NO COVERUP! READ!
CCNETAdmin
Hello brothes, sisters, pastors and general users...
There has been a debate regarding Hank as well as commentaries on Calvary
Chapel Pastors and Affiliate ministers.
You may have seen my responses... and I wanted to make something clear.
You know how issues can be clouded with all sorts of misconception.. so
this should make the position of the administration's clear.
Calvary Chapel, Pastor Chuck Smith, nor any other Calvary Chapel Pastor
regard this internet newsgroup as an approved ministry of Calvary Chapel
by Big Calvary or Chuck himself. Calvary Chapel itself makes no
connection with their ministries or the dealings in this conference.
Although I am active in Calvary Chapel Ministries, I too do not claim any
Administrative "hold", "controlling force", or otherwise in this area.
What I am here for is to assist in moderating an area that cannot really
be moderated. How's that? I am assisting Pastor Lloyd Pulley and other
Calvary Chapel servants in the faith to present to you Biblical guidlines
regarding how we ought to communicate with one another. There are
specific things we can do in regards to this endeavor, but nothing is
enforceable (with the exceptions of reporting crimes to the internet
providers and to the authorites).
Hank, Chuck Smith, Chuck Missler, whoever... you will see all types of
posts from individuals claiming that it is their "job" or focus to expose
these brethren to you. You will find that I will respond by asking them to
refrain from doing such. This is not to cover anything up... not to
censor their opportunities of free communication.. but to assist in
edifying, lifting up, and encouraging others here in the Lord. We are
presenting Biblical guidelines on how to fellowship, where bitterness,
anger, wrath, gossip, evil speaking, and other attributes of the World are
to remain distant to our communication.
Jesus commented directly on how to act when you are presented with someone
who has supposedly sinned. We are NOT to cast stones. We can all
contemplate on what Jesus must have been writing in the sand when He said,
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone
at her." {John 8:7}.
Psalm 1 states that there will be those that ask you to lie in wait for
your brothers blood.. and lists their reward. Don't follow after such
things, but be that tree planted by the flowing rivers, always drinking of
the Word of God and behaving as He would have us represent Him.
That is the position here by those attempting to "lead the Flock"... to
encourage you to follow Biblical guidelines regarding your communication.
COVERUP?
I personally don't know the specifics regarding Hank and others.. and
don't care to know. So... it is actually impossible for me to cover
anything up, seeing how I don't know "what" to cover up.
Censorship?
We are here to present the Bible.. and it's teachings. We will speak out
against the ungodlly acts of others, and ask that they seek God in their
life and reconsider their actions in an area designed for Christ centered
fellowship. Of course there will be those who are here specifically to
chide you.. to encourage you to follow their ways.. but that will always
be with us. They will confuse the issues, and veer from our presentation
of what God would have us do into something that restricts their freedoms.
You will be able to see these individuals by their fruit. They will
ridicule the Word of God, and think it fun and exciting to mock scripture.
They think you will find it amusing, but they only show their own
foolishness.
Please be mindful of these things.. and.. be strong.. dilligent in the
Word, and faithful in your communication.
I am here to discuss scripture if anyone feels that this FOCUS for Christ
here is unbiblical. Gossip, slander, and other such devices of the devil
will be discouraged.
Please enjoy this Calvary Chapel focused area as best you can in light of
the stuff you have to wade through. We are nearing the long awaited
completion of the Calvary Chapel Listserver, as the software and hardware
is just about ready to go.
May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be with you all.. amen
John Scudder RN
Administrator: Calvary Chapel Internet and Computer Ministries
Ministry: ccnet...@aol.com WEB: http://www.khouse.org/calvarynet
Personal: john.s...@kandy.com Voice info: 619.630-0340 BBS -7437
Administrative Pastor: Ralph Wood; Calvary Chapel Oceanside, Calif.
Sojourner
Those that will find fault, will find fault. They that accuse will
continue to accuse, See that none render evil for evil unto any; But let us
ever follow that which is good, both among ourselves, and to all men.(1
Thes. 5:15)
On May 27, 1996 09:46:29 in article <NO COVERUP! READ!>,
Amen
Let us continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship,
and breaking of bread, and in prayers.(Acts 2:42)
Even so Lord Jesus come Quickly.
--
Thanks,
Keith
[:-) \o/
Micah 6:8
Deana M. Holmes
Ok, yet again we get someone who is kind of in a position of authority
to attempt to corral this newsgroup into something that he can manage,
something that he can present to Chuck, Hank, etc., as positive
(whatever the hell that means).
ccnet...@aol.com (CCNETAdmin) wrote:
>Hello brothes, sisters, pastors and general users...
Mmmmm. Wonder if CCNETAdmin includes me in this salutation?
>There has been a debate regarding Hank as well as commentaries on Calvary
>Chapel Pastors and Affiliate ministers.
I find it interesting. It's obvious that Hank Hanegraaf is well known
among Calvary Chapelites because he's referred to with his first name
(kind of like the evangelical Christian version of Madonna or Cher or
Diana?). And yes, there has been some information presented. But as
of yet, I have not seen anyone from Calvary Chapel in any sort of
position of authority attempt to answer the very serious charges that
have been laid here.
>You may have seen my responses... and I wanted to make something clear.
>You know how issues can be clouded with all sorts of misconception.. so
>this should make the position of the administration's clear.
>Calvary Chapel, Pastor Chuck Smith, nor any other Calvary Chapel Pastor
>regard this internet newsgroup as an approved ministry of Calvary Chapel
>by Big Calvary or Chuck himself. Calvary Chapel itself makes no
>connection with their ministries or the dealings in this conference.
Why, how big of you. Then why are you trying to control things here?
(BTW, this is a Usenet newsgroup, and not a "conference." Please get
your terminology straight.)
>Although I am active in Calvary Chapel Ministries, I too do not claim any
>Administrative "hold", "controlling force", or otherwise in this area.
>What I am here for is to assist in moderating an area that cannot really
>be moderated.
Look. You can't moderate this newsgroup. This is alt.* and it is an
unmoderated newsgroup. Please face up to this. I've only been trying
to point this out to you for days now.
You really ought to nip over to alt.religion.scientology. First of
all, you should be prepared for the shitstorm of posts. It seems that
the Church <spit> of $cientology has been so unhappy with the exposes
of its perfidious behaviour that it has decided to stuff the newsgroup
full of these posts from a book called "What is Scientology?" Not
just once, not just twice, but in some cases, fifteen to twenty times
in the last 8 days.
I'd really hate for a.r.c.c-c to become like a.r.s (although I have
every belief that a.r.s will be set aright once the long weekend here
in America is over). What I am trying to do is point out to you
stalwart Calvary Chapelites that you guys have got to do whatever it
takes to rent, buy, beg, borrow or steal a clue. *If you try to cover
up the misdeeds of your leaders, especially on the organized anarchy
that is alt.* on Usenet, it WILL come out.* Guaranteed.
>How's that? I am assisting Pastor Lloyd Pulley and other
>Calvary Chapel servants in the faith to present to you Biblical guidlines
>regarding how we ought to communicate with one another.
Excuuuuuse me. Again, this is alt.* . The guidelines are pretty
simple. Don't spam. Don't post advertisements except where
advertisements are permitted. And don't post offtopic posts. It does
NOT include some sort of human-made alleged "biblical standard."
So far, I haven't seen Ken Smith or myself or any of the other people
here who have challenged Calvary Chapel to clean up its act in various
ways to have violated any of those things.
>There are
>specific things we can do in regards to this endeavor, but nothing is
>enforceable (with the exceptions of reporting crimes to the internet
>providers and to the authorites).
Pardon my language, but "Good Fucking Luck." As a veteran of the war
between the Net and $cientology, I can tell you that there is not a
whole hell of a lot you can do to shut people up who are on topic.
Gee, we can't even get a 1500 post per day spamstorm shut down in
alt.religion.scientology and *you're* talking about crimes?
Look. I'm not afraid of you guys. I've been threatened by the PROS.
One Saturday five weeks ago I received a letter via FedEx from a
Church <spit> of $cientology lawyer in New York City threatening me
with a lawsuit for my parodies of the $uper $ecret $acred $criptures.
Over the next three days, I received three more letters. Also,
because I archive the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology (and my
archive is currently approaching 500 Mb), there is a very good chance
that I will be subpoenaed quite soon by either the Cult or the people
who are defending themselves against the Cult in lawsuits now in
progress in California.
So, to put it bluntly, your vague threats of legal action don't scare
me a damned bit.
>Hank, Chuck Smith, Chuck Missler, whoever... you will see all types of
>posts from individuals claiming that it is their "job" or focus to expose
>these brethren to you. You will find that I will respond by asking them to
>refrain from doing such.
Why? It's on topic for this newsgroup. You are being disingenuous.
>This is not to cover anything up... not to
>censor their opportunities of free communication..
BULLSHIT. (Sorry if I offended you, dear sir, but the truth needs to
be told.)
>but to assist in
>edifying, lifting up, and encouraging others here in the Lord. We are
>presenting Biblical guidelines on how to fellowship, where bitterness,
>anger, wrath, gossip, evil speaking, and other attributes of the World are
>to remain distant to our communication.
Oh dear. Gee, was Paul wrong when in Galatians he told his readers
that he seriously chastised Peter for abandoning the gospel of the
grace of Jesus Christ? Was Paul wrong when in certain letters (such
as to the Corinthians) he told his readers to get their affairs in
order?
Your request is a stark reminder of the problem facing Calvary Chapel
and other groups of similar content. You want a Jesus that you can
manipulate and hold at arm's length. You want a Jesus who will
validate your own beliefs. You want a fuzzy-wuzzy Jesus who will pat
you on the head and say, "Yes, it's OK to have a newsgroup that's
pretty much 'alt.religion.christian.hide-your-light-under-a-bushel.'"
Let me remind you that the Jesus you *supposedly* worship is not a
namby-pamby type. I'm sure that if He were here now, He'd wade into
the fray and tell it like it is. (He didn't seem to have a problem
with telling the Pharisees and the Sadducees and even his own
disciples the way it was.) If you really took your critics, myself
included, seriously, you'd answer the charges. So far, all I've seen
from you guys is inveighlings, threats and avoidance.
<snipt>
>COVERUP?
>I personally don't know the specifics regarding Hank and others.. and
>don't care to know. So... it is actually impossible for me to cover
>anything up, seeing how I don't know "what" to cover up.
Well, then, why don't you find out? Gee, is this so difficult? The
posts are here, the accusations are here....You're a Calvary Chapel
leader, can't you call up Hank or Chuck and ask them what's going on?
Get a statement to be posted to the Net? How hard is this? Or are
you going to keep thumping us over the heads with your 10 lb. leather
Bible?
>Censorship?
>We are here to present the Bible.. and it's teachings. We will speak out
>against the ungodlly acts of others, and ask that they seek God in their
>life and reconsider their actions in an area designed for Christ centered
>fellowship.
No sir. This is, again (HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SPELLED
OUT?), alt.* . See above what is permitted and what is not permitted
in alt.* . This newsgroup is not your private playground. Get used
to it.
>Of course there will be those who are here specifically to
>chide you.. to encourage you to follow their ways.. but that will always
>be with us.
So far, the only thing that I have done is to note that this is an
alt.* group and to encourage the people here to ask probing questions.
I have also been very critical of Calvary Chapel, because the
semi-official representatives seem to want to avoid these very serious
issues that have been brought up.
>They will confuse the issues, and veer from our presentation
>of what God would have us do into something that restricts their freedoms.
>You will be able to see these individuals by their fruit. They will
>ridicule the Word of God, and think it fun and exciting to mock scripture.
> They think you will find it amusing, but they only show their own
>foolishness.
Sir, I have not mocked the scriptures. I, in fact, have quoted
Scripture to show where you're dead wrong. But, to use a phrase that
we've used a lot in alt.religion.scientology when dealing with $cieno
shills, you guys have been "non-confront." (And, yup, that means
exactly what you think it means.)
Besides, you aren't making very many friends when you say that what I
and others are posting is "foolishness." I suggest you get off your
pious high horse and reconsider. In using that sort of language you
are not reflecting Jesus. All you're reflecting is your frustration
with us, and so you use some pious-sounding words to try and hit back
at us. I'd respect you more if you came out and just told us what you
think of us: that you wish we'd just drop off the face of the earth
because we're disrupting your lovely praiseathon and bash of those
awful non-Christians.
>Please enjoy this Calvary Chapel focused area as best you can in light of
>the stuff you have to wade through. We are nearing the long awaited
>completion of the Calvary Chapel Listserver, as the software and hardware
>is just about ready to go.
Oh lovely. Then you can abandon the Net and go off to your Listserv.
Are you going to call your mailing list hyluab-l (hide your light
under a bushel-listserve)?
I suggest to you that if you really want to improve the quality of
this newsgroup that you start really dealing with those of us who have
serious questions about your leadership, instead of hiding behind your
10 lb. bibles. Thank you.
>May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be with you all.. amen
May God have mercy on our souls if Calvary Chapel really represents
everything that Jesus Christ is about.
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
April 1996 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
mir...@xmission.com
AjnadIII
In article <4ocbnl$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ccnet...@aol.com
(CCNETAdmin) writes:
>Hello brothes, sisters, pastors and general users...
>
>There has been a debate regarding Hank as well as commentaries on Calvary
>Chapel Pastors and Affiliate ministers.
<snip>
God bless you, John! It's in His hands, fer sure!!!!
Love Ya, Brother!
A.J. Nadeau
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
ccnet...@aol.com (CCNETAdmin) wrote:
>Hello brothes, sisters, pastors and general users...
>
>There has been a debate regarding Hank as well as commentaries on Calvary
>Chapel Pastors and Affiliate ministers.
>
>You may have seen my responses... and I wanted to make something clear.
>You know how issues can be clouded with all sorts of misconception.. so
>this should make the position of the administration's clear.
>
>Calvary Chapel, Pastor Chuck Smith, nor any other Calvary Chapel Pastor
>regard this internet newsgroup as an approved ministry of Calvary Chapel
>by Big Calvary or Chuck himself. Calvary Chapel itself makes no
>connection with their ministries or the dealings in this conference.
>
>Although I am active in Calvary Chapel Ministries, I too do not claim any
>Administrative "hold", "controlling force", or otherwise in this area.
>What I am here for is to assist in moderating an area that cannot really
>be moderated. How's that? I am assisting Pastor Lloyd Pulley and other
>Calvary Chapel servants in the faith to present to you Biblical guidlines
>regarding how we ought to communicate with one another. There are
>specific things we can do in regards to this endeavor, but nothing is
>enforceable (with the exceptions of reporting crimes to the internet
>providers and to the authorites).
But when you speak, you speak as Calvary Chapel's "liaison" to this NG.
Can't have it both ways, Pastor Scudder....
>
>Hank, Chuck Smith, Chuck Missler, whoever... you will see all types of
>posts from individuals claiming that it is their "job" or focus to expose
>these brethren to you. You will find that I will respond by asking them to >refrain from doing such. This is not to cover anything=
up... not to
>censor their opportunities of free communication.. but to assist in
>edifying, lifting up, and encouraging others here in the Lord. We are
>presenting Biblical guidelines on how to fellowship, where bitterness,
>anger, wrath, gossip, evil speaking, and other attributes of the World are >to remain distant to our communication.
>
>Jesus commented directly on how to act when you are presented with someone >who has supposedly sinned. We are NOT to cast stones. =
We can all >contemplate on what Jesus must have been writing in the sand when He said,
>
>"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
>unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone
>at her." {John 8:7}.
Which is is an interpretation of Scripture logically inconsistent with 1
Cor. 5:9-13. You don't have the right to judge me, but I do have license
to judge you....
>
>Psalm 1 states that there will be those that ask you to lie in wait for
>your brothers blood.. and lists their reward. Don't follow after such
>things, but be that tree planted by the flowing rivers, always drinking of >the Word of God and behaving as He would have us repres=
ent Him.
>
>That is the position here by those attempting to "lead the Flock"... to
>encourage you to follow Biblical guidelines regarding your communication.
>
>COVERUP?
>I personally don't know the specifics regarding Hank and others.. and
>don't care to know. So... it is actually impossible for me to cover
>anything up, seeing how I don't know "what" to cover up.
Pastor Scudder, if you can tell me officially that the people at Eastern
Christian Outreach have not been _ordered_ to shut up about the Hanegraaff
matter -- and threatened with a loss of funding, if they fail to comply --
then and only then will I buy your claim that CC is not _actively_ engaged
in a cover-up of the Hanegraaff affair.
>
>Censorship?
>We are here to present the Bible.. and it's teachings. We will speak out
>against the ungodlly acts of others, and ask that they seek God in their
>life and reconsider their actions in an area designed for Christ centered
>fellowship.
With the patently obvious exception of Hank Hanegraaff....
>Of course there will be those who are here specifically to >chide you.. to encourage you to follow their ways.. but that will alway=
s >be with us. They will confuse the issues, and veer from our presentation >of what God would have us do into something that restri=
cts their freedoms >You will be able to see these individuals by their fruit. They will >ridicule the Word of God, and think it fun =
and exciting to mock scripture. > They think you will find it amusing, but they only show their own >foolishness.
>
>Please be mindful of these things.. and.. be strong.. dilligent in the
>Word, and faithful in your communication.
Remember, fellow cultists: Don't listen to the critics! Praise the Lord
and his Messiah, Pastor Chuck! We prefer to keep our dirty little secrets
to ourselves, don't we, Pastor Scudder?
>
>I am here to discuss scripture if anyone feels that this FOCUS for Christ
>here is unbiblical. Gossip, slander, and other such devices of the devil
>will be discouraged.
Isn't a false claim of slander slander itself? Pastor Scudder, you seem
to be slandering me. Will you repent of it? I didn't think so....
Areopaguss
Dear John Schutter,
Why do you have more than one Calvary Chapel Internet moderator "title" in
your multiple AOL screen names?
Please remember that I have started a "John Schutter" FAQ to turn over to
AOL's TOS as well as those in "authority" over you at Calvary Chapel (like
they'll do something about it.) at the appropiate time. Furthermore, I
will also be checking to see precisely how much "power" has been delegated
to you from on-high. In fact, I have a message in to your Pastor's office
to return my call over this entire issue. I will be printing your every
posting and sending it to him with a list of questions concerning your
official "moderator" status.
Areopaguss
ccnet...@aol.com (CCNETAdmin) writes:
>Although I am active in Calvary Chapel Ministries, I too do not claim any
>Administrative "hold", "controlling force", or otherwise in this area.
>What I am here for is to assist in moderating an area that cannot really
>be moderated.
John Schutter, You could have fooled me!
If you "do not claim any Administrative 'hold', 'controlling force', or
otherwise in this area" then why are you even using "CCNETadmin" and other
like screen names in the first place?
Grow up, and quit pretending that you hold some kind of authority that you
clearly don't have. You are only making a fool of yourself.
David Lee
Over The Hills And Far Away mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>Ok, yet again we get someone who is kind of in a position of authority
>to attempt to corral this newsgroup into something that he can manage,
>something that he can present to Chuck, Hank, etc., as positive
>(whatever the hell that means).
Your biggest problem here is that you believe you're talking to people in
authority in Calvary Chapel. To my knowledge, you haven't.
This newsgroup wasn't even started by a pastor... and very seldom sees
participation by them. It does not represent Calvary Chapel... only a few
of us who attend there, and a lot of you who don't.
I think you're responding to someone standing on the street corner yelling
about a group they dislike. People hear, but don't get a clear picture
until they go inside & find out for themselves what's going on. (Anyone
who believes a NewsGroup represents reality is bound to see things a little
funny.)
>ccnet...@aol.com (CCNETAdmin) wrote:
(Not a pastor) In fact I don't think Anton is either... Or anyone else
you've dialoged with. (I'm not either.)
Not all CCs are the same... That's been pointed out here in the past, I
don't know if you were here then or not.
Consider what CC has been. Yeah, go back and read the lamentation about
the good old days. What changed? Complaints about what one or two
individuals say? Wow! That sure reflects the whole group, doesn't it? I
think it does NOT.
The church I go to still sounds like "the good old days". I'll bet there
are plenty of others that do too. But this newsgroup sure doesn't. Why?
Because you're not hearing Calvary Chapel here... We're not worshipping,
praising, sharing & learning here. That's what many of us would like to
see here. Well, maybe we are, but it's not worship & praise of God,
sharing His love, or learning from His Word. I have a somewhat lower
opinion of this newsgroup. ;)
<snip>
>Deana M. Holmes
>alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
>April 1996 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
>mir...@xmission.com
The big difference here is that, in the Scientology group, you are facing
an effort by a church organization to suppress the truth about them. (I
really despise that.)
In fact, here, you should recognize the opposite: Calvary Chapel is not
mounting an organized attack against someone who speaks out against an
individual (even when the accusers claim it's against the whole church).
Instead, you see a few individuals saying, "Hey, wait a minute... Don't you
have anything better to do? Get a life. Give us back our newsgroup."
(That will never happen, it's just what you're hearing.... That and a lot
of noise.)
-David
_Sojourner_
On May 28, 1996 21:30:50 in article <Re: NO COVERUP! READ!>,
In a situation such as this, Authority can only be exercised over those
willing to submit to such authority, What exactly are you afraid of here?
Deana M. Holmes
d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>Over The Hills And Far Away mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>>Ok, yet again we get someone who is kind of in a position of authority
>>to attempt to corral this newsgroup into something that he can manage,
>>something that he can present to Chuck, Hank, etc., as positive
>>(whatever the hell that means).
>Your biggest problem here is that you believe you're talking to people in
>authority in Calvary Chapel. To my knowledge, you haven't.
Well, then, who is this John Scudder character who signs his name as
some sort of "pastor" in CC? Who basically tries to stomp in here and
tell us what is acceptable and unacceptable posting?
>This newsgroup wasn't even started by a pastor... and very seldom sees
>participation by them. It does not represent Calvary Chapel... only a few
>of us who attend there, and a lot of you who don't.
Well, shoot. I'd have been really surprised to find that this ng was
started by a pastor, since the people I know on alt.config who do
newgrouping are not pastors of anything (except for maybe their UNIX
boxes...)
>I think you're responding to someone standing on the street corner yelling
>about a group they dislike. People hear, but don't get a clear picture
>until they go inside & find out for themselves what's going on. (Anyone
>who believes a NewsGroup represents reality is bound to see things a little
>funny.)
Believe me, I've been around quite a while. For the most part, Usenet
=! reality. But there are some disturbing similarities sometimes.
>>ccnet...@aol.com (CCNETAdmin) wrote:
>(Not a pastor) In fact I don't think Anton is either... Or anyone else
>you've dialoged with. (I'm not either.)
Well, why does he sign himself with that .sig? And why does he call
himself CCNETAdmin? I believe he does hold some sort of authority in
CC, even if it is over some computer.
>Not all CCs are the same... That's been pointed out here in the past, I
>don't know if you were here then or not.
Nope. Wasn't here. And in point of fact, I really don't care about
that...unless the difference means that one CC is living up to its tax
exemption and another is abusing it.
>Consider what CC has been. Yeah, go back and read the lamentation about
>the good old days. What changed? Complaints about what one or two
>individuals say? Wow! That sure reflects the whole group, doesn't it? I
>think it does NOT.
Hmmm....where there's smoke, there's fire? I don't see you responding
to their critiques. Maybe you should. Maybe then we'd take your side
seriously.
>The church I go to still sounds like "the good old days". I'll bet there
>are plenty of others that do too. But this newsgroup sure doesn't. Why?
>Because you're not hearing Calvary Chapel here... We're not worshipping,
>praising, sharing & learning here. That's what many of us would like to
>see here. Well, maybe we are, but it's not worship & praise of God,
>sharing His love, or learning from His Word. I have a somewhat lower
>opinion of this newsgroup. ;)
Well, this is alt.* . And contrary to popular belief, there's more to
alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel than just "sharing, prayer,
praise, worship and learning." The topics that have been brought up
here (such as pastoral responsibility in CC, the Hank Hanegraaf
potential scandal, cultic tendencies in CC)--they are all on-topic for
this newsgroup.
The reaction of the CC shills on this group to postings by myself and
others is very instructive. They are hyper. They are worried,
worried that the sheep might see the discussions here and start asking
questions.
>The big difference here is that, in the Scientology group, you are facing
>an effort by a church organization to suppress the truth about them. (I
>really despise that.)
>In fact, here, you should recognize the opposite: Calvary Chapel is not
>mounting an organized attack against someone who speaks out against an
>individual (even when the accusers claim it's against the whole church).
$cientology wasn't organized in the beginning, either. And, in point
of fact, it took them nearly two years how to figure out a way to bomb
the newsgroup.
>Instead, you see a few individuals saying, "Hey, wait a minute... Don't you
>have anything better to do? Get a life. Give us back our newsgroup."
>(That will never happen, it's just what you're hearing.... That and a lot
>of noise.)
Remember, discussion of Hank Hanegraaf is indeed on topic. Why are
you so afraid of this?
There's more to Christianity than just praise and prayer and worship.
Read Paul's letters and see *his* concerns.
Charles JBoyce Jr
Amen
Let us continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship,
and breaking of bread, and in prayers.(Acts 2:42)
Even so Lord Jesus come Quickly.
--
Thanks,
Keith
[:-) \o/
Micah 6:8
- I'm with you, brother! AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks a lot John. Your words of
encouragement, that we keep our focus on Jesus Christ, really blessed me. Thanks again.
Chuck
Areopaguss
mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) writes:
>Well, why does he sign himself with that .sig? And why does he call
>himself CCNETAdmin? I believe he does hold some sort of authority in
>CC, even if it is over some computer.
John Schutter's only authority is the soap box of a computer he uses to
claim authority he actually doesn't have by creating the AOL screen name
of "CCNETAdmin" and "CALVARYBOX" along with some others on different ISPs.
<< Hmmm....where there's smoke, there's fire? I don't see you responding
to their critiques. Maybe you should. Maybe then we'd take your side
seriously.>>
Are you kidding? Why do you think that people like Anton and John
Schutter have been trying everything in their power to squelch us? They
know what we have been presenting is true and just don't want to face the
music!
<< The reaction of the CC shills on this group to postings by myself and
others is very instructive. They are hyper. They are worried,
worried that the sheep might see the discussions here and start asking
questions. >>
Precisely! Where's the accountability for our leaders here?
<< There's more to Christianity than just praise and prayer and worship.
Read Paul's letters and see *his* concerns. >>
They only care about getting the warm fuzzies. Truth is relative to these
people.
Lloyd Pulley
David Lee marvelously wrote:
>
> Over The Hills And Far Away mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>
> >to attempt to corral this newsgroup into something that he can manage,
> >something that he can present to Chuck, Hank, etc., as positive
> >(whatever the hell that means).
>
> authority in Calvary Chapel. To my knowledge, you haven't.
>
> participation by them. It does not represent Calvary Chapel... only a few
> of us who attend there, and a lot of you who don't.
>
> about a group they dislike. People hear, but don't get a clear picture
> until they go inside & find out for themselves what's going on. (Anyone
> who believes a NewsGroup represents reality is bound to see things a little
> funny.)
>
>
> (Not a pastor) In fact I don't think Anton is either... Or anyone else
> you've dialoged with. (I'm not either.)
>
> don't know if you were here then or not.
>
> the good old days. What changed? Complaints about what one or two
> individuals say? Wow! That sure reflects the whole group, doesn't it? I
> think it does NOT.
>
> are plenty of others that do too. But this newsgroup sure doesn't. Why?
> Because you're not hearing Calvary Chapel here... We're not worshipping,
> praising, sharing & learning here. That's what many of us would like to
> see here. Well, maybe we are, but it's not worship & praise of God,
> sharing His love, or learning from His Word. I have a somewhat lower
> opinion of this newsgroup. ;)
>
>
> >Deana M. Holmes
> >alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
> >April 1996 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
> >mir...@xmission.com
>
> an effort by a church organization to suppress the truth about them. (I
> really despise that.)
>
> In fact, here, you should recognize the opposite: Calvary Chapel is not
> mounting an organized attack against someone who speaks out against an
> individual (even when the accusers claim it's against the whole church).
>
> have anything better to do? Get a life. Give us back our newsgroup."
> (That will never happen, it's just what you're hearing.... That and a lot
> of noise.)
>
You expressed my sentiments exactly David. I would add that though people
perceive the Calvary Chapel Movement to be this big organization run by a
board, it isn't. As a Cavary Pastor my authority is with the fellowship
the Lord has called me to-- that is it! Even Chuck's authority is more
by influence than control.
There also is no governing body of people overseeing this newsgroup which
was started by a member of our fellowship, George Hillman. To all our
dismay it has not turned out like George thought it would. I hope people
read the FAQ.
But thank you for being here. I cannot really fault so many who have deep
bitterness from whatever experiences with any particular Calvary they have
had to try and express them here even though they violate the FAQ guidelines
in doing so. If you are in pain, it is hard I guess, to be sensitive to others.
His and Yours,
Lloyd
J.D. Ferguson
mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>
>There's more to Christianity than just praise and prayer and worship.
Deana,
I don't know what perspective you're coming from, (christian,
non-christian, whatever), but that is what many (not all) C/C types
*don't* seem to have a handle on. You seem to have hit the proverbial
nail on the proverbial head.
J.D.
Douglas Gilliland
Lloyd Pulley wrote:
>
> [snips] I would add that though people
> perceive the Calvary Chapel Movement to be this big organization run by a
> board, it isn't. As a Cavary Pastor my authority is with the fellowship
> the Lord has called me to-- that is it! Even Chuck's authority is more
> by influence than control.
Lots of issues here. CCCM has a board. I went to a board meeting myself and
understand the generalized concept there. Many of the CC's do not have boards and
are truely one-man-shows. In the cases where there are boards, they are hand picked
by the Senior Pastors and are typically yes-men. If they weren't yes-men then they
wouldn't have been picked to start with. If they aren't yes-men they are removed.
The pastor has the authority over the board, in any event.
Lloyd's "authority", like the other CC pastors, is based on the "If you don't like
it, there's the door" philosophy. Basically, if you disagree with Lloyd, you are
welcome to leave. If Lloyd became a heretic (I don't think this more than a
theoretical possibility), then there is no oversight mechanism in place to remove
Lloyd without invoking the untimate CC threat, the pulling of the CC name. CC Old
Bridge would then become New Life Christian Center of Old Bridge (or something
similar). Unless Chuck holds the first trust deed on the church building (as he
does in many cases). In that case Chuck will be able pull the plug on the pastor
and replace him with someone that he chooses.
How does Chuck come to get the deed of the "separate" CC churches? Basically, they
grow too fast and they need more money for facilities, etc. Chuck faces a constant
stream of requests for funds. Sometimes these are to buy 100 Bibles for some
mission trip. Chuck will probably just cut a check for that. Sometimes the requests
are bigger deals. The individal church cannot get conventional financing, and Chuck
agrees to be the financier and hold the trust deed for the resultant property. How
many does Chuck "control" this way? Unknown, at least to me. I know of some. If it
is possible it is much better not to fall into this trap. It ruins any pretence of
the illusionary independence.
Back to the main subject. The question here is "Are CC pastors accountable to their
flocks in any way?". I believe that they are not. Statements that I have heard in
the past from major CC pastors include "Even if all of the church was against me, I
would tell them that they should leave, even if I am preaching only to my wife...".
This is an approximate paraphrase, but is representative of what I have heard may
times.
CC is based on the Roman Catholic church model of authority (but with a few less
levels of overhead and many less people). Most of the Protestant churches are based
on some form of elders, who are typically selected by the adult members of the
congregation. These elders "call" the pastor to lead the church, but the pastor is
responsible to the elders, not the other way around as is present in the CC system.
This is where CC has taken a big step away from the Protestant model and embraced
the Roman Catholic model of church leadership. Just like bad parents often raise
bad children, the CC model of church government has been duplicated in the numerous
offshoots from CC (Vineyard->TAV, etc). The fruit of of the unaccountability of
this system is mostly not good. It leads to the John Wimber types who lead the
church wherever the doctrinal wind blows. Remember Proverbs - There _is_ wisdom in
council.
> There also is no governing body of people overseeing this newsgroup which
> was started by a member of our fellowship, George Hillman.
I appreciate your clear statement reputiating the claims of John Scudder. There can
be no overseers in *.alt groups (as others have mentioned).
> To all our dismay it has not turned out like George thought it would.
I do not believe that any CC pastor can yet really believe that there is this
undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the CC model of (un)accountability of the
leadership. I can see why they would be unhappy with the result. It does not show
the face of CC that they would like to show, but shows the actual CC system with
it's warts and all.
> I hope people read the FAQ.
I have read it. Would like to discuss some of the points on it. Would especially
like to discuss the points in the Statement of Beliefs which I find much too
exclusionary. The FAQ seems to be a changing target. The Statement of Beliefs has
not been posted in a while.
> But thank you for being here. I cannot really fault so many who have deep
> bitterness from whatever experiences with any particular Calvary they have
> had to try and express them here even though they violate the FAQ guidelines
> in doing so. If you are in pain, it is hard I guess, to be sensitive to others.
Why do you presume that the opinions expresses are based on bitterness? That is
presupposing something that may not be the case. I have specific points of
disagreement with CC on doctrine and practice. These are not based on bitterness,
but are the result of my study of the Bible and Church History. Some may be bitter
against Christianity in general, but that, it seems to me, is the very small
minority of those that post here. Some are just interested in discussion and
understanding of the CC justification for their practices and doctrines.
If the Statement of Beliefs is posted, I would like to believe that the people here
are free to discuss and agree or not agree with the specific points in the
Statement of Beliefs. Are the Statement of Beliefs or the FAQ to be held in the
above the place of Scripture, and not be open to criticism, particularly Biblically
based criticism?
> His and Yours,
>
> Lloyd
--
Doug Gilliland
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are
of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
J.D. Ferguson
"J.D. Ferguson" <jfer...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>>
>>There's more to Christianity than just praise and prayer and worship.
>
>
>I don't know what perspective you're coming from, (christian,
>non-christian, whatever), but that is what many (not all) C/C types
>*don't* seem to have a handle on. You seem to have hit the proverbial
>nail on the proverbial head.
>
>J.D.
>
P.S. A follow up on my own follow up.
What *I* meant is this;
What is it called when you love the Lord with all your *mind* ?
It's called "Theology".
Why then, does it seem to be a dirty word to many C/C people?
>
J.D.
David Lee
Over The Hills And Far Away mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>>Your biggest problem here is that you believe you're talking to people in
>>authority in Calvary Chapel. To my knowledge, you haven't.
>Well, then, who is this John Scudder character who signs his name as
>some sort of "pastor" in CC? ...
Read his sig again... (BTW it is too big) He tells us who his pastor is...
not that he is a pastor. He has been the administrator of a moderated BBS
network called CalvaryNet. Now he's starting a listserver (I think).
John's interests (and maybe his ego) are expanding to include the internet.
>Who basically tries to stomp in here and
>tell us what is acceptable and unacceptable posting?
Agreed. As you can clearly see from his posts, he is not too familiar with
the alt.* heirarchy. Even though his methods may reflect carry-over from
his moderated net, he is right to point out the FAQ here. I think it's
clear to all of us that he ruffled more than a few feathers. :) Don't we
all at times? I can forgive that. Does it matter?
>>>ccnet...@aol.com (CCNETAdmin) wrote:
>>(Not a pastor) In fact I don't think Anton is either... Or anyone else
>>you've dialoged with. (I'm not either.)
>Well, why does he sign himself with that .sig? And why does he call
>himself CCNETAdmin? I believe he does hold some sort of authority in
>CC, even if it is over some computer.
See above. He's not a pastor... just one of many who would like to see
this newsgroup be a place where CC members can speak freely and reflect the
true nature of Calvary Chapel.
As to why the .sig... If it's really important, ask him.
>>Not all CCs are the same... That's been pointed out here in the past, I
>>don't know if you were here then or not.
>Nope. Wasn't here. And in point of fact, I really don't care about
>that...unless the difference means that one CC is living up to its tax
>exemption and another is abusing it.
I'm not sure how many even claim a tax exemption... Could be a flaw in your
basic reason for being here ;^)
>>Consider what CC has been. Yeah, go back and read the lamentation about
>>the good old days. What changed? Complaints about what one or two
>>individuals say? Wow! That sure reflects the whole group, doesn't it? I
>>think it does NOT.
>Hmmm....where there's smoke, there's fire?
Oh! Guilty until proven innocent?
>I don't see you responding
>to their critiques. Maybe you should. Maybe then we'd take your side
>seriously.
I want to make it clear that I'm not "inside" enough to know. I don't
believe that you are talking to people (via this newsgroup) that know
enough to answer. The "rank and file" that I know don't really spend that
much time looking at "leadership" of Calvary Chapel. I've seen many times
when people tried to make a big fuss over Chuck Smith and he quickly
side-stepped their admiration and pointed them to Jesus. This is not a
case of a leader seeking attention. Quite the opposite, I've seen
frustration from people who thought he was too reluctant to become the
center of their attention. This is a good sign: Emphasis of this ministry
is on the Word.
>>The church I go to still sounds like "the good old days". I'll bet there
>>are plenty of others that do too. But this newsgroup sure doesn't. Why?
>>Because you're not hearing Calvary Chapel here... We're not worshipping,
>>praising, sharing & learning here. That's what many of us would like to
>>see here. Well, maybe we are, but it's not worship & praise of God,
>>sharing His love, or learning from His Word. I have a somewhat lower
>>opinion of this newsgroup. ;)
>Well, this is alt.* . And contrary to popular belief, there's more to
>alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel than just "sharing, prayer,
>praise, worship and learning." The topics that have been brought up
>here (such as pastoral responsibility in CC, the Hank Hanegraaf
>potential scandal, cultic tendencies in CC)--they are all on-topic for
>this newsgroup.
But we still would like to see this newsgroup reflect Calvary Chapel. To
my definition, that which does not is noise.
>The reaction of the CC shills on this group to postings by myself and
>others is very instructive. They are hyper. They are worried,
>worried that the sheep might see the discussions here and start asking
>questions.
Yep. I've seen what you mean. Their fears are unfounded and so are yours.
The men may have problems... All humans do... Or they may not.
We just don't know the answers.
I don't think alt.* is going to provide them.
But Calvary Chapel spends more time studying the Word of God and worshiping
Him than examining individuals. The Pharasees did lots of finger pointing
& they didn't do too well, did they?
>>The big difference here is that, in the Scientology group, you are facing
>>an effort by a church organization to suppress the truth about them. (I
>>really despise that.)
>>In fact, here, you should recognize the opposite: Calvary Chapel is not
>>mounting an organized attack against someone who speaks out against an
>>individual (even when the accusers claim it's against the whole church).
>$cientology wasn't organized in the beginning, either. And, in point
>of fact, it took them nearly two years how to figure out a way to bomb
>the newsgroup.
Well, don't expect to see that here. All that energy would take our eyes
off of Jesus. The source of conflict in this thread is just that...
Looking at a man instead of our Lord has to be disappointing.
Scientology is also a homologous cult. They didn't become the most
litigious organization in the country by being disorganized.
By contrast, one of our strong points is the autonomy of the various
pastors... While there are many, they are not locked into any denomination
(or cult). I saw a Statement of Faith for CC/Oceanside posted here that
really riled people who disagreed with something in it that probably wasn't
in theirs. I enjoy the diversity, not the animosity. It's also clear that
some of them simply didn't understand what they read.
>>Instead, you see a few individuals saying, "Hey, wait a minute... Don't you
>>have anything better to do? Get a life. Give us back our newsgroup."
>>(That will never happen, it's just what you're hearing.... That and a lot
>>of noise.)
>Remember, discussion of Hank Hanegraaf is indeed on topic.
How do you define "on topic"? By the world's standards, there are no
limits but those in the FAQ. When someone in this group points at the FAQ
why do you go ballistic? Encouraging uplifting discussion is not
censorship, but direction.
>Why are you so afraid of this?
Would you rather that I just made up some answer? It's not fear that keeps
me silent on a subject I don't know about... I do not presume to speak for
others who are not here. That's your problem: the usenet doesn't provide
instant access to someone who's not even here.
IMHO the personal attacks on Hank Hanegraaf are motivated by what he has
said or written about someone's "sacred cow". Since they can't refute his
theology, they resort to ad hominem attacks. Appealing to a person's
emotion & prejudices rather than his intellect is no way to gain my
attention. It's a sure sign that there's nothing BUT smoke.
Also, I doubt that any of the pastors of CC churches would say that HH is
their pastor. This whole analogy of "rotten apples at the top" breaks down
right there. Why refute it?
>There's more to Christianity than just praise and prayer and worship.
>Read Paul's letters and see *his* concerns.
Yep... There's also sharing & teaching & loving & reproof & correction.
Each in its own place. Oops... I guess I included some other writers'
concerns there too, didn't I. ;)
Not many of us at CC are easily stampeded by allegations, insinuation and
innuendo. After years of solid Bible teaching from Calvary Chapel, I'm
satisfied that it's a sound, Christian church. I don't spook into a panic
when people start yelling, especially when they do it in alt.*. Doesn't
"alt" stand for Anarchists, Lunatics, and Terrorists? :)
I hope you find what you are looking for... What is that, anyway?
Is there something we can help you with? Not *everyone* here has an axe to
grind on your neck ;) Where do you stand before Jesus? Do you know him?
Would you like to? He loves you.
In His love,
David
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>Over The Hills And Far Away mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>
>>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>
aven't.
Lloyd Pullen is a CC pastor, and Scudder has claimed to forward some of
my e-mail and posts to CC HQ. I'd say we are.
>
>>Well, then, who is this John Scudder character who signs his name as
>>some sort of "pastor" in CC? ...
>
>Read his sig again... (BTW it is too big) He tells us who his pastor is... >not that he is a pastor. He has been the administrato=
r of a moderated BBS>network called CalvaryNet. Now he's starting a listserver (I think).>John's interests (and maybe his ego) are =
expanding to include the internet.
He claims to speak for Calvary, and appears to act as its' agent.
<snippage>
>>Remember, discussion of Hank Hanegraaf is indeed on topic.
>
>How do you define "on topic"? By the world's standards, there are no
>limits but those in the FAQ. When someone in this group points at the FAQ >why do you go ballistic? Encouraging uplifting discuss=
ion is not
>censorship, but direction.
>
>>Why are you so afraid of this?
>
>Would you rather that I just made up some answer? It's not fear that keeps >me silent on a subject I don't know about... I do not =
presume to speak for >others who are not here. That's your problem: the usenet doesn't provide >instant access to someone who's no=
t even here.
>
>IMHO the personal attacks on Hank Hanegraaf are motivated by what he has
>said or written about someone's "sacred cow". Since they can't refute his >theology, they resort to ad hominem attacks. Appealing=
to a person's
>emotion & prejudices rather than his intellect is no way to gain my
>attention. It's a sure sign that there's nothing BUT smoke.
"He who speaks before he hears, it is folly and shame to him..." You
obviously haven't been paying attention. The folks who have been leading
the "personal attacks" are _ex-CRI employees_! This isn't a theological
skirmish.
>
>Also, I doubt that any of the pastors of CC churches would say that HH is
>their pastor. This whole analogy of "rotten apples at the top" breaks down >right there. Why refute it?
Not at all. Chuck Smith has become part of the story, by looking the
other way and sweeping the HH controversy under the rug. The Passantinos
claim that they have the evidence to clear Hank -- well, let's see it!
>
>>There's more to Christianity than just praise and prayer and worship.
>>Read Paul's letters and see *his* concerns.
>
>Yep... There's also sharing & teaching & loving & reproof & correction.
>Each in its own place. Oops... I guess I included some other writers'
>concerns there too, didn't I. ;)
>
>Not many of us at CC are easily stampeded by allegations, insinuation and
>innuendo.
Neither am I. I just want some answers.
>After years of solid Bible teaching from Calvary Chapel, I'm >satisfied that it's a sound, Christian church. I don't spook into a =
panic >when people start yelling, especially when they do it in alt.*. Doesn't >"alt" stand for Anarchists, Lunatics, and Terrorist=
s? :)
What's this about allegations, insinuation and innuendo? You may not be
swayed by them, but you aren't above _using_ them.
Rob Pommer
Douglas Gilliland <do...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>I appreciate your clear statement reputiating the claims of John Scudder. There can
>be no overseers in *.alt groups (as others have mentioned).
Just a point here:
There is, on my news server a moderated *.atl group
alt.atheism.moderated
I don't know of any more....
Pommer
Areopaguss
Although I may have some fundamental differences with R57, Doug, J.D.,
Anton, Diana, etc, the thing I have in common with them is a grave
concern that we simply would like to see addressed.
The reason I am standing up for this cause is for my love of Calvary
Chapel and the preaching of the Gospel. If I had disregard for Calvary
Chapel, I would treat them as I would the Vineyard, Set Free, TBN, or any
other wayward Christian group. However, I'm pushing this issue for
reason. I believe strongly in the principles Calvary Chapel stands upon.
However, I see a very serious problem. A chain is only as strong as its
weakest link. The weak link in this is the accountability of the Calvary
Chapel leadership.
When Jimmy Swaggart fell, the Assemblies of God stepped in and held him
accountable, and offered a solution to "restore him gently".
Unfortunately, he refused the council, and left the demonination.
Unfortunately, when the same thing happens in Calvary Chapel, it's a
different story. There is no solution when a Calvary Chapel leader falls.
The situation is simply kept hidden in the hope it will go away.
How do you think we feel when our leaders are allowed to continue in
their sins? How do you think I feel when somebody outside Calvary Chapel
tells me that the best way of becoming a Calvary Pastor is to fall into
sin so Chuck can hire you to work with him?
We have a TREMENDOUS problem within Calvary Chapel, and NOBODY in the
Calvary Chapel leadership is willing to stand up and even offer a solution
to correct it, much even acknowledge it is even there in the first place?
Areopaguss
In article <31ACAF...@gramercy.ios.com>, Lloyd Pulley
<llo...@gramercy.ios.com> writes:
>You expressed my sentiments exactly David. I would add that though people
>perceive the Calvary Chapel Movement to be this big organization run by a
>board, it isn't. As a Cavary Pastor my authority is with the fellowship
>the Lord has called me to-- that is it! Even Chuck's authority is more
>by influence than control.
>
>
Dear Pastor Lloyd,
To date, we yet have to hear from a single Calvary Chapel leader on this
subject matter. Since you have become active in this discussion, I would
like a simple response.
Why have so many of us been utterly ignored by Chuck Smith and the rest of
the Calvary Chapel leaders when we have tried several times to follow the
Matthew 18 guidelines concerning Hank Hanegraaff to "bring it to the
Church"? Why would Chuck Smith tell his Senior Pastors "If you have a
problem with Hank Hanegraaff, go to him yourself"? Why is the very Church
that ordained Hank compeletely ignoring our pleas for them to do
something?
I know that you know there have been other incidents with other Calvary
Chapel Pastors who have fallen into sin and they are simply just allowed
to continue as if nothing happened. (I will not name other names here,
because I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.) Doesn't this lack of
accountability concern you as it does us?
The only time I have ever seen any "discipline" occur is when a Pastor
deviates from the Calvary Chapel traditions, he is simply asked to change
the name of his church and not to consider it a Calvary Chapel affiliated
ministry (as in the case with John Wimber).
With the hundreds of Calvary Chapels, why is there not a single Calvary
Chapel Pastor who will just as much say "wait a minute, something's wrong
here"? We have a man on national radio claiming to be a Calvary Chapel
Pastor. Several issues have been raised with him, and yet not one of
these issues have ever been addressed. The Christian, as well as the
secular media have even been picking up on this, and still nothing is said
or done.
Will somebody from Calvary Chapel say something about this before Dianne
Sawyer does? Will Calvary Chapel have the same attitude when "60-Minutes"
or "A Current Affair" walks into your offices and asks you the same
questions with the cameras rolling?
I'm begging you for an answer, Please!
Deana M. Holmes
bbr...@telerama.lm.com (Rob Pommer) wrote:
>Douglas Gilliland <do...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I appreciate your clear statement reputiating the claims of John Scudder. There can
>>be no overseers in *.alt groups (as others have mentioned).
>
>Just a point here:
>There is, on my news server a moderated *.atl group
>alt.atheism.moderated
>I don't know of any more....
alt.atheism.moderated (which has been around for a couple of years)
was a stopgap measure until talk.atheism came in. Anyone who has
attempted to read alt.atheism in the last few years knows that the
noise level in that group is very high.
I believe that when the control message was sent out for one of the
home schooling groups on alt.*, that it was made moderated (I believe
by a certain Paul Nanson). This was over a year ago, and I don't
remember a lot of details about it.
But normally, alt.* is not the home of moderation. I know of some
alt.* groups that have retromoderation, that is, moderation after the
fact (two that spring to mind: alt.promisekeepers and
alt.sex.plushies), but no prior moderation.
For more information on how to get an alt.* group, or the procedure
for a group in the Big 8, read alt.config or news.groups.
Douglas Gilliland
Gus,
Thanks for your very clear statements on this subject. If I was you, I would
not hold my breath waiting for an answer on this.
The CC pastors are clearly warned against any criticism of the CC model.
Most of them may [privately] agree with you but know better than to do so
publically. They have the example of the CCBC students that became 5 point
Calvinists and were kicked out and the CC church in Southern Cal that went
Calvinist and was removed.
Hang in there. Ultimately, God will hold all accountable, but will wait
until the Bhema seat judgement. Let's hope they get a clue sooner, though,
as it could save us all some aggravation.
Douglas Gilliland
J.D. Ferguson wrote:
> What *I* meant is this;
> What is it called when you love the Lord with all your *mind* ?
> It's called "Theology".
> Why then, does it seem to be a dirty word to many C/C people?
That is how we were taught at CC. The denominations teach theology, CC
just teaches the simple gospel message. This anti-intellectual bias is
always present, and is strongly encouraged. Actually, study is OKay as
long as what you find is confirmation of their views. Read, learn, and
investigate = contradict...
Douglas Gilliland
CCNETAdmin wrote:
>
> Hello brothes, sisters, pastors and general users...
>
> There has been a debate regarding Hank as well as commentaries on Calvary
> Chapel Pastors and Affiliate ministers.
>
> You may have seen my responses... and I wanted to make something clear.
> You know how issues can be clouded with all sorts of misconception.. so
> this should make the position of the administration's clear.
>
> Calvary Chapel, Pastor Chuck Smith, nor any other Calvary Chapel Pastor
> regard this internet newsgroup as an approved ministry of Calvary Chapel
> by Big Calvary or Chuck himself. Calvary Chapel itself makes no
> connection with their ministries or the dealings in this conference.
This is an "official" message on why there are no "official" messages here.
Anyone else see the irony here? Got the feeling that John overstepped his bounds
with his last group of posts and it is embarassing to the CC brass? Maybe they
saw him being too heavy handed.
Orwell, in 1984, called this double-speak.
[clipped lots more double talk]
> John Scudder RN
> Administrator: Calvary Chapel Internet and Computer Ministries
> Ministry: ccnet...@aol.com WEB: http://www.khouse.org/calvarynet
> Personal: john.s...@kandy.com Voice info: 619.630-0340 BBS -7437
> Administrative Pastor: Ralph Wood; Calvary Chapel Oceanside, Calif.
John, IMO, you could best help out the discussion here by changing your email
address from "CCbox" to "John Scudder" then we can take you seriously.
Otherwise, you are simply viewed as some sort of "control-freak". As you may
have already guessed there is ability to exercise heavy handed control here,
just the sharing of opinions and personal views about how things "are" and how
they "should be".
God Bless you and all the CC people.
Douglas Gilliland
CCNETAdmin wrote:
>
> Although I am active in Calvary Chapel Ministries, I too do not claim any
> Administrative "hold", "controlling force", or otherwise in this area.
> What I am here for is to assist in moderating an area that cannot really
> be moderated. How's that?
More double-speak.
> I am assisting Pastor Lloyd Pulley and other
> Calvary Chapel servants in the faith to present to you Biblical guidlines
> regarding how we ought to communicate with one another.
They went from "pastors" to simply "servants in the faith". That is more
reasonable. Less control-oriented.
> There are
> specific things we can do in regards to this endeavor, but nothing is
> enforceable (with the exceptions of reporting crimes to the internet
> providers and to the authorites).
Threats are threats, no matter who is threatening.
> Hank, Chuck Smith, Chuck Missler, whoever... you will see all types of
> posts from individuals claiming that it is their "job" or focus to expose
> these brethren to you.
HH, CS, CM are all CC pastors. They all teach very publically. The Scriptures
require the people to examine the teachings and determine if they match the
Word of God. To andy to stop negative discussions must also be to try to stop
positive discussions as they arise in defense of the position of CC.
Should everyone here just roll over and accept every word from the mouth of
these men, or can we not discuss the points they raise?
[more double-speak clipped]
>
> John Scudder RN
> Administrator: Calvary Chapel Internet and Computer Ministries
> Ministry: ccnet...@aol.com WEB: http://www.khouse.org/calvarynet
> Personal: john.s...@kandy.com Voice info: 619.630-0340 BBS -7437
> Administrative Pastor: Ralph Wood; Calvary Chapel Oceanside, Calif.
--
Douglas Gilliland
CCNETAdmin wrote:
> You will find that I will respond by asking them to
> censor their opportunities of free communication.. but to assist in
> edifying, lifting up, and encouraging others here in the Lord. We are
> presenting Biblical guidelines on how to fellowship, where bitterness,
> anger, wrath, gossip, evil speaking, and other attributes of the World are
> to remain distant to our communication.
Where I learned about fellowship it included the idea of discussion of
doctrines. That place was Calvary Chapel. What happened to checking out the
teachers in the Word? It has now been replaced by official-not-official limits
on the discussion that is allowed.
> Jesus commented directly on how to act when you are presented with someone
> who has supposedly sinned. We are NOT to cast stones. We can all
> contemplate on what Jesus must have been writing in the sand when He said,
What does this have to do with the subject of whether CS, HH, or CM are
teaching false doctrines? Nothing. This is not an issue of sin, but of
judgement.
If even the words of the New Testament prophets were to be judged by everyone,
how much more the words of these men should be. They are only claiming to be
teachers, not prophets. They are open to public examination of their teachings
and to do otherwise is nothing short of irresponsible.
What are you trying to argue. You seem to have two major points:
1 - Disagreements about doctrine should be handled privately
2 - This is not the place for discussion about teachings
Both points are absurd. Public teaching and practice requires public rebuke.
Paul took Peter to task for associating with the Jews and not Gentiles and he
did it publically. This was a public act and has to be dealt with in the same
manner.
Douglas Gilliland
Thanks, Gus.
That is accountability.
They only like it the other way though.
Douglas Gilliland
CCNETAdmin wrote:
>
> Psalm 1 states that there will be those that ask you to lie in wait for
> your brothers blood.. and lists their reward. Don't follow after such
> things, but be that tree planted by the flowing rivers, always drinking of
You are making an extremely severe accusation against some of those who post in
this newsgroup. They, in turn, now have a right to defend themselves since you
have made this public accusation. You are accusing them of being [spiritual]
murderers. This is the most serious of Biblical charges and should not be made
lightly. I hope that you are have thought about this charge. There is already
too much emotionally loaded language here and we do not need more. This is
taking it to another level.
I expect to see those that you are publically accusing defend themselves
publically against this most serious charge. They should.
> That is the position here by those attempting to "lead the Flock"... to
> encourage you to follow Biblical guidelines regarding your communication.
Big jump from the "fellow workers in Christ", to "lead the flock". Where does
your authority to lead the flock come from? Here, it only comes from the
strength of your arguements (or lack of strength) as related to the Bible. If
your position matches the Bible, then you will be believed, If you are putting
forth your own opinions and they are not Biblically based, you should expect to
be taken to task for them. I would expect the same as anyone here should. Even
if you were my pastor, I would still test your words by the Scriptures.
> COVERUP?
> I personally don't know the specifics regarding Hank and others.. and
> don't care to know. So... it is actually impossible for me to cover
> anything up, seeing how I don't know "what" to cover up.
The German people claimed to not know about what their leader did in the early
1940's, but history has shown they still bear the guilt. If you are a leader, it
is your responsibility to investigate these charges. Look into it. You may be
stopping a work of God? How do you know?
At least the Jews had enough sense to recognize that the message would die if it
was not of God, and that they could not stop the apostles. Whether it be right
in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we
cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
> Censorship?
> We are here to present the Bible.. and it's teachings. We will speak out
> against the ungodlly acts of others, and ask that they seek God in their
> life and reconsider their actions in an area designed for Christ centered
> fellowship. Of course there will be those who are here specifically to
> chide you.. to encourage you to follow their ways.. but that will always
> be with us. They will confuse the issues, and veer from our presentation
> of what God would have us do into something that restricts their freedoms.
> You will be able to see these individuals by their fruit. They will
> ridicule the Word of God, and think it fun and exciting to mock scripture.
> They think you will find it amusing, but they only show their own
> foolishness.
OTOH, they might actually be trying to tell you the truth about something that
your leaders have not taught you. Not that your leaders have deceived you. They
received their Bible training at CCBC by listening to Chuck go through the whole
Bible. That is the foundation, and often the extent, of their teachings.
Ignorance is no excuse, but we all are ignorant.
> I am here to discuss scripture if anyone feels that this FOCUS for Christ
> here is unbiblical. Gossip, slander, and other such devices of the devil
> will be discouraged.
Of course your spin here is unBiblical. Gossip and slander, etc should clearly
be spoken against. The individuals that present it should be asked to prove
their cases, and not simply just rejected out of hand. Make them prove their
statements. Ask the same of your CC pastors.
> Please enjoy this Calvary Chapel focused area as best you can in light of
> the stuff you have to wade through. We are nearing the long awaited
> completion of the Calvary Chapel Listserver, as the software and hardware
> is just about ready to go.
Off to the Christian Ghetto. To be with ourselves. Away from the unwashed
masses. Will they let me in? Will there be any due process to keep me out?
> May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be with you all.. amen
>
> John Scudder RN
> Administrator: Calvary Chapel Internet and Computer Ministries
> Ministry: ccnet...@aol.com WEB: http://www.khouse.org/calvarynet
> Personal: john.s...@kandy.com Voice info: 619.630-0340 BBS -7437
> Administrative Pastor: Ralph Wood; Calvary Chapel Oceanside, Calif.
--
AjnadIII
In article <4olfgk$9...@qualcomm.com>, "J.D. Ferguson"
<jfer...@qualcomm.com> writes:
>P.S. A follow up on my own follow up.
>
>What *I* meant is this;
>
>What is it called when you love the Lord with all your *mind* ?
>
>It's called "Theology".
>
>Why then, does it seem to be a dirty word to many C/C people?
>>
>J.D.
Good question, J.D....
I believe the answer can be found in Psalm 119...The word "meditation" is
used twice, the word "meditate" 5 times...In every instance, meditation is
related to the word of God, nothing else...
Jesus accused the Pharisees and other religious leaders of burdening the
Jews with the traditions of men (and from what I've heard about the
Targums(?), they pretty extensive)...I believe that it is a dangerous
thing to apply the wisdom of man to God's word...
I am personally of the belief that a person diligently seeking/loving the
Lord in the manner spoken of in Matthew 22 will not need much more than
God's word, and will be amply equipped to serve the Lord according to His
will! Those consumed in intellectual pursuits run the risk of worshipping
at its altar (I've heard that Baal worship somehow involved an
intellectual element)...The apostles were "unlearned and ignorant men" in
the eyes of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:13), yet God used them mightily...
...I guess the question is, are we going to allow God to use us, or are we
going to try to make ourselves perfect in the flesh (Gal 3:3)?
Trusting In Him,
A.J. Nadeau
AjnadIII
In article <4op58s$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, areop...@aol.com
(Areopaguss) writes:
You know, I understand where you're coming from, dude(ette?)...We should
be accountable to one another, for sure...But I can tell you this -- what
someone "out there" may or may not have done has absolutely no bearing on
my walk with Christ, and I'm concerned with that first...I'm next
concerned with the people I'm accountable to, and those that have made
themselves accountable to me...
When Jimmy Swaggart fell and refused to submit himself to the authority of
the Assemblies, I believe God put him on the shelf...I watched a telecast
several years ago and was astonished to see only a few people sitting in
the sanctuary of his church...You can rest assured that the Lord Himself
has dealt with him...I also listened with eagerness to Bob Larson as a
young christian in 1985-87, and was really inspired by his zeal, but I
caught him on the radio within the last year, and to my dismay, all I
heard were appeals for money, which tells me there isn't a lot of response
to his ministry (but then again, he's always asked for money)...
We need to trust God to work things out in Hank's case as well...We do not
know what's gone on behind closed doors between Pastor Chuck and Hank (and
it's really none of my business), but whatever happens, I'll not be swayed
from my Lord...If things aren't being dealt with on the up-and-up, then
God's gonna deal with it (Luke 12:3), it's in His hands...Simple as
that!!!
If we should do anything, we should be seeking the Lord to resolve
this...Fervently and diligently!!!
God Be With Ya, Whoever You Are!!!!!
A.J. Nadeau
J.D. Ferguson
Douglas Gilliland <do...@village.ios.com> wrote:
They have the example of the CCBC students that became 5 point
>Calvinists and were kicked out and the CC church in Southern Cal that went
>Calvinist and was removed.
>
Doug,
If you know which church that is, would you please please please tell me!!!
J.D.
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
ajna...@aol.com (AjnadIII) wrote:
>In article <4op58s$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, areop...@aol.com
>(Areopaguss) writes:
>
>You know, I understand where you're coming from, dude(ette?)...We should
>be accountable to one another, for sure...But I can tell you this -- what
>someone "out there" may or may not have done has absolutely no bearing on
>my walk with Christ, and I'm concerned with that first...I'm next
>concerned with the people I'm accountable to, and those that have made
>themselves accountable to me...
>
watched a telecast >several years ago and was astonished to see only a few people sitting in >the sanctuary of his church...You can =
rest assured that the Lord Himself >has dealt with him...
But would it have happened, if not for the media? If Jimmy had had his
own Pastor Chuck? If the AOG stifled public criticism like CC is trying
to do? I don't think so....
>I also listened with eagerness to Bob Larson as a >young christian in 1985-87, and was really inspired by his zeal, but I >caught h=
im on the radio within the last year, and to my dismay, all I >heard were appeals for money, which tells me there isn't a lot of res=
ponse >to his ministry (but then again, he's always asked for money)...
Larson has his own TV show, an enormous personal retirement account, a
new "parsonage," and from what I hear, is doing well enough to get rid of
the radio show. Larson is making history: the first televangelist to not
only survive painstakingly-documented scandal, but actually thrive in the
face it.
>We need to trust God to work things out in Hank's case as well...We do not>know what's gone on behind closed doors between Pastor C=
huck and Hank (and>it's really none of my business), but whatever happens, I'll not be swayed>from my Lord...If things aren't being =
dealt with on the up-and-up, then>God's gonna deal with it (Luke 12:3), it's in His hands...Simple as
>that!!!
How many other sex and/or money scandals have been swept under the rug?
The system won't work unless you make it work. Why bother with the task
of evangelism? God's gonna choose who he's gonna choose, right? Give me
a break, A.J.
>
>If we should do anything, we should be seeking the Lord to resolve
>this...Fervently and diligently!!!
Why bother? Based on my experience in such matters, it doesn't do any
good....
Areopaguss
John Schutter will shortly be closing his America Online account with the
screen names of CCNETadmin and CALVARYBOX. I hope in so doing, he will
also return his self-appointed authority along with these misleading
screen names.
Areopaguss
Rang...@ix.netcom.com writes:
<< But would it have happened, if not for the media? If Jimmy had had
his
own Pastor Chuck? If the AOG stifled public criticism like CC is trying
to do? I don't think so.... >>
CC should follow the Example of the AG's leadership in both the Jimmy
Swaggart and Jim Bakker affairs. They laid down the Law for Swaggart and
gave him the choice of taking a 1-year sabatical to mend his ways, or
leave the demonination. Swaggart left the AG and his AG ordination was
removed. Bakker was simply Defrocked! CC should learn from this
example. At least the AG didn't have egg on its face after the dust
settled! I can't say the same for Calvary Chapel, that's for sure!
<< How many other sex and/or money scandals have been swept under the
rug?
The system won't work unless you make it work. Why bother with the task
of evangelism? God's gonna choose who he's gonna choose, right? Give me
a break, A.J. >>
Unfortunately, there's a few of these "scandals" right there in Costa
Mecca! They're not all that well hidden either! It's only a matter of
time when the rug is indeed pulled out from underneath them and their
faces will be plastered in the dirt they've swept underneath it!
Areopaguss
Douglas Gilliland <do...@village.ios.com> writes:
>Threats are threats, no matter who is threatening.
>
>> Hank, Chuck Smith, Chuck Missler, whoever... you will see all types of
>> posts from individuals claiming that it is their "job" or focus to
expose
>> these brethren to you.
>
>HH, CS, CM are all CC pastors. They all teach very publically. The
Scriptures
>
>require the people to examine the teachings and determine if they match
the
>Word of God. To andy to stop negative discussions must also be to try to
stop
>
>positive discussions as they arise in defense of the position of CC.
>
>Should everyone here just roll over and accept every word from the mouth
of
>these men, or can we not discuss the points they raise?
If you think Chuck Missler believes the same as you concerning this, think
again! He's well aware of what is being discussed on this NG and quite
frankly feels these issues are overdue to be addressed.
Furthermore, Missler's views on CRI are much more radical than anything
we've ever said. John Schutter should be doing his homework instead of
trying to cover up the embarrassment he has had to cover up here lately.
Areopaguss
Douglas Gilliland <do...@village.ios.com> writes:
>Thanks, Gus.
>
>That is accountability.
>
>They only like it the other way though.
Unfortunately, John Schutter's Pastor has still to return my phone call
concerning this matter. However, AOL had the courtesy of responding. It
might be the very reason why John Schutter is planning on closing his AOL
account.
Fortunately, when Calvary Chapel refuses to listn, America Online Has!
What a slap in the face!
Areopaguss
ajna...@aol.com (AjnadIII) writes:
>You know, I understand where you're coming from, dude(ette?)...We should
>be accountable to one another, for sure...But I can tell you this -- what
>someone "out there" may or may not have done has absolutely no bearing on
>my walk with Christ, and I'm concerned with that first...I'm next
>concerned with the people I'm accountable to, and those that have made
>themselves accountable to me...
Unfortunately, when I approached Calvary Chapel in the spirit of Matthew
18 to "take it to the Church", I was rebuked and admonished to keep quiet
about the matter. I know of sever other Calvary Chapel members (even in
other congregations) that were rebuked and admonished likewise to my
experience.
Needless to say, my views of those who are "in authority" over me have
lost my favor.
>When Jimmy Swaggart fell and refused to submit himself to the authority
of
>the Assemblies, I believe God put him on the shelf...I watched a telecast
>several years ago and was astonished to see only a few people sitting in
>the sanctuary of his church...You can rest assured that the Lord Himself
>has dealt with him...I also listened with eagerness to Bob Larson as a
>young christian in 1985-87, and was really inspired by his zeal, but I
>caught him on the radio within the last year, and to my dismay, all I
>heard were appeals for money, which tells me there isn't a lot of
response
>to his ministry (but then again, he's always asked for money)...
Hank is a little more sneaky with his appeals. Just subscribe to the CRI
Journal and you'll find out what I mean. He's getting about as good about
bulk-mail fundraising as Robert Tilton. I'm surprised CRI hasn't enclosed
the typical Robert Tilton paraphinalia to send back to CRI with your
check!
>We need to trust God to work things out in Hank's case as well...We do
not
>know what's gone on behind closed doors between Pastor Chuck and Hank
(and
>it's really none of my business), but whatever happens, I'll not be
swayed
>from my Lord...If things aren't being dealt with on the up-and-up, then
>God's gonna deal with it (Luke 12:3), it's in His hands...Simple as
>that!!!
What I fear the most is what God's going to allow to happen to Calvary
Chapel for refusing to do something about Hank and CRI.
>If we should do anything, we should be seeking the Lord to resolve
>this...Fervently and diligently!!!
Absolutely! I will also be picketing the Calvary Chapel newsgroup so
nobody forgets!
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
areop...@aol.com (Areopaguss) wrote:
>ajna...@aol.com (AjnadIII) writes:
>
>>You know, I understand where you're coming from, dude(ette?)...We should
utely no bearing on >>my walk with Christ, and I'm concerned with that first...I'm next >>concerned with the people I'm accountable =
to, and those that have made >>themselves accountable to me...
>
>Unfortunately, when I approached Calvary Chapel in the spirit of Matthew
>18 to "take it to the Church", I was rebuked and admonished to keep quiet
>about the matter. I know of sever other Calvary Chapel members (even in
>other congregations) that were rebuked and admonished likewise to my
>experience.
>
>Needless to say, my views of those who are "in authority" over me have
>lost my favor.
Maybe it's time to get new leaders....
>
>>When Jimmy Swaggart fell and refused to submit himself to the authority
>of the Assemblies, I believe God put him on the shelf...I watched a telecast>>several years ago and was astonished to see only a fe=
w people sitting in>>the sanctuary of his church...You can rest assured that the Lord Himself>>has dealt with him...I also listened =
with eagerness to Bob Larson as a >>young christian in 1985-87, and was really inspired by his zeal, but I >>caught him on the radio=
within the last year, and to my dismay, all I >>heard were appeals for money, which tells me there isn't a lot of >response >>to hi=
s ministry (but then again, he's always asked for money)...
>
>Hank is a little more sneaky with his appeals. Just subscribe to the CRI
>Journal and you'll find out what I mean. He's getting about as good about >bulk-mail fundraising as Robert Tilton. I'm surprised =
CRI hasn't enclosed >the typical Robert Tilton paraphinalia to send back to CRI with your >check!
From what I'm told, Hank got a personal lesson from the master himself,
the one and only Bob Larson. Unfortunately for Hank, Bob refused to train
him in any more than the fundamentals.... <heheheheheheh>
But hey! Every media minister knows about the joys of "palm money...."
AjnadIII
In article <4p2dpr$4...@tribune.concentric.net>, Rang...@ix.netcom.com
writes:
> But would it have happened, if not for the media? If Jimmy had had his
>own Pastor Chuck? If the AOG stifled public criticism like CC is trying
>to do? I don't think so....
That is just my point, he didn't...God Himself made that possible...
>>I also listened with eagerness to Bob Larson as a >young christian in
>1985-87, and was really inspired by his zeal, but I >caught h=
>im on the radio within the last year, and to my dismay, all I >heard were
>appeals for money, which tells me there isn't a lot of res=
>ponse >to his ministry (but then again, he's always asked for money)...
>
> Larson has his own TV show, an enormous personal retirement account, a
>new "parsonage," and from what I hear, is doing well enough to get rid of
>the radio show. Larson is making history: the first televangelist to not
>only survive painstakingly-documented scandal, but actually thrive in the
>face it.
I can't say that I've heard of his TV show, and wouldn't support him if I
had the opportunity...
>>We need to trust God to work things out in Hank's case as well...We do
>not>know what's gone on behind closed doors between Pastor C=
>huck and Hank (and>it's really none of my business), but whatever
happens,
>I'll not be swayed>from my Lord...If things aren't being =
>dealt with on the up-and-up, then>God's gonna deal with it (Luke 12:3),
it's
>in His hands...Simple as
>>that!!!
>
> How many other sex and/or money scandals have been swept under the rug?
>The system won't work unless you make it work. Why bother with the task
>of evangelism? God's gonna choose who he's gonna choose, right? Give me
>a break, A.J.
You know, King David swept his adultery and murder under the rug for about
a year before God got ahold of him, and then had to deal with the
consequences for the rest of his life...If God is the same yesterday,
today, and forever, you can rest assured that any person (especially those
in authority) will be dealt with by God Himself -- one way or another!
But what's that to you, Ken? You're blaming God for all this, so go ahead
and continue to blaspheme...
>>If we should do anything, we should be seeking the Lord to resolve
>>this...Fervently and diligently!!!
>
> Why bother? Based on my experience in such matters, it doesn't do any
>good....
I'm truly sorry you harbor the pain and bitterness you do, but I love ya
nontheless...
Trusting Him,
A.J. Nadeau
AjnadIII
In article <4p37ho$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, areop...@aol.com
(Areopaguss) writes:
>Unfortunately, there's a few of these "scandals" right there in Costa
>Mecca! They're not all that well hidden either! It's only a matter of
>time when the rug is indeed pulled out from underneath them and their
>faces will be plastered in the dirt they've swept underneath it!
>
>
>
>
>
Gus,
Read my reply to Ken...If things are as bad as you say they are, then
ther'll be trouble, for sure, the LORD Himself will see to it!
In His Love,
A.J. Nadeau
Deana M. Holmes
areop...@aol.com (Areopaguss) wrote:
>However, AOL had the courtesy of responding. It
>might be the very reason why John Schutter is planning on closing his AOL
>account.
>
>Fortunately, when Calvary Chapel refuses to listn, America Online Has!
>
>What a slap in the face!
What does this mean? Please clue me in.
Deana M. Holmes
HeathenChristian*nonCC*liberaleducatedfemale
**here to annoy you into seeing Jesus for who He really is**
mir...@xmission.com
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
ajna...@aol.com (AjnadIII) wrote:
>In article <4p2dpr$4...@tribune.concentric.net>, Rang...@ix.netcom.com
>writes:
>
like CC is trying >>to do? I don't think so....
>
>That is just my point, he didn't...God Himself made that possible...
And God gave Hank Hanegraaff Pastor Check, so that he wouldn't have to
be accountable. And God gave Bob Larson Paul Crouch, Sam Moore, Eldred
Thomas, Jerry Prevo, et al., so that he wouldn't have to be accountable.
When punishment ceases to be swift and certain, people lose respect for
the law (or, in this case, the Law)....
>
>>>I also listened with eagerness to Bob Larson as a >young christian in
>>1985-87, and was really inspired by his zeal, but I >caught h=>>im on the radio within the last year, and to my dismay, all I >hea=
rd were >>appeals for money, which tells me there isn't a lot of res=>>ponse >to his ministry (but then again, he's always asked for=
money)...
>>
>> Larson has his own TV show, an enormous personal retirement account, a
>>new "parsonage," and from what I hear, is doing well enough to get rid of >>the radio show. Larson is making history: the first t=
elevangelist to not>>only survive painstakingly-documented scandal, but actually thrive in the >>face it.
>
>I can't say that I've heard of his TV show, and wouldn't support him if I
>had the opportunity...
>
>>>We need to trust God to work things out in Hank's case as well...We do
>>not>know what's gone on behind closed doors between Pastor C=>>huck and Hank (and>it's really none of my business), but whatever >=
happens, >>I'll not be swayed>from my Lord...If things aren't being = >>dealt with on the up-and-up, then>God's gonna deal with it (=
Luke 12:3),>it's >>in His hands...Simple as >>>that!!!
>>
>> How many other sex and/or money scandals have been swept under the rug?
>
>>The system won't work unless you make it work. Why bother with the task
>>of evangelism? God's gonna choose who he's gonna choose, right? Give me >>a break, A.J.
>
>You know, King David swept his adultery and murder under the rug for about a year before God got ahold of him, and then had to deal=
with the
>consequences for the rest of his life...If God is the same yesterday,
>today, and forever, you can rest assured that any person (especially those >in authority) will be dealt with by God Himself -- one =
way or another!
If I can "rest assured," I should have seen some evidence of same. And
_the facts_ speak so loudly that I can't hear your preaching. Therefore,
either your God died, or He LIED....
>But what's that to you, Ken? You're blaming God for all this, so go ahead >and continue to blaspheme...
Well, He does interfere in human affairs, doesn't He? Therefore, He is
responsible ... for both His actions and His inaction. Remember all that
stuff about sins of comission?
Funny about God. He evidently holds _us_ to standards that he wouldn't
even think of obeying. Kind of reminds you of an ancient monarch -- "the
King can do no wrong." At least the Muslims are honest about it.
Y'know, A.J., I'd _LOVE_ a job like that -- get to take all the credit
when everything goes right, and didn't have to shoulder any of the blame
when they go wrong. In the real world, it's usually the opposite....
Oops, there I go with that blasphemy again!
>
>>>If we should do anything, we should be seeking the Lord to resolve
>>>this...Fervently and diligently!!!
>>
>> Why bother? Based on my experience in such matters, it doesn't do any
>>good....
>
>I'm truly sorry you harbor the pain and bitterness you do, but I love ya
>nontheless...
With that good old-fashioned sloopy agape, no doubt....
>
>Trusting Him,
>A.J. Nadeau
>
Burned for Trusting Him,
Ken
J.D. Ferguson
ajna...@aol.com (AjnadIII) wrote:
>In article <4olfgk$9...@qualcomm.com>, "J.D. Ferguson"
><jfer...@qualcomm.com> writes:
>
>>P.S. A follow up on my own follow up.
>>
>>What *I* meant is this;
>>
>>What is it called when you love the Lord with all your *mind* ?
>>
>>It's called "Theology".
>>
>>Why then, does it seem to be a dirty word to many C/C people?
>>>
>>J.D.
>
>Good question, J.D....
>
>I believe the answer can be found in Psalm 119...The word "meditation" is
>used twice, the word "meditate" 5 times...In every instance, meditation is
>related to the word of God, nothing else...
A.J.,
This is something I would like to dialog with you on. By the tone of your posts you seem to be a fairly average Calvary Chapel atten=
der, and an intellegent person. This issue goes to the heart of one of my beefs with what I call "pop christianity", which is its an=
ti intellectualism. Somewhere in the official C/C belief statement it says words to the effect that C/C came out of fundamentalism d=
ue to its anti intellectualism, yet that "spirit" looms large in many if not most C/C circles.
The C/C that I am in the process of leaving has that mindset, and yet, one of the few people in the church who is not afraid of u=
sing the words Theology and Doctrine, the guy who teaches the new believers class, and some more advanced apologetics classes, teach=
es bad Theology.(i.e. its more appropriate to call Jesus the son of God, than it is to call him God). If people don't know good from=
bad, they will take the bad for good, and insinuate it into their belief system.
I don't care how loudly *anybody* wants to protest that they "only read their Bible", and that they are not influenced by Theolog=
y, THEY ARE! There is a 99.9% chance that any givin Christians' Pastor, has been schooled according to a certain system of Theology =
(yes, C/C pastors too!), and he may have taught you to distrust the words Theology and Doctrine, but you better believe he's feeding=
a certain brand of it to you.
The brand that they feed at C/C follows along historic Christian lines, but if they don't teach people that Doctrine is important=
, and then teach them good Doctrine, you will run the risk of people falling away into cults (as one sweet young lady who used to at=
tend C/C Albequerque <sp?> that I know, has done). If you don't know good Doctrine, you won't recognize bad Doctrine!!!
Consider this.....What do you believe about the Lords' supper?.....Baptism?.......tithing?.....Prophecy?......these are all doctr=
inal Theological positions. Other devoted Christians may well believe differently than you about any one of those things, and its *n=
ot* that your position is Biblical, and theirs' isn't, and it really helps to know how people have come to believe differently about=
things like these. It helps you to better understand and solidify (or mabye even modify) your own positions, and also to understand=
how the other guy came to his conclusions, so you won't be proud and arrogant.(i.e. "well, i follow the Bible, and i guess he just =
dosen't).
Can you see how these are things that are worthy of study?
>
>Jesus accused the Pharisees and other religious leaders of burdening the
>Jews with the traditions of men (and from what I've heard about the
>Targums(?), they pretty extensive)...I believe that it is a dangerous
>thing to apply the wisdom of man to God's word...
>
Again, there are different ways Gods' word has been interpreted, you follow one of those systems.
>I am personally of the belief that a person diligently seeking/loving the
>Lord in the manner spoken of in Matthew 22 will not need much more than
>God's word, and will be amply equipped to serve the Lord according to His
>will! Those consumed in intellectual pursuits run the risk of worshipping
>at its altar (I've heard that Baal worship somehow involved an
>intellectual element)...The apostles were "unlearned and ignorant men" in
>the eyes of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:13), yet God used them mightily...
>
And Paul was anything but unlearned, and I think God used his learning.
>...I guess the question is, are we going to allow God to use us, or are we
>going to try to make ourselves perfect in the flesh (Gal 3:3)?
It has nothing to do with trying to make ourselves perfect in the flesh. in fact those who would try to do so, would be following ba=
d Theology and Doctrine! :-)
>
>Trusting In Him,
>A.J. Nadeau
Me Too !
J.D.
Areopaguss
ajna...@aol.com (AjnadIII) writes:
>Gus,
>
>Read my reply to Ken...If things are as bad as you say they are, then
>ther'll be trouble, for sure, the LORD Himself will see to it!
>
>In His Love,
>A.J. Nadeau
A. J.,
That is precisely what I am afraid will happen! Do we really want to
simply lay back and "let God take care of it"? If we do, there are
serious concequences. Until then, aren't we required to continue the call
to repentance to avoid the inevitable? People who just want to ignore the
matter and "let God take care of it" are provoking God's wrath.
AjnadIII
In article <4p68av$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, areop...@aol.com
(Areopaguss) writes:
>A. J.,
>
>That is precisely what I am afraid will happen! Do we really want to
>simply lay back and "let God take care of it"? If we do, there are
>serious concequences. Until then, aren't we required to continue the
call
>to repentance to avoid the inevitable? People who just want to ignore
the
>matter and "let God take care of it" are provoking God's wrath.
First, Hank hasn't come to me with anything, so it would be difficult for
me to personally tell him to repent, but he certainly needs to do just
that if he's guilty of all that's alleged...I won't just "sit back," I'll
be in prayer over all this (I'm trying to get in the habit for praying for
this newsgroup anyway)...I live absolutely nowhere near California, so it
would be impossible to go out and picket (which I probably wouldn't do
anyway)...
Gus, you may not like that answer, but that's the only one I can give you
for now...I'm really grieved over what's been alleged, and even more
grieved that people's lives have been ruined to the point they've left the
faith over stuff like this (as a matter of fact, that makes me kinda
angry)...Guess what? God says that we must encounter many tribulations to
enter His kingdom (Paul's life is a prime example), so I'm not surprised
at all this...
As for the cries of some that Calvary Chapel is "Roman Catholic" in its
"governing authority"...I took a look at 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, as
they were written to pastors...I see nothing suggesting to me that pastors
are to subject themselves to a board of elders...As a matter of fact,
Titus was encouraged to "...speak, and exhort, and rebuke _with all
authority_..." That tells me that within the "grand scheme" of things, the
pastor's responsibility is to God...
I've talked to brothers in Christ that attend churches that do govern
other than according to the aforementioned model, and I have to say the
potential for confusion and strife is far greater there than with this
one...What if you have a board of elders that is sharply divided on any
given issue...The pastor can't do anything because he's been hired (maybe
I shouldn't use that word) by the board, and has no authority...but guess
what? God says he'll be accountable for that congregation...
Concerning Pastor Chuck...I believe that he'll be giving account for all
that's been established through the movement, though he doesn't directly
oversee it...How would you like to be in his shoes? People have been
asking me to give them a break, why don't you give someone a break, too???
"...He has shown thee, o man, what is good and what the Lord requires of
thee: but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy
God..." Pastor Chuck "errs on the side of grace", as did David (in the
cases of Joab, Shimei, Absalom, etc.), as did Jesus...How many of us can
honestly say we've done the same????
AjnadIII
>A.J.,
>
>This is something I would like to dialog with you on. By the tone of your
>intellegent person. This issue goes to the heart of one of my beefs with
what
in
>the official C/C belief statement it says words to the effect that C/C
came
>looms large in many if not most C/C circles.
Looking at the statement of faith I have here from the pamphlet "What
Calvary Chapel Teaches," the closest thing I can find to that is the
statement stressing the importance of intelligent worship and the means to
that end being in the teaching of the Word of God...I'd like to think that
Calvary Chapel is fundamentalist in the way the Scripture is viewed...
> The C/C that I am in the process of leaving has that mindset, and yet,
one
>of the few people in the church who is not afraid of using the words
Theology
>and Doctrine, the guy who teaches the new believers class, and some more
>advanced apologetics classes, teaches bad Theology.(i.e. its more
appropriate
>to call Jesus the son of God, than it is to call him God). If people
don't
>know good from bad, they will take the bad for good, and insinuate it
into
>their belief system.
If I gave you the impression that I was totally down on theology and
doctrine, then I apologize, I'm not...I guess what I'm down on is the
dogmatic way some make their points regarding the two (I'm probably guilty
of that too!)...I do believe, however that if one reads more from theology
books than they do from Scripture, they run the risk of relying on what
man says over what God says in His word...
> I don't care how loudly *anybody* wants to protest that they "only
read
>their Bible", and that they are not influenced by Theology, THEY ARE!
There
>is a 99.9% chance that any givin Christians' Pastor, has been schooled
>according to a certain system of Theology (yes, C/C pastors too!), and he
may
>have taught you to distrust the words Theology and Doctrine, but you
better
>believe he's feeding a certain brand of it to you.
...And I'm aware of that, too! As a matter of fact, I asked my pastor for
a reading list, and one of the books he recommended to me was a book on
theology (I just haven't gotten around to purchasing it yet!)...I also
have a set of books written by Herbert Lockyer on my shelf (the "all
the...of the bible" series -- fascinating!)...But the vast majority of
reading I prefer is from Scripture...Paul stressed to Timothy to teach
sound doctrine, and in the book of Acts, the fellowship of believers
continued in the apostles' doctrine...Sound doctrine is extremely
important...At CCNN here in Virginia, we get into some very interesting
discussions about doctrine (like different types of baptisms and what they
mean), I hope that clarifies some things for ya!
> The brand that they feed at C/C follows along historic Christian
lines,
>but if they don't teach people that Doctrine is important, and then teach
>them good Doctrine, you will run the risk of people falling away into
cults
>(as one sweet young lady who used to attend C/C Albequerque <sp?> that I
>know, has done). If you don't know good Doctrine, you won't recognize bad
>Doctrine!!!
...And if that isn't happening where you're at, than I'd be worried
because I believe Scripture commands sound doctrine be taught (Titus 2:1,
for instance)...As a matter of fact, 2 John 1:9 says that those not
abiding in the doctrine of Christ don't have God!!!
> Consider this.....What do you believe about the Lords'
>supper?.....Baptism?.......tithing?.....Prophecy?......these are all
>doctrinal Theological positions. Other devoted Christians may well
believe
>differently than you about any one of those things, and its *not* that
your
>position is Biblical, and theirs' isn't, and it really helps to know how
>people have come to believe differently about things like these. It helps
you
>to better understand and solidify (or mabye even modify) your own
positions,
>and also to understand how the other guy came to his conclusions, so you
>won't be proud and arrogant.(i.e. "well, i follow the Bible, and i guess
he
>just dosen't).
I understand exactly where you're coming from, J.D....I pray that I
haven't fallen into the "...I am of Apollos..." camp, but I have to say
that hopefully, whatever position we may take regarding these doctrines
comes from a diligent study of the Scripture, and not from someone's
opinion...
> Can you see how these are things that are worthy of study?
You bet, and again, I believe Scripture commands us to study them...
>Again, there are different ways Gods' word has been interpreted, you
follow one of >those systems.
I realize that, too, and that's why I get a little uneasy when I enter
into a discussion of doctrine with someone that might not agree with me
(like Doug)...A prime example is the whole Calvinist vs Arminianist
argument...People have been murdered over this discussion!!!! Talk about
pride!! That is one of the reasons why I take the position I do regarding
Scripture...When we're exhorted by Jude to "earnestly contend for the
faith which was once delivered for the saints," it was to combat ungodly
heresies that were creeping into the Church, not to devour fellow
Christians because their position regarding God's sovreignty vs man's
responsibility didn't line up with their own...
>And Paul was anything but unlearned, and I think God used his learning.
He certainly did!! Paul was being prepared for the work God had for
him...But remember what he said about those things in Philippians 3 -- he
counted them loss that he could gain Christ...God's use of Paul shows us
_so many_ things!!! That chapter is really powerful, too!!
>It has nothing to do with trying to make ourselves perfect in the flesh.
in fact those who >would try to do so, would be following bad Theology and
Doctrine! :-)
...J.D., as long as that theology and doctrine are coming right from the
Word!!!! I guess I may have overreacted when I saw
"anti-intellectual"...When you consider the liberal theological drivel
coming from today's seminaries, and what they are spawning within what is
supposed to be called the church, and about how intellectual and scholarly
they are, I grieve!!! A lot of these guys don't believe that Jesus Christ
is God the Son!!!! I'll put it another way...I'd rather be taught by
someone unschooled, but completely yielded to the LORD and filled with His
Spirit, than someone with a PhD, DD, ThD (ad nauseum), who isn't!!!
Drop me a line, Brother!!! God be with Ya!!
A.J. Nadeau
Douglas Gilliland
Areopaguss wrote:
> They only care about getting the warm fuzzies. Truth is relative to these
> people.
I don't think it is relative to them. Maybe just a 3rd cousin ; )
Douglas Gilliland
AjnadIII wrote:
>
> >It's called "Theology".
> >Why then, does it seem to be a dirty word to many C/C people?
> >J.D.
>
> Good question, J.D....
>
> I believe the answer can be found in Psalm 119...The word "meditation" is
> used twice, the word "meditate" 5 times...In every instance, meditation is
> related to the word of God, nothing else...
In logic this is known as an arguement from silence. The form here is "Since
the verse talks about nothing else", the implied result is that "nothing other
than this is important". I found a verse that uses mediating and the dirty D
word (doctrine) together:
1 Tim 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them;
that thy profiting may appear to all.
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them:
for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear
thee.
> Jesus accused the Pharisees and other religious leaders of burdening the
> Jews with the traditions of men (and from what I've heard about the
> Targums(?), they pretty extensive)...I believe that it is a dangerous
> thing to apply the wisdom of man to God's word...
Is that a statement based on wisdom itself? Are you applying your statement to
the Word of God? Isn't this statement itself then dangerous by its own test?
This is self-stultification aka logic contradiction.
> I am personally of the belief that a person diligently seeking/loving the
> Lord in the manner spoken of in Matthew 22 will not need much more than
> God's word, and will be amply equipped to serve the Lord according to His
> will! Those consumed in intellectual pursuits run the risk of worshipping
> at its altar (I've heard that Baal worship somehow involved an
> intellectual element)...The apostles were "unlearned and ignorant men" in
> the eyes of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:13), yet God used them mightily...
You have been one of the most intellectual persons in this newsgroup. Keep on
thinking. But remember, if you don't think, you will be happier at CC. Just
close your mind. You don't really need it anyway. Their pastors can tell you
just what to think. They will do your thinking for you.
> ...I guess the question is, are we going to allow God to use us, or are we
> going to try to make ourselves perfect in the flesh (Gal 3:3)?
No man can hope to work out his own righteousness. Intellectual persuit is not
all fleshly, though. Jesus reasoned in the synagogues as did Paul. There is a
place for reasoning between the brethen. At some point this often breaks down.
The point of breakdown is typically when one side says "Let's stop reasoning,
and just "love" God, or some other nonsense". This is a way of quashing
dissent, one that is very evident with many of the CC people that I know. When
you nail them on some theological point they usually respond with "Well,
brother, I just want to love Jesus". As if everyone else wants to hate him? I
like to answer, "I just want to know Him as He truely is".
> Trusting In Him,
> A.J. Nadeau
--
Douglas Gilliland
David Lee wrote:
> Deana wrote:
> >Nope. Wasn't here. And in point of fact, I really don't care about
> >that...unless the difference means that one CC is living up to its tax
> >exemption and another is abusing it.
>
> I'm not sure how many even claim a tax exemption... Could be a flaw in your
> basic reason for being here ;^)
Easy enough to check. Does yours?
> >I don't see you responding
> >to their critiques. Maybe you should. Maybe then we'd take your side
> >seriously.
>
> I want to make it clear that I'm not "inside" enough to know. I don't
> believe that you are talking to people (via this newsgroup) that know
> enough to answer. The "rank and file" that I know don't really spend that
> much time looking at "leadership" of Calvary Chapel.
They can't find the answers. They are locked out of any discussion. This is a
top-down leadership that has "smoke filled room" style decisions. Those that try
to "look" are encouraged instead to "leave". However, at least several of the
people that post here are CC pastors and should be in a position where they can
find out. They just won't.
> I've seen many times
> when people tried to make a big fuss over Chuck Smith and he quickly
> side-stepped their admiration and pointed them to Jesus. This is not a
> case of a leader seeking attention. Quite the opposite, I've seen
> frustration from people who thought he was too reluctant to become the
> center of their attention.
He is widely reknown for how humble he is. (My irony detector just light up).
> This is a good sign: Emphasis of this ministry is on the Word.
Yes and no. One particular view of the Word, but not the Word in toto.
> >Well, this is alt.* . And contrary to popular belief, there's more to
> >alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel than just "sharing, prayer,
> >praise, worship and learning." The topics that have been brought up
> >here (such as pastoral responsibility in CC, the Hank Hanegraaf
> >potential scandal, cultic tendencies in CC)--they are all on-topic for
> >this newsgroup.
>
> But we still would like to see this newsgroup reflect Calvary Chapel. To
> my definition, that which does not is noise.
The people at Disney want you to only have a particular view while you are in
the park. They don't want you to see the real-world outside. Remember, you are
in Fantasyland. No beggars there, like the real world. Beggars can't afford the
$30+ to get in.
> >The reaction of the CC shills on this group to postings by myself and
> >others is very instructive. They are hyper. They are worried,
> >worried that the sheep might see the discussions here and start asking
> >questions.
>
> Yep. I've seen what you mean. Their fears are unfounded and so are yours.
> The men may have problems... All humans do... Or they may not.
> We just don't know the answers.
> I don't think alt.* is going to provide them.
> But Calvary Chapel spends more time studying the Word of God and worshiping
> Him than examining individuals. The Pharasees did lots of finger pointing
> & they didn't do too well, did they?
Paul and Jesus spent a lot of time finger pointing. They did pretty well.
Although being put to death by the authorities may not be considered as good by
many people.
> Well, don't expect to see that here. All that energy would take our eyes
> off of Jesus. The source of conflict in this thread is just that...
> Looking at a man instead of our Lord has to be disappointing.
Let's stop argueing and just "love the Lord". Forget about this truth and Bible
doctrine thing. Why turn on this computer at all? We should be praying all the
time and never talking to anyone else (I am on the irony roll today).
> I saw a Statement of Faith for CC/Oceanside posted here that
> really riled people who disagreed with something in it that probably wasn't
> in theirs. I enjoy the diversity, not the animosity. It's also clear that
> some of them simply didn't understand what they read.
It appears to me that you may well have missed the point. Which doctrinal
statement are you talking about, the little one written on the back of the CC
bulletin that is full of love, sweetness, and light? Or are you referring to the
bitter, hateful, vitrolic ones that condemn Calvinism, Post-millenialism,
A-millenialism, Word of Faith, and many other non-CC groups?
> How do you define "on topic"? By the world's standards, there are no
> limits but those in the FAQ. When someone in this group points at the FAQ
> why do you go ballistic? Encouraging uplifting discussion is not
> censorship, but direction.
It is OKay that someone says "Let's talk about this subject". What is being
objected to is people that say "You can't talk about that subject". That's the
problem here.
> >Why are you so afraid of this?
>
> Would you rather that I just made up some answer? It's not fear that keeps
> me silent on a subject I don't know about... I do not presume to speak for
> others who are not here. That's your problem: the usenet doesn't provide
> instant access to someone who's not even here.
There are those that know these things to be true and will not stand up. They do
not think it is "worth it". IMHO, truth means much too little to many today.
> IMHO the personal attacks on Hank Hanegraaf are motivated by what he has
> said or written about someone's "sacred cow". Since they can't refute his
> theology, they resort to ad hominem attacks. Appealing to a person's
> emotion & prejudices rather than his intellect is no way to gain my
> attention. It's a sure sign that there's nothing BUT smoke.
There is an attack of his theology off of my home page. No one has ever
responded to these points. They are publically available and have been
referenced in this newsgroup several times. The URL is:
http://village.ios.com/~dougg/ffff.htm
Speaking of ad homenim attacks, maybe you have never read CinC? Check out the
page above for a long list of them in CinC.
> Also, I doubt that any of the pastors of CC churches would say that HH is
> their pastor. This whole analogy of "rotten apples at the top" breaks down
> right there. Why refute it?
You have missed the point for some reason. HH is a CC pastor and was ordained by
Chuck Smith. These people are taking it to HH's church since the other avenues
have failed. The analogy stands since CS did the ordination and he is not
addressing the issue.
> In His love,
> David
David Lee
Over The Hills And Far Away areop...@aol.com (Areopaguss) wrote:
>They only care about getting the warm fuzzies. Truth is relative to these
>people.
Nope! Truth is absolute. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Of course, you have to say something to get a response. So far all I hear
is noise.
David Lee
Your reader, X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2 (Windows; U; 16bit), seems to have
trouble with word wrap. I've tried to repair what it did to the quotes for
legibility:
Rang...@ix.netcom.com (posted by 4omoen$m...@tribune.concentric.net) wrote:
>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>>Over The Hills And Far Away mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>>
>>>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>>>>Your biggest problem here is that you believe you're talking to people in
>>>>authority in Calvary Chapel. To my knowledge, you haven't.
> Lloyd Pullen is a CC pastor, and Scudder has claimed to forward some of
>my e-mail and posts to CC HQ. I'd say we are.
At the time of my post, I had not seen Deana dialoging with Pastor Pulley.
I'll allow you to read Pastor Pulley's response... It was posted a day and
a half before your post, but Usenet sometimes takes a while to complete the
loop.
If you're relying on someone who reads this group to send your message to
the leadership of Calvary Chapel, maybe you should try addressing them
directly. Their web site has lots of ways to contact them... But you said
you already talked to them... How's that again? I'm confused. You want to
talk to them but say you already have. You say someone here's going to
forward some of your e-mail and posts to them and that's why you're here?
But if you've already talked to them...
>>>Well, then, who is this John Scudder character who signs his name as
>>>some sort of "pastor" in CC? ...
>>
>>Read his sig again... (BTW it is too big) He tells us who his pastor is...
>>not that he is a pastor. He has been the administrator of a moderated BBS
>>network called CalvaryNet. Now he's starting a listserver (I think).
>>John's interests (and maybe his ego) are expanding to include the internet.
> He claims to speak for Calvary, and appears to act as its' agent.
I think he's concerned about the direction things are going here and would
like to see Calvary Chapel here, not the noise... He SAYS he's a Registered
Nurse... but I'm presuming to answer for others and will stop.
This from someone who claims to be ex-CRI?
That's not even close to checking your sources.
You sound more like Steve Winter from where I sit.
(I'm not anyone in authority either... just someone who's tired of the
noise.)
> <snippage>
>>>Why are you so afraid of this?
>>
>>Would you rather that I just made up some answer? It's not fear that keeps
>>me silent on a subject I don't know about... I do not presume to speak for
>>others who are not here. That's your problem: the usenet doesn't provide
>>instant access to someone who's not even here.
>>
>>IMHO the personal attacks on Hank Hanegraaf are motivated by what he has
>>said or written about someone's "sacred cow". Since they can't refute his
>>theology, they resort to ad hominem attacks. Appealing to a person's
>>emotion & prejudices rather than his intellect is no way to gain my
>>attention. It's a sure sign that there's nothing BUT smoke.
> "He who speaks before he hears, it is folly and shame to him..." You
>obviously haven't been paying attention. The folks who have been leading
>the "personal attacks" are _ex-CRI employees_! This isn't a theological
>skirmish.
I've seen what you've posted and refer to it as "noise." They are personal
attacks, not theological disagreements. Did you make the mistake of
idolatry? There is that tendancy in some people. Walter Martin was a
great man... Obviously HH couldn't fill his shoes in your eyes.
You also seem to believe that everyone on "your" side is ex-CRI. It
doesn't look like it from here. In fact, I was answering someone who
clearly does not claim affiliation. You've kicked up a dust storm and now
you're complaining about the mess.
>>Also, I doubt that any of the pastors of CC churches would say that HH is
>>their pastor. This whole analogy of "rotten apples at the top" breaks down
>>right there. Why refute it?
> Not at all. Chuck Smith has become part of the story, by looking the
>other way and sweeping the HH controversy under the rug.
So you have said... ad nauseum. You sound like the little boy who asked
God for something and didn't get it. Then he decided, "God doesn't answer
prayer. There is no God!" Then he went around telling everyone else what
he believed. He probably thought that repeating the same thing often
enough made it true. He may even have convinced himself, but others, who
know better, can see through that one. Let me assure you that God *does*
answer prayer, even when the answer is, "No."
Chuck Smith is not God, but he represents an authority figure to you.
There are things he does that you do not understand. Just because he
didn't react the way you expected, don't throw a tantrum. He doesn't
"wink" at sin. He does take action when warranted. You don't know what he
did. You just disagree with what he decided; and you call it, "looking the
other way and sweeping [it] under the rug."
Seems to me you've become so accustomed to looking at other people that
you've taken your eyes off Jesus and tripped over your untied shoelaces.
Don't worry, the scrape will heal if you quit picking at the scab. I hope
this angers you. I hope you stop and think about it. Don't you realize
how you have affected your message with your blind anger. People don't
even hear you after they've decided you have nothing but rage to offer.
It has been my experience that people in your state are hiding from their
own sin by trying to find it in others. Get right with God first... the
rest will all work out in His will.
> The Passantinos
>claim that they have the evidence to clear Hank -- well, let's see it!
I'm sure someone in authority already has, but they're not here. Here
comes that frustration again... You're talking to the wrong people.
<snip>
>>Not many of us at CC are easily stampeded by allegations, insinuation and
>>innuendo.
> Neither am I. I just want some answers.
I hope you get them, and I hope that you recognize the truth when you see
it... but you're asking the wrong people in the wrong place.
>>After years of solid Bible teaching from Calvary Chapel, I'm
>>satisfied that it's a sound, Christian church. I don't spook into a panic
>>when people start yelling, especially when they do it in alt.*. Doesn't
>>"alt" stand for Anarchists, Lunatics, and Terrorists? :)
> What's this about allegations, insinuation and innuendo? You may not be
>swayed by them, but you aren't above _using_ them.
Look closely at what you quoted. See that :) ? It's called a smile or
emoticon. If you can't see it, try tilting you head to the left. There
are some excellent new-user FAQs around which explain this and other
elements of the Usenet.
In the language of the Usenet that :) means I'm making a joke.
To understand the joke, you have to go back to the beginnings of the .alt
heirarchy and see that I am quoting an oft-used phrase.
The fact that I am also here should help you to understand that I was not
making a personal reference to you. I think you take yourself too
seriously.
I have to apologize to the others in this group for taking your bait.
It's born of a frustration from not being able to help. You are talking to
the wrong people in the wrong place. That's probably why you don't get
many answers here.
Please forgive me.
The bandwidth could certainly be put to better use than arguing like this.
AjnadIII
In article <31B791...@village.ios.com>, Douglas Gilliland
<do...@village.ios.com> writes:
>You have been one of the most intellectual persons in this newsgroup.
Keep on
>thinking. But remember, if you don't think, you will be happier at CC.
Just
>close your mind. You don't really need it anyway. Their pastors can tell
you
>just what to think. They will do your thinking for you.
I don't know where you went to CC, but none of the churches I attended
held that position, Doug...I've always been challenged to get in the
scriptures in the manner of the Berean church, _always_!!!!
>> ...I guess the question is, are we going to allow God to use us, or are
we
>> going to try to make ourselves perfect in the flesh (Gal 3:3)?
>
>No man can hope to work out his own righteousness. Intellectual persuit
is
>not all fleshly, though. Jesus reasoned in the synagogues as did Paul.
There is a
>place for reasoning between the brethen. At some point this often breaks
>down. The point of breakdown is typically when one side says "Let's stop
reasoning,
>and just "love" God, or some other nonsense". This is a way of quashing
>dissent, one that is very evident with many of the CC people that I know.
>When you nail them on some theological point they usually respond with
"Well,
>brother, I just want to love Jesus". As if everyone else wants to hate
him? I
>like to answer, "I just want to know Him as He truely is".
...And Paul and Jesus both reasoned from the Scripture...I thank God He's
given me opportunities to reason from the Scriptures with folks who
either don't believe, or hold a different view than mine...As for your
charge regarding CC's quashing dissent, I personally haven't seen it
happen, nor have I heard of it in any of the fellowships I've
attended...Like I told J.D., my current pastor loves to sit down and
discuss doctrine, and he's willing to discuss differing views, and he is
very knowledgeable in the Scriptures, too, with a considerable background
in apologetics (for what it's worth)...
...It's when I see an overemphasis on things spoken by men, rather than
God's Word, that my radar goes up (BTW, I've recently retired from the
U.S. Air Force)!!!
God Be With Ya!!
A.J. Nadeau
David Lee
Over The Hills And Far Away Rang...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Dave, you are so far off the fairway that you'd better hit another one.
Well, I thought if I sliced it a bit it would fit right in with the tactics
you and your gang have introduced to this newsgroup.
>>Rang...@ix.netcom.com (posted by 4omoen$m...@tribune.concentric.net) wrote:
>>
>>>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>>>>Over The Hills And Far Away mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>>>>>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Your biggest problem here is that you believe you're talking to people in >>>>>authority in Calvary Chapel. To my knowledge, y=
>ou haven't.
>>
>>At the time of my post, I had not seen Deana dialoging with Pastor Pulley.
> So what?
Good! Truth doesn't matter to you. Thanks for clearing up that
misconception.
>>If you're relying on someone who reads this group to send your message to
>>the leadership of Calvary Chapel, maybe you should try addressing them
>>directly. Their web site has lots of ways to contact them... But you said >you already talked to them... How's that again? I'm co=
>nfused. You want to >talk to them but say you already have. You say someone here's going to >forward some of your e-mail and posts=
> to them and that's why you're here? >But if you've already talked to them...
> You're so confused that you've gotten me confused.
My point exactly. Your argument made no sense whatsoever. Your reason for
being here is clear as mud.
> <snippage -- I don't have the foggiest idea wrt what you were talking
>about>
OK you snipped:
>>That's not even close to checking your sources.
You claimed you were talking to someone in authority with Calvary Chapel.
You were mistaken.
> They are personal >attacks, not theological disagreements. Did you make
>the mistake of >idolatry? There is that tendancy in some people. Walter
>Martin was a >great man... Obviously HH couldn't fill his shoes in your
>eyes.
> What on earth are you talking about?
You answered a thread started by someone else, saying it didn't apply to
you... Why did you answer? Since your gang loves to jump in saying that
what is directed at one does not apply to all, I simply lumped all of you
pseudonyms into one... Just like you do by generalizing about Calvary
Chapel. Don't like it? Stop doing it.
>I know Hank, I like Hank, and I've
>defended Hank on more than one occasion. I've been on his Christmas card
>list.
Wow! And I thought you were keeping things posted in an international
usegroup for a different reason... My mistake. All this attention out of
friendship?
>By stark contrast, I've never even met Walter, and from what little
>I recall, I was less than impressed.
Do you speak for all your gang?
>As far as I'm concerned, this is not
>a personal vendetta -- quite the opposite.
If my friend did what you are doing, I would question his definitions.
>>You also seem to believe that everyone on "your" side is ex-CRI. It
>>doesn't look like it from here. In fact, I was answering someone who
>>clearly does not claim affiliation. You've kicked up a dust storm and now
>>you're complaining about the mess.
> But it would seem that only you have your head in the sand. The ex-CRI
>group has been at this for several years.
Until recently, this newsgroup was spared your diatribe.
>No one on this NG claims to be
>ex-CRI (although one or two of the pseudos might).
Wrong! Maybe YOU should read before you speak.
>>>>Also, I doubt that any of the pastors of CC churches would say that HH is >>>their pastor. This whole analogy of "rotten apples =
>at the top" breaks down >>>right there. Why refute it?
>>
>>> Not at all. Chuck Smith has become part of the story, by looking the
>>>other way and sweeping the HH controversy under the rug.
>>
>>So you have said... ad nauseum. You sound like the little boy who asked
>>God for something and didn't get it.
> When your logic fails, try ad hominems ... right, Dave? Deal with the
>issues.
I think I was. You say you are no longer a Christian and seem to blame it
on issues you raise here. I think there's more truth in what you snipped
than you care to deal with.
> <obvious ad hominem snipped>
You also snipped:
>>[Chuck Smith] doesn't "wink" at sin. He does take action when warranted.
>>You don't know what he did. You just disagree with what he decided;
>>and you call it, "looking the other way and sweeping [it] under the rug."
What part of, "No" don't you understand?
>>> The Passantinos >>claim that they have the evidence to clear Hank -- well, let's see it!
>>
>>I'm sure someone in authority already has, but they're not here. Here
>>comes that frustration again... You're talking to the wrong people.
>>
> Well, if "the wrong people" don't raise their voices, "the right people"
>will feel free to sweep this matter under the rug. Power concedes nothing
>without a demand.
Oh, so this is really just an attempt to change a decision by coming in the
back door? So far the "wrong people" raising their voices are the divisive
voices of the disillusioned: you and your gang. Why do I call you that?
Because you all showed up at once and started attacking like a gang.
If it walks like a duck...
>>>>Not many of us at CC are easily stampeded by allegations, insinuation and
>>>>innuendo.
>>
>>> Neither am I. I just want some answers.
>>
>>I hope you get them, and I hope that you recognize the truth when you see
>>it... but you're asking the wrong people in the wrong place.
> You're right. How silly of me! Thinking I could get a straight answer
>from the Bible Answerman himself, Hank Hanegraaff! It's been about four
>months now, Hank....
I've been here since day 3 of this newsgroup and I've never seen Hank H.
post here... have you?
>>>>After years of solid Bible teaching from Calvary Chapel, I'm
>>>>satisfied that it's a sound, Christian church. I don't spook into a panic
>>>>when people start yelling, especially when they do it in alt.*. Doesn't
>>>>"alt" stand for Anarchists, Lunatics, and Terrorists? :)
>>
>>> What's this about allegations, insinuation and innuendo? You may not be
>>>swayed by them, but you aren't above _using_ them.
>>
>>Look closely at what you quoted. See that :) ? It's called a smile or
>>emoticon.
> Even if you say it with a smile, it is nonetheless an ad hominem attack.
>I guess that's what makes you a flaming hypocrite, as opposed to a run of
>the mill one....
> <the rest of Dave's moronic prattlings snipped>
Including this:
>>The fact that I am also here should help you to understand that I was
>>not making a personal reference to you. I think you take yourself too seriously.
>>I have to apologize to the others in this group for taking your bait.
>>It's born of a frustration from not being able to help. You are talking to >the wrong people in the wrong place. That's probably =
>why you don't get >many answers here.
> And you _certainly_ won't get them from Hank Hanegraaff, et al....
Oh, yes. We're back to your main reason for being here, instead of
somewhere effective. Do you really believe you are talking to someone?
>>The bandwidth could certainly be put to better use than arguing like this.
>>
> Then shut down your word-processor, and wait until you have something of
>value to add to the discussion....
By your definition what would that be?
Only agreement with you accepted here?
Isn't that what Calvary Chapel is being accused of?
How 'bout YOU going somewhere that makes a difference?
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
Dave, you are so far off the fairway that you'd better hit another one.
>Rang...@ix.netcom.com (posted by 4omoen$m...@tribune.concentric.net) wrote:
>
>>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>>>Over The Hills And Far Away mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>>>>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>
>>>>>Your biggest problem here is that you believe you're talking to people in >>>>>authority in Calvary Chapel. To my knowledge, y=
ou haven't.
>
>> Lloyd Pullen is a CC pastor, and Scudder has claimed to forward some of >>my e-mail and posts to CC HQ. I'd say we are.
>
>At the time of my post, I had not seen Deana dialoging with Pastor Pulley.
So what?
>
>I'll allow you to read Pastor Pulley's response... It was posted a day and >a half before your post, but Usenet sometimes takes a w=
hile to complete the >loop.
>
>If you're relying on someone who reads this group to send your message to
>the leadership of Calvary Chapel, maybe you should try addressing them
>directly. Their web site has lots of ways to contact them... But you said >you already talked to them... How's that again? I'm co=
nfused. You want to >talk to them but say you already have. You say someone here's going to >forward some of your e-mail and posts=
to them and that's why you're here? >But if you've already talked to them...
You're so confused that you've gotten me confused.
>
>>>>Well, then, who is this John Scudder character who signs his name as
>>>>some sort of "pastor" in CC? ...
>>>
>>>Read his sig again... (BTW it is too big) He tells us who his pastor is... >>>not that he is a pastor. He has been the administ=
rator of a moderated BBS >>>network called CalvaryNet. Now he's starting a listserver (I think). >>>John's interests (and maybe his=
ego) are expanding to include the internet.
>
>> He claims to speak for Calvary, and appears to act as its' agent.
>
>I think he's concerned about the direction things are going here and would >like to see Calvary Chapel here, not the noise... He SA=
YS he's a Registered >Nurse... but I'm presuming to answer for others and will stop.
So what? So, he has a day job. And maybe he's a pathological liar --
wouldn't be the first Christian. From what I hear from other sources, my
interest in the Hanegraaff affair has been noticed.
<snippage -- I don't have the foggiest idea wrt what you were talking
about>
>>>IMHO the personal attacks on Hank Hanegraaf are motivated by what he has>>>said or written about someone's "sacred cow". Since t=
hey can't refute his>>>theology, they resort to ad hominem attacks. Appealing to a person's>>>emotion & prejudices rather than his =
intellect is no way to gain my>>>attention. It's a sure sign that there's nothing BUT smoke.
>
>> "He who speaks before he hears, it is folly and shame to him..." You
>>obviously haven't been paying attention. The folks who have been leading >>the "personal attacks" are _ex-CRI employees_! This i=
sn't a theological >>skirmish.
>
>I've seen what you've posted and refer to it as "noise."
You are free to ignore the facts at your leisure. You can lead a Chris-
tian to evidence, but you can't make him think.....
They are personal >attacks, not theological disagreements. Did you make
the mistake of >idolatry? There is that tendancy in some people. Walter
Martin was a >great man... Obviously HH couldn't fill his shoes in your
eyes.
What on earth are you talking about? I know Hank, I like Hank, and I've
defended Hank on more than one occasion. I've been on his Christmas card
list. By stark contrast, I've never even met Walter, and from what little
I recall, I was less than impressed. As far as I'm concerned, this is not
a personal vendetta -- quite the opposite.
>
>You also seem to believe that everyone on "your" side is ex-CRI. It
>doesn't look like it from here. In fact, I was answering someone who
>clearly does not claim affiliation. You've kicked up a dust storm and now
>you're complaining about the mess.
But it would seem that only you have your head in the sand. The ex-CRI
group has been at this for several years. No one on this NG claims to be
ex-CRI (although one or two of the pseudos might).
>
>>>Also, I doubt that any of the pastors of CC churches would say that HH is >>>their pastor. This whole analogy of "rotten apples =
at the top" breaks down >>>right there. Why refute it?
>
>> Not at all. Chuck Smith has become part of the story, by looking the
>>other way and sweeping the HH controversy under the rug.
>
>So you have said... ad nauseum. You sound like the little boy who asked
>God for something and didn't get it.
When your logic fails, try ad hominems ... right, Dave? Deal with the
issues. Examine the evidence for yourself on The Charlatan Observer home
page. Listen to Hank try to dodge the issue of his $731,000 home. Then,
come back -- and maybe we can finally have an intelligent discussion.
<obvious ad hominem snipped>
>> The Passantinos >>claim that they have the evidence to clear Hank -- well, let's see it!
>
>I'm sure someone in authority already has, but they're not here. Here
>comes that frustration again... You're talking to the wrong people.
>
Well, if "the wrong people" don't raise their voices, "the right people"
will feel free to sweep this matter under the rug. Power concedes nothing
without a demand.
><snip>
>
>>>Not many of us at CC are easily stampeded by allegations, insinuation and
>>>innuendo.
>
>> Neither am I. I just want some answers.
>
>I hope you get them, and I hope that you recognize the truth when you see
>it... but you're asking the wrong people in the wrong place.
You're right. How silly of me! Thinking I could get a straight answer
from the Bible Answerman himself, Hank Hanegraaff! It's been about four
months now, Hank....
>
>>>After years of solid Bible teaching from Calvary Chapel, I'm
>>>satisfied that it's a sound, Christian church. I don't spook into a panic
>>>when people start yelling, especially when they do it in alt.*. Doesn't
>>>"alt" stand for Anarchists, Lunatics, and Terrorists? :)
>
>> What's this about allegations, insinuation and innuendo? You may not be
>>swayed by them, but you aren't above _using_ them.
>
>Look closely at what you quoted. See that :) ? It's called a smile or
>emoticon.
Even if you say it with a smile, it is nonetheless an ad hominem attack.
I guess that's what makes you a flaming hypocrite, as opposed to a run of
the mill one....
<the rest of Dave's moronic prattlings snipped>
>
>I have to apologize to the others in this group for taking your bait.
>It's born of a frustration from not being able to help. You are talking to >the wrong people in the wrong place. That's probably =
why you don't get >many answers here.
And you _certainly_ won't get them from Hank Hanegraaff, et al....
>Please forgive me.
>The bandwidth could certainly be put to better use than arguing like this.
>
eric kimball
Douglas Gilliland <do...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>AjnadIII wrote:
>>
>> >It's called "Theology".
>> >Why then, does it seem to be a dirty word to many C/C people?
>> >J.D.
>>
>> Good question, J.D....
>>
>> I believe the answer can be found in Psalm 119...The word "meditation" is
>> used twice, the word "meditate" 5 times...In every instance, meditation is
>> related to the word of God, nothing else...
>
>In logic this is known as an arguement from silence. The form here is "Since
>the verse talks about nothing else", the implied result is that "nothing other
>than this is important".
Good arguement Doug, but how about this one:self stultifying.
He is arguing theologicaly for the position that theology is bad.
I found a verse that uses mediating and the dirty D
>word (doctrine) together:
>
> 1 Tim 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them;
> that thy profiting may appear to all.
> 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them:
> for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear
> thee.
>
Nice verses did you find it via the index? Well this one
seems to be in context, unlike the majority of verses pulled out of
Strongs and used in an attempt to pound people with out- of- context
verses. By the way that is not theology. I could go into a college
history course as a professor if only they would allow me to string
together references from history books and present that to my students.
>> Jesus accused the Pharisees and other religious leaders of burdening the
>> Jews with the traditions of men (and from what I've heard about the
>> Targums(?), they pretty extensive)...I believe that it is a dangerous
>> thing to apply the wisdom of man to God's word...
>
>Is that a statement based on wisdom itself? Are you applying your statement to
>the Word of God? Isn't this statement itself then dangerous by its own test?
>This is self-stultification aka logic contradiction.
>
Stop using my arguements against people, Doug!!! What are
those plagarism laws again?
>> I am personally of the belief that a person diligently seeking/loving the
>> Lord in the manner spoken of in Matthew 22 will not need much more than
>> God's word, and will be amply equipped to serve the Lord according to His
>> will! Those consumed in intellectual pursuits run the risk of worshipping
>> at its altar (I've heard that Baal worship somehow involved an
>> intellectual element)...The apostles were "unlearned and ignorant men" in
>> the eyes of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:13), yet God used them mightily...
>
Doesnt it say somewhere else that Paul was like one of the top
dudes in the Jewish intelligencia? Lets see the writer of the majority of
the NT could be a pretty good role model dont you think?
>You have been one of the most intellectual persons in this newsgroup. Keep on
>thinking. But remember, if you don't think, you will be happier at CC. Just
>close your mind. You don't really need it anyway. Their pastors can tell you
>just what to think. They will do your thinking for you.
>
>> ...I guess the question is, are we going to allow God to use us, or are we
>> going to try to make ourselves perfect in the flesh (Gal 3:3)?
>
>No man can hope to work out his own righteousness. Intellectual persuit is not
>all fleshly, though. Jesus reasoned in the synagogues as did Paul. There is a
>place for reasoning between the brethen. At some point this often breaks down.
>The point of breakdown is typically when one side says "Let's stop reasoning,
>and just "love" God, or some other nonsense". This is a way of quashing
>dissent, one that is very evident with many of the CC people that I know. When
>you nail them on some theological point they usually respond with "Well,
>brother, I just want to love Jesus". As if everyone else wants to hate him? I
>like to answer, "I just want to know Him as He truely is".
>
>> Trusting In Him,
>> A.J. Nadeau
>
>--
>Doug Gilliland
>1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
>are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Eric Kimball
J.D. Ferguson
ajna...@aol.com (AjnadIII) wrote:
Like I told J.D., my current pastor loves to sit down and
>discuss doctrine, and he's willing to discuss differing views, and he is
>very knowledgeable in the Scriptures, too, with a considerable background
>in apologetics (for what it's worth)...
A.J.,
It's worth a lot. Many C/C pastors, if you have the audacity to bring up a differing point of Doctrine, and want to discuss it, and=
not even in a harsh way, will just tell you that you're being argumentitive, divisive, and that that stuff isn't important anyway, =
and you need to just Love Jesus more.
Living in So. Calif., I am blessed by having a whole plethora of Calvary Chapel Pastors to choose from (I love that word "plethora",=
and I hardly ever get a chance to use it ;-) ) There is one, just north of where I live who, like your Pastor is very knowledgeab=
le in Theology (i believe he was one of the first teachers in the C/C bible school). When I listen to one of his sermons, I learn a =
lot. But for some reason he has chosen to surround himself with (and this is truly IMHO) a bunch of asst. pastors who would be much =
more at home in a Vinyard (and not the kind that grows grapes) I'm trying to be restrained with my choices of words here.
To the south, there is one who seems to me to be too Arminian for my taste, amidst other issues, and to the northwest, there is anot=
her one who seems to be one of these "poo poo on Theology & Doctrine, and lets just love Jesus" types.
It sounds like you have found a balanced one, and you should praise God for it!
BTW, If the book on Theology that your Pastor recomended, is either Ryries systematic Theology, or the Moody handbook of Theology, P=
ay close attention to their sections on Soteriology, I believe them to be Excellent!
J.D.
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
In a Prozac-induced state d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>Over The Hills And Far Away Rang...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> Dave, you are so far off the fairway that you'd better hit another one.
>
>Well, I thought if I sliced it a bit it would fit right in with the tactics >you and your gang have introduced to this newsgroup.
But your brownshirts' tactics are right out of the pages of the Church
of $cientology....
>
>>>Rang...@ix.netcom.com (posted by 4omoen$m...@tribune.concentric.net) wrote:
>>>
>>>>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>>>>>Over The Hills And Far Away mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>>>>>>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Your biggest problem here is that you believe you're talking to people in >>>>>authority in Calvary Chapel. To my knowledge,=
y=
>>ou haven't.
>>>
>>>At the time of my post, I had not seen Deana dialoging with Pastor Pulley.
>
>> So what?
>
>Good! Truth doesn't matter to you. Thanks for clearing up that
>misconception.
How could you possibly infer that from THOSE facts? What Deana does is
her business. I haven't been talking about Deana.
>
>>>If you're relying on someone who reads this group to send your message to
>>>the leadership of Calvary Chapel, maybe you should try addressing them
>>>directly. Their web site has lots of ways to contact them... But you said >you already talked to them... How's that again? I'm =
co=
>>nfused. You want to >talk to them but say you already have. You say someone here's going to >forward some of your e-mail and pos=
ts=
>> to them and that's why you're here? >But if you've already talked to them...
>
>> You're so confused that you've gotten me confused.
>
>My point exactly. Your argument made no sense whatsoever. Your reason for
>being here is clear as mud.
I can't be held responsible for your intellectual deficiencies.
>> <snippage -- I don't have the foggiest idea wrt what you were talking
>>about>
>OK you snipped:
>>>That's not even close to checking your sources.
>
>You claimed you were talking to someone in authority with Calvary Chapel.
>You were mistaken.
Excuse me, I had no idea that CC pastors were automatons.
>
>> They are personal >attacks, not theological disagreements. Did you make
>>the mistake of >idolatry? There is that tendancy in some people. Walter
>>Martin was a >great man... Obviously HH couldn't fill his shoes in your
>>eyes.
>
>> What on earth are you talking about?
>
>You answered a thread started by someone else, saying it didn't apply to
>you... Why did you answer? Since your gang loves to jump in saying that
>what is directed at one does not apply to all, I simply lumped all of you
>pseudonyms into one... Just like you do by generalizing about Calvary
>Chapel. Don't like it? Stop doing it.
Please be a little more specific in your charges. You're so vague, I'll
bet you think this post is about you....
>
>>I know Hank, I like Hank, and I've >>defended Hank on more than one
occasion. I've been on his Christmas card >>list.
>
>Wow! And I thought you were keeping things posted in an international
>usegroup for a different reason... My mistake. All this attention out of
>friendship?
Friendship has nothing to do with it. Truth matters to me. Obviously,
judging from your objection, you disagree.
>
>>By stark contrast, I've never even met Walter, and from what little
>>I recall, I was less than impressed.
>
>Do you speak for all your gang?
My gang?
>
>>As far as I'm concerned, this is not
>>a personal vendetta -- quite the opposite.
>
>If my friend did what you are doing, I would question his definitions.
"Son, before you get to judgin' your uncle too harshly, let me tell you
somethin' 'bout this old boy and what he's done for us ... Henry knows the
folks around here, and he's done right by us for 15 years. Your uncle may
be a crook, boy, but he's our crook!"
-- G.B. Trudeau
From "Guess Who, Fish-Face"
The way I see it, friend or foe makes no difference. Obviously, you'd
cover up the sins of your "friends," and yet howl about the sins of your
enemies. You're a flaming hypocrite, Dave.
>
>>>You also seem to believe that everyone on "your" side is ex-CRI. It
>>>doesn't look like it from here. In fact, I was answering someone who
>>>clearly does not claim affiliation. You've kicked up a dust storm and now
>>>you're complaining about the mess.
>
>> But it would seem that only you have your head in the sand. The ex-CRI >>group has been at this for several years.
>
>Until recently, this newsgroup was spared your diatribe.
>
>>No one on this NG claims to be >>ex-CRI (although one or two of the pseudos might).
>
>Wrong! Maybe YOU should read before you speak.
All right, I stand corrected. No one that I am aware of has claimed to
be ex-CRI.
>
>>>>>Also, I doubt that any of the pastors of CC churches would say that HH is >>>their pastor. This whole analogy of "rotten apple=
s =
>>at the top" breaks down >>>right there. Why refute it?
>>>
>>>> Not at all. Chuck Smith has become part of the story, by looking the >>>>other way and sweeping the HH controversy under the =
rug.
>>>
>>>So you have said... ad nauseum. You sound like the little boy who asked >>>God for something and didn't get it.
>
>> When your logic fails, try ad hominems ... right, Dave? Deal with the
>>issues.
>
>I think I was. You say you are no longer a Christian and seem to blame it >on issues you raise here. I think there's more truth i=
n what you
snipped >than you care to deal with.
We can deal with it in another context if you like -- but that doesn't
make Hank's opulent $731,000 mansion in Coto go away, nor does it justify
his attempts to deny reports on it. Listen to the tape, Dave, and let's
discuss the merits of having ministry staffers write books while on mini-
stry time to subsidize Hank's paltry $99,000 housing allowance....
>
>> <obvious ad hominem snipped>
>You also snipped:
>>>[Chuck Smith] doesn't "wink" at sin. He does take action when warranted.
>>>You don't know what he did. You just disagree with what he decided;
>>>and you call it, "looking the other way and sweeping [it] under the rug."
>
>What part of, "No" don't you understand?
Pope Chuck is infallible, eh? Just like the Mormon Twelve Apostles....
>
>>>> The Passantinos >>claim that they have the evidence to clear Hank -- well, let's see it!
>>>
>>>I'm sure someone in authority already has, but they're not here. Here
>>>comes that frustration again... You're talking to the wrong people.
>>>
>> Well, if "the wrong people" don't raise their voices, "the right people" >>will feel free to sweep this matter under the rug. P=
ower concedes nothing >>without a demand.
>
>Oh, so this is really just an attempt to change a decision by coming in the >back door? So far the "wrong people" raising their vo=
ices are the divisive >voices of the disillusioned: you and your gang. Why do I call you that? >Because you all showed up at once =
and started attacking like a gang. >If it walks like a duck...
And you and your brownshirts (Scudder, et al.) have been trying to use
threats to silence people. If _IT_ walks like a duck....
>
>>>>>Not many of us at CC are easily stampeded by allegations, insinuation and
>>>>>innuendo.
>>>
>>>> Neither am I. I just want some answers.
>>>
>>>I hope you get them, and I hope that you recognize the truth when you see
>>>it... but you're asking the wrong people in the wrong place.
>
>> You're right. How silly of me! Thinking I could get a straight answer >>from the Bible Answerman himself, Hank Hanegraaff! It=
's been
about four >>months now, Hank....
>
>I've been here since day 3 of this newsgroup and I've never seen Hank H.
>post here... have you?
Dave, you make _Steve Winter_ sound intelligent. I've written Hank on
several occasions via facsimile, and I've been told that he monitors the
NG. Many things happen outside the walls of this puny NG.
>
>>>>>After years of solid Bible teaching from Calvary Chapel, I'm
>>>>>satisfied that it's a sound, Christian church. I don't spook into a panic
>>>>>when people start yelling, especially when they do it in alt.*. Doesn't
>>>>>"alt" stand for Anarchists, Lunatics, and Terrorists? :)
>>>
>>>> What's this about allegations, insinuation and innuendo? You may not be
>>>>swayed by them, but you aren't above _using_ them.
>>>
>>>Look closely at what you quoted. See that :) ? It's called a smile or
>>>emoticon.
>
>> Even if you say it with a smile, it is nonetheless an ad hominem attack.
>>I guess that's what makes you a flaming hypocrite, as opposed to a run of
>>the mill one....
>
>> <the rest of Dave's moronic prattlings snipped>
>Including this:
>>>The fact that I am also here should help you to understand that I was
>>>not making a personal reference to you. I think you take yourself too seriously.
Again, your prattlings are ad hominem, and beside the point.
>
>>>I have to apologize to the others in this group for taking your bait.
>>>It's born of a frustration from not being able to help. You are talking to >the wrong people in the wrong place. That's probabl=
y =
>>why you don't get >many answers here.
>
>> And you _certainly_ won't get them from Hank Hanegraaff, et al....
>
>Oh, yes. We're back to your main reason for being here, instead of
>somewhere effective. Do you really believe you are talking to someone?
You're right, David. Talking to you does seem a waste of time.
>
>>>The bandwidth could certainly be put to better use than arguing like this.
>>>
>> Then shut down your word-processor, and wait until you have something of >>value to add to the discussion....
>
>By your definition what would that be?
>Only agreement with you accepted here?
You don't have to agree with me, but it would be nice if you could put
together something that vaguely resembles a logical argument....
>Isn't that what Calvary Chapel is being accused of?
Not at all. I guess I'm just asking for what you cannot deliver -- a
logical argument.
>How 'bout YOU going somewhere that makes a difference?
Clearly, that list of places would not include Chucky's cheesy cult....
Deana M. Holmes
Rang...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Dave, you make _Steve Winter_ sound intelligent. I've written Hank on
>several occasions via facsimile, and I've been told that he monitors the
>NG. Many things happen outside the walls of this puny NG.
I only want to second what Ken has written here. These churches and
ministries and whatnot pay attention to what is said on the Net. On
alt.religion.christian.boston-church, you can be "marked" for what you
say. (And thus, a member of the International Church of Christ can't
speak to you.) On alt.religion.eckankar, people have told about the
ECK religion's harassment of those who use their symbols on opposition
web pages.
And, of course, alt.religion.scientology goes without saying.
So don't deceive yourself. "The audience is listening."
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
April 1996 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
mir...@xmission.com
David Lee
Rang...@ix.netcom.com, et.al. :
Congratulations!
You have now reacted to me in the same manner as some in this newsgroup
reacted to you when you first arrived.
I tried your tactics for a while and even YOU didn't like them.
Small wonder none of us did either.
You motives are clear. Your message hasn't changed "for four months."
You haven't added anything to the mailing packet which was rejected by the
pastors.
How many converts have you found from the rank and file by trashing this
newsgroup?
What will it take for you to see that you are doing no good here?
David
David Lee
mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>I only want to second what Ken has written here. These churches and
>ministries and whatnot pay attention to what is said on the Net. On
>alt.religion.christian.boston-church, you can be "marked" for what you
>say. (And thus, a member of the International Church of Christ can't
>speak to you.) On alt.religion.eckankar, people have told about the
>ECK religion's harassment of those who use their symbols on opposition
>web pages.
>And, of course, alt.religion.scientology goes without saying.
>So don't deceive yourself. "The audience is listening."
Same fallacy that brought you here in the first place.
Nothing new has been presented here.
What would they learn if they DID read it?
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
pastors are covering up. And some of them may have even learned to think
for themselves (horrors!)....
Is _that_ what you really fear, David?
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>Rang...@ix.netcom.com, et.al. :
>
>Congratulations!
>You have now reacted to me in the same manner as some in this newsgroup
>reacted to you when you first arrived.
How is that? I didn't threaten to have your account taken away. I only
asked you to make intelligent comments ... which appears to be beyond your
capacity, so I won't ask any more.
>I tried your tactics for a while and even YOU didn't like them.
What tactics are those? You are great at making vague accusations, but
offer little of substance.
>Small wonder none of us did either.
There appears to be two sides to this dispute. One side wants some kind
of explanation as to Hank's conduct. The other side seems to have adopted
a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" philosophy.
>You motives are clear. Your message hasn't changed "for four months."
I have only been here for a little over a month. And what, pray tell,
are my "motives?" While it has become painfully apparent that CC is into
mind control, I wasn't aware that you were into mind-READING, as well....
>You haven't added anything to the mailing packet which was rejected by the >pastors.
From this, I infer that you have read it. Then enlighten us, Sir, as to
WHY your pastors rejected it. The Group approached Hank with their griev-
ances in accordance with Matt. 18, but were rebuffed. What has the Church
done to resolve them? Did Chucky Cheesy tell them to fuck off ... because
they were messing with his golfing buddy?
How do you know that the packet was "rejected" by the pastors? Are you
someone in authority at CC?
>How many converts have you found from the rank and file by trashing this
>newsgroup?
Who's trashing this NG? This is .alt, and my posts are on-topic.
>What will it take for you to see that you are doing no good here?
Drink your Kool-aid, David. The Congressman's plane won't be leaving.
>
>David
>
Douglas Gilliland
AjnadIII wrote:
> ...It's when I see an overemphasis on things spoken by men, rather than
> God's Word, that my radar goes up (BTW, I've recently retired from the
> U.S. Air Force)!!!
>
> God Be With Ya!!
> A.J. Nadeau
I would have pegged you for someone younger. Were you a 20 year guy who signed
up first at 18? I was an AF baby and was born at Luke AFB hospital.
Glad your CC experiences have been good. Some of the CC pastors are more into
apologetics than others. One of the KWVE guys (his name escapes me at the
present, but he is on after BAM - not Missler) is pretty good on apologetics. I
can tell that he is reading some of the same authors that I am reading.
AjnadIII
In article <4pc9h5$a...@qualcomm.com>, "J.D. Ferguson"
<jfer...@qualcomm.com> writes:
>It sounds like you have found a balanced one, and you should praise God
for it!
Believe me, I do, and I make sure he is always in my prayers as well....
>BTW, If the book on Theology that your Pastor recomended, is either
Ryries
>systematic Theology, or the Moody handbook of Theology, P=
>ay close attention to their sections on Soteriology, I believe them to be
>Excellent!
I believe the Moody Handbook was the one he recommended, and once I get my
hands on it, I'll take your advice...Thanks, J.D.!
>J.D.
A.J.
David Lee
Over The Hills And Far Away Rang...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>d...@ix.netcom.com (David Lee) wrote:
>>You haven't added anything to the mailing packet which was rejected by the >pastors.
> From this, I infer that you have read it. Then enlighten us, Sir, as to
>WHY your pastors rejected it. The Group approached Hank with their griev-
>ances in accordance with Matt. 18, but were rebuffed. What has the Church
>done to resolve them? Did Chucky Cheesy tell them to fuck off ... because
>they were messing with his golfing buddy?
> How do you know that the packet was "rejected" by the pastors? Are you
>someone in authority at CC?
If you had read and comprehended previous messages here, you would know
that we were all told that a "packet:" had been mailed to the pastors at
considerable expense. Your actions here are proof enough that it was
rejected.
You remember only what you choose to and not even what you, yourself post.
Your memory appears to be selective. Is it because of drugs you alluded to?
Go away.
You are asking the same questions you started with.
You refuse to accept any statements to the effect that you are asking your
questions in the wrong place.
You're shooting at a brick wall and then complaining about the ricochet.
While some assert that CC is ruled by "Pope Chuck", pastors in this group
have denied it. I'll take their word because it agrees with what I see
locally. Your allegations do not. If anything about the Catholic analogy
were true, my own behavior here would have warranted at least an e-mail
from someone who considered himself to be my "head"... None arrived and
none are expected.
I have repeatedly said that I am not anyone in "authority" in CC and that I
object to you trampling a newsgroup you knew nothing about simply because
you felt that the name of the group justified your actions.
If anyone fits the moniker "Brown Shirts," it is you. Who crashed in at
midnight? Who stormed this group? Does your "Ranger" refer to Special
Forces or the truck you drive? You sound more like Tonto to me.
You don't listen. You repeat the same questions. Your feeble attempts to
persuade are as ludicrous as your ad hominem attacks.
When someone mimics your own tactics to simply demonstrate to you that you
are doing what you deny, you object to the tactics.
I'm not impressed.
Go away.
Rang...@ix.netcom.com
>>>You haven't added anything to the mailing packet which was rejected by the >pastors.
>
ank with their griev->>ances in accordance with Matt. 18, but were rebuffed. What has the Church >>done to resolve them? Did Chuck=
y Cheesy tell them to fuck off ... because >>they were messing with his golfing buddy?
>> How do you know that the packet was "rejected" by the pastors? Are you >>someone in authority at CC?
>
>If you had read and comprehended previous messages here, you would know
>that we were all told that a "packet:" had been mailed to the pastors at
>considerable expense. Your actions here are proof enough that it was
>rejected.
Was it rejected by the pastors ... or Pope Chuck and his friends in his
Star Chamber?
>Go away.
I've been planning on it ... but since you insist, I'll stay.
Armand Nadeau
Douglas Gilliland <do...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>AjnadIII wrote:
>> ...It's when I see an overemphasis on things spoken by men, rather than
>> God's Word, that my radar goes up (BTW, I've recently retired from the
>> U.S. Air Force)!!!
>>
>> God Be With Ya!!
>> A.J. Nadeau
>
>I would have pegged you for someone younger. Were you a 20 year guy who signed
>up first at 18? I was an AF baby and was born at Luke AFB hospital.
20 years, 8 months, 15 days, but who's counting? :)
>Glad your CC experiences have been good. Some of the CC pastors are more into
>apologetics than others. One of the KWVE guys (his name escapes me at the
>present, but he is on after BAM - not Missler) is pretty good on apologetics. I
>can tell that he is reading some of the same authors that I am reading.
I'm glad they've been good, too! I'd like to think that I've progressed
in my walk with the Lord as a direct result of the teaching I've received
through CC and their emphasis on teaching through God's Word!
>--
>Doug Gilliland
>1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
>are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
A.J. Nadeau
oneiric
David Lee wrote:
>Rang...@ix.netcom.com, et.al. :
>
>How many converts have you found from the rank and file by trashing this
>newsgroup? What will it take for you to see that you are doing no good here?
>
>David
David, it might shock you (and possibly offend you) to find out this "gang"
you're referring to are addressing only the most recent garbage that
semi-regularly rises to the surface of CCCM or any other religious/ideological
institution. I remember back in 1976 when I was the field trip bus driver for
Maranatha Christian Academy (CCCM's on-site grade school). I sat outside
listening to Chuck on the outside speakers telling everyone that this was the
year and to keep in touch with the official oracles (my phrase) for the
appointed day when we will meet together at the church to be raptured
together. At this same time, in the back parking lot was a huge education
building being constructed. I remember thinking as a young believer, "Why is
Chuck sinking so much money into this building when we're only going to use it
for a couple of months. The building progressed on to completion, in sad
contrast to a few folks who might have taken Chuck seriously enough to sell
their homes in anticipation of the end. You see, in my opinion Chuck Smith
himself doesn't take his teaching that seriously, unlike many (perhaps such as
yourself) who would "joyfully submit to the spoiling of your goods" in your
following Chuck only to be left robbed of your faith because of a man who did
not really take responsibility for his enormous influence on others.
Not meaning to offend, just throwing another hat in the ring
Oneiric
"Ideology breeds contempt"
one...@teleport.com
по
oneiric
In article <4pijc5$q...@nadine.teleport.com>,
one...@teleport.com (oneiric) wrote:
David Lee wrote:
>How many converts have you found from the rank and file by trashing this
>newsgroup? What will it take for you to see that you are doing no good here?
>
>David
A little addendum. What about all the disenfranchised ex-CC members who lost
their connections with their community of spiritual birth because of something
as ridiculously speculative as eschatology. I grew up in Calvary, David. There
were theological points I differed with as I read more, but I was naive enough
to believe that Calvary would always remain open and inclusive to those who
worshipped the Lord in Spirit and Truth. My entire church was cut off,
brother, because we held to what I believe made Calvary so distinct. Not its
government - that's just Chuck's Foursquare background, although it appears to
be serving him well right now. Not its eschatology - dispensationalism isn't a
Calvary exclusive. It was Calvary's inclusiveness that drew me there as a
teenage hippy, and it's Calvary's about face that is throwing out it's own
offspring for advocating that inclusivity. These will eventually find this
newsgroup and reconnect. Does that sound so far-fetched? I found it, and I
suppose others here have also discovered it in their exilic wanderings.
Douglas Gilliland
> >newsgroup? What will it take for you to see that you are doing no good here?
> >
> >David
>
> you're referring to are addressing only the most recent garbage that
> semi-regularly rises to the surface of CCCM or any other religious/ideological
> institution. I remember back in 1976 when I was the field trip bus driver for
> Maranatha Christian Academy (CCCM's on-site grade school). I sat outside
> listening to Chuck on the outside speakers telling everyone that this was the
> year and to keep in touch with the official oracles (my phrase) for the
> appointed day when we will meet together at the church to be raptured
> together. At this same time, in the back parking lot was a huge education
> building being constructed. I remember thinking as a young believer, "Why is
> Chuck sinking so much money into this building when we're only going to use it
> for a couple of months. The building progressed on to completion, in sad
> contrast to a few folks who might have taken Chuck seriously enough to sell
> their homes in anticipation of the end. You see, in my opinion Chuck Smith
> himself doesn't take his teaching that seriously, unlike many (perhaps such as
> yourself) who would "joyfully submit to the spoiling of your goods" in your
> following Chuck only to be left robbed of your faith because of a man who did
> not really take responsibility for his enormous influence on others.
>
> Not meaning to offend, just throwing another hat in the ring
>
Oneiric -
Thanks for joining in. The CC people now claim that those events never happened.
They now say that Chuck never taught those things. He just "suggested marvelous
possibilities". Thanks for being another witness against them. Resist the voices
that will try and silence you. We were there and we do remember what happened.
