COMMUNITY CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST

COMMUNITY CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST

John Waddey
John Waddey

March 25th, 2003, 8:08 pm #1

<font size=4> COMMUNITY CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST </font>

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>We all understand that God did not assign a specific name to his church. Rather, several different names are used to designate his people: church of God, church of the Lord, churches of Christ and the church. When there was but one body of people in the world that honored Christ as their founder, head and Lord there was no need for any further identification. We, however, live in a society were there are upwards of 1500 different kinds of churches. This situation creates a state of confusion as to which body of people one is referring to when he speaks of or asks about "the church." This situation necessitates that we have some way of identifying ourselves so we can communicate, find each other and point others to a body of brethren in a given place.

In the early days of the Restoration Movement three different streams of people came together to unite on the Bible and restore the faith and practice of the original church. Those led by Alexander Campbell most often referred to themselves as Disciples of Christ. Those led by Barton Stone most often used the name Church of Christ. Those coming from the James O'Kelly, Elias Smith and Abner Jones movement preferred the name Christian Church. There was not a strict adherence to any particular one of these names and all the brethren recognized each other as fellow-Christians serving God in one body. When schism occurred at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, those preferring to have instrumental music, missionary societies, women in positions of church leadership, etc., generally identified themselves as Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ. Our brethren distinguished themselves by the biblical name Churches of Christ, found in Rom. 16:16. Over a period of 25 years this distinction of names became virtually complete. Our brethren continued to hold and use the name Churches of Christ, not because it was the exclusive Bible cognomen for the church but because it was biblical and was helpful in identifying our people, wherever they might be.

Over the last 40 years, as liberalism slowly eroded the Biblical foundations of many of our younger preachers and they in turn failed to properly instruct and indoctrinate our people, a new generation of leaders arose who seemed to be ashamed of their association with the brotherhood of people known as Churches of Christ. They craved acceptance with their neighbors of the Evangelical churches. They did not want to bear the stigma of being exclusive and different from the worldly churches around them. Since they no longer believed the exclusive message of salvation and the one church of Scripture, they did not want to be publicly identified with those who still held to such exclusive beliefs. Hence they began to cast around for a name that would do two things:
  • It would mask from the people of their community that they were affiliated with other Churches of Christ.
  • It would make them appear like other "Community Churches" that were experiencing phenomenal growth. We know that many of those who have taken this route have chosen as their models, "Non-denominational Community Churches" such as the Saddleback Community Church of Orange County California and Willow Creek Church in Barrington, Illinois and Robert Shuller's Crystal Cathedral. Of course those churches are thoroughly denominational in their faith and practice since they prefer the doctrines and commandments of men rather than the authority of the New Testament of Christ as their standard. Numerous Baptist, Methodist, Reformed and other denominational congregations have also taken this same moniker of "Community Church." It seems that some of our brethren prefer to be identified with such groups rather than with their brethren of Churches of Christ.
  • Another probable motive is that under the name of Community Church, the typical congregation places little or no emphasis on doctrinal loyalty. Thus a typical Community Church might employ a Methodist minister this year and a Disciples of Christ man the next, and a female Presbyterian the following. Indicators are that some of our brethren who have chosen this route have a similar laxness about doctrinal standards. Church for them is all about fellowship, fun, doing good and feeling good. Such things as abiding in the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11) are given little emphasis.
Those of our people who have chosen to identify themselves as Community churches seem to have a commonality about them. They all have embraced the agenda of the change movement, which seeks to transform our people into the likeness of our denominational neighbors. Such things as salvation by grace through faith before immersion, a de-emphasis on the importance of baptism, a willingness to tolerate the use of instrumental music in worship, a willingness to allow women to assume leadership roles in the life of the church, acceptance of denominational churches as in good standing with God and other related issues seem to be part and parcel of those wishing to be known as "Community Churches." Several of our Universities and Colleges have given encouragement to the Community Church movement: among them Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine University and Harding Graduate School of Religion.

It would be as scriptural to identify ones congregation as the Community Church of Christ as the State Street Church of Christ. But for most of these folks, they want the "Community Church" without the "of Christ" designation. As Jesus said we can only judge them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16-21). The direction of this movement is away from New Testament Christianity and from obedience to the message of Christ. It is away from the brotherhood of Churches of Christ of which they once were a part. In my judgment it would be a mistake for a congregation to take such a name as it creates confusion as to who they are. It also identifies them with those who are abandoning the Bible as their standard of faith and practice. It reflects on their part a sense of shame to be identified with the gospel and the body of Christ. Paul was not ashamed of the message he preached (Rom. 1:16). With Jesus, he gladly endured the shame of the cross (Heb. 12:2; Gal. 5:11) and so should we. If the world despises us for what we believe and stand for, so be it; they hated Jesus for his faith and convictions (John 15:17-20). </font>

___________________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now

E-Mail: [url=mailto:johnwaddey@aol.com]johnwaddey@aol.com[/url]
Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on September 6th, 2005, 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Horace Johns
Horace Johns

March 29th, 2003, 7:40 am #2

I would like to commend you on your message. You explained the situation in such simple words even the leaders of theh Madison denomination should understand it.

The sad part is that probably none of the "leaders" will read it. If so, they would not pay any attntion to it. Maybe, if we could get Mr. Gingles to talk to the Holy Spirit to come to a leaders' meeting and explain it to them or does he reserve that gift for himself. I'm sure Don Finto would come over if Mr. Gingles asked. I understand he has close ties to "the apolstle". Since Joe Boehm supports Finto, maybe he will talk to him when he comes for the meeting.

Or, maybe Jeff Walling will talk to the Spirit when
he is here. If not, all hope is not lost. The big one, Max Lucado, will be around soon. I'm fairly certain that Head Elder Dozier or Ass't Head Elder Hoppes will be given the gift soon so I guess your message will be lost in never, never land.
Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

September 16th, 2003, 6:56 am #3

Mr. Johns:

Sometimes I wonder how much of this “speaking to the Holy Spirit” is going on with some of the leaders of certain congregations moving toward that direction. If not, then, the Holy Spirit whispering in a clear voice to them individually or to the church collectively? (Speaking of Madison, someone should be reminded that the MCOFC website needs updating. I’m sure that the remaining elders have selected additional elders, and the site does not yet show their pictures. Also, please verify the hierarchical structure of the leadership.)

As you know there are large congregations of the church that now have this type of organization—some form of a hierarchy. And, it’s really confusing because there are now different ministers and other leaders (including THE WORSHIP LEADER) in the mix. In these instances, I wouldn’t be surprised if each of these congregations now had a Head Elder and an Assistant Head Elder [or at least currently serving as “Acting” or “Interim” Head Elder, etc.]—and it’s just not known to the membership yet.

Have you read about Max Lucado, one of the most prominent change agents, as reported in “What Happened at Madison This Week”? The Holy Spirit “spoke” unequivocally to LUCADO and the other ministers, as well as to the elders [?], about their mission. So, now, ashamed of the name of Christ, they have officially changed the name from “Oak Hills Church of Christ” to “Oak Hills Church” [implication: “Oak Hills Community Church”].

These prominent change agents have strong influences at Madison: Don Finto, Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, Joe Beam, Lindsey Garmon, Larry Sullivan. One recent MUSICAL WORSHIP guide quoted a statement by MAX LUCADO, as if the scriptures didn’t have enough to quote from. And you are predicting the “big one, MAX LUCADO, will be around soon”?

Donnie Cruz
Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

September 17th, 2003, 5:27 pm #4

I would like to commend you on your message. You explained the situation in such simple words even the leaders of theh Madison denomination should understand it.

The sad part is that probably none of the "leaders" will read it. If so, they would not pay any attntion to it. Maybe, if we could get Mr. Gingles to talk to the Holy Spirit to come to a leaders' meeting and explain it to them or does he reserve that gift for himself. I'm sure Don Finto would come over if Mr. Gingles asked. I understand he has close ties to "the apolstle". Since Joe Boehm supports Finto, maybe he will talk to him when he comes for the meeting.

Or, maybe Jeff Walling will talk to the Spirit when
he is here. If not, all hope is not lost. The big one, Max Lucado, will be around soon. I'm fairly certain that Head Elder Dozier or Ass't Head Elder Hoppes will be given the gift soon so I guess your message will be lost in never, never land.
Mr. Johns:

Sometimes I wonder how much of this “speaking to the Holy Spirit” is going on with some of the leaders of certain congregations moving toward that direction. If not, then, is it the Holy Spirit "whispering" in a clear voice to them individually or to the church collectively? (Speaking of Madison, someone should be reminded that the MCOFC website needs updating. I’m sure that the remaining elders have selected additional elders, and the site does not yet show their pictures. Also, please verify the hierarchical structure of the leadership.)

As you know there are large congregations of the church that now have this type of organization—some form of a hierarchy. And, it’s really confusing because there are now different ministers and other leaders (including THE WORSHIP LEADER) in the mix. In these instances, I wouldn’t be surprised if each of these congregations now had a Head Elder and an Assistant Head Elder [or at least currently serving as “Acting” or “Interim” Head Elder, etc.]—and it’s just not known to the membership yet.

Have you read about Max Lucado, one of the most prominent change agents, as reported in “What Happened at Madison This Week”? The Holy Spirit “spoke” unequivocally to LUCADO and the other ministers, as well as to the elders [?], about their mission. So, now, ashamed of the name of Christ, they have officially changed the name from “Oak Hills Church of Christ” to “Oak Hills Church” [implication: “Oak Hills Community Church”].

These prominent change agents have strong influences at Madison: Don Finto, Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, Joe Beam, Lindsey Garmon, Larry Sullivan. One recent MUSICAL WORSHIP guide quoted a statement by MAX LUCADO, as if the scriptures didn’t have enough to quote from. And you are predicting the “big one, MAX LUCADO, will be around soon”?

Donnie Cruz
Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

October 3rd, 2003, 7:15 am #5

<font size=4> COMMUNITY CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST </font>

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>We all understand that God did not assign a specific name to his church. Rather, several different names are used to designate his people: church of God, church of the Lord, churches of Christ and the church. When there was but one body of people in the world that honored Christ as their founder, head and Lord there was no need for any further identification. We, however, live in a society were there are upwards of 1500 different kinds of churches. This situation creates a state of confusion as to which body of people one is referring to when he speaks of or asks about "the church." This situation necessitates that we have some way of identifying ourselves so we can communicate, find each other and point others to a body of brethren in a given place.

In the early days of the Restoration Movement three different streams of people came together to unite on the Bible and restore the faith and practice of the original church. Those led by Alexander Campbell most often referred to themselves as Disciples of Christ. Those led by Barton Stone most often used the name Church of Christ. Those coming from the James O'Kelly, Elias Smith and Abner Jones movement preferred the name Christian Church. There was not a strict adherence to any particular one of these names and all the brethren recognized each other as fellow-Christians serving God in one body. When schism occurred at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, those preferring to have instrumental music, missionary societies, women in positions of church leadership, etc., generally identified themselves as Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ. Our brethren distinguished themselves by the biblical name Churches of Christ, found in Rom. 16:16. Over a period of 25 years this distinction of names became virtually complete. Our brethren continued to hold and use the name Churches of Christ, not because it was the exclusive Bible cognomen for the church but because it was biblical and was helpful in identifying our people, wherever they might be.

Over the last 40 years, as liberalism slowly eroded the Biblical foundations of many of our younger preachers and they in turn failed to properly instruct and indoctrinate our people, a new generation of leaders arose who seemed to be ashamed of their association with the brotherhood of people known as Churches of Christ. They craved acceptance with their neighbors of the Evangelical churches. They did not want to bear the stigma of being exclusive and different from the worldly churches around them. Since they no longer believed the exclusive message of salvation and the one church of Scripture, they did not want to be publicly identified with those who still held to such exclusive beliefs. Hence they began to cast around for a name that would do two things:
  • It would mask from the people of their community that they were affiliated with other Churches of Christ.
  • It would make them appear like other "Community Churches" that were experiencing phenomenal growth. We know that many of those who have taken this route have chosen as their models, "Non-denominational Community Churches" such as the Saddleback Community Church of Orange County California and Willow Creek Church in Barrington, Illinois and Robert Shuller's Crystal Cathedral. Of course those churches are thoroughly denominational in their faith and practice since they prefer the doctrines and commandments of men rather than the authority of the New Testament of Christ as their standard. Numerous Baptist, Methodist, Reformed and other denominational congregations have also taken this same moniker of "Community Church." It seems that some of our brethren prefer to be identified with such groups rather than with their brethren of Churches of Christ.
  • Another probable motive is that under the name of Community Church, the typical congregation places little or no emphasis on doctrinal loyalty. Thus a typical Community Church might employ a Methodist minister this year and a Disciples of Christ man the next, and a female Presbyterian the following. Indicators are that some of our brethren who have chosen this route have a similar laxness about doctrinal standards. Church for them is all about fellowship, fun, doing good and feeling good. Such things as abiding in the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11) are given little emphasis.
Those of our people who have chosen to identify themselves as Community churches seem to have a commonality about them. They all have embraced the agenda of the change movement, which seeks to transform our people into the likeness of our denominational neighbors. Such things as salvation by grace through faith before immersion, a de-emphasis on the importance of baptism, a willingness to tolerate the use of instrumental music in worship, a willingness to allow women to assume leadership roles in the life of the church, acceptance of denominational churches as in good standing with God and other related issues seem to be part and parcel of those wishing to be known as "Community Churches." Several of our Universities and Colleges have given encouragement to the Community Church movement: among them Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine University and Harding Graduate School of Religion.

It would be as scriptural to identify ones congregation as the Community Church of Christ as the State Street Church of Christ. But for most of these folks, they want the "Community Church" without the "of Christ" designation. As Jesus said we can only judge them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16-21). The direction of this movement is away from New Testament Christianity and from obedience to the message of Christ. It is away from the brotherhood of Churches of Christ of which they once were a part. In my judgment it would be a mistake for a congregation to take such a name as it creates confusion as to who they are. It also identifies them with those who are abandoning the Bible as their standard of faith and practice. It reflects on their part a sense of shame to be identified with the gospel and the body of Christ. Paul was not ashamed of the message he preached (Rom. 1:16). With Jesus, he gladly endured the shame of the cross (Heb. 12:2; Gal. 5:11) and so should we. If the world despises us for what we believe and stand for, so be it; they hated Jesus for his faith and convictions (John 15:17-20). </font>

___________________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now

E-Mail: [url=mailto:johnwaddey@aol.com]johnwaddey@aol.com[/url]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE OAK HILLS CHURCH OF CHRIST IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, HAS CHANGED ITS NAME TO OAK HILLS CHURCH (DROPPING THE NAME OF CHRIST). Excerpt from its website (by Max Lucado, August 2003):
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[[[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. . .
Our fifth major initiative will, hopefully, serve to lower this [“spatial”] barrier: simultaneous Sunday morning services in the South Room and a fourth service on Sunday night. Let's use the new "South Room" to host worship services concurrent with the second and third service in the main Worship Center. A video of the first service message will be shown and an opportunity to worship will be provided. We will begin this gathering in late fall 2003. In early 2004, we will launch a Sunday evening service. I will present the same message from Sunday morning and we will target twenty and thirty year olds.

Recognizing the power of contemporary music, these new assemblies will be instrumental. A soft keyboard beneath an altar call, the sound of a cello during communion service ... these tools enhance outreach. After fifteen years and several thousand sermons, I am convinced instrumentation reaches hearts. … Motivated by a desire to touch more souls, we feel it is wise to use this tool. The three Sunday morning services in the main Worship Center will remain non-instrumental. In this way, ample choices will be offered to all members.
. . .
Some people find the name "Church of Christ" to be an insurmountable [“social”] barrier. Scripture urges us to remove cultural hindrances while remaining scripturally true. … Our seventh initiative calls for an alteration of our name. ... We can reach more souls by modifying "Oak Hills Church of Christ" to "Oak Hills Church" . . . While we deeply appreciate our heritage in the Churches of Christ, we recognize the hindrance the name creates for some. … We recognize the emotional struggle this decision spawns for some.
. . .
In the early nineties, our Lord called us to be a force for unity among San Antonio churches. We, for the first time, "swapped pulpits" with Trinity Baptist Church. This was a major move and we came to it cautiously. I remember Charles Prince preaching on the topic of Christian unity and urging us to "not consult our fears." We didn't and God blessed the church for it.
. . .
Over the last few weeks He has moved in great force again. God has given us our vision. The call to be a city-impacting church has come through loud and clear. Our elders enjoy an uncommon unity and conviction. The ministers, without exception, enthusiastically embrace this vision. Our marching orders are in hand.
. . .

Max Lucado
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ]]]
Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

October 3rd, 2003, 7:22 am #6

<font size=4> COMMUNITY CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST </font>

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>We all understand that God did not assign a specific name to his church. Rather, several different names are used to designate his people: church of God, church of the Lord, churches of Christ and the church. When there was but one body of people in the world that honored Christ as their founder, head and Lord there was no need for any further identification. We, however, live in a society were there are upwards of 1500 different kinds of churches. This situation creates a state of confusion as to which body of people one is referring to when he speaks of or asks about "the church." This situation necessitates that we have some way of identifying ourselves so we can communicate, find each other and point others to a body of brethren in a given place.

In the early days of the Restoration Movement three different streams of people came together to unite on the Bible and restore the faith and practice of the original church. Those led by Alexander Campbell most often referred to themselves as Disciples of Christ. Those led by Barton Stone most often used the name Church of Christ. Those coming from the James O'Kelly, Elias Smith and Abner Jones movement preferred the name Christian Church. There was not a strict adherence to any particular one of these names and all the brethren recognized each other as fellow-Christians serving God in one body. When schism occurred at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, those preferring to have instrumental music, missionary societies, women in positions of church leadership, etc., generally identified themselves as Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ. Our brethren distinguished themselves by the biblical name Churches of Christ, found in Rom. 16:16. Over a period of 25 years this distinction of names became virtually complete. Our brethren continued to hold and use the name Churches of Christ, not because it was the exclusive Bible cognomen for the church but because it was biblical and was helpful in identifying our people, wherever they might be.

Over the last 40 years, as liberalism slowly eroded the Biblical foundations of many of our younger preachers and they in turn failed to properly instruct and indoctrinate our people, a new generation of leaders arose who seemed to be ashamed of their association with the brotherhood of people known as Churches of Christ. They craved acceptance with their neighbors of the Evangelical churches. They did not want to bear the stigma of being exclusive and different from the worldly churches around them. Since they no longer believed the exclusive message of salvation and the one church of Scripture, they did not want to be publicly identified with those who still held to such exclusive beliefs. Hence they began to cast around for a name that would do two things:
  • It would mask from the people of their community that they were affiliated with other Churches of Christ.
  • It would make them appear like other "Community Churches" that were experiencing phenomenal growth. We know that many of those who have taken this route have chosen as their models, "Non-denominational Community Churches" such as the Saddleback Community Church of Orange County California and Willow Creek Church in Barrington, Illinois and Robert Shuller's Crystal Cathedral. Of course those churches are thoroughly denominational in their faith and practice since they prefer the doctrines and commandments of men rather than the authority of the New Testament of Christ as their standard. Numerous Baptist, Methodist, Reformed and other denominational congregations have also taken this same moniker of "Community Church." It seems that some of our brethren prefer to be identified with such groups rather than with their brethren of Churches of Christ.
  • Another probable motive is that under the name of Community Church, the typical congregation places little or no emphasis on doctrinal loyalty. Thus a typical Community Church might employ a Methodist minister this year and a Disciples of Christ man the next, and a female Presbyterian the following. Indicators are that some of our brethren who have chosen this route have a similar laxness about doctrinal standards. Church for them is all about fellowship, fun, doing good and feeling good. Such things as abiding in the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11) are given little emphasis.
Those of our people who have chosen to identify themselves as Community churches seem to have a commonality about them. They all have embraced the agenda of the change movement, which seeks to transform our people into the likeness of our denominational neighbors. Such things as salvation by grace through faith before immersion, a de-emphasis on the importance of baptism, a willingness to tolerate the use of instrumental music in worship, a willingness to allow women to assume leadership roles in the life of the church, acceptance of denominational churches as in good standing with God and other related issues seem to be part and parcel of those wishing to be known as "Community Churches." Several of our Universities and Colleges have given encouragement to the Community Church movement: among them Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine University and Harding Graduate School of Religion.

It would be as scriptural to identify ones congregation as the Community Church of Christ as the State Street Church of Christ. But for most of these folks, they want the "Community Church" without the "of Christ" designation. As Jesus said we can only judge them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16-21). The direction of this movement is away from New Testament Christianity and from obedience to the message of Christ. It is away from the brotherhood of Churches of Christ of which they once were a part. In my judgment it would be a mistake for a congregation to take such a name as it creates confusion as to who they are. It also identifies them with those who are abandoning the Bible as their standard of faith and practice. It reflects on their part a sense of shame to be identified with the gospel and the body of Christ. Paul was not ashamed of the message he preached (Rom. 1:16). With Jesus, he gladly endured the shame of the cross (Heb. 12:2; Gal. 5:11) and so should we. If the world despises us for what we believe and stand for, so be it; they hated Jesus for his faith and convictions (John 15:17-20). </font>

___________________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now

E-Mail: [url=mailto:johnwaddey@aol.com]johnwaddey@aol.com[/url]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Oak Hills drops 'Church of Christ' -- It's about time!”—Kenneth Sublett explains:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[[[[[[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is not a problem: it is in the book and it is all coming true. To paraphrase Isaiah's treatment of Israel as His Vineyard, the remnant will be a "tiny drop of good juice, out of one rotten grape, off one bare cluster, off one dead vine, from one vineyard whose walls have been broken down by God to let in the BEASTS to eat up the harvest and let the briers and thorns obliterate that which God provided free of charge.” In my circle, this mighty apostasy hit home when PK insisted that we MUST BREAK DOWN THE WILLS. We did and the beasts came in to eat up our lunch and souls. People die (Amos 5, 6, 8; Isaiah 5) by hungering and thirsting for the word and CANNOT find it in any church I am aware of. John Waddey's estimate of only 15% who have not been LED into apostasy may be too generous.

The pattern repeats;

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Both Lucado and Shelly deny that Christ came fully in the flesh and both promote (maybe to sell books) thinking of the S.O.N. God as the S.U.N. god. They both repudiate Christ and even friend John Mark Hicks warns about their INCARNATIONAL THEOLOGY as denying that God came in the flesh.

Did you see MARS almost IN the Sun last night: it won't happen again for a long time. I was truly astounded at the sight where the MOON shined much like the SUN and the WARRIOR GOD glowed angry red. Has there been more distress of nations?

The SEA is derived from SALT. Is there anything there? Has there been a time when the SEA upon which stands the holy whore Circe (church) has had less SALT? Waves are "agitated."

Roaring is from:

Echeo (g2278) ay-kheh'-o; from 2279; to make a loud noise, i.e. reverberate: - roar, sound.

THOUGH I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as SOUNDING brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 1 Cor. 13:1.

These were instruments of warfare and also of those looking for a SPIRIT to guide them.

This word speaks of the TEAM who came to wail for the Dead girl. When Jesus CAST THEM OUT it was like casting out Dung. But who can deny that MUSICAL WORSHIP (even in the most conservative churches) creates such emotional anxiety that LEARNING is not possible?

Those waves roaring may be from NAVIGATING THE WINDS OF CHANGE.

While this applied to that generation, prophecies have an ongoing message. Therefore, Jesus would say to us undergoing the same abomination which is desolating the church by allowing SINGERS and MUSICIANS to enter the Holy Place as the type of the body or Church of Christ we are repudiating the ONCE FOR ALL TIMES SACRIFICE of Jesus Christ who was then Mocked by the Levitical musicians (warriors) trying to melt His heart.

Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Well, now is the time we should know more about prophecy which is being used by the BEAST to defeat the church.

And God has blinded eyes and plugged up ears so that no one listens.

Ken, living expectingly as the SIGNS match with the date.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]]]]]]
Quote
Share

ConcernedMembers
ConcernedMembers

October 3rd, 2003, 7:26 am #7

<font size=4> COMMUNITY CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST </font>

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>We all understand that God did not assign a specific name to his church. Rather, several different names are used to designate his people: church of God, church of the Lord, churches of Christ and the church. When there was but one body of people in the world that honored Christ as their founder, head and Lord there was no need for any further identification. We, however, live in a society were there are upwards of 1500 different kinds of churches. This situation creates a state of confusion as to which body of people one is referring to when he speaks of or asks about "the church." This situation necessitates that we have some way of identifying ourselves so we can communicate, find each other and point others to a body of brethren in a given place.

In the early days of the Restoration Movement three different streams of people came together to unite on the Bible and restore the faith and practice of the original church. Those led by Alexander Campbell most often referred to themselves as Disciples of Christ. Those led by Barton Stone most often used the name Church of Christ. Those coming from the James O'Kelly, Elias Smith and Abner Jones movement preferred the name Christian Church. There was not a strict adherence to any particular one of these names and all the brethren recognized each other as fellow-Christians serving God in one body. When schism occurred at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, those preferring to have instrumental music, missionary societies, women in positions of church leadership, etc., generally identified themselves as Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ. Our brethren distinguished themselves by the biblical name Churches of Christ, found in Rom. 16:16. Over a period of 25 years this distinction of names became virtually complete. Our brethren continued to hold and use the name Churches of Christ, not because it was the exclusive Bible cognomen for the church but because it was biblical and was helpful in identifying our people, wherever they might be.

Over the last 40 years, as liberalism slowly eroded the Biblical foundations of many of our younger preachers and they in turn failed to properly instruct and indoctrinate our people, a new generation of leaders arose who seemed to be ashamed of their association with the brotherhood of people known as Churches of Christ. They craved acceptance with their neighbors of the Evangelical churches. They did not want to bear the stigma of being exclusive and different from the worldly churches around them. Since they no longer believed the exclusive message of salvation and the one church of Scripture, they did not want to be publicly identified with those who still held to such exclusive beliefs. Hence they began to cast around for a name that would do two things:
  • It would mask from the people of their community that they were affiliated with other Churches of Christ.
  • It would make them appear like other "Community Churches" that were experiencing phenomenal growth. We know that many of those who have taken this route have chosen as their models, "Non-denominational Community Churches" such as the Saddleback Community Church of Orange County California and Willow Creek Church in Barrington, Illinois and Robert Shuller's Crystal Cathedral. Of course those churches are thoroughly denominational in their faith and practice since they prefer the doctrines and commandments of men rather than the authority of the New Testament of Christ as their standard. Numerous Baptist, Methodist, Reformed and other denominational congregations have also taken this same moniker of "Community Church." It seems that some of our brethren prefer to be identified with such groups rather than with their brethren of Churches of Christ.
  • Another probable motive is that under the name of Community Church, the typical congregation places little or no emphasis on doctrinal loyalty. Thus a typical Community Church might employ a Methodist minister this year and a Disciples of Christ man the next, and a female Presbyterian the following. Indicators are that some of our brethren who have chosen this route have a similar laxness about doctrinal standards. Church for them is all about fellowship, fun, doing good and feeling good. Such things as abiding in the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11) are given little emphasis.
Those of our people who have chosen to identify themselves as Community churches seem to have a commonality about them. They all have embraced the agenda of the change movement, which seeks to transform our people into the likeness of our denominational neighbors. Such things as salvation by grace through faith before immersion, a de-emphasis on the importance of baptism, a willingness to tolerate the use of instrumental music in worship, a willingness to allow women to assume leadership roles in the life of the church, acceptance of denominational churches as in good standing with God and other related issues seem to be part and parcel of those wishing to be known as "Community Churches." Several of our Universities and Colleges have given encouragement to the Community Church movement: among them Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine University and Harding Graduate School of Religion.

It would be as scriptural to identify ones congregation as the Community Church of Christ as the State Street Church of Christ. But for most of these folks, they want the "Community Church" without the "of Christ" designation. As Jesus said we can only judge them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16-21). The direction of this movement is away from New Testament Christianity and from obedience to the message of Christ. It is away from the brotherhood of Churches of Christ of which they once were a part. In my judgment it would be a mistake for a congregation to take such a name as it creates confusion as to who they are. It also identifies them with those who are abandoning the Bible as their standard of faith and practice. It reflects on their part a sense of shame to be identified with the gospel and the body of Christ. Paul was not ashamed of the message he preached (Rom. 1:16). With Jesus, he gladly endured the shame of the cross (Heb. 12:2; Gal. 5:11) and so should we. If the world despises us for what we believe and stand for, so be it; they hated Jesus for his faith and convictions (John 15:17-20). </font>

___________________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now

E-Mail: [url=mailto:johnwaddey@aol.com]johnwaddey@aol.com[/url]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“When You Change Your Name, You Have Changed Your Values”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although the name has changed, Lucado said the church's core values will not. We must wonder how has taking the name of Jesus Christ off of the church sign in front not changed the values. Are they ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ?

Jesus said, "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels" (Luke 9:26). Christians wear the name of Christ; they love the name of Christ; and they are willing to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ. Lucado, however, thinks it is more effective evangelistically as a Christian not to put the name of Christ on the sign.

Some today are now rejecting the use of that name, claiming that it is sectarian. Others are rejecting the name because they, frankly, do not want to be associated with the undesirable behavior that some members of the “church of Christ” have manifested. The old statement that “those people believe you have to be a member of the church of Christ to be saved” has led some to be ashamed of anything that uses the phrase, “church of Christ.” Consequently, a new generation of churches of Christ has adopted some alternative names. Some now go by “Community Church,” putting the phrase “a church of Christ” on the sign in small letters. A minister favoring the change recently gave this explanation:

The truth is that the name “Church of Christ” carries the baggage of an exclusivistic mentality to many people in our culture. “Oh, yeah,” somebody says, “those are the people who think they’re the only ones going to heaven.” One lady said that she never would have come into our building if she had known we are a “Church of Christ.” Once she came in and experienced the presence of God in this body, however, she isn’t about to leave! She and her children--from a very different denominational background--are reveling in the experience of Christ in this community of faith. (Rubel Shelly, "What Is Your Church's Name?", Lovelines, Vol. 24, No. 5, Feb. 4, 1998.)

Such statements show that some are embarrassed and ashamed of the phrase “Church of Christ.” I must wonder if such people will one day be ashamed of the phrase “family of God” when they suppose that there is too much offensive baggage associated with that name. I wonder if they would change their personal name if some member of the family should disgrace it. Many of those postmodernists who are so quick to embrace the unconditional love and grace of God are slow to forgive what embarrasses them.

It is not an accident that this generation has adopted some new names, nor is it surprising that these new names suggest a change in attitude and may say more about the nature of the new congregations than is at first intended. A nearby denominational group subnames itself, “The People’s Church.” What does that say? I suppose that the members of the congregation wanted the community to know that they were a church “of the people,” i.e., that the common people of the city are part of the congregation. Perhaps they wanted to play up their large size and their appeal to people. Perhaps they wanted the community to know how “in tune” they were to the common opinions and beliefs. My thought was
this: if the church belongs to the people, how can it belong to Jesus Christ? If the desires of people are its driving force, how can Jesus be its Lord? Something of this same idea might also be said of the “community” church. Perhaps the idea is that the church is to be identified with the community. This has a fine marketing appeal, but where is the Lord glorified? Does Oak Hills Church now belong to Oak Hills or to Jesus Christ? When they substitute orchestras for Biblical worship, they are not living after the teaching of Jesus.

The words “church of Christ” are not a formal name so much as they are a description of who we are. The Scriptures do not give any title to the church, but no one should doubt that the church uniquely belongs to Jesus. Jesus is the builder of the church (Matt. 16:18); He is the One who purchased it with His blood (Acts 20:28); He is the one and only foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11); He is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22,23); and He is the one and only Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23). When Jesus spoke of the church, He called it “my church” (Matt. 16:18); and when Paul describes the congregations, he calls them “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). There is much to be said in associating the church to the name of Jesus Christ.

It must be further pointed out that we as Christians do whatever we do in His name. When we were baptized, it was in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). When we pray, we pray in His name (John 14:13,14). We give a cup of cold water in His name (Mark 9:41); we gather in His name (Matt. 18:20); and we suffer persecution for His name’s sake (1 Pet. 4:14-16). Repentance and remission of sins are preached in His name (Luke 24:47); we believe in His name (John 1:12); and we have life in His name (John 20:31). Peter reminds us that there is “salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Indeed the apostles taught in His name (Acts 5:41), Philip preached His name (Acts 8:12), and Paul bore His name before the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). It is His name that is to be magnified (Acts 19:17); His name that we are to call upon when we are baptized (22:16); and His name that washes, sanctifies and justifies us (1 Cor. 6:11). Saints are those who call upon His name (1 Cor. 1:2). It was in the name of Jesus Christ that Paul both exhorted the Corinthians and turned the wicked man over to Satan (1 Cor. 1:10; 5:4,5). Paul describes the name of Jesus as that which is above every name (Eph. 1:21); and it is the name at which every knee will bow and every tongue confess to the glory of the Father (Phil. 2:9,10). Whatever we do in word or deed, we are to do in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col. 3:17); and His name is to be glorified in us (2 Thess. 1:12). Even slaves are to live worthy of the name of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:1). Consequently, those who name the name of Jesus ought to abstain from wickedness (1 Tim. 2:19). The name we name is more excellent than the name of the angels (Heb. 1:4). To His name we offer a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips (Heb. 13:15). When we minister to saints, we show love to His name (Heb. 6:10). The name of Jesus Christ, by which we are called, is a fair name (James 2:7); it is the name in which we are to glorify God (1 Pet. 4:14-16). We must hold fast to that name (Rev. 2:13), fear His name (Rev. 11:18), and never deny His name (Rev. 3:8). With all these emphases on the name of Jesus Christ, it is unthinkable that any Christian would abandon it.

Should the church wear the name of Jesus Christ? Yes. Should the church denominate that name? No. The phrase “church of Christ” ought always to be a description of who we are and whose we are. Those who are critical of our use of that name, saying we have somehow denominated it ought to be careful that they are not guilty of the same error with other descriptions.

According to the newspaper, "Oak Hills' core values are similar to those of other evangelical churches, emphasizing the need for faith in Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection for salvation. Oak Hills also believes salvation doesn't come through baptism, but that baptism is the initial step of obedience after salvation." If Max and Company are so ashamed of the "church of Christ" that they are removing it from their signs, then perhaps they are finally being honest. Their core value is Evangelical; they have ceased to be New Testament Christians.

Much of this is taken from my book, Adrift, pp. 113-117.

Phil Sanders
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Waddey’s review of ADRIFT says it is “A BOOK YOU MUST READ”:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
”Much of what has been and is being said and written against the change movement afflicting our brotherhood deals with the visible symptoms of the problem. Bro. Phil Sanders, as a skilled physician, probes deeper and identifies the specific disease that has invaded the hearts and minds of many of our brethren. The disease is "Postmodernism" an affliction of the heart and mind affecting multitudes both in and out of the church.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote
Share

John Waddey
John Waddey

October 5th, 2003, 6:49 am #8

<font size=4> COMMUNITY CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST </font>

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>We all understand that God did not assign a specific name to his church. Rather, several different names are used to designate his people: church of God, church of the Lord, churches of Christ and the church. When there was but one body of people in the world that honored Christ as their founder, head and Lord there was no need for any further identification. We, however, live in a society were there are upwards of 1500 different kinds of churches. This situation creates a state of confusion as to which body of people one is referring to when he speaks of or asks about "the church." This situation necessitates that we have some way of identifying ourselves so we can communicate, find each other and point others to a body of brethren in a given place.

In the early days of the Restoration Movement three different streams of people came together to unite on the Bible and restore the faith and practice of the original church. Those led by Alexander Campbell most often referred to themselves as Disciples of Christ. Those led by Barton Stone most often used the name Church of Christ. Those coming from the James O'Kelly, Elias Smith and Abner Jones movement preferred the name Christian Church. There was not a strict adherence to any particular one of these names and all the brethren recognized each other as fellow-Christians serving God in one body. When schism occurred at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, those preferring to have instrumental music, missionary societies, women in positions of church leadership, etc., generally identified themselves as Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ. Our brethren distinguished themselves by the biblical name Churches of Christ, found in Rom. 16:16. Over a period of 25 years this distinction of names became virtually complete. Our brethren continued to hold and use the name Churches of Christ, not because it was the exclusive Bible cognomen for the church but because it was biblical and was helpful in identifying our people, wherever they might be.

Over the last 40 years, as liberalism slowly eroded the Biblical foundations of many of our younger preachers and they in turn failed to properly instruct and indoctrinate our people, a new generation of leaders arose who seemed to be ashamed of their association with the brotherhood of people known as Churches of Christ. They craved acceptance with their neighbors of the Evangelical churches. They did not want to bear the stigma of being exclusive and different from the worldly churches around them. Since they no longer believed the exclusive message of salvation and the one church of Scripture, they did not want to be publicly identified with those who still held to such exclusive beliefs. Hence they began to cast around for a name that would do two things:
  • It would mask from the people of their community that they were affiliated with other Churches of Christ.
  • It would make them appear like other "Community Churches" that were experiencing phenomenal growth. We know that many of those who have taken this route have chosen as their models, "Non-denominational Community Churches" such as the Saddleback Community Church of Orange County California and Willow Creek Church in Barrington, Illinois and Robert Shuller's Crystal Cathedral. Of course those churches are thoroughly denominational in their faith and practice since they prefer the doctrines and commandments of men rather than the authority of the New Testament of Christ as their standard. Numerous Baptist, Methodist, Reformed and other denominational congregations have also taken this same moniker of "Community Church." It seems that some of our brethren prefer to be identified with such groups rather than with their brethren of Churches of Christ.
  • Another probable motive is that under the name of Community Church, the typical congregation places little or no emphasis on doctrinal loyalty. Thus a typical Community Church might employ a Methodist minister this year and a Disciples of Christ man the next, and a female Presbyterian the following. Indicators are that some of our brethren who have chosen this route have a similar laxness about doctrinal standards. Church for them is all about fellowship, fun, doing good and feeling good. Such things as abiding in the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11) are given little emphasis.
Those of our people who have chosen to identify themselves as Community churches seem to have a commonality about them. They all have embraced the agenda of the change movement, which seeks to transform our people into the likeness of our denominational neighbors. Such things as salvation by grace through faith before immersion, a de-emphasis on the importance of baptism, a willingness to tolerate the use of instrumental music in worship, a willingness to allow women to assume leadership roles in the life of the church, acceptance of denominational churches as in good standing with God and other related issues seem to be part and parcel of those wishing to be known as "Community Churches." Several of our Universities and Colleges have given encouragement to the Community Church movement: among them Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine University and Harding Graduate School of Religion.

It would be as scriptural to identify ones congregation as the Community Church of Christ as the State Street Church of Christ. But for most of these folks, they want the "Community Church" without the "of Christ" designation. As Jesus said we can only judge them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16-21). The direction of this movement is away from New Testament Christianity and from obedience to the message of Christ. It is away from the brotherhood of Churches of Christ of which they once were a part. In my judgment it would be a mistake for a congregation to take such a name as it creates confusion as to who they are. It also identifies them with those who are abandoning the Bible as their standard of faith and practice. It reflects on their part a sense of shame to be identified with the gospel and the body of Christ. Paul was not ashamed of the message he preached (Rom. 1:16). With Jesus, he gladly endured the shame of the cross (Heb. 12:2; Gal. 5:11) and so should we. If the world despises us for what we believe and stand for, so be it; they hated Jesus for his faith and convictions (John 15:17-20). </font>

___________________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now

E-Mail: [url=mailto:johnwaddey@aol.com]johnwaddey@aol.com[/url]
Granted some preachers among us have been "shouting wolf" for the last 35 years. Time and again brethren looked but could not find the wolf. After a while, many became inured to the warnings of the wolf-warners. They finally decided those who were constantly sounding the alarm did not merit their attention. Such a response was just what Satan hoped for. Now, with their eyes closed and ears plugged, he could do his work of infiltrating churches with no serious opposition. Muffled and blindfolded, preachers and elders neither saw nor heard as the Adversary's minions did their work. First they captured the administration and Bible departments of some of our schools. The Father of Lies embolden a few our successful young preachers to launch a program of change. Intoxicated with the taste of their "new wine," they worked evangelistically to recruit others to join their campaign.

When more responsible watchmen saw these real wolves savaging churches in many places and sounded a warning, the majority of our preachers and elders still had their blindfolds and earplugs in place. They could not hear. Many did not wish to hear or see. Such knowledge is disconcerting. Warnings were brushed aside as scare-mongering, complaints from preachers jealous of others' success, nitpicking or other ignoble motives.

Last month (Aug. 03) a leading change agent issued a bold announcement that rang a bell even the deaf could hear and caused a flash of light that pierced the thickest blinders. Max Lucado, the most daring of the change agents and the darling of our liberal brothers, preached a sermon announcing a new agenda for his Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio.

<> Their name would be changed to "Oak Hills Church." His logic was, "Some people find the name ‘church of Christ' to be an insurmountable barrier...Let's seek to remove any barrier that would hinder a person from hearing the Gospel." Immersion is also a barrier to many. Jesus as Lord is a barrier to Jews and Muslims!

<> He proposed: "establishing Oak Hills Campuses in other sections of the city. These satellite churches will at least initially, be a part of the Oak Hills family... Our multi-site churches could stay linked together by viewing a video of the sermon from the ‘mother church.'" In the world of Catholicism, this is called a diocesan form of church government.

<> Instrumental music would be used in their Sunday evening services for young adults. Max said, "I will present the...message and we will target twenty and thirty year olds. Recognizing the power of contemporary music, the new assemblies will be instrumental...A soft keyboard beneath an altar call, the sound of a cello during communion service...I am convinced instrumentation reaches hearts...We feel it is wise to use this tool." Note his absence of Scriptural authorization for this change. For change agents "feelings" trump Scripture when it gets in the way.

<> In an interview in the San Antonio Express-News (9/6/03), Vic King, Oak Hills' minister of missions, said "Oak Hills' core values are similar to those of other evangelical churches." He continued, "Oak Hills also believes that salvation doesn't come through baptism, but that baptism is the initial step of obedience after salvation."

<> Their core values were said to be like the "Evangelical" churches. In "lay" terms, this refers to Baptists, Reformed Churches, Assemblies of God and other "conservative" denominational bodies.

<> Bro. Lucado also said, "Our Lord called us to be a force for unity among San Antonio Churches. We, for the first time, ‘swapped pulpits' with Trinity Baptist Church."

Now I ask those who preach and those shepherd our churches: Can you see the wolf? Yes, Bro. Lucado is gifted and an effective, successful writer. Yes, he has had far greater acceptance among those outside our brotherhood than any other writer. Yes, he did attend Abilene Christian University. Yes, he once was a missionary and a preacher of truth and righteousness. Please, take off the blindfold, remove the earplugs and see the sad and ugly truth. This brother and the church he serves have abandoned New Testament Christianity for the appealing fields of "Evangelical" Protestantism. Like Hymenaeus and Alexander, they have made shipwreck of the faith (I Tim. 1:19-20). Given his high visibility, his popularity and success, Bro. Lucado will influence many young men to emulate his example.

As unfortunate as this case is, Bro. Lucado and Oak Hills congregation are but one example of scores of others who have done likewise. A tidal wave of error is sweeping across the face of our brotherhood. It will eventually reach your congregation. The time to prepare for this invasion and protect your flock is now! Ours are not premature or unfounded warnings. The wolves are already within the fold. Many casualties have already been suffered. For the sake of the Lord Jesus and his holy church, rise up and be the faithful watchmen and shepherds God expects you to be!

John Waddey
Quote
Share

Carl Straight
Carl Straight

October 10th, 2003, 8:30 pm #9

I really like bro, Max Lacudo, he is awesome, I too am a former member of the Church of Christ, and I feel that we are saved by grace through faith, and that baptized is a result of our Faith in Christ...Carl
Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

October 11th, 2003, 8:20 am #10

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CARL EXCLAIMS: BROTHER MAX LUCADO [not Lacudo, dc] IS “AWESOME”!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Marx was a very renowned economic/political philosopher. You know, Carl, Max is a very popular “religious” philosopher today. His website describes him in “UpWords” (his teaching ministry) as a prolific writer “with more than 28 million books in print”—he is wealthy! (Hmmm … wonder why?) His philosophy or logic is that the name “of Christ”—appended to the name of the church He established and whose gospel only is to be preached—is an “insurmountable [social] barrier.”

There is a very popular 1988 song titled “Awesome God … Our God Is an Awesome God.” The word “awe” is defined as “a feeling of wonder and reverence; fear and reverence; dread mingled with reverence.” Whether or not the “praise” singers honestly express “fear and reverence” as they do the loud programmed, rhythmic clapping while singing this song, my question to you is this: Since Max Lucado is “awesome” to you, how much of that “feeling of wonder or fear and reverence” would you attribute to the man who no longer teaches the unadulterated truth of God?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CARL CONFESSES: “I TOO AM A FORMER MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s quite a bold and an honest confession of your current membership, as well as Max’s, which is ___________? [Well . . . you didn’t specify]. Based on your claim, I would assume that you and Max, as “former” members of the church of Christ, had been baptized before in order that your sins would be forgiven. But since you have discovered (or imitated from the Baptist religion) this “new truth” of being saved first before baptism, did you have to go through a “reversal” or a re-conversion process—done differently this time? Did you this time have to first “accept Christ as your personal Savior to get saved [have your sins remitted], then, be [re-]baptized AFTER being saved?

In case you have forgotten, let me remind you of this very familiar passage: “… Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR [the original Greek word “eis” means: so that, in order that, toward or UNTO] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive [clear conscience:] the gift of the Holy Ghost” (KJV). (The Baptists substitute “because of” for the word “for” in the text.) A parallel passage that also explains conversion and refreshing [clear conscience] ONLY AFTER repentance and baptism is found in Acts 3:19—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” (KJV)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Donnie Cruz
Quote
Share