A response from the archives at: http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=187120&messageid=1058464535>

Name Calling September 13 2004, 8:17 PM


Dear J.D.,

I have been on this site and have read many documents posted by Ken and others( for and against) for nearly 3 months. I have conservatively put in 70 hours to research in those 3 months. I don't know about you JD but I went to a church of Christ high school and attended David Lipscomb College. I have learned more about the Bible, Religions and Biblical history in 3 short months than in 7 years of schooling.

I took a detour in my adult life that led me to a wordly walk that was not at all Christian. During this time, the coc has gone through some dramatic changes. Coming back I could see things with a fresh pair of eyes and it does not look so different from the ungodly life I walked. It is probably harder for those that stayed in to see the dramatic changes. That is normal. I am in the restaurant business. It is hard for me to see the filth of my restaurants while I am there day in and day out. Once I leave for a short while, I come back with a fresh pair of peepers and can see the filth. Not that my restaurant is actually filthy, I can just see things more clearly.

JD, you started your response to me by calling me Willy. Even after I signed my name. I am not afraid to let you know who I am. I understand that the moderators of this site allow some flexability as long as you do not hide behind an alias. Is this where you have chosen to begin calling me names?

When I first began reading on this site, I did not understand much of what has been written. The more I read, the more I learn. It has been absolutely more profitable to me for Ken and others to begin at the beginning rather than starting at the middle. After a few times I get it and can scroll down to the meat of what is new. If you have ever trained anyone; repetition, repetition, repetition. If I have had any questions about a subject matter that I do not quite understand, I have written Ken personally and have received a response with an answer within a day or two. I admire directness. Do not skirt the issues and candy coat it for me.

I do not wish to have a "relationship" with you that begins with name calling. There are others besides myself that have learned much from this forum. I am sure that I could also learn from you. Contextual scriptural and or historical facts will suffice with me. I am not into the "I know, that I know,that I know" FEELINGS that I get from charismatic worshippers. I studied biology, physics and chemistry and things have to follow certain paths for me to accept them as truths.

I would like to suggest that you read some Bible archaeology, Egyptian/Roman history and some of the Greek scholars. This will give you some insight to the times and events that occurred during the time of the Bible writers. Will I ever be as well read as Ken Sublett, Donnie Cruz, Dr Crump, And Joe McKnight and many others on this forum? Probably not. I can only narrow the gap of my ignorance.

JD, I wish you all the best in your search for all truths. If you find any blatant lies and have the documentation to prove it please feel free to share it with us. I will be able to sleep better if you can prove these men wrong. There is so much more fun I could be having right now.

Best Regards,

Wil Montero

I intended to look at John 6's statement "as many as" and do a quick rebuttal to David Lawrence's claim that AS MANY does not mean AS MANY as God calls or invites but ONLY those predestinated. "God would have all be saved" DOES NOT mean "all" but ONLY those predestinated. Jesus did not die for the sins of the WORLD but only those predestinated to be saved by that sacrifice. But, Paul and Peter lay down some MARKS so that you don't have to wonder in amazement at just HOW David first learned that HE was predestinated and those who teach what the Bible teaches about baptism ARE NOT. These MARKS are easy. Those who can confess that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself have A mark. Luther, Calvin, the Campbells and the Bible lay down BAPTISM as a MARK. You can be SURE that you are saved by external SIGNS which others cannot dismiss. IF predestination is true then BAPTISM is the supernatural sign. If God has ELECTED or INVITED, CALLED and INSTRUCTED us AND we have been CALLED OUT then we have assurance but never beyond our obedience to God's Commands. "Now I know" spoken by God to Abraham was God BLINKING supernatural knowledge until the KNOWING was demonstrated.

Anyway, I got enmeshed in John 6 and then John 5 and was IN WORSHIP as I had to GIVE HEED to the rich instruction which ANY disciple will look for. One cannot be a disciple by yanking one statement out of John 6--as Calvinists ALWAYS yank. Being OVERWHELMED I finally decided to take a small bite which proves PREDESTINATION to David Lawrence:

NO MAN can come to me,

except the Father which hath sent me
DRAW him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Jn.6:44

Before letting John clear up David's confusion, I am forced to do some "streams of consciousness" as taught to me by Paul. The word DRAW in Hebrew is:

Mashak (h4900) maw-shak'; a prim. root; to draw, used in a great variety of applications (includ. to SOW, to SOUND, to prolong, to develop, to march, to remove, to delay, to be tall, etc.): - draw (along out), continue, defer, extend, forbear, *give, handle, make (pro-, sound) long, SOW, SCATTER, stretch out.

Thus saith the Lord, The people which were left of the sword found GRACE in the wilderness; even Israel, when I WENT to cause him to REST. Jer 31:2


The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with LOVINGKINDNESS have I drawn thee. Jer 31:3

God does not CALL people to be LOST just to prove to mere earthlings that HE is God and they are NOT. As God IS SPIRIT, so God IS LOVE. Therefore, He calls people to Himself as God the Father to be GIVEN to God the Son because we DO NOT deal with God on His infinite level. God's METHOD has always been LOVE as illustrated by the Son dying on the cross for those who were crucifying Him. Can a little embryo be more evil that those who murdered Him? God limits Himself because LOVE demands FREE WILL. Therefore, it was inconsistent with free will to PREDESTINATE and just save everyone WITHOUT the cross. However, God knew that with FREE WILL the only thing which would DRAW people to be LIFTED UP was to "tabernacle" in flesh and DIE for even those certainly LOST. This is how God is GLORIFIED: "Let this MIND be in YOU" just like Christ Who WAS GOD became like us to DRAW us.

Hosea speaks of God CALLING Israel out of Egypt. They were part of the AS MANY as were called. However, the other prophets make it clear that God fulfilled His prophecy AND in effect rescued the Egyptians from the Israelites who were just giving God a bad name in Egypt. There was not one Israelite worthy of being saved and we can conclude that not one was PREDESTINATED to anything but rescue by PURE GRACE.

WHEN Israel was a child, then I LOVED him, and CALLED my son out of Egypt. Hos 11:1 [Jesus would be the FAITHFUL anti-type]

As they CALLED them, so they WENT from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images Hos 11:2.

I TAUGHT Ephraim also to GO, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them. Hos 11:3

God CALLED and TAUGHT Israel to GO:

Lamad (h3925) law-mad'; a prim. root; prop. to goad, i. e. (by impl.) to teach (the rod being an Oriental incentive): - [un-] accustomed, * diligently, expert, instruct, learn, skilful, teach (-er, - ing).

I DREW them with cords of a man, with BANDS of LOVE: and I was to them as they that TAKE OFF the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them. Hos 11:4

He shall not return to the land of Egypt; But the Assyrian shall be his king, Because they refused to repent. Hos 11:5NKJ

And the sword shall abide on his cities, and shall consume his branches, and devour them, because of their own counsels. Hos 11:6

And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they CALLED them to the most High, NONE at all would EXALT him. Hos 11:7

Now, God CALLED and TAUGHT Israel out of Egypt. When God CALLS He INSTRUCTS people what to do. SURE, God is as smart as we are! When Moses felt total lostness he sounded like a modern PREDESTINATOR. He told the people to STAND STILL and see the Glory of God. If God IS glorious then surely if we just WATCH He will do what He told US to do. God did not believe Moses: He asked, "Whence your whiney piney heart: RAISE your hand and MARCH into the sea." Sure, God saved them by FAITH but refusing to OBEY told God that they had NO FAITH.

God CALLS and "INDOCTRINATES" and gives LOVE of self-sacrifice as the INCENTIVE which is the ONLY thing that will DRAW us to God. If we are not overwhelmingly CALLED or DRAWN to the impalement, death, burial, regeneration and resurrection of Jesus the Christ then WE have NOT been CALLED and there is no way we could boast about being PREDESTINATED. Rejecting baptism is rejecting the COUNSEL of God which is rejecting the CALLING or ELECTING means of God.

It is written in the prophets,

And they shall be ALL TAUGHT of God.

Didaktos (g1318) did-ak-tos'; from 1321; (subj.) instructed or (obj.) communicated by teaching: - taught, which . . . teacheth.

When God GIVETH children to the SON, the word is similar to being TAUGHT:

Didomi (g1325)... bring forth, commit, deliver, make, minister or utter

Every man therefore that hath HEARD,
[ALL WHO ARE TAUGHT] ..and hath LEARNED of the Father,
COMETH unto me. Jn.6:45

This is within the power of EVERY MAN but it does not mean that all who are called will remain faithful. For instance, we know that it also means EVERY WOMAN who has been CALLED has been TAUGHT and therefore has--as the first order of instruction--learned that the same YAHWEH who called Israel out of Egypt to give them potential REST is the FATHER of the Son in Jesus Christ as certainly as Christ the Spirit was the ROCK or source of Life.

MANY shall be called. Many means the TOTAL POPULATION to which you have access. Many are called but FEW are chosen. All of the evidence proves that God PREDESTINATED the call of Israel out of Egypt. He CALLED them which includes TEACHING them. He ELECTED them by INVITING them. And yet we are told that they DID NOT enter into God's REST. Moses wanted them to be saved BY FAITH ONLY but God said: "Raise your hands and march into the watery tomb" which means DEATH. How could you possibly think of BURYING a person who is already ALIVE by faith alone?

God calls by the GOSPEL and that is why PREACHING means to GO to those who have not heard the gospel and been DISCIPLED to Christ Who intends to be the ONLY Teacher when we "teach that which has been taught." It is not to the Glory of an infinite Being to think that He was too busy to fill in the blanks and had to await Augustine who DEFINITELY does not preach Synod of Dort neo-Calvinism. People have my total respect if they have examined the Bible and do not believe it. However, Christianity for these 2,000 years has been defined by the Bible as sole authority (Yes, Calvin said that). If you claim to be a Christian, take the pay, do not believe it and teach that WHOSOEVER WILL does not mean WHOSOEVER WILL then you have a serious CONFLICT with God.

One KEY TO THE KINGDOM is that you MUST believe that God is the FATHER of all that is good and therefore He must be accepted as a FATHER. A father doesn't put a deadly viper into a child asking for food! But, if the child is predestinated as shown in the pagan gods who WERE evil and saw humankind as a "labor saving device" to be enslaved in field an temple, the God is REPUDIATED as a father. A father's love is UNCONDITIONAL until the time when the child "finds" themselves. And when they GLORIFY father to others it is not HE GAVE ME STUFF but He/she loved me unconditionally.

The FATHER did not hatch the son by sexual practices: the SON Jesus identifies His nature as "speaking what I hear from the FATHER" whom He said was with him and in him. A SON is defined as "promoting the father's name." A SON is not a bastard but EVEN bastards are usually loved unconditionally. I just squirm all over when I think that people believe that they can GLORIFY God by making Him INFERIOR to the Babylon elohim or prototypes who create evil.

There is much more in John 5 and 6: I will keep working on both and post something shortly.

Ken Sublett

Your responder from 9-8-04 (on the adjacent Smith Springs installments) asks if Engedi is really just not about Predestination. Well he's got it half right: it's about Predestination ALONE. Any other option gets you lovingly(?) labeled as a humanist or free-willer.

Hallelujah, at least someone is putting up warning signs about this so-called ministry and their true agenda. According to web messages sent to Engedi supporters several weeks ago, Engedi is now having to GIVE away some of its tape series (probably because so few people in the Church of Christ are willing to pay good money for such, and the Presbyterians already believe the stuff), but here's Doctor David L.'s own words from one of his tapes, allegedly an unbiased view of early church history. He's speaking about a book that is dear to him written by the by the Catholic priest, Augustine, whom he refers to as a saint.:
"When you come down to it, what makes the ultimate and final difference between an individual being saved or not - he said, rests with divine predestination. He made it clear: it rests with God predestination of that group. The number of saints is fixed and is ordained by divine wisdom. Yes, we make choices but in the last analysis we are who we are because of the grace of God and because of the divine decree that was determined before the foundation of the world."

This would just seem to be a general observation of history were it not for these words and personal thelogical bias that the good spin-Doctor prefaces this quote with:
"it presents a very cohesive theology based very squarely on the teachings of the apostle Paul."

He fails to mention, incidentally, the many ways it conflicts with many teachings of John, Peter, and Jesus himself.

So when you cut through the analytical banter, their living stream is really just another stagnant roadside pool or runoff from the dark Middle Ages: PREDESTINATION ALONE. People with some control issues are easily charmed by these teachings, according to many who have studied it.

That's what all this fuss is about brethren and this is their view of the plan of salvation: we are all little more than lifeless cheese-cakes in some celestial silent aution.

When all's said and done the sentiments and purposes of this ministry are in agreement with typical Reformed authors like R.K. McGregor Wright: "God never had the slightest intention of saving everyone. That is what the doctrine of election means in the first place: God chose some, but not all."(NO PLACE FOR SOVEREIGNTY: WHAT'S WRONG WITH FREEWILL, book; pp.131-132)

I think I've heard this same tape you are referring to. If I'm not mistaken, another of Saint Augustine's permises, which Mr. Lawrence concurs with, is that HUMAN REASON CANNOT POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND DIVINE TRUTH.

Apparently, since we are born with no spiritual faculties, though we are created in the image of God himself(James 3:4), the Bible is in some type of spiritual code that the average man on the street, or fisherman, cannot possibly comprehend unless God gives him one of the secret decoder rings, possibly something similar to the one Joseph Smith claimed to have had. So evidently Paul was mistaken in Romans 1:19,20 when he wrote, "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitites - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Also, it seems that Romans 1:21-28 has it backwards where it says "they knew God" but "did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he (God) gave them over to a depraved mind." EnGedi says depravity begins at birth for every newborn when they inherit Adam's sin (See Engedi webpage, Short Studies, Sin).

And finally, we (non-reformers) are merely taking the verse out of context in Romans 2:11 when Paul says that "God does not show favoritism."

So who should we believe Saint Paul's inspired words or Saint Augustine's
theology?

I was beginning to wonder if I had the mental capacity to "understand" the Bible. I have been told on numerous occasions I cannot discern the truth because I was not "indwelt with the Holy Spirit" represented by speaking in tongues, miracles of healing, blah, blah....

Thanks for the scriptural support. Now I can read a little more. I'm no scholar, but far from being a dummy.

Wil

Wil,

Do you not feel that you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

JD

J.D.

Your question seems almost like a trap. But I will take the bait and answer you honestly. I DO NOT FEEL the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the carnal sense that all charismatics describe. I do not feel that I have to conjure up an emotional recital to get "Him" into my presence. I DO, however feel that I have a closer relationship with GOD when I diligently search him through His one and true Word and through prayer. This happens best when I pick up the Holy Bible and share the message with others.

I do my best to spend at least an hour a day but, usually I read 10 hours per week. I never realized how vital a Strong's dictionary was in understanding the languages in which the Bible was written. Of course, a dictionary is not what one needs to understand the commands in which one is to be saved. I seem to need it more when it comes to defending and explaining my faith.

Do you feel indwelt by the Holy Spirit? How? What do you do to get this "feeling?" What other outwardly manifestations occur when the Holy Spirit reveals himself to you? Tell me what exactly I am missing out on.

When the spirit of Truth is revealed through reading it is a good feeling. Usually followed by a feeling of burden to spread the truth. This burden burns deep for my family and friends first.

No long discertation here. Looking forward to your response.

Wil

Dear Wills (or do you prefer William, Bill, Billy, Billiam, Willy Wonka, etc. etc. etc.??),

I'm inclined to agree with JD on this one. First of all, it wouldn't hurt to for you to get a sense of humor. One can't read this website without having one! You "disciples of Ken Sublett" have given the us some of the best cheap entertainment in the world. I seriosuly doubt that anyone reads Ken Sublett's "religious pornography" as JD puts it. And I agree--that's just what it is. Just like real pornography, Ken's ramblings are offensive, "in your face" and disgusting. I don't think anyone reads them anymore, or even cares. As I've said a hundred times before, this website has the potential to do great things and lead others to Christ, but all it does is create strife and division. What supreme irony! You people claim to use this website to stop division in the church, but all it does is create more division. Has anything on this website truly informed the public? Has anyone been encouraged or uplifted by this site? Has this site actually led anyone to obey the Gospel? NO, it hasn't! If I were an outsider who knew nothing about churches of Christ and came to this website for the first time, I would run like the wind! After reading just a little of this site, I'd want nothing to do with churches of Christ, much less become a member! The meaningless babble on this website does nothing but bring a reproach on the church and the name of Christ Himself.

Jazz, if you lead people OUT of the evil of the world there you will find Christ. Remember that Paul said that we have to go OUTSIDE the camp or city. City is POLIS which means a large group. First, you have to pull them OUT of the briar patch, heal their wounds, EXORCIZE the GIVING DEMON and they are then ready to find and worship God WITHIN the human spirit without the polluters wanted a crust of bread for LEADING you to God.

Now, I know that you need CROWDS to perform but Jesus invited the twos and threes to COME TO HIM as the only way He will teach us. Now, here is some of the universal, 100% view which masses are waking up to.

I thought that some of the theatrical performing rhetoricians and musicians would find this interesting. Please note that poems and songs and performance preaching do and are intended to ENTER THE LOINS and tickle the intimate parts. Jazz, you will find no exception to that and being a part of the crew intending to destroy the MASCULINE view of God will not make you happy in the end (Freudian)

"Then, as the poems enter the loins and when the intimate parts are tickled by the thrilling verse, you might see huge Tituses quiver in no seemly fashion and in no tranquil voice.

Wyke cites these lines at the close of her discussion of the performative aspects of the elegiac genre and suggests that Persius' First Satire is a productive ground for examining how the recitation of poetry sheds light on the construction of gender in ancient Rome.

Indeed, this entire section of Persius' satire represents the recital as partaking in the infamous association of performance and effeminacy.

It partakes in the DECONSTRUCTION of traditionally held values of MALE EXCELLENCE. Persius manipulates terms used also in Seneca the Elder's moralizing discourse in regard to the decline and emasculation of declamation as practiced in the rhetorical schools.

We shut ourselves up and write something grand--sometimes in verse, sometimes in prose--something that will take a vast amount of breath to pant out. This stuff you will some day read aloud to the public, combed, with a new toga [choir robe or David's Ephod], all in white, even with a birthday sardonyx gem on your finger; you shall read from a high chair having first lubricated your throat with a delicate wash, with an EFFEMINATE leer in your eye.

Bramble's fine analysis of the sexual and homosexual overtones in this passage does not require amplification.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will only elaborate on the features that link Persius' epic recital

to other genres of public performance: the theatrical performance and declamation.

The recitatio in this passage is clearly a public event, bordering on prostitution. The high chair evokes associations with Juvenal's Satire 3.135, where a prostitute displays her goods in public.

The audience does not consist of the select few, but of the common public (populo). The voice betrays features of effeminacy similar to those of actors, who were also often represented as effeminate.

Signs of effeminacy appear in the preliminary vocal modulation of the recitator (liquido cum plasmate guttur mobile conlueris) and in his entire comportment and body language (patranti fractus ocello).

Persius continues with the audience and the emasculating effect of the public performance

on those who passively submit to the allurements of the recitator's virtuoso voice.

The sweet voice is an agent of titillation, arousing the audience, evoking images of sexual gratification:

Well, Jazz, that's a fact: the urge for performance sermonizing and the new "musical mediators" to lead you into the presence of the "gods" has always been a MARK of homosexuals who need to USE WOMEN in the non-sedentary roles to VALIDATE themselves. Paul understood the GENDER-BLEED causes and symptoms and I know of no Biblical or historical or modern experience exception to the rule. The RULE also makes no exception to assigning the INFLUENCE to Satan who is Lucifer or ZOE.

That is GOSPEL and the world is catching on and the pagan temples will come crashing down on your heads and bank accounts.

Ken

Thank you, Ken Sublett, for proving my point.

As usual, you jump to conclusions and start that pointless rambling again. First let me state that "Jas" is my initials and has nothing to do with JAZZ music (where did that come from??). I never said anything about music or having my "inner parts" or whatever "tickled" (a metaphor which I found quite disgusting). What bothers me most are your insinuations that I am a homosexual (I REALLY don't know where that came from!). Rather than address the point of my comments (how your pointless drivel only creates division rather than edification), you climb up on your soapbox again and start making assumptions, hurling insults, and going down that meandering path of yours with that "ZOE" nonsense again.

Let me also mention that I am a member of the Lord's church and I have been for 25 years! I teach Sunday school, preach occasionally, teach Bible classes, and write on a regular basis.

Two years ago I got into a debate (which turned ugly) with one of your followers over the KJV vs. NKJV controversy. It led to many of your people (Kevin Hamm and yourself included) bombarding me with dozens of emails DAILY. I was insulted, judged, told I was going to hell, and even threatened by you so-called "Concerned Members." This nightmare went on for over a month. Finally I got the elders of my congregation involved and the harassment stopped.

If you people are so bent out of shape over what happened at Madison or Smith Springs or Otter Creek, then why don't you get off your hindquarters and DO something about it instead of hiding behind your computer screens churning out line after line after line of nothing more than pure unadulterated HATE???

A website never changed the world (especially a pathetic, petty, nit-picking little website like this)! May God have mercy on you for your spiritual blindness and your unwillingness to open your closed mind and soften your hardened heart.

================================
Comment from the moderator

The devil is a ferocious liar!

So now I'm the devil AND a liar. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I can sleep at night.

You agree with J.D. and accuse me of pornography for telling you that there is NO OTHER CONNECTION to music "as" worship. So, I just keep telling you that I am not a pornographer for telling people what they are DOING up there in the Holy Place.

Secondly, I have never written you an e-mail in my life. You might post what I wrote to you in a harassing or ANY OTHER WAY to jog my memory. You may need a global positioning device to locate yourself. I wouldn't know how anyone would know WHO you are or your e-mail.

I am not a pornographer but if you DO music as performance in front of people then you have a problem. If you CHARGE for your services then the Greek world had a word for rhetoricians and musical performers. I just needed to let people see some more of the UNIVERSAL meaning of religious porn. I say if you go "rhetorical" or "musical" you may have more problems than you will admit. I will keep telling people that Jesus DID die to free us from performance rituals.

Ken

First let me point out that I never said anything............

===============================
Warning - Message From The Moderator

You are free to post anonymously, but not to continue to attack others by name.

If you have biblical or other usful information post it.

Antthing else will be a waste of your time.

=============================
..........d e l e t e d

Jasguy:
You got it, you should "run like the wind from the coC" or any other demonination, because Jesus said twice in Rev. that He hated the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.

To God be the Glory
Joe McKnight

I believe if you'll think back you'll recall that you didn't get to this site by typing in Jule Miller filmstrips, or World-Wide Evangelism. This site is from the vantage point of those who are already members and are concerned about serious charges being leveled against the Church by a few insurgents from within. The purpose is to assure those who have already been led to Christ that they have not been misled. If you'll carefully re-examine the chronology you'll see that this segment is simply responding to a salvo of one-sided slams first made specifically against the Church by Mr.
Lawrence on Engedi in his weekly devotionals, as they still appear on their web site.

Ellis M. and his 11-10-04 Jule Miller comment could have been a little less vague. For those unfamiliar with the situation addressed here you may not be aware of the frequent and specific harsh accusations that have been made by our Bro. Lawrence months before any of the fallout began appearing at this web location.
The Engedi ministry Devotionals detail the myriad of charges aimed at the Church of Christ by this apparent malcontent. Examine yourself and see if this sounds like the language of a loving spirit blessed with a clearer understanding of grace:

1.13.04: "One historian observed that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat its failures. This conclusion applies with great force to the Church of Christ...with the heresies, squabbles, schisms, misunderstandings, and behavior of Christians that is hardly worth of the name of Christ. While we cannot deny the misbehavior of Christians nor their failure to understand the will of God, we can learn and profit by their mistakes..." "Look how far God has brought us! We can discern the hand of God at work with his people, guiding them, teaching them, maturing them...Look at what the early church councils accomplished in defining Chrisitan doctrine...We are the beneficiaries of their efforts today..."

1.20.03 mocks the attempt by Churches of Christ to reestablish New Testament Christianity: "...they have recovered the pristine purity of the original church and represent a re-creation of it. In their view, the church simply disappeared for all the intervening centuries. Otherwise, why would all these groups disdain the past? And, of course they are the very ones who fall into the heresies that were dealt with in the past. They are the ones who deny or have indistinct views of the Trinity...salvation by grace...and other key doctrines. While we cannot say that every Christian congregation or denomination that disconnects from Christian history is a cult, we can say that every cult, steeped in heresy and error, has made that disconnection."

11.18.02 is aimed at ridiculing the gospel plan of salvation while attempting to advocate total and absolute predestination.

11.04.02 and 10.28.02 are attempts to explain away some key passages which many Christians believe to clearly teach that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is made available to everyone. Lawrence tries to defend the denominational view that Jesus only died for the chosen =
limited atonement.

2.24.03 is a view of baptism you've probably never heard from any Church of Christ pulpit: "baptism is not the saving act. We do not look to baptism for our salvation."

12.30.02 is where he describes himself, now that he has escaped the Church of Christ heresies, as a "reformed, once recalcitrant legalist."

These are the types of statements that are being addressed herein; these were the first steps down this unfortunate path. Concerned members who have felt humiliated and betrayed in such a public forum as the internet, as they defend some of their basic beliefs, may have an audience and language that is quite different from what would be used with unbelievers in a outreach ministry. This does not mean that they aren't still very concerned with leading the lost to Christ.
On the other hand it certainly appears that Lawrence's intent is not to lead the lost to Jesus, but to stay in the Church of Christ while leading as many people as possible into denominationalism.

Brother Wil:
Thanks for your comment above about listing me as one of the well read, but it is not true. I am one of the ones the bible says God uses the foolish to confound the wise. In my walk, in the past few years I have come to apperciate the work of the Holy Spirit working in me. This experience leads me to say "While reading the Bible, if the Holy Spirit does not show it to you, you will not get it". You can read it and know what it says, but you will not get it. There is a difference in knowing what it say and getting it. So your first step in studing should began with prayer asking the Holy Spirit to lead and show you. That is His Job you know.
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is denying His work, and the coC has a rich history of Blasphing. I know, I was raised coC, and for years I believed the coC doctrine of Blaspheming. I do not practice that anymore.

To God be the Glory
Joe McKnight

on engedi's website in the devotional section (which is nothing but their weekly calvinism propaganda) there is a discussion of why people hate God. in part 4, mr. lawrence makes this bold statement: "there exists no example in scripture of anything, animate or inanimate, that successfully resisted the expressed will or the expressed decree of God."

a bold statement indeed, but not dissimilar to our vice-president claiming recently to have never met john edwards previously even though there are press photos showing them sitting side by side at the national prayer breakfast a few months ago. bold statements aren't always true!

so in answer to lawrence let's start with one of the bible's lesser known characters, Jesus!
here's what he says in matthew 23:37: "o jerusalem, jerusalem you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often i have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, BUT YOU WERE NOT WILLING."

and Jesus doesn't seem too vague in john 7:17 either: "if anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God." the engedi faction would have us believe that it is appropriate to rewrite that passage to say "if God chooses for anyone to do his will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God!" it's like they've developed some type of spiritual dyslexia, isn't it!

the old testament is also filled with passages that expose lawrence's daring proclamation. how about this bizarre language in malachi 2:2 "if you do not listen and if you do not set your heart to honor my name says the Lord Almighty, i will send a curse upon you and i will curse your blessings. yes i have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me." so let me get this right, God's cursing his CHOSEN people for not doing what he knew he was not going to give them the ability to do? yeah, that makes no sense.

then in same chapter vs.8 "but you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble, you have violated the covenant with levi" and verse 11 "judah has broken faith." then in chapter 3:7 "ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees."

well at least one section of these scriptures seem to apply to lawrence's teaching: "by your teaching you have caused many to stumble."

Point well taken. We recently had a Wednesday night series about the Old Testament prophets. Most all of them had to warn God's CHOSEN NATION of the consequences of a continued pattern of disobeying God's specific, expressed will. Even a casual student of the Word can see this, unless you try to over complicate simple teaching.

Lawrence's background in the extremely legalistic wing of our fellowship, commonly called the Anti movement, makes him very susceptible to extreme legalistic interpretations like those of Calvin. John Calvin, you'll recall, was trained as a LAWYER. One of their more common ploys is to try to turn things completely around in their logic. Dr. David seems to be mastering this tendency with every weekly subject he puts on the web.

I've had a chance to review some of D.Lawrence's thoughts over the past several months. He seems blinded to his own illogical premises.

The topic of his class just a few days ago (held at a Nashville calvin-based church) was entitled "justification because of nothing done by us" (oct. 19, '04) It doesn't take a genius to realize that this NOTHING would, of course, include baptism. This is right in line with other statements he has made concernig what he considers to be false teachings by the Church of Christ regarding baptism. On their web address (engedi ministries, devotionals, 2.24.03)he implies that Church of Christ teaching on this important subject is analogous to Catholic sacramental teachings.

Here's where he trips over his own feet: In the Westminster Confession (which Lawren. has even used as a study guide for a series of Bible classes a few years ago, conducted at the Church at Smith Springs) we read, in Chapter XXVIII that "Baptism is a SACRAMENT of the new testament...dipping of the person into water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized...The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered..."

So, apparently, D.L.'s answer to one alleged misleading sacramental system is to replace it with a different sacramental system.

And the Greek phrase, I believe, for such logic is HYPOCRISY.

An old, 94 year old ex-elder responded to a question about a priestly class in the church "but, who's gonna do the baptizing and who's gonna do the burying?"

David Lawrence: Others believe that salvation in some way is found in themselves, in something they have done, or in some movement of God's Spirit in their hearts. Salvation belongs to God (Rev. 19:1) and in no way is of us (Eph. 2:8-9).

David Lawrence is, of course, just making this up to support his theory. Or, perhaps he is thinking of Calvinists who are DEAD in original sin and CANNOT believe that "faith comes from hearing. All Calvinists which includes many Baptist believe that God infuses faith in you and works some kind of supernatural SIGN. This sign then is your "ticket" so that Baptists or other Calvinists will accept you as part of the ELECT.

So, has David lost his CALVINIST certification? The whole Cane Ridge or Stoneite or Christian church wing of the 'restoration movement' participated is something not different from ancient and modern Devil worship to GET a direct movement of the Spirit (like howling up a tree and fighting over garbage). If David now rejects this LEG of Calvinism then how is he so certain that HE is predestinated? Did he obey because he believed the evidence. Or did he get some SIGN of the little spirit person in his "heart"? He is caught between Augustine and Pelagius in limbo. How do his CONVERTS know that they are DISCIPLES if they are not baptized to BECOME DISCIPLES? How does he know that THEIR spirit has been made Holy so that God's Spirit (the Mind of Christ, 1 Cor 2) can dwell in them by faith?

But, Revelation 19:1 has a before and an after:

Rev 19:1 AND after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:

Rev 19: 2 For true and righteous are his JUDGMENTS; for he hath judged the great whore, which did CORRUPT the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

Does that mean that GOD didn't CORRUPT everyone because it was SATAN who wholly seduced Eve in the garden?

2Co.11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be CORRUPTED from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Ju.1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they CORRUPT THEMSELVES

Ep.4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

Rev 19: 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant,

and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:
worship God: for the TESTIMONY of Jesus is the SPIRIT of prophecy.

Those who do not ACCEPT that testimony cannot be saved. The clergy REJECTED the counsel of God by NOT being baptized. Can one be saved by REJECTING the command to be baptized? David Lawrence will also have to believe that he has the TESTIMONY magically:

When he shall come to be GLORIFIED in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. 2Th.1:10

Again:

David Lawrence: Others believe that salvation is found in the sacraments, particularly baptism. While baptism is a required act of all Christians and certainly both signifies and is a seal of our salvation, baptism is not the saving act. We do not look to baptism for our salvation, but we can look to baptism as a sign of our salvation.

I. Wright then quotes the Confession which EXACTLY defines "baptismal regeneration." The ONLY people who have ever taught baptismal regeneration have been baby splashers. Zwingli introduced the old Pagan Baptism by saying that people had to BELIEVE. In some kind of twisted thinking they decided that since baptism WITHOUT faith does not save then BAPTISM does not save in any sense.

I. Wright: Here's where he trips over his own feet: In the Westminster Confession (which Lawren. has even used as a study guide for a series of Bible classes a few years ago, conducted at the Church at Smith Springs) we read, in Chapter XXVIII that "Baptism is a SACRAMENT of the new testament...dipping of the person into water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized...The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered..."

If pouring water on an unconscious infant SAVES them then the ACT saves them. If they are saved by their PARENT'S FAITH then they are saved WITHOUT sprinkling. If Lawrence is correct then why is it that I cannot be baptized for departed Calvinist Huguenots? Why isn't a MORMON baptism for the dead good? All of this misunderstanding seems to leap ahead and decide where they will spend eternity. However, they are PREMATURE: for now, to become a Christian Jesus said that you have to be baptized. He then handles the internal cleansing without which he WILL NOT be our Master Teacher. Without this DISCIPLING by God Himself we simply would not be prepared to dwell in a Spiritual kingdom. Babies are neither lost nor capable of becoming STUDENTS. Jesus died to give us REST and PEACE: how much worse could a system be than one which makes mothers think that their beloved infant may be DRACULA. The Greek PHARISEE defines one who has SUPERIOR SPIRITUAL CREDENTIALS: I shudder when I think that people are being DISCIPLED to a human teacher.

A sacrament is: theourg-ia, divine work, sacramental rite, 'mystery', hieratikę which means: priestly, sacerdotal, the priestly caste.

It is a fact that all forms of false "baptism" had to be administered by a PRIESTLY CLASS. True baptism says that God in Christ performs the spiritual cleansing but ONLY at water baptism where we REQUEST IT. God does not force people to be sinners or saints. MOST of the GLORY is taken away from God by baptizing on the FAITH of a parent and having a HUMAN PRIEST perform the cleansing as a SACRAMENT. Rejecting the role of baptism is the MARK of a larger body of false beliefs which will fall flat if Jesus knew what he was commanding and what Peter and the rest of church history practiced.

Ken

I've heard of several theories as to why these brothers, and I use the term loosely, in Engedi, insist on staying affilliated with a Church of Christ, even though they believe many many fundamental teachings of this group constitute soul-jeopardizing, joy-robbing heresies.

An obvious reason is the fear of rejection that they would receive from their extended families. They're maybe just not willing to pay that price. Another reason I have heard is that some key leaders feel that situations have happened which have convinced them that God has chosen for them to try and fix what they see as a works based system - from within the Church of Christ.

But a newer, and more compelling reason has surfaced in recent weeks:
Fear that they'll lose one of their main selling points.

One of their techniques of infiltration among brethren is their observation, and line, that there are many sad and miserable people in the Churches of Christ. Their simple explanation? It's just because the theology is all wrong.

To do the right thing and move to a Reformed-minded group would put them in the awkward position of trying to find the right one, of the many schisms in the Reformed movement itself. They'd even have to make sure they got with the right group even within just the Presbyterians! And what would happen when they finally landed somewhere else? They'd certainly find a significant percentage of people there who are complacent, sad, miserable, unengaged, lacking a deep desire to know God (like they do), etc.

Then what happens to their theory, when people with the right theology are acting in such a wrong manner? Whoops, they may have been mistaken. That is a fearful proposition.

And if Lawrence's charges are true, that a key error in the Church of Christ is the way they have separated themselves from much of church history, they why was it O.K. for Augustine to do that very thing and divorce himself from 300 years of understanding of the early church? Furthermore, wouldn't it follow that the most sound church is the one most closely connected to church history? Then the Catholic church must be the right one! But, heaven help us, that is the very church the Reformers rebelled against! Welcome to the epitome of Illogic.

It is so interesting after a few months how all of the pieces begin to fit together. I got a copy of one of Dr. Lawrence's treatises before he began putting them online. (Incidentally, the lady who gave me this now describes herself as an
'Engedi escapee'.) Read as Dr.L not only defends the very same book but claims that any who disagree with it, and his beliefs - i.e. those who teach that men are free moral agents (wouldn't that include just about EVERY Church of Christ ?)- are actually teaching a type of ATHEISM! Let the record speak for itself; this is from July 2001:

"That reminds me of a very good book that all of you should read. It is by R.K. McGregor Wright and is entitled NO PLACE FOR SOVEREIGNTY. I have read it twice and found it one of the most valuable books of human authorship I have ever read. It approaches Christianity from a historical perspective, thus it is rooted in reality, ad develops the thesis that the logical conclusion of freewill thesim is atheism. It would be interesting to read someone's attempt to refute his well developed narrative. Mr.Wright
argues that freewill theist can continue to believe in God only by being inconsistent with their theology. I BELIEVE HE IS RIGHT, and that the logical consistency and rationality of THE THEOLOGY I ESPOUSE are further reasons to believe it is accurate."

Is anyone out there still confused by what's being advocated by this ministry?

As part of his Devotional last month (11.01.04), he states that there is "more at stake than just proving to people that the doctrine of predestination is true."

Apparently the "more" includes proving that everyone else is wrong, except those denominations who agree with HIM. Let's see, where have we heard that language before? Oh yes, now I remember; that was the party line for the "old time Church of Christ." (Looks like Lawrence has just gone in a big circle back to where he started.)
But no, he's not content to stop there. His sickle cuts a very wide swath and even gets MOST religious groups when he calls attention to what he considers "the deplorable lack of sound Biblical teaching in most churches today. The majority of Christians do not truly know who God is...or what grace is." But wouldn't that be, based on predestination, that God has chosen for them NOT to be able to understand it? Furthermore since they CAN'T possibly comprehend it, is David presumptuously attempting to alter the express will and purposes of God, by lashing out at most churches?

"Our identity" he says, "did not begin when we answered an altar call and received Christ, or submitted to Christian baptism." O.K. so we can also include in the list of heretics the Nazarenes, those in the Church of God, the Methodists, most Baptists, most Fellowship/Community churches, as well as the "misinformed" Church of Christ. Imagine that: all of those groups have been reading the Word and yet have missed the basic truth of the Gospel.

He goes on to misapply John 15:16 (where Jesus says "you did not choose me but I chose you"). If it means what he implies (that this "choosing" equates with eternal salvation) then that certainly makes for an interesting question relating to Judas, the chosen apostle, who betrayed the very God who chose him. Do you think Judas is in heaven now, according to scripture?

I had a good friend who was part of Gwen Shamblin's
"Remnant" movement (in Franklin, TN) until a couple of years ago. The more I read about the intimidation, paranoia, mind control and manipulation here, the more similiarities I see between her message and Engedi's. Honestly, there's very little difference between "we are God's remnant; nobody else understands this like WE do" and "we are God's chosen; nobody else understands this like WE do." Scary stuff, indeed.

Alex, I can confess that these texts out of context do more damage to people than hanging thousands on crosses. Nothing discourages me more than people who are professional religionists and are not PHYSICALLY or SPIRITUALLY able to read the whole message from God. While it tribulates and afflicts me more than anything in my life, it nevertheless proves beyond any doubt that the Bible is inspired. I always worry about people who PROFESS to be and get paid to be DISCIPLERS who misuse one of God's ideas rather than digging and looking at the possible meanings. Calvin and Augustine, as much as they were so right on some things, are the SAVIORS of these people: they use the same tidbits out of context which would embarass any seeker after truth. I am working on some Augustine to post.

But, John 15 is not about predestination: it is about the fact that as long as you are IN THE WORLD--and especially the prostitute form of the church--you are snug and safe and applauded and worshipped. But, when Jesus CHOOSES us out of the world because we love both the Father and Son and get ATTACHED at baptism, our spirits are translated into the kingdom or church but our bodies are hung out to twist in the wind. This is because one has to do battle with principalities and powers in high places and their underlings who, somewhere and sometime, have SOLD OUT. The race is for those who RUN LAWFULLY and DILIGENTLY SEEK God and His kingdom and resist the highly organized institutions Satan has raised up to SUCK you away as a SEEKER. God is NOT the God of the big and popular.

The Scribes [writers], Pharisees [editing the Bible for profit] and the sectarian Hypocrites [rhetoricians, sophists, singers, musicians and techne which are "theater builders and stage managers"], as we see in this chapter, GO MAD or insane when the LAITY dares to speak even if He happens to be God Incarnate. Because disciples MUST speak with authority to the SCHOLARS, you can betcha that you are going to get hurt real bad. But, that is the PRICE OF ADMISSION. I will post the whole chapter and add to it in time at:

http://www.piney.com/John.15.html

Ye are my friends, IF ye do whatsoever I command you. John 15: 14

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. John 15: 15

Jesus defines the meaning of SON as one Who speaks what He hears from the FATHER. Jesus was God as WORD and He proved that we have no authority to cut N paste what the SON has breathed forth.

Ye have NOT CHOSEN me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you; [FOR WHAT?] that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. John 15: 16

These things I command you, that ye love one another. John 15: 17

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. John 15: 18

IF ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. John 15: 19

Does that mean that God PREDESTINATED the Apostles to salvation? No. The rest of the story shows that disciples came to Jesus willingly and at one point in time He choose some of them to be APOSTLES because they were ABIDING in the Word:

And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him. Lu 6:7

But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. Lu 6:8

Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? Lu 6:9

And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other. Lu 6:10

And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus. Lu 6:11


Madness is: Anoia (g454) an'-oy-ah; from a comp. of 1 (as a neg. particle) and 3563; stupidity; by impl. rage: - folly, madness.

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning THE faith. 2 Tim 3:8

People resist because they are corrupt in a way that others born of Eve are NOT corrupt. Therefore, these men were not MANUFACTURED corrupt.

And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. Lu 6:12 [Jesus didn't PRAY for PROFIT]

And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Lu 6:13

I watch the chicken hawks and red-tails CHOOSE their lunch, but the poor creature was not PREDESTINATED to be snatched. I CHOOSE Katy to be my wife; SHE choose to accept. One chooses to be a citizen of our country: they do not choose to be president. Therefore, choosing someone for a role is NOT predestination. As you note, Judas CHOOSE to betray Jesus.

Ken Sublett

David Lawrence: Among the 28 propositions that Luther defended, I think you will find these two most interesting and worthy of a little thought:

26. The law says, "Do this," and what it enjoins is never done; Grace says, "Believe in him," and everything is already done (Luther: Heidelberg Disputation, 1518)

I am not aware of anyone who believes that they can MERIT salvation by keeping the Law of MOSES. Nor, to be honest with Luther, do I know anyone who believes that they can be saved by something THEY MADE UP through church councils. All of the FAITH ONLY fallacy rests on misunderstanding Luther's contrast of GOD'S COMMANDMENTS which facilitate His grace with WHAT MAN INVENTS and rests upon to SAVE HIMSELF.

Several of the context statements of the INVITATION TO DEBATE at Heidelberg are:

23. The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ [Rom. 4.15].

24. Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; BUT without the theology of the cross man MISUSES the best in the worst manner.

25. He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ.

26. The law says "Do this", and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in this" and everything is already done.

Luther means that Christ has fulfilled the Law which was never intended to save people. God has done all of the WORKS but this statement does not mean that we STOP IN OUR TRACKS when our minds light up with the concept.

27. Actually one should call the work of Christ an ACTING work and our work an ACCOMPLISHED work, and thus an accomplished work pleasing to God by the GRACE of the ACTING WORK.

Those who minimize baptism are DETERMINED to keep people away from the directly commanded means of God's GRACE where He gives us A new, holy spirit or A good conscience.

Tertullian: b. c. 155, /160, Carthage [now in Tunisia] d. after 220, Carthage
http://www.piney.com/Tertullian-Baptism.html

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.

Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places.

Luther will say that baptism is an acting work because it is the ACT OF GOD and not something that came out of the mind or works of a human or a church council.

28. The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.

But what Luther SEEMETH to giveth, Luther taketh away with certainty. FAITH is believing and obeying the SCRIPTURES but WORKS are ignoring Scriptures or CUTTING THEM UP to create a horrible dogma not part of God's WORD and therefore not a part of nor remotely similar to GRACE.

In his discussion of Faith and Coming to Christ
http://www.piney.com/Luther.Faith.html

Luther wrote:

All that human ingenuity can devise, be it as holy and as luminous as it may, must tumble to the ground if man be saved in God's way--in a way different from that which man himself plans.

Man may forever do as he will, he can never enter heaven unless God takes the first step with his Word, which offers him divine grace and enlightens his heart so as to get upon the right way.


Just as soon as he hears that grace is the work of God alone,
he will desire it of God as from the hand of his gracious Father, who wishes to draw him.


Now, if he is drawn by God to Christ, he will certainly experience what the Lord here says: "He will raise him up in the last day." For he has laid hold upon the Word of God and trusts God.

In this he has a sure sign that he is one whom God has drawn, as John says in his First Epistle (5:10): "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him."

Luther shows that when we believe, we HAVE LIFE because we have the WORD OF CHRIST. If I am dragging my doomed body across Death Valley and fall into a pool of fresh water I AM SAVED because I have a connection to the SOURCE. If I don't ABIDE with the water then I will NOT have life.

Faith Only meant faith ONLY in the Word of God as the source of faith and practice. Then we know that we cannot WORK our own schemes to be saved by Grace but we accept GOD'S MEANS of Grace which Luther says is bestowed ONLY at baptism because it is GOD'S WORK. Luther confesses that faith comes frome HEARING the Word of Faith and not infused by God's GRACE which "shows partiality" and according to James makes God violate all of the Laws of Moses.

But God is the ORIGIN of all; he first awakens preachers and constrains them to preach.

This is the meaning of St. Paul's words when he says to the Romans: "So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17).

13. The bread from heaven the fathers ate in the wilderness, as Christ says here, was powerless to keep them from dying; but this bread makes immortal.

If we believe on Christ, death cannot harm us; yea, it is no longer death. The Lord utters the same truth in another passage when he says to the Jews:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man KEEP my Word, he shall never see death" (John 8:51).

Here he speaks definitely of the Word of faith, and of the Gospel.

By FAITH means REVEALED through the Word:

For as truly as I can say, No man has spun the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer out of his head, but they are revealed and given by God Himself,

so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself,

moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we MUST be baptized or we CANNOT be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat.

For these are the words, Go ye baptize; however, not in your name, but in the name of God.

For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself.

God has BESTOWED it all BY GRACE but in Luther's discussion of FAITH and GRACE the word IF is frequently used. If God in Christ promises salvation and true Discipleship to believers in His Grace through baptism and further teaching, and WE decide that this is not true, then the word BELIEVETH NOT in the direct command of Jeus defines us as a TRAITOR because we fail to justify God and call Him a liar. If anyone thinks that baptism is OUR invention and therefore OUR work to earn salvation then that is their problem but it does not justify a total dismantling of the whole Bible where it speaks of God's PURPOSES.

Is there some MARK we don't understand when people shrink with fear from standing up and walking when Christ promises to heal us? I believe that believers are NOT AFRAID of coming boldly before the Throne of Grace to "WHAT?" that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

When you see a people who have made "church" into Rock, Rattle and Roll you see a people who have ZERO confidence that they can come into the Most Holy Place only by KEEPING SILENCE.


Ken Sublett

Here's one of Engedi's recurring themes: If you do ANYTHING in regards to your salvation then it becomes a work which you somehow earned. This has been a core premise of their fall classes and recent Devotionals (see 11.01.04)

So what do these families do with Christmas gifts? Using their rationale if you ACCEPT a gift (a choice) and then proceed to physically unwrap it (an action, based on your choice) then it becomes a work and you can claim to have earned the gift!

It's just perplexing how these people have hopelessly conplicated Biblical concepts which are NOT that complex.

This new dispenser of error has surfaced

http://www.cofcdilemma.org/

It sounds lik another ANONYMOUSE Engedi Ministries.

Does anyone know who they are: they are hiding their identity. Good thing.

I have invited them to visit this page and post their PROOF that churches of Christ believe what THEY say or to prove from Scripture and historical writings that they remotely understand CALVINISM.

We have noted that David Lawrence can take a verse from the end of Ephesians 2 to preach "salvation by FAITH IN grace" which, in itself, is not what Scripture says. Then, he can just slip and slide over he first part of the chapter to see that Paul used the identical meaning of baptism.

Ken Sublett

This web site has responded to my questions. They claim that justification by FAITH ONLY in the historical view and churches of Christ are uniquely out of the mainstream.

I have pointed out that JUSTIFICATION does not mean REGENERATION or the remission of sins. Also, for the first time in history Zwingli in 1525 merged both words in his teachings about justification by faith. At the same time the "baptism" he was refuting was Catholic infant sprinkling which they claimed regenerated it. His conclusion was that "baptism without faith" does not save: therefore, baptism does not save.

Romans 1:17 that we should LIVE by faith is one of the out of context passages. I have responded with a short study on Romans chapter one.

http://www.piney-2.html/Romans.1.html

Ken

Sorry about the link: try this one:

http://www.piney-2.com/Romans.1.html

I have opened up another site to remove some traffic.

The LATIN

Praedstino, a-re, to set before as a goal, predestine: sibi triumphos,

Prefino means I. to determine, fix, or appoint beforehand, to prescribe, limit, set bounds, adverv, in the prescribed manner:

God SETS BOUNDS but there is not a remote CLUE that God ever PICKED OUT one individual to GO TO HEAVEN or to GO TO HELL. The world has a similar word for it: it is called PREfabricate or PREvaricate.

God's PREDESTINATED PLAN or GOAL is that we ALL BE SAVED. Therefore, He CALLS OR INVITES through the gospel preached to ALL. If God wanted just a select FEW to be saved wouldn't He just tap them on the shoulder?

His PREDESTINATED PLAN includes ADOPTING us as children.

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Wouldn't this have been a good place for God to have removed Enoch (didn't say to heaven) BECAUSE he was PREDESTINATED a billion, trillion, aion ago?

Do you suppose some single, ferterlized egg is LOST because it DID NOT PLEASE GOD?

God's PREDESTINATED PLAN is that:

He that believes AND is baptized SHALL BE saved.

The UNBELIEVER OR APISTOS is the one who DENIES the statement Jesus just made that:

He that believes AND is baptized SHALL BE saved.

This is confirmed when many of the priests BELIEVED but refused to CONFESS because of Fear. And it is confirmed when the leaders REJECTED THE COUNSEL of God by REFUSING to be baptized.

The Word APISTOS includes the idea of treachery: one who REJECTS the cause and effect between Baptism as the ANSWER to the universal INVITATION or CALL is exactly the ones including ALL neo-Calvinists who call Jesus a LIAR because He said and WE repeat and repeat:

He that believes AND is baptized SHALL BE saved.

That is PREDESTINATED or MARKED OUT to accept or REJECT. If you accept ANY of the Calvinist failure to consult Greek definitiona 101aaa then THEIR repudiation of this ARTICLE OF FAITH would PROVE to the watching world that THEY have NOT been predestinated to salvation but to DAMNATION.

Ken

Dear Ken, I'm the author of cofcdilemma and found some of your comments about it on your website. Just out of curiousity, can you tell me where on the website (cofcdilemma.org) or even in my correspondence that I ever suggested justification and regeneration mean the same thing? I do have a glossary section on the website that defines many words and Bible concepts as they are usually understood by evangelicals and those in the cofc, including the words justification and regeneration; I simply invite you to see if what you wrote is accurate. Dennis

I didn't say that you said that: I pointed out that the Justification by faith got confused with salvation by faith.

Faith only was first based on that confusion. If Jesus told me "I am the Son of God." If I said that I believed that then I would be justified. If He told me a hundred truths and I believed each one I would be justifed each time I believed.

However, I could believe them all and NOT CONFESS publically because I might be afraid that my boss would fire me. Confession or "calling on the name" or requesting a clear conscience or A holy spirit at baptism would have God saving me or remitting my sins.

Scholars note that Zwingli who INVENTED faith only and Luther who agreed that Zwingli invented it has him making justification mean salvaton for the first time in history. Luther who used the word Sola Fide denied that we are saved by faith only. Because he said that the Bible is our only source to produce faith, faith only demands that we have faith in SCRIPTURE ONLY to inform us. Because Scripture informs us to be baptized, he made (for adults) baptism only as the means Jesus ordained as our call to Him to save us.

Ken

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your response; I have a couple of things I’d like to respond to.

First, why would you need to point out “that JUSTIFICATION does not mean REGENERATION or the remission of sins” unless you thought I believed or taught they were synonymous.?

Second, and more importantly, I don’t know where you acquired your knowledge of Reformation History, but will tell you very candidly that it’s very much in error.

It is an undeniable truth is that Luther did in fact teach Sola Fide and indeed argued very effectively that we are saved by faith alone, along with other reformers, including John Huss and John Wycliffee who came along long before Zwingli.

Tell me, did Luther come into contact with Zwingli before he had what is sometimes called the “Tower Experience”?

On the contrary, Luther said that it was the reading of St. Augustine’s notes on Romans 1:17 (“For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness by faith…) that enabled him to understand for the first time the gospel of Christ.

Augustine wrote that “this righteousness from God” talked about here is not God’s own personal righteousness that is revealed; nor was this righteousness the practical righteousness of man that comes though man's own personal strivings of piety and holy living.

Rather this righteousness refered to in this verse is a gift that God provides to all those who put their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.

As Romans 3:21 and 22 says, “But now a righteousness form God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.”

Luther, after his own courageous but failed attempts at personal holiness in an effort to try and make himself acceptable to a gloriously holy God who knows no sin, said that it was after coming to understand St. Paul’s teaching about God’s gift of perfect righteousness that “the gates of Paradise flew open and I walked in.”

Dennis DeVries, cofcdilemma.org

Sorry about that but I don't need permission to state WHAT has confused the Zwinglians who invented "believer's baptism" in 1525: too late to be Christian. IF you believe in FAITH ONLY then I say that you are CONFUSED between justification and salvation:

Martin Luther[1] There are two kinds of Christian righteousness, just as man's sin is of two kinds.
The first is alien righteousness, that is the righteousness of another, instilled from without.


This is the righteousness of Christ by which he justifies though faith, as it is written in I Cor. 1:30: "whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption." In John 11:25-26, Christ himself states: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me.....shall never die." Later he adds in John 14:6, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." This righteousness, then, is given to men in baptism and whenever they are truly repentant. Therefore a man can with confidence boast in Christ and say: "Mine are Christ's living, doing, and speaking, his suffering and dying, mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, suffered, and died as he did." Just as a bridegroom possesses all that is his bride's and she all that is his--for the two have all things in common because they are one flesh[Gen. 2:24]--so Christ and the church are one spirit [Eph. 5:29-32]. Thus the blessed God and Father of mercies has, according to Peter, granted to us very great and precious gifts in Christ [II Pet. 1:4]. Paul writes in II Cor. 1:3; "Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places."

Please point me to the references. Most of Augustine, Luther and Calvin are on the internet if you do not have a copy. Most church of Christ "scholars" quote Luther erroneously because they have NEVER read the originals but quotes from quotes.

You are making false accusations PLAINLY STATING that we rest on the LAW of Moses. THEREFORE, you are under obligation to find such a ridiculous teaching anywhere so stated. ALL of the "faith only" people can find in Ephesians 2: "we are saved by Grace through faith" but CANNOT quote the first part of the chapter which is identical and parallell to the same Paul's statements about baptism in Colossians 2 and Romans 6.

Secondly, you are under obligation to make the FIRST move and point us to the DOCUMENTS where your statements are made. I will gladly do the same. I will perhaps show you that Augustine did not teach what you think that he did.

Do you agree with Augustine that ORIGINAL SIN is "contageoned" IF and only IF the mother enjoys the sex in which the doomed child is conceived. Do you RESTRAIN from "generation" UNLESS you are ready to hatch a child WITHOUT getting your wife aroused? And just in case she "slipped up" do you hustle to a priest to get water splashed on its HEAD before it is 8 days old. True Calvinists DO THAT. Therefore, THEY--like Catholics--are the only people in history who believe in and practice BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

Ken

Dear Ken,

Reformation History is what it is. To say that Martin Luther did not teach justification by faith alone is as nonsensical as saying that the Pope is not Catholic.

If Luther did not preach and teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone, would you please explain then why he inserted the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 in his translation? His version reads, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone apart from observing the law.”

Here Luther agreed that the words “faith alone” would not be found in a literal word for word translation of this passage. However he did argue that the context of this passage certainly does demand it.

Dennis DeVries, cofcdilemma.org

Paul ALWAYS contrasts THE LAW OF MOSES which led the Jews to believing in PREDESTINATION because they were HAND PICKED as opposed to THE FAITH which is the PRESCRIPTIONS of Jesus which insists that ANYONE who believes, repents, confesses and is BAPTIZED can receive A holy spirit by which they can approach God even without circumcision. When you preach THE FAITH or THE GOSPEL People who believe want to be baptized.

None of the scholarly authorities ever claim that one can be SAVED without obeying THE FAITH. FAITH is always contrasted with LAW. The Law of Moses does not PRESCRIBE baptism. Therefore, no literate church of Christ person ever claimed that baptism was THEIR work but their FAITH because FAITH includes the idea of OBEDIENCE. The exception is Zwingli who taught FAITH ONLY in 1525 BUT in the sense that BABIES did not have to be baptized to be saved. Therefore, Catholic baptism or was baptismal regeneration because it assumed that children were FOULED when Mom enjoyed their conception. That conclusion led to the LEAP TOO FAR that baptism for believers did not matter either.

Being baptized is the ultimate image of being saved by GRACE.

Dennis: If Luther did not preach and teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone, would you please explain then why he inserted the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in his translation? His version reads, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone apart from observing the law."

Luther, as does Paul, contrasts THE LAW OF MOSES with THE LAW OF FAITH. Luther wrote and Thomas Campbell stated about the same thing:

But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer:

It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely,


that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests.


Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life;


not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it.


Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend [get hold of] such a treasure?

You can read more of the ACTUAL Luther here:

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

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom 3:24

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom 3:25

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom 3:26

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith.Rom 3:27

Nomos (g3551) nom'-os; from a prim. nemo, (to parcel out, espec. FOOD or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of PRESCRIPTIVE usage), gen. (REGULATION), spec. (of Moses [includ. the volume]; also of the GOSPEL), or fig. (a principle): - law

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of THE LAW Rom 3:28

Baptism is NOT a deed of THE LAW OF MOSES although the creation, flood and th Red Sea are TYPES. However, PREDESTINATION is an article of FAITH among the ancient Jews.

The proof of the meaning of LAW by which the Jews believed they were justified when it was given BECAUSE of the musical idolatry transgression at Mount Sini is in verse 29:

Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Rom 3:29

Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Rom 3:30

This circumcision by faith is GRACE because we do not have to submit to a priest with a dull rock. Nor, do we have to FLASH our MARK in order to be in fellowship.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Col 2:11

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col 2:12

Baptism is the only FORM of the OPERATION OF GOD who raised Jesus from the dead. It would seem to deny baptism would make one an APISTOS which is a word Jesus used and which means "a traitor." The FAITH has nothing to do with us but BAPTISM trusts GOD'S OPERATION.

The law was NEVER given to save and THE LAW Paul is speaking of is THE LAW OF MOSES. The LAW of Faith proves that there is a PRESCRIPTIVE USAGE. Romans 3 continues:

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom 3:31

WHAT shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? Rom 4:1

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Gen 26:4

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Gen 26:5

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. Rom 4:2

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Rom 4:3

Paul rejects THE LAW OF MOSES as having any saving value. THE FAITH is the Law of prescription of Jesus which defines SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. In Ephesians that is defined as BY the process of baptism where the believer DOES NOTHING as works but SUBMITS himself into the hands of others to REQUEST A holy spirit or A good conscience or consiousness as GOD sprinkles our HEART or SPIRIT from an EVIL or AN UNholy spirit:

Wherefore THE LAW was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by FAITH. Gal 3:2

FAITH ONLY? Of course not: you cannot obey Christ without being BROUGHT to Christ. The TYPES of baptism and the TYPES of Christ's sacrifice and the ACTUAL cross is the ONLY bringing or DRAWING power.

Faith did not originate at Pentecost, but THE FAITH which is THE GOSPEL did. By looking at Romans 9 you can clearly see that the Jews believed that they were PREDESTINATED to be saved and COULD NOT be lost.

If the Gentiles can be saved by THE FAITH which is opposed to THE LAW OF MOSES then the JEWS have not yet been BROUGHT to Christ. Paul just STOPS. In Romans 9-11 he preaches a "synagogue sermon" disabusing the Jews of the notion of PREDESTINATION. In his examples Paul never uses ELECTION to mean a personal choice of God to send an individual to hell or heaven. Therefore, PREDESTINATION is a LAW BASED concept and not a FAITH BASED concept.

But after that FAITH is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal 3:25

WHAT: FOR ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:26

HOW: FOR as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:27

Luther again: For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands,

it is nevertheless truly God's own work.

From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do?

But here the devil is busy to delude us with false appearances, and lead us away from the work of God to our own works.

For there is a much more splendid appearance when a Carthusian does many great and difficult works and we all think much more of that which we do and merit ourselves. .

But insane reason will not regard this, and

because Baptism does not shine like the works which we do, it is to be esteemed as nothing.

Ken

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your for your response. Considering its length and the various topics that you covered, you must have spent a great deal of time on it.

However, my question was that if Luther did not believe in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, why would he bother to translate Romans 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone apart from observing the law."?

While no amount of evidence is ever enough for those who refuse to believe, here I have included a few more examples for the purpose of our discussion.

Dennis DeVries, cofcdilemma.org

“Note, then, whether Paul does not assert more vehemently that faith alone justifies than I do, although he does not use the word "alone" (sola) , which I have used. For he who says: Works do not justify, but faith justifies, certainly affirms more strongly that faith justifies than does he who says: Faith alone justifies... it is ridiculous enough to argue in this sophistical manner: Faith alone justifies; therefore the Holy Spirit does not justify. Or: The Spirit justifies; therefore not faith alone. For this is not what the dispute is about at this place. Rather the question is only about the relation of faith and works, whether anything is to be ascribed to works in justification. Since the apostle does not ascribe anything to them, he without a doubt ascribes all to faith alone.”3

Luther regarding sola fide in the Augsburg Confession:

“Of this article (sola fide) nothing may be yielded or conceded, though heaven and earth and whatever will not abide, fall to ruin, for "there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved," says St. Peter (Acts 4:12); "and with His stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). And on this article all that we teach and practice is based against the pope, the devil, and the world. That is why we must be very certain of this doctrine and not doubt; otherwise all is lost, and the pope and the devil and all things gain the victory over us and are adjudged right.”4

1. Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1950), p.375.
2. Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), P. 707.
3. Ibid., 707-8.
4. lbid.,717

However, my question was that if Luther did not believe in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, why would he bother to translate Romans 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone apart from observing the law."?

I was trying to point out that Luther was not equating faithful obedience to the law. By THE LAW he is speaking of the law of Moses. By FAITH he is speaking of the gospel. Baptism is by faith because it is the end result of preaching the GOSPEL (The Faith).

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Paul does not shift into a discussion of justification by including baptism as part of the LAW: he knows that baptism cannot be eleminated from the Gospel or THE faith. Therefore, he makes LAW clear:

Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision THROUGH faith.

The word THROUGH is not eis: eis means that we are baptized FOR or in order to ask God to give us A holy spirit. The word THROUGH means that it is ON THE PATH but is not the end of the road:

For, you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, Gal 3:26

for all of you who were baptized into [eis] Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Gal 3:27

Through is: dia, Through, the beginning of a line, 1. of motion in a line, from one end to the other, right through, in Hom. freq. of the effect of weapons

However EIS always means INTO or further on the road.

See Luther's discussion of the LAW and the GOSPEL

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

3. He starts in on this theme just before he reaches our text. And this is how it is he comes to speak in high terms of praise of the ministration of the Gospel and to contrast and compare the twofold ministration or message which may be proclaimed in the Church,

provided, of course, that God's Word is to be preached and not the nonsense of human falsehood and the doctrine of the devil.

One is that of the Old Testament, the other of the New; in other words, the office of Moses, or the Law, and the office of the Gospel of Christ.

He contrasts the glory and power of the latter with those of the former, which, it is true, is also the Word of God. In this manner he endeavors to defeat the teachings and pretensions of those seductive spirits who, as he but lately foretold,

pervert God"s Word, in that they greatly extol the Law of God, yet at best do not teach its right use, but, instead of making it tributary to faith in Christ, misuse it to teach work-righteousness.

Just like Luther I believe in FAITH ONLY: faith from beginning to the end. However faith is DIA or THROUG which means that it must have a beginning and and ending. The word EIS or FOR means IN ORDER to ENTER INTO Christ. Baptism continues the "flight of the FAITH arrow" until one gets to the END and INTO Christ. My goal is not to defend THE church of Christ as an institution. However, they hold the almost universal understanding of baptism without which there may be belief but no FAITH which trusts IN Christ.

Ken

Dear Ken,

In regards to our current discussion, for you to say ‘I believe in the doctrine of justification by faith alone’ is like me saying that ‘I believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.’

To be rather candid, as a “card carrying member” of the cofc, how can anyone take you seriously?

Tell me something: If tomorrow you were to announce to the cofc congregation in which you attend that you believe in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without giving some kind of in depth explanation of what you mean by “faith alone”, tell me, would you be able to continue there as a member in good standing?

Let’s use another example: In the last couple of e-mails you cited some great verses of Scripture that talk about the doctrine of justification alone.

So why was it that you saw the need to add all your commentary to these verses?

The reason is because without it, the verses don’t correspond at all with your message. In other words, on their own, these verses just don’t fit your theology at all.

In regards to your position that “justification by faith alone” means that “faith causes us to do ‘works of grace’ in order to get saved,” in Romans chapter 4 Paul gives us a very interesting question:

He asks ‘when was Abraham declared righteous? Before or after circumcision?’

Well, if we hold to your position that faith causes us to “do” certain things to get saved, we would say that he was declared righteous after he was circumcised.

But Paul says he was declared righteous “not after, but before” he was circumcised.

“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.”

So tell me, according to this verse, did Abraham receive “the sign of circumcision” in order to attain to righteousness, which is in accordance with your own theological position, or did he received the sign because it testified to the righteousness he already had by faith while still uncircumcised?

Dennis DeVries, cofcdilemma.org

Dennis, you have ignored everything I have tried to point out from the father of Sola Fida who with Calvin claims that faith only is fanatical.

He said and I said that the SUBJECT is not my belief but THE FAITH which is THE GOSPEL which is always contrasted the LAW OF MOSES. I have heard preachers claim to believe in FAITH ONLY if you grasp the simple fact that Paul speak of SPIRIT versus FLESH as FAITH versus THE LAW OF MOSES.

Paul DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the dogma that baptism is part of the LAW OF MOSES. You should grasp that Jesus preached baptism to become a disciple. Mark says that the BEGINNING Or MOST IMPORTANT PART of the gospel for we who cannot die for our own sins begins with the baptism of John and Jesus through His disciples.

So, you CANNOT make it stick that people who believe in baptism are practicing the LAW OF MOSES. When you preach THE FAITH or THE GOSPEL the ONLY response is to ask "what must I DO to be saved."

Ken

Dear Ken,

Herein lies the focal point of our debate and controversy.

Apparently, when you say that we are saved by “faith alone,” what you mean is that we are saved by being obedient to the entire body of truth of the Christian faith…and nothing else.

For example, you would say that if (the body of truth of) the Christian faith calls for us to hear, believe, repent, confess and be (water) baptized, and live a holy life, we can be saved if we “do” these things.

Nothing else will save.

This is what I meant on my web page when I say that the cofc has taken the Old Testament approach to salvation…

And applied it to the New Testament.

Moses describes this in the way the righteousness that is by the Old Testament (as Paul reminds us in Romans chapter 10), that “the man who does these things will live by them.”

And similarly, the cofc says that salvation in the New Testament works under the same principle, that if we “do” the things as commanded in the New Testament, we can be saved as well.

But continuing on in Romans 10, Paul says “the righteousness that is by faith” operates under a very different economy or principle.

He says in verse 6, “But the righteousness that is by faith says…that if you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Please understand then that justification by faith alone does not mean “salvation by simply believing the facts of the Christian faith.”

Rather, what justification by faith alone means is that God forgives the sinner on the basis that Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment for our sin we deserved at the cross.

By trusting Jesus as our sin substitute, God on a righteous basis forgives the sinner because the punishment for that sin has already been paid in full.

Jesus said, “Just as the Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

And,

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

Dennis DeVries, cofcdilemma.org

Dear Ken,

Herein lies the focal point of our debate and controversy.

Apparently, when you say that we are saved by “faith alone,” what you mean is that we are saved by being obedient to the entire body of truth of the Christian faith…and nothing else.

For example, you would say that if (the body of truth of) the Christian faith calls for us to hear, believe, repent, confess and be (water) baptized, and live a holy life, we can be saved if we “do” these things.

Nothing else will save.

This is what I meant on my web page when I say that the cofc has taken the Old Testament approach to salvation…

No, you are still just fabricating by LEAPING by faith: No one doubts that we are saved by God's Sovereign will who PROVIDED the MEANS of our salvation by the blood of Christ.

God in Christ MUST NOT be denied the power to be SOVEREIGN by defining HOW He will bestow salvation. Peter said that we REQUEST a cleansing at the time and place of Baptism.

The statement made by Jesus was:

He that believes AND is baptized SHALL be saved.

Jesus said that if you don't believe THAT statement along with other things then YOU are an Apistos. That word means that you are TREACHEROUS and cannot be saved.

Ken

Dear Ken,

Jesus said, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him. By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.”

What is Jesus talking about here?

I suggest to you that Jesus is talking about true, actual or Holy Spirit baptism, and not just water baptism we tend to think of in the cofc.

Please note in all 4 gospels, John the Baptist said that the medium he used for baptism was water, but the One who will come after him will baptize with (the medium of) the Holy Spirit.

John says, “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

The best way that I know how to explain baptism is that “water” baptism is the external symbol of the believer's true, real, or actual Holy Spirit baptism that the believer receives at conversion.

For example, in Acts chapter 11, please notice that Peter refers to this pouring out of the Holy Spirit as a baptism. He says, “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"

It was only after this event that Peter commanded them to be “baptized with water.”

Which brings up another question:

If baptism is first and only performed with the medium of water, why then did Peter have to say, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?”

Why didn’t he just say, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized?”

Anyway, I digress.

My point regarding Mark 16:16 is that if we believe the forgiveness of sin, being justified, being "born again" happens only through the ordinance of water baptism, then we would understand this verse as saying 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe (and/ or is not baptized) will be condemned.'

However, if we believe that actual baptism occurs when the believer comes to faith in Jesus Christ and that water baptism symbolizes or points us to the spiritual reality of true, actual or or Holy Spirit baptism, then we would understand this verse as saying 'He who believes and is (therefore) baptized will be saved. He who disbelieves will be condemned.'

Dennis DeVries, cofcdilemma.org

you ask who engedi is. i don't know if there have been any recent additions to their board but a few months ago it consisted of 5 men, all
members at smith springs:
danny hale, elder
carl conway, elder (and president of engedi)
abe goolsby, deacon
jason charlton, ?deacon
david lawrence, former pulpit minister.
is anyone else out there aware of any additions or deletions to this group?

There is another prominent associate with engedi, though we're not aware if he's in any official capacity: David Gaylor, who was another former minister at Smith Springs. He's spoken for some Engedi supporter banquets and his business, Gaylor Multimedia, produces mose of the audio products Engedi attempts to sell.

You realize that these folks are hoping that if they just ignore you, that you'll just disappear. Boy, are they mistaken!

That's very interesting because I've heard recently that Mr. Gaylor has retreated back to Smith Springs where he has placed his membership, once again. It appears that the tide is shifting in our brotherhood away from this calvinistic teaching, now that it has been identified for what it is, and there are few safe havens, possibly only one - Smith Springs - where this is so openly received, tolerated, or promoted.

But he's not the only member of this network who depends on Churches of Christ for their livlihood. Another member there, and a former elder at the time who apparently was one of the elders who sanctioned this teaching into that congregation is David Goolsby. He is a very prominent leader in the Healing Hands organization, and travels the world over as a representative of our churches, while he clandestinely supports this ministry of false teaching, and his son even serves on their board and is an occasional web-page writer for this Engedi reformed sect.

How's that for a wolf in sheep's clothing?

This is truly an outrage. This situation is analagous to what was occurring in this country a couple of years back: a few Iraqi-s were working here and making money which they were sending back to some of their terrorist friends to help support efforts to harm our American soldiers. What happened to them? Most were arrested!

This is one of the boldest betrayals I have ever heard of by brothers Gaylor, Goolsby, and Lawrence. This would not be tolerated in any other situation I know of. What has happened to our fellowship?

Well Dr. Lawrence (a Lipscomb professor) recently completed a series in his devotionals on the web page for Engedi. He started his ramblings on Spiritual Gifts on 01.24.05 with this daring statement:
"First there is no indication from Scripture that God has ceased to give these special gifts to his people. Not only is there every indication from the Bible, but the evidence of spiritual gifts in the lives of Christmas is very obvious."

Now anyone with even a marginal understanding of how spiritual gifts were transferred during New Testament times would know that even a heathen sorcerer named Simon, in the book of Acts, could recognize that these special gifts were transferred by the laying on of hands by an apostle. So who are the apostles in this day who are able to do such?

Also anyone with a marginal understanding of the teachings of the Church of Christ would understand how confrontational and argumentative Lawrence's theories are. Which brings us to his devotional from this past week (04.11.05) where he meekly says that "Christian theology is...never an excuse to enter into confrontation and argument." In debate class we called these inconsistent messages as speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Don't you think, if parents had wanted for their young adults to be taught such things at an institute of higher learning that they would have chosen Oral Roberts University instead of Lipscomb University?

Apparently Dr. Lawrence includes the playing of musical instruments in worship services as one of the God-given spiritual gifts he refers to.
One of our elders has a copy of a letter that Lawrence sent to a church leader several months ago asking how long it would be before they could begin using guitars in the Sunday evening services at Smith Springs. I have also seen this letter myself and there is no evidence that it is a forgery.

On your adjacent site regarding Smith Springs we read where Lipscomb's Dr. Lawrence considers many of our hymns to be too self-focused. His particular thorn seems to be "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus." As we sang "Balm In Gilead" yesterday I realized that he probably finds this song also very offensive since it has the line "you can tell the love of Jesus and say he died for all". This is in stark contrast to one of the 5 basic Calvinistic point he continually attempts to defend, i.e. limited atonement, which teaches that Jesus in fact did NOT die for everyone, but only for the chosen.

It also recently dawned on us that many of the new praise songs are also very self-focused. One comes to mind with the final line "you took the fall and thought of ME above all."

If we let the professor edit the next hymnal it will probably have a striking resemblance to a Presbyterian hymnal, would it not?

On his engedi devotional this week D.Lawrence continues to try to build the case for total depravity. He still insists that Jesus teaches that we are born wicked.

Undoubtedly he must refuse to sing most of our invitation hymns. How can anyone "Come To Jesus" or "Why not come to Him Now" if indeed only the "chosen" ones can even hear the invitation? Certainly the very concept of having the capacity to even respond is considered heresy
by hard-core Calvinists like himself. Isn't the idea of extending an invitation a moot point? If an individual is moved by God to respond then why is a silly little song even needed?

We asked a couple who left smith springs earlier this year what these reformists do during most of the invitation songs. They said that the engedi element frequently look to see if dr. david is participating in the singing and they simply follow suit with his activity. Doesn't that sound like puppet behavior?

We also asked why those people insist on staying in a church of christ if they are so discontented with the theology. The answer we got was very interesting:
"Follow the money." That may be the sad but true reality.

It's been a while since I have visited the website and I am very disappointed in the amount of inactivity going on here. Have we lost our steam folks? We really need to step up the gossip mill and get more juicy information! Remember, we don't care who is getting hurt in the process. Nevermind the fact that each congregation is autonomous and that we should not have any say so in what they believe or teach. Who cares if 99.9% of the folks in the churches of Christ think we are blowing steam? We are doing the Lord's work; gossiping, back biting, slandering, tearing down the body of Christ, hating our brother, etc. AND we are (or were) doing a good job at it.

Let's stack it up and get back to work!

READYYYYYYYYYYYY, BREAK!

If you falsely assume that AUTONOMOUS somehow equates with a license to teach whatever error you decide is Truth then surely you consider a great deal of the rebukes in Paul's epistles to be mere gossip for daring to criticize those self-governed churches and their teachings. Moreover John must just be engaging in shameful back-biting in Revelation's first 3 chapters.

Attempting to infiltrate ancient Presbyterian dogma into other autonomous congregations in the churches of Christ certainly seems a bit paradoxical, don't you think. And if you don't think that has been a primary focus of the agenda - oops, sorry, they insist that they don't have any agenda - of TEAM ENGEDI then you are TERRIBLY naive.

Trust us, no steam has been lost, just possibly redirected, for a season.

Mr. Pep Rally's observations are ironic indeed. Do you mean to imply that the Reformer change-agents are concerned now, finally, about how people may get hurt over all of this? Almost 2 years ago, way back on 8/23/03, a responder on the adjacent Sm>Springs window here, who is or was a member wrote that "almost half the members of Smith Springs are now gone" and that when this explanation of predesination was taught "it caused a great rift and sorrow for some families." It seems like those poor families main mistake was to have been non-Calvinists attending what they mistakenly assumed, by the sign in the front of the building, to be a Church of Christ. Maybe that's why your sarcastic note [that "we (at concerned members) don't care who is getting hurt in the process."] doesn't seem to carry any weight at this point in time.

Secondly, if a key premise of Reformed theology is correct (that God causes everything that happens) then you apparently haven't learned one of the key lessons that Hale & Lawrence see in the book of Job: God never changes & he acts now just the way he did under the old covenant. You need to just grace-fully grit your teeth and accept the fact that GOD is the one who is intentionally withholding compassion from these people so they will continue to be prompted to log onto this page and reveal their reality, which you want to label as gossip. It is not your place to question why it is God's express will for all of these people to be hurt, is it?
Also, we must logically conclude (using reformed logic, of course) that for some reason God, the Potter, is getting pleasure by keeping righteousness out of reach of those lumps of clay and thereby causing all of this confusion.

Finally, steam power is only one type of power that can be used in these type situations.

{and P.S., thanks for letting all of us know that God still forces you, from time to time, to let your curiosity get the best of you & prompt you to investigate what is transpiring here at concerned members.com.}

If PEP RALLY wants to throw around some high percentages here's another one: Probably 99.9% of people who've claimed affiliation with churches of Christ for generations, including key early restoration leaders like the Campbells' who studied their way right out of the Presbyterian teachings, consider Calvin's TULIP teaching (which Engedi attempts to defend with the same tired arguments and misuse of scripture) to be hogwash and a significant misrepresentation of a freewill acknowledgment of Jesus' personal sacrifice for them and is a significant misrepresentation of God and his alleged creation of most people just to intentionally send to hell to satisfy his so-called system of divine justice.

As I reflect on calvinists in our midst reverting back to those ancient heresies a couple of passages come to mind. First, in Numbers 11:18 as Moses relates a few errant Israelites murmuring that "we were better off in Egypt." Also Peter's words in II Peter 2:22 it refers to a "sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

This seems to be the very thing that these folks, raised in the Church, are attempting to do. They want to take us all back to the mud hole in Egypt. That's a shame.

It is really quite painful to try to listen to Engedi's explanation of I John 2:2. Their explanation is just as flimsy as the one they attempt to use for John 3:16. While Paul in Romans is their pet verses, John seems to the the biggest nemesis of their beliefs. In time, as it always has happened, the holes in Calvins thinking will be made manifest.

I heard a song this past Sunday morning which reminded me of Dr. Lawrence's tunnel-vision in regard to the poetic language used in many songs. As we sang "To the old rugged cross I will ever be true, it's shame and reproach gladly bear", I realized that Lawrence's similiar claims could be made of this old beloved hymn. "How dare anyone make such an arrogant claim! It's like Peter-he learned to not make such statements didn't he!" (this was the gist of his comments against the song I HAVE DECIDED TO FOLLOW JESUS where it says "though none go with me I still will follow")

It shows quite a misunderstanding of lyrics that even a musical novice would understand: Songs lyrics often present the ideal to which one would strive and not the absolute reality. Whether it's Dolly Parton singing "I will always love you" or another country song out 20 years ago in which the singer says his love will last "until the sun doesn't shine, 'til time stands still, until the wind don't blow...I'll still be loving you."

That is how poetic language often expresses things and most 12 year olds realize this.

And regarding his analogy that God doesn't necessarily condemn people to hell, he just chooses not to give them light (Dr. L phrases it this way "What is darkness? It is merely the absence of light.") Before he takes THAT analogy much further he needs to seriously read John 3:16-19, don't you think!

your sister website (ENGEDI MINISTRIES EXPOSED) has done a good job of telling things like they are regarding the more than casual relation between these two organizations.

is any of this related to why president flatt has resigned?

another eerie connection: my brother is almost positive that this danny hale was one of his chemistry teachers at lipscomb years ago. just another connection of this presbyterian doctrine to this church of christ school.

Engedi is a "wing" of Piney.com and was put together as a result of Smith Spring's problem. Someone suggested that I add the EXPOSED. Sorry, I have not kept up with it too well.

A moneyed leader of a health care company was on the board when some of these problems began. I can remember discussions with him about instrumental music and it was clear that he had no convictions although he was a deacon in a church I attended. I am certain that he would have at least permitted the hostile takeover of Calvinists eta. When the head of the Bible department got caught in an affair with another man Lipscomb had to let him go to protect their income. He was hired, as I remember it, to be the chaplin for this health care organization. The corporation is still represented on the board and he, too, has presided while the university was consumed by false teachers who are truly about Biblically illiterate.

Suddenly and with no apparent advanced warning Steve Flatt--an operative of the Jubilee corporation which more discord than any other single group other than Standard--left LU and so suddenly that there was no time to get a replacement. I have no knowledge but I suspect that the APOSTASY has hit the U in the "old widow's will" department because assuredly the young "singy-clappy" people will never pay their dues.

He was hired by the same official of the health care organization who has his own moral problems with his church.

The ex president is back in temporary saddle and I believe the defection began under him. A leading light in the church in Nashville noted that he thought that the future of the college rested in trained athletes more than trained preachers. Of course, by now, I don't see how a preacher trained at Lipscomb could find a job outside of the defected.

Makes sense that Danny would have been part of the plan where the PCA works closely as CAMPUS MINISTERS (without portfolio) and loves "community churches" which obviously have no moral or religious foundations to keep them from being infiltrated and diverted. Some of the troublers in Zion have signed the new A Christian Affirmation by college professors joining a FEW professors who have cowered in the cloak room while their "junior" staff have done an end run and, I believe, by closs association with the leaders and CLEARLY NOT because Phd means "bible student."

http://www.christianaffirmation.org/

Ken

Wait, the head of Lipscomb's bible department was having an affair with another man? Do you have documentation of this and the other assertions you're making?

There was another John over on the Granny White thread: check on that one.

I'm the John from that thread and no names were ever given. No proof was ever shown. The comments made there are still gossip and if untrue, slander.

No repentence was given. The standard still remains.

As I compared the Engedi Ministries Homepage with the warnings at Engedi Ministries Exposed I had a real sense of deja vu. I was curious if the Exposed link was exaggerating its claims of some Smith Spring's leaders strong association with the PCA branch of the Presbyterian church. Sure enough, the Engedi classes this fall are being taught by a Presby. PCA Pastor! Engedi's homepage synopsis says that Pastor D. Filson, of the Good Shepherd Presby. church in Bellvue Tenn. will be teaching this fall's series on Christian hymns.

The subject is to include analysis of songs by Saint Augustine, John Calvin, Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards (ALL predestination-ists). The study, it says, is designed to 'stimulate a love for solid theology' and deals with 'music that brims with theology'. I guess they mean it overflows with Calvinism, don't you guess?

What is noticably missing from the discussion? ANY songs written by any of our brethren in the churches of Christ, though that is where you'll find every single Engedi leader on Sunday mornings! It's interesting that men like Bro. L.O.Sanderson and Tillet S. Teddlie don't even get honorable-mention status. I guess the song BE WITH ME LORD must be too shallow, theologically, or maybe it's just too humanistic in its theme.

Come on Engedi guys, get real and be honest with YOURSELVES for a change.

I keep asking ANY body to point out any INDIVIDUAL who is ever said to be predestinated to heaven or hell. The fact is they cannot and will not. God predestinated that the Jewish remnant who had not rejected God and His Word and who FEARED GOD and WORKED RIGHTEOUSNESS to be elected or invited into the kingdom of God. Furthermore, God always predestinated that the Gentiles be part of His family.

God told Peter that he should not call any person UNCLEAN. That means that a Gentile who was a God fearer and WORKED righteousness WAS righteous. Now, Calvinists confuse Justification and regeneration. After the time of Christ any person who lived right and had FAITH is said to be justified. That does not mean SAVED and it does not mean that the person has been washed of sins and added to the church. It simply meant that they were NOT IMPURE because they had not been circumcised and kept the law.

Those righteous people who believed and obeyed the gospel were then saved without becoming a Jew.

Now, no one can point out an INDIVIDUAL who was predestinated to heaven or hell, so we ask HOW do people KNOW that they have been predestinated. Because they obviously have no love for the Word of God it is possible that He has sent them a strong delusion so that they believe a lie and are damned. I believe that is what happens.

However, in classic Calvinism, the PROOF of predestination is WORLDLY SUCCESS. Rich or famous.

However, God said that the DESTITUTE are the ELECT. How do we reconcile the rejection of the evidence? Perhaps it can be solved by understanding that predestination is God's GOAL for all of us and that ELECTION means INVITED.

If predestination is a FACT then unless you are rummaging garbage cans to live then you are NOT part of the ELECT. Hope you find some half-rotted carrots today.

Peter outlawed FURTHER EXPOUNDING: if we do that we are blinded and the MARK is that we pick isolated verses and have no respect for the context. This is why God in Christ ordained that CHURCH to do nothing but READ or SING the Word "as it has been taught." Only then does this RESPECT of God let us see the context.

THE ELECT ARE THE CHURCH OR ASSEMBLY

Eklektos (g1588) means favorite or select.

The ONLY evidence of being of the select few has been MATERIAL SUCCESS. This is the meaning of Pseudo-Calvinism:

Partial humans are EVIL people:

Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Jas 2:4

However, God then just PREDESTINATES the POOR:

Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? Ja.2:5

Did God then FORCE only the POOR to have faith and love Him?

But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? James 2:6

You will notice that the CONTRAST is between being CHOSEN and being DESPISED.

Unless you are poor you are not the ELECT if you believe Calvinists:

Ptochos (g4434) pto-khos'; from ptosso, (to crouch; akin to 4422 and the alt. of 4098); a beggar (as cringing), i.e. pauper (strictly denoting absolute or public mendicancy, although also used in a qualified or relative sense; whereas 3993 prop. means only straitened circumstances in private), lit. (often as noun) or fig. (distressed): - beggar (-ly), poor

The only CLAIM on any person's CONTRIBUTION are these poor:

For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. Ro.15:26

If you believe in the ELECTION AND you take money from widows and honest workers then GOD marks you as CHOSEN FOR HELL. That is what Paul said: If he even used the pressure of his presence it would EXTORT more money and Paul lumped that with fornicators.

I suggest that the Calvinists SELL all they own, give it to the poor and the KNOW only Christ and Him crucified by going out and preaching.

If you arrogantly believe that God has PREDESTINATED you in the Calvinist sense then the ONLY PROOF is that you are RICH or FAMOUS or successful in your field. Being poor or ignorant or ugly is the MARK that God had not saved you.

Either DESTITUTE of food or DESTITUTE of arrogance are those MARKED as suitable for the kingdom of God.

Jesus repudiated the DOCTORS OF THE LAW because they TAKE AWAY THE KEY TO KNOWLEDGE: why else would they be on the DOLE trafficking in the FREE WATER OF THE WORD CONTAMINATED BY THEOLOGY? If you can totally ignore ALL of the context where NOT A JOT OR TITTLE supports the horrors of PREDESTINATION which nevertheless lets uneducated people PREACH the "gospel" that ANY person was ever CHOSEN for HEAVEN or HELL, THEN you must conclude that NO person who can wag his fingers and fling his hands and live on the backs of widows CAN POSSIBLY be predestinated to HEAVEN.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matt 5:3
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Matt 5:4
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matt 5:5
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Matt 5:6

You cannot WAIL in singing and playing CLAIMING to "lead the worshipers into the presence of God" and be nothing but a pock full of prideful puss. Poor in "worship" means falling on your face as a dog licks its master's feet. Here you are:

Ptochos (g4434) pto-khos'; from ptosso, (to crouch; akin to 4422 and the alt. of 4098); a beggar (as cringing), i.e. pauper (strictly denoting absolute or public mendicancy, although also used in a qualified or relative sense; whereas 3993 prop. means only straitened circumstances in private), lit. (often as noun) or fig. (distressed): - beggar (-ly), poor

And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: Mark 12: 32

And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. Mark 12: 33

Modern religionism where WORSHIP in a ritual sense is its mantra is a SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM. You consider your pastor a priest, the "musicians" as Levitical musicians, the Lord's Supper as magical, and singing several songs and offering prayers as your SACRIFICE for the week.

Modern religionism which has NO CONNECTION to historic Christianity is fueled by theologians who want to get rich and see godliness as a means of financial gain: that does not mean GREEDY; it means see religionism as OCCUPATION.

And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question. Mark 12: 34

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? Mark 12: 35

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Mark 12: 36

David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. Mark 12: 37

Here is another CLASS which EXCLUDES anyone who believes they can TRUMP the simply-taught Word of God as SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE.

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

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

Professionals have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST: some of the PREDESTINATORS on this forum know that if they confess ANY deviation to the HUMAN CREED they will be fired AGAIN. Modern churches ARE NOT, CANNOT BE the Ekklesia, synagogue or SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE Jesus died to give us as REST from "spiritual anxiety created by religious rituals."

Jesus took away the keys of the Jewish clergy because they "took away the key to knowledge." The key given to Peter and the apostles was to go, teach, baptize, teach.

And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes (book writers), which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the market places, Mark 12: 38

YOUR church is an AGORA and I claim that there is NOT ONE SINGLE EXCEPTION:

And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? Luke 7:31
They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. Luke 7:32

These "children" led the CHOROS who attracted customers in the AGORA which was ANOTHER of the forums where they sold EVERYTHING.
YOUR CHURCH IS AN AGORA. The marketplace or Agora was also a gathering place for people selling sermons, songs, dances and sex. Jesus compared these people to the children "chorus leaders" who performed the fertility rituals of funeral and wedding.
Therefore, those who believe that they can seduce the Holy Spirit believe that they can seduce Lord Jesus Christ Who is the Spirit or Mind of God, believe, like the Jews, that perhaps Jesus can be seduced into the Dionysus dance and song or that John might wear the "soft" clothing of the king's male concubine: a catamite.

And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Mark 12: 39

Which devour widows houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. Mark 12: 40

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. Mark 12: 41

Therefore, Jesus would utterly condemn those who use COMMAND AUTHORITY to reimpose the temple tax or to force widows to tithe or confiscate her house by getting her to "pledge" it and take it away from her heirs just to build a new temple of doom.

Gazophulakion (g1049) gad-zof-oo-lak'-ee-on; from 1047 and 5438; a treasure-house, i.e. a court in the temple for the collection-boxes: - treasury

Contrary to those who make up their own doctrine and essential practices, Jesus did not command the elders to "take the houses of widows" by getting them to donate it to them in their will. Rather, the leaders were "devouring the widows houses" meaning livelihood by taking her mite. And yet, she was the only true giver:

And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. Mark 12: 42

And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: Mark 12: 43

For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. Mark 12: 44

The POOR sacrificial WIDOW has INFINITELY MORE VALUE than the claim of Towers of Babbling that THEY can facilitate worship in houses made by human hands. They can wave and clap their hands and worship WITH the works of human hands. ALL of it is to tell God in Christ that YOU ARE A LIAR.

Jesus didn't command widows to give their last penny: He ridiculed the self-righteous who get 'written up' for their contribution--but they give for the rich and rarely for the poor.

The widow had Christ's approval but the facts seem to say: "Woe to those who accept the widow's mite."

AND as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here Mark 13:1

And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Mark 13:2

People who have gotten involved in some of the Calvinist [some neo-Calvinist churches of Christ where Jubilee was for the atonement] systems find out quickly that they are trapped. The PREACHERS FOR PAY cannot prove one jot or tittle of the heresy. However, they keep repeating the scam and claiming that IN TIME it will be revealed to you.

By claiming that their God BURNS INNOCENT BABIES they exercise a CULT MIND CONTROL OVER PEOPLE. if you want that kiddo NOT to burn you will pay your dues, attend church and get that critter splashed with water by God's WATER SPLASHER AGENT.

Willow Creek, Saddle Back or the Purpose Driven Cult AND YOUR CHURCH uses MARKETING to attract the RICH people who can help you pay for that THEATER FOR HOLY ENTERTAINMENT.

Only the DESTITUTE in mind and body are PROVEN to be chosen for favor. However, God choosing some for FAVOR did not mean that he FORCED an Esau to be PROFANE.

In an attempt to give accurate information, and not to embelish the situation I'm asking you (Ken S.) to make the following corrections to the ENGEDI MINISTRIES EXPOSED thread: 1. The elder and Engedi financial backer in question is DANNY Hale, and not DAVID Hale, as listed. + 2. Instead of referring to Smith Springs as ENGEDI RUN it would be more accurate to say that it is ENGEDI DOMINATED [if this seems too strong to some people I simply ask how many church leaders (elders, deacons, and ministers) receive the regular Engedi e-mails or support Engedi financially; once this is acknowledged I doubt that the word DOMINATED would seem too strong.] If possible, would you please make these changes?

I fixed it: sorry about that.

Of late there have been several participants pointing out the many links between the Presbyterian church and this Engedi. Here seems to be another. I went to a search engine and typed in "Dr. David Lawrence, Engedi Ministries". One of the hits was from the Hopewell Presbyterian denominational church near Columbia TN.
It's as follows:

"THE PRESBYTERIAN CIRCUT [sic] home previous next up. Engedi Ministries. MANY of the contributions on this page are by Dr. DAVID LAWRENCE, a dear brother in the Lord...hifo.net/hopewell..."

Isn't one way to see this Lipscomb professor like that famous candy:
Church of Christ on the outside; Presbyterian on the inside?

Wright,
Do you attend Smith Springs? I am sure you do not. How is any ofthis your business?

As fellow members in the Churches of Christ with a common belief about our salvation, it is the concern of all of us that members of the Smith Springs Congregation profess one thing on the sign in front of the building then teach otherwise within their classrooms.
As to Dr. Lawrence; does it not seem at all hypocritical to you that one would espouse membership to an organization but yet not share its beliefs and even speak out against that same organization. What does that indicate about a person's integrity or lack there of. If Dr. Lawrence and "his followers" do not agree with the Churches of Christ, why do they not simply move their worship to a congregation that shares their beliefs (interpretation of scripture)? This simple question has yet to be answered, at all, in defense of Dr. Lawrence and his group. Why does he maintain membership with the Churches of Christ? What good has come of his actions? Quite frankly, it seems that the purpose for staying at Smith Springs is to cause discord and disharmony within the congregation. How has Smith Springs been blessed by what they have done? I would sincerely like to know the answers to these questions. How is the church thriving now? With all that has happened at Smith Springs these last few years including the very ungodly behavior of its leaders, I find it hard to believe that its efforts have God's blessings. I offer this thought... there is a common phrase about church growth - "if you aren't growing, you're dying". Smith Springs seems to be dying.
By the way, I am a former member of SS who felt that the need to remain true to my faith and my beliefs concerning my salvation outweighed the need to remain with congregation that no longer adhered to the same.

With all this Engedi has been doing since its inception (i.e. Elder Hale's awakening[?] a few years back, which he feels was prompted by God Himself, that led him to believe that the Churches of Christ had most of their core theology wrong) to pro-actively spread its divisive beliefs to members in other sister congregations, including other elders and ministers, MW you can't seriously believe this is just a Smith Springs issue and try to hide behind the old autonomous argument,can you? Do you not receive their e-mail devotional to see how they consistently berate all other Churches of Christ beliefs week in and week out?

Yes, that is a valid argument. It's valid because that's what Jesus taught. Be concerned with your own self and let God take care of others. No, I do not receive any devotionals.

So, it was Jesus who taught that unchosen babies that God kills (since He causes all that happens) with crib death are sent straight to hell, at the Potter's discrecion?

And Jesus said "Behold I stand at the door and knock it down if I graciously chose your house, or at least someone in your house; I cannot be refused!"

I'll be right back, I've got to go cut those erroneous red-letter words from my Bible that talk about Jerusalem, Jerusalem...how I longed to gather you as a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.

Here's one example of probably 6741 reasons why this has been forced to become the business of other congregations: One of the families at my sister's church in Alabama sent their 18 year-old off to Lipscomb. He spent several months abroad one semester at their satellite campus in Austria. One of the hosts faculty members that year was Dr. Lawrence. Little did that family realize that it would prove to be an extended, careful indoctrination into the world of John Calvin, Luther and the Reformation Movement. This wouldn't have been so damaging if not for the fact that it was carefully done in a way that cast our own Restoration Movement in such a negative light. It's still the same: just look on the Engedi page at the thread under TOPICS called Restoration or Reformation.

The results was that this student was coached into believing that many basic beliefs of his family and church family - men being free moral agents, babies not being born with inherited sin from Adam, that baptism is for the remission of sins - were shallow and basically unbiblical. To this day it is nearly impossible for his family to discuss these matters with him without arguments erupting. In addition, their son has placed his membership at a local PCA Presbyterian Church. That family often asks "Is this what we get for all of that pricy tuition? Who else has this type of thing happened to?"

So you tell me, MW, that this does not impact other churches. You are sadly mistaken.

Who's choice was it to believe Dr. Lawrence? The boy now has the "God of his understanding", not his parents.

The boy actually has the "God of Dr. Lawrence's understanding." Everybody should have the "God of God's understanding." The Bible isn't hard to understand. It was written on a 5th grade reading level.

and i think we know the circumstances that led to that choice dont we.

mw, your responses speak volumes with very few words.
since you may not be familiar with lawrences' quasi-slanderous accusations against the fellowship that he needs to help pay his salary please take a sec and go back to the nov. 11-2004, 12:22 response on here to help get you up to speed > (ill wait)

you probly didn't mean to, but you clearly showed your colors that are so common with the ugly gnostic arrogance so common with the calvinoids: 'were right because God chose us to get these deep mysteries. you + your parents + everyone who thinks like them are just wrong. you can be like us and choose to understand God right if youll just let us have you for a while.'(now that doesnt appeal to a teenagers ego does it, and wheres the focus there? me & us.)

friend, youre equating Dr.L's spin on scripture and his inter. of passages with God's knowledge. youre saying that only those who see it L's way are the only ones who see it Jesus & Gods way! its in your nov.1 response.
and L has the nerve to call other groups cultish!!!!!!!!! apparently by your reasoning the only family acceptible to God is the old reformed family.

youve certainly kept one thing - not a pretty one - from the old cofC mentality >>you think youre the only ones going to heaven because only your type understand Gods deep truths<< wow youre right back where you started.
and i'm supposed to be blessed by this new paradigm for grace. no thanks.

Interesting that you refer to the college age pupil as a "boy." MW if you have children I pray that some day something like this will happen to one of them so you can grasp what this scenario feels like.

Maybe you'll send them off to a Reformed university some day only to realize too late that the professor for their marketing class had become disenchanted with his core theology (but chose to stay on at that school) since it logically followed that his father's life long struggle with alcohol was due to the fact that God chose for him to not be able to escape such a horrible fate. So maybe that professor, in his quest for a God more compatable with the Word, goes and arrives at the exact conclusions that the once-Reformed men like Alexander and Thomas Campbell wrestled with generations ago. And furthermore, he convinces YOUR 'BOY" that you and your families beliefs are invalid. Will you be equally excited about him finding the "God of his understanding"?

Then and only then, will you be able to understand all of this divisiveness that has transpired over the past several months.

I have never seen people that are suppose to be Christians filled with so much hate for one who disagrees with your understanding. I fill sorry that you do not have the "joy of the Lord" promised. Why would this young man or anyone else ever want to part of you group?

So your solution to this unchristian activity would be to join the Presbyterian group? If you'll check your Yellow Pages you may be disappointed. Those guys have split into at least 3 different groups already: Cumberland, PCA, and USA. Why do you think that so many people who leave that denomination refer to them as 'the chosen and the frozen'?
If you want to hear some real unkind language you should read some of the Baptist writings from 50-60 years ago when these Reformed notions were driven from their denomination (except for a few small Primitive Baptist congregations left out there.)
Have you never read any of Martin Luther's rabid rantings against his brethren in the Catholic church? Why would any of these fellows serve as models for how to treat brethren in a loving Christian way?

And just a follow-up to I.W.'s entry: MW, do you have any children? (and do you attend at Smith Springs now?)

Your bias towards Mr. Lawrence and support of his actions seem obvious from your Nov. 8 message. I reference "people that are suppose to be Christians filled with so much hate for one who disagrees with your understanding..."
You don't honestly think that teaching children doctrine that conflicts with the teachings of the Church of Christ and their parents behind the parents' backs constitutes an act of love, do you. I wish you would answer that question? Is tearing a congregation apart and causing discord an act of love? Calling attention to Mr. Lawrence's total disregard for others does not mean he is hated. Mr. Lawrence has hurt a lot of people but for some reason you continue to gloss over his sinful actions. He can believe what he wants. I don't have a problem with that. After all, he does have freedom of choice! I just don't agree that he has a right or duty to do what he has done. As to what he has done, I don't hate him. I do think he lacks integrity and honor. His actions speak for themselves. Now, how do you excuse what he has done? Why didn't he just simply go to a congregation that adheres to his beliefs?

MW, please know that you may be the answer to many prayers in recent months. There is a group that has been faithfully beseeching the Lord for someone from SS who will realize just
how bad their reputation has become in order to warn the leaders of the dire circumstance they have placed you in.
Maybe God has called YOU for such a time as this.

I have read this stuff for several months. I attend Smith Springs. Until now I have resisted the urge to respond. NO not all within the congregation agree with the position that Dr Lawrence holds on these issues. Yes, we do respect him because he is a knowledgable man. Yes we also respect Bro. Hale and may also disagree with his position at times on BIBLICAL topics. Our members respect each other as being able to agree to disagree but love each other all the same. We have 6 elders. They range from hard core traditional to hardcore reform yet they work together in their goal of blessing the members of Smith Springs AND the poeople within the community that we have been placed to serve God. In other words, while their individual understanding of scripture may vary their love for the people and the Lord is their primary concern. As I read scripture, there were disagreements among church people then as now but they never seem to tag each other as the enemy. We at Smith Springs are NOT the enemy. I have a hard time viewing Dr. Lawrence as the enemy. Satan is the enemy. Let's spend our time attacking Satan and not one another. Let me close with a concept from a line in the old movie RUDY. "There is a God and I'm not him"...and I would venture to guess....neither are you.

I will NOT condem a single one who has written anything against us at Smith Springs, not because I agree or disagree but because I fail to see value in bashing my brothers.

Walk with God my brothers.

I think it is great that everybody who remained at Smith Springs agrees to disagree. I do wonder about one thing and how you handle it. When you have visitors who are looking for a church home, do the elders visit with them and explain to them your church's position on teaching opposing doctrines? Is is explained that one teacher will teach predestination and salvation for the chosen and another will teach baptism by immersion and free will...; That each person decides for themselves what their belief will be. And, if all teachers chosen to teach are still those who subscribe to the Calvinist beliefs, how can the individual truly make a balanced informed decision about what the scriptures say? I'm not trying to be confrontational. Please don't think that. I'm just curious how Smith Springs handles that. since Smith Springs, from what you said, does not have a unified stance on the interpretation of scripture.

J.L.you've done a really good job of paying due homage to THE popular god of this post modern age: DiVeRsItY. i'm ok, youre ok right? If youre going to be that diverse <and thats ok of course> at least have the common decency to identify yourself as some variant of a community church like they did down in Hendersonville Tn a few years back.
since we are blessed with religious freedom in the u.s.a. why do the engedi assaults against other Churches of Christ have to originate from individuals disguising themselves as being part of a Church of Christ? even the secular world practices more honest truth in labeling than this. the guys at the cut rate gas stations don't attempt to put exxon labels on their pumps. even a politician, as questionable as they can behave, when they have a radical shift in philosophy will indicate to their consituents a change in party affiliation. its just the minimum of the right things to do.

since you say you have been keeping up with this page for some time surely you are aware that the ATTACKING you mention was instigated <and continues> by specific statements from your mr. lawrence. the documentable evidence is clear that HE <along with backing from influential elders and deacons from your church> began this BROTHER BASHING by professing that the theology of the traditional Church of Christ was a type of deplorable humanistic heresy, cultic, legalistic, evil, stealing glory from God while also stealing assurance from the predestined people, contradictory to <his personal non-diverse interpretation of > the Bible, and on & on it goes. check out his devotional 10.24.05. isnt the bottom line that if you dont believe their I&P of the TULIP doctrine (once saved always saved) that you automatically are left with a 'dismal, hopeless theology?'
well since you speak of ENEMIES, with friends like this, who needs 'em? HIS derogatory TAGS are what began this regretable cascade of responses!

maybe your more conservative elders have an alternate webpage out here somewhere where they are attempting to add balance and diversity by attempting to similiarly defame hard core calvinism. could you furnish us with those web addresses please?

this mess is like at a basketball game where the ref misses seeing the initial infraction and calls a foul instead on the second player who was simply retaliating out of frustration. J.L. please don't forget who started throwing their knowledgable elbows first & don't confuse diversity with divisiveness.

Don't forget our other priorities, acceptance and toleranace.

What a powerful message it would send to the community to also have an elder who was hardcore Mormon, hardcore Catholic, and hardcore Jehovah's Witness as well as the hardcore Reformed presbyterian.

JL
This is an ugly place. Best not to read this hatred very often.

If someone disagrees with you, you call it hate. Yet, I think I see the venom coming from your words. Question your own heart, first.

If you think what's written here is just disagreement, you
have a serious problem.

JL, your cohort MW could certainly learn a lesson from you on tolerance. (MW's version of 'agree to disagree' sounds more like 'my way or the highway', with a few ugly labels thrown in for good measure.

Also MW has lacked the courage so far to respond to a single specific question he's been presented with. Is he truly interested in dialogue and another perspective or merely sending up a smoke screen when things hit a little too close to home?

JL do you at least see how this whole episode can have a significantly different tone to some other sincere brothers who may have had a different set of circumstances in their spiritual walk? Most readers should be able to discern between exasperation and 'ugly hatred.'

Well let me first say this. In reletive terms I am a new christian. For too many years in my entire family and my personal life the only way God was involved was to invoke his name in vain or reject the good that he had done for me through his Son. It took a major face slap for me to realize what was missing in my life was a relationship with God. So with that said I confess to all that I am not the most knowledgeable person on scripture and book, chaper and verse. I freely admit that I have many many many miles to go in my walk to be as knowledgeable in these areas as compared to 99.99% of the rest of you, but I am trying to learn. Since I am unsure of all of the questions I will not pretend to have answers. Perhaps I should have listen to the words of Abe Lincoln who said "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool that to speak up and remove all doubt". But I spoke up so now I must live with my words. With my limited religious background the traditions of the churches of Christ are also still a learning process along with scripture for me. But I do believe that God has blessed me with one trait, I have a basic grasp of common sense. I also understand the difference between working to honor God and bless people as opposed to working to stir up division and lack of trust. In my reading recently I read the story of some of the apostles telling Jesus about ordering some to stop teaching in his name because "they were not one of us". My understanding was that Jesus in his response to them was that he was not in agreement with them for doing that. I recently completed reading a book by a Professor at ACU called "The Body Broken". I think that book could teach all Christians some valuable lessons.

I pray that the Lord will bless you all and give you peace.

JL

J.L. keep looking and studying. As regard to the congregation you are now a part of you may want to go back to the other SMITH SPRINGS thread on here (it's been locked out so no more additions can be made to it) to get a clearer picture and see just how long the divisive ways of the reformers has been going on.

JL as you mention your limited knowledge of the churches of Christ you need to realize that your information will be extremely skewed if you listen to a majority of members there. For instance, ask how many of them believe that mankind now has FREEWILL. If they are honest, all of the Reformed bunch
will deny it, but go to any other 20 congregations in your area and ask at least 10 prominent leaders there if they believe that men are now "free moral agents" and you will probably get near 100% response in the affirmitive. Ask your Reformers who Jesus died for. They'll say "only the chosen." Go to other churches of Christ (pick 20 different ones from your first inquiry); most will say the Jesus sacrifice is available to all (John 3:16). Ask Reformers when a person is saved. Most members of our fellowship believe that it happens with believers baptism; Reformers will say that you really have nothing to do with your salvation or it becomes a 'work'. They teach that your saved if you happen to be one of the ones God decides not to send to hell (of course they'd never phrase it like that.)

If you're trying to find out about the traditions of the church of Christ you may be at the wrong place. Such traditions will be presented in a VERY negative light where you are now since so many of the leaders and members think it is faulty theology.

Remember the '3rd generation rule of religion'. It usually takes that long before many of the weakness of a particular movement begin to show up; this neo-calvinism which they are pushing is spearheaded by the 'new', 30-year old schism of the Presbyterian church (i.e. the PCA). It'll take a few more years of seeing people who seem to be chosen - but then fall into a depraved lifestyle - before they realize that their Assurance, which they so desperately crave, is but a mirage. But it will take time. Where will you choose to spend yours?

Now don't embellish the history here too much F.Y. and J.L. by over rating the tolerance factor. As for the supposed diversity the old adage says it best - two's company but three's a crowd. The situation, at least when my sister left, was not like some fragrant simmering stew of varying ideas, it was more like a chocolate / vanilla swirl with something like a fragile truce having been established between the 2 discrete factions. She'd heard that a few years back the traditional advocates who dared to be a vocal as the reformed members were usually squeezed out.

In the very wide world of religion it would be sheer flattery to imply that only 2 basic views are somehow demonstrating diversity.

Your Nov.1 responder mentions the Vienna Austria campus of our beloved university in Nashville.
Hasn't Dr. David embarked on yet another of those history - proselytizing campaigns with another unsuspecting group of students this past semester (fall '05)? {You SS members would probably know if you haven't seen him at church for several weeks.}

If history repeats itself some of these students families are sure to be in for a real surprise by the doctrinal souvenirs that are surely to be brought home. Happy holidays, in advance, to those people.

Your June 30 responder mentions the 'follow the money' mentality that seems to be present at SS. My experience tends to reinforce that same idea. Months ago I was adjacent to a couple of Engedi leaders who said, talking to each other, something to the effect (this is close to word for word): "We've got to be very careful how we handle this (teaching) because many people's jobs could be adversely affected."
So maybe the low key approach does have some roots in the 'filthy lucre' aspects of this whole scenario. How can that be right?

This is, in response to Levitation and the MUMBLING and MUTTERING of the Engedi agents and the MONEY TRAIL. I suspect that LU is huddling to decide whether to REMAIN attached to churches of Christ or not.

Is.8:19 And when they shall say unto you,
Seek unto them that have familiar spirits
[a musical echo chamber]

and unto wizards that PEEP, and that MUTTER:
should not a people seek unto their God?
for the living to the dead?
[Paul speaks of this in 1 Cor 13]


Is.8:20 To the law and to the testimony:

if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them.


Jn.8:44 Ye are of your father the devil,

and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning,
and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
for he is a liar, and the father of it.

FIRST: I can say and NO ONE can refute it: they cannot find ONE person who has ever been predestinated to either heaven or hell. They don't even have a jot or tittle. That proves that Satan has them by a tender spot or that they are, in the words of Christ, sons of the Devil who just "speaks on his own." Therefore, there can be NO TRUTH in them.

When Adam and Eve sinned, SIN entered into the WORLD. Sin DID NOT enter into either ADAM or EVE. There is not even enough evidence to be charitable and give people the benefit of doubt that they are CHRISTIANS and not agents of an alien power.

No one has ever defended any of this evil scam without taking verses out of context and deliberately making even isolated verses say what they do not say.

Lu.16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward,

because he had done wisely:
for the children of this world are in their generation
wiser than the children of light.

If you will look at the Engedi blurbs you will see little tidbits of poison using the scheme of GRADUALISM to fool the fools. The mumblers are aware that the LIPSCOMB crew of PhDuhs would have to get an honest job if the parents of students could grasp the MUTTERING.

SECOND: you are already aware that anyone who has to use the NAVIGATING THE WINDS OF CHANGE scam are guilty of witchcraft which manipulates your mind where no Bible or human common sense and decency WOULD WANT you to go.

If Christ's promise is to WHOSOEVER WILL then anyone who wants to make that mean WHOMSOEVER GOD HAS PREDESTINATED has the WILL then you know that Satan is trying to HURT you. Paul wrote about being honest and open:

2 Cor 1:17 When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay?

2 Cor 1:18 But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay.

2 Cor 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.

2 Cor 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Arnobius speaking of the predestination HERETICS which comes out of paganism and used as a POWER POINT to maniuplate people into SEEKING you out to give them assurance wrote:

64. But, my opponents ask, if Christ came as the Saviour of men, as you say, why 448 does He not, with uniform benevolence, FREE ALL without exception?

I reply, does not He free all alike who invites all alike? or does He thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the Supreme who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him,-to men of high rank, to the meanest slaves, to women, to boys?

Note 449 There is clearly no reference here to a particular passage of Scripture, but to the general tone of Christ's teaching: "Him that cometh unto me, I will in nowise cast out." Orelli, however with his usual infelicity, wishes to see a direct reference, either to Christ's words to the woman of Samaria (John iv. 13-15), or, which is rather extraordinary, to John vi. 35-37: "I am the bread of life," etc. Cf. n. 9, p. 459.

Is that a YES or a NO? The Scripture says "YES" Him that cometh unto me. And so says Scripture in many places. Engedi--the GOAT SPRINGS--says it means MAYBE. IF you are predestinated then HIM THAT COMETH is permitted because God FORCED him to do it. That means that Scripture HAS NO MEANING: it must be BENT to fit the crooked horns of the Engedi goats. THAT'S where LU is going.

To all, He says, the fountain of life is open, and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking.

If you are so fastidious as to spurn the kindly offered gift, nay, more,

if your wisdom is so great that you term those things which are offered by Christ ridiculous and absurd, why should He keep on inviting you,

while His ONLY duty is to make the enjoyment of His bounty depend upon your OWN FREE CHOICE?

God, Plato says, does not cause any one to choose his lot in life; nor can another's choice be rightly attributed to any one, since freedom of choice was put in His power who made it.

Must you be even implored to deign to accept the gift of salvation from God;

and must God's gracious mercy be poured into your bosom while you reject it with disdain, and flee very far from it?

Do you choose to take what is offered, and turn it to your own advantage?

You will in that case have consulted your own interests.

Do you reject with disdain, lightly esteem, and despise it?

You will in this case have robbed yourself of the benefit of the gift.

God compels no one, terrifies no one with overpowering FEAR. For our salvation is not necessary to Him, so that He would gain anything or suffer any loss, if He either made us divine, or allowed us to be annihilated and destroyed by corruption.

65. Nay, my opponent says, if God is powerful, merciful, willing to save us, let Him change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in His promises.

This, then, is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the Supreme God, but a childish and vain strife in seeking to get the mastery.

For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unwilling, to reverse their inclinations; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to receive, and shrink from; to injure before benefiting, and to bring to another way of thinking and feeling, by taking away the former?

You who wish yourself to be changed, and to suffer violence, that you may do and may be compelled to take to yourself that which you do not wish, why do you refuse of your own accord to select that which you wish to do, when changed and transformed?

So, search the Scriptures and most of the world's literature and the WORST charge people could make against a HOLY GOD is that He manipulates certain people into all hope dashed in hell JUST to prove that He has more power. Isn't that a SECRET VIEW into the heads of such false teachers?

One of the MARKS of Calvinism is that they will ALWAYS yank out isolated verses which TO THEM preach their dogma. However, because they have been blinded to the TRUTH it is literally impossible for them to admit that the verse just above or below REFUTES their dogma.

Faithsite.com forum is a hotbed of Calvinists who, like ALL Calvinists, are ignorant of what Calvin really taught. We have looked as some of these isolated verses and discussed the CONTEXT to prove that they are ignorant or evil. Here is one of the Concerned Members discussions;

http://www.network54.com/Forum/150389/thread/1135877929/last-1136306691/HEAD+Pecker+at+Walt.Slight.con

In another thread which asks IS MOLOCH THE GOD OF CALVINISTS we discuss recorded history to prove that the ONLY place Augustine could have invented GOD as the DEMON of hell for innocent children was in Carthage, where Augustine steeped in black paganism, forged his dogmas in his battle with Rome.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/187069/thread/1136177187/last-1136383582/Is+MOLOCH+the+god+of+Calvinists-

In Ricky and LeBon: a REVIEW.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/187069/thread/1136322483/last-1136382753/Ricky+and+LeBon-+a+REVIEW.

Gustave le Bon on Revolution was followed by Hitler in taking the people captive. This process was used by the CHANGE AGENTS in hostile takeovers of peaceable churches.

GUSTAVE FLAUBERT defines the Moloch worship in Carthage. This came from Tyre and was practiced in Jerusalem at the KING'S MUSIC GROVE where they burned babies just as the GOD OF CALIVN burn bodies. According to history this was JUST FOR FUN.

Two of the engedi subordinates are now part of an elementary school on franklin road in nashville. One of them, a deacon at smith springs, is on the board of directors (along with a leader from the christ's church in franklin) and also serves as their latin teacher. The other young man, a member of a prominent ss family, is the schools headmaster.\

I guess they were having trouble finding any of the half dozen church of christ affiliated schools in the area who were teaching a class on THE LIFE & TIMES OF JOHN CALVIN. This new school(artiosacademy.org)says on their webpage that they meet at the OAK HILL ASSEMBLY. One wonders why they left of the part that says it's actually part of the ASSEMBLY OF GOD, especially since there is a large church of christ only a stones throw away (brentwood hills)!

yeah those 2 guys drive right by their alma mater - ezell harding christian school - on their way to their reformed school each wweek.

and it sure seems like you got the attn. of some e.s. with that last posting!

What sick people yall are!

And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. (Matthew 9:35)



(See also Matthew 4:17,23; 9:35; 11:1,5; Mark 1:14,38-39; 2:2; Luke 4:43-44; 9:6; 20:1; I Peter 3:19; 4:6).



One of the main missions of Jesus was to preach:



The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor...to preach deliverance to the captives...to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)



Jesus died in order that repentance and remission of sins could be preached:



And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:



And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47)



THE COMMISSION TO PREACH



The disciples were commissioned by Jesus to preach:



And He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach. (Mark 3:14)



And as ye go, preach, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. (Matthew 10:7) (See also Matthew 10:27; Luke 9:2,60).



The goal of the early church was to preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard it:



To preach the Gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.

(II Corinthians 10:16)



Like teaching, preaching was not confined just to the formal church setting:



And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. (Acts 5:42)



Neither was preaching confined to just the full-time pastors or ministers. Believers in the first church were scattered because of persecution and...



...they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the Word. (Acts 8:4) (See also Acts 11:19-20).



As believers, we also are commissioned to preach the Gospel to the nations of the world:



And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:14)



Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.

(Luke 16:15)

2 points for MW to consider

a. Feel free to make correction to any misinformation which has been dissiminated here.

b. How are these communications any sicker than Engedi people perpetually bad mouthing a church that, for some bizarre reason, they want to keep their membership with?
Isn't that sick like having a hidden parasite disease?

Put this scenario in another area: if you were the boss, how long would you tolerate a disgruntled employee who continually spent most of his time on the clock putting down you and your company? Honestly, how long?
1 month, one year? How is this any different? (and we're now into about the 6th year with this situation)

Also, Garg., you've totally lost me with your e.s. reference. Is that yoour secret code for Extra Special or something?

I. W. you apparently haven't talked with anyone who has departed from there in recent years. If you had you would realize that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about a key dynamic in the situation.

Maybe half of the church leaders (bosses) feel that God has specifically picked them to expose what they see as humanistic errors in the basic theology of the Churches of
Christ. Their followers / subordinates are simply following the leader. So they wouldn't feel that you're analogy applies to them; it's their bosses too who are putting down the company.

Incidentally most of those leaders used to send most of their own children to Ezell H.C.S. a decade ago before they became enlightened. Hence the need for a new & scriptural christian school.

Just so you will know, the families of which you speak are leaving Smith Springs to form their own church. Things at SS are no where near as bad as this place tries to make them out to be.

Do you mean to say that Mr. Hale and Mr. Lawrence are no longer members at Smith Springs?

No, the ones behind the new school and church are Jason Charlton and Abe Goolsby families. Those families have left SS.

So two of the minor prophets of the Hale>Conway>Lawrence regime have headed off to start a new church while their mentors remain behind? [and why exactly does Nashville need another Presbyterian church, pray tell?]
You know Lawrence probably can't afford (note $$$ signs) to go to that new church, at least not yet. If would be the one thing that would jeopardize his Lipscomb job, J.L.

Faculty members are required to regularly attend a Church of Christ even if they despise its core teachings, as in this case. As long as they regularly sit in a pew funded by our brethren everything else is fair game.
This just shows that as the men is mightier than the sword, so the almighty dollar is more important that forthrightness.

So J.L. you really think things aren't that bad? Maybe you just aren't aware of the actual state of affairs behind the scenes. Try asking one of the remaining Engedi leaders just how many families there are receiving their propaganda emails every single week. Also ask how many families there regularly donate money for their reformed causes. Really, just ask; you might be surprised and you may not continue to think that things are so great.

How do you know the church these people are starting is "another PCA"?

With all the divisions in the Presbyterian church it's interesting that you'd assume they'd be most like one particular sect. Is it because they already have a member of their school board who is affilitated with just such a denominational congregation in Franklin (Christ's Community)?

By the way, have you asked any of these guys just how the statement of faith of their new church will be different from that group of Presbyterians? While you're at it, ask if they will share any of the basic beliefs of the Church of Christ, at their new church.

Does it really matter to you anymore what these people do. Since they have left Smith Springs, I assume they have left the church of Christ denomimation altogether.

How many churches of Christ do you know that have a statement of faith? Although I believe they should, most churches of Christ do not. It seems at most churches one has to assume what the statement of faith is. I am talking about a statement of faith that is in writing and is often discussed and articulated to the church. A statement of faith would make it easy for a church to stay on the same path because everyone would know the intent of the leadership.

They cannot make a statement of faith because they have contradicting beliefs. A couple of beliefs that are common among churches of Christ are free will and you must be baptized by immersion to be saved. Most of the leaders do not believe this. They believe certain people are chosen (predestined) and that you have no free will. A parent cannot know what their children are being taught. These beliefs of predestination were taught to the teens without the parents knowledge. David Lawrence had study groups in his home and was teaching it without the knowledge of the congregation. That is what caused a big rift in the congregation and many people to leave. The church's stance is that "no one individual's interpretation of the bible can be accepted over another's". THAT is in writing. So basically their belief is that anything goes. I wish those who had started the church had stood up to the change agents. Instead they dug their heels in to wait for them to leave. Hale and the others are not leaving. The church is theirs and it is not a "Church of Christ".

o theres a statement of faith alrite - at least by those engedi leaders who stay on. its on their weekly devotionals, by D.Lawrence - its their equivalent to the ole tract rack, only you wont find their version on other c of c's. just try. visit any 10 c of c's in your area, check out their tracts and see if you find any of them saying that jesus didnt die for everyone. which makes me wonder, do calvinist think its heresy to sing verse 2 of <jesus loves the little children> because it says <jesus died for ALL the children of the world>? that just dont work with their system that says all tots are born depraved.

and thats why its still relevant to s.springs: the teachers of those two young families [that left to start the new church] continue to spew out their 5point extreme calvinism to their little flock. where else would they go?

i'm really glad that this site automatically posts the days of entries so we can go back and see if these two prophecies i'm makin today come to pass - then we'll know what that means, wont we.
#one: that new church will have a base theology practically identical to all other reformed churches and will hopefully have the courage to indicate that on their sign out front - unless they follow suit with a lot of them and hide behind the vague <community church> label.
#two: the church will probly follow Lawrences suggestion and incorporate instrumental music.

so lets just wait - soon we'll all know if these prophecies come to pass. and wont it be a hoot if some freewiller infiltrates them and ends up teaching their kids in a high school bible class in ten years!

Time will indeed tell about these two (what I consider)minor predictions. Here's two (what I consider) MAJOR ones you can add.
#3: When Dr. Lawrence doesn't have to go a church of Christ we will certainly see his true allegiance. I give it less than a year before he's attending a Reformed-based denomination.
#4. One of the reasons he'll use for not staying in our midst will be the "unchristian" was members of the church responded to his constant badgering and insulting of our beliefs. A few gullible ones will even fall for that line because you can fool some of the people most of the time.

What about the preacher, Tim Alexander? Will they be taking the Calvinist preacher as well? Or would he rather stay at SS for the money rather than go to a church that believes in "predestination" as he does and professes to.

you tryin to imply that $$$$$ is playing somekinda role in these dicisions ? !

Yes, money does matter in decisions being made. Danny Hale (Engedi) is one of the major contributers to Smith Springs. He also was instrumental, if not totally responsible, for hiring Tim Alexander (himself, a Calvinist). I think it speaks ill of a man who would take a job with a church, knowing the beliefs on which it was founded, then proceed to teach conflicting doctrine and embarrass or brow beat anyone who dares to disagree. I say he stays for the money. What other Church of Christ (or any church) would pay for his services knowing the recent history of Smith Springs and his part in it.

Honestly! what good can be said of a group of people who are so bent on shoving their beliefs down the throats of the collective congregation, no matter what damage results from it. The only people still there are those related to them or those who have dug their heels in and refuse to be run off.

I left because I want go to church to be uplifted, to fellowship with those of like mind and to worship to the glory of God. The undercurrent at SS was oppressive. There was no joy or peace. After several years, it was apparent things were not going to change anytime soon so I left. I no longer have that uncomfortable, unfulfilled feeling from worship.

I left Smith Springs too. However, having been loved by the people there and knowing their genuine desire to please God, I would never come on this website and wrongfully accuse them of the things you have. Diffent strokes for different folks, right? I 'm sure everyone at Smith Springs is glad that you are now happy at your new church and can worship in a manner that you enjoy. I dare say, I never felt like I was being held there in anyway by these wonderful, God-loving people. I wish them nothing but the best as they strive to be a light to their community in the way that they feel God is leading them. Do I believe in everything they do there? No. Does God believe in everything I do? No. Does he still love me? YES!!!!!!! Praise God!!

my bad on the e.s./ bad habit from chatroom action yesterday/ it's for engedi sympathizer.

dw, u musta hit a nerve with ur 2-9/2:44pm post. check out the action on the more churches screen at what happend in justa couple hours after. their musta been 7-8 solo hits / mostly all random /stuff. now why do u spose anyone'd wasste time like that?
u ever seen numb3rs on tv? r u a cage rattler?

& mw / deep / not

Ruth, did I tell you that GRACE as in CHARA as in CHARISMATIC was not a "blue eyed blond": she was a brown eyed musical PROSTITUTE.

Jesus DID NOT tell people to go to Taegu and sow the SEED OF DISCORD.

I was just scanning the Engedi devotional thread to see how they dealt with some of the passages that are so damaging to their theories. Of course II Peter 3:9 comes to mind in regard to the P or TULIP :Perseverance, or the idea that once you are in a true saved position (which they have a great deal difficulty resolving also, since they needed an amendment to their Westminster Confession to cover their backside by giving a disclaimer in the form of the possibility of someone having bogus - temporary faith) you cannot lose that position.

Back several months ago, Dr. Lawrence tried to dance around the Peter passage by implying that when it says God is not willing that ANY perish, he actually means that he's not willling that any chosen guys perish. Wow, I wish I could just add words to the text like that and keep a clear conscience. What's really amazing is how they are able to put II Peter 3:17 (just 8 verses later) where it talks about the possibility of falling away.
Somehow that apparently does NOT apply to the same audience, or it really doesn't mean what it says>>> Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too>>>
So verse 9 applies to saved saints but verse 17 does not? How convenient>>>

This is the same old line and illogical garbage that Sproul uses for this and similiar verses. Has Lawrence ever had an original thought?

I know exactly what you're talking about with the original thought business. So here's some of Lawrence's phrasing on their Engedi devotional about this passage:
(Peter) "is not saying that God is not willing that...all human beings...come to repentance. Surely, if that were the case...we would have universal salvation. No, what Peter is saying is that...none of His elect, his precious chosen ones,...shall perish, but that all of them, all of US, shall come to repentance."

Here's where it gets spooky. Now here is a paragraph from a book called CHOSEN BY GOD, by that R.C.Sproul guy (he's kind of like the Calvinists equivalent to Ted Kennedy; preaches at some reformed church in the Orlando area.)

Here's Sproul comments on this same passage, on page 197:
"Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of US (the elect) perish....Its only other possible meaning would be universalism."

Here's the real ironic thing. In a little chart one chapter earlier, in Sproul's book it says that one sign of False Assurance is that it "begets spiritual pride." Did anyone else notice that Dr. Lawrence and Sproul both manage to make sure they include themselves (US) in the special elect group?!
How humble, eh.

You only have a little piece of the puzzle. There's much more. One of Lawrence/Engedi's initial tape series was called The Attributes of God. (That is the exact title of an old book by a well known Calvinist, Arthur Pink.) Someone loaned me Engedi's tape series a few months ago. I believe it is on the second tape in that series where Lawrence mentions an old radio show called the Inner Sanctum,as an example. Not long ago I was scanning an old reformed book, I believe it was by Sproul too, (or it could have been J.I.Packer) anyway, about 50 pages into the book the guy author uses the very same Inner Sanctum example in the same context! A true deja vu moment. Of course the book predated the tape by several years.

Man, if we'd lifted from other people's works like this when I was in college without giving credit for its source the paper would have automatically gotten a failing grade.
This is just the thing that can be expected, I guess, from an history professor who tries to be some self-taught, self-professed theologian. Is it a surprise that the man isn't allowed to speak in Chapel or even teach a Bible class on Lipscomb's campus, anyway?

I remember reviewing one of David Lawrence's articles where he seems to boast about being like a "campus minister" and counseling people who lacked assurance. I think that is more subtle and subversive than being allowed to teach the Bible which is already heavily dosed with the REFORMED views and other ignorant views of the Bible and churches of Christ.

I remember some other stuff about PCA where they picked on churches disabled by being led into the Community Church (commune) movement (the stole the name of a denomination because COMMUNITY sounds safe). Other material pointed to major works among college kids in their very vulnerable age. I wonder why Lipscomb allows him to "steal sheep." Sounds like complicity to me.

David Lipscomb does not allow him to do anything. There is only so much action they can take before he would file a law suit. From my understanding, they have tried to curb his activities and everyone is waiting for him to retire! What worries me is that there can be more where he came from. I am now hesitant to send my children to a college where I think they will be learning one thing but be indoctrinated with quite the opposite. I think I will send them to a state school and continue teaching the word at home.

here's what dr. L said on his engedi devotional back on 12-30-02; it was titled the eternal purpose of God

"this reformed once recalcitrant legalist has the opportunity to reach thousands - - - by personal interaction with university students to help others to see the really good news of a gospel of joy and assurance."
\
that's how he worded it. sort of a free range campus minister?
more like a loose cannon.

I'm pretty sure the Inner SAnctum example is from the Sproul book called The Holiness of GOd. You probably won't be surprised to learn that this is the EXACT title of the Lawrence tape you're referring to (in the series The Attributes of God).

He seems to have become a master of uncited borrowing from calvinists gurus.
Do you see a pattern developing? If you want to know what book Dr. L must have read last month just look at the title of his most recent devotional thought or audio product.

The CHURCH is the PREDESTINATED purpose to include Jew and Gentile. If we have been added to the church by Jesus Christ AFTER our baptizm as His ADOPTION of us, then we are PREDESTINATED to be saved if we remain saved.

God ELECTS or "invites" all people to come to repentance. Those who CALL BACK by "being baptized, calling on the name of the Lord" to wash away their sins become the ELECT LADY or the Ekklesia.

Eph 1:1 PAUL, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,

to the saints which are at Ephesus,
and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

The saints are those who have been baptized and given A holy spirit or A good conscience by having their spirits purified by God or made holy or sanctified.

Eph 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Those who have been baptized are added to the church and their spirits have been translated into a heavenly kingdom.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us [the baptized believers] in him before the foundation of the world,

THAT we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us

unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,
according to the good pleasure of his will,
[Adoptio, regenerato, baptisma]

In the Latin, baptisma means regeneration. That is, our spirits "return to their nativity" and we are ADOPTED as sons of God by Jesus Christ. In that age it was the common practice that when a an apprentice is DISCIPLED to a Master Teacher or when a person is adopted, they are baptized, given new clothingg and given a new name. They receive the spirit OF a son.

Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace,

wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Eph 1:7 In whom we have

redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace;

Eph 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

Eph 1:9 Having MADE KNOWN unto us [apostles] the mystery of his will,

according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Is there ever a single person in the whole Bible who is predestinated to heaven or hell? Absolutely not! What was that PREDESTINATION or PREordained purpose of God?

Eph 1:10 That

in the dispensation of the fulness of times
he might gather together in one all things in Christ,
both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Paul in Galatians three shows that the PROMISE made to Abraham to be a blessing to ALL nations has been fulfilled in Christ. We are saved BY faith and GET IN Christ by being baptized INTO Him (Gal 3:26-27). Paul then shows that this is THE PREDESTINATED PURPOSE to bring all races together in ONE BODY.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance,

being predestinated according to the purpose of him
who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory,

who first trusted in Christ.

Eph 1:13

In whom ye also trusted,
AFTER that ye heard the word of truth,
the gospel of your salvation:
in whom also, after that ye believed,
ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, [Gal 3:26-28]

Eph 1:14 Which [A holy spirit] is the earnest of our inheritance

until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Eph 1:15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Eph 1:16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,

may give unto you the spirit OF wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened;

that ye may know what is the hope of his calling,
and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Eph 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness

of his power to usward who believe,
according to the working of his mighty power,

Eph 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ,

when he raised him from the dead,
and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion,

and every name that is named, not only in this world,
but also in that which is to come:

Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet,

and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

LET ME SAY IT AGAIN: These liars cannot find a SINGLE person who is predestinated to heaven or hell.

There is not a single person who is said to have been afflicted with ORIGINAL SIN. Seth, Able, Noah etal are RIGHTEOUS because they WORKED RIGHTEOUSNESS and obeyed God's commands.

There is not a single person who is not blamed FOR THEIR OWN SINS.

kinda reminds me of the kind of borrowing dan brown musta done for the da vinci code, huh.

Predestinated? Is that even a word?

No false teacher can ever point to a single INDIVIDUAL who is predestinated to go to heaven or hell. If they cannot then you know that God has blinded them so they cannot read black text on White paper. Paul told the Jews in 2 Cor 3 that they had been BLINDED at Mount Sinai (because of musical idolatry) and they would not be able to see until they converted or were baptized into Christ. Then He gives A holy spirit or A good conscience.

The SUBJECT is that the Jews believed they were predestinated to go to heaven and others to hell. If, now, Paul is preaching that the Gentiles were also part of God's plan, they say that either God failed or the Word of God failed. Paul said that THEY failed. The PREDESTINATED purpose was that ALL nations be included in one family.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Rom 8:28

Don't go blind half way through this and read:

And we know that all things work together for good to those called according to his purpose.

Rick Warren is wacko: if your child gets killed GOD didn't get the man drunk just to kill her. ALL THINGS do not work for good: we do not always benefit from tragedy. Rather, what GOD DOES He Works it for our Good. To whom? To those who LOVE GOD.

God INVITES us to be like HIM and His counsel if to BE BAPTIZED. If you REJECT that then you have NOT declared God RIGHTEOUS and you are not "effectively" invited. The virgins were all CALLED to the feast: those without oil could not enter in.

Kletos (g2822) klay-tos; from the same as 2821; invited, i.e. appointed, or (spec.) a saint: - called.

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. Mt.20:16

How many are CALLED according to God's PREDESTINATED PURPOSE?

G4183 polus polos pol-oos'.. as adverb largely; neuter (plural) as adverb or noun often, mostly, largely:--abundant, + altogether, common, + far (passed, spent), (+ be of a) great (age, deal, -ly, while) plenteous, sore, straitly. Compare G4118 , G4119 .

What is Paul's SUBJECT?

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Ro.9:24

How many has he CALLED? G4183 "largely, mostly, plenteous."

How many are CHOSEN? Very few?

Did God's PREDESTINATED ELECTION or CALL fail? No, because God did not PICK OUT PEOPLE to be saved. All are called by the gospel: the few who believe and obey are chosen.

What can we conclude? That the dogma of PREDESTINATION of INDIVIDUALS to go to heaven or hell is WRONG and EVIL.

Were the Jews correct in believing that ALL Jews were PREDESTINATED to be saved and ALL Gentiles predestinated to be lost. (THAT is the issue)

No, God sent Abraham to be a blessing to the NATIONS. The later Jews decided to EXCLUDE those God had always PREDESTINATED to receive His blessings. The PREDESTINATED road was through love and obedience: the individual Jews made their choice.

And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Ro.9:26

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. Ro.9:7

Klesis (g2821) klay'-sis; from a shorter form of 2564; an invitation (fig.): - calling.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 1Co.1:26

Does that mean that only DUMB people are PREDESTINATED to go to heaven? No. The rich are not effectively "called out" of the world because they LOVE the world.

For whom he did foreknow,

he also did predestinate
to be conformed to the image of his Son,
hat he might be the firstborn among many brethren Rom 8:29 .

God KNEW the Israelite nation BEFOREHAND. God has not failed and the Word has not failed. Most of the Israelite people FAILED. However, Paul is saying that all is not lost: God did not CAST THEM AWAY but he predestinated them TO BE CONFORMED.

I knew my wife BEFOREHAND but this did not mean that I PREDESTINATED her to be my wife.

G4267 proginosko prog-in-oce'-ko From G4253 and G1097 ; to know beforehand, that is, foresee:--foreknow (ordain), know (before).

Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. Ac.26:5

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Ro.11:2

Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. Rom 11:3

God did not reserve or elect the seven thousand by random choice to prove that He was God and they were not. Rather, God reserves or elects those who have chosen to obey His will.

But what saith the answer of God unto him?
who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Rom 11:4

What? God has RESERVED those who did not THEMSELVES bow to Baal. If God had forced them to BOW TO BAAL don't you think God would have said so?

There are FORKS in the road of our lives: if we take the RIGHT HAND ROAD then we are PREDESTINATED to go where the ROAD goes. God created gravity: If I jump off a tall building I am predestined to get smashed up. God did not push me.

If our c of C educator, Dr.Lawrence, is correct regarding his continued defense of medieval predestination's depravity, as per his recent entries on the Engedi Devotional internet page, then these conclusions can be drawn:
a. even though a newborn can't possibly have any comprehension of right or wrong, we all were born as sinners. Isn't that what original sin means?
b. it logically follows, as the Westminster creed says, that those who die in infancy who aren't in the chosen group are sent to hell by their Creator, and that decision was made before they were even conceived.
c. it also follows that the Bible is lying when it states that a man does not inherit the sin of his father.
d. it also follows that most of the Christian world has simply been duped by humanists who have infiltrated our ranks (with God's specific consent) with doctrinal lies centuries ago, which we, by diligent study, are perpetuating.

So think it through beloved, because if he's right all of us in the c of C are dead wrong, but not wrong enough for him to leave since God has called him to gently help us through our collective misunderstanding.

Smith Springs minister Tim Alexander, and former minister (& still present Smith Springs member, David Lawrence,) seem to fit the mold of these several recent references from very prominent Baptists in regards to dishonest infiltration of Calvinistic beliefs and consequent division into a church:

1. (from Dr. P. Patterson, president of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary)"Many a church has called a pastor only to find a couple of years in, that he is determined to take the church in the direction of Calvinistic church. He never told them that up front. He may even have deliberately misled them. One of my sorrows in hiring professors across these years is that I've often asked that question and gotten a misleading answer and found out later that this man was in the classroom perpetuating the system of Calvinism."

2. (from Dr. Danny Akin, pres.of Southeatern B.T.Sem.; statement made in response to the rising controversy surrounding Calvinism)
"..Do not go into a church under a cloak of deception or dishonesty. If you do you will more than likely split a church, wound the Body of Christ, damage the ministry God has given you, and leave a bad taste in the mouth of everyone. If a person is strongly committed to five-point Calvinism, then he should be honest and transparent about that when talking to a church search committee."

3. (from Frank Page, the newly-elected president of the Southern Baptist Conference) "We must have honesty about this issue. There are churches splitting across the convention because pastors are coming in quietly trying to teach Calvinism or Reformed theology without telling the pastor search committees where they stand. The vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinistic in their theology and it's causing some serious controversy."

Too relevant friends, this is all too relevant.

JOY TO THE WORLD, what a timeless classic, unless you're in the calvinist camp with the Smith Springs advocates. Why? What about the humanistic, heretical line which says "let every heart prepare him room..." Don't you guys know that only the chosen have room and it was actually prepared for them; how perposterous to think that any depraved human would have the ability to prepare a room or open a door or respond to an invitation song. What an insult to the sovereignty of God! Right?

In Isaiah 30 God speaks specificially of Egypt and Assyria but includes all of those nations dedicated to Molech Worship. Molech was the PATTERN for God Augustine used at Carthage. They burned infants in the red hot arms of this idol with a BULL head. As the loud music played the priests placed the infant and the screams and hissing was interpreted by the priests as a MESSAGE from Molech. This was the 666 Sabianism which God abandoned Israel to because of Musical Idolatry at Mount Sinai.

The people frequently went in musical procession to Jerusalem where Molech was at Topheth which is from Tambourine. This was king Solomon's Music Grove which became a pattern for hell itself. It is said that the king of Babylon would rest on a BED OF MAGGOTS and be consumed along with the harps and still-living harpists.

Isaiah 33 specificially proclaims that HELL was prepared to beat this race of people into Hell to the beat of wind, string and percussion instruments. These were brought with Lucifer and the fallen angels into the garden of Eden. From these developed the giants. Jesus spoke only in parables to the Kenite clergy in Jerusalem because they had lost the right to hear the gospel and be saved. Thus, we CAN say that certain people exist on the earth predestinated to burn in hell. Jesus called them sons of the Devil because they "speak on their own" and John called them sons of VIPERS whom he refused to baptize. Therefore, MUSIC and rejecting baptism may be a MARK.

There WAS a RACE or GENERATION of People from the Fallen Angels who intermarried with human women. That created a superhuman race of people who literally devoured people and used all of the performing arts to steal from and dominate people. This is well documented as the Lamech Family and their story is repeated in Babylonian tablets. The word DEMAGOGUE in the Greek language notes that he RULES by appeasing people with performing arts.

We can IDENTIFY those predestinated to return to the nether world or HELL and the MARKS are universally that of a perverted race who always STAFFED pagan religions using music to seduce people AWAY from the Word of God. John shows their destiny in Revelation 18

You will notice that Jesus never let the multitude of that generation hear except in parables. He said that truth had been HIDDEN in parables from the foundation of the world. Isaiah 48 shows that it was to HIDE the truth from a certain group of people.

Most of the people at Pentecost would have been true Israelites most of whom had long been dispersed from Jerusalem.

Acts 2:37 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 2:38 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.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

While the MANY are called, FEW are chosen. That is because A GENERATION or RACE of people could not hear without PERVERTING every word.

Jesus refused to preach to them lest they might repent.

Therefore, the ALL excludes the GENERATION or RACE of people who are Kenites or derived from Cain who was OF that wicked one. Both Jesus and John calls the sons of the Devil proven when "the speak on their own" or sons of vipers. The serpent in the garden was not a literal snake but a Musical Enchanter identified as Lucifer "the singing and harp playing prostitute" indwelling the king of Tyre.

Jesus died to remove the LADED BURDEN of the clergy which was "spiritual anxiety through religious rituals." The REST literally points almost exclusively to STOP the singing, stop the instruments, just STOP all of the personal pleasuring.

That gives us REST from the Crooked and Perverted TRIBE OF PEOPLE who flock to the MULTITUDES.

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

The untoward or perverted or crooked generation were MARKED when....

G4646 skolios skol-ee-os' From the base of G4628 ; warped, that is, winding; figuratively perverse:crooked, froward, untoward.

Skolios 1 curved, winding, twisted, tangled, Lat. obliquus, Hdt., Eur., etc.:-- bent sideways, douleię kephalę skolię (Hor. stat capite obstipo) Theogn.: metaph. crooked, i. e. unjust, unrighteous , Il., Hes., etc.; skolia prattein, eipein Plat.:--so adv. skoliôs, Hes.


Prassô II. experience certain for- tunes, achieved bondage, i.e. brought it on himself, grant power of song, get something, plot, 3. of sexual intercourse, b. esp. of secret practices and intrigues


Skoliotęs 2. of men, crookedness, dishonesty, LXX Ez.16.5.

Identifying Jerusalem a Jebusite High Place where David was forced to go. Jerusalem is "a city set on seven hills a is called Sodom or Egyp or HAGAR which poins to that tribe of interest

Ezekiel 16: Thus says the Lord Yahweh to Jerusalem: Your birth and your birth is of the land of the Canaanite; the Amorite was your father, and your mother was a Hittite. [4] As for your birth, in the day you were born your navel was not cut, neither were you washed in water to cleanse you; you weren't salted at all, nor swaddled at all. [5] No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you, to have compassion on you; but you were cast out in the open field, for that your person was abhorred, in the day that you were born.

Skolion 1 [neut. of skolios] [sub. melos] a song which went round at banquets, sung to the lyre by the guests, Ar.; so called from its zigzag course-- each guest who sung holding a myrtle-branch murrinę, which he passed across the table to any one he chose.

Now, HERE is the audition for the Musical Worship Team.

(a) from skolios crooked, because of the crooked order of the singers, the bad singers being passed over, or the couches being crookedly arranged, Dicaearch.Hist.43, Aristox.Fr.Hist.59, Plu.2.615c, Sch. Pl.l.c. (b) later, the omission of the bad singers being ascribed to the difficulty or non-social character of the songs skolion was derived from duskolon or duskolia, Hsch., Sch.Ar.V. 1217; or it was said that the songs were easy, but appeared difficult to drunken revellers,

That's why you need a professional singer to sing teeny silly erotic praise ditties. The intention is to PASS OVER the congregation assumed to be POOR SINGERS. Too bad that SINGING is identified with IDOLATRY by Moses and has no role in the SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE.

Aristophanes, Wasps Bdelycleon

The flute-player has finished the prelude. [1220] The guests are Theorus, Aeschines, Phanus, Cleon, Acestor; and beside this last, I don't know who else. You are with them and will show how to take up the songs that are started.

Of course, this was a time CONSUMED by just singing complicated songs. Does THAT ring a bell.

Well I'm not sure what the golden flute of Archimedes has to do with Calvinism, but have you ever known of anyone who was so adamant about absolute predestination who didn't think THEY were one of the predestined, chosen ones?
In all of it's claims to be ALL ABOUT GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY it seems to always come back around to ME and MY SECRET UNDERSTANDING that God has only given ME and people like ME.
The apostle Paul had to deal with a similiar humanistic philosophy in his day. The old saying is true: WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND. Just study this and you will plainly see that Calvinism is obviously borne of Gnosticism.

What a unique opportunity Lipscomb Univ. students will be able to have starting this week. During the day they will be able to hear one of their instructor (Dr. Lawr.) teach medieval history at a C of C school and then scurry over to the south side of town every Tuesday night to witness that same teacher's transformation into a teacher of old school Calvinism. That's better than most magicians can pull off. (everybody else calls this by its real name:hypocrisy)

this relates to several messages posted from March 06.

You'll not be surprised to learn that the current title
for their current classes is identical to one of Sproul's book titles: THe Holiness of God

Just one more in a long series of coincidences, I guess.

I just stumbled upon this forum by accident when searching for the Smith Springs website. I am former member (I only left because I moved out of town) of Smith Springs. I also have family that is closely involved with Engedi.

I can understand why there is so much disagreement over their teachings. They are very far outside the mainstream CoC, without a doubt. And I'm glad to see there is a place to have a discussion on that. Nothing is healthier than a debate or exchanging of ideas in Scripture.

However, it saddens me to see so much hate and personal attacks on both sides. I certainly don't think that's the Christian way to hand disagreements. I know it's a very emotionally charged situation, but could we not have some level of kindness towards one another?

I don't know Mr. Sublett or any of the people speaking against Smith Springs and Engedi. But I know David Lawrence, David Gaylor, Danny Hale, Carl Conway, and Tim Alexander very well. I can assure you that all of them are loving, Christian men. All of the conspiracy theories spouted here are simply untrue.

If you disagree with their teachings, that is certainly your prerogative, as it is theirs to disagree with you. And an open debate is a healthy thing. But please lose the personal attacks and hate-mongering (again on both sides). That does nothing to further God's cause.

Also, I would encourage you to discuss your feelings personally with all of the men mentioned here. I know that all of them are very approachable and would be more than happy to discuss it with you. I will be happy to provide email addresses if you want them.

If you feel saddened by all of this I wonder how much sadder the old timers there felt when they realized, too late, that the little country church, they had invested 50 or 60 years of their lives in, had become something as you say that is very far from what most Churches of Christ believe and teach. And if the men you mentioned are so approachable then what of the statements mentioned here previously regarding up to half of the congregation which left over all of this? Also, what of the reality that brothers Gaylor and Lawrence also left several years ago only to return when they realized that the Calvinistic teachings would not be accepted at the usually open minded Woodmont Hills congregation? What is you take on these observations?

Do you realize your own inconsistent emotions in regard to you Reformed theology? If, as you believe, God cause every single event in the universe then all the postings here have been commanded and demanded by God himself. How can God's specific desires possibly sadden you? You should be elated and just write this all off as some type of suffering for righteousness, shouldn't you?

Did you happen to see the article in the recent September 2006 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, called 'Young Restless Reformed / Calvinism - shaking up the church'? Here's a couple of pertinent quotes from some leading Baptist leaders who see the damage this teaching has already caused (and is an appropriate follow-up to my June 14 posting):

"...Malcolm Yarnell, associate professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Bapist Theological Seminary, argued that Southern Baptists generally reject any notion that God arbitrarily chooses individuals to be damned before they are born. The greatest tragedy is when adherence to TULIP leads to DIVISION IN CHURCHES AND PREVENTS them from cooperation in, and urgency for, a passion toward fulfilling the Great Commission...Southern Baptists are first, last and always followers of Jesus Christ, not John Calvin."

"Steven Lemke, provost of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,..warned..that Calvinism is potentially the most explosive and DIVISIVE issue facing us in the near future. It has already been an issue that HAS SPLIT LITERALLY DOZENS OF CHURCHES, and it holds the potential to split the entire convention." ... (and regarding Calvinism's negative impact on mission work) "For many people, if they're convinced that God has already elected those who will be elect, I don't see how humanly speaking that can't temper your passion, because you know you're NOT that crucial to the process."

So this is the direction a few want to now take the Church of Christ in? Please, no.

Calvinists can BLUFF the innocent and ignorant by MISquoting just ONE VERSE. If they stack up many such lies the disciple is overwhelmed. On the other hand, the meaning of a baptized disciple called a Christian must search the whole THOUGHT PATTERN delivered by the Spirit of Christ. There is not a SINGLE exception to this spiritual deception in high places as they try to force the Spirit of Christ to lie for them. That, by itself, proves that "there is no truth in them" and therefore they have TURNED away from God ALL BY THEMSELVES.

Calvinist "convince by intimidation" by massive numbers of "proof texts" which overwhelms the young or ignorant. Satan tries to wash away the church and floods of lies is the method seemingly from angels of "light." They also CLAIM to be one of the predestinated few and therefore make the claim of infalibility.People seeking acceptance and FEARFUL of not being included can be induced to drink Jonestown KoolAid: indeed who can say that God DIDN'T predestinate them to drink it all down? If we can prove by ONE OF their false arguments that they have NO ETHICS in their misuse of the Bible, then hopelfully YOU will make them STOP and explain how THEY claim to be infallibe when PERVERTING every proof text.

There is a reason that THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS can succumb to absurdity: they have been taught in song, sermon and Bible Class that the way to FIND the Will of God "Inside but outside the sacred page" is to use an isolated verse or part of a verse which SAYS what they have just fabricate to justify an unlawful wage. Non-Calvinists have paved the way by adopting the same "proof texting" Calvin falls into when he tries to explain Augustine.

However, Calvin understood and quotes Jesus Who said "My Words are Spirit and they are Life." He repudiated the trinity of "persons" as did the founders of the idea and agreed that "father, son and spirit" are ASPECTS of the One God. Therefore, their claim of a "little person" telling them to REPUDIATE Jesus Christ and his written example is to FOOL THE FOOLS. This is their only authorty for cutting and pasting the revealed Word.

Let's begin with Sproul and then look backward and forward to understand that he is using the tricks of the "doctors of the law" of whom Jesus said "they take away the key to knowledge." Anytime the MASS prooftexts God is sending you a SIGN saying: "Watch out for the cow patties."

R.C. Sproul notes that:

"There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12

Now, Sproul and ilk want YOU to believe that this PROVES original sin and TOTAL DEPRAVITY. If THAT proof-text does not prove the point then a thousand misapplied passages will not be CUMULATIVE proof.

First, Sproul either DOES NOT KNOW or IGNORES the context of Paul's writing to Rome which addresses the Jew's belief that they were PREDESTINATED by being CHOSEN and that 'Father Abraham stood by the gates of hell and refused to let any Jew enter in." Therefore, just like heretical neo-Calvinism it just DIDN'T MATTER how evil they were: THEY trusted T.U.L.I.P. No, Paul assures them, NO one is predestined based on neo-Calvinist racism.

Even in the passage Sproul has quoted to prove HIS point he missed the fact that they had TURNED ASIDE and had BECOME UNPROFITABLE. Whoa! Sproul has Spilled the beans: those who ARE THE SUBJECT of this isolated statement by Paul have PROVEN themselves NOT predestinated because they had BEEN something and had TURNED AWAY by their own effort.

Outside of Paul's immediate context in the Old Testament, beginning with Abel, people are said to be RIGHTEOUS because they practiced right living and social justice. God STILL makes fools of people who corrupt or "sell the free Word at retail." Yes, many WOULD buy a pig in a poke if their cult leader just showed tema tail hanging out. Assuredly they would burn or drink or jump if the master tells them to.

The implied QUESTION Paul responds to is "if we Jews are not the T.U.L.I.P. class, then WHAT pray tell is the advantage to BEING a Jew." Paul did not say "to predestinate you" but:

Rom 3:1 WHAT advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 For what if SOME did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

The Word of God was to be PREACHED each REST DAY by reading and rehearsing that which was written. The object was that the ORACLE delivered THE FAITH of God. The intention was that all believe. However, is someone does NOT believe can you blame GOD? Assuredly NOT my dear Calvinist.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome [get victory] when thou art judged.

If SOME believed then it is hyperbole to say LET EVERY MAN BE A LIAR. A person is JUSTIFIED in Rome by the SAYINGS of God and not by their DNA which Calvinists teach that THEY have and WE do not. Justified is:

G1344 dikaioō dik-ah-yo'-o From G1342 ; to render (that is, show or regard as) just or innocent:—free, justify (-ier), be righteous.
G1342 dikaios dik'-ah-yos From G1349 ; equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively):—just, meet, right (-eous).

Rom 3:5 But if OUR unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? ( I speak as a man)

Why would God "take vengeance" on little embryos whom HE had created to be EVIL? Isn't it possible for people to see that they define their "god" as infinitely more evil than Hitler?

However, the Jews boasted that God COULD NOT take vengeance on the UNrighteous because their unrighteousness could not destroy the PERSEVERENCE of the unsaintly. Nor, did God have the POWER to save Gentiles until they became Jews. But, God judges NOT on the RACISM of Calvinists (those who DO NOT inherit the DNA of Eve contracted in sex) but on the RIGHT ACTS of each individual AFTER they have an awareness of sin. The Jewish "calvinists" denied God the power to judge (future tense) the world. Calvinists are modern Jews when they say that God HAS JUDGED the world billions of trillions of years in the past.

Rom 3:6 God forbid: for then HOW shall God judge the world?
Rom 3:7 For if the TRUTH of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
Rom 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,)
Let us do evil that good may come? whose damnation is JUST.

Paul is trying to convince the Jews that salvation is open to ALL PEOPLE: the Gentiles are not UNRIGHTEOUS by birth. And God CAN punish the JEWS even though they were AS A NATION chosen to be a blessing rather than a CURSE to the nations. As a NATION, there are NONE intrinsically so RIGHTEOUS that they are PREDESTINATED to glory. What WAS the basis of their TRUST:

Rom 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and RESTEST in the law, and makest thy BOAST of God,
Rom 2:29 BUT he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that
of the heart,
in the spirit,
and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Paul said that we receive this spiritual circumcision ONLY at Baptism (Col 2). When Paul said there are NONE righteous it is important to see the antecedent as JEW and GENTILE in a RACIAL sense because we know many righteous INDIVIDUALS out of both groups. We inherit God's righteousness when we are circumscised in SPIRIT which is ONLY applied at Babtism by an adult believer's request (1 Pet 3:21)

Rom 3:9 What then? are WE better than THEY?
No, in no wise: for we have before proved
both JEWS and Gentiles,
that THEY are all under sin;

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

The PUNCH LINE is: are JEWS any better than GENTILES? No: we are all sinners. Therefore God is NOT terminally evil and a lawbreaker according to James by SHOWING partiality. All people, including Calvinists are UNDER SIN and are NOT predestinated. BAPTISM in water is the ONLY time and place where God remits those sins and gives us a NEW or REgenerated spirit. REgenerated proves that God GENERATED us without PLACING sin into us; we sin all by ourselves; God REgenerates us at baptism. Therefore God is NOT PARTIAL otherwise James accuses Him of violating ALL of the laws.

None means JEWS and GENTILES. They BECAME unrighteous when they sinned: Paul is quoting Psalm 14 where the ANTECEDANT is THE FOOL but in Psalm 4 he defines HOW people could be RIGHTEOUS based on their CONDUCT and NOT because of their RACE. None are sinless BECAUSE they are Jews. The Calvinists are wrong: God is NOT a respecter of persons. Outside of Paul's LIMITED ARGUMENT to the Roman Jews, there were always a few righteous people like Abraham who "obeyed my laws, my decrees and my judgments." (Gen 26)

AND the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I SEEN righteous before me in this generation. Ge.7:1

Then God HAD NOT forced Noah to be righteous? Of course not. Did God MAKE people iniquitous and the HATE His own WORK? Of course not: please quit calling God a fool.

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Heb.1:9
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. Heb.11:4

Righteous does not mean SAVED or REGENERATED: anyone who does RIGHT is a righteous person. Anyone who DOES justice IS justified. Those who were UNRIGHTEOUS became so on their OWN: God does not create unrighteousness and to say so is blasphemy:

For the heart of this people

is WAXED gross, and
their ears are dull of hearing,
and their eyes have THEYclosed;

LEST they should see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart,
and should be converted,
and I should heal them. Acts 28:27

There is no exception: the PREDESTINATION of God or the Spirit of Christ is that people are PREordained to HEAR the message and THEN make a decision about whether they want to be CONVERTED (made equivalent to Baptism by Jesus and Peter) or NOT. God just SAID it: who DARES dispute it? In the prophecy the people's heart was MADE HARD by their own choice and blame. I can be REgenerated only by God when WE request it at baptism.

Therefore, people can CHOOSE to be lost because they DO NOT WANT to give up their money or their fame which came to the Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites [writers, performance preachers or dogma inventers, performing artists]. Many "civilians believed" but did not confess out of fear of these SECTARIANS: the sectarians REJECTED the PREcounsel of God by rejecting BAPTISM. God FOREcounseled that they be saved by baptism: they rejected this forordination. If the neo-sectarians REJECT the PREordained plan of God in Baptism then "Calvinism" in the neo- sense intends to INTIMIDATE their disciples to PREVENT them from being saved, and thereby becoming "fourfold servants of Hell."

Calvinists DENY the sovereigny of God: they claim that from eternity past God SELECTED who would burn in hell. If that is so then God LOST His Sovereignty (not a Biblical word) and COULD NOT have saved them. THEY claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to be SO EVIL as to lose their SECURITY. They claim that the most RIGHTEOUS person in history COULD not obey the gospel EVEN if they wanted to.

Be it known therefore unto you,
that the salvation of God is SENT unto the Gentiles,
and that they will hear it . Acts 28:28

As ALWAYS, salvation is something contained in that which CAN BE HEARD and therefore NOT by predestination. The gospel--and not the predestination of a "god" who LOST his power of choice--is the POWER of God to salvation. You have to hear it and we ALL hear with our supernatural gift of EARS. You will note that NO Calvinist will preach the Divine plan for the REMISSION OF SINS even if Calvin came pretty close: that is the PREDESTINATED result of the loss of love for the truth. But, then it seems that only the POOR can be rich in faith? Does that leave out professional Hucksters of the Word after being radically changed.

Using the ABSOLUTEST method of the Calvinists, you MUST admit that ALL OF THE GENTILES have been SENT salvation; ALL of the Gentiles WILL hear the gospel. Therefore, ALL Gentiles are predestinated. The SAD SAD part of these DOCTORS OF THE LAW WHO TAKE AWAY THE KEY TO KNOWLEDGE (Jesus of Nazareth) is that they do not grasp that our role is to READ the Word and not to fabricate THEOLOGY which is outlawed by Peter's Private Interpretation which means further expounding.

Why would they be blamed if they did NOT even seek God? The fact is that they were NOT born sinners but they HAVE GONE out of the way and there is NONE good enough to be predestinated.

Rom 3:11 There is NONE that understandeth, there is none that SEEKETH after God.

Rom 3:12 They are all GONE OUT of the way, they are together BECOME unprofitable; there is none that DOETH good, no, not one.

Again, Paul is quoting Psalm 14
1. to define the FOOLS who deny that God exists.
2. They are JEWS but they will be lost.
3. Therefore, being a Jew DOES NOT predestinate you to salvation.
4. God has to seek us through preaching the gospel
5. Then it is what is IN THE HEART and speech which justifies:
That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome [get victory] when thou art judged.

Calvinists "justify" by baptism AS circumcision. Paul said that it is circumcision OF THE HEART which counts. That can only be done by adult believers who are BAPTIZED in order to have God cut off their sins (Col 2:11-12)

Paul in Hebrews 11 shows MANY who were justified (not saved) by FAITH when we have our "bodies washed with pure water asking that God sprinkle OUR conscience FROM evil.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, AND that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

When you lie and tell people they are PREDESTINATED you deliberately PREVENT them from obeying the terms of the Gospel. Who but Augustine's Molech as the model for "god" would try to PREVENT you from doing exactly what Jesus commanded that we do else MARK ourselves as APISTOS or traitors? Who has the MOST to gain?

Calvinism teaches that they were "children of wrath" which meaning that the WERE little vipers when not an inch long. As in any CULT you are forced to HIRE someone to assure you that you are PREDESTINATED whereas God gives Baptism as a MARK of true faith.

At the same time they CLAIM that those who do NOT follow them a LITTERAL a tomb with a rotted body inside? Does YOUR second but not the first child have literal snake poison under their lips? It has to be LITERAL unless Paul is using exagerated speech to HIT the Jews where it hurts. These are the ONES of whom Paul is speaking:

Rom 3:13 THEIR throat is an open sepulchre; with THEIR tongues
they have USED deceit; the poison of asps is under THEIR lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in THEIR ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have THEY not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before THEIR eyes.

Is every single individual guilty of ALL of these charges? Or is Paul quoting prophecy to prove to the JEWS that RACISM (ie Calvinism) is not how God judges people? He quotes Psalm 14 using the EXTREME of those who DENY that God exists to to denounce racists superiority.

They cannot name ONE INDIVIDUAL who was predestinated to heaven or hell.
They cannot name ONE INDIVIDUAL who is said to be born evil.
They cannot name ONE SINNER whose sins are not blamed on him.

John Piper III. The Argument of Romans 9:14-16

Paul grounds the righteousness of God by quoting Exodus 33:19: "I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy and I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion." To understand how this argues for God's righteousness in election we need to understand the Old Testament context of Exodus 33:19. Exodus 33:18, 19 say,

"Then Moses said [to God], 'I pray thee, show me thy glory!' And He said, 'I myself will make my goodness pass before you and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.'"

John Piper grounds his argument in human theology which is outlawed by Peter's "private interpretation." Then, he attempts to explain Romans 9:14-16 without recourse to the context of Romans 9-11 which specificially DENIES that the Jews were predestinated because God had chosen them to deliver "the oracles of God" which command they ignored. John calls them a generation (race) of vipers and Jesus a "crooked" generation or race. They were in fact not true Israelites but Kenites or Cainites who had procured the clergy offices as highest bidder. The POINT is that God can choose to save the Gentiles on the same basis as the Jews: Paul, in fact, repudiates the whole heap of Calvinism.

He seems to think that the statement "I will be gracious" is in the Infinite-Perfect-Past-Tense. I will show that Piper Picked a Peck of Passages as the usual FLOODING of proof-texts without any reverence for the context defining WHY it was necessary for God to BE gracious (future tense) to provide an ANGEL (spirit of Christ) to accompny those whose musical idolatry of the triad was THEIR prayer to be cut loose from God. They were no longer FIT to live in a closer promixity with the INVISIBLE but JUST God of the universe who woud instantly destroy them. Moses interceded and became the visible agent of the invisible Christ.

Moses INTERCEDED for those who PRAYED to be "turned over to worship the starry host" (Stephen, Acts 7) and God had the right to BESTOW GRACE on those who had repudiated Him. First, look at the concept of Righteousness of which they ALL use Abraham as JUSTIFIED BY FAITH which they hallucinate as being "Saved by Faith only." Remember, it was the Calvinist's Zwinli who first confused the DOCTORS OF THE LAW by confusing justification with regeneration.

WHAT IS RIGHTEOUSNESS?

Righteous is the opposite of wicked: it is not some mystical word. A person who DOES righteousness IS righteous. That means that he respects the laws and authorities under which he lives. He does right things and just things to all people. This is contrasted with a wicked person who does wicked and destructive things and is therefore lawless:

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of HIS heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Abraham shows that GOOD or RIGHT is opposite of WICKED or WRONG: it is not some mystical condition in God's Mind:

Gen 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Gen 18:24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
Gen 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right

Abraham is not said to have BELIEVED God until he had obeyed God: Believeth means to COMPLY.

Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Gen 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,

Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

This is not FODDER for theologians to trash humanity with DOGMA they say is "a mystery" to keep the CULT-GULLIBLE under subjection. This is a statement directly from God who says "I will not be hostile and destroy your crops just to prove that I am sovereign: I will consider you as a model citizen fufliling MY purposes if you just LIVE RIGHT and practice social JUSTICE. This is MY 'REST' which will guard you against the abnormal WITCH DOCTORS, mumblers, chanters, tower builders, priests, exorcists and other religionists." Remember, that the PARABLE of child sacrifice was for Him to say GOD PROVIDES. Therefore, the statement "those who fear God and work righteousness are ACCEPTABLE by God" is NOT a stone upon which to build oppressive superstitious RITUALS but is god CUTTING MANKIND FREE of that which Calvinists seek to BIND by forcing YOU to go the THEM (and pay them, too) to get your ASSURANCE. If, for instance, you obeyed Jesus in baptism you would GET A new, holy spirit and YOU would not have to pay the WITCH DOCTORS. Now, do you see why the most massive denominational structurs known to mankind exists primarily to convince you that Acts 2:38 DOES NOT mean what everyone agrees that it SAYS.

God restated this to Isaac:

Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Gen 26:6 And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:

Verse 6 means that Isaac OBEYED GOD'S COMMAND.

James defined PURE RELIGION using the same concept: practice RIGHT LIVING by not being CONTAMINATED by the world and treating the poor with justice. Jesus STRIPPED OFF religious rituals and founded a SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE where as in the wilderness we REST, READ and REHEARSE the Word and for those who hallucinate things like "original sin" by chopping up the Word meant to be read Paul would call them robbers. John in Revelation 18 calls ALL of the hypocritic sectarians (speakers, singers, musicians) SORCERERS and when you have SORCERERS you EXORCISE them by the seat of their pants and you DO NOT let them lade you down with dogmas.

Before looking at Exodus 33, I will look at some context of Romans 9 to prove that Paul DENIED what John Piper is teaching.

Once again Ken Sublett has used the same post he uses throughout this entire website to try and prove his "point." I wish I could have been there the day God looked down from heaven, Opened the skies and presented the blessing of discernment upon Ken Sublett. If that day ever occurred, I would have serious doubts in my faith. The hypocritical nonsense that spews from the fingers with which he types embarrasses me as one who calls the Church of Christ home. I feel bad for all of those who log onto this site and read his nonsense and take it as truth. Please, I plead with you people, Please Please Please do not listen to this false prophet. Spend your time reading the message of those who truly love as the Lord loved, not condemning the majority of the world to hell because they worship in a way different than himself. Ken, You are a wolf in sheep clothing, one who leads others into a mindset that clouds the real message of Christ. Please, take your ignorant thoughts and join the ranks of all those who attempt to break people down by distorting the text. Please, take your own advice and stop molding the text around your own ignorant beliefs. You are not right, plain and simple, if you wish to continue to act this way, I am truly sorry for anyone who hears your nonsense. Move along my friend and allow the millions of Christians that you have condemned to hell to live in peace and harmony and not fuel some tiny little minority into hating more than they already do. You are like a poor version of the KKK distorting beliefs to oppress a group of people, the only thing that makes you better is that you have not yet resorted to violence. Please stop embarrassing Christianity and the Church of Christ

Sorry, I ignored the mailbox while my wife was away so I first saw your packet a few hours ago.

You are correct about the statement of faith in what it leaves UNSAID: I suppose that like some of the secret societies you cannot reveal too much at the beginning or people run away. Plato noted that when "people change the songs you should not think that they are just introducing NEW SONGS. You should understand that they intend to CHANGE THE LAWS. Therefore, the advice was to make the changes gradually and at first AS ENTERTAINMENT. I doubt that most parents have enough background to protect their children.

Perhaps when you get to the 212 degree they will tell you more. I decided to add the DOMION statement of faith and that exposes some of the irrational Calvinism which, I hear, even Babtists have largely rejected. I think that happens when people stand up for truth and continue to teach when you know that the hate mongers would hurt you if they could get by with it.

Here is the rough cut which I have posted here.

http://www.piney.com/Artios.Statement.html

I have added in some of the performing arts stuff because most once-Christian schools have gone heavily into PRESUMING that most churches of Christ (even) will be lusting at the lips to hire a Musical Worship Minister.

I remember an early poster who worried outloud about the Gender-confusion and it seems to have come true. Too bad that all of the confused people are not pounding rocks.

Maybe someone should report in to let the world know how the takeover at Vultee is going.

Here is a quick fix to the Artios Statement of Hyper-Calvinism.

http://www.piney.com/Artios.Statement.html

Thanks for the tapes: it is a fact that in this age of literacy, Calvinism has lost all of its petals and the root is dead.
Thankf for helping bury Augustine and Calvin and Engedi.

Well they warned us on this web sight about the realationship between the Engedi / calvinists and the minister, TIm ALexander.
They told us that there must have been a reason why, of all the people who applied for the pulpit position at Smith Springs several years ago, that only one resume was of an individual who hadn't even been a Bible major in college. Somehow he was the one who got the job! It was theorized then that it was probably due to his sympathetic view toward the presbyterian teachings.

Well new information sure points in that direction.
Guess who's teaching the Engedi classes this fall?
SUrprise, it's Tim Alexander; just check ENgedi's web sight.

Also, Alexander described himself as "pastor of a church in southeast Nashville' in a recent Tennessean article. I guess he's still in denial about not being an elder and not being affiliated with the Churches of Christ At least not as long as a Church of CHrist still supports him.

What's more difficult - to admit that you ARE a Church of Christ minister or to admit that you're NOT?
Apparently Bro. Alexander is in a similar state of denial as one of his mentors there at Smith Springs, Dr. Lawrence.
Lawrence recently sent out a devotional on the engedi internet page boldly proclaiming his milestone of 50 YEARS IN MINISTRY. The only hitch is that he hasn't served as a regular hired minister for any church for almost a decade now. What happens when a minister no longer can find a church which desires his services? He just helps set up some new thing, labels it as a ministry, and proceeds to establish himself as it's spokesman.
It's rather like a politician who loses in the primary, runs as an independent in the general election, loses again but then declares his neighborhood as some new district and appoints himself as representative.

Those playing the game stay mesmerized. Everyone else just grins.

maybe this is all related to the extreme secrecy and the clandestine manner in which alexander first tried out for the pulpit job there. it's my understanding that people went to great lengths to make sure the vultee elders knew nothing of bro. tim's intentions and actions.
it also looks like calvinist's elders hale and conway got exactly who they wanted. it's just been so wrong for so long and most people know that to be the case.

Why else would T.A.'s name come to the top of the list of applicants\
in spite of him having his wages garnished in the past for tax evasion?
NONE of the past baggage mattered as long as he'd fall in line with the
calvinism stuff.

A successful businessman reads some religious books, surrounds and insulates himself with
a hand picked network or family and former employees. This has been one of the prime
weakness of this congregation for decades. When one family dominates a church it makes
for some sad tendencies. The successful businessman who became the patriarch was of
course, Otis Charlton. The faces now have changed along with the radically different
theology (which Brother Otis finally wearied of fighting years ago). His successor, Danny
Hale, follows much of the same tendencies. In fact the entire first sentence equally applies
to him, but his nepotism makes Brother Otis' pale in comparison. True, Hale is a relative,
by marriage, to the Charlton's so he automatically had family credibility.

Now Hale has, in his new Christian school, Artios Academy, his nephew (who's own father
left Smith Springs much of this, years ago), an ex-in-law, and a third cousin (one of
Brother Otis' grandsons). And then he has his niece's spouse serving as a deacon (as well
as a former employee in his business, which he sold for a tidy sum, years ago.)

All of this would have even made Brother Otis blush at how self-serving it all is, but once
the die is cast it's hard not to repeat.

Dear Sir (or madaam),

It pains me very much to see this type of attack on this website which has been dormant (thankfully) for quite a while. Why people like yourself feel the need to come on and attack a church which obviously they are not a part of (or hopefully not a part of) is beyond me. Furthermore, the need to do this anonymously is another matter of which you need to repent.

I have read numerous times on this website of information that is so innacurate that it is almost laughable, but when the innacurate information attacks the integrity of someone that you love dearly, then it becomes personal and the need to defend them becomes inevitable.

I am a grandson of Otis Charlton and the Headmaster of Artios Academy. Danny Hale has nothing to do with our school. He was neither a founding member nor has he ever been a financial contributor. So your comment about it being "his school" is completely innacurate. His nephew is employeed by our school only because he is highly qualified with an undergraduate degree in Music Education and a Masters in Music Composition. This, my friend, is not nepotism, but smart hiring practices.

"All of this would have even made Brother Otis blush at how self-serving it all is..." This is probably the most irritating comment of all. Since you won't publish who you really are, I cannot know whether or not you really know my grandfather well enough to make any statement whatsoever about him. However, what I do know is that because of this particular comment, you do not know him at all. Otis Charlton is a godly man and is well beloved by just about anyone that truly knows him. It is hard to determine how "successful" he was in business because he was always giving the shirt off of his back for others. THIS is the type of man that you are attacking, for which you should blush in complete embarassment.

For years, now, I have managed to keep from resonding to the idiotic attacks on the church where I attend, the school where I work, and the family that I am proud to be a part of and love very much. However, my need to respond at this time is to expose your ignorance of facts and to expose the darkness of your heart that would even think to write these things.

Now, here's to everyone having a merry Christmas and a happy new year that's free of "anonymous" posting on this blog.


Jason Charlton

I really don't think the 12/15 was implying ungodly actions as much as it was just an observation about church politics, and little more.

But Bro. Jason ,here's something we did a while back. Try this. Find an old church directory from s ay 30 years ago and then one from 25 yeaers ago. Look at the list of men who were deacons and elders. Except for your family, how many of them have any extended family in any leadership role any more. Most of those families ;Thorntons, Mitchells, Whorleys, all of those LIddles , are all just gone, even the families of all their kin, and most of them still live in the immediate area. Don't you find that the least bit odd? Ponder that.Have you really never noticed that trend?

And to think that most of the current confusion and hurt could have been avoided if only the predestination only group had had the integrity and courage to have simply started a new reformed chruch instead of infiltrating Sm.Springs and trying, not successfully, to maskerade as a Church of Christ. Thanks to the recent years of members exodus from there, there's probly not another congregation within ten counties who doesn't know how this has all played out.
And this is you guys fresh engedi spring water?

But I imagin e it might be a happy holiday for many simply because they
got out of that sad mess, but i'm afraid the damage is done and its all
too far gone.

kudos for your openness on your Artios website for saying your affiliation on your website with reformed theology; I'm not sure if everyone is aware that that's basically the same thing as calvinism. But I was just wondering that, in addition to your work with the school, are your and your brother in law still on the board of Engedi?

secondly, has bro. hale not allotted significant Engedi financial compensation in recent years to the other board members still out there at S.S. (i.e. lawrence and conway)or have they been working pro bono all these years?

lastly, how many of the current group of deacons there
have been financial supporters of bro. hale's reformed ministry? Is it true that MOST of them are?

and before we go looking for many more specks that might merit repentance, can we start with the plank of carefully and covertly recruiting CofC members and their funds to help support a ministry that turns right around and teaches that most of the basic theology of the CofC (and of your grandfather probably), is little more than a heresy of humanistic thought that tries to minimize God's sovereign power?

...when you post your full name.

Thanks.

Jason Charlton

Here's a perfect opportunity for you to correct jsome other potentially, as you say, >laughable inaccurate< information. Instead you make it sound like your answers would depend on who's asking the questions. Are you running for political office too? No one's asking you for your social security or checking account numbers. Why the big secrets?

And if you're trying to be so protective of Brother Otis' reputation then why, pray tell, would you turn right around and stab him in the back by using the real estate business that he established to help sponsor fund raisers for your shcool that is based on theological principles that YOU FULL WELL KNOW are considered unscriptural by Otis? YOu know he thinks calvinism is a perversion of the Truth and at odds with many scriptures, not the least of which is John 3:16. How is that honoring him?
Or does his reputation end where your agenda begins?

so horribly inconsistent.

Hello Jason,

I understand, sympathetically, defending your grandfather. Your respect for him brings glory to God and speaks well of your own character. Further, your forthrightness in fully identifying yourself serves both to promote what is right and to rebuke what is wrong.

Jason, my dear brother, these people are not interested in your answers. They are addicted to slander. Even responding to them only enables them to indulge in more slander.

These people do not care to bring God glory; to answer to Scripture; to learn from history. I know you care about these things. Your life says you do and your words often speak with conviction about these things. Please step away from responding to this web site.

You have better things to do than defend yourself and Smith Springs at this web site. You won't change them but they might distract you from pursuing those things to which God has called you.

In Him,

Tim Alexander

Tim,

Again, you are right. I have been duly reprimanded. Every year or two I need to hear these words from you. Thanks for doing it again. Maybe I'll mature in this area during the next year. I know...I'll make it a resolution...but one I intend to keep.

Be safe on your trip home.


Blessings,


Jason Charlton

Tim, if