Thursday, October 25, 2007

Yes, I'm still around

I've been investing my time in many other places, and as I have oppportunity, I'll share with you. By all means, keep the discussion going; I'll be along presently.

--Mike

147 comments:

WatchingHISstory said...

Ephesians 2:1-3 (King James Version)
Ephesians 2
1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Notice the sinner does not have free will. The only way he can express faith in Christ is if he is led by the prince of the power of the air. Fat chance of that happening!

God has free will. Adam had free will. His descendants do not have free will. Adam could choose or reject God's commandment.

The sinner who is the elect of grace has FREED WILL to obey God. He is quickened from a dead life of sin.

Now I am going to go finish watching Frankenstein. It is about an Arminian who believes that he can reattach dead body parts and inspite of God grant a prompting or enablement to live and freely choose. I can't wait to see how it ends!

David said...

Charles: "The only way he can express faith in Christ is if he is led by the prince of the power of the air. Fat chance of that happening!"

I think you have seriously misunderstood the Scripture.

The prince of the power of the air is Satan. He does not lead people to Christ.

What in the world do you mean that the only way a person can express faith in Christ is through SATAN... ? Come on.

The HOLY Spirit prompts us to salvation.

WatchingHISstory said...

David, you are a SBC seminary graduate. You are willfully ignorant (IIPet 3:5) of my views and expect me to play the part of a fool.

You know what I am saying, probally better than I do. You are playing me to the crowd and arousing them against me.

People who listen to you preach week after week resort to "lifestyle evangelism" because the world wouldn't be tolerant of your communication skills.

They remain silent because of you and one day you will give account in judgement for it.

Soon my comments will be moderated and you will be free to use your skills.

Jessica said...

Well... I am hesitant to say it, but I actually do know someone who was "seeking to be saved" for years and was never "called" (to my knowledge- I am not friends with him anymore). He practically lived at the church and revivals, etc but was never called.

I still don't subscribe to Calvinism, but I do know that this scenario exists.

Jessica said...

Mike, we have missed you.. fill us in on what's going on soon!!

David said...

Charles,

Instead of clarifying your comments (that people have to be led by Satan to get saved...) you attack me. Let's see:

CHARLES: "David, you are a SBC seminary graduate."

Really? What seminary did I graduate from?

Charles: "You are willfully ignorant (IIPet 3:5) of my views and expect me to play the part of a fool."

You are saying stuff I've NEVER heard. In class, in church... anywhere. I have NEVER heard "the only way he can express faith in Christ is if he is led by the prince of hte power of the air." That's completely new.

Believe it or not, Charles, my contact with hyper Calvinism is pretty limited. I don't know where you're going witht his stuff. But when you attribute works of the Holy Spirit to Satan, I know what my Bible says that is.

Charles: "You know what I am saying, probally better than I do."

Sorry. I have had no visions, no dreams, nothing to clue me in to what you are saying. Certainly not better than you know. After all, as Corinthains says, who knows a man better than his own spirit? I'm not your spirit, Charles.

Charles: "You are playing me to the crowd and arousing them against me."

Truthfully, I'm not even sure the crowd reads our posts. I don't care if they do. But for the most part I think they rightly scroll right past us.

Charles: "People who listen to you preach week after week resort to "lifestyle evangelism"

Oh really? So those 35+ people our little church baptized last year, that was the result of lifestyle evangelism? You don't know anything about my flock. Be careful, you are moving from attacking me personally to the people I Shepherd. Don't make assumptions about them.

OUr people come out to do "FAITH" and share the Gospel. We equip them to share their faith.

Charles: "the world wouldn't be tolerant of your communication skills."

I'm not seeking the world to be tolerant of the Gospel.

Charles: "They remain silent because of you and one day you will give account in judgement for it."

Did you see this in a vision?

Who remains silent because of me? My congregation? Give me a break! We're a very enangelistic church. You've never even attended our church, so where are you drawing these judgments from?

Charles: "Soon my comments will be moderated and you will be free to use your skills."

What skills? What are you talking about? Mike hasn't said Boo to you about moderating you.

If you don't want to be moderated, I suspect the big secret is to act nice to people. (This is life 101... be nice, talk nice, don't whine, play fair...) Come on, Charles, you claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit, you know better than this.

So, do you want to explain you comment? Charles: "the sinner does not have free will. The only way he can express faith in Christ is if he is led by the prince of the power of the air."

Jon L. Estes said...

David,

When and where were you trained in FAITH?

I ask because I was a lead clinic teacher for 7 years. Never did a clinic in CA but continue to love the strategy.

David said...

I was trained at Immanuel Baptist Church, in highland CA. It was their first California confrence (1997... I think).

FAITH was recently revamped to allow for home groups and other positive changes.

David said...

They also changed a key verse in the outline. (the one from James...)

WatchingHISstory said...

jessica
"Well... I am hesitant to say it, but I actually do know someone who was "seeking to be saved" for years and was never "called" (to my knowledge- I am not friends with him anymore). He practically lived at the church and revivals, etc but was never called."

This fellow was getting really bad advice from someone.

Jessica, this scenario doesn't exists.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

David, you are probally a SBC seminary graduate and a pastor. You are willfully ignorant (II Pet 3:5) of my views and expect me to play the part of a fool.

You know what I am saying, probally better than I do. You are playing me to the crowd and arousing them against me.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

Universal Prevenient Grace defined

Universal Prevenient Grace (UPG) is a doctrine that is widely held by Evangelicals. This doctrine asserts the following:

1.)God desires the salvation of every human (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9)

2.)Christ died to bring salvation to every person.

3.)Personal obligation is limited to one's ability to respond.

4.)This Grace that flowed from Christ's cross is bestowed unconditionally on all people.

5.)UPG erases the debilitating effects of sin on minds, restores moral free agency, convicts of sin, and exerts a God-ward influence upon hearts.

6.)The grace enables all sinners to respond to God by faith.

7.)This grace from God thus provides every human with the potential for salvation.

8.)This grace is not coercive but resistible (Acts 7:51).

9.)Upon a positive response to UPG, a sinner will be given the salvific grace of regeneration, faith and repentance.

Is this a fair representation of what the SBC believes about divine enablement? BF&M

Does the SBC believe in original sin?

Charles

David said...

Charles: "David, you are probally a SBC seminary graduate and a pastor. You are willfully ignorant (II Pet 3:5) of my views and expect me to play the part of a fool."

So I'm just "probably" a seminary graduate now, huh? I think if you were really spiritual, you'd know. The Lord must be withholding the information from you.

Seriously, if you know so much about me, what seminary did I graduate from?

Charles: "You know what I am saying, probally better than I do."

I only know that you said that people can't come to Christ unless they're led by the prince of the air... Satan. And I have no clue what you mean by that, because you can't mean what the words say.

Charles: "You are playing me to the crowd and arousing them against me."

I didn't know there was a crowd here.

So you think I'm using secret powers learned in seminary to arouse the crowd against you.

RIGHT! Soon a secret SBC uprising will take place and bring you to PIlate in the dark of night. The anti-Calvins will bring charges against you and you will remain silent... (Not that I'm saying you're a little paranoid here.)

I'm not playing you to any crowd. I'm curious what in the world you meant when you said that only the prince of the air could lead people to Christ.

David said...

Charles: "Is this a fair representation of what the SBC believes about divine enablement? BF&M"

NO it's not! Your setting up a straw man. I don't know anyone who would agree with your outline.

You couldn't get anywhere trying to rip up the statement on my church's website, so you're now developing your own so you can destroy it. What fun!

WatchingHISstory said...

David, you are probally a SBC seminary graduate and a pastor. You are willfully ignorant (II Pet 3:5) of my views and expect me to play the part of a fool.

You know what I am saying, probally better than I do. You are playing me to the crowd and arousing them against me.

Charles

Jon L. Estes said...

David,

Yes, they have made a few changes and my hope is more churches will discover it and become intentional about reaching the lost with the gospel.

Dean Abernathy (from FAITH dept.) sent me the new outline and there are a few changes which will help with clarity.

Keep the FAITH, it has been a blessing in my life.

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

You need no help in having the crowd aroused against you. You do this well enough on your own.

jle

WatchingHISstory said...

Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and ENABLE man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man

Does this represent what the SBC believes about universal Prevenient Grace - enablement

Charles

Jessica said...

Well Charles, it does actually exist- I know this person and his wife and have spoken at length about it.

They are staunch Calvinists and as of the last time I talked to him he was still not saved. They were not sure how to describe to me how they would know when the moment had come- only that it hadn't. I agree he is getting terrible advice, but firmly believes that he could die and go to hell even though he is seeking to be saved.

I am not saying the scenario is right, just that it is factual.

How does that reconcile with what you believe?

WatchingHISstory said...

jessica

very good question!

It doesn't reconcile

If he is seeking God for salvation then God has dwelt with him. The fact that anyone is seeking, especially those seeking as he is, should be reassured that he belongs to God and should call out to God, which he has already been doing. He needs Scriptural assurance that he is God's, without questioning.

If one is not called which is not our's to know, they will just coldly turn away. Some will not respond. Sometimes when people are verbally hostile you can sense that even then God is calling. I've seen that many times.

It's not for us to give up on anyone.

Isn't it good to know that it is God working on them and not us? We just plant a little seed and water it God produces the results.

David said...

Charles,

Seriously, what did you mean when you said:

"the sinner does not have free will. The only way he can express faith in Christ is if he is led by the prince of the power of the air."

For clarity I'll define the characters here:
--We are sinners.
--Christ is Messiah.
--The prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2) is Satan.

Now, please explain.

By the way, ne seminary for me. I'm just a california pastor.

Junkster said...

David said...
So, do you want to explain you comment? Charles: "the sinner does not have free will. The only way he can express faith in Christ is if he is led by the prince of the power of the air."

David,
I think that Charles truly believes that you got his meaning but are just playing dumb, thus his refusal to give you a direct answer. But I think your question is genuine, so I'll jump in and say what I think Charles meant. (And he can correct me if I am wrong.)

First Charles quotes Ephesians 2:1-3, and from it concluded that the sinner (a lost or unsaved person) does not possess free will. The idea is that those outside of Christ are "dead in trespasses and sins" and thus, as long as they remain in that state (spiritually dead), they are not capable of expressing faith in Christ. As those who are spiritually dead, they are only capable of acting according to their fallen and corrupt nature, which acts "according to the course of this world" and "according to the prince of the power of the air" (Satan). Thus their will is not free to exercize faith in Christ; rather, their will is bound by sin to follow the ways of the world and of Satan (which is to reject God and Christ).

Therefore there must be some specific act by God directly on an individual in which God changes the person's state from spiritually dead to spiritually alive. This work of God in the life of the sinner is theologically refered to as "regeneration", and Biblically referred to as being "born again". It is only after God has done this work that a person possesses the capacity to express faith in Christ.

So, Charles was not saying that a lost person could express faith in Christ through Satan's power. He was saying: (1) a person who has not been born again does not inherently have the ability to exercise faith in Christ; he has to be given that ability by someone else, and (2) the unregenerate person's only source of spiritual power or ability is Satan's power, and (3) therefore, the only way someone who has not been born again could possibly exercise faith in Christ would be if Satan gave him that power ... which ain't gonna happen.

All that said, he is driving home this single point: salvation is of the Lord, start to finish. The Father planned it (election), the Son accomplished it (atonement), and the Spirit brings it to pass (regeneration). More specifically, he is insisting that salvation is not in any way dependant on the will of man, which is depraved and spiritually unable to even assist in his own salvation. All glory goes to our Savior Who alone is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

Hope this helps.

David said...

Charles: "The fact that anyone is seeking, especially those seeking as he is, should be reassured that he belongs to God"

My Bible teaches that anyone who has not yet recieved Christ as savior does NOT belong to God. THey belong to Satan.

oc said...

watchinghistory said:

You know what I am saying, probally better than I do. You are playing me to the crowd and arousing them against me.

oc says:
you didn't need his help.

Just sayin'.
oc.

David said...

OC,

I do know what charles is thinking. I learned it at the wicked SBC seminary where we had Harry Potter text books and learned the evils of Calvin. We also learned mind control, which I use on Charles so that the crowd might turn against him.

WatchingHISstory said...

junkster

Thanks, it helps a lot!

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

David said...
Charles,

I do love you, Charles.

david


PS what a difference a day makes!

WatchingHISstory said...

I am interested in some comments on this for clarification.

Universal Prevenient Grace defined

Universal Prevenient Grace (UPG) is a doctrine that is widely held by Evangelicals. This doctrine asserts the following:

1.)God desires the salvation of every human (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9)

2.)Christ died to bring salvation to every person.

3.)Personal obligation is limited to one's ability to respond.

4.)This Grace that flowed from Christ's cross is bestowed unconditionally on all people.

5.)UPG erases the debilitating effects of sin on minds, restores moral free agency, convicts of sin, and exerts a God-ward influence upon hearts.

6.)The grace enables all sinners to respond to God by faith.

7.)This grace from God thus provides every human with the potential for salvation.

8.)This grace is not coercive but resistible (Acts 7:51).

9.)Upon a positive response to UPG, a sinner will be given the salvific grace of regeneration, faith and repentance.

Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and ENABLE man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man

Is this a fair representation of what the SBC believes about divine enablement? BF&M

Does the SBC believe in original sin?

Jessica said...

Charles, if we are depraved and live in a life of sin before salvation, why does God allow us to continue to sin after salvation?

I'm sorry but even on a basic logic level Calvinism just doesn't mesh for me.

Forced submission isn't love, and God knows that- that is why we are given free will.

oc said...

David,

Was it Calvin Potter, or Harry Calvin you were taught to recite while in that hell bent seminary?

I hear that in some seminaries, there is actually a mention of Jesus!
Could this be true, or is this just a rumor?

David said...

OC,

It was Calvin Potter of Disneyland... who we boycotted. Boy, that broke Disney, didn't it!

David said...

oc,

truth realy is: I never went to seminary. I got burned out on College "Christian Studies" in which we were taught liberal theology. Things like the Documentry Hypothisis and Dutero and Trido Isaiah. JEPD (Yahwest, Elohist, Priestly, Deuterist)... anyone following this? I felt myself get sick when a teacher explained that there is no real devil. And I thought: If this is what SBC teaches in our colleges, I'll pass on the higher education. I think I'll be okay just believing the Bible.

Since then SBC cleaned house and I do believe Jesus is not only mentioned, but worshipped.

Anyway, sorry all: No seminary certificate here. Just a bone head preacher who pastors a bunch of Marines/Sailors.

oc said...

That's alright David. I was just having a little fun anyway. I also did not make it to seminary. Carry on, soldier of the Cross.

WatchingHISstory said...

jessica

God in His sovereignty has free will and gave Adam free choice. Because of Adam's sin sinners live without free will. They live under the common grace that puts restraints upon the sinfulness of man. Mankind is restrained and when men are unrestrained you do not want to be around.

Sinners live in forced submission to Satan's whims, under God's restraint. Sinners want to be able to have free will and think that they do.

When the plan of salvation is presented as appealing to man's desire to have free will, an injustice is done to the sinner. He is led down a false path.

First of all the focus is on a Loving God who freely acts. The focus is not our will nor our love but His love. He first loved us.

In salvation we are not returning to the Garden of Eden to relive Adam's choice but we are set free to see the cross where Christ died.

Through the Word the Holy Spirit carries the dead sinner in His arms and submerses the corpse into the fullnes of Christ and like a new born baby the sinner emerges grasping for new breath calling on the name of the Lord in faith believing, confessing every detail of his sin, exhilarated with new life.

This is anything but forced submission.

Christians long ago knew this at Hidleberg Germany in 1563.
They taught the new believer that your only comfort in life and deaths is that you are not your own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and death, to your faithful Saviour Jesus Christ.

So the sinner does not pray my will be done but His will be done.

David said...

Now stay with Charles logic.

He believes that because Dr. Rogers did not believe this stuff (hyper-Calvinism) God withheld knowledge of a molestation from him.

Junkster said...

Sometimes I've seen the term "hyper-Calvinist" used to refer to someone who is strongly Calvinistic, or who holds to all 5 points of Calvinism, or who holds to traditional Calvinistic positions regarding election, free will, etc. But those are not a technically correct uses of the term.

"Hyper-Calvinism" is a distinct theological position that states that only the elect are obligated to repent and believe, and thus unbelievers should not all be exhorted to believe in Christ or turn in repentance to God. The practical application of this for the true hyper-Calvinist is that gospel preaching to the lost or evangelist witness are not needed.

More on what constitues true hyper-Calvinism and what distiguishes it from Calvinism is here.

David said...

Junkster,

I just read the article you referenced. Looks to me like it's describing exactly what Charles is advocating. ?

Anyway, my point was to remind ya'all of his point... which really is that Dr. Rogers didn't beieve the way he (charles) did, and thus charles believes God judged him and withheld divine revelation from him. Thus this gives Charles the freedom to post that Dr. Rogers is to blame for the "mess" at Bellevue. Of course, there's no way to prove these theories... so what do you know, he had a vision! (I'm starting to pictures boys in the woods who got visions at very convenient times...) And in this vision he hears Dr. Rogers being rebuked by the Almighty.

But of course, as long as he can keep everybody stirred up over Calvinism, people lose sight of the fact that he is really out to condemn Dr. Rogers and propmote his Spirit-Filled version of Calvinism.

John Mark said...

When our priorities are screwed up, we'll resort to anything to achieve what's most important to us.

If our absolute highest priority is God, then we'll do whatever it takes to please honor him, which of course is by following his ways.

If anything is more important in our lives than God, we're in trouble. We know that God can do anything, and if some thing is more important than God that puts him in the role of a tool to get our desire. Sort of a divine vending machine, into which we insert the correct religious change, push the right spiritual button, and out comes whatever we want.

But what happens when we don't get what we want? Since honoring God has already been relegated to a secondary status, we're then free to resort to whatever means we choose to get our own way.

That's why the good blog is so tolerant of sin. It's more important to hurt Bellevue and lash out at people than to honor God. Clearly.

One sin Jesus spoke strongly against was hypocrisy. You know, acting one way but being another. Isn't it coincidental that so many of the people who dislike the pastor of Bellevue (or the former pastor, for that matter) have such strong feelings about child abuse that they keep bringing it up over and over and over again? And how anyone who isn't in their boat is lax against sin?

There's a parallel going on in Jacksonville right now. A multiple-personality blogger who calls himself 'we' instead of 'I' is trying to tear down the First Baptist Church. After months of whining, he's starting to sound a lot like the NBBCOF in that he's adopted a high and mighty cause to assault his pastor.

The church is hosting a fund raiser to support an Israeli hospital. At first, he just railed that the Jews weren't good enough to be in his church because they aren't saved. Quite a statement, that. But after who knows how many hours on the internet he discovered that the Israeli government funds certain abortions, and that the abortions are performed at the hospitals. Now all of a sudden he's become an anti-abortion champion. And with such a noble cause, anyone who doesn't fall in line is sinful. He still hasn't shown any evidence that abortions are done at the hospital in question, but as he's told those who question him, it's their responsibility to prove that they aren't, not his to prove that they are. Just like he said it was the pastor's job to initiate contact with him and address his concerns, not his to approach the pastor and ask questions. Seriously.

So now he's fallen to the point of the good blog.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...
Jon - you are so very clever. You like to ask questions, but never answer them yourself. I am familiar with your tactics Jon but I'm answering your questions because they are such softballs, and they are an absolutely perfect opportunity allowing me to point out the shallowness of Christians who actually support what Mac Brunson is doing at FBC Jacksonville.


Does that language sound eerily familiar? Any Christian who supports the pastor is shallow. If you don't support FBCJ's highest goal in life (attacking Mac Brunson) he hates you.

I'm worried about the American church. We live in an age in which any disgruntled church member can go worldwide with their personal vendettas and appear completely credible. Will there ever be a church with 100% satisfaction with the pastor that isn't a new start?

How can this problem be solved? How can these bloggers be made to realize that the pain and suffering they are instigating in their churches isn't worth their own carnal gratifications? How can they be made to put God back on the throne?

WatchingHISstory said...

When Adrian Rogers came to Memphis to pastor Bellevue he was about 41 years old and Paul Williams was about 28. They worked together for 15 years. PW heard week after week AR preach about God's love and how He would set aside His sovereignty for man to have free choice. He heard altar calls for sinners to come to Jesus.

Paul williams sodomizes his own son and then for 17 years the truth is concealed from AR.

That is 32 years of ministry. 15 years of discipleship Sitting under the preaching of the greatest minister in the SBC, founder of love worth finding. Convention president, molder of 2000 BF&M and leader of the so called "conservative resurgance"

Coincidence just has no place in this. God is witholding knowledge from AR.

David said...

Charles,

I don't know what Rogers involvement with PW was. You seem to think they had daily contact. S.G. said that he did not have more than a passing relationship with PW. So what makes you think they worked together every day?

And by the way, Charles, I seem to think of lots of people who heard Paul preach and didn't repent.

What you are asking for is unpresidented. You want God to act outside his normal means of revelation, reveal something directly to Dr. Rogers. and if he doesn't reveal it to Rogers, your answer is: It's because Rogers doesn't preach Calvinism!

Does anyone buy this?

John Mark,

I think the Jax group wants to simply copy NASS. They can't really latch onto anything with Brunson (goodness, he sure can't be accused of treating Dr. Whitticker wrong, can he?) so they are digging has hard as they can. Really, the Jacksonville bunch just can't get anything going.

John Mark said...

Actually, there is no Jacksonville group. It's just one person, a disgruntled employee I suspect. He refers to himself in the plural to make it sound like a consortium, and sure has a lot of anonymous comments on his blog, but it's still just one man.

oc said...

If he is just one, would that make him wrong?

David said...

John Mark,

Interesting! I haven't looked at the blog... but who's he talking to?

I watched Mac preach today (I watch on the web while I memorize as much of my notes as I can). he was defensive about the stand by Israel thing; but the congregation was overwhelmingly supportive (by applause at least).

Anyway, I think a lot of Mac Brunson.

WatchingHISstory said...

Matthew 23:15 (New American Standard Bible)
15"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

This is still practiced in fundamentalism's zeal to evangelize the world's culture groups.

The movie "Frankenstein" protrays the proselyte who has become "twice the child of gehenna as yourselves"

Mary Shelley, 19, wrote the book in 1818. She wrote, "the dawn of the nineteenth century. A world on the brink of revolutionary change. Alongside political and social upheaval, scientific advances that would profoundly change the lives of all. The lust for knowledge had never been greater."

For Christianity the break from binding orthodoxy resulted in tremendous revivals for Arminian preachers. The bondage of Total Depravity, Limited Atonement and Irresitable Grace hindered the free will of man from responding to God and modifications of depravity brought the spark of life where there had been none.

At age 15 Mary Shelley had lost a child and her novel portrayed a man who had lost his new bride.
Orthodoxy portrayed the sinner as hopelessly lost and dead in sin. Everyone wanted the restoration of new life.

Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh), a doctor/scientist made a man from various body parts and resulted in an out of control monster(Robert DeNiro), much to Victor's regret.

The monster vowed revenge on Dr. Frankenstein and in a face to face encounter, the monster said, "You gave me emotions but didn't tell me how to use them. Now two people are dead. Do I have a soul?

Frankenstein responds, "I don't know"

The monster says: "Did you consider the consequences of your actions. You gave me life and then left me to die." "Who am I?"

Frankenstein responds, "I don't know" To which the monster says, "And you think I am evil!"

Frankenstein says, "Yes I do."

Paul Williams probally wanted to have a face to face encounter with his mega-Church pastor.

"You said in all your sermons that God has given us promptings to freely accept Christ. He even surrendered a part of His sovereignty. He loves us. He loves the sinner. All you have to do is "come to Jesus"

"When you freely come to Jesus He accepts you and you are eternally secure in that relationship."

"Pastor, I've sodomized my son for the last 18 months and we have been together for 17 years here at Bellevue."

"I don't fear going to Hell I fear going to Jail! Do I have a soul?
Tell me again that Jesus loves me. Tell me again that I am eternally secure."

"Reassure me again that a sodomite like myself can still be regenerate."

The Arminian says though he was regenerate. he can and surely would loose his salvation. The inconsistent Arminian says that the regenerate cannot loose his salvation so he was probally never regenerate. The Calvinist says he became apostate so was never regenerate. All this says that we have a problem with ever offering anyone assurance or certainty of salvation. How can any of us ever be sure we are saved?

David said: "I don't know what Rogers involvement with PW was. You seem to think they had daily contact. S.G. said that he did not have more than a passing relationship with PW. So what makes you think they worked together every day?"

I agree with David, surprise, surprise! If you are too busy with denominational issues to the neglect of even your associate pastor then your Church is waaayyy toooo big. In addition to faulty theology AR was just too big a dreamer for the realities of the world he lived in.

David said...

Charles,

I'm thrilled we agree. Not sure what we agree on, but it does make my heart miss a beat.

Can you clarify for me: Is it your understanding that Dr. Rogers DID or DID NOT have at least a working relationship with PW? Because Dr. Gaines said they had only met (he and PW).

David said...

Charles: "How can any of us ever be sure we are saved?"

By repenting of sin, turning to Christ alone as our only hope. Acknowleding that Jesus is God's anointed One, God in flesh, and that he died for our sins vicariously and rose again.

Do you know anohter way?

Jessica said...

Dr. Rogers and PW were close friends,they knew each other before coming to BBC. They were friends beyond the scope of just being employed at BBC.

SG is not friends with PW and would have no reason to interact heavily with him on a day to day basis.

Perhaps the reason PW "felt more comfortable" (although I do believe he was forced into the situation by outside circumstance, not just confessing for confessing's sake) with SG is he didn't have to face the disappointment of someone he had such a close relationship with.

It is much easier to confess to a stranger than someone you care for.

WatchingHISstory said...

on the "OPEN FORUM" eprov said...
mom4, and all......
Maybe some of you see something that I don't see. SG is his own worst enemy.
#1) He is NOT a charismatic leader.
#2) He is NOT a gifted administrator / CEO.
#3) He is NOT a powerful preacher.
#4) He does NOT have the ability to endear himself to people.

He is not good enough to fill Adrian Rogers' shoes yet meets the requirements to fill the Apostle Paul's shoes!

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

jessica

1) Steve would be the last person to say he was a friend of PW.

2) Paul Williams was not a friend to AR (I hate to always be the person saying things that noone else wants to hear) A man who would sodomize his own son for 18 months could not maintain anything but superficial friendships, all for the reason to keep hidden and out of prison. He is a sociopathic person incapable of personal relationships. All those who say they were close friends of Paul and his family were deceived into believing him. Those who are giving him comfort and cover now are sadly deceived. If they have children around him they should be very careful!

3) AR not picking up on this is a strike against his better judgements. This just causes me to feel even stronger that God hid this from AR and an act of judgement against AR is taking place. This statement does not
endue me friends, especially Christians on these blogs.

Charles

John Mark said...

About the FBC Jacksonville blog:

The admin responds to the posts by the time they were posted, for example an anonymous post at 3:30 would be addressed as "anon 3:30". This truly takes anonymity to the next level, since you don't even need a profile to post anonymously.

I certainly think your time is better invested by listening to Brunson's sermons than an iritated troublemaker. Every time I read one of his posts I think of the Borg in Star Trek. Each drone used to call himself 'we' just like that guy does. He's not having very much luck assimilating followers, though.

John Mark said...

#1) He is NOT a charismatic leader.
#2) He is NOT a gifted administrator / CEO.
#3) He is NOT a powerful preacher.
#4) He does NOT have the ability to endear himself to people.


If true, it sounds like he's a man God can use.

WatchingHISstory said...

David

I've stopped replying to you because it is an exercise in futility.

But I just can't resist when you make these kind of statements.

Charles: "How can any of us ever be sure we are saved?"

"By repenting of sin, turning to Christ alone as our only hope. Acknowleding that Jesus is God's anointed One, God in flesh, and that he died for our sins vicariously and rose again."

"Do you know anohter way?"

Well yes, David! A Calvinist salvific plan. You must be born again! You are a liberal SBC seminary dropout and you don't know this!

You cannot be born again by 1) repenting 2)turning 3)acknowledging. We are not saved by any effort of man.
Remember, the devils acknowledge Christ as the son of God.

You mention the accomplishing of salvation in Christ's atonement but not how it is applied. That is the secret to assurance and cetainty.

You and all who hear you preach without a doubt in my mind do not have assurance and certainty of salvation.

Now pout over this in your post.

WatchingHISstory said...

David

I apologize for that last statement it was uncalled for.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

from Wikipedia "Perseverance of the Saints"

" To the traditional Calvinist, you are not saved until you have persevered until the end. The non-traditional doctrine teaches that because you have received salvation, you are eternally secure in that salvation. Because of this difference, traditional Calvinist Christians tend to prefer the historical term "perseverance of the saints", which is one of the five points of Calvinism, and advocates of the non-traditional doctrine of "Eternal Security" usually prefer this less technical term."

"The non-traditional doctrine of "Eternal Security" is not one of the five points of Calvinism."

So the person who thinks that his view of eternal security makes him a moderate Calvinist is really an inconsistent Arminian.

David said...

Charles: "You and all who hear you preach without a doubt in my mind do not have assurance and certainty of salvation."

Give up your rage and produce fruit in keeping with repentance. Let go of the anger that has warped you, the bitterness and allow God to use you in ministry.

No need to defend my ministry to you. But I do hope you can see with your own words the rage that boils in your heart. If you can say those things to a pastor you've never met, but disagree with theologically... what is really going on?

Why is it so hard for you, Charles, a saved man to express the fruit of the Spirit?

Why does every post have to be accusation and rage? If you're not attacking me, you're saying nutty stuff about Dr. Rogers, or telling Jessica she is following wicked desires.

Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.

David said...

Charles: “You are a liberal SBC seminary dropout and you don't know this!”
You do love labels, don’t you Charles.

I believe you have to attend Seminary to be a dropout. You should reread that post. I said I dropped out because SBC schools at the time were not teaching the Bible.

You seem to reference Wikipedia more to define your faith than Scriptures. Let’s examine your claims by the Scriptures, not Wikipedia. (By the way, I’ll tell you some day how Wikipedia is assembled).

CLAIM #1: “You cannot be born again by... repenting “
Bible: “"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call." Acts 2:28-39
Jesus: “But unless you repent , you too will all perish.” Luke 13:3
Jesus: "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" Mark 1:15

CLAIM #2: “You cannot be born again by... turning”
Peter: “Repent , then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord” Acts 3:19
Paul: “I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.” Acts 20:21

CLAIM #3: You cannot be born again by acknowledging.
Actually I said: “Acknowledging that Jesus is God's anointed One, God in flesh, and that he died for our sins vicariously and rose again.”
Bible: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.” 1 John 5:1
Bible: “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” 2 John 7 (See the importance of acknowledging who Jesus is?)

And, I never denied you must be born again.

Smile, Charles. It’s good for you. I’m gonna go get lunch.

WatchingHISstory said...

David

The three verbs you use indicate action on the part of man without any mention of God's part in Salvation, though you correctly state the death burial and resurrection of Christ.

The moment we lose sight of this distinction between being saved by faith (the act of man) and being born again by the Holy Spirit (the act of God), we are heading for confusion and trouble. We will be convinced that man is able to do what the Bible emphatically states he is unable to do. Titus 3:5,6

The necessity of the Holy Spirit's work being thus theologically denied, it will not be long before it is ignored in actual practice. This is the plight of modern day evangelism. Since they are convinced that the new birth is within the power and ability of man's will, their man made methodology has become far more important than the theology of the Bible.

Charles

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

What do you think about the Santa Clause stuff supported by so many Christians?

Just wanting to have you speak to another topic.

David said...

Well good afternoon, Charles.

I gave you simple statements and supported each one with Scripture.

--is Peter wrong to command people to "repent"? After all, he didn't tell them they had to be born again. What was wrong with Peter! Goodness, he must have been a liberal.

--Was Jesus wrong to say: Unless you repent you will all perish? Another liberal?

--Was Paul wrong to say: We must "turn to God in repentance." And imagine, no talk of regeneration. Imagine that!

What you do Charles is argue labels instead of Scripture. You want to label a person and then tell them what they believe since they wear that label. But you are left frustrated when challenged by the very Word of God.

I don't think your argument held any ground scripturally. because the truth is: We do have to repent. We do have to turn from sin. We do have to affirm who Christ is. Says who? Says Jesus! Both in red letter and through inspiration.

Now, breathe deeply. Go on, give it a try. Stretch your lips and smile. Go ahead, you won't lose your salvation doing this. And think of something to be thankful for!

I'm thankful for Jesus' death and Resurrection.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

Charles,

Are you able to talk without name calling and grand standing?

It appears you think someone must hold your views on predestination in order to be saved. I do not view predestination as essential to salvation.

Jesus called men to "repent." That apparently offends you. It doesn't offend me or my theology. I believe men can repent. Do you?

Charles: "he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ (are you abiding in that? No!)"

Hummm, did John have those brackets, or did you add them? Me thinks you are getting a little hyper again. Calm down.

You do make me smile a lot. But, alas, I must return to sermon prep.

What are you thankful for, Charles?

WatchingHISstory said...

From NewsReleaseWire.com
"Tale of Two Cities - Jacksonville and Memphis. Child Sexual Abusers on Church Staffs!

"Child sex abusers who repent, rehabilitate, and reform also repeat their crimes as long as 20 years after treatment according to Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce. No sane person would stake his life on the assurances that a molester will not molest again. No compassionate person would stake the life and future of an innocent child on those assurances either."

"No person who has ever been accused of child sexual abuse should ever be permitted to work on a church staff or with children in any way. In fact, I would not permit such a person to do volunteer work in a church and the only way I would permit such a person to even join the church I pastor would be with the understanding that they would always be observed for a relapse that almost all experts say is in their future."

"Only God knows if the abuser has really repented and will never repeat his sin. You might be willing to take the chance on someone but you aren’t the only one taking the chance: innocent, helpless children may be unnecessary victims of you “taking the chance” on a person’s sincerity."

We need to know where Paul Williams lives, works, attends Church. We need to know if he still holds creduntials with the SBC and what his status in the ministry is.

If anyone knows this please publish the information for the sake of the children that may be around him.

Charles Page

WatchingHISstory said...

David

I am thankful for heresies!

1 Corinthians 11:19 (King James Version)
19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you

John Mark said...

Wow, it's almost Thanksgiving! Can't you just visualize - OOPS - I mean imagine the joyful family reunions and dinner conversations on Thanksgiving Day?

"What are you thankful for, little Billy? Why, for mommy and daddy and grandma and grandpa. Without them I wouldn't have anyone to tuck me in at night."

"What about you, little Amy? Why, for my dollies and my puppy and my family. Without them, I wouldn't have anyone to love."

"What about you, Charles? Why, for heresies! Without them, I wouldn't have anything to talk about!"

Jessica said...

JM,

I know you have had a rough time on occasion (mostly brought about by your own instigating behavior ;)) but oh, how you make me laugh!!

I giggled.

Jon L. Estes said...

Santa Clause discussion alert...

Why do parents work so hard to make sure their kids believe in Santa Clause but often work very little to make sure their children believe in Jesus?

David said...

Charles,
That's really special.

Jon,
Are you suggesting there is no Santa?

Proof there is a Santa:
1. I had a dream there was a Santa.
2. I saw a movie, and there was a Santa.
3. The news said there was a Santa.
4. My daughter told me Santa is real. Even when I told her he wasn't real, she said I was wrong. Hey, I didn't want to hurt her self image, so I didn't argue.
5. Someone eats the cookies I leave out every Christmas eve.
6. I saw him myself in the mall.
7. Who else is in the Christmas parade?
8. If there is no Santa, who feeds the reindeer?
9. If there is no Santa, why did I buy a house with a fire place?
10. I thought this whole issue was taken care of when the U.S. mail sent Christ Kringle all the santa letters. It's a proven case.

Jon, if you are suggesting there is no Santa, would you please provide proper documentation.

WatchingHISstory said...

So no one is distrubed that you have a man made religious system that produced an ordained SBC monster.

You totally deny that AR had anything to do with it and say that Paul Williams is responsible for his own actions.

Paul Williams was molested as a child and carried that burden in his own heart, got saved and was a close friend to AR and when he sodomized his own son it was a total act of his own free will. He got no direction from his man made religious system.

After Frankenstein's experiment failed and the monster escaped he had hope that the villagers had killed his regreted creation but it showed up alive.

Frankenenstein denied it's existence. Now there is your Santa "clause" You have failed to preach the true gospel and now you deny the problem!

You play childish games! Go ahead and fiddle while Rome burns!

WatchingHISstory said...

David said"
“Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 7 (See the importance of acknowledging who Jesus is?)"

You left out the part that said, "he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ (are you abiding in that? No!) he hath both the Father and the Son. (See the importance of acknowledging the Father and the Son) The Son accomplishes the will of the Father and at His own divine will the Father applies the work of regeneration to whosoever He wills.

There is no cooperation between the sinner and Christ but between the Father and Son in electing the Spirit to move where ever the Father willeth. John 3:8

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

I think you must be blamed for PW's actions. You have shown that you are so close to God He speaks to you about other people, through dreams and other venues. You have shown, through your typed words that God reveals to you things He does not reveal to others. Therefore, Sir... You must be at fault for PW's molestation of his son.

It matters not what AR believed in His errant non-calvinistic views. You have the correct views, you, who have been told about AR should have been told about PW. The same source would have done that. Why would this source tell you about AR and not PW? I think He did and you are wanting to divert the attention from yourself to one who can not respond.

It has to be tough to be so close to God that he tells you the wrong about everyone else. So why did you not inform us about PW?

Jon L. Estes said...

Proof there is a Santa:
1. I had a dream there was a Santa.

I had that same dream, so it must be.

2. I saw a movie, and there was a Santa.

I saw the same movie, so it must be

3. The news said there was a Santa.

I read the same paper, so it must be.

4. My daughter told me Santa is real. Even when I told her he wasn't real, she said I was wrong. Hey, I didn't want to hurt her self image, so I didn't argue.

Well it was my son, so it must be.

5. Someone eats the cookies I leave out every Christmas eve.

Yes, someone did, so it must be.

6. I saw him myself in the mall.

How does he do that, different malls, same Santa, it must be.

7. Who else is in the Christmas parade?

I know its not the Snoopy Balloon, so it must be.

8. If there is no Santa, who feeds the reindeer?

I have never seen a dead reindeer, so it must be.

9. If there is no Santa, why did I buy a house with a fire place?

So that's why I bought this house, it must be.

10. I thought this whole issue was taken care of when the U.S. mail sent Christ Kringle all the santa letters. It's a proven case.

If the US mail in involved, it must be.

Jon, if you are suggesting there is no Santa, would you please provide proper documentation.

How great to have a Santa who is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent. We are blessed people.

It must be. I can't wait to tell my grand children. 13 family members to be here for Santamas

Cory said...

Charles said:

We need to know if he still holds creduntials with the SBC and what his status in the ministry is.


Just to make sure everyone knows--the Southern Baptist Convention does not provide "credentials" to ministers. The local church is solely the Body that licenses and ordains ministers.

Jon L. Estes said...

Corey,

Come on now, you might prove something Charles says is not correct, and we don't want that.

;-)

David said...

John,

I'm busting up.

I was going to preach a sermon this Christmas season titled: "St. Nicholas: Living the Christmas story." And tell about the historical mans life.

David said...

Charles,

“A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.” 1 Cor. 11:28-32

1. A man ought to examine HIMSELF. V.28
It is not the church’s job to go and examine him and decide if he is in a right state before the Lord.

2. The Lord’s Supper is a holy act. V.29
If the church can’t judge someone’s heart before they do something as holy as the Lord’s Supper, then it certainly isn’t going to become a mind reader with ordination. Which isn’t even in the Bible.

3. Our sin brings judgment on OURSELVES. V.29
It’s not Dr. Rogers job to judge PW. I know that you want to judge Dr. Rogers based on a mixing of mysticism with Christianity. You believe that if Dr. Rogers were more spiritual, God would have supernaturally revealed PW’s sin. That is not sound doctrine, brother. That is mixing the simple Christian message with new teachings.

4. A wrong heart toward God has physical consequences. V.30
In other words, God is able to punish people. It’s not our job to inspect hearts and bring down punishment on people outside the laws of our land.

5. We ought to judge ourselves.
If can’t judge PW, but I can judge me. My spirit knows me, as does the Holy Spirit. My job is not to look back as Peter did and say: “Lord, what about him...” my job is to say: “Lord, what about me”

6. God judges us to protect us.
He is obligated as a Holy God to discipline his children. By the way, have you ever experienced God’s discipline? I have.

Charles, the danger in what you are saying is that we are to be on guard in the church. But the answer to child predators isn’t Calvinism. You are muddying waters that need to be clear.

We shouldn’t say (as you do): Well, if all our pastors had a Calvinistic doctrine, then they’d spot the child molesters because the Holy Spirit would reveal them. More proactive steps that this mysticism you promote are needed.

There is a real problem that Corey hit on. That there is no national means of even keeping up with who the local church ordains. Thus we produce ministers with absolutely no oversight. This isn’t a doctrinal problem, it’s a practical problem.

WatchingHISstory said...

corey

Thanks for the clarification. As soon as I published it I thought of that and just let it go.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

I am shocked and dismayed that no one takes the problem with Paul Williams seriously. There is a lot of excusing and denying.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

I post this knowing that I have stirred up controversy already.

A disciple is a learner and a follower of the teachings of a master. The word is used in various contexts in the New Testament. Not only Jesus, but also John the Baptist and the Pharisees had disciples (Mark 2:18).

In a more restricted sense, the word is used as a designation for the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:1,2). To avoid misapplication one must determine from the context whether reference is being made to the twelve, or to Jesus' disciples in general. (For example, compare Matthew 19:23 with 19:28; Mark 6:35,45 with 6:7,30 and Mark 11:14 with 11:11.) Many of the doctrinal errors of the authoritarian discipleship movement result from a failure to observe this distinction.

In Acts 6:1,2 the church is spoken of as the multitude of the disciples. At Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians (Acts 11:26). In other words, a Christian is a disciple of Christ.

In a more general sense, some people are called disciples in Acts 19:1-3 when they knew only the baptism of John and had not yet been baptized in the name of Christ.

Incorrect Definition

Advocates of pyramid discipleship use an incorrect definition for the word 'disciple.' They define a disciple as a Christian who is trained through a subordinate relationship with another Christian. This unscriptural definition results from an incorrect concept of how one becomes a disciple of Christ.

'Disciple' as a Verb

Most advocates of hierarchical discipleship like to use the word 'disciple' as a verb. When they speak of 'discipling someone to Christ' they don't refer to preaching the gospel so someone can become a disciple. They refer to a period of training under the leadership of one person

David said...

Was the original Santa a dsciple?

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

I am shocked and dismayed that no one takes the problem with Global warming at the north pole seriously. There is a lot of excusing and denying.

Jon L. Estes said...

If it all melts, we will have a Santa delivering his wares in a speedo.

Not a delightful thought.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...

Disciples are born not made. Christians are made out of disciples. Many are disciples but few are Christians.

Disciples were the first to be called Christians at Antioch.

We make disciples by being God sent preachers to the sinner who is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and calls on the Lord for forgiveness, confessing Christ as Savior and Lord.

We baptize and teach them. The Holy Spirit made them disciples. We make them like unto all that Christ taught us. Ane we will never be left on our own in that process.

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

We have given our anger concerning PW to the Lord. We do not allow it to drive our lives. What PW did was horrible, terrible and more. It never should have happened. My ranting against it now does not change it nor does it help the matter.

I have prayed, I have asked God how and why something like this could happen. He told me. It is because of sin. All sin. It destroys everything it touches. I refuse to dwell in sin. I will confront it when it is to be confronted and will oppose it all all times but I will not let the bitterness of sin run my life.

In the midst of such ugliness I have found that which is as sweet as honey, as kind as kind could be and as loving as true love. I have found the joy of Jesus.

Neither PW's actions or your swimming in that pool causing you to remain angry and bitter will be inviting enough to slip out of the protective hands of Jesus and join you. I refuse. I would rather live more abundantly than that.

remain where you are or join us in the joyful arms of Jesus. He is big enough to take care of these problems. If you believe He is sovereign, let Him be so. Enjoy Him, He died so you could.

WatchingHISstory said...

jon

Your response is self-righteous and judgemental.

My rage is from God not from within myself. I am not angry God is angry. Respond to God with your self-righteous platitudes but don't expect me to buy it for a minute.

You are better at making fun of Santa 'Clause'

Stick with the shallow things.

I'm happily going to work where I will conduct conversation with real people!

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

God is big enough to handle His own anger. He is the judge, not I, He is the Sovereign, not I. I am His child, called to live in a wonderful relationship with Him that is real and personal. I am to be filled with His presence and be joyful. He died so my joy could be full.

It is obvious you miss the point of the Santa Clause exchange.

My response is to you, the one spewing venom towards others who are not guilty of what PW did. Towards others who do not see eye to eye with you on Calvin doctrinal positions.

God is not a Calvinist... He is God.

Enjoy your day at work

David said...

Jon: God’s not a Calvinist... he’s God. AMEN!

But the real question: Is Santa a Calvinist?

Chalres: “I'm happily going to work where I will conduct conversation with real people!”
Yes, because I’m a borg.

Charles: “My rage is from God not from within myself”

Do a quick check in your Bible of the word “rage.”
--Paul say that rage is from the “sinful nature” and warns that those who “live” like this will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:19-21)

--Again in Ephesians Paul commands us to get ride of ALL rage and to be kind and compassionate to one another. (Eph. 4:31-32)

--The word rage appears again in Colossians when Paul says we “must” get rid of it. It stands this time in a list with filthy language, malice and slander.

–In Job the place where he actually sinned was that he became angry with God. He at that point was open to rebuke. It was his rage that caused him to stumble.

Checking the Old Testament, I cannot find a single good reference to rage. The Bible is crystal clear on this one, Charles, rage does NOT come from God. It comes from the sinful nature.

Just being angry won’t change what happened. The truth is, this happens to HUNDREDS of children. So what can be done? Blaming Dr. Rogers won’t change a thing. Blaming those who disagree with your theology won’t change anything. Blogging won't change it. Being a part of a local church, serving in a ministry and working to protect the kids in that church... that will change things.


“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage , selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Gal. 5:19-21

“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Eph. 4:31-32

“You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage , malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.” Col. 3:7-8

“Why has your heart carried you away, and why do your eyes flash, so that you vent your rage against God and pour out such words from your mouth?” Job. 15:12-13

David said...

Charles,

You seem to have a habit of saying things are from God when they are really from you.

It concerns me when a man says his "rage" is from God, when the Bible clearly says rage is from the sinful nature. But then he wants us to believe his "vision" is from God.

If you can't display fruit of the Spirit, why would we believe your dream is from God? Your vision seems like nothing more than a product of your raging flesh.

John Mark said...

I can't believe that rage has come under attack. That makes me so mad!

And what's all this about Bellevue allowing unsaved people on the property for some carnival? Didn't God tell Steve Gaines what 'those' kind of people are like?

I think 'amazed' sums them up pretty good.

amazed said...
just wait till the inner city crowd arrives with the baggy pants, boom boxes and the $500.00 sneakers. Oh by the way, this same crowd will really help the offering. If BBC wants to retain this crowd, they will have to serve breakfast and lunch. Also, don't forget metal detectors at all the doors. Way to go BBC.


Wonder if that's what God really meant when he said come out from them and be separate?

Jon L. Estes said...

Santa is a Calvinist. You see he elects who gets toys and who does not. We children have no say so in the matter.

Jon L. Estes said...

John Mark,

Someone needs to tell some of those folk at the bbc blog that Jesus died for the baggy pant, expensive shoe wearing hoodlums also.

Goodness gracious the damage to a multi-million dollar building that will be done if those people not like us come to our, used to be, piece of heaven.

They probably believe AR would have joined Faith baptist over something like this.

You can almost hear their prayers...

God, It saddens me that my church is not like my church any more. Can you help my church be like my church again. I really don't want to find another church and make it my church. But if I have to...

WARNING: Memphis area pastors, know what you are getting.

John Mark said...

I don't get it...

gopher said...
In regards to the happenings of tonight....
To think of having this carnival for 3 hours on Halloween is just crazy. To the world Bellevue is celebrating Halloween with enthusiasm and excitement. Where's the witness in that.
If they want to do this, do it on another day that does not appear like a celebration of Halloween. Are there not any standards left whatsoever??!!!


Why was the 'Fall Festival' Bellevue used to have all right but not this thing? Didn't it used to be on Halloween?

Was the evil celebration that Bellevue used to host one of the things that came clearly into view when the scales recently fell off the eyes of the people on the good blog, or are they just being grouchy again?

I'm sure Bellevue would still let them ride the ferris wheel if that's what's eating them. No need to feel left out.

David said...

I'm stunned Bellevue lets sinners on the grounds! Church should be for the elect only.

OUTREACH... what about inreach? Why is the pastor so concerned with reaching the lost? You would think he had a mandate from heaven or something.

Jon L. Estes said...

John Mark,

You are correct. Having an alternative event so kids don't have to go door to door in spooky costumes to beg for candy, having it at the church (yours, mine or who evers) and letting the community know that the folk behind the doors they don't frequent --- love them. This is a good thing. BBC can afford this level of ministry, go for it.

I guess it is worldy to offer all those block parties which draw the neighborhood to introduce a church plant.

We have some sad souls sitting in some Jesus seats (pews).

Jon L. Estes said...

Now David, you are making this way to personal, someone might get offended. I would hate to see the bbc disgruntled become even more disgruntled.

Creative evangelism is not for everybody. Just for us who actually go to those like Jesus went to.

I did hear Gaines had dinner with some publicans and tax collectors. Who does he think he is trying to be like, Jesus?

John Mark said...

Okay, this is my last visit for a while.

MOM4 said...
If you look at the history of the growth of BBC, and asked the circumstances surrounding those that were saved and baptized at BBC, they were the ones that were discipled and befriended by the membership, in particular those involved and trained in EE and those active in the dicipleship portion of their Christian walk. Very few people just showed up to an event and received Christ. Of course, Dr Rogers made sure there was a gospel presentation at each and every event the church presented, but that event was not what spurred their attendance. They were invited by a member - a diciple of Christ as trained by the local New Testament Church who grew at the feet of Jesus thru the preaching and teaching of our former GODLY pastors. Men full of integrity and love for the sheep of His pastures...not their own lame ideas...sounds like grasping at worldly straws to me....


Ah, the good old days... Yep, back when everything was perfect. I've heard a lot of people saying that we need to get back to the first century church, but I suppose we should try to get back to the 20th century Bellevue instead.

As far as I can tell (from the outside), Bellevue's major evangelism strategy is the same as it ever was. Hold major events, get the visitors to fill out forms with their addresses, and pay them visits as resources permit.

To hear mom4 tell it, every member of the church used to choose 12 disciples after fasting and prayer, and then spent 3 years with them before they were brought for a visit.

Very few people just showed up to an event and received Christ.

Exactly what kind of a fantasy world is this person living in? Has she ever heard of thinking twice before hitting 'enter'? All those thousands of people who made professions at the MPP and SCT didn't just show up and receive Christ???

It's useless to create an imaginary magical kingdom where everything was wonderfully perfect and then blame everyone but yourself that this Utopia doesn't exist anymore.

They were invited by a member - a diciple of Christ as trained by the local New Testament Church who grew at the feet of Jesus thru the preaching and teaching of our former GODLY pastors. Men full of integrity and love for the sheep of His pastures...

Sheesh. And they have the nerve to accuse people of worshiping Steve? At least he's a real person, and not a figment of someone's imagination.

David said...

Jon,

Sorry, I got carried away. I see your point.

Your're right, creative evangelism isn't for everybody. After all, the Great Commission is only for us pastors and evangelist... right.

We're having a harvest festival tonight. They're setting up right now. I plan to present the Gospel. But the real attention will be gotten through puppets. My job is to bring it all together and explain the hope we have in Christ.

Jon L. Estes said...

David,

Don't apologize, my point was that there are many, I refer to those criticizing the event, who are complaining because this event either

1 - does not fit their criteria
or
2 - It is a Gaines thing so it is evil.

Either way, comfort or not, evangelism is a must do.

Get one of those puppets to share FAITH, or use five and let one do each point and you bring it all together.

Go Key Question...

Jon L. Estes said...

John Mark,

Hurry back. The people in the pews need to understand that we have a whole generation who is not going to do church like Grandma. Classic church will not reach the masses any more.

If we could just "BE" the church and quit just "DOING" church things we would be greater witnesses for the One who saved us.

But Mama, they don't do church like I remember.

You want to know why most SBC churches in USA have less than 100 people on any given Sunday? It's about them and their inward focused sins.

David said...

AHHHHHH!!!!

Jon, I was out of it! Actually sitting here thinking what to say. Duh!
F
A
I
T
H
!!!!

Thanks.

Believe me, in California, everyone has a personal opinion about how to get to heaven. You wouldn't believe some of our answers. One just for fun:

Guy says: "I think you get to heaven... can I tell you a story? See, I was in my room and a voice told me to trust it. And I realized the voice was coming from this cabbage patch doll. And it turns out there are angels in my cabbage patch doll. And they direct me."

Well, we talked. He did not get saved.

Jessica said...

I am sure the dunk tank with SG and JP in it will convince a few of those folks to come and rub elbows with the hoodlums and commoners at BBC tonight.

And I guess "amazed" has a time machine because the last time any one had a "boom box" they carried around was probably 1983.

Also, what an alarmingly prejudical stereotype of the "inner city"- I know people from out there that are caring loving people that are doing the best they can- they really have no idea that there is another way.

Maybe they need to read through James again. Wasn't there something about the well-dressed man and the beggar coming into the church? Maybe that is just in my Bible.

David said...

Good point Jessica!

"Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?

But you have insulted the poor .

Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?"

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Charles: (After some graphic descriptions of what happened to a child): “This is the fruit of SBC theology. HOW MANY OTHER CHILDREN IN SBC HOMES ARE SUFFERING THE SAME FATE?”

I thought it was the result of Dr. Rogers theology. I’m getting confused.

I believe it’s the result of sin, not bad theology.

Are you aware that typing in all caps is the same as screaming? Good idea, when you are already coming across as enraged.

Charles, simple question: Does rage come from God, or the Holy Spirit.

I grow weary of you replaying one event over and over and over. It’s like you take some sick satisfaction in reviewing this event. Instead of acting to protect children, you insist on replaying this terrible scenario. Stop focusing on the details of that wicked event and beging thinking on that which is good, lovely, admirable.

Just thinking about something and talking about is not taking action, Charles. Action is taken when you get in a church and act to protect children. (Calmly, without rage)

David said...

Charles: "Soon the boys moral core would give way to the homoerotic desires"

You are getting truly sick.

It is unfortunate Mike lets you post anything, even discussion of "homoerotic" thoughts of a boy being molested.

I ask you simply in the name of Christ: stop posting about the detials of a molestation you were not a part of.

WatchingHISstory said...

Dear confused

"I thought it was the result of Dr. Rogers theology. I’m getting confused."

You are not confused you are right it is the result of Dr Roger's theology.

"I believe it’s the result of sin, not bad theology."

David, sin is the result of really bad theology.

Charles

David Brown said...

Mr. Page I have sat back and watched you rant and rave over PW and his precious son. I too echo the statements of Pastor David. Why are you so obsessed over this? First it was Dr. Roger’s fault. What about it being P.W.’s fault? For a while you were obsessed over my abuse but I would not give you the time or platform.

First of all you know nothing about the abuse of CW. Trust me you are so far off base about what you have been posting. It was horrible what he had to endure. But he has forgiven his father. Isn’t that Scriptural? He has reconciled with his father and mother. Your continuing to bring up this matter is so wickedly wrong and you Mr. Page continue to injure this victim and a father he so dearly loves. Who is this God that is giving you signals on this?

For the record, PW surrendered his license to the ministry when he resigned from Bellevue. A simple phone call would have given you that answer. You keep asking why isn’t there more outrage over PW being able to walk around. Trust me there is plenty outrage but what are you doing to EFFECT change in our laws? Posting as you continue to do is not doing one thing positive to help change anything except to make people mad at you which you seem to really enjoy. Why is that?

When you get cornered you play this hurt sheep. Please give me a break. I am less tolerant of you than others. I have had to endure you very hurtful comments about me and my wife. I am certain you will rant on me over this post or go to your blog that no one reads to hammer me. Others have tried very patiently to reach you in love but what do you do? You make fun of them and put labels on them as you have tried to do to me in the past. Sir that just will not work!

Have you forgotten that pornographic post of yours? That was not coming from any Christian I know. I do not who told you write that filth but it was not the GOD that I know and serve. I still have a copy of it in case you have forgotten.

Mr. Page I do pray for you every day. I just wish you would get some professional help. So many good people have suggested that to you but you steadfastly refuse. Some how I feel you are going to bring Calvin into this. How about this, let’s bring Jesus into this. Once again I ask you lay off PW and CW. How many times I have asked that of you? I lost track. Mike, I too ask you moderate the comments of Mr. Page. He has his own blog, let him post what he wants there.

David Brown

David said...

Mr. Brown has something others don't have that gives his words weight: Credibility/Authenticity. He's been there. Also, he knows when someone is crossing a line.

I appreciate the clarity with which you speak. You are passionate about protecting our kids, and I am thankful for that, also.

Junkster said...

Jon L. Estes said...
Santa is a Calvinist. You see he elects who gets toys and who does not. We children have no say so in the matter.

Oh, no no no! Santa is an Arminian ... his choice of which children get toys is based on the choice of the children to be good and not bad.

;)

WatchingHISstory said...

Is the the same David Brown I have come to know in the past?

"Dear Charles: Thank you brother. Yes this minister should be on a sexual offenders’ registry. It is a shame our laws in Tennessee are still out of step with other states. SNAP was able, working in conjunction with several other child advocacy groups get the laws changed last year. It was a small step but yet it was action. Look at Maryland’s laws. Ron Merony, remember him? He was living here, was on TV and he sexually abused that girl in Maryland over 30 years ago. No one wanted to believe he was guilty when it first came out here. They were tons of people coming to his defense. People vilified the victim. Well what happened? He plead guilty. Why, because he was."

David Brown
SNAP director for Memphis/West
Tennessee

You said: "For the record, PW surrendered his license to the ministry when he resigned from Bellevue."

I am glad to hear this however I was under the assumption he was fired from Bellevue. Since he "resigned" is on a pension?

Since you are the expert here is it still dangereous for children to be around him? Should he be on the sexual registery list?

I don't know which pornographic post you are refering. If it is the one I think it came from a paste from "Rape of Faith" What you and CW endured cannot be described apart from pornographic description.

My emphasis is the theological aspects which you and I have discussed before.

Thanks for the daily prayers. I am receiving help from the best counselor I can find. He is terrific!

Charles Page

John Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WatchingHISstory said...

John Mark

They all have one thing in common they don't like me because I critize Adrian Roger's theology.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

pastor David

Did you pick up the rage in Mr. Brown's post. You call it passion, I call it rage.

Charles

Jessica said...

We went to the BBC Family Fun Festival tonight- it was a lot of fun! There was plenty to do and everything was spread out so that the little kids had room to play and the big kids had plenty of things to do too. There were rides and corn dogs and cotton candy.

I didn't see any boom boxes but I did see Steve Gaines get dunked- and Donna got the inaugural dunk.

David said...

Charles: "pastor David, Did you pick up the rage in Mr. Brown's post. You call it passion, I call it rage."

Uh, I didn't call it passion. YOU Called it passion... then called it rage.

No, I did not pick up any rage in Mr. Browns post. He did not call you names, devalue you, call you a monster, attack your theology or sink to the level you feel the freedom to go to.

I can only speak for myself. I am getting tired of you using a situation you don't have all the facts about to promote your own agenda. To me that is victimizing a victim. We don't need to stir this up over the internet. We don't need to rewound someone. Bellevue people read this stuff, and I sure don't want that family thinking anyone would ever use their pain to promote a theological position.

I love you Charles,
david

David said...

junkster: "Oh, no no no! Santa is an Arminian ... his choice of which children get toys is based on the choice of the children to be good and not bad."

I'm afraid you're right. Arminian he is. The children must earn their toy.

But I don't understand: Why do poor children get lesser gifts than rich children? Doesn't Santa know he should level the playing field?

ps: We had a GREAT Harvest festival. Got 2 to Baptize and really had a wonderful time.

David Brown said...

NO, Mr. Page the pornographic post I am speaking about is the one you posted around 3:12 am one early morning on this blog. The one that Mike got onto you about and he removed himself. And it had nothing to do with my abuse or any other vicitm. So stop trying to make excuses.

How dare you to try and take our stories and use them for your benefit. You have no right. As for rage, I have none for you just pity that you will not listen to some very good people that have tried so hard in love to help you.

I wrote that letter you speak of in response to what the attorney for the Nashville diocese said to me earlier that day when he told me he could not imagine what I had been thru. So for the first time in 44 years, after I had another one of the nighmares, I told someone in attempt to make him understand what is like to have been a victim, then a survior and finally an advocate.

You continue to use the pain that CW and myself as well as others have suffered for your gain and that is flat wrong. It is a sin. I cannot understand why someone that has visions from God does understand this horrible crime any better than you.

Charles, And now you want to focus on rage and ignore sin? Give me a break. There is no rage in me, just passion. And it takes that to deal with this horrific evil day in and day out. I do not want to see one more child harmed. As you know full well, I do this on a voluntary, unpaid position. Someone has to speak up. If I step on toes at times to get the message across, so be it. I have opened more doors than you can imagine.

Yes I do want admitted, convicted, or credibiilty accused pedophiles on a sex offender registery. But I cannot just go and take away the civil rights of those monsters. We have to change the law. Let me ask you what have you done to effect that? How about this, instead of posting nonsense on a blog, contact the members of the state legislature and ask them for action. Tell them of God's rage. But please do it in a civil manner.

This horrific crime is not the product of someone's theology as you allege, instead it is the product of very evil, sinful mankind. ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Charles that includes you and me and Calvin has nothing to do with it. Man was sinning long before he came along. Also I don't think that Calvin was nailed to a Cross either. No he was a sinful man, same as you and I.

Charles, I have said this over and over. I count it a joy and blessing for the sufferings I endured at the hand of my rapist. I have never blamed God, Adrian Roger, Charles Page, my parents or anyone else for what happened to me, NEVER. I blame the evil priest, Father Paul Haas solely. Because of the fire I walked through God has strengthen me for the work HE has for me. I am able to stand toe to toe with these monsters. It was in past times, we only talked of this evil in private. Not any more.

So Charles here we are again, you can go on bashing me as you have in the past. I accept and expect that from you. Or you can try and affect change in a positive way. What is it going to be?

David Brown

Junkster said...

David said...
But I don't understand: Why do poor children get lesser gifts than rich children? Doesn't Santa know he should level the playing field?

That's cuz Santa is not only Arminian, he is also Republican. So I guess he's not all bad!

ps: We had a GREAT Harvest festival. Got 2 to Baptize and really had a wonderful time.

If only you'd had one of those dunking booths, you could have taken care of those baptisms on the spot, and had a good time doing it.

Memphis said...

Sorry to change the subject, but was curious to read their gripes about the Family Fall Festival....this is almost better than some reality shows!

Question:
Which is more disturbing, a Family Fun Fall Festival or someone sneaking around snapping photographs of said festival to put them on the web?????



Kind of creepy to me! I posted this on the other blog, but I know it will not make it past the censors!

David said...

Junkster said...
If only you'd had one of those dunking booths, you could have taken care of those baptisms on the spot, and had a good time doing it.

Right. I steer clear of those. Some idiot will get the idea: Hey, let’s get the preacher in the dunk booth. No sooner does he get in, then here comes the ENTIRE youth group.

WatchingHISstory said...

David Brown said...
"NO, Mr. Page the pornographic post I am speaking about is the one you posted around 3:12 am one early morning on this blog. The one that Mike got onto you about and he removed himself. And it had nothing to do with my abuse or any other vicitm. So stop trying to make excuses."

David, that is the post I spoke about. I referenced yours and Krista account and I may not have pasted your account from
"Rape of Faith" but the detailed account that had been written.

I do not understand your nor Krista's reactions. When I read both accounts, I like you both became outraged and in a very limited way felt the pain and suffering you both endured to the point of affecting me physically.

Both of you were raped by men of the cloth. You both heard theological discussions about grace and forgiveness even in the act. These acts in the sight of God are blasphemous. With a man of the cloth it is compounded blasphemy. You both are victims and do not deserve an iota of accusations yet the very Churches that ordain these monsters will not give you an iota or support without long and loud protest.

God has laid on me the burden to dig to the root of this theological problem. I am a Calvinist, so my approach is that of a believer in the electing power of a sovereign God. Why God chose me, well, you will have to discuss that with Him.

David, you said: "I have never blamed God, Adrian Roger, Charles Page, my parents or anyone else for what happened to me, NEVER. I blame the evil priest, Father Paul Haas solely."

In my research this "Rape of Faith" has been an on-going struggle for the Catholic Church since the 11th century. But you blame "Father" Haas solely. You don't think the theological beliefs of the Catholic Church contributed to it? Institutions remain pure and only individuals are evil! Then why do you point a finger at Steve Gaines? He was protecting the Institution.

David, I am sorry that you perceive me as bashing you when I actually admire you greatly.

You said, " Because of the fire I walked through God has strengthen me for the work HE has for me. I am able to stand toe to toe with these monsters. It was in past times, we only talked of this evil in private. Not any more."

That my friend is quite an accomplishment. I pray that I have that same committment and courage to stand for what I believe.

Charles Page

WatchingHISstory said...

I don't think that Dr Rogers was nailed to the cross, he was a sinful man. He was as capable of error as was John Calvin and James Arminius. Maybe more so since He lacked the deep theology of both Calvin amd Arminius. Both of these men lived in an age of enlightenment not the darkness we live in.

WatchingHISstory said...

It amazes me that fundamentalist will not focus on a creed or confession nor even study it to understand the historic faith of Christianity but will allow themselves to be discipled by a man or group of men. (women as well)

The synod of Dort consisted of over 80 men (including international delegates) meeting for over a year and ironing out the Cannon of Dort, leading to the Belgic and Heidleberg Confessions and eventually the Westminister confession.

I do not know of a single man that I would want mentoring me. Thank-you, I have the Holy Spirit as my mentor and I am willing to learn from greater men than we'll ever know today.

I am a disciple of the Holy Spirit by birth. I am growing in grace and knowledge of my Lord Jesus Christ.

Who discipled you?

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

The Holy Spirit does not speak through creeds but through the very word of God. Creeds are only as good as they are biblically sound.

Friend, you have worn out your welcome with me and I am committed to not interacting with you until you become choose to be civil and talk with us instead of at us.

You may have the last word, with me.

David Brown said...

Mr. Page I am not going to get into a series posts with you. I jumped into this fracas to ask you to stop posting about CW and his abuse.

You tell me how much you admire me but in a previous post yesterday you put one of your “labels” on me by calling me an expert. I am not an expert, I just an advocate trying to protect children; and bring this evil crime out of darkness. And then you asked if David could see my “rage”.

Is it possible that you could be wrong in your opinions? Have you ever met with a victim or a pedophile? I have. Have you ever just sat down and listened to their story without trying to inject your opinions on theology as to why they were abused? Much can be learned by being silent and let them talk. Try it instead of wanting to use their abuse for your agenda. Most victims of clergy abuse do not want anything to do with God and that includes your opinions on theology as you relate it to pedophilia. They simply want to be believed, loved on, be supported. It is that simple.

I have been wrong about how some churches/faiths deal with this evil. Early on in some of my support group sessions I would make the comment that at least my church (Bellevue) would never deal with this issue as the Catholic Church has. Boy did those words ever bite me. Then I learn from Christa that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Yes I have been critical of Dr. Gaines. I am not alone in that criticism. And I am not talking about others that were members of Bellevue. I am talking about people that work every day to protect our children, the professionals. They say he was wrong. By the way those professional are they real heroes.

Any religious leader that protects, fails to report, hides a pedophile is wrong. Those administrators have been the focus of many of my press conferences. Some of us advocates call those actions as harboring pedophiles. That topic has been much discussed on this blog and others. It is what it is. But it is the pedophile that is the one responsible for the abuse. Those that protect and fail to report are co-conspirators. They become that way by failing to act or remain silent. They show they are more concerned about the pedophile than the victim.

I have met several times with the local District Attorney and his staff. Trust me some day there will be a minister charged with failing to report a pedophile. Do I take delight in that? NO, but until people get it right they run that risk. And before I hear this, “We do not know what PW told Dr. Gaines in the June meeting” I just ask those to read the IDC report again. They indicated Dr. Gaines knew following that meeting that PW was a pedophile. They said Dr. Gaines fail to take the proper steps. But then they make excuses. Wrong!

We must change the state laws in our state. I want to use as a model the ones in Kentucky and Maryland. I want pedophiles to face the maximum when it comes to jail time. And I do not want any statute of limitations. For the record I am talking about the criminal side of law. I do not want them in Tennessee running free because our legislature failed to act. Mr. Page, please go back and read what I asked of you last night. If I could capture your energy and passion that you have over Calvin and use it instead for really protecting children, we could move mountains together. We need that passion in our fight against pedophilia. Will you help? If you want to respond here go ahead but I will not. Let’s get these laws changed.

Lastly please lay off PW and his son. Use me instead if you insist on “proving” your point.

David Brown

Jon L. Estes said...

David Brown,

This was pulled off David Montoya's blog.

Big Daddy Weave

There is a blogger who calls himself the Big Daddy Weave (the big is appropriate). This young man believes he is the new William Buckley of the internet. In a recent blog, Big Daddy takes Rick Davis to task. He judges Rick’s character very harshly.

After talking with some of the students who go to school with Big Daddy, he should be more careful about who he criticizes. Some of his extra-curricular activities might get reported on. I believe he will find that the vast majority of Texas Baptists would disagree with the moral choices he makes.

Oh well, maybe Big Daddy can become the future executive director of the BGCT. Then Christa Brown would really have something to write about.


http://spiritualsamurai.wordpress.com/

What can be done.

WatchingHISstory said...

David

With all due respect I take orders from God. If God ask me to lay off Paul Williams I will. I can only obey God. I work for free for God and am not under any obligation to any man or organization.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

jon

last two words: good bye

Charles

David Brown said...

Mr. Page I have tried as best I can to ask you to get your facts right. You have been posting some very damning stuff that simply is not true.

You say you do what your God tells you. How can it be that your God has been giving you false information about CW and PW?

Some day soon, you may well be required to prove your comments in a court of law. And there is no way you can do that. I have tried as best as I can to warn you but you steadfastly remain stubborn. And trust me when that happens you will lay off.

There is nothing more I can do.

David Brown

David Brown said...

Mr. Page: What I do on behalf of victims is TOTALLY FREE AND UNPAID. I too have a full time job that I do to make a living. My role with SNAP is a voluntary position and part-time. And at my own expense.

David Brown

WatchingHISstory said...

David Brown

The facts are that 17 years before AR died Paul Williams sodomized his son for 12-18 months. He had worked as an associate to AR for 15 or more years at Bellevue when he started sodomizing his son and when AR died his son along with some friends went to Steve Gaines in 2006 and confided in him about what his dad had done. Steve kept it quiet for six months and allowed Paul to stay on as associate thinking everything was fine within the family. When he discovered that things were not as he thought he made the decision to terminate PW.

My statements have been directed to the question how could AR and PW work together and PW maintain the secrecy of his horrible sin.

There has to be a theological explanation to the fact that this took place. I don't know of a more grevious sin than a SBC ordained associate "monster" sodomizing his own son for 12-18 months while pastoring under the oversight of one of the greatest celebrated pastors in the SBC.

God's connection to me is that sometime in Dec 2006 I heard from Him early in the morning and an angry God was ordering AR to sit in a chair and watch his beloved Bellevue crumble and be destroyed.

So I am not angry at AR God is and it would be an honor to testify to that in a court of law.

Your concern is with the laws of the land my concern is with the laws of God. In the Mosaic law concerning man lying with man Paul Williams would be stoned starting with two or more witnesses. This is a high hand sin and swift justice was executed so that the sinner would not have an appeal. Later there would be a formal inquiry to insure that the witnesses were in fact honest and the case would be closed.

The NT is not silent about this high sin as is stated in Heb 10:26.

We should not be hasty about pronouncing forgiveness for Paul.

In fact I would like to know that indeed CW is reconciled with his father rather than just take your word for it. This is what got Steve in trouble in the first place.

Would you ever reconcile with "Father" Haas? I don't find a single justification for reconciling, there is ground to forgive but to be reconciled!

No, I am not going to be silent and have considered the consequences. This can't be silenced.

David said...

Charles “My statements have been directed to the question how could AR and PW work together and PW maintain the secrecy of his horrible sin.”

That’s incorrect. You have gone beyond that to state that if Dr. Rogers were truly spiritual, God would have revealed this sin to him. You then twist your argument to say that Dr. Rogers was not spiritual because he did not hold your brand of Calvinism. (This is a logical “IF THEN” that you build): Because Dr. Rogers did not hold your brand of Calvinism, God decided to punish Bellevue and allow a boy to be molested. I find the argument repulsive.

Charles: “There has to be a theological explanation to the fact that this took place.”

There is, it’s very simple. It’s called: SIN. Men act against the law of God and not only bring great judgment on themselves, but harm to those around them. You keeping calling him an “ordained SBC monster...” I don’t get it. SBC didn’t make him a monster. It’s sin. Baptist sin, Catholics sin, 7th Day sin... all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Charles: “God's connection to me is that sometime in Dec 2006 I heard from Him early in the morning and an angry God was ordering AR to sit in a chair and watch his beloved Bellevue crumble and be destroyed.”

God’s connection to me is through the shed blood of Jesus, not special visions from 2006.

By the way, special revelation in Scripture always in some way promotes the spreading of the Gospel.

May I ask: How do you know you weren’t just dreaming? By what standard did you test the spirits that gave you this dream?

Charles: “We should not be hasty about pronouncing forgiveness for Paul. In fact I would like to know that indeed CW is reconciled with his father rather than just take your word for it. This is what got Steve in trouble in the first place.”

Is that any of your business, Charles? You would like to know... boy howdy! The things we’d all like to know. Post it in the Christian tabloid. You’d like to know... the point is, it doesn’t concern you. You weren’t the one hurt.

If you want to act to protect victims, there are ways you can do that.

You go on with personal questions to Mr. Brown that are none of your business. I take his story at face value, not needing more details. Not digging for more. What I needed to get from Mr. Brown’s story, and PW’s... is the danger that exists within the local church. It put me on guard in a subject I would have otherwise ignored. We don’t need the details. Your pressing for them is unbalanced and strange.

John Mark said...

Am I in the twilight zone?

Been Redeemed said...
I was told the wolves were to scare away the geese. Hmmmmmm...as usual, their timing to coincide with Halloween is less than impeccable. But...since SG came, wisdom has vanished! To be a "house of prayer", it looks like they would pray over SOMETHING before they did it....

7:24 PM, November 01, 2007


Now, isn't 'been redeemed' the alleged african-american former Bellevue employee who left because of racism in the ranks? And now he's joining forces with the bloggers who's chief complaint against the carnival is that it might invite black people to visit? What kind of sense does that make?

Just this once, I wish the pastry would sound in and let us know his thoughts about the 'truthseekers' feelings that Bellevue is too good for 'them'. His charming blog condemned BBC for fleeing the inner city where the colored people are. And now his beloved 'truthseekers' are cursing that same church for reaching out to them.

I looked over the 'Love Offering' page, and nearly all of the proposed projects minister to the impoverished african-american community, including renovation of the nursing home where former UM basketball coach Larry Finch currently resides.

I think we've learned a lot about the 'truthseekers' today. All their self-righteous sanctimony is just a pretense for their narrow-minded bigotry and racism. They think Steve Gaines is too country for such an elegant facility. And now, in addition to his redneck demeanor, he's spending precious money on those undesirable people who God obviously cursed by making them black. (Isn't that the mark of Cain?)

Before you know it, he'll be wasting money on handicapped accessible doors, and seating areas for people in wheelchairs instead of beautifying the campus and promoting his TV ministry.

All I can say to SG is, ROCK ON!!!

solomon said...

New BBC Open Forum said...
We weren't kidding about the wolves in front of the church either. Those were actual, unedited photos.

4:30 PM, November 01, 2007


Does anyone know anything about the alleged wolf statues on Wednesday night? I didn't see any, and I've been told that the photos 'over there' were digital phonies. I wouldn't be surprised it they were, considering the staggering amount of gossip that has been passed out as fact. Did anyone see these alleged ornaments?

WatchingHISstory said...

David (not Brown)

Has the Holy Spirit given you discerning of spirits? This is an enablement that rises above fleshly wisdom.

You said: "May I ask: How do you know you weren’t just dreaming? By what standard did you test the spirits that gave you this dream?"

1.) I was standing in the middle of the street at 6am with my dog, Roscoe.
2.) So you are on to me you are sure it was "spirits"

1 Corinthians 12:10 (King James Version)
10 "To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another DISCERNING OF SPIRITS; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:"

You realize that you have drawn a very dangerous "line in the sand"
One of us claims to have heard from God about Adrian Rogers. The other claims that what the other heard was not of God but "spirits"

I am committed to what I believe, you on the other hand could have avoided a perdicament by using fleshly wisdom and not make such a foolish comment.

But now one of us is in for very serious trouble. Since Dec 22, 2005 I have daily contemplated the consequences. Dec 29 I confide in my SBC pastor. Something very supernatural took place the next morn and lasted for three days as a result of the visit with my pastor. Jan 10 I report back to him in a follow-up meeting and so began my saga leading up to the vision which again was reported to the pastor.

How much contemplation have you given your remark? I suspect it just came off the top of your head while typing your post.

Charles

Jessica said...

The "wolves" are actually fake coyotes to scare off the geese. The geese population was getting way too big and becoming a problem so the fake plastic (but very rabid and scary looking) coyotes were placed in the front to scare them away.

Those coyote/wolf things have been there for several months. We drive around the front of the church every Sunday, they are not a new addition.

David said...

Charles

I honestly would like to know by what standard you judged your vision. HOw do you know it wasn't a thought? If you ask people to believe you, that what you say is actually from YHWH... that's a massive claim. Your answer thus far is just that we should "trust" you. Even though you refuse to act in a Christlike manner. If you can't display the simple fruit, why would I trust you have knowledge of the deeper things of God?

Simply that visions are out there, or that some people have a gift of discernment, does not mean your vision is from God. What makes this different from a dream or a passing throught? Why do you reject simple, light, scrutiny (sp) of your vision when claiming to be speaking on behalf of YHWH?

I did not say what you claimed was not of God. I asked how you would know. What standard to you test your visions by? Has this happened before?

Check Deut., it is the one claiming to speak as a prophet who bears the weight of showing his words are from YHWH.

David said...

So far Joseph Smith has given more evidence of an encounter with GOd than you have. And I don't believe Mr. Smith really had a vision, or gold plates.

I am not ready to believe God has stopped speaking to all people through Scripture and His Son; and that all people must now believe he speaks through Charles. I'm not going to you for the Word of GOd. You're visions are interesting, but unconfirmed by Scripture.

Mike Bratton said...

Charles,

I've been tolerant. More than just a little bit. You have a place where you can publish what you want, and be just as nasty as you please in what you write. Here, however, I've asked you more than once to deal with ideas and issues, not in personalities. I ask everyone else to have the same standard, and generally there's not a problem with that.

("Oh, he's gonna lower the boom!" "You think? Don't be too hasty!")

Charles, your personal attacks--just as is the case with the anti-Bellevue cadre's, which are thankfully on the decline--ultimately accomplish one thing and one thing only: They show your position to be an insubstantial one, whatever the issue.

If Calvinism must be defended by people insisting that those who don't subscribe to it don't preach the "true gospel," then the defense itself is of no consequence. If you use a devastating case of molestation as an excuse to bash and slur a Christian minister for his opposition to Calvinism, your argument is meritless, and dead on arrival. If you think real witnessing opportunities are quotas to be met and bragged about, then your understanding in this area is severly myopic.

If I still lived in Memphis, I would've already done my level best to have met with you regarding this pattern you have of publishing attack and put-down posts. Since I don't have that luxury, I'll communicate this to you here: You're not winning any debates, you're only injuring yourself.

As I have more time, I will pay closer attention. While I've promised not to ban anyone under ordinary circumstances, I've already demonstrated my willingness to delete offensive posts. Continue to take advantage of your freedom here, with no regard for your accompanying responsibility, and you'll find my definition of "offensive" getting much more restrictive.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

And some folks might notice I'm already doing some pruning.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

David

You said: "By what standard did you test the spirits that gave you this dream?"

Now this is your statement to me. Reread it closely. There is an assumption there that "spirits" gave me this dream. You are asking me by what standard I tested these "spirits".

"Spirits" are discerned by the endowment of the Holy Spirit. The human mind cannot detect them. They are demons!

Now are you asking me how do I know it was the Holy Spirit? It works the same way you know which sermon the Holy Spirit wants you to preach next Sunday. How do you know that?

When I went to my pastor he told me that not only was I experiencing the Written Word but I am experiencing the Living Word. He simply said He believes that revelation are for us today and they have to be tested against the Bible. He ask me for a reference and I shared with him I Cor 3:12-15. He nodded in agreement.

He and I do not have a casual relationship. I sought an appointment with him and was scared and very nervous. He is a tremendous man of God, the Church is large and he does not have time to just sit and chat in agreement with me. If he disagreed with me he could easily have done so.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike you said: from Oct 26
Paul doesn't "sound arrogant" here, not in the slightest. He sounds like someone who's been given an undeniable gift from God, yet far prefers cogent enunciation of the things of God to slithering self-aggrandizement.

Likening oneself to Paul in that guise isn't a bad thing; believing that the Bible excuses arrogance is another matter entirely, since it is a wrong belief.

--Mike

10:26 PM, October 26, 2007


WatchingHISstory said...
Mike

If this is not your commentary on the Bible but God's Word then does He think that the gift He gave to Paul is slithering self-aggrandizement.

My commentary is that the gift of tongues is a gift to all the Christian community including us and Paul exercised it more than we all. I wish I could be so arrogant to say that!

Paul is sying the misuse or denial of tongues is slithering self-aggrandizement.

Perhaps my choice of the word arrogant is wrong. I shoul say Paul is sapient and erudite.

If these words are acceptible I would like be like Paul!

7:54 AM, October 27, 2007


WatchingHISstory said...
Mike

You may think your personal commentary is remarkably unimportant but God thinks your commentary is extremely important.

Preaching is commenting on scripture under the annointing of the Holy Spirit. The sinner reads but dosen't understand. The preacher sent by God gives the meaning of it. The Holy Spirit gives the washing of regeneration and the Word is alive in the new believer!

Our dialog is important so that we both arrive at a clear commentary of scripture.

Charles

David said...

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” 1 John 4:1

You seem offended that I would ask you to clarify how you discerned this vision was from God. How did you test the spirit to know if it was the Holy Spirit, your own spirit, or an evil spirit? That’s not an unreasonable request.

Your answer appears to be that you told the pastor of a big church. I remain unimpressed.

1. You are making a serious claim:
“But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." Deu. 18:20

2. Your claim goes against the means of Biblical authentication:
"How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” Deu. 18:21-22

When God spoke to Biblical authors, he included prophecy to prove it was him speaking. The prophecy spoke of things to come. Jesus did this. He not only foretold the final end, but the destruction of Jerusalem. The short term prophecy proved the long term.

But you claim a very unique kind of vision. Not one that can be proven by the Biblical test. You claim to have heard or witnessed the judgment on a pastor. There is NO precedent for what you are claiming.

And by the way, your vision of a judgment on Dr. Rogers is happening... gulp... BEFORE THE JUDGMENT!

Check in Revelation. Before Christ comes, are the saints under the altar receiving judgment? No. They are given white robes and told to WAIT on God.

WatchingHISstory said...

David,

Now are you asking me how do I know it was the Holy Spirit? It works the same way you know which sermon the Holy Spirit wants you to preach next Sunday. How do you know that?

How do you know the message is the message the Holy Spirit wants you to preach next Sunday?

There are a myriad of sermons with a Biblical text but which is the one the Holy Spirit wants you to preach? How do you know that?

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

David

you said: Check Deut., it is the one claiming to speak as a prophet who bears the weight of showing his words are from YHWH.

No, it is the ones hearing that determine if it is from God or not.

1.) Deut 13 Have I said to you to follow other gods which you have not known? Haven't I spoken in defense of the Sovereign God who rules by his might?

2.) Deut 18 Haven't we witnessed the crumbling of the Bellevue that AR built? Isn't that unfolding before our eyes?

3.) All your efforts are focused on me. What about you? Do you despise prophecyings. II Thes 5:20,21 Do you have the expectant faith to receive that which is good? Can something good be unique and unpresedented?

David said...

Charles,

The difference in a sermon and what you are doing is that I do not claim new revelation in a sermon.

A sermon expounds and applies what is already said in the Word. You are producing NEW revelation and asking us to then apply that to Bellevue.

Your claim that your vision is proven by Bellevue's crumbling is unprovable since you are reporting it AFTER the events at Bellevue. Simple fact: Prophecy from God is both given and reported BEFORE the prohecy comes true.

Isaiah didn't show up after the Resurrection and say: Hey, I had a vision all this was going to happen! It was laid out in a provable manner.

I do not dispise prophecy. I do get weary of men who come up with new revelation and build theology on it.

God NEVER asks us to just turst a single prophecy with no proof. And when that prophecy is in direct violation of Scripture, we are asked to openly reject it.