May 18, 2007
We are in uncharted waters and this website is a vehicle to seek out the causes of the sins that affect Bellevue. God is searching for distressed people who cry and sigh over the abominations that are done at Bellevue.Is God angry? In his terrible fury will he sweep a man by the hair of the head and lift him between earth and heaven and say, "go to Bellevue and see the abominations they do there. Dig a hole in an obscure area and go in to the secret chambers and see the sins they do in my house."In these chambers they say, "the Lord seeth us not: the Lord has forsaken the earth." They have hung up a sign that says to the Holy Spirit, "Do Not Disturb"They, along with American Fundamentalism, have devised a God of Love and a message that obligates this God of Love to save according to the will of the sinner and the preacher. They do despite to the Spirit of Grace and a sore punishment has come to them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Bob Perry, Baptist General Convention of Misspuri states:
(concerning the dangers of blogging to local Churches)
"God only knows the damage it does to the cause of Christ," Perry said. "You've got people reading blogs in India and China - folks we are hoping to evangelize - and they are reading about local disputes in Baptist churches. I think it's just very unhealthy."
I think it is very healthy for evangelization! I lived in Turkey, Italy and Germany for 13 years in a ministry capacity. So I have a valuable perspective of what others think of American Churches. They get a one sided view of America by trained missionaries and what they recieve is not the same as what they see on the web. Believe me they are rejoicing to hear from some real American Christians rather than the piety of thoes they see.
When they see our missionaries they know they are going to get a handout from these wealthy Americans. They see us as rich but arrogant and they tolerate us because we will benefit them in some way. They love us and despise us. They mock us for justifiable reasons.
When our missionaries get American visitors they take them shopping and treat them to the finest hotels and restaurants because the missionary knows that these visitors are a sourse of financial support. The nationals know this and laugh.
Last week I went to Bellevue to meet some dedicated believers to discuss the crisis and went early to spend some quiet time in the sanctuary. The mission displays were up and the Middle East display had a turkish pipe on display. That would be a treasured item to possess to show you had been to the middle east but what does an instrument for smoking sweetened tobacca probally laced with an opiate base have to do with missions?
What do we know about missions when probally the greatest mission field in the world is America itself.
Yes they need to know the truth about us and then they may turn to Christ.
For seventeen years he walked the halls of Bellevue. He was a minister, prayer leader, counselor, teacher and sodomizer.
Who was in charge at Bellevue? God or Satan?
Will God, who cannot allow sin in any form, stand idly by while a pedophile does his distruction?
Didn't Bellevue have a leader to defend them from their foes? Isn't there some form of mockery taking place here? This must make the world rejoice that such a thing could happen to Bellevue!
Bellevue is being mocked, but by whom? The world? Satan? God?
Look and be amazed! You have to be astounded at what is taking place.
Seventeen years he walked freely and within months of Pastor Gaines' leadership he was made known.
Isn't there some sort of large and plain speech that anyone can read and understand. Is not the message billboard size? While rushing by at a glance at the sign you understand so quickly what it means.
Yet no one dares speak the truth.
The end of false religions is at hand. There is no room for self-determination. Church is not a big buisness and this buisness will not last for ever!
At Bellevue there was unapproachability and intimidation--the "aura" around the leader kept the followers in "awe";
There emerged an organization built around a man and his peculiar emphases instead of around Christ and His Word.
I am banned from posting on NBBCOF because I question their continual dumping on Steve Gaines (he has made his share of blunders and errors) but they will not tolerate any criticism of Adrian Rogers' pastorate.
I have no vendetta against Dr Rogers but He left a messy situation for Dr. Gaines to undo. There were no congregational meetings for the involvement of the members in decisions. Dr. Rogers decisions were blindly accepted as what was "best for the Church" He was a benevelent dictator of the nicest sort, but yet a dictator.
The pedophile roamed the halls for seventeen years directing prayer and counseling. I have to say that there is some sort of negligence at work here for this to take place for this long. Call me naive, but isn't the Holy Spirit involved in ministry to some degree? If ministry is completely self-determined then I would expect this sort of deception to take place but this is Christ's church!
Or could it be that Christ has a dissapointment with Bellevue's self-determination and left them to their own destruction?
What ever is going on has ramifications all across American Churches and we are going to see more judgements againt them.
Mike said:
There was no "harboring a pedophile," to borrow that lurid and inaccurate phrase. From all I've been able to gather, Pastor Gaines was working to minister to Mr. Williams; had events played out without the glare of Klieg lights, Mr. Williams would no doubt have been removed from ministry.
And before anyone forgets, those of us who are Christians have a responsibility to minister to perpetrators as well as to victims; before someone disagrees, first define for me just what it is that a prison ministry does.
Had I been in Pastor Gaines' position, would I have allowed Mr. Williams to remain on staff after I found out what had happened? I don't believe so, but then again, none of us was in Pastor Gaines' place at that time, so it is only speculative to say what we would or would not have done.
bepatient said...
"harboring a pedophile" is a very inaccurate term- to someone who doesn't know the full story it implies that SG knew he was CURRENTLY involved in the molestation of a child and did nothing about it.
Does that make it better? no.
But it does make that phrase inflammatory- I hear them so often talking about not following your emotions and only going to the scriptures, but we have to balance that. You can't have it both ways- they are relying on an emotional response to the horrors of sexual abuse to persuade others over to their way of thinking.
Each situation is different, and I think for SG the motivator in his decision to stay quiet was that the victim was old enough to make the reporting decision for himself. And the best way to keep the privacy for this family was to allow PW to continue for the time being until things calmed down and then allow him to resign later when it would not come under such intense scrutiny. This is just my opinion but I am basing it in some situations I have faced in my own life.
link from NBBCOF: "Rape of Faith"
"He would be very affectionate toward her and then suddenly very belittling. She describes his personality as very controlling; blame must always be assigned. Rather than be emotionally and romantically intimate, and thus vulnerable, with her, David would rather be in charge. "It's no fun to live with that," she says. "At least now there's a reason for it."
bepatient said (repeat)
I hear them so often talking about not following your emotions and only going to the scriptures, but we have to balance that. You can't have it both ways- they are relying on an emotional response to the horrors of sexual abuse to persuade others over to their way of thinking.
David said: (to WatchingHisStory)
"Let me make the correction. You are an insane idiot. How dare you to suggest that it was God's wrath that myself or any other victims were abused. It is good you are not standing in front of me right now. How dare you."
When I read "Rape of Faith" and saw the interview on chanel 3, it broke my heart for David's pain and the fact that we were discussing a topic that he said I did not know what I was talking about. I had not been a victim such as he. I thought to myself, "I should withdraw and be silent."
But no, while I am not a victim, in David's words, "this is not about religion but about sexual abuse."
This is about religion. You can't allow your victimization to influence your religious views.
David still want to take charge and when my views are at odds with his views then he unleashes his fury against me as "insane idiot".
As I had said before a cycle of abuse is not easily broken.
Sexual abuse victims, left to their own devices would create an idolatrous God who conforms to 'their' corrupted view of man. A God of Love who loves the victims and hates the perpetrators as well as anyone who disagrees with their views.
The Bible says that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all . . .there is no respector of persons with God . .Is he the God of the victims only? No he is also the God of the perpertrator, yes of the perpetrator also.
Both need forgiveness. The perpetrator for his evil acts and the victim for his resulting actions toward others. He has to be forgiven for his lack of affection, belittling, controling, intolerance and invulnerablity.
Christ died on the cross that all might be forgiven but he also bore stripes that we might be healed. He says to the perpetrators and victims. "thy sins are forgiven now take up your bed and walk"
When SG announced that the sin of the pedophile is under the blood, how can we disagree?
The victims want more for him than forgiveness of sin they want vengence. Christ says: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that you might be children of your Father which is in heaven."
God bless David in his pursuit of alarming the population of Sexual abuse, especially in churches.
Let the law prosecute any offenders of sexual abuse to the extent that the law allows.
But let us live the life of the perfect law of liberty that changes the hearts of man and makes us citizens of another world.
17 years ago it wasn't conservative but emergent resurgence!
It was sealing of the doom of the SBC. In 1925 the God centered theology of "salvation is wholly of grace" was replaced in 1963 with a man centered evangelism of "salvation is for the whole man".
In 1989 the kingmakers were meeting in closed door sessions to seal the doom of the SBC as an emergent denomination.
The common root of all this is found in the same Church Growth institution that produced Rick Warren's purpose driven ministries.
Who was the leader of this SBC movement and where did he pastor and when did the pedophile come on the scene?
Romans 10:14
Parallel Translations
NASB: How then will they call on Him in whom they have NOT believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have NOT heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? (NASB ©1995)
GWT: But how can people call on him if they have NOT believed in him? How can they believe in him if they have NOT heard his message? How can they hear if no one tells [the Good News]? (GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: How then shall they call on him in whom they have NOT believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have NOT heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
ASV: How then shall they call on him in whom they have NOT believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have NOT heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
BBE: But how will they give worship to him in whom they have NO faith? and how will they have faith in him of whom they have NOT had news? and how will they have news without a preacher?
DBY: How then shall they call upon him in whom they have NOT believed? and how shall they believe on him of whom they have NOT heard? and how shall they hear without one who preaches?
WEY: But how are they to call on One in whom they have NOT believed? And how are they to believe in One whose voice they have NEVER heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
WBS: How then shall they call on him in whom they have NOT believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have NOT heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
WEB: How then will they call on him in whom they have NOT believed? How will they believe in him whom they have NOT heard? How will they hear without a preacher?
YLT: How then shall they call upon [him] in whom they did NOT believe? and how shall they believe [on him] of whom they did NOT hear? and how shall they hear apart from one preaching?
Living Bible (paraphrased) But how shall they ask him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear unless someone tells them?
To be consistent with the other translations the paraphrase should read: "But how shall they ask him to save them if they have NOT believed in him."
The fallacy of the Living Bible in this verse is false cause (Post Hoc) The fact that A preceeds B does not make A the cause of B. The basic error is that of infering a causal relationship without sufficient grounds. An example would be "mary said, when I knock on wood, then I never become ill; therefore knocking on wood prevents illness."
Paul is saying, one who is not saved is not going to call on the Lord becaused he doesn't believe.
He doesn't believe because he has not heard and the reason he has not heard is because no one has preached to him.
Paul is clearly saying that the cause of salvation is that God sends a preacher.
The Living Bible implies that the sinner believes and is the cause of God sending a preacher so he can hear and believe. But if the sinner calls on the Lord because he believes then what is the purpose of preaching and why should God send the preacher?
If a sinner responds to a typical altar call such as Steve Gaines gave today, why even preach a sermon? Why should a sinner even go to church. He could just stand out in a field by himself and a loving god would save him as he calls on his name. "I want to be saved like Paul!
Steve Gaines used another fallacy in his appeal to another greater preacher than himself to add prestige to his premise. The Bible doesn't have to be proved if an appeal is made to a person held in high esteem for his Bible knowledge.
The problem is that his preacher friend follows the reasoning of the Living Bible's fallacy. His friend said that if a man was standing out in a field all by himself and wanted to be saved that God would send a soulwinner parachuting from a plane.
The sinner is the cause of God taking drastic measures to reach the sinner, pleading for God to save him.
Paul is saying if a sinner is standing out in a field by himself he is not going to call on the Lord because he doesn't believe.
If he is going to get saved it will be because God sends a preacher.
Even if that sinner has a Bible opened to Isaiah and he is reading for himself he is not going to get saved unless God sends him a preacher. God not the sinner is the cause of salvation. The sinner does not exercise any belief to call on God.
While Adrian Rogers was definitely not Calvinist (I heard his anti-calvinism sermon and have his booklet, "Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!" and have heard numerous sermons with anti-calvinism injected) I have never heard a sermon from him about being anti-armininism. My memory fails me at times and I may have heard the comment you refered to as not being an Arminian but an old fashion Bible believing Christian.
I was born in Warren Co, middle Tennessee and I can say I am not a Tennesseean but the facts point to me being a Tennesseean.
I have two dear friends, one a Jehovah Witness and the other a Church of Christ and they both say they are Bible believing and I argue with them till I am blue in the face that they are not.
I said to junkmail: Like Dispensationalism, Armininianism and Calvinism are theories of theology. Dispensationalism and Armininianism are at greater odds to the Bible than Calvinism.
You are right that both are redundant (somewhat)
The BF&M states: "Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence wherby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation."
Ryrie states: "Armininism teaches that Adam was created in innocency, not holiness, that sin consist in acts of the will, that we inherit pollution from Adam but not guilt nor a sin nature, that man is not totally depraved, that man has the ability to will to do good and to conform to God's will in this life so as to be perfect, and that human will is one of the causes of regeneration."
Thiessen states: "According to this theory (Armininism), man is sick. As the outcome of Adam's trangression, men are by nature destitute of original righteousness and, without divine aid, utterly unable to attain it. Since this inability is physical and intellectual, not voluntary, God, as a matter of justice, bestows upon each invidual at the dawn of consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to counteract the effect of their inherited depravity and to make obedience possible, if they will cooperate with the Spirit."
Semipelagianism teaches that man retains a measure of freedom by which he can can cooperate with the grace of God.
It appears to me that the SBC and Adrian Rogers are semipelagian/ Armininian.
Post a Comment