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  
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)

Re: How did Godhead get here?

September 1 2013, 6:58 PM 

This is another of the many absolute assertions that Jesus is not part of the always-understood that their gods come in FAMILIES: That was the foundation for the sudden removal of Christ from the public confession to become The Family of God. That's just another way to be anti-Christ.

Most of the people were not ready for the ANTITHESIS of the universal pagan THESIS.

ALL PAGAN'S THESIS: God is a FAMILY being born and dying and being killed off by younger gods. These TRIADS were always father, mother (spirit) and young son not ready for prime time. Sophia (wisdom) was the true Logos: She is the wife-mother of the minor 'jehovahs' and RULED OVER him. Sure, never letting the little boy get promoted until he formed "musical worship teams" to worship Sophia. The neo-trinity in churches of Christ opened them up to Mother goddess worship using "lusted after fruits" as speakers, singers and instrument players: SORCERERS says John who WILL be cast alive into the Lake of Fire

The Jews worshipped many gods after God turned them over to worship the starry host BECAUSE of musical idolatry. The Jewish women lamented for Tammuz and the Queen of Heaven

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
.....and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
.....he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
.....and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am IN the Father, and the Father IN me?
..... the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself:
.....but the Father that dwelleth IN me, he doeth the works.
John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me:
.....or else believe me for the very works sake.

You need to begin at the beginning: The Colossian heresy was a blend of Jewish and Greek gnosticism. That included the idea that only the initiated could receive special knowledge--by the spirit, the denial of the humanity of Christ and the denial that the SUPREME BEING had personality.

Colossians 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love,
.....and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, the acknowledgement of the mystery of God namely Christ;
Colossians 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
.....after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

If Christ reveals all of the power and knowledge of God then it is Paul's agreement with Jesus that the DEITY does not dwell in THREE PEOPLE namely the Spirit OF Christ which is never DISCONNECTED from Christ.

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility
..... and worshipping of angels,
..... intruding into those things which he hath not seen, v
.....ainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

The FULNESS of Deity which dwelled ONLY in Jesus Christ for our world is:

pleroma , atos, to, A that which fills, complement

6. fullness, full and perfect nature, Ep.Rom.11.12; to p. tou theou, tou Khristou, Ep.Eph.3.19, 4.13, cf. Ep.Col.1.19; ts theottos ib. 2.9; later ta p. tn then Iamb.Myst.1.8; the aggregate of properties which constitute the complete nature of a thing, full specification, substance, Dam.Pr.28 bis; phtharta p. ib.34; ta mesa p. ib.35 bis; ta hekastou plrmata ts ousias ib.14, cf. 56,58; pas nous, p. n eidn Procl.Inst.177.

Christ was in the FORM or MORPHE of God which has the same meaning that He was the WORD or Spoken Power of God.

This same Fulness of WHAT GOD INTENDED also dwells in true Disciples.

Ephesians 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

Which means in Paul's parallelism

Ephesians 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

This has the same meaning of A holy spirit or A good conscience which means that a Disciple (not a ceremonial legalist) can read BLACK text on BROWN PAPER so that:

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Ephesians 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the FULLNES OF GOD

What the ONE GOD gave to Jesus, He gave to us by giving us A holy Spirit without which you will never be able to read the text for what IT SAYS.

Ephesians 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think,
.....according to the power that worketh in us,
Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.


This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address on Sep 1, 2013 7:00 PM

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Doctrinal Statement from Crossville COC

September 1 2013, 7:37 PM 

Doctrinal Statement

the diety of Jesus as the only begotten, virgin born, Son of God
that faith in Christ, as the Messiah of the Old Testament and the Saviour of the New Testament, together with obedience to all gospel commands; constitute the full conditions of pardon or salvation from sin
that baptism, or immersion in water, of penitent believers in (into) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is for (in order to) the remission of sins
that in conversion the Holy Spirit operates only through the truth, the Word of God, never without it - a proposition sustained by every recorded case of conversion

Faith in Christ plus obedience to ALL commands is necessary to salvation and full conditions of pardon---does this mean that the Christian has to be perfect? What are the commands. "He that is guilty of any sin is guilty of all."

Baptism in to be in name of FSHs for remission of sins--are all the commands obeyed by the time we are baptized?

"IN CONVERSION the HS operates only through the truth. . . ." Does this mean that they believe that the HS operates at other times than at conversion? Do they imply this?

Again the questions show the insufficiency of creeds. They raise more questions than they answer.

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

Re: Doctrinal Statement from Crossville COC

September 2 2013, 2:37 AM 

A quick review of the website indicates to me that the Crossville congregation is still one of those strong conservative, RM-influenced churches around. "Where the Bible speaks..." is an RM principle; so is "as was the first century church." [Personally, I have great admiration for congregations with that kind of strength and adherence to God's truth.]

I agree with the emphasis that one is buried with Christ in baptism in order to have his sins remitted in His blood. [By the way, this process negates the Baptist's way in which one through faith, by receiving Christ as his personal Savior, is saved or redeemed in His blood FIRST PRIOR TO repentance and baptism. Sorry, Baptists sad.gif ]

I wish that churches now would get into the habit of baptizing "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" per Acts 2:38. In such name were the early Christians baptized actually -- cf. Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5. "In the name of the Lord Jesus" occurs many, many more times in the N.T. as well, other than in baptism.

Baptism in the name of "FSHs" occurs only once in the entire Bible. And the Trinitarians use the passage as proof that the 3rd Person, a.k.a. "the Holy Spirit," is a separate Divine Being, also called "God."

Of course, His disciples might not have understood Christ if he had made reference to "the Spirit of Christ" upon his resurrection from the dead. At the time, He was still living with His disciples as "the truth" (John 14:6) and their physical Comforter (John 14, 16). When we study John 14-16 very carefully, it will reveal that the expressions "Spirit of truth" and "another Comforter" would refer to Jesus Christ himself.

This has been OVERLOOKED by Bible scholars and students by not paying close attention to contrasts between "now" and "after" [shall] ... to the use of personal pronouns ... to expressions "dwelleth WITH you" vs. "shall be IN you" ... "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you" (John 14:18) ... "the truth" [now] vs. [shall be] "the Spirit of truth."

The other misunderstood part of Acts 2:38 is the second benefit (in addition to "forgiveness of sins"). This one has to do with "receiving the gift of the holy spirit."

I used to believe that what I received upon baptism was the "gift of the Holy Spirit" HIMSELF without really understanding what that meant. Come to think about it, with the proper understanding now, it simply meant that in addition to the forgiveness of sins, the gift received was having MY SPIRIT made HOLY. It means I was refreshed and had a CLEAR CONSCIENCE (no more guilt). The parallel passage is in Acts 3:19 -- "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

Due to lack of time, let me just say briefly relative to the rest of your comments -- that there should be a distinction made or considered between the requirements or conditions before or at initial conversion vs. obedience to commandments for Christian living.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Question about the Holy Spirit

September 1 2013, 9:17 PM 

I have two questions to pose to the general readership, to any interested people who'd like to respond. We know that Donnie and Ken believe there is only one correct, biblical perception of the Holy Spirit, and that is as "the spirit OF God." The questions I would like to pose to the general readership are these:

(1) Can you provide explicit, biblical evidence stating that if we have perceptions of the Holy Spirit in addition to "the spirit of God," then our souls are in jeopardy?

(2) Whether or not we use the term "Trinity," can you provide explicit, biblical evidence stating that if we perceive Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct, non-person entities residing in heaven, then our souls are in jeopardy?

Now I know that Donnie and Ken will want to dive in on this quickly, with Donnie emphasizing the preposition "OF" and Ken dredging up "antichrist." But I would ask them to restrain themselves and not comment for a few days. I would first really like to see serious responses from the readership.



There's nothing to worry as your original post has been published in its entirety.

However, I must point out that part of your premise ("then our souls are in jeopardy") is inaccurate and a misrepresentation of one objective of this forum, which is to provide anyone the opportunity to express his/her perception, interpretation, comment, etc.

You have never heard CM state: "if [or if not] ... then your soul is in jeopardy." That remark or conclusion does not come from a CM source as it is cowardly and is a form of defense mechanism when someone runs out of valid arguments. So, where did that remark come from?

We are all here to study and discuss doctrinal matters, issues and differences.

I believe that the intelligent readership recognizes the fact that, contrary to the poster's self-serving mention of the preposition "of" and "antichrist" ONLY, the discussion in its entirety consists of other components:

(03) accuracy in translations;
(04) inconsistency in translations: KJV, 1611, etc. [due to Trinity influences, 325 A.D.];
(05) grammar: (Greek or Hebrew) in the earliest biblical manuscripts;
(06) grammar: gender of "the Holy Spirit" [he, him, himself, it, itself, which];
(07) grammar: capitalization of improper nouns [such as "spirit"];
(08) grammar: adjective modifying an improper noun [holy];
(09) role of "the Holy Spirit" in Judaism and in the Old Testament;
(10) origin and history of the Trinity Creed;
(11) "spirit of God" vs. "spirit of man";
(12) "the godhead" vs. the Trinity;
(13) "the Holy Spirit" missing in Paul's PERSONAL salutations to churches and individuals;
(14) "holy Spirit of God" (Eph. 4:30) vs. "Holy Spirit is God (Trinity);
(15) and others.

My comments above are intended to clarify the apparent misrespresentation of CM on the part of the poster.

This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address on Sep 2, 2013 5:20 PM

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Question(s) about the Holy Spirit

September 1 2013, 11:35 PM 

These questions are worth some deliberation, and I try to do this in the Spirit of open discussion.

Bill's Two Questions:

(1) Can you provide explicit, biblical evidence stating that if we have perceptions of the Holy Spirit in addition to "the spirit of God," then our souls are in jeopardy?

(2) Whether or not we use the term "Trinity," can you provide explicit, biblical evidence stating that if we perceive Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct, non-person entities residing in heaven, then our souls are in jeopardy?


Preliminary thoughts:

(1) If perception of a third "entity" will cause one to lose his or her soul, then a large percentage of those professing Christianity will be lost. Seems contrary to grace to think this. "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. . . ." (1 Corinthians 8:1b). First letter to Timothy says in 1:6-7 says "some have swerved aside to vain jangling: desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor what they affirm. . . . The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient. . . . " Plenty of people disagree on these topics, but those who have love (and receive grace) can "mitigate" any inabilities to understand the Written Word. It is striking that the Written Word, the Sword of the SPIRIT, may not be understood by some in regard to that same Spirit.

(2) Revelation 22:18-19 says (paraphrasing) "if anyone adds to this book, God will add the plagues; if anyone subtracts from this book, God will subtract him from the Book of Life, and from blessings recorded in this book." Inability to understand the 66 books (yes Bill, 66 books) would not in itself, in my opinion, make questionable one's salvation. Willful perversion of teaching, however, is an act of the high will and falls into a different category than inability to understand. So, in my opinion, God will take into account a person's intent (as also does our own civil jury system).

(3) Thirdly, not related to the two questions posed, is the issue of "this is not a salvation issue." I have heard in the churches, leading members say that there's not much to worry about since some things are not "salvation issues." This has the implication that one is only concerned about his own salvation, and very little about the needs of others, or going any further in obeying God.

The child of God does not draw a line around "salvation issues," and perceive that any activities or beliefs outside that line-drawn ring are insignificant. The dedicated child will implicitly (do the intent of the Father) and explicitly (his actual commands) as well as follow the ring of safety ordered by the Father. "Don't play in the street" is a salvation issue, for example, but the Father's desire that one follow the implicit desire the Father has that the child will be successful in life, will encourage the child to go far beyond the explicit commands. The child implicitly obeys the Father.

"Salvation issues" could be a key phrase indicating some very derogatory characteristics of its speaker. Such as "doing just enough to obey God" but going no further, thus despising the implicit intent of the parent.

"Salvation issues" is a phrase making the "plan of salvation" the only measurement of one's salvation, or at least leading some to think so. Salvation goes much deeper than that. There is so much to do on Sunday morning than spending time on salvation issues, when the development of Christian graces is much needed.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Question(s) about the Holy Spirit

September 2 2013, 12:47 AM 

Thanks for your thoughts, Scripture.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Vacation Bible School

September 2 2013, 8:29 AM 

William, it's a shame that your thread got hijacked! I guess you could report it to the "moderators". happy.gif

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

Re: Vacation Bible School

September 2 2013, 1:33 PM 

That's what happens when VBS materials may contain "at least a very trinitarian tilt" [cf. the initial post]. happy.gif

I consider it "a blessing in disguise." It causes me to: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15)

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Vacation Bible School

September 4 2013, 10:29 AM 

Yes, study to show thyself approved unto God, but since your studies now fixate on the Holy Spirit to the virtual exclusion of all other biblical issues, then you've lost your perspective. That is by no means a "blessing in disguise."

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

Re: Vacation Bible School

September 4 2013, 10:28 PM 

I have presented numerous aspects concerning the study of the papal- and pagan/pseudo-Christian Roman emperor-approved Trinity Creed -- its history, manuscript translations, grammar, the what-about-the-Holy-Spirit-in-the-Old-Testament, etc.

On the other hand, Bill has presented one aspect -- by reciting the Trinity Creed and using his recitation as his argument.

The subject is very popular worldwide while it is boring to Bill. [I'm trying to make sense out of this -- boring to Bill but yet he just cannot stay from it. Hmmm.] Let everyone know that the percentage of page views ranges from 200% to 500% more than usual, when the subject matter is regarding God' holy Spirit.

"To the virtual exclusion of all other biblical issues"? Really? Bill, is instrumental music about the only subject matter you can rebut? Bill, you have many opportunities to initiate threads dealing with a variety of topics. Where are they?????

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Vacation Bible School

September 2 2013, 4:47 PM 

Arguments supporting and bashing the Trinity are now likely to occur in other threads that are unrelated to discussions of the Trinity as such. For example, this thread was supposed to be about VBS, yet we've seen how quickly the discussion deviated toward recycling arguments pro and con about the Trinity.

As another example, in future threads about baptism, recycling similar arguments about the Trinity may again erupt as the focus when someone cites Matt. 28:19, which states that we are to be baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Someone will declare that's the Trinity, whereas someone else will declare that's one "long name" [never mind the three parts] of a singular, non-person, spiritual being.

In other threads about grace or forgiveness or even the Lord's Supper, Trinity arguments will likely surface. Someone is sure to holler that if you embrace the Trinity, you fall from grace and cannot receive forgiveness of sins until you shun the Trinity. Someone is also likely to mention that if you embrace the Trinity while taking the Lord's Supper, you "eat and drink damnation" unto yourselves. And on and on it can go.

The multiple Holy Spirit-vs.-Trinity threads now existing have created a kind of "spiritual tsunami" on this site, such that the subject is now flooding and overflowing into unrelated threads.

There is a time for everything, so says Ecclesiastes, but topics can recycle and recyle to the point of smothering other important, biblical issues.

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

Re: Vacation Bible School

September 2 2013, 5:58 PM 


Evidently you keep speed-reading detailed messages with little or no comprehension. The "trinitarian tilt" to VBS materials [cf. the initial post] has triggered it, haven't you noticed?

Regardless of your complaints, it is apparent that you are very interested in discussing the papal-, Roman Emperor-authorized Trinity Creed that CM "bashes." If the "bashing" must be very painful to you, I can't say, "I feel your pain"; that is your problem.

Why do you keep participating even to the point of you "bashing" CM. I believe you can make an intelligent decision to let CM continue as a religious discussion forum without your participation.

Why don't you refute for once my argument regarding Matthew 28:19? I can no longer count the number of times I have presented this sub-topic with NOT A SINGLE rebuttal from you? You haven't even paid attention to other passages that involve baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Acts 2:38 itself [the church of Christ's favorite passage regarding baptism] states: "... be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...." There are other passages: Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5.

A discussion expert would examine all these passages very, very thoroughly and attempt to reconcile seeming differences between: (a) "in the name of the Father-Son-Holy Ghost" and (b) "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" [where there is none when "rightly dividing the word of truth"].

As far as CM is concerned, you have presented more whiny messages than actual rebuttal.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Vacation Bible School

September 5 2013, 10:47 AM 

Donnie, surely you realize that on a religious message board like CM, not everyone will agree with every argument that you present. But when people of your own faith disagree with your arguments, you experience a kind of "Chernobyl" with a meltdown or crisis of your own ego. To you, those in your own faith who disagree with you present "whiny" rebuttals; you see them as "bashing" CM. Let's face it, Donnie: You cannot tolerate dissenting responders, especially those of your own faith. My advice to you: Stop. Your. Whining.

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

Re: Vacation Bible School

September 6 2013, 3:50 AM 


Presenting an argument or a premise with scriptural support -- which is what I do -- is not whining.

Your post above is an excellent example of WHINING -- no scriptural content whatsoever. And you're the only one doing it.

It's much better when you get to the point by stating your premise and following it up with scripture. Explaining people's feelings and reactions as you constantly do is simply BORING. Yawn!!

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Hijacked thread

September 5 2013, 1:27 AM 

A-won, I don't exactly consider the thread hijacked, but it did take on a life that I did not expect. It seems to me the "trinity" was invented as a way to explain the almost unknowable. It is a derived teaching: at the very best not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. As we see from this thread there is a range of belief and understanding regarding the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since the purveyors of the VBS materials that are commonly purchased are in no way related to the Church, and as a publishing house they have a seemingly expansive view of trinity, I wondered if anyone had looked in detail at their materials. They even have a Catholic version of some of their materials.

Of course I do not have a problem with mentioning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together, in the same sentence. But when I was coming up I was taught (by David Lipscomb teachers, in fact) that the the concept of the Trinity was a-Biblical, derived, without consensus, and best left alone, I am skeptical of any who have constructed a doctrine around a word that does not even exist in the Bible. Worse yet, around the misunderstanding of a curious word of translation.

It would be a great senior thesis or master's thesis problem to examine and compare the non-explicit teachings of some various vendors of VBS materials.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Hijacked thread

September 5 2013, 2:28 AM 

If you're going to talk about not using words or terms that are not in the Bible, then note that the term "Holy Bible" or even "Bible" itself is NOT found anywhere in the canonical text. Yet we freely use a non-biblical term to describe collectively the Word of God. So let's not get too upset that "Trinity" is also not found anywhere in the Bible.

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

Re: Hijacked thread

September 5 2013, 3:47 AM 

We read and study the Holy Scripture, God-breathed, inspired by God's [HIS] "Holy Spirit" -- would you prefer "Unholy Bible"?

The Trinity is a man-invented doctrine, a Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed that the bishops of Rome and the Roman Emperor approved. Calling this doctrine "the Holy Trinity" or "the Blessed Trinity" is even worse.

Comparing apples and oranges does not compute.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Hijacked thread

September 5 2013, 9:28 AM 

If it is acceptable to use "Holy Bible" or even "Bible" to describe the Word of God, when "Bible" is not a biblical term, then it is acceptable to use "Trinity" to describe the grouping of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, when "Trinity" is also a non-biblical term.

A non-biblical term vs. a non-biblical term. The comparison is apples to apples. However, you see the comparison as "apples to oranges," because you reject the term "Trinity." Your bias shows all too well.

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

Re: Hijacked thread

September 6 2013, 3:22 AM 

Here's a valid comparison/contrast:

(1) The unholy spirit OF man [a.k.a. man's unholy spirit]
--------------------- vs. ---------------------
(2) The holy spirit OF God [a.k.a. God's holy spirit].

(1) Man is a human being, but his unholy spirit is NOT a separate human being.
(2) God is a Divine Being, but His holy spirit is NOT a separate Divine Being.

All of the above is a valid comparison between the spirit of man and the spirit of God.

The Bible is a book; the Trinity is a doctrine or creed.
The Bible is a book; worship of the Virgin May (God's Mother) is a creed.
The Bible is a book; infallibility of the Pope is an RCC doctrine.
The Bible is a book; veneration of [dead] saints is a doctrine.
The Bible is a book; apostolic succession (the papacy) is RCC tradition.
The Bible is a book; the Communion on Easter Sunday only is a tradition.

What's the problem with the Trinity being not acceptable when it's been acceptable to perhaps the majority of Christendom for centuries? The question, rather, is whether or not the invented doctrine is wholly Scripture-based.

Again, comparing the Bible or the term "Bible" as a book and any man-made doctrine does not compute.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re Re:Hijacked Thread

September 5 2013, 9:20 PM 

Book appears 37 times in KJV NT & about 138 times in OT according to an on-resource. I have not checked for other versions. Bible is one of those Greek transliterated words just meaning book, and its use is not limited to religious use. The Gardeners Bible or The Woodworkers Bible are understood for what they claim to be: an authoritative compilation, and few of us would find the use offensive. Bible conveys no meaning other than what it is, although maybe some on this forum who would be more inclusive with the Apochrypha. The use of the term Bible has no dogma significance of which I am aware. What would be your reaction if someone were to remove baptism? I do not mean replace it with a form of immersion, but just remove all references? Or suppose, by stretched analogy, there had never been any baptism in the NT and someone inserted it. That is the sort of thing that is closer to your response about the Trinity not found in the NT in any explicit form, and as it is defined not found in any implicit form, either. It is a particular misunderstanding to link Trinity to godhead.

Therefore, I do not find your comparison of Bible and Trinity to be appropriate at all. On the other hand, we do sometimes ourselves lean rather heavily on implicit doctrine, which we sometimes call necessary conclusions. But Trinity is not there.

Since Trinity is a completely derived teaching it seems like we ought to know what is being taught. Even by those within the Brotherhood of the CoC who accept some form of Trinity they may not accept all the Catholic ramifications. So since many congregations, including the one I attend, use materials from a commercial source affiliated with Trinitarian and other views that I question, I wondered if anyone had examined their materials to see what is in them or if they are just bland story telling. That is why I started this thread.

But the discussion has been lively, made me think a bit, and certainly not unworthwhile.

 Respond to this message   
< Previous Page 13 4 5 6 720 Next >
  << 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