Smith Springs, Nashville (Part II)September 14 2004 at 11:35 AM
|Wil Montero (Login ConcernedMembers)|
from IP address 188.8.131.52
A response from the archives at: http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=187120&messageid=1058464535
Name Calling September 13 2004, 8:17 PM
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.
|This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 184.108.40.206 on Oct 18, 2008 12:09 AM|
As Many continued from David Lawrence
|September 22 2004, 2:22 PM |
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]God CALLED and TAUGHT Israel to GO:
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
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.
Engedi's bottom line: Predestination alone
|September 23 2004, 12:41 PM |
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)
Paul was wrong?
|September 29 2004, 12:54 PM |
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
|September 29 2004, 5:47 PM |
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.
|September 29 2004, 10:36 PM |
Do you not feel that you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
|September 30 2004, 11:34 PM |
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.
Has this site ever led anyone to Christ???
|October 22 2004, 11:29 AM |
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.
|October 22 2004, 5:56 PM |
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
"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.
My point proven
|October 25 2004, 8:16 AM |
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!
|This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 220.127.116.11 on Oct 25, 2004 10:57 AM|
Thanks for pointing that out....
|October 25 2004, 11:33 AM |
So now I'm the devil AND a liar. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I can sleep at night.
|October 25 2004, 1:35 PM |
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.
And here is MY point.........
|October 26 2004, 8:30 AM |
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.
|This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 18.104.22.168 on Oct 26, 2004 12:18 PM|
How do you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E???
|October 26 2004, 12:29 PM |
..........d e l e t e d
|This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 22.214.171.124 on Oct 26, 2004 1:44 PM|
Jasguy you got it!
|October 23 2004, 12:12 AM |
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
|November 10 2004, 11:25 AM |
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.
Accusations came first
|November 11 2004, 12:22 PM |
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 =
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.
Thanks Wil: but not true
|October 10 2004, 7:16 AM |
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
Lawrence's 8-16-04 Devotional
|October 8 2004, 11:50 AM |
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."
|October 20 2004, 6:06 PM |
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.