Who wrote the following?
"...unconditional election of individuals to eternal life was not taught by the Apostles. God did elect or predestinate, that all those who would be saved, should be saved in Christ Jesus, and through obedience to the Gospel...."
Was it:
1) Dave Hunt
2) Adrian Rogers
3) Benedict XVI
4) Joseph Smith, Jr.
5) Billy Graham
For the answer click on a quiz http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=396
December 27, 2007
December 24, 2007
Written in Stone or Flesh?
John 5:39-40 (NASB) "You search the Scripture because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."
The 1963 BF&M stated that "The criteria by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" With Adrian Rogers as the chairman of the committee to study the BF&M and bring suggested changes to the 2000 convention the wording changed to: "All scripture is a testimony to Christ who is himself the focus of divine revelation."
Jesus is no longer viewed as God’s supreme revelation, he has been demoted to being merely the “focus” of God’s revelation. Jesus has also been demoted from being the criteria by which the Bible is to be interpreted.
According to Jesus Scripture was held in a very exalted position, it was divine in origin but was never meant to be an end in itself. The purpose of scripture is to lead and point people to Christ.
Now there are people who have a low view of Scripture and do not regard it as the true Word of God. However there are those who hold too 'high' a view of Scripture and worship it rather than Christ. "Bible-worshippers" look to the right interpretation as if they have the Christ the Word says they have. Yet as Christ said, they 'think' they have eternal life. Their hearts remain stony and lifeless. Christ as the ends of Scripture gives life to the dead and causes men to live.
The high view of Scripture held by the Conservative resurgence has influenced the followers of Dr Rogers as reflected by the posters of both pro and anti (Gaines) Bellevue. Rather than reflecting a 'lively heart' they reflect arrogant stony hearts. They have a head knowledge of the Word supposing that they have eternal life.
The 1963 BF&M stated that "The criteria by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" With Adrian Rogers as the chairman of the committee to study the BF&M and bring suggested changes to the 2000 convention the wording changed to: "All scripture is a testimony to Christ who is himself the focus of divine revelation."
Jesus is no longer viewed as God’s supreme revelation, he has been demoted to being merely the “focus” of God’s revelation. Jesus has also been demoted from being the criteria by which the Bible is to be interpreted.
According to Jesus Scripture was held in a very exalted position, it was divine in origin but was never meant to be an end in itself. The purpose of scripture is to lead and point people to Christ.
Now there are people who have a low view of Scripture and do not regard it as the true Word of God. However there are those who hold too 'high' a view of Scripture and worship it rather than Christ. "Bible-worshippers" look to the right interpretation as if they have the Christ the Word says they have. Yet as Christ said, they 'think' they have eternal life. Their hearts remain stony and lifeless. Christ as the ends of Scripture gives life to the dead and causes men to live.
The high view of Scripture held by the Conservative resurgence has influenced the followers of Dr Rogers as reflected by the posters of both pro and anti (Gaines) Bellevue. Rather than reflecting a 'lively heart' they reflect arrogant stony hearts. They have a head knowledge of the Word supposing that they have eternal life.
December 12, 2007
Tradition of Ruling Princes
1 Corinthians 2:6 (King James Version)
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
Before I start I disclaim any charge that I am seeking to attack Adrian Rogers's Character, person or reputation. He was a man of moral excellence and firmness. I am challenging some of his theology.
In the previous post I referenced Adrian Rogers' theology from the perspective of Jesus' discussions with the Sadducees. In this post I am referencing Jesus' talks with the Pharisees. The Sadducees lacked knowledge of the Scriptures and denied the supernatural power of God in daily affairs. The Pharisees confused tradition with Scripture and thus nullified and made void God's Word.
Like many fiery fundamentalist Adrian Rogers confused tradition of men with the Word of God. This confusion clouds the issue of the Believer's authority. All Churches of assorted variations claim the authority of the Bible as their sole rule for faith and practice. They all claim to be right!
The questions of the rulers in the temple were; "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave you authority to do these things?"
These question are relevant to us today: By what authority do you believe what you believe? By what authority do you claim certain teachings and deny others?
Biblically the princes under the influence of men's traditions participated in the crucifixion of Christ and that tradition has been handed down through the centuries in various man made doctrines. However Adrian Rogers participated in a line of gradual descension from orthodoxy through this century with men like E. Y. Mullins, Herschel Hobbs who along with Dr Rogers chaired the commmittees to formulate the Baptist Faith and Mission, 1925, 1963 and 2000. Pragmatism won out over orthodoxy and the Southern Baptist Convention led the way for an emergent ministry in a postmodern culture. Under the disguise of a conservative resurgence led by Dr. Rogers the SBC became a mega-church oriented convention substituting individual salvation for a mass movement of people groups throughout the World. It was seen as a battle For the Bible but it was for the sake of effective evangelism and opened the door to emergent ministries led by Rick Warren.
Although there is a departure from the influence of Scofield's dispensationalism there are strong cords that bind fundamentalism to traditions that are confused with Scriptures. Scofield declared that his interpretation was "the commandment of the Lord" I Cor 14:36,37 Fundamentalist have adopted his injunctions and interpretations as their own inerrant Scriptures. 1.) Before the New Testament was written inspired prophets and preachers brought new revelation in the context of I Cor 14:29,30 2.) Sign gifts and tongues were used in this primitive community under the restraint of Church leaders. 3.) The primitive assembly had the exercise of Spiritual gifts especially prophecy. 4.) Women were required to keep silent when the Church assembled. This is declared to be the unquestionable Word of God!
The Holy Spirit acted freely in sovereignty. There was no place for self-choosing and Christian service was simply the ministry of such gift as the invidual may have received. After the N.T. was written the Christian message came not from inspired preachers but from mere men preaching inspired Scripture. The activity of the Holy Spirit in the primitive assembly took a back seat to the body of Scripture. This was not what Christ had intended in John 16:12-15.
Adrian Rogers adopted this tradition of man. His views of anti-Calvinism were handed down through John R. Rice's "Predistined for Hell? NO!" to Robert L. Summer and thus we have Dr Rogers' booklet "Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!"
Jesus said to the Pharisees: "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." Mark 15:6-8
The common Bellevue believer, not well versed in theology, believes that Adrian Rogers' authority was anti-Calvinist and anti-Charismatic and Pentecostal and that is the equal to Holy Scriture. No wonder that Bellevue's leadership is Spiritless and relies on natural processes. Dr. Rogers followed the princes of this world that have come to naught.
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
Before I start I disclaim any charge that I am seeking to attack Adrian Rogers's Character, person or reputation. He was a man of moral excellence and firmness. I am challenging some of his theology.
In the previous post I referenced Adrian Rogers' theology from the perspective of Jesus' discussions with the Sadducees. In this post I am referencing Jesus' talks with the Pharisees. The Sadducees lacked knowledge of the Scriptures and denied the supernatural power of God in daily affairs. The Pharisees confused tradition with Scripture and thus nullified and made void God's Word.
Like many fiery fundamentalist Adrian Rogers confused tradition of men with the Word of God. This confusion clouds the issue of the Believer's authority. All Churches of assorted variations claim the authority of the Bible as their sole rule for faith and practice. They all claim to be right!
The questions of the rulers in the temple were; "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave you authority to do these things?"
These question are relevant to us today: By what authority do you believe what you believe? By what authority do you claim certain teachings and deny others?
Biblically the princes under the influence of men's traditions participated in the crucifixion of Christ and that tradition has been handed down through the centuries in various man made doctrines. However Adrian Rogers participated in a line of gradual descension from orthodoxy through this century with men like E. Y. Mullins, Herschel Hobbs who along with Dr Rogers chaired the commmittees to formulate the Baptist Faith and Mission, 1925, 1963 and 2000. Pragmatism won out over orthodoxy and the Southern Baptist Convention led the way for an emergent ministry in a postmodern culture. Under the disguise of a conservative resurgence led by Dr. Rogers the SBC became a mega-church oriented convention substituting individual salvation for a mass movement of people groups throughout the World. It was seen as a battle For the Bible but it was for the sake of effective evangelism and opened the door to emergent ministries led by Rick Warren.
Although there is a departure from the influence of Scofield's dispensationalism there are strong cords that bind fundamentalism to traditions that are confused with Scriptures. Scofield declared that his interpretation was "the commandment of the Lord" I Cor 14:36,37 Fundamentalist have adopted his injunctions and interpretations as their own inerrant Scriptures. 1.) Before the New Testament was written inspired prophets and preachers brought new revelation in the context of I Cor 14:29,30 2.) Sign gifts and tongues were used in this primitive community under the restraint of Church leaders. 3.) The primitive assembly had the exercise of Spiritual gifts especially prophecy. 4.) Women were required to keep silent when the Church assembled. This is declared to be the unquestionable Word of God!
The Holy Spirit acted freely in sovereignty. There was no place for self-choosing and Christian service was simply the ministry of such gift as the invidual may have received. After the N.T. was written the Christian message came not from inspired preachers but from mere men preaching inspired Scripture. The activity of the Holy Spirit in the primitive assembly took a back seat to the body of Scripture. This was not what Christ had intended in John 16:12-15.
Adrian Rogers adopted this tradition of man. His views of anti-Calvinism were handed down through John R. Rice's "Predistined for Hell? NO!" to Robert L. Summer and thus we have Dr Rogers' booklet "Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!"
Jesus said to the Pharisees: "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." Mark 15:6-8
The common Bellevue believer, not well versed in theology, believes that Adrian Rogers' authority was anti-Calvinist and anti-Charismatic and Pentecostal and that is the equal to Holy Scriture. No wonder that Bellevue's leadership is Spiritless and relies on natural processes. Dr. Rogers followed the princes of this world that have come to naught.
December 3, 2007
Super-normal or Supernatural
In 1956 Nicholas Ray produced a movie, Bigger Than Life, about James Mason, a twisted suburbanite addicted to cortisone. He experienced visionary, tyrannical delusions which his wife had to suffer through.
A pessimistic outlook of major mega-churches today is built around a "bigger than life person" who often is the focus of the large complex.
Strangely, these churches are built around the concept of scientific materialism, a form of materialism in which everything can be explained in natural terms or processes. They deny the necessity for God or any kind of supernatural intervention.
The template for this organizational state is found in Mark 12:20-24. Christ addresses the Sadducee's' anti-supernaturalism with the words: "You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God."
A large Church like Bellevue could not be the result of one man's accomplishments, although he may have the dream. Like most churches there are men who have a history of successful vocations outside the church and a history of "ownership" within the church. Perhaps this ownership may involve the donation of material wealth from family past. These men are "kingmakers", they are responsible for the pastor being their pastor. They put together the physical side of the dream the pastor or elders envision. Fundraising, budgeting, material, manpower and physical resources are their jobs.
They provide the physical aspects of the spiritual functions such as preaching, teaching and counseling.
Far the most part in American fundamentalism the glory of the material gets the better of the heavenly splendor. The creative powers of man outshine the miraculous provisions of God. God takes a backseat and is given lip-service.
Christ says you are not just wrong but you "do greatly err". v.27 Wrong about Scripture and the Power of God. Christ had refused the template laid down by Satan's wilderness temptations, he also refused to bow to these influential political leaders in Israel. He spoke boldly to the men who bridged the gap between Rome and Jerusalem. He would not say what they wanted him to say!
I dare say without exception that every mega-pastor today is saying what he is being paid to say! He may proudly boast he speaks for God, yet he dare not offend any of these "kingmakers". They sit and listen to the sermon week after week without an ounce of faith in God but full of man-made confidence and the security that if the pastor errs, he leaves not them.
Now there are disposable people in the hierarchy to be sacrificed and they are dispensed with as gestures of power. The "kingmakers" are immovable.
This is the source of spiritual blasphemy, resistance to the Holy Spirit and the unforgivable insults the men of God heap upon the spirit of Grace. The end product matches the Devil's template. Paul Williams is a product of such a process and Adrian Rogers was taken from this earth prematurely because He would not stand up to these men. Bellevue is experiencing the judgement of the hand of God.
This is not exclusive to Bellevue but is rampant in America. The common man knows big churches are businesses and money is the end product. "To whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48
A pessimistic outlook of major mega-churches today is built around a "bigger than life person" who often is the focus of the large complex.
Strangely, these churches are built around the concept of scientific materialism, a form of materialism in which everything can be explained in natural terms or processes. They deny the necessity for God or any kind of supernatural intervention.
The template for this organizational state is found in Mark 12:20-24. Christ addresses the Sadducee's' anti-supernaturalism with the words: "You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God."
A large Church like Bellevue could not be the result of one man's accomplishments, although he may have the dream. Like most churches there are men who have a history of successful vocations outside the church and a history of "ownership" within the church. Perhaps this ownership may involve the donation of material wealth from family past. These men are "kingmakers", they are responsible for the pastor being their pastor. They put together the physical side of the dream the pastor or elders envision. Fundraising, budgeting, material, manpower and physical resources are their jobs.
They provide the physical aspects of the spiritual functions such as preaching, teaching and counseling.
Far the most part in American fundamentalism the glory of the material gets the better of the heavenly splendor. The creative powers of man outshine the miraculous provisions of God. God takes a backseat and is given lip-service.
Christ says you are not just wrong but you "do greatly err". v.27 Wrong about Scripture and the Power of God. Christ had refused the template laid down by Satan's wilderness temptations, he also refused to bow to these influential political leaders in Israel. He spoke boldly to the men who bridged the gap between Rome and Jerusalem. He would not say what they wanted him to say!
I dare say without exception that every mega-pastor today is saying what he is being paid to say! He may proudly boast he speaks for God, yet he dare not offend any of these "kingmakers". They sit and listen to the sermon week after week without an ounce of faith in God but full of man-made confidence and the security that if the pastor errs, he leaves not them.
Now there are disposable people in the hierarchy to be sacrificed and they are dispensed with as gestures of power. The "kingmakers" are immovable.
This is the source of spiritual blasphemy, resistance to the Holy Spirit and the unforgivable insults the men of God heap upon the spirit of Grace. The end product matches the Devil's template. Paul Williams is a product of such a process and Adrian Rogers was taken from this earth prematurely because He would not stand up to these men. Bellevue is experiencing the judgement of the hand of God.
This is not exclusive to Bellevue but is rampant in America. The common man knows big churches are businesses and money is the end product. "To whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48
November 19, 2007
Why Mike Deletes Me
Random order -http://thebrattonreport.blogspot.com/
1) The defense mechanisms of most posters will not allow themselves to deal with the severity of one of their own sodomizing his own son. It just couldn't happen.
2.) They cannot see the Socratic irony in the 17 years of Adrian Rogers' ignorance of Paul Williams' sin. Reasonable people see it.
3.) Mike's refusal to respond to Dr. James White's refutations of Adrian Rogers' Arminianism in his Romans 8 and 9 sermons.
4.) Mike's refusal to respond to Charles Stanley's statement concerning eternal security and explain AR's response to it.
5.) Mike's refusal to respond to the charge that the conservative resurgance was actually AR's push for evangelism and mega-ministries against moderate opposing views.
6.) Mike's lack of defense of my saying that AR was an inconsistent Arminian. He never produced the anology to end all anologies against Calvinism and Arminianism.
7.) Mike's experience at stage productions and media editing aquainted him with AR's Achilles' heel, style over substance and form over function. AR's knowledgeable peers knew it and kept a pragmatic silence better suit for the SBC.
8.) Mike knows that an opponent can be silenced by focusing on style rather than substance.
9.) Mike like AR is a purist and confuses purism with Christ-likeness. Thru Biblicism Mike forces others to conform to his piety at the cost of Christ-likeness.
Nice language often obscures the truth while coaser foreign or or altered styles claries and reveals. The Bible often uses foreign and altered languages to communicate or hide the truth.
The truths you hear are the truths God wants you to hear.
This does not condone filthy or jestful talking, neither does it hinder the plain and obvious truth. American english lacks this understanding.
This is why a sodomizer is offically called by Bellevue investigators "moral failure". When you ask a urbanite for a description of a sodomizer, you won't get an answer because he probally doesn't know what it is. When you explain as best as you can he replies with offensive language that shocks you but better communicates the explanation.
This is the reason Christians can't communicate outside the church building. When he communicates plainly he sins against his purism.
Deliversance from purism is harder than deliverance from actual sin. The purist rarely converts. Hew remains stiffnecked and unmovable. He will lack substance while mastering style and pure language thru strict self-discipline.
This is why christ could cast out the demons out of the Gaderene but could do few works of deliverance in Judea. He could work in Sammaria and Galilee but the closer he was to Jerusalem the harder it was! Eventually Judean princes at Jerusalem through wickedness captured and crucified him.
1) The defense mechanisms of most posters will not allow themselves to deal with the severity of one of their own sodomizing his own son. It just couldn't happen.
2.) They cannot see the Socratic irony in the 17 years of Adrian Rogers' ignorance of Paul Williams' sin. Reasonable people see it.
3.) Mike's refusal to respond to Dr. James White's refutations of Adrian Rogers' Arminianism in his Romans 8 and 9 sermons.
4.) Mike's refusal to respond to Charles Stanley's statement concerning eternal security and explain AR's response to it.
5.) Mike's refusal to respond to the charge that the conservative resurgance was actually AR's push for evangelism and mega-ministries against moderate opposing views.
6.) Mike's lack of defense of my saying that AR was an inconsistent Arminian. He never produced the anology to end all anologies against Calvinism and Arminianism.
7.) Mike's experience at stage productions and media editing aquainted him with AR's Achilles' heel, style over substance and form over function. AR's knowledgeable peers knew it and kept a pragmatic silence better suit for the SBC.
8.) Mike knows that an opponent can be silenced by focusing on style rather than substance.
9.) Mike like AR is a purist and confuses purism with Christ-likeness. Thru Biblicism Mike forces others to conform to his piety at the cost of Christ-likeness.
Nice language often obscures the truth while coaser foreign or or altered styles claries and reveals. The Bible often uses foreign and altered languages to communicate or hide the truth.
The truths you hear are the truths God wants you to hear.
This does not condone filthy or jestful talking, neither does it hinder the plain and obvious truth. American english lacks this understanding.
This is why a sodomizer is offically called by Bellevue investigators "moral failure". When you ask a urbanite for a description of a sodomizer, you won't get an answer because he probally doesn't know what it is. When you explain as best as you can he replies with offensive language that shocks you but better communicates the explanation.
This is the reason Christians can't communicate outside the church building. When he communicates plainly he sins against his purism.
Deliversance from purism is harder than deliverance from actual sin. The purist rarely converts. Hew remains stiffnecked and unmovable. He will lack substance while mastering style and pure language thru strict self-discipline.
This is why christ could cast out the demons out of the Gaderene but could do few works of deliverance in Judea. He could work in Sammaria and Galilee but the closer he was to Jerusalem the harder it was! Eventually Judean princes at Jerusalem through wickedness captured and crucified him.
November 7, 2007
The Mess That Adrian Rogers Left AT Bellevue IV
I posted this at Mike Bratton's Report:
Mike, There are godless and silly man made traditions to be refused. I Tim 4:7-10
The Bible is absolutely faithful and cannot be scrutinized, though men have tried but without success.Our acceptation, hermeneutics, is not faithful, and so is always open to scrutiny. Even under the Holy Spirit's inspiration those who prophecy are especially open to scrutiny. When the preacher exegetes the Word from the pulpit he is particularly in need of ruthless scrutiny by the hearers.
When Adrian Rogers led the SBC in a Conservative Resurgence it was a futile attempt to shore up the infallible Word of God. IMO It was a red herring for SBC emergent evangelism that has not produced large movements of new converts but mega-Churches for Church hoppers to migrate to without any significant growth to Christianity in America. This has resulted in small struggling Churches competing with "successful" big Churches.
This in the long run is a money-making scheme for a hierarchal few and a big boost for Christian marketing firms. It has produced an even bigger growth of Para-Church organization that drain the small Churches of revenue.
We have posted a sign to the Holy Spirit "We don't need you" I fault much of this mess in America to Adrian Rogers, though he is not alone in it.
This is not an attack of his character but his theology. Yet our theology does affect our behavior and if anything can be said of AR's behavior is that he had to know that his personality was in the way of whatever the Holy Spirit wanted to do in individual hearts in ways he had no control over.
I personally witnessed one small event 5 or 6 years ago when he silenced an exuberant woman's applause because he had to make his point in his message about how a mega-Church like Bellevue can be even bigger. Ordinarily this would be an insignificant event that could be excused so easily in AR's favor. But as Tim has said this a feeling that God has ordained me to continually harp about until someone takes me serious.
I believe with all my heart that the theological issue of Adrian Rogers' attacks of Reformed Theology is at the root of this mess. The final analysis is that anything that falls short of Reformed Theology opens the door to self-determination and closes the door to the same degree to the Holy Spirit. As a result the door as demonstrated by both sides of the Bellevue mess is nearly shut completely.
Mike let others, though your mind is made up, listen to James White's scrutiny of AR's theology.If they want to hear it bad enough it will cost them $3.00 to download but worth hearing. Dr White does not attack AR's character rather his
theology. http://www.aomin.org/catalog/index.php?cPath=25_29
Mike, There are godless and silly man made traditions to be refused. I Tim 4:7-10
The Bible is absolutely faithful and cannot be scrutinized, though men have tried but without success.Our acceptation, hermeneutics, is not faithful, and so is always open to scrutiny. Even under the Holy Spirit's inspiration those who prophecy are especially open to scrutiny. When the preacher exegetes the Word from the pulpit he is particularly in need of ruthless scrutiny by the hearers.
When Adrian Rogers led the SBC in a Conservative Resurgence it was a futile attempt to shore up the infallible Word of God. IMO It was a red herring for SBC emergent evangelism that has not produced large movements of new converts but mega-Churches for Church hoppers to migrate to without any significant growth to Christianity in America. This has resulted in small struggling Churches competing with "successful" big Churches.
This in the long run is a money-making scheme for a hierarchal few and a big boost for Christian marketing firms. It has produced an even bigger growth of Para-Church organization that drain the small Churches of revenue.
We have posted a sign to the Holy Spirit "We don't need you" I fault much of this mess in America to Adrian Rogers, though he is not alone in it.
This is not an attack of his character but his theology. Yet our theology does affect our behavior and if anything can be said of AR's behavior is that he had to know that his personality was in the way of whatever the Holy Spirit wanted to do in individual hearts in ways he had no control over.
I personally witnessed one small event 5 or 6 years ago when he silenced an exuberant woman's applause because he had to make his point in his message about how a mega-Church like Bellevue can be even bigger. Ordinarily this would be an insignificant event that could be excused so easily in AR's favor. But as Tim has said this a feeling that God has ordained me to continually harp about until someone takes me serious.
I believe with all my heart that the theological issue of Adrian Rogers' attacks of Reformed Theology is at the root of this mess. The final analysis is that anything that falls short of Reformed Theology opens the door to self-determination and closes the door to the same degree to the Holy Spirit. As a result the door as demonstrated by both sides of the Bellevue mess is nearly shut completely.
Mike let others, though your mind is made up, listen to James White's scrutiny of AR's theology.If they want to hear it bad enough it will cost them $3.00 to download but worth hearing. Dr White does not attack AR's character rather his
theology. http://www.aomin.org/catalog/index.php?cPath=25_29
November 5, 2007
The mess that Adrian Rogers left at Bellevue Part III
In addition to sharing my vision with my pasor, I went to Bellevue to talk with any minister I could talk to in hopes of finally reaching SG. I encountered no animosity nor any indication from them that I had a vendetta against AR. There was no questioning me about the validity of visions only that a vision had to be supported by scripture, which we all seem to agree. The uniqueness of the vision never was brought up.
Each conversation was well over an hour. I explaind that I was comming to them first as it would be hypocritical to go public without going to them. I was fervent beyond decorum and at times too loud to a fault.Each session was closed with prayer and each one ask God to help them understand what message God had for them. Hardy handshakes and God's blessings closed the times together.
I talked with Larry Ray and Phil Newberry and the thing that stuck in my mind was the look in their face when I mentioned the part about AR sitting and watching the crumbling of Bellevue. It was not the look of anger toward me for saying it but the 'in you face' look of plain and obvious truth. They knew better than anyone how true it was!
I went to GBC and by 'coincidence' was sent to Rob Mullins as he was the 'staff of the day'.The same with him as the others. Good meeting, firm handshakes. He knew my daughter, her husband and by extension the rest of my family by name! He only ask that I meet with him again as he had to process the information due to his closeness with AR. Specifically he acknowledged my fervency and that "his spirit bore witness with my spirit" He did not have problems with revelations, except that they must be confirmed by scripture. Our visit was good!
Now here is where it gets interesting. Office staff outside Rob's office overheard me getting loud and they feared for Rob's safety. They told some of the NBBCOF clique and the "gossip" (unfounded factual information)spread like wildfire.When the Monday brawl with a Bellevue member (I assume with a dissenter) took place at a nearby restuarant I was the assumed assailant! The assumptions were made to Rob and my attempts to get back with him were stymied.He finally called me at home and instructed me to never speak about this to him again. I was shocked and confused as to his abrupt turn-around.
Several weeks later two and two made four and I e-mailed Rob asking him for an explanation about the office incident. His reply was, "I have no control with what they do or say!" (Is there anyone out there who has office personel working for you)
I attempted several times to contack SG through his secretary and she reassusred me that I would be able to but he was in and out of town and hard to reach. Persistently I tried again only to be told extremely graciously that she was working on it and would call me. This occured over a period of three or more weeks.
Finally David Coombs called me at home and informed me that there was no way that I would be able to meet with SG, He said "is there anything you can say over the phone to him" I said, "I prefer a face to face meeting." Since he insisted it will not take place (I am convinced it had nothing to do with me but with SG's failing health and that he could not handle the added stress. JMO)tell him over the phone so as quickly as possible I told David everything. In sincerity he ask me "what should we do?" I replied "that is a big question and can not be answered simply over the phone." I knew in my mind that I was not even remotely qualified to give him an answer. Suddenly I fell to my knees and said to David, "David, you and Steve Gaines must unpretensiously rely on the Holy Spirit to guide you. You cannot pretend to rely on the HOLY Spirit You have to be led by the Holy Spirit." I said that with fervency and tears running down my face knowing that it would probally be the only chance I could get. David acknowledged the wisdom of that and we said our goodbyes.
Each conversation was well over an hour. I explaind that I was comming to them first as it would be hypocritical to go public without going to them. I was fervent beyond decorum and at times too loud to a fault.Each session was closed with prayer and each one ask God to help them understand what message God had for them. Hardy handshakes and God's blessings closed the times together.
I talked with Larry Ray and Phil Newberry and the thing that stuck in my mind was the look in their face when I mentioned the part about AR sitting and watching the crumbling of Bellevue. It was not the look of anger toward me for saying it but the 'in you face' look of plain and obvious truth. They knew better than anyone how true it was!
I went to GBC and by 'coincidence' was sent to Rob Mullins as he was the 'staff of the day'.The same with him as the others. Good meeting, firm handshakes. He knew my daughter, her husband and by extension the rest of my family by name! He only ask that I meet with him again as he had to process the information due to his closeness with AR. Specifically he acknowledged my fervency and that "his spirit bore witness with my spirit" He did not have problems with revelations, except that they must be confirmed by scripture. Our visit was good!
Now here is where it gets interesting. Office staff outside Rob's office overheard me getting loud and they feared for Rob's safety. They told some of the NBBCOF clique and the "gossip" (unfounded factual information)spread like wildfire.When the Monday brawl with a Bellevue member (I assume with a dissenter) took place at a nearby restuarant I was the assumed assailant! The assumptions were made to Rob and my attempts to get back with him were stymied.He finally called me at home and instructed me to never speak about this to him again. I was shocked and confused as to his abrupt turn-around.
Several weeks later two and two made four and I e-mailed Rob asking him for an explanation about the office incident. His reply was, "I have no control with what they do or say!" (Is there anyone out there who has office personel working for you)
I attempted several times to contack SG through his secretary and she reassusred me that I would be able to but he was in and out of town and hard to reach. Persistently I tried again only to be told extremely graciously that she was working on it and would call me. This occured over a period of three or more weeks.
Finally David Coombs called me at home and informed me that there was no way that I would be able to meet with SG, He said "is there anything you can say over the phone to him" I said, "I prefer a face to face meeting." Since he insisted it will not take place (I am convinced it had nothing to do with me but with SG's failing health and that he could not handle the added stress. JMO)tell him over the phone so as quickly as possible I told David everything. In sincerity he ask me "what should we do?" I replied "that is a big question and can not be answered simply over the phone." I knew in my mind that I was not even remotely qualified to give him an answer. Suddenly I fell to my knees and said to David, "David, you and Steve Gaines must unpretensiously rely on the Holy Spirit to guide you. You cannot pretend to rely on the HOLY Spirit You have to be led by the Holy Spirit." I said that with fervency and tears running down my face knowing that it would probally be the only chance I could get. David acknowledged the wisdom of that and we said our goodbyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
