CLE Forum
General Category => Introduce Yourself => Topic started by: Wog on November 19, 2019, 09:32:25 PM
-
Hello everyone, I'm glad to have found a place with people who seem to want to understand God's Word, and not other men's interpretations thereof. Its been a couple years now I've been studying hard, and meditating day and night, and praying to God. Though lukewarm would be too generous to describe most believers I've encountered, i won't go any further than that, except to say that it is no surprise most people view Christianity negatively.
As far as my story, my whole family has turned against me and are working with my ex wife to keep me from my daughter, for basically no reason (not to say i didn't contribute to the mess at all, i did, being the babe that i was and somewhat still am). I've been living out of my truck since last july, and (having never been to jail before) have gone to jail twice since coming to the Lord, both times in an exceedingly unjust manner, but luckily only 52 days in total so not horrific. Its my understanding that this is all a good thing, and part of the fiery trial which is to be expected. I'm not looking for sympathy with all of this, the Lord has kept me strong and I'm becoming more and more refined; as i understand the bible, sufferings seem to be a component of proving our faith, so i thought it good to mention them. Satan is hard at work, though to be fair i made it easy for him at first; less and less so as time goes on. I believe God gave me a vision and I've been shown that it all works out eventually, until then i just keep studying scripture and trying not to give the devil place.
I hope you guys here are sincere, it gets old time and time again thinking I found a good pastor/people only to realize after some time that they too are deceived (kent hovind, steven anderson, etc; in addition to all the physical churches ive been to, one pastor preferring to talk about bitcoin over the questions i had about scripture, another telling me "you better watch yourself," i think because of second hand gossip that i had criticized him, even though it was as much a compliment as criticism). I've long since given up trying to find a church, praying to God that he would lead me to a good pastor and fellow believers, though he has been shepherding me well.
I look forward to discussions, learning, and edification, to the extent that it can occur in an online setting; if anyone lives near Gainesville, FL i would look forward to meeting up regularly for fellowship. I'm mobile and enjoy driving so anywhere within a couple hours id be willing to make the trek as often as my schedule permits to learn/study/talk/fellowship.
Edit: for the guy expecting that repentance be mentioned in other peoples introductions, yes i have repented (i have also repented of believing repentance is turning from sin rather than regret/remorse/sorrow), but i had repented even without understanding what repentance was. Not sure if demanding an acknowledgement of repentance is the best welcome but to each his own.
-
Good evening Jeff,
I'm glad you're here. It's good to see that you seem to have a proper understanding of repentance.
How did you find us? I found this group when I stumbled across one of the teachings on YouTube.
I see your user name is "Wog". Were you in the Navy?
-
Technically i was in the Navy I suppose, but more specifically the Marine Corps, department of the Navy. 8)
Wog is short for Woghomaos, a name that came to me early on in my walk trying to understand/define my purpose in life it is an acronym of Warrior of God, Helper of Man, Agitator of Souls.
I found this website/ministry when researching the 501c3 debate; i had held the same stance but didn't understand the topic well enough to articulate my problems with it to someone else who was wanting to start a non-profit for homeless people. I watched a few of his videos and liked his style and understanding/interpretation of scripture.
-
Hi Jeff, and welcome to the forum!
I suppose I should say that one of the reasons we ask people about repentance is that a lot of people come here claiming to be Christians when they really aren't, as you've obviously noticed from the number of church buildings you've been to. It just saves time to know where a person stands up front so we know who we're talking to. A lot of false converts come here just to argue or to defend their pet sins/false doctrines and we like to know who to watch out for. That's why we ask for a testimony.
I, too, hope you find what you're looking for here. We all try to learn from each other.
-
Yes i understand, im just not sure if asking if they've repented is the best test for legitimacy. Being online and all i think the only way may be to just get to know their doctrine, and willingness to change their doctrine when presented with appropriate scripture.
Im not saying it should definitely not be done, it just seems a bit odd and unwelcoming.
-
Edit: for the guy expecting that repentance be mentioned in other peoples introductions, yes i have repented (i have also repented of believing repentance is turning from sin rather than regret/remorse/sorrow), but i had repented even without understanding what repentance was. Not sure if demanding an acknowledgement of repentance is the best welcome but to each his own.
I assume I'm "that guy" lol. You don't have to be afraid to call me out by name if you have a problem with what I've said here. It's odd to me why a former Marine needs to hide because I'm not that scary, or whoever else it is you're talking about. Also your introduction is viewable to the public. Not everyone is going to know who or what you are talking about if you don't specify anything, so keep that in mind.
I also find it odd about that last paragraph where you put it in as an 'Edit' meaning that wasn't part of your original introduction. You read some other posts here and added that in after you read what I, or someone else, had said and you instantly got defensive about the topic on repentance. I'm not the best and catching things like that, but what you said actually tells me more than you may think, but right now I can only assume.
Not sure if demanding an acknowledgement of repentance is the best welcome but to each his own.
I may not be the most welcoming person here, but I don't see the issue with asking questions to get to know someone better after they've introduced themselves. Isn't that what people generally do anyway when they meet someone? Why would you have an issue with that specifically about the topic of repentance?
People don't necessarily need to include the word 'repentance' in their introduction. Just like in the Bible, people can express that repentance in their salvation testimony without using the word itself. Just have to take whatever is said in it's context and if enough details are given, it's usually not too hard to see. When I see that, then I don't have to ask about it.
Yes i understand, im just not sure if asking if they've repented is the best test for legitimacy.
This tells me you don't think repentance is important to salvation. What do you think of repentance when it comes to salvation? By the way, I may have asked you about repentance even if you didn't mention it and if nobody else beat me to it. But since you did mention it, now I'm even more interested to know what you think of it (so it's your fault I'm asking lol).
I'm actually at work right now and need to get back to it. I don't say much but sometimes when I actually do want to say something, it's when I'm busy or at work. Please be patient if I don't respond quickly.
-
I do think repentance is a neccesarry component to receiving forgiveness and thus neccesarry for salvation. Additionally, its one of if not the most common threads throughout the whole bible, and i weigh it as heavily as the bible does, so...heavily.
I don't think you absolutely shouldn't do it, (that is, to request an acknowledgement of repentance) but it seemed to me like unless it was specifically stated, you were asking for it. To me, it would be more appropriate to wait until you see an indicator of a lack of repentance, before asking if they have.
The reason i say this is because the tests set forth in scripture are not to ask the individual if they have repented but rather if they can say Jesus is the Lord, and if they confess that Jesus is come in the flesh. I don't know if these tests can be "administered" properly in an online setting or not, but those are the tests i know of from scripture.
Additionally, i think its better to determine a persons legitimacy based on their thinking/beliefs as evidenced in what they say, and to expect an acknowledgement of repentance so soon after meeting a person, to me, seems unwelcoming. I think it would make more sense to engage them in conversation for a while and then, if there are doubts, ask them if they understand what repentance is and if they've experienced that regarding the sins they've committed.
-
To go a little further with it, i think a good way to accomplish the same goal without coming off the way i perceived it (and maybe i was overly defensive, but i don't think so, i had just seen you expecting that from others so i threw it in pre-emptively), but you could have simply asked what brought them to repentance.
They would either be confused (likely indicating a lack of repentance or lack of understanding as to what repentance is), or they would tell you how it happened. For me, after trying to be a "good boy" of my own accord for about a year, i ended up having sex with a pregnant girl, and wanting her for myself, not no subtly told her of my approval of abortion, thinking that if she did so, i could have her to myself (she had said she hated her boyfriend but the baby kept her tied to him).
Upon realizing how disgusting it was for me to say/do that, and then looking back on other instances of my behaviour during that year of trying to be a good boy, i could no longer deny that i was a scumbag, what i now understand as being a sinner. I did my fair share of crying and grumbling, and asked the Lord to forgive me, and have done so continually since then. He has shown me in no uncertain terms that i am a sinner worthy of death, and i couldn't be more thankful that He has taken me off of the path i was on and called me to the path of righteousness and eternal life.
-
I need to speak up here because I'm seeing some contradictions. Based on Jeff's sincere introduction post, in combination with his statement...
"the tests set forth in scripture are not to ask the individual if they have repented but rather if they can say Jesus is the Lord, and if they confess that Jesus is come in the flesh"
... I would highly, highly recommend, the next time you get a chance, to study this:
Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell (http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/whymillions.php)
Because the method you suggested is not what is said to be the test of legitimacy in Scripture. Please don't misunderstand; I already know the verses you're going to refer to if you want to argue that point, and I assure you, if you want to bring them up, I will show you the problem with what you're saying. (I'll leave it to you if you want to discuss it.) The other problem is that what you suggested was NOT the method Jesus Himself used, and if you study the link above, you will quickly find out that Jesus turned away many who said "Jesus is Lord."
The next contradiction I'm seeing is this:
"Not sure if demanding an acknowledgement of repentance is the best welcome but to each his own."
Then:
"Being online and all i think the only way may be to just get to know their doctrine, and willingness to change their doctrine when presented with appropriate scripture."
The problem here is that repentance IS doctrine. It seems like you're presenting a disconnect between repentance and the foundation of the Christian faith. I'm actually kind of surprised by this because your introduction seemed more genuine than most, and that you at least expressed that you had understanding of the matter.
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:47
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
-Mark 1:14-15
So what's confusing me is why you believe that godly sorrow of wrongdoing (i.e. repentance) is not a topic of importance concerning foundational Biblical doctrine, especially that of salvation? If you connect your posts together, that's the conclusion you've drawn for us so far. Perhaps part of the disconnect is that you do not believe that a new member's lack of repentance is seen in their introduction when we ask them those questions; could that be the case? I'm not sure.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Heb 5:14
I would have to guess, based on your bold statements, you must have some experience in running an online Christian forum, otherwise, I do not see a reason that you would come here and almost immediately tell us that you know better how to run things than we do, despite the experience we have gained over the past few years in speaking to hundreds of people on this forum. So would you please share with us your extensive experience in creating and/or managing a Christian forum online? I think that might help clear up some of the confusion so we can learn better what we ought to do.
-
"So what's confusing me is why you believe that godly sorrow of wrongdoing (i.e. repentance) is not a topic of importance concerning foundational Biblical doctrine, especially that of salvation? If you connect your posts together, that's the conclusion you've drawn for us so far."
I think its possible you only skimmed my posts, because I did state that i agree with you guys on this.
As a whole, i think there is much less disagreement between us than would be indicated by your reply.
To state more clearly what i was getting at, i do not see a problem with ensuring genuine repentance, rather i think it could be done differently. By this mean that how something is said is equally important to what is said, and ill throw in as well, when it is said.
Ill leave it at that because i don't want to turn this into something it doesn't need to be. Ill just say that as a newcomer, it was somewhat offputting to me that specific acknowledgement of repentance was being brought out so early after someone introduced themselves. I hope that makes sense.
-
As Chris stated, we've dealt with hundreds of people who have come and gone on this forum over the years and we've gotten to the point where we can usually tell when something seems to be 'off' about a person in their introduction. That's usually when/why we ask them about repentance. There have also been times where a person will post an introduction and then immediately start another thread elsewhere on the forum where they want to argue about something. That will also trigger questions about repentance on their introductory posts.
Speaking strictly for myself, I probably would not have asked you about repentance if it wasn't for the edit you did, either, because you did seem genuine. As it is now, though, you have already thrown up a defensive wall so I'm not quite as willing to trust you as I might have been otherwise; I'm wondering why you would get so defensive about us asking about something so crucial and fundamental to salvation.
I hope you'll stick around and that we can have some productive discussions but I have to admit I'm not going to hold my breath at this point.
-
I think its possible you only skimmed my posts, because I did state that i agree with you guys on this.
No, I read your acknowledgment of it. I read all of your posts. The problem is that you're now not seeing the philosophy behind what you wrote. On the one hand you believe it is best that we question whether a person claiming to be a Christian believes on Jesus (i.e. whether or not "Jesus is Lord"), and thus, you are putting heavy important on faith in Christ, which is good. (Btw, the fact that they put "Christian" as their belief on their profile is enough to acknowledge that they claim to believe on Jesus.) However, you are not putting the same weight on the doctrine of repentance, and the only reason that could be is because you think that is a lesser doctrine that does not need to be addressed and that it causes controversy, and because you saw the controversy over it, and were turned off by it (which reminds me a lot of Mat 13:21 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-13-21/)), it shows me that you do not understand the importance of it, as you have claimed; therefore, I pointed out the contradiction, showing the Scripture to point out Christ's importance of that doctrine. I'll give you another example:
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
-Luke 13:3
So here, we have Jesus Christ putting a heavy emphasis on repentance with people he had just met, but Jeff "thinks" (according to his own reasoning, not Scriptural reasoning) that it should not be addressed because it makes him uncomfortable. I'm not seeing the like-mindedness yet, nor am I seeing the "willingness to change their doctrine when presented with appropriate scripture."
Again, if you want to learn the Scriptural reasons for these things, and the foundation for understanding, then stop looking over 501c3 teachings and look over this:
Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell (http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/whymillions.php)
As a whole, i think there is much less disagreement between us than would be indicated by your reply.
That's why I was giving you an opportunity to clarify what you said, and I've got to say, based on your response, it looks like you chose to bark and run, rather than take a stand and be accountable for your words. I will tell you straight-forward; we Christians here on this forum don't get along well with people who do that.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
-Mat 12:36
To state more clearly what i was getting at, i do not see a problem with ensuring genuine repentance, rather i think it could be done differently. By this mean that how something is said is equally important to what is said, and ill throw in as well, when it is said.
So are you going to share your experience in creating and managing an online Christian forum? Did you just skip over that, or did you skim through what I wrote? Or are you just going to state a vague opinion with no information and expect everyone to follow your feelings? Or... do you believe it might be prudent to first ask us WHY we are doing these, instead of just assuming whatever you please based on how it makes you feel?
He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Pro 28:26
Ill leave it at that because i don't want to turn this into something it doesn't need to be.
Okay, that's fine. If you don't want to answer for what you have said, you don't have to; I don't want to force anyone to do something they are not comfortable with, but in the future, if you are not willing to be held accountable for what you say, then keep your vague opinions and feelings to yourself because, thus far, you're speaking in ignorance, even though you have not been willing to confess it yet.
If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
-James 1:26
If you decide in the future to take a stand (like a man - 1Co 16:13 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-16-13/)) and be accountable for the things you say, I hope you'll come back and join in discussion with us because I'm sure we would enjoy talking with you.
Ill just say that as a newcomer, it was somewhat offputting to me that specific acknowledgement of repentance was being brought out so early after someone introduced themselves. I hope that makes sense.
The only thing that makes sense is how few people understand the doctrine of repentance because, if they understood it, we wouldn't have to ask them about it in the first place. They would be overjoyed and willing to share that information, as many of us here have been. (Another man, Kevin, joined immediately after you did, and he openly and willingly shared his testimony of repentance. See here: http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=927.msg7651#msg7651 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=927.msg7651#msg7651)) What does NOT make sense is barking and running away, which is essentially what you have done, and I don't know how you are accustomed to doing things, but in our church, we're brethren, and we don't treat each other that way.
Repentance is the first thing Christ went out and taught:
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
-Mat 4:17
Therefore, if you find Christ's doctrine "offputting," then this forum is probably not the right place for you, and you will not be able to find much fellowship here. I say that because I don't want you to waste your time. I wish you good health (3Jo 1:2 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/3-John-1-2/)), and have a great day.
-
Im not sure what you mean when you say ive thrown up a defensive wall. I would love to stick around... though im not sure we'll be able to get past this misunderstanding at the going rate.
What I'm gonna do is leave my phone number, and if it's God's will that i stay, one of you (preferably Chris or Timothy) will give me a call so we can get this worked out without it devolving any further. I meant no offense to anyone, nor was i being defensive except to the extent that Timothy seemed to go on the offense, followed by Chris. And i wasn't offended by either of them, to be clear.
XXX-XXX-XXXX
Im heading home from work and will be showering but if you give it ~2 hours i should be available all night after that. Id really like to think this can be resolved, particularly if its a phone call versus an online forum. Like i said i look forward to becoming part of a community.
-
I'm sorry, but I edited out your phone number. This forum is open to the public, and I did that for your protection, as there are hundreds of other people who may view this. It's not safe to publish very detailed personal information (such as phone numbers) here.
Also, to answer that point: http://creationliberty.com/faq.php#phonecall (http://creationliberty.com/faq.php#phonecall)
-
My safety is of the Lord, and i see no danger in posting my phone number. If you are unwilling to call then that is fine, I did my part to try and achieve peace, I wish i could say the same of you. You can talk the talk well, but the way you responded to all of this is, well, not so well.
I am available for the evening if you change your mind, the next couple hours would be best since ill be in a mediocre reception area later on.
XXX-XXX-XXXX
-
I hope you guys here are sincere,
We are, but so far, it doesn't look like you are. You find our methods of communicating 'offputting' but you don't say how or why. Yes, I know, you didn't like us asking people about their repentance experience for some reason but again, why do you find that offputting?
i think it could be done differently
Okay, how would you do it? You got your back up about it for some reason I still haven't figured out, even though I told you why we did that... twice, in fact.
You seem to have a problem with the way Chris responded to you, too, which is not a good sign. He explained why he said what he said, too, but you don't seem willing to accept that. The very fact that you got offended at something right off the bat showed me that you were being defensive about something I haven't quite figured out yet.
I'm certainly not going to call you, because as a woman, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do so, but I have no problem talking to you here as a moderator. I don't know if you read that link Chris posted on phone calls, but you need to email him with a specific date and time you would like him to call, and that call would be over Skype rather than a phone call because Chris has limited service in that regard, too. (i.e. phone calls are emergency only.)
-
Nearly nothing you just said is representative of what happened, and there's a reason i said i would prefer the call be from Chris or Timothy. It has become abundantly clear that you guys are not aware of the scripture telling us to, as much as be possible, live peaceably with all mean, or the thousands saying to judge righteous judgement.
You say i said this, when i didn't. You say i didn't say this, when i did. It is clear Satan has been at work in this misunderstanding, and i don't claim to have been perfect, but i doubt any of you would be willing to say the same.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to continue attempting to resolve this via the forum when I'm on a crummy phone typing everything out, which is part of the reason i asked that if it be continued, that it be over the phone. There is nothing stopping Chris from making the call via skype, nor from telling me that he doesn't have time to call today but would like to do so tomorrow or the next day.
You either walk the walk, and welcome brothers and sisters, and seek to live peaceably, or you don't. Your choice.
-
Well, in order for Chris to call you via Skype, you need to email him your username along with the specific date and time you would like him to call.
-
If Chris would like to talk he can let me know and we will coordinate it. It doesn't sound like he is open for peace talks, he seems to have judged me as unworthy. This is nothing new, i will move along.
Sorry for wasting your time.
-
You can talk the talk well, but the way you responded to all of this is, well, not so well.
There's the arrogance. That's what I was waiting to see. You don't care at all that someone else cares about your safety (i.e. charity), but instead, took that as a shot at me for not having faith in Christ. You can talk a big talk about repentance, but you have not demonstrated that you have a heart of repentance.
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18
That's murmuring Jeff, which is a complaint half-suppressed.
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
-1Co 10:10
I'm not putting up with this passive aggressive garbage. If you have something to say, then say it directly instead of tip-toeing around the matter. If you don't want to speak up directly, then keep it to yourself, or I will be happy (at this point) to show you the door, because it's only going to be a matter of time before you start doing that to others here, I will NOT put up with you doing that to them. Make your decision.
-
This is nothing new, i will move along.
Sorry for wasting your time.
Okay, that solves everything. At least he was finally direct and made a decision. I'm glad he's gone; I'm tired of him talking at us in arrogance, with a holier-than-thou attitude.
Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.
-Pro 22:10
However, he's a good example of a man that talks about godly sorrow, but does not demonstrate it in his words.
We asked him for an explanation, to give him a chance to openly, and peacefully, explain himself, but he did not want to do that, then turned around and accused us of not wanting to be peaceful. It's ridiculous, I know, but I can tell you why he did it: He knows that he spoke ignorantly, and he knows he cannot answer for what he has said without embarrassing himself, so because he did not want to confess his error, he decided a different strategy would be to call and talk with one person so he could try to convince them he's a nice guy. Little did he know, that would not have worked either, especially if he talked with Tim who has a lot of discernment (in my opinion).
That pride of the Marines corrupts. He was too grieved at the thought of being corrected, especially publicly.
Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
-Pro 15:10
Did anyone notice? I asked him about his experience in creating and managing an online Christian forum, and he NEVER once even alluded to a response to that. He knew that it was arrogant (i.e. prideful) to go to those who had experience doing this, and tell them what he thinks they should do, when he has no understanding (as well as no Scriptural understanding because he never once quoted a verse). I would not presume to tell him how the Marines should operate (despite the fact that I pay for them by my taxes) because I do not know anything about how Marines operate, and so because I have no experience in that field, I would not jump in and tell him how Marines should do their jobs, but Jeff will do it to others, and that is the pride of heart that is getting in the way.
Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.
-Pro 13:10
There were contradictions he would not answer for... period. I don't have any more interest in conversation with him because he refuses to be held accountable for his words. I'll let God judge the matter. I hope those of you reading this will spend more time with Kevin, who is another person who just joined, as he seems much more humble, pleasant, and open to conversation with us than Jeff.
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=927.msg7646#msg7646 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=927.msg7646#msg7646)
-
Well i wasnt going to say anything else, but since you thought it well to continue speaking negatively of me after you thought i was gone, and since you claim i wasnt seeking peace but rather trying to...con? someone into thinking im nice in a private conversation, ill offer us to resolve this openly, on skype, for all to hear, and judge.
I am still open to a peaceful resolution as i have been this whole time, as you continue to project your own shortcomings onto me. Let me know, call or text, or email:
XXXXXXXXXX@gmail.com
XXX-XXX-XXXX (edited out by administrator)
-
Well i wasnt going to say anything else
You lied Jeff.
"i will move along. Sorry for wasting your time"
I had a suspicion that you would lie because you cannot control yourself. Since you're unable to control yourself and keep your word, then I'll show you the door myself. Have a great day.
-
How disappointing, but not surprising I guess. You'll notice I said I hoped he would stick around but was not going to hold my breath.
Yes, I did notice, Chris, that he completely ignored you asking about his experience in running a forum. And then, when I quoted directly from his posts, he accused me:
You say i said this, when i didn't. You say i didn't say this, when i did. It is clear Satan has been at work in this misunderstanding, and i don't claim to have been perfect, but i doubt any of you would be willing to say the same.
when I pulled direct quotes from his posts!
-
Well, I'll say this: He claims he walks the walk instead of talks the talk, so I challenge him to post his bank account information, account number and password on a public forum. After all, if he has faith in God, what has he to fear to post that information?
According to Jeff's philosophy, the Jews built walls and weapons to defend themselves because they didn't have faith in God.
According to Jeff's philosophy, David picked up a sling and rocks because he didn't have faith in God. That's ridiculous.
Jeanne, he was speaking in pride and arrogance, and I saw a problem from his first post. But I am glad that the church can see an example that, just because a man may claim to understand what repentance is, and though he may claim that he has come to repentance, it does not necessarily mean he will show evidence of repentance in his heart, and THAT is why he found discussion about repentance "offputting"... likely, because he actually does not understand it, and that's why he does not understand its importance.
Also, if he really wanted to resolve the situation, and answer for himself, he could have contacted me to set up a time to meet on Skype as I stated when I gave him the link about phone calls. He chose not to do that; he scoffed at it instead. I provided him this link which explains the matter because I've gotten many emails about this:
http://creationliberty.com/faq.php#phonecall (http://creationliberty.com/faq.php#phonecall)
It was the pride of his heart which prevented him from doing that. He felt he was above that, and his attitude is clearly seen by his words. It wasn't hard to do, or too complex, but his pride got in the way, and instead he said:
"If Chris would like to talk he can let me know and we will coordinate it. It doesn't sound like he is open for peace talks, he seems to have judged me as unworthy. This is nothing new, i will move along."
So he lied about moving on, but expected everyone to believe that he was open to peaceful dialog, and tried to convince others I was not. If he was not going to take the time to resolve the matter peacefully here, he was not going to do it over the phone either. He would have simply repeated the same things he said here, except verbally over the phone, and I have no interest in make special calls just to prove that point.
If he decides he wants to man-up (Job 38:3, 1Co 16:3), making himself accountable for his words and actions, and prove that he's not just talking the talk about peace, my contact page is here:
http://creationliberty.com/contact.php (http://creationliberty.com/contact.php)
Registering an account on this forum is far more complex than using the contact page, so he has no excuse. Anyone that comes here and immediately asserts their feelings and opinions without evidence, Scripture, or experience on the subject matter is speaking in willful ignorance, following the feelings of his heart rather than the truth, and people like that are built up in their pride to such an extent, it is almost impossible to have a conversation with them.
If anyone has any questions about what was said in this thread, feel free to ask.
-
Wow. All I can do is shake my head. It appears he was not even open to correction. I pray that he will come to the truth someday soon.
-
My safety is of the Lord, and i see no danger in posting my phone number. If you are unwilling to call then that is fine, I did my part to try and achieve peace, I wish i could say the same of you. You can talk the talk well, but the way you responded to all of this is, well, not so well.
I am available for the evening if you change your mind, the next couple hours would be best since ill be in a mediocre reception area later on.
XXX-XXX-XXXX
Is this why you left his phone number here because he say his safety is of the Lord's? I was just asking because his last post he put it up you guys edit out but here it was left
-
I left it there once because he was so insistent, and did not expect it to be repeated, and yet, by quoting him, you repeated it again, so I'll go back and edit it out again. Would anyone else like to keep publishing this so I have to keep editing them out?
-
I am sorry about posting that so u have more work.
-
I left it there once because he was so insistent, and did not expect it to be repeated, and yet, by quoting him, you repeated it again, so I'll go back and edit it out again. Would anyone else like to keep publishing this so I have to keep editing them out?
Go easy on Billy. If I were him and did that, I wouldn't have thought any harm done in Jeff's number being repeated if it's going to stay there. Personally I would just take it out altogether. It would keep repeats from happening and it would be for Jeff's good. Even though Jeff was persistent to make his phone number public, he did it in his foolish rage. I would remove it permanently because it would be doing good to him that hates us which is what we are taught to do even though Jeff won't see it that way.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
I know leaving his phone number is not necessarily evil toward Jeff especially because of his behavior. And if you still think it should stay there, I won't say anything more. But if there is something we know to do good to someone, shouldn't we do it even if they are our enemies?
James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
1 Peter 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
It's a very small thing compared to what Jesus Christ has done for us on the cross, but he suffered evil for our sakes even though we put him there because of the evil we've done towards God in our ignorance. We became ashamed because of the goodness He had and still has towards us. Whether you leave his number or not is up to you. On one hand, Jeff will reap the consequences of his actions and he will only have himself to blame. There are people who know how to get a lot of information from people from just a phone number if they know what to look for. But on the other hand, if he cools down enough to rethink what he did, maybe, if he ever looks back and sees what little good could be done for his sake was done, he would become ashamed too and God would give him repentance. It's a small thing and not a great chance for him repenting, but God rewards even the small things. Whether or not Jeff sees it as that way is between him and God. If you remove his number, that should remove your worry of it being repeated and I don't see Jeff coming back just to re-post it.
-
I agree with you. I left it that way in case one of you decided you did want to contact him. If you want me to remove it, I can do so.
Another option for Billy would have been to say "there is another post where his number is still there, did you want to remove that too?" instead of quoting the post to republish it again. If he was that concerned about it not being there, why did he repeat the number in the quote? That just did not make any sense to me.
-
I'm sorry to bring this up, but William, one of the members of our forum, has raised an objection about this exchange between us and Jeff. William decided to keep this private for a while, but I am not longer willing to keep this matter private because I am tired of what William is attempting to do, including him taking quick jabs in unrighteous judgement against myself and Tim, and I would like everyone else to judge the matter. Here is the original letter he sent to Tim and I:
FROM WILLIAM, SENT DEC 11, 2019
This write up by William Cullum, is being presented to Chris, Timothy and Jeff. It is my wish that this remain between the four of us unless we come to an impasse. Jeff can be contacted via phone or Skype but hasn't the equipment to fully engage a discussion through typed media. Hopefully Chris will be willing to forward this to Timothy, as I do not have an e-mail address for him. This write up has taken several days. I do not believe I could use the CLE Forum for this because I lack certain skills and technically savvy to be on a level playing field. Jeff tells me he has been IP banned from viewing the Forum. "IP banned" is something I'm not familiar with, but I believe Chris can say whether or not he is responsible for the ban. It is my understanding that Jeff can't even see the Forum at all. If memory serves, I've seen a teaching that Chris put together that illustrates how the same sentence can have several vastly different meanings based on where the emphasis is placed. Perhaps Chris would be kind enough to direct us to that for a reference source? When words are spoken there is little question about where the emphasis is placed. However, with written words it is sometimes not as clear. As we go forward please know my goal is to humbly seek truth. If I could just ignore what I've seen and walk away with a clean conscience I would. However, loved demands I sacrifice time to exhort my brethren.
Timothy:
I assume I'm "that guy" lol. You don't have to be afraid to call me out by name if you have a
problem with what I've said here. It's odd to me why a former Marine needs to hide because
I'm not that scary, or whoever else it is you're talking about. Also your introduction is viewable
to the public. Not everyone is going to know who or what you are talking about if you don't
specify anything, so keep that in mind. I also find it odd about that last paragraph where you
put it in as an 'Edit' meaning that wasn't part of your original introduction. You read some
other posts here and added that in after you read what I, or someone else, had said and you
instantly got defensive about the topic on repentance. I'm not the best and catching things
like that, but what you said actually tells me more than you may think, but right now I can only
assume.
Timothy, Perhaps Jeff's understanding of how to discern a repentant believer from a pretender is lacking. However, is that an excuse to accuse him of being fearful and defensive? Can you provide an example of what Jeff said that was defensive, because I'm not seeing it? Could it be you are reading into what Jeff said that which wasn't there? I can remember when I joined the forum I didn't know how to find one's name. I referred to Chris as Creationliberty, because at that time I wasn't sure how to address others. It's not like a guy can join and spend a couple weeks observing how the forum works. A new member is thrust into the spotlight and must come up with a written testimony right now. I'm not implying that would prefer the rules change, I like the way the rules are. I believe the way Jeff was talked to could have been less rude. Can we know why Jeff didn't use one's name if we don't ask? Should we jump to the conclusion he has something to hide?
Jeff:
Yes i understand, im just not sure if asking if they've repented is the best test for legitimacy.
Timothy:
This tells me you don't think repentance is important to salvation. What do you think of
repentance when it comes to salvation? By the way, I may have asked you about repentance
even if you didn't mention it and if nobody else beat me to it. But since you did mention it,
now I'm even more interested to know what you think of it (so it's your fault I'm asking lol).
Wait a minute Timothy, Could it be that Jeff hasn't yet made the connection between repentance is part of salvation and also a good test, perhaps the best test, to determine a true convert? It appears to me you are missing an opportunity to teach and in turn accusing Jeff of lying. Perhaps Jeff has faith in God's word and has drawn a conclusion on how a believer is confirmed based on what he has read therein? Is Jeff's understanding perfect?
Timothy when you conclude a sentence with "lol", what exactly are you saying? My impression is that this passage from Proverbs 26 would apply.
As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?
Chris:
The next contradiction I'm seeing is this: "Not sure if demanding an acknowledgement of repentance is the best welcome but to each his own."
Then: "Being online and all i think the only way may be to just get to know their doctrine, and willingness to change their doctrine when presented with appropriate scripture." The problem here is that repentance IS doctrine.
It seems like you're presenting a disconnect between repentance and the foundation of the
Christian faith. I'm actually kind of surprised by this because your introduction seemed more
genuine than most, and that you at least expressed that you had understanding of the matter.
Chris, I don't see contradiction you speak of. You use the word "seems". Could it be that you are
making up a contradiction? It appears to me the point Jeff is making is the way we go about to learn someone's doctrine should be done in a way that is hospitable.
1Let brotherly love continue. 2Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.
Jeff is suffering adversity having only a phone to type on and there are more than one person
demanding answers.
Chris:
So what's confusing me is why you believe that godly sorrow of wrongdoing (i.e. repentance)
is not a topic of importance concerning foundational Biblical doctrine, especially that of
salvation? If you connect your posts together, that's the conclusion you've drawn for us so far.
Who exactly is "us"? Could this be a cue for your clique to join an offensive? It appears to me based on Jeff's comments he believes repentance is a fundamental part of salvation.
Chris:
I would have to guess, based on your bold statements, you must have some experience in
running an online Christian forum, otherwise, I do not see a reason that you would come here
and almost immediately tell us that you know better how to run things than we do, despite
the experience we have gained over the past few years in speaking to hundreds of people on
this forum. So would you please share with us your extensive experience in creating and/or
managing a Christian forum online? I think that might help clear up some of the confusion so
we can learn better what we ought to do.
I don't believe Jeff's statements have anything to do how the forum is managed. I believe Jeff's statements are clearly about hospitality among brethren.
Jeff:
To state more clearly what i was getting at, i do not see a problem with ensuring genuine
repentance, rather i think it could be done differently. By this mean that how something is
said is equally important to what is said, and ill throw in as well, when it is said. Ill leave it at
that because i don't want to turn this into something it doesn't need to be. Ill just say that as a
newcomer, it was somewhat offputting to me that specific acknowledgement of repentance
was being brought out so early after someone introduced themselves. I hope that makes
sense.
It appears to me that Jeff believes demanding someone exhibit repentance in an introduction post is less than perfect hospitality. Perhaps a bit of longsuffering and an explanation to Jeff why repentance must be covered in the introduction phase would have been a way to make peace.
Can we agree our Father loves peace makers?
But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: So being
affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of
God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. For ye remember, brethren,
our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto
any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. Ye are witnesses, and God also, how
holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: As ye know
how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,
That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
Chris, I won't address, at this time, the posts you made November 20, 2019, 02:37:24 PM and after. Because I believe they are based on a false premise. I would like to point out that Jeff was new to the forum and the format was new to him. He was bombarded with several making an effort to twist his statements and demand he answer. And he was trying to participate with a phone.
END OF LETTER
I will get into my response to his letter in the next post...
-
This is my response to William's letter. I had to go through a number of emails to get him to state clearly what it is he wanted. I did not know that William wanted me to respond to this, and he expressed how displeased he was that I did not respond, but he never asked me to respond. After stating to him, in big bold print that he needed to make a clear request of what he wanted, he finally asked for a response, and I spent that afternoon working on it. Here is that response:
This write up by William Cullum, is being presented to Chris, Timothy and Jeff. It is my wish that this remain between the four of us unless we come to an impasse. Jeff can be contacted via phone or Skype but hasn't the equipment to fully engage a discussion through typed media. Hopefully Chris will be willing to forward this to Timothy, as I do not have an e-mail address for him. This write up has taken several days. I do not believe I could use the CLE Forum for this because I lack certain skills and technically savvy to be on a level playing field.
First of all, that does not take technical skill; it just takes writing, which you have done here, so that's fine. I'm just pointing out that it is more difficult to sign up and use Facebook than it is to use our forum.
The confusion that I have is that, if you wanted this to remain between four people, but then said you were only not using the forum for lack of technical skill, which means you would have put it on the forum if not for a lack of technical skill, that means it would not have remained between four people because the forum is public, so that leaves me very confused because I would prefer just to respond to this on the forum publically, since all the comments were made publically. The only reason I did not just go ahead and post this to the forum and respond to it there, was because of your second sentence.
Jeff tells me he has been IP banned from viewing the Forum.
I can confirm that is not true, and I'll explain in my next comment.
"IP banned" is something I'm not familiar with, but I believe Chris can say whether or not he is responsible for the ban. It is my understanding that Jeff can't even see the Forum at all.
Tim is the one who banned Jeff, but he only beat me to it by a few minutes; I would have done it myself if Tim had not done it, and I would have done it exactly how Tim did it. The username and email address were banned, so it would prevent Jeff from logging back in to make comments, but his IP address was not banned at all, so if he cannot view the forum, that is a technical issue on his end.
If memory serves, I've seen a teaching that Chris put together that illustrates how the same sentence can have several vastly different meanings based on where the emphasis is placed.
Correct, but I also taught that what verifies the interpretation is the context, which we will look at more closely in this letter. Please do not forget that I have also taught that what a man speaks comes forth from his heart.
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18
Perhaps Chris would be kind enough to direct us to that for a reference source?
Probably the King James Bible teaching, but I've taught that in many cases because it's just a teaching to help people understand that context is key to understanding the interpretation of words.
When words are spoken there is little question about where the emphasis is placed.
Hmm... that depends, but I believe in most cases, I wouldn't argue that.
However, with written words it is sometimes not as clear.
Hmm... that also depends, but I believe in most cases, I wouldn't argue that.
As we go forward please know my goal is to humbly seek truth.
Good, and I hope we can get to truth of the matter together.
If I could just ignore what I've seen and walk away with a clean conscience I would. However, loved demands I sacrifice time to exhort my brethren.
Assuming that is the case, then I appreciate you taking the time.
Timothy:
"I assume I'm "that guy" lol. You don't have to be afraid to call me out by name if you have a
problem with what I've said here. It's odd to me why a former Marine needs to hide because
I'm not that scary, or whoever else it is you're talking about. Also your introduction is viewable
to the public. Not everyone is going to know who or what you are talking about if you don't
specify anything, so keep that in mind. I also find it odd about that last paragraph where you
put it in as an 'Edit' meaning that wasn't part of your original introduction. You read some
other posts here and added that in after you read what I, or someone else, had said and you
instantly got defensive about the topic on repentance. I'm not the best and catching things
like that, but what you said actually tells me more than you may think, but right now I can only
assume."
Timothy, Perhaps Jeff's understanding of how to discern a repentant believer from a pretender is lacking. However, is that an excuse to accuse him of being fearful and defensive?
It wasn't just Tim; I saw it too. I just had not said anything at that point because it was not just Tim; others on the forum have done the same thing. Jeanne, myself, Kevin, Caleb, Billy, and many others have also questioned people on repentance, so my only concern that I had with Tim's post is how he knew that Jeff was referring to Tim specifically, and perhaps Tim caught something that I didn't.
The problem is that everyone's name is listed right beside their post. If he had a problem with something someone was writing, all Jeff had to do was call out that specific person, but instead, he said "that guy," and kept it vague. How would he even know that "that guy" would read his post? (That is actually what led me to believe that he was trying to rebuke our entire community, not just Tim, and as it turns out, my suspicion was correct because he ends up arguing with everyone.) The defensiveness came from the fact that Jeff went back to edit his introduction, instead of just replying in the part in the thread he had a problem with (i.e. why did he feel the need to come back to his introduction to talk about repentance if he wasn't on the defensive?), and the fearfulness may have been interpreted by Tim in one way; I'm not sure if I would have interpreted it that, but rather, I would have said it was "defensiveness and LAZINESS" (not necessarily fearfulness) because Jeff didn't even bother to identify who was saying what, which is not hard to do.
Can you provide an example of what Jeff said that was defensive, because I'm not seeing it?
Again, it's not words, it's context with those words that carries the interpretation, and that's why I corrected that concept at the beginning.
Could it be you are reading into what Jeff said that which wasn't there?
The Pope claims to believe on Jesus, but I guarantee you don't believe that the Pope believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, so could it be you are reading into that which wasn't there? Not at all, because you know the context by which the Pope is speaking, he is not referring to the Jesus Christ of Scripture; he only claims to profess the Jesus Christ of Scripture on the outside, but inwardly, there is a serious problem. I am not saying this is [in] relation to Jeff, don't misunderstand; I'm saying this to give you an example by which you judge righteous judgment on a matter by the context and doctrine, and not by surface words.
I can remember when I joined the forum I didn't know how to find one's name. I referred to Chris as Creationliberty, because at that time I wasn't sure how to address others.
Yes, that's understandable, but you did MORE than Jeff did in that example. You addressed me as "Creationliberty" because you looked over and saw the username, which was fine, and I never corrected you on that in any way. Tim's username is "Timothy." So, essentially, you didn't defend Jeff there; instead, you actually helped prove my initial point, that was lazy (which shows an uncaring attitude), so I appreciate that.
It's not like a guy can join and spend a couple weeks observing how the forum works.
That's deceptive Will. The forum is PUBLIC. That means, anyone can read it unless they get IP banned. That means, they have all the time in the world to observe how the forum works. I have provided instructions for new members on how to start a new topic and where to post first. They don't have to understand all the technical details, all they have to do is write something, and press "POST" [at] the bottom. That does not take rocket science, and that's how everything else computer/phone-wise works; everything from programs to social media works the exact same way. If people cannot figure that out, then they should not be using the internet in the first place. And I'll add this; we have a woman in our church who has brain damage and has a hard time learning things, and she figured out how the forum works, so neither you, nor Jeff, have any excuses, and to me, it's insulting to that Christian woman for you guys to sit back and give Jeff an excuse like that.
A new member is thrust into the spotlight and must come up with a written testimony right now.
New members aren't "thrust into the spotlight," rather, they CHOOSE to be in the spotlight. No one has to register an account; no one held a gun to their head and made them do anything. Not to mention, all of our posts are made open to the hundreds, if not thousands, of other people who read the forum, so we are in the spotlight all the time; if these people do not want others reading what they say, then they should not join in the first place. (And if they are preaching the gospel of Christ, they should already be used to a negative spotlight, by which the "spotlight" on our forum should be cake walk after that.)
This is showing your bias Will, and that you are not judging righteous judgment in all areas; you are speaking in terms of your opinions and feelings, not according to the facts, otherwise, you would not make such statements, and that's why I know your PDF is going to get much worse from this point on.
I'm not implying that would prefer the rules change, I like the way the rules are. I believe the way Jeff was talked to could have been less rude. Can we know why Jeff didn't use one's name if we don't ask? Should we jump to the conclusion he has something to hide?
Well, we would have to ask Tim how he knew that Jeff was referring to him. I don't have that information. Can we know how Tim knew who Jeff was referring to if we don't ask? Should we jump to the conclusion that he was rude (i.e. rough) to Jeff?
Jeff:
[Yes i understand, im just not sure if asking if they've repented is the best test for legitimacy.]
Timothy:
This tells me you don't think repentance is important to salvation. What do you think of
repentance when it comes to salvation? By the way, I may have asked you about repentance
even if you didn't mention it and if nobody else beat me to it. But since you did mention it,
now I'm even more interested to know what you think of it (so it's your fault I'm asking lol).
Wait a minute Timothy, Could it be that Jeff hasn't yet made the connection between repentance is part of salvation and also a good test, perhaps the best test, to determine a true convert? It appears to me you are missing an opportunity to teach and in turn accusing Jeff of lying. Perhaps Jeff has faith in God's word and has drawn a conclusion on how a believer is confirmed based on what he has read therein? Is Jeff's understanding perfect?
Timothy when you conclude a sentence with "lol", what exactly are you saying?
Laugh out loud, which Tim should have made more clear, that is, what "lol" meant, and WHY he was laughing. When I first saw it, I knew what Tim meant (because I've known him for the past six years), but I was bit uncomfortable with it because of the way I thought Jeff might take it, but that's something for Tim to answer, as I did not speak to Jeff in that manner. That would be one of the very few things in your PDF that I would be in agreement with, only because of the manner in which someone might take that, and that Tim may want to be more careful in the future, even if he is at work at the time.
My impression is that this passage from Proverbs 26 would apply. As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?
Accusations are not a problem Will; what IS the problem is accusations implied, or accusations that are not explained, which is what you just did. By this passage, you have implied that Tim deceived Jeff (i.e. the man who says "am I not in sport" is the one who deceived his neighbor), so you need to start by explaining where Tim deceived Jeff.
I'm going to organize this next part with color codes and line returns, because all of this running together without names is making it confusing:
Chris:
The next contradiction I'm seeing is this: "Not sure if demanding an acknowledgement of repentance is the best welcome but to each his own."
Then: "Being online and all i think the only way may be to just get to know their doctrine, and willingness to change their doctrine when presented with appropriate scripture."
The problem here is that repentance IS doctrine. It seems like you're presenting a disconnect between repentance and the foundation of the Christian faith. I'm actually kind of surprised by this because your introduction seemed more genuine than most, and that you at least expressed that you had understanding of the matter.
Chris, I don't see contradiction you speak of.
I say this only because you are someone who is deep into evangelism: The fact that you do not see it is a serious problem. This is the gospel of Christ 101; meaning this is the basics of the understanding of salvation unto Christ, and you do not see the contradiction that Jeff made here?
Jeff stated that the only way [to] discern between those who are of Christ and those who are not of Christ, is "to just get to know their doctrine," but at the beginning, he had a problem with us asking people about their doctrine. That's like if Jeff said, "The only good meat for a sandwich is beef," and then turned around and rebuked us for eating hamburgers; that does not make any sense. I would have to look up a past example, but we have had people join the forum, and in their introduction post, they never once mention Christ or faith. In that regard, we questioned them on the matter, and it turned out, in every instance I can remember, that those people came to cause contention and bring strife, and we had to remove them.
Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.
-Pro 22:10
If salvation is by repentance and faith, and someone comes onto the forum to introduce themselves to everyone else, and does not mention anything concerning repentance and faith, then we question their doctrine, which is according to what Jeff believed was a correct approach, so why question our correct approach? That's the problem; it's based on his personal feelings, not based on the Word of God.
So now, logically following his words, why would he have questioned our approach to one part (i.e. repentance) and not the other part (i.e. faith)? Well, he responds to that, and read carefully, don't skip past this:
"I don't think you absolutely shouldn't do it, (that is, to request an acknowledgement of repentance) but it seemed to me like unless it was specifically stated, you were asking for it. To me, it would be more appropriate to wait until you see an indicator of a lack of repentance, before asking if they have."
In case you missed it, I'll summarize what he just said. "I don't think you should not ask about repentance, but I don't think you should ask about repentance either."
That does not make any sense; you cannot have it both ways, which means, since he's not being reasonable, there's likely a problem with the pride in his heart, in which Jeff is now unwilling to see what he is saying, and that demonstrates that Jeff has a void of understanding of this matter. That's why, when someone comes along and says he found our ministry through 501c3 (as Jeff did, SEE HERE (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7642#msg7642)), I am cautious because, in most cases (not all, but most), those who find us about 501c3 were not understanding of the Gospel of Christ as a whole, and were rather just looking up stuff about politics. (Which is why many hate what I teach once they start reading it, and I rebuke their sin.)
I'm not saying that's what Jeff was doing, but what most people do is want to understand 501c3, and not understand the core problem with leaven, and the reason for that is because they do not have a firm foundation in the gospel of Christ, nor do they want it, meaning that they want to dig into my book on 501c3, but will go nowhere near my book on Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell (http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/whymillions.php), and perhaps if Jeff would read that (which, by the way, I suggested to him on the forum more than once), he would understand more clearly that Jesus taught the opposite of what Jeff stated:
"The reason i say this is because the tests set forth in scripture are not to ask the individual if they have repented but rather if they can say Jesus is the Lord, and if they confess that Jesus is come in the flesh."
And yet, Jesus said:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23
So when Jesus tells us that professing Him to be "Lord" is not a sufficient test, but Jeff says that it is a sufficient test, who's right? Jeff or Jesus? But Jeff would NOT listen to me (or to others on the forum), which means he has two options; either he needs to silence himself on the matter and move on (which he refused to do), or leave the forum (which he also refused to do, lying on the way in, and lying on the way out), and that resulted in his ban.
You use the word "seems". Could it be that you are making up a contradiction?
No, I was telling Jeff what it appeared to be based on everything he had written so far (that means, taking caution not to falsely accuse him of something, and waiting for him to explain himself further), but after he wrote more (i.e. provided more evidence to me by his words), it verified the matter for me that, yes, indeed that's what he was doing, and that there was a contradiction, as I just explained.
It appears to me the point Jeff is making is the way we go about to learn someone's doctrine should be done in a way that is hospitable.
If we have not been hospitable to others in the way we have asked them about their doctrine, then it was up to Jeff to prove that point by quoting our words and comparing it to Scripture. He refused to do that out of pride and laziness, and by the evidence of his words, I have been persuaded of it, and therefore, if he has a repentant heart, I would look for him to repent of the sin in his heart.
1Let brotherly love continue. 2Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.
Jeff is suffering adversity having only a phone to type on and there are more than one person
demanding answers.
Alright Will, then I'll quote you:
Can we know why Jeff didn't use one's name if we don't ask?
If that is brotherly love, and if you want to judge righteous judgement, then pose those same types of questions back to Jeff, and ask yourself why he did not first ASK us about why we did things the way we did them? If a man came into your home and upon introduction, suggested (and then later, after arguing, insisted) that you change the way you do things in your household, would you not consider that to be "rude?" I don't need you to answer that for me because I already know you would consider that rude. In fact, you can go back to the forum and check because I asked Jeff those types of questions, and I exhorted him very clearly (without being "rude" as you say):
"Or... do you believe it might be prudent to first ask us WHY we are doing these, instead of just assuming whatever you please based on how it makes you feel?"
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7657#msg7657 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7657#msg7657)
Jeff being on a phone is no excuse. I know enough about how phones work; my wife has one. If he wanted to have those discussions, then he should not have been lazy; he should have got out a pen and paper to write down the quotes (if he does not know how to copy/paste quotes between tabs on his phone), got out his Bible, and sat down to reason the matter out with us instead of demanding that we change how we do things to fit his personal tastes. That is what I would have done in his situation, and that's what many of us here on the forum would have done in his situation as well, not because we have experience on a forum, but rather, because we have the mind of Christ, and so he needs to learn a Christian work ethic.
The Christian Work Ethic (http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/work.php)
Chris:
So what's confusing me is why you believe that godly sorrow of wrongdoing (i.e. repentance)
is not a topic of importance concerning foundational Biblical doctrine, especially that of
salvation? If you connect your posts together, that's the conclusion you've drawn for us so far.
Who exactly is "us"? Could this be a cue for your clique to join an offensive? It appears to me based on Jeff's comments he believes repentance is a fundamental part of salvation.
That's what I mean when I knew you had a bias for Jeff, and were not judging righteous judgment. You need to stop the childishness and back-handed slaps. (i.e. "a cue for your clique to join an offensive") Before I ever posted anything, others on the forum had written to Jeff the same explanations and arguments I would have made too; therefore, it proves that your comment is not only incorrect, but it also reveals the pride in your heart as well, in which you were NOT judging according to the words being spoken and the context of them, which you stated at the beginning is what should be done. The reason I said "us," is because we (i.e. those of us speaking with Jeff) were all of like-mind together (despite the fact that we had no private communication with each other during that time), and even later, after Jeff was banned, I brought up this issue with our church, and we were all in agreement, but Jeff brought in contention instead of trying to understand. (i.e. Meaning that he came to exert his opinions rather than coming to join in learning with us.)
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
-1Co 11:16
You need to learn to judge righteous judgment on the matter by putting aside railing accusations that come from heat of passions because they do not [come] from reasonable arguments, which would be founded in the Holy Spirit in understanding. I had not read this far into your PDF until now, but now I see that my prediction that it would get worse was correct, and the reason I knew that is because I am judging a man's heart by the words he uses, and therefore, I am rebuking and exhorting you, along with Jeff.
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
-2Ti 4:2
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Heb 5:12-14
Chris:
I would have to guess, based on your bold statements, you must have some experience in
running an online Christian forum, otherwise, I do not see a reason that you would come here
and almost immediately tell us that you know better how to run things than we do, despite
the experience we have gained over the past few years in speaking to hundreds of people on
this forum. So would you please share with us your extensive experience in creating and/or
managing a Christian forum online? I think that might help clear up some of the confusion so
we can learn better what we ought to do.
I don't believe Jeff's statements have anything to do how the forum is managed. I believe Jeff's statements are clearly about hospitality among brethren.
Will, I am not concerned with what you personally believe about it. I look at what Jeff said, not how you feel.
"im just not sure if asking if they've repented is the best test for legitimacy. Being online and all [which is a reference to the forum] i think the only way may be to just get to know their doctrine, and willingness to change their doctrine when presented with appropriate scripture"
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7644#msg7644 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7644#msg7644)
He later said:
"I don't know if these tests can be 'administered' properly in an online setting or not, but those are the tests i know of from scripture."
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7647#msg7647 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7647#msg7647)
These comments about an "online setting" are referring to the forum. That's the context because that's what he was questioning at the beginning. If you do not want to acknowledge that and choose believe something else, that is your business, but I am going to judge Jeff by the context of his words. And by the way, it should be noted that Jeff refused to respond to my questions (go check it out for yourself); is that "rude" according to your definition? (If so, then you are not judging Jeff in righteous and fair judgment.)
Jeff:
To state more clearly what i was getting at, i do not see a problem with ensuring genuine
repentance, rather i think it could be done differently. By this mean that how something is
said is equally important to what is said, and ill throw in as well, when it is said. Ill leave it at
that because i don't want to turn this into something it doesn't need to be. Ill just say that as a
newcomer, it was somewhat offputting to me that specific acknowledgement of repentance
was being brought out so early after someone introduced themselves. I hope that makes
sense.
It appears to me
Stop right there; you do realize that "appears" and "seems" mean the same thing in the context we were using those words, right? The word "seems" literally mean "appears," and so, if I were to judge your words in the same way you judged my words earlier in this PDF when you quoted me saying "seems," then I could dismiss your next comment as figment of your imagination. Just to remind you, you said:
You use the word "seems". Could it be that you are making up a contradiction?
So because you used the word "appears," should I then conclude that you are just making up whatever you want to believe about Jeff? That doesn't "appear" to be very fair judgment, does it?
It appears to me that Jeff believes demanding someone exhibit repentance in an introduction post is less than perfect hospitality. Perhaps a bit of longsuffering and an explanation to Jeff why repentance must be covered in the introduction phase would have been a way to make peace. Can we agree our Father loves peace makers?
It appears to me that Jeff walking into someone else's home and demanding they change how they operate in their house to suit his personal feelings, while refusing to answer questions and be held accountable for his words, "is less than perfect hospitality," just to make sure we're putting everything in perspective.
To one point, I agree with what you just said, and I'm going to repeat it:
Perhaps a bit of longsuffering and an explanation to Jeff why repentance must be covered in the introduction phase would have been a way to make peace.
Now, explain to me, with the hours I took writing responses to Jeff, asking him questions he refused to answer, was I not longsuffering with him? I even told him:
"Perhaps part of the disconnect is that you do not believe that a new member's lack of repentance is seen in their introduction when we ask them those questions; could that be the case? I'm not sure."
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7649#msg7649 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7649#msg7649)
I didn't conclude anything yet. And later, I said: "That's why I was giving you an opportunity to clarify what you said,"
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7657#msg7657 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7657#msg7657)
And Will, I would have just thought it was ignorance on your part to say that "an explanation" was not provided to Jeff, but you told me you read the posts, and I believed you. So I'm going to prove you wrong right now (i.e. that an explanation WAS provided to Jeff at the very beginning), and then I'm going to conclude one of three things about you:
Hi Jeff, and welcome to the forum! I suppose I should say that one of the reasons we ask people about repentance is that a lot of people come here claiming to be Christians when they really aren't, as you've obviously noticed from the number of church buildings you've been to. It just saves time to know where a person stands up front so we know who we're talking to. A lot of false converts come here just to argue or to defend their pet sins/false doctrines and we like to know who to watch out for. That's why we ask for a testimony. I, too, hope you find what you're looking for here. We all try to learn from each other.
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7643#msg7643 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7643#msg7643)
That was Jeanne, who was left out of this conversation, and she explained the matter to him with patience and that "perfect hospitality" you mentioned.
Okay, so now that we have established that longsuffering and explanations were provided to Jeff, there are one of three problems going on with Will and his lack of discernment, and I suspect I know which one it is:
1. Lying. You may have lied to me that you read the posts, which I do not believe is the case; I don't think you would lie about that. I don't think option one is the case here.
2. Reading comprehension problems, and to that, I can totally understand because I have struggled with that all my life, but you claimed that you understood the posts, or you would not be arguing this, so I would struggle to believe option 2.
OR...
3. Pride. That you trusted in your own heart, rather than judging righteous judgment. Based on my conversations with you historically, I think option three is more likely.
He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Pro 28:26
But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. For ye remember, brethren,
our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto
any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. Ye are witnesses, and God also, how
holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: As ye know
how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,
That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
Chris, I won't address, at this time, the posts you made November 20, 2019, 02:37:24 PM and after. Because I believe they are based on a false premise.
If you cannot understand the things I've written to you here, you are definitely not going to understand the later stuff, and so there would not be much point to addressing your concerns on that.
I would like to point out that Jeff was new to the forum and the format was new to him. He was bombarded with several making an effort to twist his statements and demand he answer. And he was trying to participate with a phone.
And I firmly disagree, and you never once, in this letter, provided evidence [of] anyone "twisting" Jeff's statements, so I'm not going to suffer accusations from you without evidence.
If Jeff had come in humility and started with a question, wanting to gain understanding, I think a lot would have gone differently, but the reason he avoided asking a question is NOT because he slipped on a banana peel and accidentally typed the wrong thing. That's the way YOU are treating this matter. No, the problem is in his heart, and that's what both you and Jeff are refusing to understand, and I believe it's not just about Jeff, but about yourself as well.
And again, the phone is an excuse, nothing more. If he does not understand how to use his phone, then he should not have registered an account on the forum in the first place.
It is my prayer, however, that both you and Jeff would be richly blessed by God in all the works of your hands, and that you both remain in good health. I would end by reminding you that peace-making is not about creating communication triangles. (which, by the way, is why I'm avoiding your other email -- I receive emails almost daily; I just received a letter this morning from a Christian in Siberia, so it's not a bug on the contact page; it's a bug on Jeff's end, as is viewing the forum, which we had almost 200 people reading the forum all at the same time yesterday, so it's a problem on Jeff's end) Peace-making is about trying to gain understanding of a matter, and if no understanding can be gained, it's about peacefully departing from one another, just as Paul and Barnabas had done (Acts 15:36-41); both departed from each other over a heated debate, but the Holy Spirit was with both--and yet, it should be noted that Paul and Barnabas never had a problem with their lying tongues, did they?
The major question for you is this: Did Jeff repent for his lying tongue?
Jeff: "This is nothing new, i will move along. Sorry for wasting your time."
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7668#msg7668 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7668#msg7668)
The words "I will move along," means that he is leaving (i.e. there is no room for misinterpretation in that context), and yet, he turned around, came back, and kept arguing because his pride would not allow him to let things go. Will, that's a lie. If Jeff did not repent of that, and you're still here arguing against the people he lied to, then I believe there is a problem in your heart (as well as Jeff's) because that's not the only lie he told those posts (i.e. there were three lies I caught), but a Christian will not be able to see the things he is refusing to look for.
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
-Col 3:9
Nevertheless, have a great day. I'll forward a copy of this to Tim.
END OF RESPONSE
I suspected that would be the end of the matter, but now, a couple of weeks later, I received another letter from Will, and I will publish that exchange in the next post...
-
I just received this letter from Will tonight. Any further discussion can be brought up on the forum, as I am not going to deal with William over email anymore since he has continue is murmurings (i.e. complaints half-supressed).
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
-1Co 10:10
Does the forum offer a way for Chris, Timothy and Will to communicate privately?
No, even though I do not believe for a second you care for answer to these questions.
Is the CLE private message function available at the pleasure of the forum administrators/moderators?
No. It's turned off entirely because I am tired of people trying to private message me when I have email available, and I am tired of people trying to speak to me privately on matters that should be spoken about openly to the entire forum; such as this matter.
Does the private message portion of the forum offer the same function as a word processor and would one have to learn how to use the word processor functions of the CLE site?
Those two portions of your question are contradictory to each other, again, indicating that you did not want an answer. Either the forum serves the same basic function as any other word processing program (including email, Skype, or any other such online communication software), or it does not. The forum does, in fact, use the same functionality as any other of those programs which you, and obviously Jeff, use, and so I am tired of your excuses posed as slyly worded questions. I am sick of this Will, and if you continue this garbage, I will wish you well, and you should depart because I am done with your drama and whining.
What if one is several hours into typing a response to Chris, on the CLE forum, and the internet goes down, does one loose those hours of typed response?
Then you write it out on a separate file and save it for later. That's what everyone else does on anything they use. Can we get past your whining and get to a point please because, as of now, you're wasting my time.
Is it possible for Will to be IP banned from the CLE site?
Yes, but he was not IP banned. I already made that abundantly clear in my response (if you even bothered to read it). Thus, you're wasting my time.
I could have spent time securing answers before addressing the matter at hand, but it seemed prudent at the time to use a way of communication that would allow me to be on a level playing field.
You just confessed to me that you could have gathered facts (i.e. I'm presuming you mean the information about what was and was not said), but you chose not to, and instead chose to speak out of ignorance. I'm done Will. I'll finish out this email, but I'm done messing around with you after reading that. This is flat-out childishness, and you should be ashamed of yourself acting in such a un-Christian way (claiming in hypocrisy that you came in "love" as you will state in a moment), but I sense NO repentance from you at all in this letter.
I stated the truth when I said "I do not believe I could use the CLE Forum for this because I lack certain skills and technically savvy to be on a level playing field." Did I say I lack the ability to use your site or that I lack the ability to be on a level paying field? I ask these rhetorical questions to illustrate that I came to you lovingly to express a concern and in return you make me out to be a liar.
No, you came to me deceptively. You hid certain information and tried to be subtle and sly, and I do not get along well with people who do that. I'm not playing this game with you anymore. You didn't come out of love, you came out of selfishness, and have my theories as to why you are doing that, but I kept that to myself. However, your deception is clear, and now, this needs to be brought to the forum for all the Christians to see because I've had enough with you trying to keep this private to save face, while you take quick jabs at me without evidence or reason.
At this point it seems you are doing this on a regular enough basis I have to wonder if it is intentional.
That's why I let others judge the matter, so that way you won't have a reason to solely and falsely accuse me.
Sure, I am willing to have this discussion publicly.
Okay, that makes things simple. I'll get to work on that later.
At first I wanted to give you a chance to correct the problem without making a spectacle, but it seems you would argue about words rather than address the real matter.
You are separating what people say from the real matter. That's amazing. I have never, in my entire life, heard someone attempt to argue that the words people speak having nothing to do with a disagreement at hand. It's surprising to hear from someone who claims to have knowledge of Christ, and it certainly does not follow Scripture.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
-Matthew 12:36-37
The real matter being that if one voices a concern you assault them with accusations.
So what you are implying (because you are not stating it as clear as you ought to be) is that if anyone brings up a concern, I will, automatically, in every instance, "assault them with accusations." Is that correct? I just want to make sure that I am understanding your "assault" of accusation against me, so that way others in the church can answer you publically on the forum. I'll leave them to judge that matter for themselves, and I'll leave God to judge what you have said.
I've been going over this in my head trying to figure out why it is you believe you can perfectly discern what one is thinking and state it as if it were a matter of fact.
It's called listening and reading carefully, paying attention to what others say (which is part of charity), but more importantly, it's also called discernment of the Holy Spirit, which God gives us as a gift, and He expects us to exercise that discernment. I have not been correct every time, and I have repented in the times I have not been correct, but those who do not have much practice in discernment will not see clearly, and here is the Scripture for that:
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Heb 5:12-14
Just so we are clear, I am saying this applies to you in this instance.
Then when one tries to help you realize there was a miscommunication you go all out to make them out as if they are in the wrong.
No, I PROVED to you that you were wrong. I showed you direct contradictions between your feelings and opinions, versus what Jeff stated, and you IGNORED the things I showed you. That's called willful blindness, and I cannot help someone with that because I do not have the power to do so.
At this point I am seeking your permission to share this with other brethren in hopes we can get this worked out. As for the remainder of your last response to me, for the most part it is more of the same, so I'm not seeing much logic in responding to it.
It's sad that you are "seeking permission" when I said at the beginning that I would rather this be open to read on the forum. Also, I know you don't want to respond to what I wrote to you, because, as like what happened with the Ecclesiastes 5 fiasco that you started, you do not care about evidence and context. You don't have to worry about the forum; I can share your letter with them well enough since you "lack certain skills and technically savvy." I guess what is really irritating me right now is that I have other projects to work on, and now I have to deal with your drama once more. I can guarantee you one thing, this second instance of you doing this is THE last time you will bring this drama to our forum because you have already proven yourself unwilling to the hear the truth of a matter more than once, and you have been unrepentant, and we are NOT going to allow your childish games in here a third time. If you come to repentance, that's one thing, but if not, don't expect to fellowship with us.
If anyone has any questions about anything I have said in this thread, either to Jeff or to Will, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to get back with you. I stand firmly behind everything I said, and I am open to being judged by the rest of the church on this matter (because I fear God's judgment first and foremost, so the judgment of men is little concern to me), but feel free to also write your comments on what Will has said and discern the truth for yourself.
-
Well done Chris and Tim. That was quite a lot of reading to get through. Hopefully William will quietly leave in peace and stop the uncharitable practice of using up people's time with all of this worthless strife.
All of the exchanges have given good insight into the difference between when people who have never come to repentence and a true belief in Christ can exist in the "church buildings" and cause strife compared to when they come in to contact with a group of believers truly based on the gospel of Christ. If we were a group physically meeting together as a congregation of God's church then they would no doubt be quickly ejected from the group.
One can only hope that true repentence and the quietness and charity of the Spirit comes upon them and turns them from this kind of strife.
-
I want to make this post for a couple reasons. First to acknowledge my awareness that Chris has put a portion of our conversation in this public venue. Second to put all on notice that if permitted I will speak further on this topic. However, there will be some lag time before my full response is posted.
-
By all means, take your time with your prideful and vain comments.
I have had enough of this, especially since William has never (in all his history on this forum that I can recall) actually held himself accountable for his words (i.e. he prefers to hide instead of being held accountable), and I have been very patient with him over the years while knowing this, so if our church is willing, we can bring up these letters in our discussion tomorrow (Thursday) night over Skype. I have no problem pointing out the prideful, murmuring, and railing attitude William exhibits while he is attempting to hide behind "politeness," to feign some sort of humility. I have seen examples of true humility in many other people, and through God showing me this, I can confirm such humility is not coming from William or Jeff. If William and Jeff do not like the way we do things here, then they should depart peacefully instead of creating more drama by whining about their personal feelings. I'm sure the two of them can find somewhere else to go, or perhaps they can start their own local church together, since they are both in Florida, and God willing, since they believe they know better, then they can do things better than we have done to set a better example for everyone. That is how we make peace with unreasonable men like William and Jeff who will not hear; praying that God would bless them with all their needs, but we separate unrepentant men who bring in contention, and it is my hope that God would provide them with as much mercy and longsuffering as He has been kind enough to give me.
Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.
-Proverbs 13:10
-
Wow. Seeing the things William has said and how he has shown so little understanding of the things of God, I am deeply concerned about his evangelising now, that he is spreading his false doctrine to others who don't know any better. There's not a whole lot you can do with people who refuse to listen to reason and operate by emotion rather than logic.
-
False doctrine? What are you referring to?
-
Maybe that was the wrong choice of words. I guess I'm just concerned that an inability to see such glaring errors, lack of discernment in motives and refusal to repent of wrongdoing (not only in his own words and actions but in defending the wrongful words of Jeff) might somehow carry over to his ability to witness to others and call them to repentance.
-
Philosophically, what you said is fair, but I would just be cautious of accusing William of false doctrine if he did not say anything directly wrong in doctrine. The only problem in doctrine that he presented during his tantrum on this issue was that he is emphasizing "unity," but calling it "peace," and then quoting Scripture about peace when it's really a sleight-of-hand tactic he used that new Christians likely will not catch, meaning that he will fool them into believing he has a Biblical foundation for his argument, and I am still assessing whether or not I believe he is doing it inadvertently, or on purpose. (Though, due to his pride, I'm leaning towards "on purpose.")
Peace and unity are not necessarily the same thing, as is provable by Scripture. (See The Biblical Understanding of Sanctification (http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/division.php)) Based on William's choice of words (and the context by which he uses them, which is something I have to emphasize since he does not appear to understand that basic concept and will not humble himself to understand it), he is presenting an attitude of "let's ignore the truth and have everyone get along" instead of putting the truth first, and then presenting the opportunity for everyone involved to adhere to the truth, thereby becoming of like-mind, which is how peace is made; however, when one party refuses to acknowledge the truth (2Ti 2:25 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Timothy-2-25/)), and starts railing and murmuring, then departing from one another another is how peace is made. (Acts 15:39-40 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Acts-15-39_15-40/))
-
What you just said is also exactly the same problem we had with Masha and Joop. They were both more interested in everyone getting along than in hearing the truth and they both had problems with you rebuking other people (not to mention having you rebuke them). William has lost much of his credibility here, which I guess is why I wouldn't trust him to preach the gospel. If he can't understand the basic doctrines of repentance and sanctification, then what is he teaching others?
-
Well, I suppose you might have a point. I mean, it got me to think: Has Will ever claimed to understand the doctrine of repentance and faith, and is that what he teaches? Hmm... I don't know that I cannot remember anything specific. I presumed that was the case, that he understands godly sorrow and all that, but perhaps he doesn't.
I went back to Will's original introduction post, and interestingly enough, he doesn't mention anything about it:
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=432.0#msg3103 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=432.0#msg3103)
Hmm. Now I am starting to see why he is so quick to defend Jeff. So, I think I would start having the same questions for Will that I have for Jeff. It's also interesting to note that I had to censor personal information for Will when he first joined too, except that Will did not respond with an attitude of strife that Jeff did. So Jeanne, that's why I said from a philosophical standpoint, you were right, but I just don't want to accuse him of teaching false doctrine until he actually teaches false doctrine. (I mean, he has taught false doctrine on this forum in the past, but just not yet in this instance; if he keeps quoting Scripture and speaking, he will reveal his true beliefs, it won't take long.)
I was doing some more cleaning house on Facebook this morning, and I think I have finally got my "friend" list mostly cleaned out, since I've had so many people "friend" me who are completely given over to the world. There was one account I ran into that, under normal circumstances, I would have removed from my friends list because of what was being posted (and due to the lack of anything about the Word of God), but I kept this person on the list just in case due to the current situation on this thread, and that person happened to be William. I am pretty certain this is him (both accounts are from the same city in Kansas with the same first and last name, which, by the way, I thought he was in Florida for some reason, so I apologize that I got that part wrong in a previous post), and if I am wrong about this being his FB profile, I very much apologize:
https://www.facebook.com/will.cullum.7 (https://www.facebook.com/will.cullum.7)
Please notice that almost all of his posts are political. For someone who professes to be a Christian evangelist (as he has expressed to me many times that he preaches to the homeless and prisoners), that's kinda' odd don't you think? Why would his evangelism and the Scripture NOT be front and center in his posts? I'm not saying that no Christian can post anything political, don't misunderstand, but the problem is that political things are almost entirely what William posts.
His "About" page has mostly nothing, so there isn't anything else to draw on. However, in December of 2019 alone, he made 12 posts. Of those, 11 are political. One of them was about fossils and evolutionism, or something to do with that; that was the odd one out. Nothing about Scripture, nothing about his evangelistic works, just stuff about media, environmentalism, etc. And to me, I find that very strange.
Ask yourselves this: You know that I do Bible teachings every week and I'm writing and studying in Scripture throughout the week; if I were to have nothing on my profile except worldly things, would you all not find that a little strange? Based on the evidence, it seems that William acts one way normally, but then tries to change his normal demeanor and speech when around those who are born again in Christ.
Of those 12 posts, he quoted two people. One was from Thomas Jefferson, who is man that did not believe in the miracles of the Bible, nor in the divinity of Jesus, but lacking discernment, William thinks that Jefferson's so-called "wisdom" is good for consumption, which is why he published it.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
-1Co 1:17
The second was from Frederic Bastiat, a Freemason who denied the Lord Jesus Christ, and again, William thinks his so-called "wisdom" is good for consumption.
I went back through the entire year of posts on his profile for 2019, and there is not one verse of Scripture, there is no discussion of doctrine, there is no promotion of evangelism; NOTHING concerning Christ. It's all political stuff, and so on the one hand, Will comes here and deceives everyone by telling this story to make himself look good:
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=941.msg7804#msg7804 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=941.msg7804#msg7804)
Reading that, I decided to be charitable and take him at his word, but when I first read that, in the back of mind, I questioned whether or not that was even true. I could not put my finger on why something was wrong, but I ignored it and just went with it. Now that I can see other things that Will says and does, it helps me understand why I was seeing a problem, especially when we consider two important points:
1. Will almost never posts on this forum, and yet...
2. Will posted that the day before he sent me his original complaint against myself and Tim.
I don't believe that was a coincidence.
There are many more things I could point out about Will's profile that was very strange, but just to compare, here's Kenneth's FB profile:
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.winslow.14 (https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.winslow.14)
You'll see that Kenneth published a lot of stuff on street preaching, he has Scripture, and all that stuff, right? In another example, here's Tim's profile:
https://www.facebook.com/tim.beasley.756 (https://www.facebook.com/tim.beasley.756)
Tim hasn't posted anything on FB in four years, but even his looks more Biblically solid than Will's, and you can tell Tim has a lot more emphasis put on the Word of God.
The purpose of me pointing this out is that what a man speaks shows his heart. We can only see what things that Will has told us, and so I am going by what I am seeing in his words and doctrine. However, when I look at more evidence outside of that, it verifies that my discernment about his words and doctrine is correct because what he is saying and doing in other places is reflective of the pride and lack of understanding I see in his words here.
And so far, Will likes to say that he "doesn't understand" these things. But now with more evidence, I think I'm starting to figure out why that is the case:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1Co 2:14
-
I want to make the beginning part of the conversation between Chris and I available, because I be quoting it later.
When I started this conversation I never intended to condone all of Jeff's behavior, but rather to hopefully illustrate there was a simple miscommunication that got out of hand. I believe the full conversation reveals this as true. I'm still working on the rest of my answer. However, I wanted to accomplish this step before dedicating a lot of resources to an answer that I wouldn't be able to post.
My current edification number is at 1
Below you will find an exchange between Timothy and I that made it possible for me to post this. Thank you Timothy on the tip about using Notepad, it is a helpful tip.
Attached is a zip folder with two Word documents (compilation of the exchange between Chris and I)
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:17 AM Will Cullum wrote:
Just a quick question:
Do you expect me to answer all that Chis has charged? It's a lot to write and it will take a long time. So if I put in the time and you don't like the answer will I even be able to post it? Chris wanted to have our discussion open to the public then takes my ability to post away. Talk about an unfair advantage. If you want me to agree to only address the topic of Jeff's intro I can do that.
To be clear "There is no reply button again"
On Sunday, January 5, 2020, 7:15:16 AM CST, Timothy wrote:
No. You don't have to answer everything in one post, but I would ask that you try to do as much as you can in as few posts as possible. Chris took the time to answer your emails one at a time and you can make yours all one post. The best thing to do is write it all in notepad and copy and paste it on the forum when you are ready so that you aren't timed out and lose all your progress. You can spend that time posting it to add underlines, bold, etc. if you have all your answer typed out already. Don't use things like Microsoft Word. Just use notepad because MS Word has characters that the forum does not recognize and will cut off your post.
I never said I needed to know what you are posting before you post it. So I can't not like it before you post it to keep you from posting it. If you can't post it, like I said I will do what I can to make sure that you can reply. Are you ready to post your answer? If not, let me know when you are ready.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Will Cullum wrote:
I would like to make the the entire conversation available to the group as it occurred. I have compiled the conversation onto 2 word documents that could be attached to a post. If permitted I could get that done now. I'll attach them so you'll know what I'm talking about.
On Sunday, January 5, 2020, 8:00 AM CST, Timothy wrote:
Yes, you can do that. I
-
My patience keeps wearing thinner because you just wasted our time again. I was surprised Tim didn't already ban you because you were supposed to write a response, not republish what has already been published.
Tim is being very patient with you to give you another chance here. For someone (like you Will) who claims he has very little computer time (which I don't believe anymore), it's amazing how much time you are dedicated to waste.
It should be noted that everyone here is capable of reading. We do not need to know what your "edification number" is, and we do not care. It's dropping because you're deceiving everyone and wasting our time, and you care so little about being right with the Lord Jesus Christ, and you care so much for the things of this world, your main concern is a stupid little number on the side of your posts; that's how vain you are in your heart. It shows also in your other social media accounts where your focus is on media conspiracies, environmentalism, the wisdom of men, and other like things; meaning that the evidence all keeps pointing to you loving the things of this world.
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
-1Jo 2:15
Every post you make is only revealing these facts more; it's not helping you at all. I went back to your original testimony in your first introduction post, where you uploaded an attachment.
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=432.msg7928#msg7928 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=432.msg7928#msg7928)
I guess that I did not catch it back then (perhaps I did not see it), but there was no testimony of repentance at all. I wish I had caught it back then because (as Jeff did not understand) it may have saved us a lot of hassle with you. There is no testimony of the godly sorrow of wrongdoing in your writing; in short, your testimony is two things:
1. You said some sinner's prayer and got baptized when you were 5 or 6 years old.
2. In 2014, you ended your Netflix account to start reading the Bible.
I don't know where you thought you were converted unto Christ, but that is not a testimony of conversion and salvation. If anyone reading this wants to see a real testimony of conversion and salvation, there's a new member who just joined; read his testimony:
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=959.msg7913#msg7913 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=959.msg7913#msg7913)
Understanding these things, it's now starting to make sense why you are defending Jeff so fervently, because not only have you done the same things as Jeff, but you are not repentant either, and you refuse correction. More evidence of this is seen in the recent, and somewhat ridiculous, "short stories" you posted to try to butter people up and fool them into believing you're doing some real evangelism.
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=432.msg7928#msg7928 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=432.msg7928#msg7928)
These short stories have NOTHING whatsoever to do with Bible doctrine or the Lord Jesus Christ. One of them is about getting a dog, another was about deer hunting, and another was about meeting Kent Hovind. Our church was talking about those "short stories" this morning, and we were completely baffled as to why you even posted these, let alone why you sent them to these "political prisoners" you mentioned. We have people in our church who actually do evangelism in prisons, meaning that they are there and interact with them face-to-face, and so if you thought you were going to fool someone with a document like this to try and paint a better outward appearance of yourself, you were sorely mistaken.
In the past three weeks, just by your writing and posting these things, I have gone from cautiously taking you at your word, to now not trusting almost anything you say. Confession of the truth is the only way to solve that problem, and I have little confidence that you will do so, due to the fact that you keep making things worse by hiding your prideful heart behind vain and swelling words of vanity.
For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
-2Pe 2:18
Personally, I believe you should depart and leave us in peace, but I will submit to Tim's patience on this for the time being.
-
The only reason I haven't banned him now is because his post was cut off and so he might have had more to say. I emailed him earlier but he has not answered back so I can only assume this is all he had and like I had said to him before, If he isn't going to post an answer I will ban him.
We've given him plenty of time and we're getting nowhere fast. And like Chris pointed out here, his 'short stories' post is ridiculous. I was the one that brought that up before the church this morning because of how appalled I was to see what William's "ministry" really was. Writing letters to prison inmates about how he found a dog and how he raises farm animals is not teaching them doctrine and it definitely does not bring them the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that they can be saved. The fact that William has no shame in calling that a 'ministry' is what really disgusts me.
Bottom line, William did not do as I had asked so I will keep my word and ban him. I allowed him to post this because I thought he was actually going to, at least, attempt to give part of an answer in his attachments. Even if he still had more to post later, I was going to let him do that. But these attachments are nothing more than a copy of the email conversation that Chris posted already. William did not post an answer and he wasted more time, so I'll make this super easy as I had said I would do.
-
Okay, like I said, I was leaving it to your decision. I'm blocking his email address too because I've had enough of his drama (from both him and Jeff), and I've got a lot of work to do, so I'm going to get back to it.
I'm glad to finally be back to the peace we had before this started, and can continue in Biblical discussion together.