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

October 14th, 2011, 8:48 pm #11

In the 1950s women could not wear pants and blacks were not permitted entrance into our buildings. The good ole days of "the church" of Christ. I guess in the eyes of many "the church" was fully restored then.

When people ask me if the church is better or worse today, my answer is both. We are worse in some changes, like when a minister says, "What matters is not the facts of the bible, but what it means to you." I do not know of a more liberal statement.

However, we are much better in that we do not segregate, grace is actually preached, churches are more missional, et cetera.
If you don't know the meaning of qahal, synagogue, ekklesia then you will not be able to recognize one when you see it.

Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

October 14th, 2011, 8:57 pm #12

William Crump said about Fred's church..."then Fred's church is part of the Change Movement and needs to be quarantined."

William, why don't you do the honors? You quarantine it. I am certain that they would listen to you just as, you believe in your mind, that may view this site and listen to you here. Well, I guess, if nothing else, you don't have to attend Fred's church.
Fred, are you ok with that?
Fred may be pulling a Rip Van Winkle.
Quote
Share

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

October 15th, 2011, 3:41 am #13

William Crump said about Fred's church..."then Fred's church is part of the Change Movement and needs to be quarantined."

William, why don't you do the honors? You quarantine it. I am certain that they would listen to you just as, you believe in your mind, that may view this site and listen to you here. Well, I guess, if nothing else, you don't have to attend Fred's church.
Fred, are you ok with that?
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]If Fred's answers reflect his congregation's, then the efforts of the change agents to transform the church there are "work in progress."

If Fred's answers are his own personally, then, he has the church-modification tendencies. He has the "change-agent-but-not-really" syndrome. He qualifies to be a lukewarm, a demi- or semi-change agent. But he is definitely a disciple of the change agents, perhaps unbeknownst to him.

Let's dissect his answers and reasoning as time allows.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

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

October 15th, 2011, 7:44 pm #14

The following article was published in February 1996 -- fifteen years ago -- in the middle of the decade during which the Madison congregation was "TUI" (Transforming Under the Influence):

______________________________________
Quarantine the "Changers" to Save Our Children
By E. Claude Gardner



In this century the church has had to cope with several splinter movements. In the teens there was Bollism which blossomed into the struggle with premillennialism in the '30s. Then came Ketchersideism, which was extremely radical, but later swung to the very liberal view. Another heartache was the battle over support of orphan homes and church cooperation. For decades the church was thwarted by Sommerism, and there is still a residue in some quarters.

For the last 30 or 40 years, there has existed a strong undercurrent of liberalism. This is now a force which the church in the mainstream must face. It promotes fundamental changes in teaching and practice. Some of the most visible and articulate among us are in this scholarly and well-financed group.

"Changers" is an umbrella term to cover various and sundry ideas novel to the New Testament. Not everyone in the camp of the radical changers agrees totally, but there is agreement with the general thrust toward a liberal slant.

To identify the proponents and fellow travelers - preachers, teachers, church leaders, or members - what are some of the teachings flowing from their mouth or pew?
<ol>[*]Open fellowship with other religious bodies, especially the evangelicals;
</li>[*]Acceptance of the independent Christian Church;
</li>[*]Promoter of unity forums with the Christian Church;
</li>[*]Instrumental music is not sinful and is a non­issue;
</li>[*]Grace is a constant topic;
</li>[*]Exalting Christ but downplaying the church;
</li>[*]Gashing the church and finding little good about it and in contrast being complimentary of other religious groups;
</li>[*]Exhibiting cynicism;
</li>[*]Teaching that the church is a denomination and one part of the denominational framework;
</li>[*]Worship is to be changed to be more emotional in the Pentecostal denominational style;
</li>[*]Teaching obedience and commandments is legalism;
</li>[*]Women should have a leading role in the church;
</li>[*]Elders have no authority in a congregation;
</li>[*]Advocacy of the Holy Spirit empowering us in sensational ways apart from the Word of God;
</li>[*]After ignoring "doctrine" there may be major stress on social Issues;
</li>[*]Salvation is by faith and baptism is not essential for the forgiveness of sins;
</li>[*]The church is not the kingdom and we should pray for the kingdom to come;
</li>[*]Pattern theology is an abomination;
</li>[*]Tradition is bashed and change is touted;
</li>[*]The church needs to be restructured;
</li>[*]The restoration of New Testament Christianity is irrelevant and impossible;
</li>[*]Restoration of the church is not finished;
</li>[*]Using deductions based on Scripture cannot establish truth;
</li>[*]Silence of the Scriptures is not prohibitive;
</li>[*]Greatly enamored by radical youth workshops;
</li>[*]And as did Paul, I would add "and such like."
</li>[/list]When any person or a congregation espouses these beliefs or practices or some of them, it is evidence that the changers are there. When this happens, many heartaches and divisions will come.

The changers should be quarantined at once. This must be done to save our children, for the peace of the brethren, and for unity in the brotherhood. Radical change advocates will divide the brotherhood by the espousal of liberal theology.

We are at the stage where we should start the quarantine.

Advocates of this radical splinter group make the charge of polarization when objections are raised to their "changes."

As a disclaimer: those who hold to New Testament Christianity do not believe matters of opinion should be tests of fellowship. The issue is in changing and rejecting the basics of Bible teaching and substantive matters.

______________________________________

Published February 1996


______________________________________


Source: FirmFoundationPublishing.com/FF/Articles/ChangeAgents

================================

NOTE: This is now a list of numbered items for reference purposes.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Since Fred has been bold enough to respond to the items listed, I would like for us to take time to examine his viewpoints and opinions. As already pointed out in the article: "Not everyone in the camp of the radical changers agrees totally, but there is agreement with the general thrust toward a liberal slant." This means that the bottom line is still the scheme to denominationalize the church that Jesus Christ built, founded and established. Therefore, regardless of the percentage (50%, 75%, 95%) with which the agent is in agreement-in-totality, he is nonetheless a change agent.

Fred's responses [bolded or underscored] to the first few items:
[/color]
  • 1. Open fellowship with other religious bodies, especially the evangelicals; ["No in terms of "open" or active"]

    </li>
  • 2. Acceptance of the independent Christian Church; ["Yes we accept Christians from other traditions"]

    </li>
  • 3. Promoter of unity forums with the Christian Church; ["No"]
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]There were no Catholic and Protestant denominations when the New Testament church was established by Christ in the first century. That church has never been extinct through the centuries even through persecutions of NT Christians abounded and even though the Roman Catholic Church that we know today EVOLVED from it along (mingled] with its Roman-government-controlled and PAGAN-ritualistic influences.

Members of Christ's church should be bold and not be ashamed to proclaim that they are members of [have been added to] that body when through God's grace (His part) and the gospel of Christ, they [man's part] believed in the Son of God, and submitted to baptism IN ORDER TO have their sins remitted in the blood of the Lamb. It is important to NOTE the difference between: (1) repentance and baptism [in Acts 2:38] to occur because sins have already been remitted--Baptist/denominational creed VERSUS (2) repentance and baptism [in Acts 2:38] SO THAT sins be remitted.

That's all to emphasize the CONVERSION process that Christians in the first century went through in order to become members of that body. The New Testament reveals clearly the doctrine of Christ and His apostles and the beliefs and practices of the early Christians.

The Disciples of Christ/Christian Church has formally declared itself a denomination and has acquired so many denominational beliefs and practices. Until they return to New Testament principles and teachings, that religious body remains as a denomination.

To Fred, "other traditions" means "other denominations." By that definition, Fred appears to concede that the body of Christ encompasses individuals as well from Pentecostal and other religious persuasions.

Let's give Fred a chance to explain his inconsistency in responding to the first 3 items. Perhaps, Fred needs to clarify his definition of "Christians from other traditions." While the change agents would say "yes" to all three assertions, Fred seems to both agree and disagree with them.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

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

October 15th, 2011, 9:19 pm #15

"Fellowship" means--to them--that you attend our assemblies, you endorse our assemblies and you SUPPORT our assemblies. Of course this is the mark of liars: they would NOT open up their pulpit to anyone who does not agree with them.

Open Fella ship means: We will take anyone's money. No, you cannot teach or preach.

Open Fella ship also means: just in case I am fired,I hope that you will consider keeping me from starving. Yes,I will preach anything you say as long as you pay.
Quote
Like
Share

Racnor
Racnor

October 16th, 2011, 4:19 pm #16

Many believe that they are saved by "grace" alone and that's all--no repentance, no confession, no baptism, no obedience; all you have to do is "invite Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior" and BAM--you're "saved." That's what the original article meant by "grace" being a constant topic in the "changed" churches. True Christians believe that Christ imparts His grace of salvation unto us when we obey His commandments.
Dr. Crump, let's not forget "faith". Grace, faith and obedience all work together to obtain salvation.
Quote
Share

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

October 18th, 2011, 5:37 am #17

The following article was published in February 1996 -- fifteen years ago -- in the middle of the decade during which the Madison congregation was "TUI" (Transforming Under the Influence):

______________________________________
Quarantine the "Changers" to Save Our Children
By E. Claude Gardner



In this century the church has had to cope with several splinter movements. In the teens there was Bollism which blossomed into the struggle with premillennialism in the '30s. Then came Ketchersideism, which was extremely radical, but later swung to the very liberal view. Another heartache was the battle over support of orphan homes and church cooperation. For decades the church was thwarted by Sommerism, and there is still a residue in some quarters.

For the last 30 or 40 years, there has existed a strong undercurrent of liberalism. This is now a force which the church in the mainstream must face. It promotes fundamental changes in teaching and practice. Some of the most visible and articulate among us are in this scholarly and well-financed group.

"Changers" is an umbrella term to cover various and sundry ideas novel to the New Testament. Not everyone in the camp of the radical changers agrees totally, but there is agreement with the general thrust toward a liberal slant.

To identify the proponents and fellow travelers - preachers, teachers, church leaders, or members - what are some of the teachings flowing from their mouth or pew?
<ol>[*]Open fellowship with other religious bodies, especially the evangelicals;
</li>[*]Acceptance of the independent Christian Church;
</li>[*]Promoter of unity forums with the Christian Church;
</li>[*]Instrumental music is not sinful and is a non­issue;
</li>[*]Grace is a constant topic;
</li>[*]Exalting Christ but downplaying the church;
</li>[*]Gashing the church and finding little good about it and in contrast being complimentary of other religious groups;
</li>[*]Exhibiting cynicism;
</li>[*]Teaching that the church is a denomination and one part of the denominational framework;
</li>[*]Worship is to be changed to be more emotional in the Pentecostal denominational style;
</li>[*]Teaching obedience and commandments is legalism;
</li>[*]Women should have a leading role in the church;
</li>[*]Elders have no authority in a congregation;
</li>[*]Advocacy of the Holy Spirit empowering us in sensational ways apart from the Word of God;
</li>[*]After ignoring "doctrine" there may be major stress on social Issues;
</li>[*]Salvation is by faith and baptism is not essential for the forgiveness of sins;
</li>[*]The church is not the kingdom and we should pray for the kingdom to come;
</li>[*]Pattern theology is an abomination;
</li>[*]Tradition is bashed and change is touted;
</li>[*]The church needs to be restructured;
</li>[*]The restoration of New Testament Christianity is irrelevant and impossible;
</li>[*]Restoration of the church is not finished;
</li>[*]Using deductions based on Scripture cannot establish truth;
</li>[*]Silence of the Scriptures is not prohibitive;
</li>[*]Greatly enamored by radical youth workshops;
</li>[*]And as did Paul, I would add "and such like."
</li>[/list]When any person or a congregation espouses these beliefs or practices or some of them, it is evidence that the changers are there. When this happens, many heartaches and divisions will come.

The changers should be quarantined at once. This must be done to save our children, for the peace of the brethren, and for unity in the brotherhood. Radical change advocates will divide the brotherhood by the espousal of liberal theology.

We are at the stage where we should start the quarantine.

Advocates of this radical splinter group make the charge of polarization when objections are raised to their "changes."

As a disclaimer: those who hold to New Testament Christianity do not believe matters of opinion should be tests of fellowship. The issue is in changing and rejecting the basics of Bible teaching and substantive matters.

______________________________________

Published February 1996


______________________________________


Source: FirmFoundationPublishing.com/FF/Articles/ChangeAgents

================================

NOTE: This is now a list of numbered items for reference purposes.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Fred's responses to the following items are bolded or underscored:[/color]
  • 4. Instrumental music is not sinful and is a non­issue; [Fred says: "Yes "]

    [color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Fred does/should know that congregations of the church of Christ [the NT church that belongs to Christ as its builder and founder] do not engage in mechanical music in the gathering of saints. The New Testament Christians of the first century did not operate any musical devices in their assemblies, even though the musical instruments had already been invented and in existence for scores of centuries prior to the establishment of the church. Coupled with the fact that instruments of music were available throughout the century when the church grew and various congregations were begun in various localities surrounding Jerusalem.

    You will not find from the writings [dating back to 50-60 A.D.] of the apostles to Corinth, Colossae, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome, Philippi--that the "worship service" [oft a misnomer in itself] was ever led by a "Worship Leader" [another misnomer] or "Praise Team" or "Baptist Choir" or "Mormon Tabernacle Choir," etc. You will not find in these writings that the Christians at these various congregations ever indulged in such instrumental musical worship. In fact, the entire New Testament does not even hint that inanimate, lifeless, man-entertaining musical devices and objects were even a part of or were participants in the assembly of the living saints.

    OK, we have discussed and debated to death the subject of this type of musical idolatry. If only sympathizers, followers and disciples (such as Fred Whaley, David Fields, Sonny Elliott, et al) of the change agents in the brotherhood would simply not pollute the New Testament truth that the apostolic doctrine does not include and have nothing to do with musical devices participating in the assembly--that would be a good start to understanding that man-made concoctions and innovations have no place in the body of Christ.[/color]
    </li>
Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

October 19th, 2011, 1:55 am #18

The following article was published in February 1996 -- fifteen years ago -- in the middle of the decade during which the Madison congregation was "TUI" (Transforming Under the Influence):

______________________________________
Quarantine the "Changers" to Save Our Children
By E. Claude Gardner



In this century the church has had to cope with several splinter movements. In the teens there was Bollism which blossomed into the struggle with premillennialism in the '30s. Then came Ketchersideism, which was extremely radical, but later swung to the very liberal view. Another heartache was the battle over support of orphan homes and church cooperation. For decades the church was thwarted by Sommerism, and there is still a residue in some quarters.

For the last 30 or 40 years, there has existed a strong undercurrent of liberalism. This is now a force which the church in the mainstream must face. It promotes fundamental changes in teaching and practice. Some of the most visible and articulate among us are in this scholarly and well-financed group.

"Changers" is an umbrella term to cover various and sundry ideas novel to the New Testament. Not everyone in the camp of the radical changers agrees totally, but there is agreement with the general thrust toward a liberal slant.

To identify the proponents and fellow travelers - preachers, teachers, church leaders, or members - what are some of the teachings flowing from their mouth or pew?
<ol>[*]Open fellowship with other religious bodies, especially the evangelicals;
</li>[*]Acceptance of the independent Christian Church;
</li>[*]Promoter of unity forums with the Christian Church;
</li>[*]Instrumental music is not sinful and is a non­issue;
</li>[*]Grace is a constant topic;
</li>[*]Exalting Christ but downplaying the church;
</li>[*]Gashing the church and finding little good about it and in contrast being complimentary of other religious groups;
</li>[*]Exhibiting cynicism;
</li>[*]Teaching that the church is a denomination and one part of the denominational framework;
</li>[*]Worship is to be changed to be more emotional in the Pentecostal denominational style;
</li>[*]Teaching obedience and commandments is legalism;
</li>[*]Women should have a leading role in the church;
</li>[*]Elders have no authority in a congregation;
</li>[*]Advocacy of the Holy Spirit empowering us in sensational ways apart from the Word of God;
</li>[*]After ignoring "doctrine" there may be major stress on social Issues;
</li>[*]Salvation is by faith and baptism is not essential for the forgiveness of sins;
</li>[*]The church is not the kingdom and we should pray for the kingdom to come;
</li>[*]Pattern theology is an abomination;
</li>[*]Tradition is bashed and change is touted;
</li>[*]The church needs to be restructured;
</li>[*]The restoration of New Testament Christianity is irrelevant and impossible;
</li>[*]Restoration of the church is not finished;
</li>[*]Using deductions based on Scripture cannot establish truth;
</li>[*]Silence of the Scriptures is not prohibitive;
</li>[*]Greatly enamored by radical youth workshops;
</li>[*]And as did Paul, I would add "and such like."
</li>[/list]When any person or a congregation espouses these beliefs or practices or some of them, it is evidence that the changers are there. When this happens, many heartaches and divisions will come.

The changers should be quarantined at once. This must be done to save our children, for the peace of the brethren, and for unity in the brotherhood. Radical change advocates will divide the brotherhood by the espousal of liberal theology.

We are at the stage where we should start the quarantine.

Advocates of this radical splinter group make the charge of polarization when objections are raised to their "changes."

As a disclaimer: those who hold to New Testament Christianity do not believe matters of opinion should be tests of fellowship. The issue is in changing and rejecting the basics of Bible teaching and substantive matters.

______________________________________

Published February 1996


______________________________________


Source: FirmFoundationPublishing.com/FF/Articles/ChangeAgents

================================

NOTE: This is now a list of numbered items for reference purposes.
Donnie said "You will not find from the writings [dating back to 50-60 A.D.] of the apostles to Corinth, Colossae, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome, Philippi--that the "worship service" [oft a misnomer in itself] was ever led by a "Worship Leader" [another misnomer] or "Praise Team" or "Baptist Choir" or "Mormon Tabernacle Choir," etc."

Donnie, also from those writings, do you find it mentioned anywhere about your traditional single songleader....the one that stood up and led all of the apostles and church in singing the songs?

That is a different story, right Donnie? A tradtional song leader is ok, but a worship leader is not ok. A traditional song leader is ok, but a praise team is not ok. You like this, but not that....AND...neither was spoken of in the NT writings.

See what you get yourself into Donnie?
Quote
Share

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

October 19th, 2011, 4:09 am #19

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Just Google it.

I came across this from a denominational writer: "As I studied Scripture and read books ... I quickly realized that the Bible, especially the New Testament, didn't give much space to my role as a worship leader. None, to be exact. The more I read, the more I felt I was reading myself out of a job.

There's no question that the role of the worship leader has been exaggerated in recent decades. Some pastors [must be a Baptist definition, d.c.] give 1/3 to 1/2 of their meeting to singing, led by a musician who has little to no theological training."


Here's another one for you, "worship leader" lover: "For many young people choosing a church, worship leaders have become a more important factor than preachers. Mediocre preaching may be tolerated, but an inept worship leader can sink things fast."

Dave, I am afraid this is happening among our youth in certain congregations that have acquired among other doctrinal concepts, principles and practices from the denominational world--this humanly appealing, occupational, professional title of "worship leader."

One popular and clearly man-concocted definition of the earthly "worship leader" is to lead the congregants to God's holy presence. Wow!!! Put a priestly garment on him and there he is on stage: he would look like a cardinal or an archbishop of a progressive, liberal church. But, no, the "worship leader" in a "progressive," transformed church of Christ is not dressed like that. Of course, not. A similar deception by the Praise Team so experienced in simulating or emulating the sounds of musical instruments because they're "forbidden." By the way the progressive church's "Worship Leader" is not without a "Praise Team." In effect, guess what? The Praise Team members (both men and WOMEN), in actuality, are co-worship leaders. There you have it, Dave, women leading both women and MEN.

Song leading is quite simple. One can start the pitch of the song. He can actually sit down and sing with the congregation, and he can prepare to start the pitch of another song. So, do NOT EQUATE someone who is a song starter with someone who has an official business title of "Worship Leader" in the church.

It's been "whispered" that Lucifer, "the archangel that fell and became Satan," was the music/worship leader in heaven--that the Bible referred to his harp or viol. Reference used is as follows (Isaiah 14):

"[11] Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. [12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! [13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: [14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. [15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

See what happens when man is credited with an executive position in church leadership? I would venture to say that [CAUTION] -- your "Worship Leader" may be better known or more popular than any of your church elders [those whom you prefer to call "shepherds."][/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

October 19th, 2011, 2:29 pm #20

Donnie said "You will not find from the writings [dating back to 50-60 A.D.] of the apostles to Corinth, Colossae, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome, Philippi--that the "worship service" [oft a misnomer in itself] was ever led by a "Worship Leader" [another misnomer] or "Praise Team" or "Baptist Choir" or "Mormon Tabernacle Choir," etc."

Donnie, also from those writings, do you find it mentioned anywhere about your traditional single songleader....the one that stood up and led all of the apostles and church in singing the songs?

That is a different story, right Donnie? A tradtional song leader is ok, but a worship leader is not ok. A traditional song leader is ok, but a praise team is not ok. You like this, but not that....AND...neither was spoken of in the NT writings.

See what you get yourself into Donnie?
[. . .]

Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on October 20th, 2011, 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share