Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

April 12th, 2004, 11:38 am #21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had not looked at this site for some time as most of the post don't do much to build me up.

However, Several things about this whole thing make me sad. I am saddened by the fact that some are discarding the Name "Church of Christ) from their designation (not just their building). I have always been proud of the designation "Church of Christ", However, I have not held that as the official "NAME". As far as I can determine Jesus never named His church. He just said it was His. The term "Church of Christ" is a possesive term, not a Name. It describes who the church belongs to. We must be honest and admit that for all praticaL purposes the term "Church of Christ" has been denominationalized. No one (unless it is a very small group of us) would even argue otherwise anymore. Yes, this is sad it had to come to this.
It is also very sad that a element has so conducted themselves and at the same time called themselves "Church of Christ" that the sinners around us have developed such a bad taste. This may not totally excuse their bad taste but the fact remains it has happened and there is enough blame to go around. If the figures you gave on Oak Hills is correct, it really is sad that the community around had such a bad taste that the changing of the Name would make such a difference. I am sure there are other things envolved.
I ppersonally have known those who left the church and will never return because of some of the fussing that we have been noted for. Yes, I know that may not be a good excuse; there is fussing in all churches to some degree.
Did not Jesus say, that offenses would come, but woe to the one that causes the offense?

I challenge us all, to take a honest look at ourselves and make sure we are not a part of the problem. If we are, may God have mercy on us.

Sorry, but I have now laid myself open for the wrath of WHO KNOWS WHO!!!!!!

I HEARD A BROTHER SAY ONETIME, "THE CHURCH OF CHRIST MUST BE THE TRUE CHURCH, IF IT WASN'T WE WOULD HAVE DESTROYED IT A LOMG TIME AGO, NOTHING ELSE COULD HAVE SURVIVED".

THINK ABOUT IT!!!!! RAY PIPPIN

Ray,

What a coincidence that somehow you took time to look at this site once again. I agree that in your case, there’s probably not much from the posts you read to build you up. [Let me tell you that you’re almost as smart as I am. Just kidding, Ray. ] I know from talking with you that you know a lot about God’s truth and that you will defend the truth when someone perverts it.

It’s been stated numerous times that the main thrust in restoring New Testament Christianity has been to reject denominationalism. The change agents, on the other hand, have done just the opposite—making the church behave just like another denomination by compromising the truth and “borrowing” certain beliefs and practices from others. It is of utmost importance that we recognize the “scientific” fact that “nothing happens without a cause. ” The internal “fussing and fighting” is all caused by the famous change agents operating in the brotherhood—they’ve been busily attempting to “transform” the church that belongs to Christ. If they could just quietly leave the church alone and start their own or join the denomination(s) of their choice, we would not be encountering problems about “strange” doctrines and “charismatic” practices and culture-driven changes in the church.

I’m not into church names because if it is a church that the New Testament speaks of, then, it is a church that belongs to Christ. I completely agree with you that the “church of Christ” should be referred to as an entity that belongs to Christ. The preposition “of” must be recognized as the keyword in the phrase in order to have a proper understanding of the church belonging to Christ—not belonging to a human founder. I have illustrated the point that a good “church sign” (which is necessary because of varying religious groups around) could be something that is in the form of a statement—e.g., “The church of Christ in Madison meets here.” We are not in the first century period when the church of Ephesus was understood to be one of the churches of Christ (Romans 16:16). I gave Tom an illustration that there is no way to tell if “Fairview Church” has changed its name from “Fairview Charismatic Fellowship Church” or if “Fairview Church” has changed its name from “Fairview Church of Christ.” The significant point is in the way that the church can be identified—e.g., is it the church that belongs to Christ or is it the church founded by Joseph Smith?

In Max Lucado’s situation, he has reached a point of no return, unless he comes to his senses. Lucado’s view with regard to the purpose of baptism resembles that of the Baptist doctrine, i.e., baptism is “for” the remission of sins in the same sense as “because one’s sins have already been forgiven at the time that he accepts Christ as his personal Savior; then, he is baptized later on. ” So, Max can argue forever that it is for the remission of sins—but as an after-the-fact. But we know fully well that one is baptized for (meaning “in order that” or “so that” or “toward” or “unto”) the forgiveness of sins. He is a Trans-Baptist; therefore, Max’s Oak Hills Church is very well accepted by those of kindred minds.

Thanks, Ray, for explaining what it means to be identified with the church that BELONGS to Christ—which is difficult these days when the name of Christ is dropped. Let’s just keep in mind that there are well-known individuals in the brotherhood who are damaging and destroying the church. But the church will survive.

Donnie Cruz
Last edited by ConcernedMembers on April 12th, 2004, 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Estill B.
Estill B.

April 12th, 2004, 1:02 pm #22

Estill,

I completely concur about "Bible only."
I don't agree with everything that is done, nor the way it is done, but, I don't have too....

As long as man is trying to do God's will there will be disagreements.
Mostly, though, they are trivial.
I have participated in both services at Madison.
Do I go to the first service and clap?...No, I don't.
Would I?...Probably not.
I have spent my entire life in "the church of christ".
I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I've seen church splits, you name it, I've seen it.

I love congregational singing.
In fact, I have led it that way most of my life.
Do I love the "old" songs? Absolutely!
Do I love the new ones? Without question....
Are any of them sacred? No, they aren't.
Do I hold some of them closer to my heart than others.
Yes, without question.
I can be moved to tears by "Old Rugged Cross" just as easily as I can by "Above All."
However, I don't offer condemnation for doing it a particular way.
Going through the motions isn't worship,
Regardless of the style.
Frankly, there are aspects of a full-fledged drama
of which I am unsure, but, am I opposed?...No.

There are churches of christ that oppose supporting missionaries, sunday school, orphan homes, and the list goes on and on.
I don't find them listed anywhere on this web site.
Are they anymore or less faithful than you or I?

I further believe that much of what Max Lucado and
Rubel Shelley, and list goes on and on, are a victim of, is simply put; jealousy.
I'm not here to defend or prosecute anyone for their belief or worship style.

Estill, I don't take issue with anything you say.
I spend one sunday a month speaking at two of our senior citizen centers.
Its my duty as a christian to care for the widows,
and those who have gone before me.
They are a part of my family. I love them, not because I have anything to say to them, but, rather by being there with them.
Just like the Lord promises to be with me.

Madison is, by and large, a very positive place.
Are there problems?....Absolutely.
They are on a much grander scale, because its Madison.

It doesn't matter if you go to Poplar Bluff, Missouri
or Kingston, Jamacia, tomorrow christians will gather
in great numbers, and small, and remember, reflect,
and yes, even celebrate a risen savior.

Robin


Robin,

Thanks for your very civil response...I believe we are in the minority here in that aspect.

First of all, song styles don’t mean a hoot to me. We’re commanded to sing...if the lyrics are bible-based, we have no argument here. However, some old songs aren’t appropriate, as well as some of the new ones. More later on that...

I agree that many of our disagreements are trivial. I am a life-long member and attendee of the church of Christ as well, and have seen many non-scriptural based splits and arguments over the years.

I equate our adherence to "Bible-only" ways of doing things to the Israelites’ adherence to the Book of Law. The Israelites were never more than a generation or two from complete apostasy. They would forget the ways of the Lord and walk in their own ways...God would turn His back on them every time.

In dealing with things such as: song leaders, praise teams, song books, microphones, sound systems...we are commanded to sing, so those items are an adjunct to that. Supporting missionaries is bible-based, as are the support of widows and orphans...at least we find these things mentioned in the New Testament, if not the method.

The restoration principles of Stone, Campbell, and others, while not a biblical command in and of itself, set a basis for interpretation of the Bible and worship practice. We’re not following men when we follow these principles, but following a logical pattern of interpretation of the scripture. This is where my “condemnation” of an Easter drama during a “corporate” worship service comes in.

How can we sit by and condone such a practice? We never see this done in the New Testament!

We either have a method for studying, interpreting, and practicing our Christianity, or we have nothing...no basis, no rock-solid ground, no foundation, no platform on which to base our life and worship practices as Christ’s church. Is there a better way of interpretation than the restoration principles laid down by our early founders? If so, I don’t know what that method would be.

E.B.
Quote
Share

Robin Guidicy
Robin Guidicy

April 12th, 2004, 10:21 pm #23

Estill,

In my mind, to some extent, you answer your own question.

Restoration isn't a one time thing.
Restoration or revival occurs in a churches life, as it does in an individuals life, perhaps a number of times.
Going back to Campbell and Stone, they fundamentally
disagreed over baptism.
In the spirit of unity, and what they saw as opportunity to redefine the christian faith, they chose to lay that and other differences aside.

I was at Madison yesterday morning, during the second service.
I must make a couple of observations about it.

As it began, I wasn't completely comfortable with it.
I have been in dramas, but never in a sunday morning
service.
(The Easter crowd at Madison was the largest sunday morning number I have seen in the four yrs. my family has attended there.)

Every commanded aspect of worship as laid out in scripture was involved.
The message, (or sermon, if you will) was presented
by reinactment.
As a result of the message, which was bible,
two gave their lives to the Lord.

What I guess I am trying to say is this.
I argued for years about the validity of softball teams, and basketball teams, etc....
What greater way to convert someone than to get to know them, and find common ground with them?

Our culture has changed since I was a boy.
I remember saturday evenings spent in conversation, under a tree, with neighbors after dinner.
Those same talks that were held in lawn chairs, in the yard, are now done via the internet or a cell phone.

I do not say that things have changed for the better.
I do say it is more difficult to cut through all of the
options available today.

When I was a teen, proms, swimming, high school dances,
rock music, shorts at camp, those were all battle grounds in the church.
Even women wearing slacks were a subject of debate.

We fiddled while Rome was burning.
Young people left the church in droves.
Church membership dwindled. Those that were baptized in the 70's and 80's were generally just kids of faithful members.
The church of christ grew only two years in those two decades.
We didn't have any good news to share with anyone.
We chose to give them the "turn or burn" sermons.

Even church of christ colleges were defined as liberal or conservative.
Lipscomb was for heatherns, Freed-Hardemann for bible bangers.
Conservatives gave to FHU, liberals to DLU.
And so it went.

We could not imagine why people wouldn't listen.
Didn't they know we were the church of the Lord?
Of course, they saw right through us.
In our arrogance to be right, we ran more off, than we converted.

The seeds of division in the church go back to the sixties.
This reformation had to occur.
The plumbline had to snap.
The redifining of faithfulness would see to that.

Now its worship styles.

Maybe what you and I are talking about is simply put
just a difference in presentation.
If I understand what you are saying,
you see it as a man in a pulpit, presenting God's word.
Certainly, that way is biblical.

I saw the drama yesterday, as God's word coming to life, through others.
Is it bible based?
In my opinion, yes it is.
Is it the way we have always done it?
Definitely, not.

Those two souls were converted to a risen Saviour yesterday.
It just so happens, it was a little more literal than we are used to.

So Estill, if you want to call it an arguement for it, i guess thats what I would say.
It's not my intent to argue at all though.
Rather, just give you an honest opinion.

I appreciate yours as well.

Robin


Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

April 13th, 2004, 10:12 am #24

Robin,

For the sake of those who may not be aware of the differences [as you declared] between Campbell and Stone with regard to baptism, would you please: (1) clarify or be more specific as to the differences between their beliefs; (2) provide reliable sources so it can be validated that they indeed had differing views; and (3) identify for us as to whose [Campbell’s or Stone’s] particular belief prevailed for decades and decades until Max Lucado came up with his own? Do you really know what Max Lucado is teaching about baptism? Does Max’s view of baptism differ with either Campbell’s or Stone’s? Do you agree with Max’s doctrine?

Robin, I’m wondering about how everyone else reacted to the interactive Easter drama worship this past Sunday. By your admission, you weren’t completely comfortable with it at the beginning. At what point, then, in the “drama worship service” did you begin to feel completely comfortable? Did you reach that comfort level as soon as you knew that [at least] a couple of elders actively participated in the drama performance? (Of course, you may have known all along about these elders performing—would this be a valid assumption?) May I ask what your feelings would be, for example, if suddenly the Madison elders decided to include a televangelistic-like “charismatic divine [miraculous] healing service” during the “worship” period? Would you, perhaps, go through the same kind of experience, i.e., from being a little comfortable with it at first to being completely comfortable at some point later on? Or, would you not have any objection to “performing miracles” [in the sense of “as in apostolic times”] at all and anyway—period?

You said that the “Easter crowd at Madison was the largest Sunday morning number I have seen in the four yrs. my family has attended there.” I believe you did accurately state that considering this is now 2004. However, it can also be accurately stated that prior to four years ago and the upheaval during which time you and your family had just become members, this recent “Easter crowd” would not have even compared with the least attended non-“Easter” gathering then.

Please don’t get me wrong about this one—I was really happy to witness the two baptisms this past Sunday. But we’ve seen that happen just as well throughout the other 51 weeks of the year when the “Easter Festival” is not celebrated … and in past years as well. Are you saying that they came forward because of the drama performance? I hope not. Also, I think everyone realizes that the drama artists quoted passages especially direct statements made by the real Bible characters. In your estimation how much of the story had to be fabricated to extend the performance beyond the length of time it would take to read the story directly from the Bible?

Robin, with all due respect, the arguments regarding sport events, gymnasiums, church buses and kitchens, songbooks, one-cup, etc., are really getting old. We don’t even bring these up because these are non-essentials—they can be decided by and within the local congregation. And churches of Christ have survived for many generations with these minor differences. I think tracing the history of the church back to only the last few decades to prove your point is quite limited and narrow I would say. Reality is that what divided the church about a century ago had something to do principally with musical instrumentation in worship. I’m afraid it is true that history repeats itself. The church is in much more perilous times and circumstances because there has been a movement to restructure and transform the church. That is the BIG picture! The expression “worship style” is nothing more than a cover up of the serious intent and agenda that the change agents want to achieve. Worship in spirit and in truth is the “style” that should remain as a constant—it is not a variable. When worship in spirit and in truth (just to let everyone know that “spirit” does not mean “charismatic”—OK?) changes into something else, then, worship CONTENT changes. That’s when problems occur and become magnified. No believer should be opposed to changes or to change methodologies so long as the truth is unaltered. Wouldn’t you agree that God’s scheme of redemption is adaptable to each culture? Therefore, using cultural changes as the reason for transforming the unchangeable kingdom of Christ equates to belittling and demeaning God’s intelligence in designing what’s best for his creation.

The great men of the Restoration Movement were united because of their willingness to abandon denominationalism from which they came—you know that. Those men detested it. The church has resisted it for generations. Why resort to it ever again? As Estill has very well stated: what better principles are there for the New Testament church in the 21st century! Certainly, compromising the truth is not the solution—it is the problem.

Donnie
Quote
Share

Estill
Estill

April 13th, 2004, 10:12 am #25

Estill,

In my mind, to some extent, you answer your own question.

Restoration isn't a one time thing.
Restoration or revival occurs in a churches life, as it does in an individuals life, perhaps a number of times.
Going back to Campbell and Stone, they fundamentally
disagreed over baptism.
In the spirit of unity, and what they saw as opportunity to redefine the christian faith, they chose to lay that and other differences aside.

I was at Madison yesterday morning, during the second service.
I must make a couple of observations about it.

As it began, I wasn't completely comfortable with it.
I have been in dramas, but never in a sunday morning
service.
(The Easter crowd at Madison was the largest sunday morning number I have seen in the four yrs. my family has attended there.)

Every commanded aspect of worship as laid out in scripture was involved.
The message, (or sermon, if you will) was presented
by reinactment.
As a result of the message, which was bible,
two gave their lives to the Lord.

What I guess I am trying to say is this.
I argued for years about the validity of softball teams, and basketball teams, etc....
What greater way to convert someone than to get to know them, and find common ground with them?

Our culture has changed since I was a boy.
I remember saturday evenings spent in conversation, under a tree, with neighbors after dinner.
Those same talks that were held in lawn chairs, in the yard, are now done via the internet or a cell phone.

I do not say that things have changed for the better.
I do say it is more difficult to cut through all of the
options available today.

When I was a teen, proms, swimming, high school dances,
rock music, shorts at camp, those were all battle grounds in the church.
Even women wearing slacks were a subject of debate.

We fiddled while Rome was burning.
Young people left the church in droves.
Church membership dwindled. Those that were baptized in the 70's and 80's were generally just kids of faithful members.
The church of christ grew only two years in those two decades.
We didn't have any good news to share with anyone.
We chose to give them the "turn or burn" sermons.

Even church of christ colleges were defined as liberal or conservative.
Lipscomb was for heatherns, Freed-Hardemann for bible bangers.
Conservatives gave to FHU, liberals to DLU.
And so it went.

We could not imagine why people wouldn't listen.
Didn't they know we were the church of the Lord?
Of course, they saw right through us.
In our arrogance to be right, we ran more off, than we converted.

The seeds of division in the church go back to the sixties.
This reformation had to occur.
The plumbline had to snap.
The redifining of faithfulness would see to that.

Now its worship styles.

Maybe what you and I are talking about is simply put
just a difference in presentation.
If I understand what you are saying,
you see it as a man in a pulpit, presenting God's word.
Certainly, that way is biblical.

I saw the drama yesterday, as God's word coming to life, through others.
Is it bible based?
In my opinion, yes it is.
Is it the way we have always done it?
Definitely, not.

Those two souls were converted to a risen Saviour yesterday.
It just so happens, it was a little more literal than we are used to.

So Estill, if you want to call it an arguement for it, i guess thats what I would say.
It's not my intent to argue at all though.
Rather, just give you an honest opinion.

I appreciate yours as well.

Robin

Robin,

Again, thanks for the civility of your tone.

I guess that restoration and revival could be thought of as meaning the same thing. In this context, I see it differently.

The restoration movement, as you know, involved some determined men who resolved to look to the bible only, using no creeds, oaths, or other man-made documents or methods in their spiritual walk.

Revival (as I’d define it) is also a spiritual re-awakening, but set in the context of the restoration movement.

Over the last 3-4 years, some brothers have sought to sell me on many of the new ideas like “lifting holy hands,” clapping, and sermons with little Bible and lots of jokes and “fluff.” These brothers have told me these things are just “out of my comfort zone.” I don’t see it that way. I see it more as “gimmickry.” Isn’t there any right and wrong anymore? Why are we so afraid to say so?

Robin, lest anyone think that I’m old and decrepit, I’m only in my 40’s. Regarding “proms, swimming, high school dances, rock music,” and “shorts at camp,” I believe these should still be “battle grounds.” The world has been and still is moving away from the church. The church doesn’t need to move with the world. Remember what happened to the Israelites when they moved away from God? You don’t need to look too closely at our youth group to see the young ladies dressed in a worldly way. I don’t need to describe what that does to our young men.

Regarding “turn or burn” sermons, what kind of messages did Moses give the Israelites? What kind of messages did Jesus and Paul give the people of their day? Love was a major subject, but neither man was afraid to call them “a brood of vipers” if need be.

We’ve fooled ourselves that our “young people are leaving in droves.” Parents aren’t taking the responsibility to teach them the basics of Christianity. My children are still in the church body. All it took was for ME to teach them about the truth and God’s absolute authority, but it’s not about me or any gimmick I could use. It’s about the power of God’s word.

I hope you think about what I’ve said. I’ve had the last few years to think about and distill down the “new ways” of doing things. But, when it comes down to brass tacks, you and I will probably have to agree to disagree. I love your spirit, and appreciate your love for people.

E.B.
Quote
Share

Robin Guidicy
Robin Guidicy

April 13th, 2004, 6:48 pm #26



Estill,
Again, you make valid points all the way around.

There is no question that, as far as youth are concerned,
there are a number of battle ground issues.
Parents are in fact, the one's responsible for their children's spirtual lives.
My point as it concerns the church is that we only fed them the fire and brimstone, and a part of swing we see to the other way, is to a degree, a reaction to the repressive
lifestyles that were promoted within the church.

The fact, that people call themselves "christians" and then act like an agent of the devil when having this discussion
is another part of this equation that puts the church under
scrutiny that shows it in less than glowing terms.

Paul when adressing the church in Corinth called it "sanctified", (or set apart) even though its problems were well documented.
I'm sure Paul was discouraged to find the church in this situation.
He still loved them, and it showed in his writings and his actions.
His love manifest itself in number ways, including disciplining the people.

God's will is being done here, even though we don't understand the how or why.
He will be glorified in the end, with or without me.

I refuse to get into conversations with Mr. Cruz and Mr. Sublett, because they are traps.
Mr. Cruz distorts what he sees to fit into his square hole.
He isn't alone.

I'm afraid all of us are guilty to some degree, of trying to make scripture line up with our lives, instead of the other way around.

I appreciate your honesty, and your opinion.
Have a great day.

Robin










Quote
Share

Kenneth Sublett
Kenneth Sublett

April 13th, 2004, 10:05 pm #27

Robin,

For the sake of those who may not be aware of the differences [as you declared] between Campbell and Stone with regard to baptism, would you please: (1) clarify or be more specific as to the differences between their beliefs; (2) provide reliable sources so it can be validated that they indeed had differing views; and (3) identify for us as to whose [Campbell’s or Stone’s] particular belief prevailed for decades and decades until Max Lucado came up with his own? Do you really know what Max Lucado is teaching about baptism? Does Max’s view of baptism differ with either Campbell’s or Stone’s? Do you agree with Max’s doctrine?

Robin, I’m wondering about how everyone else reacted to the interactive Easter drama worship this past Sunday. By your admission, you weren’t completely comfortable with it at the beginning. At what point, then, in the “drama worship service” did you begin to feel completely comfortable? Did you reach that comfort level as soon as you knew that [at least] a couple of elders actively participated in the drama performance? (Of course, you may have known all along about these elders performing—would this be a valid assumption?) May I ask what your feelings would be, for example, if suddenly the Madison elders decided to include a televangelistic-like “charismatic divine [miraculous] healing service” during the “worship” period? Would you, perhaps, go through the same kind of experience, i.e., from being a little comfortable with it at first to being completely comfortable at some point later on? Or, would you not have any objection to “performing miracles” [in the sense of “as in apostolic times”] at all and anyway—period?

You said that the “Easter crowd at Madison was the largest Sunday morning number I have seen in the four yrs. my family has attended there.” I believe you did accurately state that considering this is now 2004. However, it can also be accurately stated that prior to four years ago and the upheaval during which time you and your family had just become members, this recent “Easter crowd” would not have even compared with the least attended non-“Easter” gathering then.

Please don’t get me wrong about this one—I was really happy to witness the two baptisms this past Sunday. But we’ve seen that happen just as well throughout the other 51 weeks of the year when the “Easter Festival” is not celebrated … and in past years as well. Are you saying that they came forward because of the drama performance? I hope not. Also, I think everyone realizes that the drama artists quoted passages especially direct statements made by the real Bible characters. In your estimation how much of the story had to be fabricated to extend the performance beyond the length of time it would take to read the story directly from the Bible?

Robin, with all due respect, the arguments regarding sport events, gymnasiums, church buses and kitchens, songbooks, one-cup, etc., are really getting old. We don’t even bring these up because these are non-essentials—they can be decided by and within the local congregation. And churches of Christ have survived for many generations with these minor differences. I think tracing the history of the church back to only the last few decades to prove your point is quite limited and narrow I would say. Reality is that what divided the church about a century ago had something to do principally with musical instrumentation in worship. I’m afraid it is true that history repeats itself. The church is in much more perilous times and circumstances because there has been a movement to restructure and transform the church. That is the BIG picture! The expression “worship style” is nothing more than a cover up of the serious intent and agenda that the change agents want to achieve. Worship in spirit and in truth is the “style” that should remain as a constant—it is not a variable. When worship in spirit and in truth (just to let everyone know that “spirit” does not mean “charismatic”—OK?) changes into something else, then, worship CONTENT changes. That’s when problems occur and become magnified. No believer should be opposed to changes or to change methodologies so long as the truth is unaltered. Wouldn’t you agree that God’s scheme of redemption is adaptable to each culture? Therefore, using cultural changes as the reason for transforming the unchangeable kingdom of Christ equates to belittling and demeaning God’s intelligence in designing what’s best for his creation.

The great men of the Restoration Movement were united because of their willingness to abandon denominationalism from which they came—you know that. Those men detested it. The church has resisted it for generations. Why resort to it ever again? As Estill has very well stated: what better principles are there for the New Testament church in the 21st century! Certainly, compromising the truth is not the solution—it is the problem.

Donnie
  • <font color=red> Robin: Going back to Campbell and Stone, they fundamentally disagreed over baptism.

    In the SPIRIT OF UNITY, and what they saw as opportunity to REDEFINE the christian faith, they chose to lay THAT other differences ASIDE.</font>
Robin, that is why you need to listen to Jesus (the Spirit) rather than White or Shelly. That's what the false preachers practicing the Stone Occult would like you to believe but they LIE on every point in their false foundation that the Campbells preached "unity in diversity." It is a fact that T. Campbell in His Declaration and Address (written before he met Stone) lobbied for a group effort to uplift the instruction and morality of each community. Just as Paul defined the ASSEMBLY of those who GATHERED using a form of the word SYNAGOGUE, T. Campbell saw the assembly "worship" as Paul Commanded Timothy: "giving attendance (worship) to the public reading of the Scripture, to exhorting the keeping of THAT SCRIPTURE and to understanding the DOCTRINE of that passage. That defines a Synagogue and "there was no praise service in the synagogue." As in Rome, the Kentucky people could assemble with DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS if the "glorified God" using one MOUTH and one MIND to speak "THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN." If Campbell was a UINDIV fella, he would not have been kicked out of the Presbyterian for offering the Lord's Supper for those without their token, or the Baptists for rejecting baptist baptism. So, it is all a lie.

http://www.piney.com/RmACFellowship.html
  • <font color=blue> A. Campbell on Fellowship: "Upon the whole, it appears that the Christians had their public, their special and their private or particular meetings--their public meetings for public edification, their special meetings for special edification, and their more private or particular meetings pro re nata.

    But all the while, it is as obvious as the light that shines, that professed believers, acknowledged Christians, and none but they, are the proper, intended and specified subjects of all religious communion and fellowship in all the ordinances of gospel worship,

    nor can they scripturally intend, much less extend, that communion beyond themselves or those of their own number. See 2 Cor. vi. 14-18.</font>
  • <font color=red>Donnie challenges: For the sake of those who may not be aware of the differences [as you declared] between Campbell and Stone with regard to baptism, would you please: (1) clarify or be more specific as to the differences between their beliefs; (2) provide reliable sources so it can be validated that they indeed had differing views; and (3) identify for us as to whose [Campbell's or Stone's] particular belief prevailed for decades and decades until Max Lucado came up with his own? Do you really know what Max Lucado is teaching about baptism? Does Max's view of baptism differ with either Campbell's or Stone's? Do you agree with Max's doctrine?</font>
Donnie assuredly knows that the SLITHERING are connected with Ishtar worship. An actor or theatrical performer is, by definition, called a HYPOCRITE. And "music" which was the persona of the Goddess Worshipers were always literally or spiritually emasculated. The slithering serpents were always associated with the sOPHISt brand of theatrical speaker: to say serpent in the Book of Revelation was to say sOPHISts which is the Nachash serpent or musical performer in the book of Genesis, the garden of Eden and in heaven before he/she was CAST OUT. When you are in the presence of DEVIL WORSHIPERS it is probably safe to SLITHER but I think Donnie is not the "hidden one" but, being honest, is right there where the serpents strick and the Locusts STING. Did you know that the serpent's sting is identified as AN ADDED BUREN in the force of a TAX (tithe) when the war is not declared. The added burden is a MARK of the end time.
Barton W. Stone was looking for a more comforting way to CREATE CHARISMATIC EXPERIENCES which were then used to certify one to be JOINED TO a Presbyterian or Baptist church. Everyone lived in misery and rarely did Calvinistic predestination give one any assurance promised as a pledge for proper baptism. Therefore, Caneridge was to manufacture these experiences learned from some Methodists and some baptists stretching all of the way to the First Great American Awakening and from there back to the Witchcraft "seizures" used to certify that Parris was THE authentic preacher in Salem. And from Layard's eye-witness acccounts quite identical to Devil Worship in what is now Iraq
  • <font color=blue> "Many had professed religion, and many more, who were at the mourner's bench, refused to be comforted. After laboring with the mourners until a late hour of the night, without being able to comfort them, Brother Stone arose and addressed the audience: 'Brethren, something must be wrong. .." (Rogers, p. 56-57). </font>
Because all EMPOWERING singing and music and rhetorical preaching is defined as SORCERY there is still no COMFORT. Apparently the only real COMFORT at Madison is rejoicing in holding an ISHTAR ritual as she goes through the GATES OF HELL. False "worship" leaders with music "rejoice in that they are HURTING those wo were Biblical literate and Spiritual people who are urged to worship God "in the spirit" as the new place.

Stone concluded that they MUST NOT be preaching what the Apostle's preached. There, he said, they had been told to repent and be baptized. The group was still confounded about BAPTISM and "the speech was a PERFECT DAMPER upon the meeting." Stone repeated this sermon several times and it usually destroyed the enthusiasm. Stone measured the power of the Holy Spirit by how effective he was in SEEKING A SIGN which he held in his own mind uninstructed by a clear reading of the Bible. When the Bible is preached in its fullness it has always reached a tiny "remnant" and when it has "mass appeal" we can be sure that "Brethren, something must be wrong." People will still HURT YOU REAL BAD for preaching the truth "as it has been taught.

Perhaps it is to the South's credit that "AROUSAL REVIVALISM" did not work among the masses as it might have with a few early converts on the dangerous frontiers. Rogers says of B. F. Hall--
  • <font color=blue> "On the 15th of May, A. D. 1825, I was, by prayer and imposition of hands, ordained by the venerated B. W. Stone and others".. in Missouri</font>
Then Hall reports on a preaching trip into Middle Tennessee undoubtedly preaching Stone doctrine with the same failures which Stone noted from trying to get people to have an experience--
  • <font color=blue>"Early in the summer of that same year (1825), I returned and preached through Middle Tennessee and Northern Alabama. We had many camp meetings that fall. It was a season of much religious interest. It was no uncommon thing, at a camp-meeting, to see from ten to fifty weeping sinners at the anxious seat, crying out for mercy. Being naturally sympathetic, I thought they were the most affecting, touching scenes I had ever witnessed. At many of those meetings I spent nearly the whole night singing, praying for, and trying to instruct weeping mourners how to obtain pardon. I would weep with those that wept, and rejoice with those that rejoiced.

    "At one of those meetings, in the fall of 1825, an unusually large number were constantly at the anxious seat, weeping, and praying, and begging us to pray that God would have mercy upon them. Some found relief during the meeting; but the greater number remained uncomforted.

    At the close of the meeting, when about to leave for another meeting, a brother proposed that we sing a parting hymn, and the Christians first, and then the mourners, who had not found peace, should come forward and give the minister the parting hand.

    When the broken hearted mourners came in a long line, weeping as if their hearts would break, I could sing no longer, but burst forth in a wail of anguish of soul. My pent-up grief found vent in a gush of tears. On the way to the next meeting, I said to a brother preacher:</font>

    <font color=red>"There is a wrong somewhere. Surely, we do not preach as the Apostles and first evangelists preached." (Rogers, p. 57-58).</font>
The Stone method which had created the excitement worked for a short season. The less erratic method of weeping and mourning worked with certain people but did not work as a universal principle because it had no Biblical foundation. While he held a series of meetings during the fall "this idea haunted me" that there was a difference between the message and results of his preaching and Biblical examples.

Therefore, Hall seemed totally frustrated and went visiting family. He tells how he was led to the truth by Campbell through reading a book. He came across a copy of the Campbell-MacCalla debate and said:
  • <font color=blue>"I knew it would exactly fit and fill the vacant space. I was converted over; and was one of the happiest young converts you ever saw; happier than when I was converted the first time." Hall no longer held his Stone influenced conversion to be good enough and he, in effect, rejected Stone as an authority by rejecting his primary method of revival. </font>
Hall then met with Stone but Stone rejected the teaching because it chilled the mourning which he saw as the work of the Holy Spirit. His preconception stood between his mind and the Bible. Or perhaps the universal principle that truth does not attract the masses was something he was not ready to accept.

Bypassing Stone, Hall baptized Samuel Rogers as the only preacher who did not oppose the idea. At this time, Hall moved a bit closer to the Biblical pattern and with Rogers was the only Stone preachers who were prepared to advance the Restoration cause.

Therefore, if we were looking for the "trail to the Old Paths" we should see that the restoration movement branched totally away from Stone's early views at this moment. In 1827 Hall preached in a meeting and if he baptized no one else, one convert went on to fan the flame. His new move toward restorationism led him to preach (note his spelling)--
  • <font color=blue> "baptism for the remission of sins on Cyprus Creek, in Lauderdale county, Ala., on the Lord's-day night. Talbert Fanning was present and heard the discourse, was convinced of the truth, and, when the invitation was given came forward and made the good confession, and was immersed the next morning for the remission of sins." (Rogers, p. 60) </font>
Tolbert Fanning went on to preach against slavery in Murfreesboro. Like Paul, he was slipped out of the 'boro before he could be harmed. However, race NEVER divided the church of Christ as it did ALL other religious groups. In fact, the Southern Baptist church is identified as a GNOSTIC RELIGION which "has no connection with the historic church" according to one writer who sets the record Straight that NOTHING of STONEISM survived in churches of Christ.

It is clearly a calculated deceit to try to form an ECUMENICAL church using Stone and the Campbells. The Campbells admitted that some Christians must exist "within the sects" but their advice was to COME OUT OF BABYLON. The church of Christ NEVER existed with UNITY among the DIVERSITY of those who rejected Babtism. Stone, too, came around to the truth when he discovered that the "witchcraft" of fire worship no longer worked.

http://www.piney.com/RmOlbricht-.html

http://www.piney.com/CaneRidge2.html

http://www.piney.com/RmAwak3.html

We have noted that self-proclaimed SCHOLARS are condemned by Jesus as the "doctors of the law" who "take away the key to knowledge. Therefore, they CANNOT grasp the WORD but don't hesitate to become peer-affirmed "scholars." For instance, take a look at one at

http://www.piney.com/RmOlbricht-.html

Ken Sublett
Quote
Share

Chris Harper
Chris Harper

May 13th, 2004, 3:37 am #28

Tom,

I didn’t quite complete my response to Robin Guidicy earlier. But I think his closing remarks were somewhat related to yours in that he said that those who have removed “Church of Christ” from their signs “reached a point of honesty” which “is not what we want to hear.” [He sounded somewhat poetic near the end there.]

Just a little background about me … I did not grow up in the same kind of religious environment as you did. The neighborhood was 90% Catholic … and my family went from “faith to faith”—that sounds ironic because Romans 1:17 states—“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith.” But I’ve been exposed to almost all kinds of religious beliefs and practices under the sun—Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, United Church of Christ, Church of God (Pentecostal), Assemblies of God, etc., etc.

So, from all the varied experiences in religion, I’ve been able to compare and contrast church creeds and doctrines. And I must unequivocally state that based on what I know about the truth that’s revealed in the New Testament, the little known “churches of Christ” spoken of in Romans 16:16 are the closest to the truth when compared with any of the religious groups established by humankind.

I know fully well, and I agree with you, that the church of our Lord is identified in various ways in the New Testament [key words: “New Testament”]. There are references to: … all the churches of the Gentiles …the churches of God … all churches of the saints … the churches of Galatia … the churches of Asia … the churches of Macedonia … the churches of Judaea which were in Christ … the seven churches which were in Asia. The church is also known as the family of God … the household of faith … the household of God, the kingdom, etc.

But that was during the New Testament period. There were no denominational churches with human founders then. So, a congregation in Rome or Ephesus or Galatia mentioned in the New Testament would certainly be a church that belonged to Christ—it would not be a Mormon Church or Seventh Day Adventist or Christian Science, would it?

In this day and time, the New Testament church must be identified regardless of the preconceived notions or negative impressions by those who are already affiliated with certain religious persuasions. The likelihood is that it would take much more than a friendly visit with your congregation for someone to be converted from another religion. Besides, as far as “conversion” goes, there is so much to do out there in the mission fields than within the church confines—which reminds me of the mission of the change agents and the “Community” churches, i.e., to have a conglomerate of “believers” coming together from various already-established churches in a locality or region or neighborhood. I would like to put the mission statements of “Community Churches” to the test out there in real mission fields where the gospel of Christ is unheard of. I would like to see how the “scheme” of converting the converted works in a Buddhist country. I would like to see the change agents subvert the Roman Catholic Church for a change.

The probability is that when, for example, “Oak Hills Church of Christ” changed its name to “Oak Hills Church” [side note—it would not surprise me if appending the word “Community” was strongly under consideration] … that twisting of the New Testament truth, such as in Max’s version of the purpose of baptism, had been involved in the scheme of things. Otherwise, what the “Oak Hills Church of Christ” bunch was all about to begin with would remain unchanged in the minds of those with preconceived notions of that church. Do you see my point?

I still believe that given the circumstances that many people in “Christianity” generally believe that “one church is just as good as another,” it is in accordance with New Testament teachings that the Lord’s church is uniquely identifiable. For example, I think that this would make an excellent church sign because it is a statement of truth: “The church of Christ at Madison meets here.” It is less “offensive” [if you insist] but it identifies with the name of Christ being its head and founder.

Let me know if I’m misunderstanding you. But I gather from you, Tom, that church identification is of little or no significance to you. If this happens to be the case, i.e., if you feel that with you affiliating with and becoming a member of “Fairview Church” which has changed its name from “Fairview Charismatic Fellowship Church” (with or without you knowing it) does not matter, what can I say? Do you see my point?

Believe me, I understand all the misrepresentations about the church. But dropping the name of Christ for the purpose of “political” correctness or socio-cultural accommodations is not the way to proclaim the truth about the church that the New Testament speaks of.

Donnie
About all the names issue...

I wonder if you guys know that the word "Church" is a mistranslation (from a German word) and that the real translation should be "Fellowship," which is what our Spanish-speaking brethren use in the term "Iglesia."

So the name issue while important is actually based on a slight fallacy. We should really call ourselves the "Fellowship of Christ." It's actually more appropriate in my humble opinion.

Anyhow, interesting site you've got here.
Quote
Share

Another surfer
Another surfer

May 16th, 2004, 6:04 am #29

i was just surfing around for church of christ news or happenings and somehow ended up here!!!!! i'm sorry i did i'm not sure what you all are disagreeing about???? but just keep in mind we have but one judge sometimes silence and prayer are better!!!! i wish you all luck. you do not seem to be representing the church of christ very good here guys!!
I, too, was searching "Church of Christ" links, and came upon this site. It matters not what my intentions were with my searches. If I was to search for "Satan" it would not make me a believer or a follower, so there is no need to jump to conclusions. I will pray for all members of your congregation, your families and your friends. I will pray that you find the Way, the Truth and the Light. I will pray that your in-fighting will be replaced by truth, that your proof texts are better understood, and that your intolerance is replaced with the love of Jesus.

You are a non-denominational church - yet claim to be the only church where the members will go to heaven.

You are not saved unless a CoC minister baptizes you - yet there is never any mention of this in the Bible.

You observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday - yet bread was not broken until after midnight, making it Monday morning that the Lord's Supper occured. Additionally, Passover is only observed once per year!

Works = salvation. The CoC claims to have the members that will go to heaven, yet you do not know for sure if you are 'saved.'

Please consider your ways. Stringed instruments are not the enemy of God, and you will never be able to prove that in the Bible.

Make a joyful noise unto the Lord. ...and may God have mercy on all of our souls.

There is no need to respond, as I will most likely never happen upon this site again.

God bless us all.
Quote
Share

Chris Harper
Chris Harper

May 17th, 2004, 1:33 am #30

Actually we don't believe half of what you just said....

Anyone can baptize anyone for instance...although many do choose to be baptized by a minister...it can also be done in any body of water, even in a deep bathtub, as long as you're completely submerged...

Quote
Share