A question for Donnie

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

June 9th, 2011, 3:47 am #11

"Almost-veteran" was deliberately placed in quotation marks. The winking face says that Dave should have enough sense to figure out what that means.
Sorry that elders must be certified by their OWN HOLY SPIRIT: the test is that they have taught that WHICH HAS BEEN TAUGHT so you never use violence on godly Bible students or Disciples of Christ. You gun shoots backward:



You never follow those who themselves do not know or know that the LOGOS or Word is something you SPEAQK and the CENI is what Jesus commanded to be taught.

You never follow a multitude to do evil: you never follow those who could care less about what Christ commanded in the Prophets and Apostles. You never follow any joker who thinks that A School of the Word is a "Theater for holy entertainment."

Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

June 9th, 2011, 4:39 am #12

Brother Cruz, how does your website fit in with complying with the command in Hebrews 13:17 to obey your leaders? How do you justify disobeying and disrespecting your elders at Madison with this site? Also, do you take the Lord's Supper at Madison, because if you do and there is division between you and members there then you are in danger of eating and drinking damnation to your soul per 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, as there is to be no divisions as you eat and drink of the bread and cup to honor Christ.

Also, Brother Crump, the Bible speaks of honoring people and not just God, such as Philippians 2:25-30 where Paul says to honor men like Epaphroditus. With this in mind, what about singing happy birthday to a member before a Bible class or at the end of worship? Tonight our congregation sang happy birthday to one of our elders before Bible class. Is that not o.k.?

-Sonny
The issue is NOT whether we should honor people. The issue is whether we should cheat God by honoring people DURING the worship assembly itself. Is that so difficult to understand? As I said before, there is a place and time for honoring people; the worship assembly is NOT that time. Save secular honors for times other than the worship assembly. Likewise, the worship assembly and Bible study are NOT the proper settings for singing "Happy Birthday" or focusing on other worldly affairs. If you're going to do that anyway, why not discuss someone's new car or a raise s/he got at work? Why not just skip the worship assembly and Bible study altogether, if people are so bent on contaminating them with all manner of worldly affairs?

Quote
Share

Sonny
Sonny

June 9th, 2011, 5:59 pm #13

on brother Cruz to respond.

Brother Crump, thank you for responding. A follow-up question: Is it then o.k. for us to sing happy birthday as we do on occasional Sunday's at my congregation after the closing prayer?

Also, since you believe it is wrong during an assembly to honor someone other than God, such as a veteran or one's birthday, is it also wrong for a preacher to acknowledge a couple's anniversary? Our preacher recently acknowledged a couple in our congregation who has been married 60 years.

Some might say we are honoring God in the assembly when we honor marriages, military, and people period, whether it be birthdays, baptisms, teachers and workers in the church, etc. Worship certainly addresses our dualism between assembly and daily living.

-Sonny
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

June 9th, 2011, 7:27 pm #14

Sorry that elders must be certified by their OWN HOLY SPIRIT: the test is that they have taught that WHICH HAS BEEN TAUGHT so you never use violence on godly Bible students or Disciples of Christ. You gun shoots backward:



You never follow those who themselves do not know or know that the LOGOS or Word is something you SPEAQK and the CENI is what Jesus commanded to be taught.

You never follow a multitude to do evil: you never follow those who could care less about what Christ commanded in the Prophets and Apostles. You never follow any joker who thinks that A School of the Word is a "Theater for holy entertainment."
Upsetting your comfort zones to impose music: boiling frogs

http://www.piney.com/Lynn.Review.html

Hand clapping began as a way to mock the looser! The word CLAPP and VOMIT derive from the same concept. The Alarm outlawed for the synagogue (church) included vocal or instrumental rejoicing, clapping or driving a nail into the trusting male.

In another thread we have noted that clapping or applause is one of the ways for the Scribes and Pharisees (speakers, singers, Players) to keep people from hearing the Word: the opposite is to hear the Word of God in order to learn.

I have heard lots of stuff the last couple of days: today those fed too much coffee hear White Christmas because they were told what they were hearing. Another experiment had a woman actually feeling a soft touch on a fake hand. The human spirit is easily deceived: that is why the written text was always the test of honesty. The direct command for the synagogue/church is to PREACH the word by READING the Word. If you must sing the resource is "that which is WRITTEN for our learning." Never believe what you hear in a sermon after you have been set up by any kind of mental anxiety which clapping creates--the startle reflex never goes away if you keep exercising it.

Reverence and Godly fear is the ATMOSPHERE in Habakkuk 22 and Hebrews 12: if you refuse you should remember that "God is a consuming fire."

You worship whatever you give your attention to (the only worship wsord). If people work really hard to direct your fragile spirit away from Christ and HIS commanded word you can be certain that they have an UNholy spirit: I could be kind and say that they are terminally ignorant but I don't believe it.

Hand Clapping, women edging in, and singing the songs of the limpy-wristy-clappy-singers were deliberately introduced to UPSET THE COMFORT ZONE. Never mind that God hates those who upset other people's comfort zone. Church is about learning the Word and being Comforted by the Word--that's all.

While the Oak Hills elders were hoodwinked by a woman, the material was probably collected by Lynn Anderson who tells you how to DELIBERATELY navigate the winds of change He is blowing. And, when the leaders in Ephesians 4 are to PREVENT the blowing winds.

Lynn Anderson etal: While WE want to be considerate of feelings and comfort zones, WE should be much more interested in being obedient to God and considering what He desires. Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. Gal.1:10. Rather than asking what kind of worship we are comfortable with, each of us should be asking what kind of worship is pleasing to God.

I want to be kind and say all of the musical discorders of the rest Jesus died to give us, I have to believe that anyone who would divide the elders and congregation and drive off half of them to get HIS COMFORT ZONE stroked is beyond redemption. They might be evil and ignorant at the same time.

The command from the Wilderness onward was to

PREACH the word by READING the Word.

Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

June 9th, 2011, 8:41 pm #15

on brother Cruz to respond.

Brother Crump, thank you for responding. A follow-up question: Is it then o.k. for us to sing happy birthday as we do on occasional Sunday's at my congregation after the closing prayer?

Also, since you believe it is wrong during an assembly to honor someone other than God, such as a veteran or one's birthday, is it also wrong for a preacher to acknowledge a couple's anniversary? Our preacher recently acknowledged a couple in our congregation who has been married 60 years.

Some might say we are honoring God in the assembly when we honor marriages, military, and people period, whether it be birthdays, baptisms, teachers and workers in the church, etc. Worship certainly addresses our dualism between assembly and daily living.

-Sonny
Why not wait until you're completely away from the assembly to conduct worldly affairs, such as honoring anniversaries, soldiers, birthdays, those who got promotions at work, lamenting with those who got fired, making much ado about the number of puppies your Rottweiler had, and other, similar issues of non-spiritual, worldly interest?
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

June 9th, 2011, 9:21 pm #16

I have a short question for Donnie. To be concise I will also inform you the reason for the question. Donnie, did you ever serve in the military? I am asking because last Sunday Buck Dozier recognized a U.S. Marine that had just returned from combat in Afghanistan. The congregation rose to their feet and gave that Marine an ovation welcoming him safely back home. As I applauded and looked around at the other members showing their gratification I couldn't help but notice you in the critics pew sitting as if nothing had occured.

I come from a military family and am a veteran myself therefore I cannot understand how someone cannot recoginze the sacrifices of that Marine and all the others serving in the military today. Without their sacrifces and the sacrifices of the ones that served before them, the freedoms we enjoy today would not exist. Thanks to them, you have the freedom and the right to sit and ignore. It's your right but I just don't understand.
FROM: Sonny (no login) 99.186.93.107
SUBJECT: Obeying Leaders, Communion and Unity, and Singing Happy Birthday
WHEN: June 8 2011, 11:25 PM

Brother Cruz, how does your website fit in with complying with the command in Hebrews 13:17 to obey your leaders? How do you justify disobeying and disrespecting your elders at Madison with this site? Also, do you take the Lord's Supper at Madison, because if you do and there is division between you and members there then you are in danger of eating and drinking damnation to your soul per 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, as there is to be no divisions as you eat and drink of the bread and cup to honor Christ.
==========================================

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Sonny,

Heb. 13:17 covers a lot of ground. Obeying "them that have the rule over you" implies that there is a command to be obeyed. Maybe you know what that command is; I do not. Besides, obedience does not extend to anything which is wrong in itself, or which would be a violation of conscience.

On the part of those "that have the rule over you," there is accountability involved -- "for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account." While it is true that the elders deserve "double honor," that, too, is contingent upon:

(1) That they "rule well,"
(2) That they (especially) "labor in the word and doctrine" [cf. I Tim. 5:17];
(3) That they "hold fast the faithful word as [they] have been taught [Titus 1:9];
(4) That they are qualified to TEACH that which they have been taught [cf. I Tim. 3:2].

I have already brought up the phone conversation I had [while the troublesome "transformation" of the congregation was in progress] with the elder who acknowledged that "change" was needed, beginning with the "worship service" and its "worship leader." That was a cordial conversation. There was no disrespect there.

I have already mentioned the division in the eldership at the outset. And speaking of the qualifications of elders, their responsibility and accountability, was the "problem" initiated by Donnie? I think NOT!!! "Division" is an ugly word especially when it occurs in the body of Christ. God detests it ... still, even when the "majority rule" is applied in dealing with controversial matters. Why? Because, as in this case, the other elders who were aware of potential adverse effects, by implementing Rick Warren's "culture-driven SCHEME for growing the church," were unwilling to compromise the truth, the doctrine, they had learned. Their only recourse, in order to preserve "the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace," was to have no part in the Warren SCHEME.

I'm bringing up the subject of "division" because of the wrong blame-game strategy of those who are opposed to ConcernedMembers and its objectives. Are you listening or taking notes, David Fields? That's where the division started. It is clearly explained above.

By the way, I did meet with some of the remaining elders a couple of [convenient] times. What was the issue and how was it resolved? It was agreed that the owners of this site [via Donnie] make an indication on the webpage to ensure that the expression "concerned members of Madison" is not to be confused with "Madison Church of Christ" itself. We obliged as you can see on this page:[/color]
"This web site is not part of or approved by the Madison Church of Christ"
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Do you still not see and understand and accept it, David Fields? [I seriously doubt that you do, Dave, unless you have a very open mind.]

With regard to my partaking of the Lord's Supper, just refer to that "division" I explained above. Along with that, how the division between: (a) the "traditional" group and (b) the "contemporary" group ensued. I did not do it. I did not cause it. What's necessary for me is to FOCUS on nothing else but the sacrifice and death of my Savior. I may explain, however, that I try my best not to lose that focus when the Communion "messenger" delivers a message with earthly stories that deflect from the purpose of the observance or when the female soloist is a distraction when she performs while the congregation is in silence. (Oh, boy, how Ken Sublett accurately explains the effects of musical idolatry.)[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Sonny
Sonny

June 9th, 2011, 10:26 pm #17

Brother Cruz,

You are mistaken about the Lord's Supper in First Corinthians 11 and worship in general. Paul did not say that communion is just about thinking on Jesus but also about unity with those with whom we are partaking. In the context, to examine oneself is specifically examining those relationships that are not unified. For the Corinthians, there were divisions including over spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues) and pride, and matters such as rich versus poor. Paul instructs that communion is not just about the individual with Christ but also about the church with one another.

Furthermore, we can see this principle taught concerning worship period. An example is Jesus saying to leave the gift at the altar and first be reconciled to our brother. Peter mentions how a lack of respect towards one's wife can hinder their prayers. Again, there is the communion example, and we could probably list more, but it should not be necessary.

I could be wrong brother, but it appears that you are worshiping at a congregation with brothers and sisters, some of which, you have not forgiven and are consistently in a habit of faultfinding. You are at the assembly to critique, find fault, and share with believers and unbelievers on this site as much as you are there to worship and be involved in the ministries of the congregation and walking in unity.

Finally, you are disregarding Hebrews 13:17 by claiming that you do not understand a specific command. It is a general overarching instruction, principle and attitude that the flock is to have toward her leaders. So, are you disregarding this teaching or not?

-Sonny
Quote
Share

JimmyJoe
JimmyJoe

June 10th, 2011, 4:17 am #18

FROM: Sonny (no login) 99.186.93.107
SUBJECT: Obeying Leaders, Communion and Unity, and Singing Happy Birthday
WHEN: June 8 2011, 11:25 PM

Brother Cruz, how does your website fit in with complying with the command in Hebrews 13:17 to obey your leaders? How do you justify disobeying and disrespecting your elders at Madison with this site? Also, do you take the Lord's Supper at Madison, because if you do and there is division between you and members there then you are in danger of eating and drinking damnation to your soul per 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, as there is to be no divisions as you eat and drink of the bread and cup to honor Christ.
==========================================

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Sonny,

Heb. 13:17 covers a lot of ground. Obeying "them that have the rule over you" implies that there is a command to be obeyed. Maybe you know what that command is; I do not. Besides, obedience does not extend to anything which is wrong in itself, or which would be a violation of conscience.

On the part of those "that have the rule over you," there is accountability involved -- "for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account." While it is true that the elders deserve "double honor," that, too, is contingent upon:

(1) That they "rule well,"
(2) That they (especially) "labor in the word and doctrine" [cf. I Tim. 5:17];
(3) That they "hold fast the faithful word as [they] have been taught [Titus 1:9];
(4) That they are qualified to TEACH that which they have been taught [cf. I Tim. 3:2].

I have already brought up the phone conversation I had [while the troublesome "transformation" of the congregation was in progress] with the elder who acknowledged that "change" was needed, beginning with the "worship service" and its "worship leader." That was a cordial conversation. There was no disrespect there.

I have already mentioned the division in the eldership at the outset. And speaking of the qualifications of elders, their responsibility and accountability, was the "problem" initiated by Donnie? I think NOT!!! "Division" is an ugly word especially when it occurs in the body of Christ. God detests it ... still, even when the "majority rule" is applied in dealing with controversial matters. Why? Because, as in this case, the other elders who were aware of potential adverse effects, by implementing Rick Warren's "culture-driven SCHEME for growing the church," were unwilling to compromise the truth, the doctrine, they had learned. Their only recourse, in order to preserve "the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace," was to have no part in the Warren SCHEME.

I'm bringing up the subject of "division" because of the wrong blame-game strategy of those who are opposed to ConcernedMembers and its objectives. Are you listening or taking notes, David Fields? That's where the division started. It is clearly explained above.

By the way, I did meet with some of the remaining elders a couple of [convenient] times. What was the issue and how was it resolved? It was agreed that the owners of this site [via Donnie] make an indication on the webpage to ensure that the expression "concerned members of Madison" is not to be confused with "Madison Church of Christ" itself. We obliged as you can see on this page:[/color]
"This web site is not part of or approved by the Madison Church of Christ"
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Do you still not see and understand and accept it, David Fields? [I seriously doubt that you do, Dave, unless you have a very open mind.]

With regard to my partaking of the Lord's Supper, just refer to that "division" I explained above. Along with that, how the division between: (a) the "traditional" group and (b) the "contemporary" group ensued. I did not do it. I did not cause it. What's necessary for me is to FOCUS on nothing else but the sacrifice and death of my Savior. I may explain, however, that I try my best not to lose that focus when the Communion "messenger" delivers a message with earthly stories that deflect from the purpose of the observance or when the female soloist is a distraction when she performs while the congregation is in silence. (Oh, boy, how Ken Sublett accurately explains the effects of musical idolatry.)[/color]
Donnie, I didn't intend for this thread to go off on a tagent. I thought I was just asking a simple question and would receive a simple answer to quench my curiosity. However, Dr. Crump did bring up some things that intrested me. First was the idea that one could cheat God. I believe one could deny God but as God is omnipotent and the Creator one could not cheat God. I find Dr. Crump very conservative on most occasions but very liberal in his belief in the seperation of church and state. I do find amusing him being an "almost veteran". One of my best friends is a doctor and I thought about studying medicine at one time so I guess I could be an "almost doctor" and perform "almost operations" (satire). After perusing this site for the last few years, I have to admit to just scanning Mr. Sublett's post and then continuing to the next post. I have come to the conclusion that he is so far in left field that the foul pole doesn't even come into play or I'm not going to live long enough to decipher his ramblings.

On a serious note, if you are attending the one combined service at Madison this Sunday maybe we could sit together for the meal while they burn the debt. The internet is so informal maybe by conversing in person we could get to know each other better.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

June 10th, 2011, 4:21 am #19

Brother Cruz,

You are mistaken about the Lord's Supper in First Corinthians 11 and worship in general. Paul did not say that communion is just about thinking on Jesus but also about unity with those with whom we are partaking. In the context, to examine oneself is specifically examining those relationships that are not unified. For the Corinthians, there were divisions including over spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues) and pride, and matters such as rich versus poor. Paul instructs that communion is not just about the individual with Christ but also about the church with one another.

Furthermore, we can see this principle taught concerning worship period. An example is Jesus saying to leave the gift at the altar and first be reconciled to our brother. Peter mentions how a lack of respect towards one's wife can hinder their prayers. Again, there is the communion example, and we could probably list more, but it should not be necessary.

I could be wrong brother, but it appears that you are worshiping at a congregation with brothers and sisters, some of which, you have not forgiven and are consistently in a habit of faultfinding. You are at the assembly to critique, find fault, and share with believers and unbelievers on this site as much as you are there to worship and be involved in the ministries of the congregation and walking in unity.

Finally, you are disregarding Hebrews 13:17 by claiming that you do not understand a specific command. It is a general overarching instruction, principle and attitude that the flock is to have toward her leaders. So, are you disregarding this teaching or not?

-Sonny
These are great issues for discussion. This space is reserved for my response as time will allow it. To others who would like to comment on the issues thus far, please respond only to any of the messages already posted earlier--but not to this one. Thanks!!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

June 10th, 2011, 4:46 am #20

Donnie, I didn't intend for this thread to go off on a tagent. I thought I was just asking a simple question and would receive a simple answer to quench my curiosity. However, Dr. Crump did bring up some things that intrested me. First was the idea that one could cheat God. I believe one could deny God but as God is omnipotent and the Creator one could not cheat God. I find Dr. Crump very conservative on most occasions but very liberal in his belief in the seperation of church and state. I do find amusing him being an "almost veteran". One of my best friends is a doctor and I thought about studying medicine at one time so I guess I could be an "almost doctor" and perform "almost operations" (satire). After perusing this site for the last few years, I have to admit to just scanning Mr. Sublett's post and then continuing to the next post. I have come to the conclusion that he is so far in left field that the foul pole doesn't even come into play or I'm not going to live long enough to decipher his ramblings.

On a serious note, if you are attending the one combined service at Madison this Sunday maybe we could sit together for the meal while they burn the debt. The internet is so informal maybe by conversing in person we could get to know each other better.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]It is really true that no two individuals are alike in word and in deed. However, that is not to be confused with the message from Scripture about being "of one mind" and "in one spirit." There are those of us who are simple-minded, and those too deep and scholarly.

You know where the "critic" sits. LOL. So, would you "meet me up there" this Sunday? Maybe, after the occasion [the day after], you'll have something to convey here to those who adamantly judge me as "the sinner," "not worthy of being a brother in Christ," etc., that I am really a nice person. [Nod!!!][/color]
Quote
Like
Share