The Pulpit Preacher invites Rich Atchley to address the congregation after North Richland Hills installs female deaconess but later the invitation was rescinded. Shortly after Elders discuss with Pulpit Preacher his teachings they then resign. This seems to be a story repeated over and over.


=========================
Note from the moderator;

The referenced event of appointing Deaconesses by Richland Hills Church of Christ is covered by this report from a member at the Richland Hills ConcernedMembers website.
This member's report of a subsequent meeting with the Elders is given
here

Thank you for your post! I am not sure I am clear on who rescended the invitation, and who resigned?
What is the current situation at the Church?

Thanks

Elders directed change of speaker - "Almost Half" of the Elders resigned over current teachings.

Who's teachings. I thought Southside was as laidback as they come. What happened?

Yes, you are right on the money. Just lay back, listening for some biblical based sermons teaching us the word of God. Do not hear it! Have we all gone deaf? No just some tuned to the wrong channel. Do we not hear anything. Not even the foot steps of the faithful leaving? Or do we the laid-back always hear what we relish. Stories, jokes, humor, feel good, I am O.K., you are O.K., every one is O.K., laid-back sermons and lessons putting us to sleep as we learn the old “come as you are” there is unity in religious diversity doctrine. Daniel Webster said it best. Laid-back: Informal. Relaxed; Easygoing; Carefree

All I want to know is what is going on at Southside. I have friends who's children are in school there and my wife and I planned on sending our child there as well.

Scott is concerned, and that is good. More aught to be. The Elders were concerned but they are gone. Simply put: Southside now proclaims the doctrine of the universal fellowship of all believers. Simply put again: Southside proclaims that all believers are united in Christ and are going to heaven. It is just that many are traveling by different roads. Some travel the highway marked Church of Christ, some travel the highway marked Baptist, some travel the highway marked 7th Day Adventist, some travel the highway marked Mormon, some travel the highway marked Catholic, etc. We are all leaving Dallas, TX, and traveling to New York City, NY. Although some go through Oklahoma, Some through Arkansas, Some through Louisiana, and some even through New Mexico, we are all going to New York City.

I am not a member at Southside in Fort Worth. However, I have viewed the postings on this website for many weeks now. My advice to you would be that if you want to know what's going on at the Southside Church, you probably should ask the leadership there. I don't know if ALL of the elders resigned, I'm sure that isn't the case. One thing I do know is that it is better to get the story from those who are in the know - namely those who are in the leadership of the church. They will be honest with you. Just ask them point blank what has happened, and I believe they will tell you. If you are concerned about their doctrinal stance on any issue, just ask. They'll tell you what the church believes and/or practices. I wouldn't set a great deal of stock in going anywhere else to find out what the situation is at the Southside Church. It's always best to go right to the source, and then make an informed decision.

Were the Madison Elders honest when their Deacons asked them what was going on?

Were the Madison Elders honest when they sent a letter out to 683 other Church of Christ Elders.

Were the Madison Elders honest when they would not tell anyone what was going on because it was in secret?

Were the Madison Elders honest when they called in a facilitator to practice the Hegelian Dialectic on their own members?

Was the Madison Elder honest when he said to "leave if you don't like what's going on"?

Were the Madison Elders honest when they stood before the "Early Service" and told their flock to "Get Over It"

Being an Elder doesn't make you honest, anymore than being honest makes you an Elder.

Have a good day!

James, I want to thank you for your original message because you are absolutely correct about going to the leadership to find out the reason for elders resigning and about the doctrinal stance of the congregation of Southside. I myself am a member at Southside and my grandfather happens to be one of the four elders to resign. First of all inviting Rich Atchley to preach WAS NOT the reason for any of the elders to resign. Not all the the elders resigned because of disagreements of teachings at Southside. The Truth is still being preached, but some elders who resigned, it was the understanding of what was preached that confused them to be mislead, especially with the movements that have been going on in some of the Churches of Christ. I think that the main issue that we are talking about at Southside is that some people believe that only members of the Church of Christ are going to be saved, and have labeled the Church of Christ as "The Church", but this is wrong; "The Church" is made up of all of those who believe, and we are not in the position to judge those of other denominiations. Again, thanks for your original message James, and if you really want more detail contact Southised about anything you would want to know about, I'm sure they would love to talk to you.

Scott did you listed to what young Chase Gardner had to say to you about the doctrinal stance at Southside? Do you not know about the doctrinal stance at North Richland Hills? Do you know what Rich Atchley preaches? Do you too believe it is O.K. to use instrumental music? Do you believe it is alright to have women preachers? Women Deacons? Do you believe it is right to remove men from positions of responsibility in the church and replace them with women? Do you believe that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation? Do you believe that it was proper for Kyle to invite Rich as guest speaker during a time of historical celebration at Southside knowing what Rich teaches and practices?

Chase wrote: Some people believe that only members of the Church of Christ are going to be saved, and have labeled the Church of Christ as “The Church”, but this is wrong; “The Church” is made up of all of those who believe, and we are not in the position to judge those of other denominations.

Chase has explained to you what we have been taught at Southside. Listen close. Max Lucado teaches, Rich Atchley teaches, Kyle teaches, and many others teach the same. Max Lucado said it first. If you are a Baptist you are pleasing to God. If you are a Methodist you are pleasing to God. If you are a Mormon you are pleasing to God. Be what ever you want to be as long as you just “believe”.

I am thankful that Melvin Gardner (grandfather) has had the guts to stand up for what is right even though he no longer is able to serve as an elder. Chase explain that he (Mel) was just confused. Don’t you believe it for one moment. He is no longer an elder at Southside because he was and is a man of wisdom and honor. One who stands for the Word of God.

Where will we go now that others of questionable qualifications have risen to take his place?

The only "doctrinal stance" acceptable to God is HIS! Mere belief or acceptance of Jesus as God's son is only ONE of several things that one must do in order to be saved. "Even the demons believe and shudder", are they saved too???

Max Lucado, Rich Atchley, et al are dead wrong when they teach that all one must do is believe to be pleasing to God. The sadest part is they are leading people to hell on account of this false doctrine. It is THEIR doctrine, not Christ's. Paul told the Galatians that if ANYONE came teaching ANOTHER gospel that they were to be ACCURSED.

Don't make any judgments based on WHO said WHAT, base them on WHAT IS TAUGHT and PRACTICED. If it doesn't come from faith (i.e. The Bible) it is sin. THEIR gospel cannot be found in scripture - it's no wonder that no scripture has been quoted in their defense!!!

I am not a member at Southside and don't know the people involved but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth and whether or not it is being taught or perverted.

Mark, you wrote that Max Lucado and Rick Atchley preach "another gospel". I Cor. 15 tells us the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, period. Baptism is not the gospel, but it is a response to it. At last check, both Rick and Max teach the gospel and the proper response to it.

By the way, have the change agents made much headway at Burleson?

Since I don't subscribe to the CORE GOSPEL theme that there are "seven facts ABOUT Jesus Christ" and all of the rest is opinion, I take a broader view of GOSPEL. Gospel cannot be put into a bottle: gospel simply means GOOD NEWS. For instance:

Mk.1:1 THE beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the REMISSION of sins.

The profoundest problem in humanity is HOW CAN MY SINS BE FORGIVEN? The totality of GOSPEL concerning Jesus is that He came to seek and save the lost. Therefore, the MEANS of remitting sins or being saved is part of the CORE of the gospel. Without baptism there is no good news. And that brings us to Max Lucado and those who defend and use him.

Max believes in SALVATION BY PRAYER. That is not remotely related to the GOSPEL. I have reviewed parts of the CREED at Oak Hills concerning baptism. Unless you affirm that Baptist view of Baptism 'THOU SHALT NOT TEACH.' I have put a first tentative review of the Thief on the Cross here in response to many requests to explain Max who is "all things to all people."

http://www.piney.com/Max-Lucado-Thief-on-Cross.html

Max flies high with Narrative Theology because the WORLD likes to see the Scriptures reflect the ancient pagan views including BELIEVER'S BAPTISM which is a form of pagan baptism. Therefore, as part of the Change Team who agreed to use certain CODE WORDS most "creeds" may say one thing but you have to look beyond the CODED message. I suggest you check out Rick's posted statement which is HARD to pin down. Better yet, have him write his definition.

Max, like the Baptists, says that the thief responded to the invitation of the RESURRECTED CHRIST and asked to be saved. This then makes him giddy that the "dogmatists" cannot explain away SALVATION BY PRAYER ONLY. Show me the writings of any preacher who can triumph over the Word and I will show you writings or sermons which TAKES LIBERTY with Christ's Words to write their own Narrative Theology. They are squirming out of "christian" schools like locusts turned loose by Apollo the father of the musical seeker center: Apollo is abaddon or apollyon.

Fact: the thief was thinking of the kingdom as an earthly kingdom just like the mother of the Sons of Thunder.

Jesus ignored that prayer and said "this day will you be with me in Paradise." Paradise is that side of Sheol or the underworld where the good spirits rest.

Peter said that when Jesus had suffered and was therefore ready to offer Salvation through Baptism as the KEY to the gospel kingdom, he went and preached to the spirits in prison. The thief would be where Jesus was ON THAT DAY. One suspects that because he died before Pentecost the thief heard and responded to the gospel--or maybe he rejected it--in paradise.

Paul said that Christ descended into the lowest part of the earth before He ascended many days later. Only after that was the GOSPEL preached which offered the gift of A holy spirit. There was NO gospel and no good news in the post-resurrection sense until Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the gift of A holy spirit.

In defining the spirits in prison or paradise to whom Jesus preached, Peter likens this to people before the flood where 8 souls were SAVED BY WATER. One can dispute that at his peril because Christ the Word Created the world "out of water and in the water."

Then Peter defined baptism as the time and place where we REQUEST a clear conscience (1 Pe 3:21) or a co-perception or A holy spirit. There is no GOSPEL personally until one requests the PURPOSE of the gospel which is a regenerated spirit able to comprehend God as Spirit Who is worshiped ONLY in the human spirit representing the throne room were we come boldly ONE AT A TIME with no musical mediators.

Therefore, Max loves the EXCEPTION to prove his RULE that salvation is by prayer only or faith only. However, there IS NO EXCEPTION because the thief is not said to have his sins remitted or saved.

Rather, he would be with Christ the Holy Spirit in paradise THAT DAY where Peter says Christ preached the gospel and LED CAPTIVITY CAPTIVE. Therefore, why not see the thief on the cross as fitting the same RULE which applied to all people who died before the cross?

Next, Max will pervert 1 Peter 3:21 to agree with the Baptists who contend that one is baptized BECAUSE they are already saved. We will look at that one later.

Since none of us lived before the flood or before the Cross and Pentecost it seems reckless to the extreme to tell people that they can be saved like the thief when the thief is NOT said to be saved.

It is a fact that Max Lucado's view of baptism is a Baptist view and I don't think he would object to that observation.

Ken Sublett

Baptist...baptist...baptist. Last time I checked, Max was a preacher for a CHURCH OF CHRIST, not a Baptist church. Last time I checked they do have a baptistry and baptize people for the remission of sins. I have been there and witnessed such. You think you know so much, but you know so little. You are no scholar, only a nay-sayer who loves to criticize because you have NOTHING else to do with your time.....do you not have a LIFE???

When Max joins a baptist church, then you can talk. Otherwise SHUT UP! By the way, Max takes no money from WIDOWS, he does not draw a salary from Oak Hills.

Max Lucado believes the Baptist Faith Only Dogma, or Trust Only or Prayer only. He quotes the gospel according to Max:

To all who received him, he gave the right to become children of God.
----ALL they needed to do was to TRUST him to save them.
----All those who believe this are REBORN!
not a physical rebirth...but from the will of God. John 1:12-13

But, here is the way it is in the Bibles inspired by Jesus:

1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he POWER TO BECOME the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

RECEIVED means neither TRUST nor BELIEF. Receiving Christ is to WALK in the ways of Christ until you TRUST that He is God and can save you.

For instance:

He came unto his own, and his own RECEIVED him not. John 1:11

Luke Explains how they RECEIVED NOT Jesus:

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being NOT baptized of him. Luke 7:30

---Failure to accept Baptism as containing Christ's saving power fails to JUSTIFY GOD. That means that you "Publically declare that GOD IS NOT just or innocent." This makes Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles and all of the pre-zwinglian scholars LIARS and the latter day prophets and POSTMODERN apostles and christs are THE authority.

Those who receive and trust Jesus are given the POWER to become (future tense) the sons of God. A stick of dynamite has power to become but the power has to be released:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power (the privilege or capacity) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12

Luke explains it this way:

And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. Luke 7:29

Further, Max writes as creed of Oak Hills to which one MUST SUBSCRIBE to be on the inner circle:

Accept his gift. Go to God in prayer and tell him, "I am a sinner in need of grace. I believe that Jesus died for me on the cross.
----I accept your offer of salvation."
----It's a simple prayer with eternal results.

Just like all BAPTISTS, Max says:

"Baptism demonstrates and celebrates our decision to follow Jesus."

However, the OLDEN Bible makes a clear connection between water baptism and Salvation, remission of sins, becoming a new man (regeneration) and the time and place where we REQUEST A holy spirit or clear conscience from God: it is not the time and place where we CELEBRATE a clear conscience BEFORE we are baptized and have our sins remitted.

See how MAX and the band use PROOF TEXTS and then re translate them to say what they want to say here:

http://www.piney.com/Max-Lucado-Saved-by-Trust.html

ALL Biblical passages used to support "believer's baptism" which is pagan baptism have to be lifted out of their context and perverted.

Tertullian who defined pagan baptism notes:

-----"Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places.
-----"But we, little fishes, after the example of our Icqus Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water;
-----"so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!

God Incarnate appeared empowered in the form of 98% water: do you want to say that the Spirit God has no power or authority to put saving grace in anything He chooses?

Baptists are baptized BECAUSE they are already saved: Max accepts Baptist member's baptism as meeting their creed. Therefore, Max believes in "believer's baptism" which is pagan baptism.

Tertullian again:

"The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism."

Cain (from "a musical note") was also the father of the musical, soothsaying, warrior band: Jubal (which rimes with_______) HANDLED musical instruments where HANDLED means "without authority." The Cainites, Kenites who were used in the temple are alive and well today.

Kenneth Sublett

Dear Kenneth,

The analysis and theology you espouse is about as whacked out as it gets according to the Word of God. You simply regurgitate the worst of the Church of Christ Restoration teaching.

Lucado is right about baptism, just as Paul and others in the New Testament were. We are not baptized to be saved, we are baptized because we have been saved. It is like this: do we get married to receive love, or do we get married because we are in love? Hopefully we get married because we are already in love. It is the same with baptism, we are baptized because out sins have been forgiven, not to be baptized to get our sins forgiven. Paul says in Romans that all who call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved. Not one mention of baptism in Romans 10. We are baptized into the Lord Jesus because we have called upon His Name and because we have been saved.

The Church of Christ is full of water-baptized pharisees, who are functional pagans- that an outward rite gives us remission of sins, whereas the Bible in Hebrews says: "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins". Our sins are remitted when we call in Faith upon Jesus to save us. Then we are baptized.

There is so much wrong with the C.O.C., that it is nothing more than a cult.

Leave people alone who are leading the Churches of Christ to freedom in Christ. I left the COC on 1971, and I wish I had never met up with your brand of cultism. Thank God my sins are forgiven and I am free through the shed blood of Jesus and His bodily resurrection from the dead. That is THE Goods News, not your dead legalism.

I wish you "metanoia",

Gary Cummings
Bi-Vocational Minister
ACU, class of 1969
ex-member and minister of the Churches of Christ

If Lucado (an uninspired writer) is right about baptism, Luke, Paul, Peter (inspired writers all) have it all wrong. Acts 2:38 clearly shows that repentance and immersion are necessary in order to receive forgiveness of sin. The attempts by Lucado and others to turn this passage to mean "because your sins have already been forgiven" twist not only the English but the Greek as well. Refer to Matthew 26:28 for a comparison verse. For Lucado's (and other Baptists') interpretation to be correct, Jesus poured out His blood for many because they had already received forgiveness of sin. This is what is whacked out!

In Romans 10:13, a bump in the so-called "Roman Road" we do have the phrase "calling on the Lord" but what does that mean? Jesus said, "not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven". In another passage, Acts 22:16, we find the interesting connection between immersion and calling on the Lord. In this single verse, we see that sins are washed away through immersion (not some man-made sinner's prayer or such like) and that immersion is how we call upon the Lord. From Annanias' standpoint, this is something that Saul needed to do ASAP, "why do you delay?". If sins are forgiven prior to immersion, how can immersion "wash them away"? If sins are forgiven prior to immersion, why be immersed at all?

You are probably correct to describe the church of Christ as a cult, since one definition of such is: "a devoted attachment to a person". We are devoted to Christ and His teachings and choose not to be deceived into the false doctrines contrived by men. The church is not and cannot be perfect because it is made up of human beings. That is why Paul warned so strongly against deception in every epistle that he wrote, with the exception of Philemon, because... "I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." (II Corinthians 11:3)

Mark Waggoner
contending earnestly for the faith which was once delivered

Gary, you sound like someone who lives on a diet of bitter herbs. You are so wrong about everything and so bitter about things which you know nothing about. Those of us who follow Jesus as our savior rather than Max Lucado actually feel sorry for you and whatever problem is eating at you.

Gary, pleast try, even for a short time to read your bible with an open mind and disassociate yourself from the error taught from the lips and fingers of Max and his disciples. Try to learn the truth because these commercial minded,church stealers will not stand with you at judgement day and their teachings, books and philosophies will not be used as a guide. Their personal defense will be an impossible task and they will answer for the souls of countless thousands of lost souls. The fact that you left the Church of Christ could possibly be from your refusal to obey God rather than man.

BJ

Dear Friend,

I do believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and that His Gospel is the only Gospel we need to be saved. Lucado and Atchley are right about salvation for faith. The Church of Christ has turned the Gospel of Jesus into a system of works. The theology of the COC is a false system. Jesus saves! Nothing else and nobody else saves.

Thanks God that His Spirit is working at Richland Hills.

Gary

You might want to take another look at this publication about baptism Richland Hills website. "Again, who should be baptized? ...those who are READY to trust Jesus completely for their salvation and those who are READY to repent of their sins should be baptized." Note that it doesn't say, "those who HAVE trusted Jesus completely for their salvation". I'm not sure what you think they believe, but that sure sounds like baptism is part of the process.

http://www.rhchurch.org/outreach/whybaptism01.pdf

Sometimes the "papers" on baptism seem to pull their punches.

I have read this document twice and I normally have to copy a document and pull it apart before I think that I have grasped the meaning.

I believe, from memory, that Richland Hills has a very good take on baptism. The preacher, I believe, identifies more with the Christian Church but that normally would not diminish the role of baptism.

I think this points out that people don't really know what their church teaches: I believe they have baptism correctly defined.

Good suggestion: read it.

Calling on the name if a prayer or invocation. One calls on Baal SO THAT he gives them their request. Going around making music and yelling "Baal, Baal" never got his attention.

Invocation or calling is defined much like a call and response: God INVITES or Calls us by the gospel. We "answer" by making the good confession, but our confession that Jesus is the Son of God or only name we invoke insists that we do what He has invited us to do. Our ANSWER is a REQUEST for a good consience or consiousness or A holy spirit as we are baptized (1 Peter 3:21)

Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Isaiah 12:2

Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

And in that day shall ye say, Praise the Lord,

call upon his name,
declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted. Isaiah 12:4

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. saiah 64:6

And there is none that calleth upon thy name,

that stirreth (wake up, arouse self) up himself to take hold of thee:
for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us,
because of our iniquities. Isaiah 64:7

Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. [baptism of fire] Zeph 3:8

For then will I turn to the people a pure language,
that they may all call upon the name of the Lord,
to serve him with one consent. Zephaniah 3:9

Purely as signs, and not as means of salvation, God would have people doing unnatural things to prove that this indeed was the great Day of Jehovah. The most important part of signing the end of a destructive dispensation would be signs of Judgment:

After the signs of judgment, Joel prophesied of a new Kingdom where any believer could call directly upon God without the priestly class:

And it shall come to pass, that
whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered:
for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, AND in the remnant whom the Lord shall call. Joel 2:32

It is a fact that it was after these signs had been manifested and the Jewish clergy denounced by fishermen preaching the new gospel, that Peter told the people how they could call upon Jesus as their One Jehovah-Saved.

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; Ac.2:16

These signs would crush the believing Jews and they would cry out: "What must we do?" This actually happened and was applied by Peter when he said: "This is what Joel prophesied." And Peter told them how and when to call on the name of the Lord:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:36

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Acts 2:37

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. Acts 2:38

And 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? Acts 8:36
And 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 Acts 8:37

As noted, the Paul who included all of the LOGICAL STEPS in Romans 10 ended with the CALLING ON THE NAME idea. In his own baptism he had received a message DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST THE SPIRIT.
God called the eunuch through the gospel in Isaiah. The eunuch RESPONDED or ANSWERED the call by the only suitable response. After this confession Philip baptized the eunuch.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16

Paul went on to define baptism in Ephesians 2 where we are raised with Christ as the SHOWING ACT down through the ages of "salvation by grace through faith" and in other passages. Therefore, Paul would have used a confession which he had to use by calling on the name of the Lord. One doubts that he would use the same expression in Romans and mean, as Max seems to say, "just look up at creation and say, 'wow.'" By insisting that Peter told us to PLEDGE our own salvation Max claims superiority or eqality with God by being able to PLEDGE his own righteousness.

The word INTO or Eis is NEVER used in the Greek dictionaries or documents to mean BECAUSE OF. By trying to bend the Leper story to TRUMP the overwhelming evidence in the Bible and church history we have reason to trust the genealogy and motives of the most massive "industry" in church history building organizitions and trying to convince people that the TOTAL VACUUM is more important than the TOTAL EVIDENCE.

Why are people so anxious to do that? Why put your trust in Max Lucado who puts his trust in Zwingli who invented FAITH ONLY but only to repudiate Catholics who regenerated infants with a few drops of water. If I could get rich by fictionalizing the Bible and all truth.......

Why not believe honest preachers who have NOTHING to gain but pain?

Ken Sublett

Where are your facts ? About Max . not here or what you say sir facts !!!!!

Don

I think that you and the "bonesmasher" had better check again. According to Max's position paper on baptism, he says, "I encourage you to be baptized, not that it will save you but because you are already saved." Is this taught in the New Testament? This paper also goes on (and on) to say that baptism is not a fellowship issue, among other things.

I agree that baptism is not the gospel (I never stated that, either) but it is the obedient response to the gospel; of what we are to do once we believe. However, one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without it. The gospel would not be the gospel without baptism.

Yes, Max Lucado preaches for a "church of Christ"; however, he has openly stated that if he ever left that group he probably would not preach for another "church of Christ" and that he thinks that he would make a "good baptist." Based on what he preaches, he's already there!

I am curious. Why don't you post your full names and how did you know that I live in Burleson??

Mark Waggoner

Further discussion is needed on this idea of the gospel consisting of the "death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, period". In I Corinthians 15, Paul refutes one of the main groups of false teachers that he encountered, the gnostics. While they did teach immersion for the forgiveness of sin, they denied the physical resurrection of Christ. Paul refers to the resurrection as "of first importance", as in primary importance, in verse 3. The fact of the resurrection is upon which the whole gospel stands. Those who were immersed but did not believe in the resurrection only took a bath! However, does this chapter teach the "core gospel" theory? I think not. Let's look at Paul's response to another group of false teachers, the Judaizers.

In Galatians 1, Paul is amazed at the gentile converts because they are "deserting Him... for a different gospel, which is really not another". For the complete text, please read verses 6-10 and don't take my word on this. Paul says that the Judaizers "distort the gospel of Christ" in verse 7. Please note: the Judaizers taught the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ - "the gospel, period" according to a previous post. How could Paul call this a distortion? Is it not because the Judaizers taught the gentiles that they had to convert to Judaism before they could become Christians? Is it not because they taught a response other than "repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of sin"? Does this not infer that teaching the proper response to Christ is a part of His gospel?

The concept of a "core gospel" existed in the 1st century. Paul said that it distorts or perverts the gospel of Christ. Continue reading and look at what Paul says of those who propogate such. In fact, he repeats himself so that he will not be misunderstood - "let him be accursed" or "anathema" in verses 8 and 9. Why would anyone want to pervert the gospel of Christ? Paul, again, provides this answer for us in verse 10 - it is to gain the favor of man!

Mark. You need to make sure you have YOUR facts straight before you make broad, blanketing statements. I don't think that either Max or Rick made the exact statement you are saying they made. If they did....then PROVE IT. Show me some documentation. There are a lot of things thrown around here that I have yet to see the documentation for. And who are YOU to judge anyone and their faith? I do not think you know Rick or Max's heart enough to do that, only God does.

grace and peace.

Jeff

No, Max doesn't say it "exactly" as I did; however, he does teach that baptism is not essential for salvation. He "encourages" immersion but does not consider it to be a salvation issue and teaches that we are to be baptized because we are saved. You can check this out on his website, the Oak Hills website, "The Grip of Grace", just to name a few sources. I'm not saying that everything in this material is scripturally wrong, in fact, he does present some truth in a very eloquent manner. He does teach error concerning salvation and fellowship.

I'm not as familiar with Mr. Atchley having only read one of his books; however, did he not say in "Don't Bother Your Brother" (sermon from 1990) that "if grace will cover moral error, why are we so afraid to let it cover doctrinal error?" This was made in the context of baptism being a fellowship issue.

Now, to the judging issue. Where on earth did you get anything from my prior statements about "judging the hearts" of anyone? If you look back at what I said, I actually stated the direct opposite and my comments were directed at what is being taught and not who said what. Jesus said to "judge the righteous judgement", i.e. not by mere appearances. I did not make any statement concerning one's motives or sincerity as no one can do that but the individual himself. YOU were the one judging me because I disagree with you!

Galatians 1:6-10 is a blanket teaching isn't it? It applies to anyone who does not teach the gospel of Christ, and my friend, that includes immersion for the forgiveness of sin. That is the point where we enter God's grace.

Brother Mark:
You are right, there is some truth in Max's teaching. Deceit is just enought truth to get you to buy off on a LIE. That is why we MUST test everything and everyone.

To God be the Glory
Joe McKnight

I did not mean to judge you..that is not what I meant to do. I apologize if you took it that way. It concerns me when we as Christians focus on other things than Christ when we talk with other Christians. That is where we must START not finish. In other words, we need to start with Jesus as common ground not say "Well, when you get those other things right like taking communion every Sunday, getting the instruments out of your worship, etc. THEN we can fellowship with you or consider you a Christian.

That is what I have a problem with. The whole baptism thing is another issue altogether and I will not expound here on my opinion on that. I have done so already. Needless to say, we do not agree on that either.

Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I just thought your comments on Max and rick were a bit harsh.

Grace and peace.

Jeff

I, too, wish to focus on Christ - ALL of him. My point is, WE don't determine fellowship, Christ does. We must be in fellowship with Him before there can be fellowship with each other. The fellowship people have is only brought about by being in fellowship with Christ and the ONLY way to be in fellowship with Him is through faith (belief, repentance, and immersion).

Just because someone believes doesn't mean that they are a Christian. I asked this question before, are the demons Christians because "they believe"? On the other hand, even though there are nice, sincere people who have a genuine belief in Christ, are they Christians without obedience? Cornelius fit this description but wasn't saved until after Peter was sent to him, taught him, and immersed him for the forgiveness of sin. What about the eunich?

We do need to start with Jesus as common ground, as you say. But we can't waiver when in comes time to teach immersion. We can't "teach the man" without "teaching the plan" for the Man IS the plan.

Mark,

You said, "...I'm not as familiar with Mr. Atchley having only read one of his books; however, did he not say in "Don't Bother Your Brother" (sermon from 1990) that "if grace will cover moral error, why are we so afraid to let it cover doctrinal error?" This was made in the context of baptism being a fellowship issue..."

My question is, "Does God's grace continue to cover moral error IF there is no repentance and turning away?" I don't think so. Yes, God's grace CAN and DOES reach to the uttermost depths of sin.

In the same thought---Does God's grace cover doctrinal error? I guess I have a problem with the definition of "cover."

Yes, grace DOES reach people with moral/doctrinal error just as a thrown lifebuoy reaches out to a sinking man. However, just because the lifebuoy reaches out to the sinking man does NOT mean that it will save the sinking man "automatically." The sinking man must (1) want to leave his current situation; (2) grab hold of the lifebuoy; (3) maintain his hold of the lifebuoy. Only then does the lifebuoy "save" the sinking man.

Amen Allen!

My comments were made in response to those who profess that we are saved by "faith only". I provided those quotes because I was prompted to supply "proof" of this belief being perpetrated from within the church, specifically by Mr. Atchley and Mr. Lucado.

One must be immersed in order to enter grace; however, repentance is necessary after one comes to believe. We must also continue to turn from sin following immersion; "Shall we continue in sin?". I appreciate your contribution to this important discussion.

I like you guys, you can discuss without putting me down which is refreshing on this site. I will have to disagree with you one the immersion thing. I am a CofCer and I do believe that we NEED to be baptized in order to obey.

However, in the case of Cornelius, he received the Holy Spirit BEFORE he was baptized. Does that not equate to being "saved"? There are MANY more scriptures in the Bible which mention belief-then-saved and I have posted many of them here before so I will not go into that now. However, don't you think that if Baptism was a MUST for fellowship and a rule to follow like the GREATEST command, then would not have God made that crystal clear? I am, of course assuming it is not and at one time, I used it as qualification to being a "Christian". I no longer do that.

I have met too many Godly men outside of the "immersion" community and God was in their life and it was VERY evident. That has lead me to my current point-of-view. In my experience with them and my friendships with them God made it VERY clear to me that they had the Holy Spirit in their life. I cannot explain WHY that is true, but I think we try to put God in a box sometimes and that is not where God belongs.

He is all-powerful and omnipotent, we are fallen. Enough said. We cannot "fit" God's ways into our brain and even TRY to understand Him. So, when we cannot explain why a person that has not been "immersed" according to our right way of thinking, then there must be another answer.

I may be talking in circles here, but let me know what you think.

grace and peace.

Jeff

Hi Jeff: I read your quote about Cornelius; He receiving the Holy Spirit and that was a sign of him being saved. I, through the grace of God, lengthy prayer and studies of the Good Book,know that the Passage does not teach this to be so. I appreciate your interest in God and Scripture,I am no man/women's judge, but would dearly love to contextually exegete Acts 10 and 11 for you, as to its soteriological meaning. My spirit as a student of God's word is the same as that of Priscilla and Aquilla with reference to lovingly helping Apollos...see Acts 18:24-24.You may reach me at 817-540-0146 any time after 3:45 PM.
I am only interested in what the Book teaches and not in attacking or naming any names whatsoever.Please be so kind and contact me. Kind christian regards, Peter

The Holy Spirit was miraculously imparted to Cornelius as a sign to the Jewish Christians that Gentiles were to be included in the church. Even though Cornelius received the Holy Spirit he was NOT saved at that point. Read on... Peter taught him the Gospel and he was immersed. This is when Cornelius became saved.

Holy Spirit baptism has only been imparted twice, here and on Pentecost. It is different than water baptism and did not forgive sin. If you look at the specific conversions in Acts, all of them mention immersion then rejoicing. There are references to believing, as you say, but the context of these verses implies that this "belief" included obedience (immersion). God has made this crystal clear, "He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved", among other passages, come to my mind.

I, too, have known many "righteous" people who have not been immersed for the forgiveness of sin. However; the Holy Spirit lives in us only through our obedience to the word of God. If this was not important, Jeff, why were the 12 men in Acts 19 re-immersed? They obeyed Apollos, who only knew about and taught the immersion of John the immerser. After having been taught the complete Gospel by Paul, they responded accordingly.

I believe that this is leading up to another issue and that is the role of the Holy Spirit and how he lives in us. Just because there are "godly" people living among us doesn't mean that they are saved or have the Holy Spirit working in them. It is all conditional upon faithful obedience. You touched on it with the greatest command (love the Lord with all your heart...). In order to fulfill this command we must obey (if you love me you will keep my commandments).
I can't explain why people fail to be immersed. Our job is to teach the Gospel and God will give the increase. Remember Sergius Paulus; "almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian"? There doesn't have to be another answer, there can't be another answer. If there was, God would have revealed it to us, don't you think? We only place God in a box when we fail to obey.

In Him

Mark

The statement I attributed to Sergius Paulus in my previous post was actually made by Agrippa (Acts 26) - my mistake.

Not all who sound religious are really Godly people:

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord,
Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but
he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in
thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name
done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I
never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity.

We know that those of the world will not understand us because:

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak
they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God
heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.
Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit
of error.

To those who believe that all life is worship; therefore, what they listen to in their cars or at home are suitable for worship:

Gen 22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men,
Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will
go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee
hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve.

Act 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a
man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority
under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the
charge of all her treasure, and had come to
Jerusalem for to worship,

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching
[for] doctrines the commandments of men.

Luk 14:10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit
down in the lowest room; that when he that bade
thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up
higher: then shalt thou have worship in the
presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

Act 24:11 Because that thou mayest understand,
that there are yet but twelve days since I went up
to Jerusalem for to worship.

On the Holy Spirit:

Act 2:38 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.

Peter did not say that they would receive the Holy Ghost, but that they would receive the GIFT of the Holy Ghost.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is
excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making
melody in your heart to the Lord;

Are we to be literally filled with the Spirit or are we figuratively to have the Spirit in our hearts?

Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you
richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one
another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Does the Word literally dwell in our bodies or does it figuratively live in our hearts? Do you see the parallel between Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16? Does this mean "filled with the Spirit" and "word of Christ" have the same meaning?

The Holy Spirit does not indwell the body, the Holy Spirit IS the Word of God. To let the Holy Spirit dwell in us is to follow the Word of God and to let it permeate every part of our lives.

Prayerfully Onward,

Kevin

Brother Kevin:
You do a very good job with responding with scriptures. This tatic shift's the fight from you to God and His Word, and all we can do is present it then it is up to them to accept it or twist it. Keep up the good work.

To God be the Glory
Joe McKnight

Joe,

Shouldn't we then take that Word and put it into practice by loving God and our neighbor? How does one do that?

JQ
<")))><

Kevin,
I just wanted to bring this to your attention. You said that the Word of God and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. You quoted Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 as your proof texts, and those are great scriptures. However, if you read on over to Ephesians 6:17, Paul says to "take the helmet of salvation, and the SWORD OF THE SPIRIT, which is the WORD OF GOD. This indicates that the Word of God and the Holy Spirit ARE NOT one and the same. The Word is the instrument of the spirit and not the Spirit himself. Since we must prove all things in order to be right with God and not put our souls in jeopardy, it seems that you need to rethink this erroneous position.

Regards

I would begin with Walter Scott with whom most theologians would agree when he said: "First, the Holy Spirit is God Himself, second, the holy spirit is A holy spirit, OUR spirit made holy by God. 1 Peter 3:21 and many other passages show that A holy spirit is a CLEAR CONSCIENCE or clear consciousness which means a Co-Perception.

Second, I would back up to Jesus who corrected ONLY His disciples by teaching that the eating and drinking was figurative. In Matt 13 Jesus said that parables were to HIDE the truth from the unbelievers.

Next, He defined the true FOOD and DRINK but did not use figurative language.

----"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life. John 6:63

Other than the fact that God is Holy or PURE Spirit (contains nothing but Spirit) both the Hebrew and Greek word for "spirit" do not speak of a PERSON but:

Hebrew: "by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (include. its expression and functions)"

Greek: "the rational soul, vital principle, mental disposition."

The WORDS of the "son" which are the words of the "father" are OUR ONLY expressions of God's Being which is rational. The Words of Christ are the expressions of the mental disposition. In fact, 1 Cor 2 draws an identity between the Holy Spirit and the "Mind of Christ" as far as we are concerned. "Holy" is not the first name of a member of the "god clan" whose name is Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 5 uses the expression "FILLED with the spirit." Colossians uses the expression "let the Word of Christ DWELL in you."

Romans 15 is really another TEACHING (not singing) passage and uses the expression "that which is written." You can only GLORIFY a Spirit God with the Words of THE SPIRIT GOD. We simply do not have the mental machinery to do otherwis (Contra all of the charismatics among us)

Therefore, the "spirit" Jesus wanted us FILLED with because as "son" He spoke only what He heard from the Spirit "Father" was the WORD of Christ which HE claims to be SPIRIT in the immediate sense. Jesus Christ (full Deity) is still the Holy Spirit.

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. Jn. 12:49

And I know that his commandment is LIFE everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I SPEAK. Jn 12:50

If what Jesus spoke and inspired is LIFE then we must trust Him when He said that His WORDS are Spirit AND life.

Now, you and most of us have been taught that:

---------"The Word is the instrument of the spirit and not the Spirit himself."----------

If this is true and the SPIRIT must SWING the instrument then this is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. But neither Paul nor most history recognizes the Spirit as one of the modern "Lucado - Shelly God family."

Look again and see that (you) is understood:

And (you) take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Eph 6: 17

Look at a similar command:

Above all, taking the shield OF faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. Eph 6: 16

I believe that we must see this as the shield WHICH IS faith. Otherwise, we have to look for something called the SHIELD which FAITH uses as defensive armor.

Therefore, the sword WHICH IS the Spirit is the Word of God. This is true because it is the only meaning which does not contradict the statement of Jesus that HIS WORDS are Spirit and Life.

You are correct: the Word IS NOT a one/third member of the God Family. But, then, this neo-Trinitarianism is claimed by John Mark Hicks to be the output primarily of Max Lucado and Rubel Shelly.

Not really because H. Leo Boles and the Gospel Advocate began that TRITHISM in the 40s. Hicks also warns that they may deny that Christ came FULLY in the flesh or that full Deity dwelled in Jesus (Jehovah- Saves). He did not spell out the consequence of such a teaching articulated by John.

http://www.piney.com/HSHicksLucadoShelly.html

I have collected many parallel statements here;

http://www.piney.com/HsWordParall.html

I invite you to read some of this collection to see that the SPIRIT prophesied to rest on Jesus was not "a little man" but the spirit of Spiritual knowledge: the Spirit OF Truth. Then, mail me if you have any questions or challenges. Historical theologians (pre us) almost universally agree with this as did most of the Restoration Movement.

Kenneth Sublett

You didn't explain anything. The Bible still says the SWORD of the spirit IS the WORD of God. It's still there in Ephesisans 6:17 as sure as baptism is in Acts 2:38.

Yes, I explained and you weren't listening. The subject was equating the Word of Christ and the Spirit. The word "holy" is not used here and even when it is, it is not a first name. Holy is an adjective. I don't believe that Ephesians 6:17 voids the clear parallel of Paul. Jesus began the "context" by saying:

----"It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, They ARE SPIRIT, and they are LIFE. John 6:63

It is with this knowledge that Paul who, guided by the "Lord" Who said that He was Jesus of Nazareth, defined the WORD as the offensive and defensive WEAPON of the Spirit which Jesus said was HIS word which He gave to US to use so that we don't confuse our hallucinating with direct guidance.

----"And [YOU] take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which IS the WORD of God: Eph 6:17

The sword of the Spirit IS the Word of God but only because Jesus put SPIRIT AND LIFE into HIS words which came directly from the SPIRIT realm. However, if you want to FIGHT OFF the banditos claiming to be speaking or singing or clapping because the HOLY SPIRIT PERSON is jiving around in their body, YOU have to beat them into subjection by YOUR taking the WORD OF GOD. The "Holy Spirit Person" separated from FULL DEITY which resides in Jesus Christ does not swing the sword any more than He preaches the gospel to the lost while our guys take the pay but don't GO OUT.

Scholars are well aware that Paul NEVER speaks of the Holy Spirit as a separated "person." A "person" is a "people." The same Paul in Hebrews defined the SWORD as a parable word:

-------"For the WORD of God is quick, and powerful, and SHARPER THAN any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and SPIRIT, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:12

So, is the Word a literal SWORD which the Spirit "person" swings or is it SHARPER than a literal sword? Remember that Peter warned you about Paul, and Jesus warned you about Jesus who DOES NOT speak to the masses and never SINGS to anyone except as His Word is preached.

The written WORD is from the MOUTH of the LIVING WORD Who IS the Holy Spirit or FULL DEITY. If you accept that the HOLY SPIRIT was a junior member of the Shelly "god family" not active until the BIBLE CHRIST left the universe then you deny that CHRIST (God) dwelled fully in the Flesh of Jesus Christ. That is the meaning of Anti-Christ.

The WORD of God does to the human spirit what a LITERAL sword does to the carnal body. When God gives us of His Holy Spirit He is not left without a "spirit" anymore than speaking His WORDS deprives Him of His Mind, Spirit or Mental disposition.

The WORD which Jesus said (I believe Him) was SPIRIT and LIFE is a "devouring flame, crushing hammer, life-giving force, saving power, defensive weapon, probing instrument." The "Spirit" is always defined in terms of Divine Knowledge which only the Spirit can deliver and cause to be recorded.

These are all PARABLES and Jesus warned the disciples in Matthew 13 that He ALWAYS spoke to the MASSES in parables to HIDE the truth from those who cannot take His explicit word for fact. If you flock into MASSED churches I think you miss the "one or two gathered" in the name of Jesus rather than in the name of the performers and you just miss Jesus Who can only be found in your own spirit and "outside the camp.'

Peter warned that Paul used the same kind of speech and making the Godhead into a FAMILY or TRIBE with the "Holy Spirit" person the replacement for the Old Testament "god" and the Son as the New Testament "god" violates all of church history. The present stirrers of the heresy are Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado and a band of merry men on the 'wild frontier' where apparently Abilene is still a lawless promoter of stroking the carnal senses and PEDDLING it as KNOWING the Holy Spirit Person intimately.

As the Spirit of Christ always spoke the Words of God (1 Peter 1:11) from the foundation of the world, He is still the ONLY Teacher but only when we can say: "Thus saith the Word of God." That was Paul's wish that we all "prophesy" or teach "that which has been taught."

We have the authority of Lord Jesus Christ--the ONLY Teacher and Comforter--that the Son's Words are the Father's Words and ARE the Spirit where "spirit" means God Himself OR "the mental disposition" of God: the Mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2)

In the "singing" (but really TEACHING) passages Paul equates "that which is written" (Rom 15), The "Spirit" with which we must be FILLED up before we can OVERFLOW (Eph 5) or "the WORD of Christ" (Col 3:16).

Here is what the world outside of Charismaniaville believe including a majority of churches of Christ which continue the teaching of John Calvin and all of history's major theologians who NEVER see the Godhead as "three separated god family members."

-----"Since being filled with the Spirit and letting the Word of Christ dwell within both produce the same results, a spirit-filled Christian is one in whom the Word of Christ dwells.

----"A Spirit-filled Christian is a Christ-conscious Christian. A Spirit-filled Christian is consumed with learning everything he or she can about Jesus and obeying everything that Jesus said. That is what it means to 'let the word of Christ richly dwell within you.'
-----"To be filled with the Spirit is to be totally and richly involved in all there is to know about Jesus Christ." (MacArthur, John, Charismatic Chaos, p. 259, Zondervan).

That is what Jesus said and that is what Paul said and I believe it and so does MOST of the 2,000 year history before Shelly and probably your preacher decided that the CORE GOSPEL has shed all of the EPISTLES which were "filtered through human philosophy and the personal agenda of the New Testament writers." I don't believe that you will find Christ the SPIRIT and FULL DEITY in any of the Mega-churches spewing out of once- Christian colleges.

Examine your own church and see if you can detect a very powerful EFFORT to keep Christ the Spirit from speaking in song, sermon or classes: "Versifying, sermonizing and classifying" the Holy Spirit Word.

Ken Sublett

I looked in my Bible, which happens to be the King James version, and it still says "Take the helmet of salvation and the SWORD of the SPIRIT which is the WORD OF GOD. I'm not a charismatic, pentecostal, or anything like that, but what you believe about this passage is erroneous. As sure as Acts 2:38 teaches the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, this passage teaches that the word of God is the Spirit's sword and not the spirit himself. I may not have as much education as you do, but I sure can read the Old Book for myself and understand what it says.

I believe that you and Bro. Sublett are in agreement on Ephesians 6:17. The Word is the sword that the Spirit uses to pierce the human heart. However; the word "spirit" is used differently in many passages and does not always refer to the Holy Spirit. For example, John 6:63 contains the word "spirit" twice but both do not refer to the Holy Spirit. "It is the Spirit 'Holy Spirit' who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit 'spiritual' and are life."

This thread appears to have gotten off-track a little; however, topics on the Holy Spirit should be discussed. This is especially true with all of the error that is being taught concerning Him. I suggest that these issues be placed in the Sunday School in Exile.

Mark Waggoner

This discussion leaves grave concerns! So - Now that the Ministers & Elders at Southside are collectively O.K. with the leadership teaching that “Baptism is Essential” but just not for salvation where does that leave the one being baptized. If one were to baptized by Kyle but not for remission of sin would we stand justified? If the preachers were baptized for remission of sin but baptize others because their sins have already been forgiven does that void his own baptism for remission of sin? Do we need to go back and listen to the tapes to see why each person was baptized? In the water it is said: “In the name of the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit, I now baptize you .... for the remission of sin .... because your sins have been forgiven .... to show to the world that you are a follower of Christ? In September the mission report was - we took a trip to Ghana, baptized 202 new souls into Christ and started 10 new congregations. Do those 202 souls need to be examined?

MT 28:19-20 - "We neither add to nor take away from it". What a wonderful ??Mission Statement?? we do proclaim at Southside. But with Seven (7) Elders, Eighteen (18) Deacons, Five (5) Ministers, & Five (5) Missionaries who will step forward to proclaim that “Baptism is Essential for Forgiveness of Sins”? Who will step forward and proclaim that the church was established on the “Day of Pentecost” and not with the “Thief on the Cross”? Thirty-five (35) leaders! Who will be the first (1st)?

Here am I - Send Me

It has been a while now and no one at Southside has stood up to say: "I believe that Baptism is for the remission of sins". Now that Max & Oak Hills has left the fellowship of the Church of Christ will the Elders, Deacons, & Ministers at Southside support his doctrine on "Baptism"?

Max returned from Brazil having imbibed spiritism. He came back and as far as I can determine fueled the Jubilee movement with Don Finto (charismatic apostle), Steve Flatt (having imported ant-Bible Phds to ACU), Rubel Shelly and a merry band of men.

Big blunderbus' make heap big noise but they are being outed. Jesus calls those who 'believeth not' traitors and infidels and does not consider baptism as an option. That is why Jesus spoke in parables to the Pharisees. According to the Christian Chronicle who has been a big publicists for these INFILTRATORS and DIVERTERS, there are still only 5 churches which have gone instrumental out of 13,000. That is why Max is building his own MOTHER CHURCH in San Antonio promising to build CAMPUSES. Of course, this will be done by stealing existing church houses of widows using the already-trained STAFF replacing the family.

Here is how the entire Bible and church history for 1525 years exclusively defended baptism. When they spout JESUS ONLY they do not mean Jesus the Christ:

http://www.piney.com/Baptism.Arche.html

They are loosers and sound like end time Apollo or Abaddon or Apollyon who comes to unleash the MUSES who are the LOCUSTS or musical performers with scorpion stings in their tail. They produce plagues with weeping sores on their flesh.

Don't give up: history knows these people as failures who will do dangerous things to vaildate their own apostlehood or even being "Christ's for this time."

The fact that they cannot SHOOT the Bible STRAIGHT will come throught for those who BELIEVETH while those who BELIEVETH NOT are change agents of Satan and that is why they reject being baptized and giving God a chance to cleans their spirit to make them disciples.

Ken Sublett

What ever happened at Southside Church of Christ, Ft. Worth, TX

Ken where and what books do you get your usage of english grammer???

A CHANGE AGENT



A change agent is someone who engages either deliberately or whose behavior results in social, cultural or behavioral change. This can be studied scientifically and effective techniques can be discovered and employed.



For example, captology developed at the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab is the systematic study of how all sorts of interactive computing products may be used in this way.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

"... usage of english grammer???"

Hmmm!

About the time Max Lucado returned from the land of the SPIRITISTS a band of merry men began plotting to radicalize non-instrumental churches of Christ and TAKE THEM CAPTIVE for the Christian Church which worked under the ploy of UNITY MEETINGS where those from "churches of Christ" were shills or plants to VOTE churches of Christ into conformity and affirmation of their SIN for sowing discord by LEAVING churches invaded and confiscated by the Christian churches by the FORCED introduction of instruments and MEMBERSHIP in a denominational society intending to "take churches of Christ in the South captive within five years and introduce instruments and even sign up children as LIFE MEMBERS in the denomination." Long before Jim Bakker.

This coincided with the FIRST deliberate sowing of discord about one century before.

I am a CHANGE AGENT intending to smear the WORD OF GOD all over the TRAFFICKERS in the word who got their PhDuh from Anti Christ University majoring in being a Prophet, Chaneller or a Facilitator (manipulator)

The CHANGE AGENTS I know about propelled by the Stone Campbell Movement use the old Lucifer in the Garden of Eden technique which never fails: They lie, cheat, steal, threaten and hire an attorney to STEAL the church houses of widoes. My job is to put the BOOT of the Word on their evil, mercinary heads.

Lynn Andersson's Navigating the Winds of Change was one of the earliest swiped from the commercial and therefore legitimate CHANGE methods to get an honest days work for an honest day's pay. His methods use the DISCIPLING DILEMA from Promise Keepers which is the old Cross Roads heresy. His METHODS are identical to those promoted by Neo-paganism or Witchcraft. If they want you to prayer partner or meet in small groups: don't go. They intend to get you to spill your guts and try to FORCE you to conform your finances and THOUGHTS about that cute secretary to THEIR PATTERNISM. If you cross the vipers they will USE anything you say (in private) against you because they TAKE IT DOWN and report it to the Purpose Driven Cultists or Promise Keepers.

http://www.piney.com/Anderson-Shepherds.html

Max Lucado hired a DISCIPLING MINISTER and Rubel Shelly promotes the same thing stating that "no individual has the right to read, interpret or speak the Word outside of the community reading" which translates to COMMUNE where only the STAFF INFECTION with a PhDuh must lead. This is the meaning of the MISSIONAL CHURCH which MUST have Apostles and Prophets who must not be questioned.

Fred Peatross wrote another thing about The Emerging Church of Christ which is BLATENTLY witchcraft much like Demon worship.

http://www.piney.com/FPRSpectacle.html

ALL of the singing or musical terms in the AROUSAL sense was outlawed by Paul in Romans 15. This LIFTING UP is linked directly in the Greek literature to SINGING which is defined as ENCHANTMENT or SORCERY. This is linked to the word HERESY which means to "lift people up with arousal singing to CARRY THEM AWAY for the leader's OWN USES." This person is defined as a DEMAGOGUE which is directly associated with KLEPTOMAI.

When you see STAFF INFECTION firing the deacons and hiring their BONDED BUDDIES--male and female -- to lead you into the presence of God they are STANDING In the Holy Places CLAIMING to be God. They are agents of an UNholy spirit and there is NO exception in the Bible, contemporaneous literature, the Classics or church fathers to dispute that.