver sermons.

Now, back to the Lunenberg which is universally perverted by all of those who claim that the Restoration leaders promoted "loving fellowship" with those they called SECTS and BABYLON.
    Lunenburg, July 8th, 1837

    Dear Brother Campbell --- I was much surprised today, while reading the Harbinger, to see that you recognize the Protestant parties as Christian. You say, you "find in all Protestant parties Christians." Dear brother, my surprise and ardent desire to do what is right, prompt me to write to you at this time. I feel well assured, from the estimate you place on the female character, that you will attend to my feeble questions in search of knowledge.

    Will you be so good as to let me know how anyone becomes a Christian?
    What act of yours gave you the name of Christian?
    At what time had Paul the name of Christ called on him?
    At what time did Cornelius have Christ named on him?
    Is it not through this name we obtain eternal life?

    Does the name of Christ or Christian belong to any but those who believe the gospel, repent, and are buried by baptism into the death of Christ?

One suspects that Alexander was "the lady" so he is not being attacked but is giving himself the chance to define that there are nominal "christians" who live according to Christian principles: in deed that is the literal meaning. However, Jesus commanded to teach and make disciples BY baptizing AND ongoing teaching. Only these baptized disciples were called Christians. Paul said that those who "fear God and work righteousness" are acceptable to God. However, in order to be saved or have their sins remitted they MUST be baptized. That is whre God gives us A new spirit which makes complete discipleship possible. When preachers used proof-text they are NOT yet disciples. Campbell could "fellowship" or treat others with respect but Al knows very well that he WOULD NOT allow anyone at that time to take his pulpit and preach the Instrumental Worship heresy. If Al was remotely correct, the Campbells would have died as Presbyterians.
    Al Maxey: The question "Who is my brother?" is not a new one. It has been the cause of discussion, debate and dissension for centuries. Indeed, the apostle John struggled with the same question when he sought to hinder a disciple who "does not follow along with us" (Luke 9:49; Mark 9:38). When it is WE who become the standard of measurement, rather than JESUS, factions in the family are never far behind. When others must "follow along with us" before we will acknowledge them as brethren, we have become sectarian. The mark of brotherhood is when we both "follow along after" JESUS. Jesus had to set John straight that day almost 2000 years ago .... there are some brethren who need to be "set straight" today, as well.

    Campbell, in his response to this woman from Lunenburg, sought to impress upon her heart and mind the beauty of our extended family in Christ Jesus our Lord. Sadly, it created a furor more far-reaching than Alexander Campbell could ever have imagined, and led to his vilification among many of his brethren ... even to this day.

In fact, that is a MODERN question which non-judgmental people do not ask when they teach that which has been taught and let the disciple and God decide who is a child of God. He is my brother but that does not mean that I want to fill the pew with him as some kind of obligation.

I have not read the VILIFICATION: people asked questions to make sure that they understood A. Campbell as NOT repudiating the MAJOR issue at point: that of baptism FOR or IN ORDER to the remission of sins. If Campbell believed the Baptists baptism they WOULD not have been so hostile to this "new cult" to believed in the "gospel in water."

In FACT, Alexander Campbell neither said nor thought about an EXTENDED FAMILY. When he met with the Presbyterians he called himself a Christian. When he met with the Baptists he called himself a Christian. In both cases, when he discovered the TRUTH he not only refused to fellowship but claimed that they were a SECT and not the church of Christ. He will later DENY that a baptized Baptist has fully obeyed the GOSPEL and is therefore NOT a Christian in the BIG C sense of the Word. Next, in the letters Campbell defines "christian" character which to him trumps ones "sect."
    Campbell With me mistakes of the understanding and errors of the affections are not to be confounded. They are as distant as the poles. An angel may mistake the meaning of a commandment, but he will obey it in the sense in which he understands it. John Bunyan and John Newton were very different persons, and had very different views of baptism, and of some other things; yet they were both disposed to obey, and to the extent of their knowledge did obey the Lord in every thing.

    There are mistakes with, and without depravity. There are wilful errors which all the world must condemn, and unavoidable mistakes which every one will pity. The Apostles mistook the Saviour when he said concerning John, "What if I will that John tarry till I come;" but the Jews perverted his words when they alleged that Abraham had died, in proof that he spake falsely when he said, "If a man keep my word he shall never see death."
    Many a good man has been mistaken. Mistakes are to be regarded as culpable and as declarative of a corrupt heart
    only when they proceed from a wilful neglect of the means of knowing what is commanded.
    Ignorance is always a crime when it is voluntary; and innocent when it is involuntary.
    Now, unless I could prove that all who neglect the positive institutions of Christ
    and have substituted for them something else of human authority, do it knowingly, or, if not knowingly,
    are voluntarily ignorant of what is written, I could not, I dare not say that their mistakes are such as unchristianize all their professions.

    True, indeed, that it is always a misfortune to be ignorant of any thing in the Bible, and very generally it is criminal.
    But how many are there who cannot read; and of those who can read, how many are so deficient in education;
    and of those educated, how many are ruled by the authority of those whom they regard as superiors in knowledge and piety,
    that they never can escape out of the dust and smoke of their own chimney, where they happened to be born and educated!
    These all suffer many privations and many perplexities, from which the more intelligent are exempt.

Campbell next makes a clear distinction between godly people being "christians" without immersion but he denies that he has satisfied the condition of remission of sins as a perfected and assured Christian. He understands what we all understand: that no one is expected to obey beyond their understanding. All churches are filled with people who conform to their idea of "christian" but when they undersand the MEANING of immersion they must conform. He assuredly did not think that the clergy who ignored the clear Biblical commands
    Campbell There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of faith, absolutely essential to a Christian--though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. My right hand and my right eye are greatly essential to my usefulness and happiness, but not to my life; and as I could not be a perfect man without them,

      so I cannot be a perfect Christian without a right understanding and a cordial reception of immersion in its true and scriptural meaning and design. But he that thence infers that none are Christians but the immersed, as greatly errs as he who affirms that none are alive but those of clear and full vision.
    I do not formally answer all the queries proposed knowing the one point to which they all aim. To that point only I direct these remarks. And while I would unhesitatingly say that I think that every man who despises any ordinance of Christ or who is willingly ignorant of it, cannot be a Christian; still I should sin against my own convictions, should I teach any one to think that if he MISTOOK the meaning of any institution while in his soul he DESIRED to know the whole will of God he must perish forever.

A local elder-preacher combo REFUSED to teach the necessity for baptism because they said SOMEONE might be saved WITHOUT baptism. Therefore, they have sinned by betraying their fellowship and by refusing to preach the gospel based on MAYBES. However, Alexander Campbell gives LITTLE hope for such false teachers:
    CampbellBut to conclude for the present--he that claims for himself a license to neglect the least of all the commandments of Jesus because it is possible for some to be saved who through insuperable ignorance or involuntary mistake, do neglect or transgress it; or he that wilfully neglects to ascertain the will of the Lord to the whole extent of his means and opportunities because some who are defective in that knowledge may be Christians, is not possessed of the spirit of Christ and cannot be registered among the Lord's people. So I reason; and I think in so reasoning I am sustained by all the Prophets and Apostles of both Testaments.

    Maxey speaking for Campbell: Alexander Campbell believed there were saints scattered among the various sects of his day; that no one sect could lay claim to being, solely and exclusively, the One Body on the face of the earth, with every living Christian being ONLY within the parameters of their group.
Campbell fussed with those who insisted on a perfect knowledge about baptism but he immediately followed up with:
    Campbell My high regard for these correspondents, however, calls for a few remarks on those sentences, as farther explanatory of our views. We cheerfully agree with them, as well as with our sister of Lunenburg, that the term Christian was given first to IMMERSED BELIEVERS and to none else; but we do not think that it was given to them because they were immersed, but because they had put on Christ; and therefore we presume to opine, that, like every other word in universal language, even this term may be used as Paul sometimes uses the words saint and sinner, Jew and Gentile--in a part of their signification.<>

    None of our brethren regard baptism as only outward. They all believe that in the outward submersion of the body in the water, there is at the same time the inward submersion of the mind and heart into Christ. They do moreover suppose that the former may be without the latter. They have only to add that it is possible for the latter to be not without the former in some sense, but without it in the sense which Christ ordained.

    Still my opinion is no rule of action to my brethren, nor would I offer it unsolicited to any man. But while we inculcate faith, repentance, and baptism upon all, as essential to their constitutional citizenship in the Messiah's kingdom, and to their sanctification and comfort as Christians, no person has a right to demand our opinions on all the DIFFERENCES of this generation, except for his private gratification. He is certainly safer who obeys from the heart "that mould of doctrine" delivered to us by the Apostles; and he only has praise of God and man, and of himself as a Christian, who believes, repents, is baptized, and keeps all the ordinances, positive and moral, as delivered to us by the holy Apostles.

Al's mentors DO NOT believe that and therefore those who do NOT agree with Jesus and the Campbells fell no guilt in grasping an existing church for their own DIVERSE purposes: we have to conclude that they, like Al, is ecumenical on HIS or THEIR terms.

Campbell has his own opinions of who is the greater CHRISTIAN: one who acts christian without baptism or a baptized person who was not inwardly baptized. He would not let a sectarian enter into fellowship with his congregation and NEGLECT to teach them what the Bible says about GOD'S STANDARDS: that would mean that he was NOT himself a Christian in the SAVED sense.

IF there are christians in the local Baptist church, Campbell DID NOT say "enjoy sweet fellowship" with them: he insists that they be consideed candidates for teaching by an evangelist and when they KNOW the truth to obey them. If there be such christians among the sects, Campbell insists that they COME OUT OF BABYLON. In no sense other than individuals supporting benevolent efforts on their own did Campbell sugg
    John ran that notion by Jesus one day, and got a quick rebuke in response! It won't fly any better today!! Wherever God the Father has a child, we have a brother or sister .... and these children are NOT all bunched within the walls of a single sect, faction, movement, or party.
There is nothing about sects or factions in MY Bible: Jesus said in Mark 9:40 that the man was not AGAINST him: he said nothing about him being a brother. On the other hand, many SECTS scatter the flock and THEY are not to enjoy "sweet fellowship" especially when they are violating all of the principles defininng the ekklesia or synagogue which is not a theater for "a spectacle of worship." When Al's Pals confiscate a peaceable church of Christ they SCATTER about half of the OWNERS. Furthermroe they ADD more STAFF which Peter defines as corrupters and Paul identifies as Robbers and Jesus identifies as hirelings. They ADD the musical worship teams and or instruments which are the SCORPIONS which separate people and John calls SORCERERS. Therefore, Jesus repudiated having "sweet fellowship" with people of that ilk.
    Matt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

    Skorpizo (g4650) skor-pid'-zo; appar. from the same as 4651 (through the idea of penetrating); to dissipate, i.e. (fig.) put to flight, waste, be liberal: - disperse abroad, scatter (abroad).

The Scorpion attaches both to preachers who who are sOPHISts meaning serpents and to the Muses John identifies as sorcerers along with the speakers and instrument players in Revelation 18. In Legend John uses as a "code" the muses were the dirty, stinking prostitutes as the Musical Worship Team which Apollo or Abaddon unleashes for the end time SEPARATING people based on their MARKS. They are LOCUSTS but they have SCORPION stingers in their tails
    Jn.10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

    Jn.16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

    Skorpios (g4651) skor-pee'-os; prob. from an obsol. skerpo, (perh. strengthened from the base of 4649 and mean. to pierce); a "scorpion" (from its sting): - scorpion

    Re.9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

    Liiddell- Scott: Chirruping is: teret-isma , atos, to, a humming, twanging, phormingôn [harp of Apollo or Satan] Diog. ap. D.L.6.104 (alluding to E.Fr.200), Luc.Nigr.15, AP7.612, cf. 11.352 (both Agath.); chirruping of cicadas, Hsch.II. metaph., a mere sound or twittering, teretismata ta eidê (the Platonic ideas) the ordinary prattle, teretisma [from teretizô] 1 a whistling, trilling,
Doesn't that fit with Jesus casting out the MUSES like dung? No, Al, there can be NO sweet fellowship when people ADD instruments to attract the money with no NEED for Biblical authority of any kind.
So, it seems that Jesus was NOT so ecumenical after all: after all, He cast out the Musical Minstrels "like dung" using the same concept as when "Lucifer was cast as profane" of heaven defined by a "musical" Hebrew word.
    Al Maxey: Campbell's goal was not to "start a new church," nor was it to elevate one group above another; his goal was simply to call all God's children, wherever they might be, into sweet fellowship with one another, and into loving, cooperative service to God and their fellow man. It was a noble, godly vision ... and the sectarians despised him for it.
Alexander would despise anyone who USED him to teach false dogma which NONE of Al's friends believe in or they would not INFILTRATE and DIVERT peaceable churches of Christ. Campbell said NOTHING about elevating one group above the other.

No, that is not the situation: the Declaration and Address intended to set up the CHURCH as "the school of Christ" and WORSHIP as "reading and musing the Word of God." That would NOT be CHURCH but the ekklesia Jesus died to found, Paul described and the historic church practiced. If you exclude the DISPUTES and WISE men in Romans 14 then you can hold ekklesia or synagogue using JUST that which is written: Paul excludes the SELF-pleasing of the pagans who aroused you with music. They were competent to teach one another and Al has no legitimate role to play in any TRUE ekklesia of Christ. Once circumscribing the meaning of CHURCH one can doubt that Campbell would have sweet fellowship with an institution which worshipped the theatrical and musical performers called by Jesus and all word definitions as the SECTARIAN HYPOCRITES.
    Campbell: 3. We have a third reason: We have been always accused of aspiring to build up and head a party, while in truth we have always been forced to occupy the ground on which we now stand. I have for one or two years past labored to annul this impression, which I know is more secretly and generally bandied about than one in a hundred of our brethren may suspect. On this account I consented the more readily to defend Protestantism; and I have, in ways more than I shall now state, endeavored to show the Protestant public that it is with the greatest reluctance we are compelled to STAND ALOOF from them--that THEY are the cause of this great "schism," as they call it, and not we.

    Do we, then, seek to make and lead a large exclusive sect or party? Have we not the means! Why then concede any thing--even the BARE possibility of salvation in any OTHER party, if actuated by such fleshly and selfish considerations? With all these facts and reasonings fresh in our view, I ask, Is not such a concession--such a free-will offering, at such a time, the most satisfactory and unanswerable refutation that could be given to the calumny that we seek the glory of building a new sect in religion?
      If, then, as some of our opponents say, we have made a new and an unexpected concession in their favor, we have done it at such a time, in such circumstances, and with such prospects before us, as ought (we think) henceforth to silence their imputations and reproaches on the ground of selfish or partizan views and feelings.
    Some of our fellow-laborers seem to forget that approaches are more in the spirit and style of the Saviour, than reproaches. We have proved to our entire satisfaction, that having obtained a favorable hearing, a conciliatory, meek, and benevolent attitude is not only the most comely and Christian-like, but the most successful. Many of the Protestant teachers and their communities are much better disposed to us than formerly, and I calculate

      the day is not far distant when many of them will unite with us.
      They must certainly come over to us whenever they come to the Bible alone.

      Baptists and Pedobaptists are daily feeling more and more the need of reform,
      and our views are certainly imbuing the public mind more and more every year.

Why are people so compelled to abuse the truth to make a POINT to their own little, narrow sectarian following?

We will show that from the posted Lunenberg Letters that Campbell used "christian" in an accomodative sense of those who followed Christian principles. He did not say that the were Christians unless they had been baptized FOR the remission of sins. Then "if there be believers among the Sects" Campbell says that they MUST come out of Babylon.
Al, like his mentors, deliberately takes just what he wants and misses the WHOLE context. The purpose, as always, it to pour out hate using a long list of the most harshly-judgmental terms known to mankind: My collection of Rubel Shelly RACA words may be a bit longer. Here is what Al wants to do and WE have shown that he hunts and pecks to distort Alexander Campbell: the FACT of the Restoration Movement, Campbell proves, proves that people were liars to think that all of the SECTS were just as good as what he was continuing as a work well begun by men like John Calvin from whome he could have read the word RESTORATION rather than REFORMATION:
    Al Maxey: This letter and Campbell's reply, known as 'the Lunenburg Letter,' is the most famous exchange within the history of the Movement. It came to have enormous implications. The intense debate that followed reveals an exclusivism within the soul of the Movement

    that helps to explain the emergence of the Churches of Christ as a separate church.

Al Maxey using the diversionary word Stone-Campbell Movement is not honest: the Reformers already known as The Church of Christ had no congenital connection to the neo-witchcraft of Cane Ridge. Nor, the Shouting Methodists, nor ordaining clergy, nor REJECTING baptism, nor confusion over the Godhead and a host of other things which to Campbell and most friendly Baptists as fanaticism which STOPPED the "Christian churches" in Kentucky.
    "And so the Stone movement, though several years older in its organic form than that of the Campbell's,
      is generally regarded as a tributary,
      and not the main stream, in this onflowing and world-blessing spiritual current.
      This is because most of the vital and permanent in the teachings of Stone,
      and much more, were found in the teachings of Campbell." (Davis, p. 158).
Even that does not take into consideration the long movement which Campbell had articulated before he came to America or heard of Stone.

Certainly Campbell adopted NOTHING from Stone and reputidates his extremism.
Al Maxey has followed Rubel Shelly who denies there is any old truth except a few facts ABOUT Jesus: it is obvious from the "scholarly" writings about the Bible and the Restoration Movement that these men REALLY believe that the document might have been true for THAT culture but because WE have changed the documents have lost any meaning for us. As a result, Al seems to write his own "narrative" about what Campbell MUST have said and doesn't bother to read what Campbell said for HIS time and place. That is really an ACQUIRED mind set which does not allow acknowledging objective truth anymore. I hope that they have undergone an "evolutionary" process and cannot think rationally any more: the alternative is that by treating the written Word with contempt they do not believe it whenGod promises to actually send them into a delusional state where they believe a lie before the truth.

Campbell above notes that those who DO NOT follow the Bible are the GUILTY PARTY and the cause that he nor churches of Christ ever had a hint of ecumenical spirit. That allows him to treat those who were INVADED and ROBBED to be accused as "exclusive" because they FLEE the house. The guilt clause was invented by Adam

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

Reviewing Al Maxey Reviewing John Mark Hicks

October 6 2007, 10:12 PM 

Reviewing Al Maxey reviewing John Mark Hicks. I will post fuller comments here.

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

Amos identifies IDOLATRY: not a bad attitude

October 11 2007, 8:37 PM 

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

Building on a CURSED foundation

October 13 2007, 10:22 PM 

People actually get degrees in Bible and submit themselves as "authoratiative teachers" or Pharisees without knowing even a little about the history of the Bible.

Almost always if people, like Abraham, walk in righteousness and justice God does not need religious rituals to feed, clothe, house and entertain Him. When people fall into evil--beginning with the Jubal clan who handled musical instruments without authority--and the Israelites rescued by pure grace from slavery fell back into musical idolatry, Moses wrote to condemn all forms of rituals which accepted the most pagan, patternistic idea that they had to aid the gods to keep them from failing or hurting them again. Thus, all rituals feed on induced fear by men who do not comprehend the grace that Jesus paid it all.

Here are some REAL scholarly comments who tell exactly what the Scriptures told and tell but are not remotely studied by pretenders to the throne of "set a king over us."

When people do not "sing that which is written" and "teach that which has been taught" they break the "genetic chain" and the Bible ceases to speak FROM God.

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

Proving that the legalistic Monarchy is not patternism for you.

October 15 2007, 12:04 PM 

If nothing else read Ezekiel 20 part of the universal repudiationof the Law of Moses and the Monarchy as authority to deliberately sow discord just so you can be entertained during church so you won't have to dedicate any time to God and His Word. Part of the Amos story was that even when they HAD wine, women and music they still resented having to take out time for God and were anxious for the Sabbath to be over so they could sell something to someone and cheat them. Having your mind "enchanted" by music will probably not make you more honest Monday morning.

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

Do anti-instrumentalists DEFILE God's Temple?

January 19 2008, 4:59 PM 

Al Maxey: A Sanctuary of the Spirit Reviewed

Because Al Maxey has the ANTI-instrumentalists as his primary target and that which he defines as SECTARIAN for refusing to JOIN the instrumentalist's denomination, we will take a look.

Al says that we (legalistic, sectarian, patternist hypocrites) DEFILE God's temple by REFUSING to endorse the use of instrumental music in the Holy Places. He missed the fact that any singer or instrumentalist who entered into the Holy or Most Holy place would have so defiled it that he would be executed.

All of his proof texts SPECIFICIALLY point to musicians--always the effeminate--who defiled the Temple as The Abomination of Desolation. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 3 also points exclusively to destructive activities of the diverse crowd and also to the polluting music they used.

Maybe one of Al's friends will show that Al is not on a limb and sawing it off.

 Respond to this message   
David Hallman
(no login)

should you be marked?

December 9 2013, 11:26 PM 

How disturbing, your rhetoric is divisive and does not sound like our Lord or any of His apostles.

 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)

No, Al Maxey should be marked

December 9 2013, 11:49 PM 

Which is divisive:

(1) Leaving peaceful congregations of the church of Jesus Christ ALONE without intrusion and interference from change agents such as Al Maxey?

--------------------- or --------------------

(2) Implementing instrumental music in "worship" in a congregation that has no need or use for such and that abides by New Testament teachings?

Prove that Al Maxey sounds like "our Lord" or "any of His apostles."

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

Re: Al Maxey: Pronounces Plan for THE church at last!

December 10 2013, 10:43 AM 

You are quick to catch on: we are trying to DIVIDE the Sheep from the Goats so that they don't have their spirits or more raped (raptured). Jesus spoke ONLY what God breathed (spirit) into Him without METRON or Meter: The Word or Logos is the regulative principle and it is OPPOSITE of self-directed preachers, singers, instrument players, actors Jesus called HYPOCRITES. IF you speak (quote) what the Spirit of Christ spoke He guarantees you that you will not be the beloved Alpha Male setting on the necks of the other males "leaders" whom he has neutered. Jesus said His WORD will divide off even your closest family members. NOT PEACE but a SWORD which is the Word of God which I guarantee you that Al Maxey CANNOT obey as the command to PREACH the Word (only) by READING the Word for Comfort and Doctrine. Al knows that music DISCOMFORTS and that lets him REBUILD on the BURNED DOWN spirit.

If you love a boasted of HOT WORSHIP SERVICE to which the kingdom does not come, then your spirit is BEING burned so that you will still be living when you are cast into the Lake of Fire. The Spirit of Christ said it: Al Maxey says that "that's a lie."

[linked image]

 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