False Prophets #2

0 views
Skip to first unread message

oldwetdog

unread,
Jan 4, 2004, 7:57:29 PM1/4/04
to
False Prophets #2

Exo. 7:10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as
the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and
before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the
magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but
Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.

In the example above, Moss's rod --by the poser of God-- became a serpent.
Then Pharaoh called in his sorcerers, and they also turned their rods
into serpents, "by whose power?" Satan has the power to turn a rod into
a serpent. Satan has the power to perform false signs and wonders.

If Satan's servants, the sorcerers, magicians and false prophets can
turn a rod into a snake, or "cure" a person with "gout," how shall we
recognize a false prophet from a prophet sent from God?

-----

The following quote was included in "false prophets #1"
I include it here since it is important to the conclusion.

Prophet

(Heb. nabi, from a root meaning "to bubble forth, as from a fountain,"
hence "to utter", comp. Ps. 45:1). This Hebrew word is the first and the
most generally used for a prophet. In the time of Samuel another word,
_ro'eh_, "seer", began to be used (1 Sam. 9:9). It occurs seven times in
reference to Samuel. Afterwards another word, _hozeh_, "seer" (2 Sam.
24:11), was employed. In 1 Ch. 29:29 all these three words are used:
"Samuel the seer (ro'eh), Nathan the prophet (nabi'), Gad the seer"
(hozeh). In Josh. 13:22 Balaam is called (Heb.) a _kosem_ "diviner," a
word used only of a false prophet.

The "prophet" proclaimed the message given to him, as the "seer" beheld
the vision of God. (See Num. 12:6, 8.) Thus a prophet was a spokesman
for God; he spake in God's name and by his authority (Ex. 7:1). He is
the mouth by which God speaks to men (Jer. 1:9; Isa. 51:16), and hence
what the prophet says is not of man but of God (2 Pet. 1:20, 21; comp.
Heb. 3:7; Acts 4:25; 28:25). Prophets were the immediate organs of God
for the communication of his mind and will to men (Deut. 18:18, 19). The
whole Word of God may in this general sense be spoken of as prophetic,
inasmuch as it was written by men who received the revelation they
communicated from God, no matter what its nature might be.

The foretelling of future events was not a necessary but only an
incidental part of the prophetic office. The great task assigned to the
prophets whom God raised up among the people was "to correct moral and
religious abuses, to proclaim the great moral and religious truths which
are connected with the character of God, and which lie at the foundation
of his government."

Any one being a spokesman for God to man might thus be called a prophet.
Thus Enoch, Abraham, and the patriarchs, as bearers of God's message
(Gen. 20:7; Ex. 7:1; Ps. 105:15), as also Moses (Deut. 18:15; 34:10;
Hos. 12:13), are ranked among the prophets. The seventy elders of Israel
(Num. 11:16-29), "when the spirit rested upon them, prophesied;" Asaph
and Jeduthun "prophesied with a harp" (1 Chr. 25:3).

Miriam and Deborah were prophetesses (Ex. 15:20; Judg. 4:4).
The title thus has a general application to all who have messages from
God to men. But while the prophetic gift was thus exercised from the
beginning, the prophetical order as such began with Samuel. Colleges,
"schools of the prophets", were instituted for the training of prophets,
who were constituted, a distinct order (1 Sam. 19:18-24; 2 Kings 2:3,
15; 4:38), which continued to the close of the Old Testament. Such
"schools" were established at Ramah, Bethel, Gilgal, Gibeah, and
Jericho. The "sons" or "disciples" of the prophets were young men (2
Kings 5:22; 9:1, 4) who lived together at these different "schools"
(4:38-41). These young men were taught not only the rudiments of secular
knowledge, but they were brought up to exercise the office of prophet,
"to preach pure morality and the heart-felt worship of Jehovah, and to
act along and co-ordinately with the priesthood and monarchy in guiding
the state aright and checking all attempts at illegality and tyranny."

In New Testament times the prophetical office was continued. Our Lord is
frequently spoken of as a prophet (Luke 13:33; 24:19). He was and is the
great Prophet of the Church. There was also in the Church a distinct
order of prophets (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20; 3:5), who made new
revelations from God. They differed from the "teacher," whose office it
was to impart truths already revealed.

First, looking at the scripture:

1 Cor. 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily
prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings,
helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all
workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all
interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more
excellent way.

Thus, in the Church, we may expect to find prophets, teachers, gifts of
healings, etc.

However, there is a problem. Mat. 24:24. 24 For there shall arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders;
insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

J'shua is talking about false prophets in the Church, who attempt to
deceive the very elect.

And John said, 1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as
ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many
antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

And:
1 Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

And:
1 Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in
the world.

And:
2 Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
antichrist.

and:
Rev. 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and
he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and
causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first
beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from
heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those
miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to
them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the
beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the
image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would
not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the
name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of
the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred
threescore and six.

And:
Rev. 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the
mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the
mouth of the false prophet.
14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth
unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to
the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Now, seeing as there is so much scripture of prophecy telling us what
prophets are, who they sent by; and that false prophets will come, the
question is "How shall we know the difference?"

If Christ warned that false prophets would attempt to deceive the very
elect, should we listen to a man who says we should not learn to tell
the difference between true or false prophets?

Let me say first, that the first thing a prophet will claim is the he
(or she) is from God. Alone, the claim that they came from God is
worthless. The proof must be in two pieces of evidence: First, a prophet
sent from God will not contradict His Word. Second, No prophecy of the
prophet sent from God will fail. If one (1) Prophecy is false, then this
is a false prophet.

Is there now on ACC a prophet who has given a prophecy in the last year
which has proved false?

And, since some "chruches" are not of God, and have in them false
teachers and corrupt leaders, then a prophet in that same "church" may
be false too. "May be false," I said. May be false if the prophet does
not warn the "Church of the error of their way and the error of the ways
of their corrupt and false leaders." Now, this will certainly cause some
to charge that the prophet, who warns of the error in this "church" is
causing "disruption" and is being "divisive."

Next: Contradicting the Word of God can come in some very thin slices. I
mean to say, that if the listener is not well versed in the scripture,
then he or she may be mislead by a quote, which is taken out of contest,
or is used to justify a course of action that contradicts Gods Will.

It is said of Satan, "The devil can quote scripture for his purpose..."
(sorry, lost the source, but you can find the actual event in scripture
to support the idea.)

Therefore, Quoting scripture is not anymore proof of a true teacher or a
true prophet than the claim "I was sent by God." Thus, when one clams to
be sent by God we must be all the more diligent to verify the scripture
quoted, how it is used, and the result (fruit) of its use. I mean, not
only may the quote be taken out of context, but also the meaning or
interpretation may contradict His Truth or His intended meaning. Last,
to what conduct or action did the quoted scripture lead? Was the conduct
or action something Christ would not do Himself if He were here now?

Since "The title thus has a general application to all who have messages
from God to men." So then, the leadership of the "church" may be false,
just as the teacher and prophet may be false. There is ample evidence of
this in our recorded history, however I will not name events or names
because is beyond the scope of this post.

This very day, the leadership of the "church" is being lead toward the
battle of Armageddon. This very day, the events leading to the
fulfillment of the prophecy of John are underway.

As Paul warned, 2 Thes. 22Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means:
for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and
that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

If there is to be a "falling away" "before that day," and if Christ
warned that false prophets would come seeking to deceive the very elect,
then is it possible, even certain, that these false prophets will enter
the Church and deceive many?

How shall we resist this "falling away" if we cannot recognize false
doctrine, false teachers, false leaders and false prophets?

If we place "unity at any cost" above "divisive truth" how shall we
learn of truth when we are in error?

Next: Taking Scripture out of context, or making a private
interpretation of Scripture for ones own purpose.

First, an un-moderated public forum is not a Church.

Second, a self appointed "leader" has no authority in a public forum to
determine who can be admitted, make posts, or be asked to leave.

Matt. 10:14 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words,
when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Mark 6:11 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye
depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony
against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for
Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Mark 5:15-17 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed
with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his
right mind: and they were afraid. And they that saw it told them how it
befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the
swine. And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.

The first thing I notice about this scripture is, that it is about the
unbeliever who asks the Christian to depart. Jesus himself honored the
request.

What I do not see, is that this teaches the Christian to request someone
he or she disagrees with to leave.

Now, let us not confuse the context or meaning of the Scriptures:

Titus 3:9-11 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and
contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and
vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition
reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being
condemned of himself.

-----
http://www.dictionary.com

her•e•tic
n.
A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly
dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

heretic

\Her"e*tic\, n. [L. haereticus, Gr. ? able to choose, heretical, fr. ?
to take, choose: cf. F. h['e]r['e]tique. See Heresy.] 1. One who holds
to a heresy; one who believes some doctrine contrary to the established
faith or prevailing religion.

A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.
--Titus iii. 10.

2. (R. C. Ch.) One who having made a profession of Christian belief,
deliberately and pertinaciously refuses to believe one or more of the
articles of faith ``determined by the authority of the universal
church.'' --Addis & Arnold.

Syn: Heretic, Schismatic, Sectarian.

Usage: A heretic is one whose errors are doctrinal, and usually of a
malignant character, tending to subvert the true faith. A schismatic is
one who creates a schism, or division in the church, on points of faith,
discipline, practice, etc., usually for the sake of personal
aggrandizement. A sectarian is one who originates or is an ardent
adherent and advocate of a sect, or distinct organization, which
separates from the main body of believers.
----------

This is not about the same subject, nor does it say the same thing as
the scripture above.

First, it is talking about a completely different situation. This (Titus
3:10) is talking about a member of, (or someone who has been admitted
to) the Congregation.

Second, the scripture does not say "eject," is says 'reject.' Now, we
might go from here to discuss "shunning,"

2 Titus 2:16, "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will
increase unto more ungodliness.

However, this is not talking about forcing someone to depart. Again, it
is talking about a member of the Congregation, and it is talking about
ignoring (to shun) them.

However, the most important point here, is that Paul is teaching Titus,
and laying down guidelines for the conduct of the Church. This does not
have anything to do with a Forum in a public place. On Mars Hill, Paul
engaged in a discussion with Greek intellectuals and pagans, as we may
do (taking "Mars Hill" to mean "the internet").

However, we do not have the right to request that those who disagree
with us leave a public forum. Using any of these scriptures to arrive at
that conclusion is to take the scripture out of its context, and apply
it in a way God did not intend.

Now: There is evidence (see copies of posts available in the NG) that a
certain individual has set himself up as "leader" of the NG, and that he
has asked others, whom he did not agree with, to leave.

I see three errors here.
First, he did not have the right to place himself in the position of
leader,
Second, he misinterpreted the Scripture, and quoted or posted these in
public,
Third, he misapplied a wrong definition of God's Word to (in the least)
wrongfully expel someone from a public forum.

The first is more or less normal human conduct, and results in all
public forums having a de facto leader. This is understandable, and can
be accepted or ignored.

The second is more critical, and should be addressed with this
individual, in public.

The third is a public sin, and a public sin (as is my understanding)
must be addressed in public.

However, I was not present for the expulsion of any individual, have no
direct evidence of those events, and must leave these charges of wrong
to the individuals who were present or wronged.

It is the second and more critical problem, which needs to be addressed
using the quotes available within the NG.

It is interesting that this person takes Scripture out of context to
prove his own point, and give himself authority, and then charges his
accusers of doing it to him.

--
oldwetdog
-----
"Sophistry is not a system of ideas, but a vicious attitude of the
mind." Jacques Maritain
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/

Griz

unread,
Jan 4, 2004, 9:52:20 PM1/4/04
to
>Next: Taking Scripture out of context, or making a private
>interpretation of Scripture for ones own purpose.
>
>First, an un-moderated public forum is not a Church.
>
>Second, a self appointed "leader" has no authority in a public forum to
>determine who can be admitted, make posts, or be asked to leave.

You're raving against yourself Glenn

Were you not the one who just asked myself, Vera, TBC, and Fervent to leave
and go elsewhere?

>It may be a good idea for TBC, you, Griz and the building crew to
>actually start a moderated NG where you can manage it as you see fit,
>rather than to attempt to establish your vision here. I think Vera may
>be more comfortable in such an enviornment.
>
>--
>oldwetdog

If you can show Scriptural precident for this type of 'christian coup', then
I will listen.

Otherwise, I would admonish you in Jesus name to not just quote God's word
against others -- but to live it yourself as well. The idea is that when a
group has taken the time and effort to step out in Jesus' name and carve a
niche in Usenet for Him, that you do not come along after the fact and try
to take it over! That's not just unsubstanciated from Scripture, it's
downright worldly.
If you don't like what has been built up here, then please start your own
group. It's actually quite easy. There you can rave against false prophets
to the exclusion of the rest of the Gospel of Christ if you wish - and you
will probably have a lot of followers too because there are a lot of
finger-pointing christians out there.

Since you and Mike and the other apologetics are the latest arrivers, it
would probably be good if you started your own group elsewhere and leave
this one in peace.

Your stance is but the smallest part of the full Christianlife - judging
from the amount of time comparitively Jesus spent on it. It would have been
nice if you could have added that touch to the group while remaining
in-balance with all other aspects of Christianlife -- but if you wish to
specialize in blowing sirens about others and praising your right to freedom
to the exclusion of all else, then it would be good for you to split from
the body that existed here before you came along.

Yours in Christ,

Griz


oldwetdog

unread,
Jan 4, 2004, 10:19:12 PM1/4/04
to
Griz wrote:

--
oldwetdog
-----
"Sophistry is not a system of ideas, but a vicious attitude of the
mind." Jacques Maritain
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/

.

oldwetdog

unread,
Jan 4, 2004, 10:21:30 PM1/4/04
to
Griz wrote:

Oooops, reading and hit a wrong button, hope it does not disrupt post
continuity....
(which button did I press? I gotta figure this out...)

be right back...


--
oldwetdog
-----
"Sophistry is not a system of ideas, but a vicious attitude of the
mind." Jacques Maritain
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/

.

oldwetdog

unread,
Jan 4, 2004, 11:15:39 PM1/4/04
to
Griz wrote:

>>Next: Taking Scripture out of context, or making a private
>>interpretation of Scripture for ones own purpose.
>>
>>First, an un-moderated public forum is not a Church.
>>
>>Second, a self appointed "leader" has no authority in a public forum to
>>determine who can be admitted, make posts, or be asked to leave.
>
>
> You're raving against yourself Glenn
>
> Were you not the one who just asked myself, Vera, TBC, and Fervent to leave
> and go elsewhere?
>
>
>>It may be a good idea for TBC, you, Griz and the building crew to
>>actually start a moderated NG where you can manage it as you see fit,
>>rather than to attempt to establish your vision here. I think Vera may
>>be more comfortable in such an enviornment.
>>
>>--
>>oldwetdog
>

Great cut and paste, Griz. But you missed something, please read it
again, in the context of the entire thread.

>
> If you can show Scriptural precident for this type of 'christian coup', then
> I will listen.

No Thanks. No "coup" intended. You are welcome to stay, Griz, under the
terms stated. I do not seek leadership, and I will not accept leadership
of an unmoderated public form if offered.

>
> Otherwise, I would admonish you in Jesus name to not just quote God's word
> against others --

You should not "admonish me in the name of Jesus" if you cannot live it
yourself. May I please have your example? Please lead by example. Don't
talk it Griz, walk it.

> but to live it yourself as well. The idea is that when a
> group has taken the time and effort to step out in Jesus' name and carve a
> niche in Usenet for Him, that you do not come along after the fact and try
> to take it over! That's not just unsubstanciated from Scripture, it's
> downright worldly.

Griz, how would you describe your demonstrated lust for power?
I have no interest in leading this unmoderated public forum, but you
fight like a demon for control! Is David your example?

> If you don't like what has been built up here, then please start your own
> group. It's actually quite easy. There you can rave against false prophets
> to the exclusion of the rest of the Gospel of Christ if you wish -

How very interesting: would you please post copies of my last ten or
twenty posts? Give me 90 days, the same as I give you: can you find no
posts of mine where I support my brothers or sisters in need? If not,
then how will you explain your post noting my easy intergration into the
group? (Shall I quote it to remind you of your own words?)

> and you
> will probably have a lot of followers too because there are a lot of
> finger-pointing christians out there.
>
> Since you and Mike and the other apologetics are the latest arrivers, it

Me and Who? You don't have a funny bone bone in your body, but you are
funny! "Aplolgetics," what kinda problem do you have with "apologetics?"

> would probably be good if you started your own group elsewhere and leave
> this one in peace.
>
> Your stance

You have no idea of what I stand for. You only notice that I stand
against private interpretations of Scripture, against self-appointed
leadership of an unmoderated public forum, against self-appointed
leaders who use scripture for their own gain, against self-appointed
leaders who think they have the god given right to judge others, who by
whatever means expell those who disagree with their own agenda.

> is but the smallest part of the full Christianlife -

So what does that have to do with the reality of our day? Nothing. What
are you suggesting? That others ignore false prophets? OR that they only
apportion 10% of their whole life defending themselves from lies? Come
clean Griz.

> judging from the amount of time comparitively Jesus spent on it.

> It would have been nice if you could have added that touch to the group while
> remaining in-balance with all other aspects of Christianlife --

> but if you wish to
> specialize in blowing sirens about others and praising your right to freedom
> to the exclusion of all else, then it would be good for you to split from
> the body that existed here before you came along.
>
> Yours in Christ,
>
> Griz
>

Tell me, Griz, why are you so agianst your followers being able to
identify a false prophet? Is it, perhapse, that you are a false prophet?

O.k., let us try this one more time....

To be continued.

Mark and Bev Tindall

unread,
Jan 4, 2004, 10:18:44 PM1/4/04
to
"Fuehrer Grizzle Guts" rote:

> Were you not the one who just asked myself, Vera, TBC, and Fervent to
leave
> and go elsewhere?

&


> If you can show Scriptural precident for this type of 'christian coup',
then
> I will listen.


To Grizzle Guts (Craig) ...IN YOUR OWN WORDS ....

On behalf of all the Christians you have persecuted and plonked on this
unmoderated public Christian forum you are formally asked to leave and never
return.

A majority of those gathered here to discuss Christian life have agreed
that your authoritarian behaviour is not welcomed here. Bring yourself to
leave this electronic unmoderated public forum which you never had any claim
over to begin with. You made ACC a place where Christians from any
denomination were afraid to post. As a result you are not welcomed here on
ACC.

You said "every time someone bid Jesus to leave, he did." He didn't try
to maneuver with words, he didn't say "yea, but", he didn't come up with
clever reasons to remain - even when he had every right to remain." (Mark
5) Go Grizzle Guts! This door of ministry is closed to you and your Pente
Usurpers. Your presence here has been more of a hindrance than a help. You
shoot down those engaged in discussion on Christian life and encourage the
trolls.

The True, Only Begotten Son of God - during his ministry years here on earth
- did not hesitate to depart from whence he was urged to depart; even by
those who lacked full understanding of who He was. Can you, Grizzle Guts, do
the same? ACC formally requests that you leave our region.

If you remain here, we will expect Scriptural precedent for why you do not
need to follow the example of Jesus Christ in this particular situation.
Bafflegab, nitpicking, dancing with words, name-calling, and
self-aggrandizement are not valid points to put forth.


Check your Bible Grizzle guts (the big book-like thingy with the dust on
it).
Mark 5:17-18 - even as Jesus was entering the boat to leave - after being
asked only once.
Matt 10:14 - whoever does not receive your or heed your words, leave!
Mark 6:11 - anyplace that does not receive you or listen to your words,
leave!
Luke 9:5 - as for those who do not welcome you, leave!

We as a group reject what you offer. Your ministry is not accepted,
required, or welcomed here.

Leave our region.
Leave.
Sail away even as Christ did as an example to you personally.
You are officially asked to leave Grizzle Guts.
You have been given Scriptural precedent to do so.
Leave Grizzle Guts, we implore you.


****************************************************************************


Griz

unread,
Jan 5, 2004, 10:34:03 PM1/5/04
to
>Great cut and paste, Griz. But you missed something, please read it
>again, in the context of the entire thread.

Sorry Glenn.
Guess I allowed myself to get caught up in the spirit of your posting style
of late!

Yours in Christ,

Griz


oldwetdog

unread,
Jan 5, 2004, 11:42:54 PM1/5/04
to
Griz wrote:

Griz wrote:

>>Griz,
>>This is a wonderful beginning!
>>It is, I believe, "just" a beginning because it is in such general
>>terms. There are specific wrongs, things you have done or said in
>>public, of which you have been accused in public, and it would seem
>>necessary to either acknowledge these wrongs of a specific nature in
>>public, or deny them.
>
>
> Hi Glenn.
> Very interesting my friend. I take it you believe that I am the festering
> sore?

Friend, did I say that? Why would you assume it?

>
>
>>For my part, you have not wronged me.
>>However, your public conduct as if you are an ordained leader of the NG,
>>and some of the statements you have made to others in the last 90 days,
>>is such that I cannot condone by remaining silent.
>
>
>>Griz, I ask you in public,
>
>
> Yes, I notice! Something in Matt 18 comes to mind.
>
>
>>Do you renounce any claim to leadership of this public forum?
>>Do you renounce any right to limit any post, poster or subject?
>>Do you renounce any right or authority to ask another to leave this
>>public forum?
>>Will you make a public apology to those whom you have wronged by this
>>conduct?
>
>
>
> I will answer this list of charges Glenn, but based on the provision
at the
> bottom of this post.

I do not agree to any provision set by you. Nor do you need to reply to
anything I post.

>
> 1. The group is God's Glenn.

"The group" is an un-moderated public forum.

> I have never said or implied otherwise.

You have claimed that ACC is a Church. It is not.

> He sends the
> ones with the gifts He desires - whether prophets or exhorters or
teachers
> or speakers of law -- or leaders. That is also a gift Glenn; and not a
> dirty word.

True, leadership is not a dirty word. However, a leader who lies in the
name of Jesus, or performs other un-Godly acts, is not from God. Hitler
was the leader of Germany, which proves that not all leaders are sent
from God.

> He's the one who grants gifts, and as I said leadership is a gift and
here
> is where I was placed when the group was dead. Would you have me
renounce
> what God has given or the path He has selected? That is not our place
>
> Remember Glenn, that you have heard a lot of repeated playing with
context
> from the past, and false accusations about things I have not said -- and

Do you suggest that I, and/or other visitors to this un-moderated public
forum are not smart enough to use google and verify the truth and
context of your words? It is extremely interesting to me that one who
takes scripture out of context would complain about his own words "being
taken out of context." Well, at least, it would seem to prove you
understand the term.

> something that is repeated often enough can seem to take on the
appearance
> of truth.

> Can you honestly say that your "urge to speak" has not been influenced

<See post at top.>
>>>However, your public conduct as if you are an ordained leader of the NG,
>>>and some of the statements you have made to others in the last 90 days,
>>>is such that I cannot condone by remaining silent.

> in any way by this persistent warping of truth that comes not from above?

So, are saying that ALL the posts containing evidence (even your own
posts) of your wrongs are lies?

> There is also the reality of growth.

Let us not sidetrack the issue. Growth, and/or the quality of that
growth, is not the question. And, growth of any kind is not
justification for lies in the name of Jesus.

> Taking a look over the past
> 2 years, can you honestly say that there has been no growth in how I
> administer the gifts I've been given?
> I would ask that if you would use the past against me, that you
provide not
> just the words Glenn, but the full spiritual context of what the
group was
> experiencing at the time. That is fair to ask.

What would be fair, Griz, is for you to request the presence of those
whom you have wronged. Let us consider a way whereby that may be done.

>
> 2. What supernatural power have I ever had to limit any post, poster or
> subject - or to cause them to leave?

Let us allow those who claim wrong submit their own evidence.

> What I have done however is ask that those claiming Christ, act
accordingly,

This would be a good idea if you, and those you profess to lead, did as
you preach.

> and provided contextual Scripture to
> the best of my ability to show where they may not be. My grasp of
Scripture
> is by no means complete, so I listen carefully to how they respond
and what
> they offer. If they don't honor Scripture (the full context of it), I
> will ask in public, the same as you. I experience the same drive to hold
> them accountable in a Scriptural way. But that is where many would
call me
> criminal; while I'm sure you will be praised.

What is this? Ridicule, or Martyrdom? So you ridicule those who see your
conduct as criminal (sic) and claim martyrdom for yourself? (I never
said your conduct was "criminal" that is your term. But, since you see
it as "criminal" perhaps it would be a good idea to ask the Au and Ca
authorities to examine the evidence?)

> If someone is claiming the name of Christ and is repeatedly acting as the
> factious or divisive ones against this established fellowship, then I
will
> ask them to consider taking it elsewhere.

"This fellowship..." First, is an un-moderated public forum. If someone
disagrees with you, then they are being "factious or divisive..."

> That is a godly request as Scripture specifically deals with these
things.

You misinterpret scripture. There is no scripture which gives you the
right to ask someone to leave an unmoderated public forum.

> How they respond (and they do have several options that will allow
them to
> remain and still honor God), will determine whether their actions are of
> Christ or of antichrist.

Here you have revealed a truth: "options that will allow them to
remain..." So if they reject Your options, You will not "allow them to
remain..." And, You decide someone is an antichrist if they disagree
with you. Mindful, of course, that you will receive the judgment you give.

> The self may flare Glenn but in the long run, someone in whom the
Spirit of God dwells,

You pass judgment? If someone disagrees with you, then in your judgment
they are without the Spirit of God? Have you actually made this
statement in public?

> who is shown they are actually hurting the body,

We will not sidetrack the issue. We are not talking about "The Body," or
about wrong done by others, we are discussing your misconduct in an
un-moderated public forum.

> will have no choice but follow the examples of Scripture. If the
Spirit proves

So now, having stated your position, you are saying that You "have no
Choice but to follow the examples of Scripture, and if you refuse to do
so, then you are not "someone in whom the Spirit of God dwells?"

> absent, then they are not of the fellowship

This is an un-moderated public forum.

> and Scripture is again clear on our response to them.

There is no scripture dictating that you eject someone (who disagrees
with your private interpretation of Scripture) from an unmoderated
public forum.

> This ministry and fellowship is old, by NG standards Glenn. It is
> established and was bearing fruit until a few came along to set
themselves
> up as the factious and rebellious troublemakers

This is an effort at misdirection: However, for a moment: Let us look at
the statements of "those who came along..." Why did they "come along?"
What did they say was their reason for their posts? Let us consider the
truth of their accusations, if they be true, or not? Still, it is
sidetracking the issue: the issue is your conduct, not the conduct of
others.

> against what already
> existed - contrary to Scripture. Seeing that, and having a gift and a
> burden of leadership, how could I have done anything else? They were
asked
> to leave so there would not be a fractured witness to those who came
along
> wishing to seek Christ. That 'witness' might service personal pride, but
> not the
> Kingdom of God. Considering there were literally hundreds of other
forums
> they could choose, and a limitless number they themselves could create to
> worship God as they saw fit, the request was not out of order.
> Please remember, such burdens to service God's Kingdom come not by our
> choice Glenn, but by God's. You feel you have a burden to convict me
> publically on these things. Is that any less "from God"? If you
could back this
> stance from

A very nice distraction! Nevertheless, let us examine its other side:
will you suggest that a Christian, after the model of Paul, does not
have the responsibility to confront one who misinterprets Scripture? And
what of John, or Jude?

> Scripture, how would you respond if someone asked you not to
discharge your
> duty before God, then proceeded to mobilize people against you over time,
> holding neither truth nor context as any object?

Another effort at misdirection: However, do you claim there is "No
Truth" in the posts of "those who came along?" Still, not being turned
aside, it makes no difference if the conduct of others was in error; you
have already determined their punishment: What we are discussing YOUR
conduct.

>
> Could you please name these people I have wronged Glenn, and how;

This is another effort at misdirection. Still, some names of those who
claim wrong against you are in the posts of "Those who came along..."
However, to remain with the issue: it is not the names of others we
need, it is your name, and your conduct we are considering.

> and maybe we can straighten this out and get this group off it's kick of
> revelling in past mistakes of others and onto a more godly path?
> If there are genuine wrongs, I am willing to make ammends as per
Scripture.

"This group" is an un-moderated public forum. However, if your wrongs
(against individuals?) are not "genuine" then you will continue on your
previous path? That is not the point of my post.

> But before I am judged, I would like to hear more about where you Glenn,
> perceive the trespasses to be and how you suggest they be remedied.
>
> You've already said they are not against you; and you have not done this
> thing privately first,

This is a lie, and you know it. It is, in fact, your first wrong
committed against me.

This is a willful misdirection of the issue: Your wrongs were done in
public and are a matter of public record, and your accusers have posted
their evidence in public, and I made my request in public.

> so Mat 18:15 will not be applying I guess. Neither have you stood
> in as peace-maker while various disagreements were going on.

This is another willful misdirection of the Issue. My conduct is not
related to your public conduct, your public statements or your public
wrongs.

> It also seems that you hold me alone in trespass here, with none
others mentioned.

True, I did not mention the misconduct of others. It would seem fair to
consider the conduct on one individual at a time. However, first, if you
wish, you may name those to whom you wish to shift the blame for your
own conduct. Second, the leader (self-proclaimed, or as acknowledged by
those being lead,) is responsible for the conduct of those he claims to
lead. If you consider that unjustified, then you may claim martyrdom, or
name those you wish to implicate.

>
> So before we go any further with these proceedings, I would ask you
by what
> standards you will be judging me in this trial?

I am not your judge, I am not conducting a trial, nor will I be passing
judgment. The evidence against you has been presented in public, and if
not presented by others, has been presented by yourself.

But, and yet, after your long post and my long reply, I ask again:
Griz,
Do you renounce any claim to leadership of this public forum?
Do you renounce any right to limit any post, poster or subject?
Do you renounce any right or authority to ask another to leave this
public forum?
Will you make a public apology to those whom you have wronged by your
conduct?

And, after your long post and my long reply, I now ask:
Griz, will you stop misquoting Scripture,
Stop taking Scripture out of its context,
Stop giving Scripture meaning not contained within it and its context,
Stop using your private interpretation of Sc ripture to enforce your
personal opinion,
Stop accusing those who disagree with you (or your personal
interpretation of Scripture) of "being without the Spirit of God?"
-----

Seems you've been ignoring this post.
So, Griz, lets see if you can give an honest reply now.
Then I'll attempt to make a civil reply,
and maybe we can get this behind us.

Mark and Bev Tindall

unread,
Jan 6, 2004, 12:34:30 AM1/6/04
to
Welcome to the Free ACC: "That Sweet Forum of Liberty!"

1. This is a public unmoderated newsgroup.
2. Griz is an arrogant, deluded quack.

Griz

unread,
Jan 7, 2004, 12:55:54 PM1/7/04
to
REmember what I shared about focus-shifting and the evil one who is the
father of that.

Your post is very long, but not once do you return the focus to Christ.

I will speak with you, only according to our proper focus.

Heb 12:1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding
us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily
entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
Heb 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who
for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has
sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

If you have a godly concern to raise with me in a godly way, then you will
have to e-mail me. But if all you want to do is shift the focus from Christ
then please do that in public where all might see.

Yours in Christ's service,

Griz


Mike Bugal

unread,
Jan 7, 2004, 5:54:13 PM1/7/04
to
"Griz" <gr...@delete.cois.on.ca> wrote in message
news:vvojih...@corp.supernews.com...

Anybody have any idea who the false shepherd is railing against this time?

His and yours,

Mike Bugal
Heartland Chapel Ministries
http://www.heartlandchapel.org


Ben Mitts

unread,
Jan 7, 2004, 6:16:47 PM1/7/04
to Mike Bugal
Mike Bugal wrote:

Looks like to me Griz wants peace and
wishes to discuss it in private with the
discussion centered in Christ! looks like
OWD has a decision to make!

Sounds like a very good idea to me!

--
May God continue to richly Bless you!

Peace and Love in The Name of Jesus Christ!

Sincerely,
Ben mitts

From The Word of God: And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up
that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life."

http://acc-growing-deeper.de

oldwetdog

unread,
Jan 7, 2004, 7:31:53 PM1/7/04
to
Ben Mitts wrote:

Griz does not want peace, he wants control.
I will discuss *nothing* with Griz in private, and any email I receive
from him, or anyone who wishes to negotiate for him, will be posted.

Nor will I participate in any post on ACC begun by Griz which is
anything less than an admission that he is not the leader/moderator of
ACC, and has no right to determine the proper subject of discussion.

Peace is within Griz's reach.
He has a decision to make.

Ben Mitts

unread,
Jan 7, 2004, 8:55:27 PM1/7/04
to
oldwetdog wrote:

How many times must he state that he is the not
the leader/moderator of ACC, the building crew, yes
but that of The ACC NG pe se no! That is someone
else's pipe dream. You believe to many of the wrong
people out here who claim otherwise! Their problem
is probably based in the fact Griz tells them what
they should hear, not what they want to hear! He
doesn't tickle their ears with fancy dancy Worldly
musings, fables, and man made delusions of theolo-
gical grandeur! What he says dont make them "feel
good" so they try to destroy him! In essence if they
are told what they want to hear they love ya! If no!,
well one can see for themselves what will happen!

He leads the building crew because we made him the
leader! He will give it over to any of us that ask- but
we dont ask!

Griz has never tried to take control of this NG nor that
of the building crew!

Griz has never stated Openly he is leader/ moderator of
this group nor any other group I know of!

Where did you get such nonsense? The fact he is accus-
ed of what you claim came probably from DMPP and MBT
Possibly MBT picked it because they are trolls- thats what
trolls do! Some others who have decided to break up the
building crew because we disliked the way they come at
us! Plain and simple!

This is an unmoderated group and always will be! Not one
of us denies this- let alone Griz!

Griz is leader of our ACC group but does it reluctantly in that
we needed some one to lead and he seemed to be the only
one experienced enough to do at that time

The trolls try/tried to take over control of every thing out here
even over us believers, and we resisted. The rest is history!

I find it very odd that you dont take on MBT and DMMP in the
way you do Griz! Are you afraid of them! Maybe so OWD, they
will fight you tooth and nail, so maybe thats why they are left
alone! BTW, I notice they started their own group out here!
Shouldn't Mark be assailed by you the same as you do Griz?

Your unwillingness to be forgiven is on your hand- no one elses!
Dont withhold it for too long- The Word of God is very clear about
an unforgiving heart!

Griz does what Christ what He wants done. Just as Griz does
what he is called to do, all the trolls and unbelievers- and what
have you- do for satan.

Are you with us or against us?!

Bye!

Mike Barefield

unread,
Jan 7, 2004, 9:24:04 PM1/7/04
to

"oldwetdog" <old*wet*dog@netscapeD0Tnet> wrote in message
news:vvp97sd...@corp.supernews.com...

Sounds like the approach Mike Bugal used on Bill Kelly and we know where
that has lead.

If we can only reconcile with other on "our" terms, is there any
reconciliation?

Can there only be forgiveness if some one asks for it or if someone asks the
"right" way?

The demands required for this war to end are not based on scripture. If you
disagree, please provide the scripture and I will be happy to change my
mind.

Everyone here should read their posts and ask themselves whether Christ is
glorified in their writing before they hit send, IMHO.

thanks for listeing.

oldwetdog

unread,
Jan 7, 2004, 9:51:50 PM1/7/04
to
Good-bye


--
oldwetdog
-----
"Sophistry is not a system of ideas, but a vicious attitude of the
mind." Jacques Maritain
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/

.

Mark and Bev Tindall

unread,
Jan 7, 2004, 9:19:58 PM1/7/04
to
"Griz" wrote:

> Your post is very long, but not once do you return the focus to Christ.
> I will speak with you, only according to our proper focus.

The focus of this newsgroup is Christian life. One must use one's God-given
brain.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages