Thursday, December 4, 2014

Presiding Bishop Blake Clarifies Carter Criticism...Somewhat...

Thanks to one of my readers I was directed towards a statement recently released by Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake   concerning his criticism of Dr. Earl Carter and his message at the 107th Annual Holy Convocation. I have done 5 articles already on this (way too much) that can be found HEREHEREHEREHERE and HERE

In this exciting NEW "episode" Bishop Blake clarifies what commentary contained within the nearly hour long message that Dr. carter presented, was, in his opinion, offensive and "inappropriate". from what can be assessed from the following statement, his dissent is boiled down to his tenor, tone and the use of a crude metaphorical statement.  The statement of Bishop Blake, released by a church Secretary on the West Angeles facebook site is as follows:



There are so many things that can be said about this statement, but please allow me to make a few of the more important ones...First, Bishop Blake in point 5, states that what Dr. Carter said was wrong and ungodly. Because and due to this, he goes on to question Dr. Carter's character and relationship to God, saying "What godly man..." would say such things? 

OK, lets just assume that he is right for a SECOND...Please allow me to ask this...WHAT GODLY MEN WOULD ALLOW PEDOPHILES, MOLESTERS, ADULTERERS AND WHORE MONGERS TO CONTINUE IN THE PULPIT, EVEN PROMOTE THEM THROUGH MINISTRY IN THE UPPER ECHELON OF CHURCH COUNCILS without making them accountable for their actions and unrepentant ways? 

#2: Neither I nor anyone else who understands God's message of righteousness in the bible buy into the "just think of all the people that will NEVER come to Christ because of what Dr. Carter said".....NOPE, NOPE NOPE!!!!! Don't buy into it for a minute....HE is not STANDING IN THE WAY OF SINNERS...too many of these new modern and weak Saints are doing that....

But for a minute, JUST THINK OF ALL THOSE THAT WILL NOT COME BACK TO OUR CHURCH BECAUSE WE DID NOTHING WHEN THEIR RELATIVES, SISTERS, BROTHERS AND CHILDREN WERE MOLESTED!!!!! 

Which damages COGIC ministry more? Someone saying that he wishes that gay men would suffer all the natural and normal aspects of femininity (since they want to be women so badly) Which we all know will never happen...or doing absolutely NOTHING to comfort victims of sexual abuse and minister to their families when such cases arise? Is providing a sexual abuser and offender a handbook called a "Sexual Misconduct Policy" which outlines the rights of the OFFENDER and does NOTHING to protect the ABUSED something that will draw men and women and families to our church???? 

Then, do we think that signing onto a document used to promote homosexuality will HELP our ministry? Not for a minute will we allow the affirming of the the UDHR to skirt by as a method to "draw" folk compassionately...it is NOT! It was a method to conform to this world. 

Speaking of love, where is the LOVE IN ACTION in any of those instances, policies or lack of policies as we hold and conduct power conferences all over the nation at exorbitant prices and fees? Maybe we need to add one more scripture to this examination and lambasting of Dr. Carter and point that back towards ourselves with the 3 fingers that are left:

Galatians 6:7 ~ As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

What of those little ones that are ALREADY OF THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH who's stories have been discounted and who have been overlooked as individuals in need of restoration?....Some of these will never darken our doors again, but yet we worry about HYPOTHETICAL PERSONS who, if they get saved, will gladly do so with or without being tricked or seduced by some fancy church methodology into salvation....No, the truth is that we worry that we will be criticized and not be "normal" as the world counts normal. 

People who disagree with the Bishop's statement as I do are certainly NOT "scoffers" or "scorners" (whichever translation that one uses...which is very interesting in this case) Since that word is used to suggest that those who disagree are of such repute, I believe that a slight bit of biblical education is in order. 

First, the word "scoffer" which is and can be translated as "scorner" in ancient Hebrew as well, deals with individuals who despise God, his word and his truth. Pulpit Commentary says the following about the use of the word in Prov. 13:1. It says that the word describes:
"one who mocks at goodness and despises filial piety will not listen to reproof." 
Gills Expository Commentary of the Bible says:
"but a scorner heareth not rebuke; that is, a son who is a scorner, as the Targum and Aben Ezra; one that makes a mock at sin, and scoffs at religion: such a man will be so far from hearing, attending to, and receiving the rebuke and reproof of his father, that he will scoff also at that; such as were the sons in law of Lot, and the sons of Eli and Samuel. So scornful men, that make a jest of everything that is sacred, will not hearken to the reproof of God's word, to the rebukes of Gospel ministers, or even to the rebukes of Providence, which will issue in their destruction, Proverbs 5:11."
Either way, the word does not seem to apply to ANYONE calling a church or church people back to God and or higher standards of living and life based on God's word.  So I am at a loss as it pertains to why our Bishop would suggest that those who disagree with him, as many of us do, and who believe that the SIN that has been allowed to proliferate within this church, both will and has called us into judgement and will cause us to face greater condemnation of the world...

Reader, you make the call, but as for me and MY HOUSE...I think you know the rest...

Blessed!

16 comments:

  1. The only reason to go further is because of faithfulness to the TRUTH!!! It is TRUTH that we live our life upon and that is eternal...

    Galataians 5:12 ~ As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (NIV)

    Paul in speaking against those who were trying to seduce believers back into Judaism, he speaks that he "wished" that they were not only circumcised, but also that their private parts were cut off, to demonstrate the point that he wanted their ignorance stopped...The word "cut off" or "emasculated" as the NIV puts it is translated as follows:

    ἀποκόπτω: 1 aorist ἀπεκοψα; future middle ἀποκόψομαι; to cut off, amputate: Mark 9:43 (45); John 18:10, 26; Acts 27:32; ὄφελονκαί ἀποκόψονται I would that they (who urge the necessity of circumcision would not only circumcise themselves, but) would even mutilate themselves (or cut off their privy parts),

    Paul said THAT????

    He "WISHED" that those would Cut OFF their GENITALS?

    Now, our Presiding Bishop just said in this letter that a GODLY man inducing people to Christ would NEVER use such a combination of words....In fact in his point 7 he declares that there is NO WAY that a Godly man would use such a term (in that case wishing a menstrual upon anyone)

    The point is that Bishop Blake declares PAUL the APOSTLE to be invalid in his message and method....R U SERIOUS???? Who's BLIND...those of us who SEE, or those of you who have been SEDUCED?????

    Sad day for this church!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pastor excellent word! I agree with you whole heartedly, you broke down the word, and thoroughly broke down each point made wrong by your bishop. You know how to talk and examine what is being said. I am trying to be more like you.

      Two questions. What do you say to people who say do not rebuke an elder. You are not supposed to correct someone in higher authority than you. Even though you are right you are out of order. Second question, why are you still with this denomination? Why not leave and go to a more biblically living one where this stuff is not going on? Yes every church has its problems but there is a standard that is to be lived out and there are churches who are doing that. Thanks

      Delete
    2. Shafarr,

      Thanks my friend, but I think the answer to your question lies in the call to be faithful to God, his word and none else. Rebuking an "elder" should not be done when an "Elder" is correct. A spiritually mature person may make a mistake. In mistakes handle it like that. But in some cases there are overarching premises that must be followed. This is one of them.

      The premise of what the Bishop is saying is contrary to the word and in accord with the world. This is not just a personal preference. This is a wholesale lambasting of a person based on not only his message, but his person. This is an impugning of character. That is the problem.

      Now, some have said, "this should be handled privately"...I AGREE...BUT....Bishop Blake LEFT STL without addressing it, put out a letter condemning the man and his message, made a video in support of the letter...Does THAT sound like something that and "Elder" would do????

      Later, he makes a statement because the man responds and condemns him and those that accept what he did as unloving and unkind and not in accord with biblical moral values.

      Along with thousands, I uncover that his statements were incorrect. We have Paul in Gal. 5:12 constructing a sentence the exact same way as Carter. Beginning with "I wish" and ending with a mutilation of genitals using the word "circumcision" as a double entendre to make a point. Since he was dealing with extremists, he said, then be extreme and cut off your genitalia and maybe then you will understand what you are doing...

      The Bishop said, that a statement such as that not godly, unbiblical and not in accordance with anything that God would say...WELL...He's wrong!

      We don't rebuke him, but we certainly discern the untruth of his statements and that leads us into doubting the call to ostracize the character of the preacher...What makes it so bad is that I don't even know Carter. I am simply examining statements and I find the Bishop's statements lacking. I think Bishop is a great man and person, but he missed this and cannot discern it for reasons that only he knows and is aware of.

      Delete
    3. What do you think of what John P.Kee said concerning allowing Tonex sing with him at church "ministring" at his church:


      JOHN P.KEE:

      Just read a very ugly commentary a Preacher wrote about me concerning Anthony Clark Williams AKA "Tonex" singing on stage With me at West Angeles COGIC last month.
      First I'd like to say, I really didn't get the inference but I'm real with mine! Normally if it's about me personally, I laugh and keep it moving but in this climate of Church Discouragement I felt the need to respond! Anthony AKA "Tonex" Williams has been and always will be a son of mine. I've Known him for over 25 years and was honored To have him in fellowship with me in LA. Beloved, Im not from your religious cupcake rooms where you prophecy on stage and do as you please when the cameras are not on! I'm concerned as to what the role of the new age Church really is. Is it deliverance we really seek Or are we still trying to create a body of religious Sadducees and Pharisees that kiss up to our denominational __________? I've always taught that Christians struggled with two scriptures, 2 Corinthians 6:17 and Matthew 28:19. I don't struggle with it at all. I'm sure of my calling!!! Romans 8:28
      So I simply suggest that all you Old Secret, Closet Shebears stay quiet and back way off me because I'm not from the new era where you act as if you don't 
      get it! I've been a true soldier in the Gospel industry 
      For over 35 years. Google me! I was on the Conference circuit for years and I witnessed things that almost made me leave the church! But I realized very early my deliverance from the street was wrapped up in Jesus not the Saints! I'm appalled and disgusted at the hypocritical State of the church... The best thing for me to do Is stop now while I'm ahead. Lastly, I prayed a simple Prayer before I surrendered to ministry. It was very simple; Lord send me everyone the church kicks out Or rejects and I'll teach them your way. I've committed myself to this for over 30 years and I'm very happy to say God has used me to witness to millions of hurting people throughout the world. So when you write your post, blogs, lies and or entries, Be advised, please keep me and my family far away from your filth. You know who and what you are and trust me dis ain't whatchu want...

      Humbly Submitted

      Pastor John
      PS: Tell your wife to stop calling me on the church fax line...

      Delete
    4. I didn't know this was going on. For one, I LOVE John P Kee's music and have been blessed by it over the years. People have said some nasty things because he came up through the Gospel Music Association that James Cleveland founded from what I understand. That association put out many homosexuals and gays as James was the chief pedophile. However, I have never entertained the thought that John was gay or even enthralled with that lifestyle.

      Tonex at West Angeles...Well, that is funny how all things questionable lead back there. The gay minister and professor, Peter Gomes (now dead) from Harvard PREACHING at West Angeles to Magic Johnson, a faithful member embracing gay marriage to Elder Carter being "rebuked" for statements he said while preaching against homosexuality, it is interesting that the most controversial things, most of which involve homosexuality in some way shape or fashion, are taking place at West Angeles.

      Delete
  2. It is my hope that the saving Grace of Jesus Christ of Nazareth will be upon us all, and draw us all to a self-examination so that we may not be lost. The Apostle Paul spoke to the Church at Galatia( chapter 6, verse 1) that the spiritually strong is to restore the weak in a spirit of meekness while being considerate. The Gospel of Matthew(chapter 18 vss15 thru 17) tells us how to respond to conflict in the church. All these instructions are written there. Many things are lawful, but continue to be not expedient. The wise will take heed. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I take it that Bauer is saying that when the context implies that it is private parts that are being cut off, the proper translation is "make a eunuch of" or "castrate" when apokopto is in the middle voice. I agree that castration could possibly be what Paul was implying, but since he did not so state, it should not be assumed as fact. There are other possible implications and those should not be thrown out. In dealing with implications, it is better to consider how it lines up with other statements to find the most likely meaning. A dictionary, which the BDAG is, merely gives you the possible range of meaning. The author does give you his opinion as to what he thinks the meaning is in a particular verse, but it isn't hard evidence. It is merely an expert's thoughts on the matter.

    My objection to many of the modern translations of this verse is that they removed the implication and make it appear that it is positively saying castration, when in fact it does not. A good translation should reflect the original text and not what the translator is guessing the author meant, no matter how confident of his guess he might be.

    The conclusion remains the same in any regards. Paul made it clear that he was talking figuratively and so it should be understood. He did not state what ought to be cut off and so it should remain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Observermusic,

      The inference of Paul is clear when one considers the context of Paul's writing and the subject that he was dealing with which were Jews who were hailing physical circumcision as the path that the NT church male was to follow. Your statement does not hold true for obvious reasons...that anyone can "believe" what they wish about any statement...however, there is a TRUTH to any statement or set of principles. What you are saying is that the passage is relative to alternate interpretations of fact and that is not how literature is either examined or historical truth discerned. Within the sitz em laban of any biblical text there is certain available literary historical criteria that helps us to pin down the truth that was being mentioned with a fair amount of certitude.

      So far as the statement itself, one could apply the same figurative statement towards the words of Jesus...

      Mt. 18:8 ~ Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

      Jesus seems to be appealing to the "maiming" of the individual in this passage as a virtue. However in context he is not encouraging anyone to maim themselves. He is encouraging individuals to a higher moral standard of living and life in which the "flesh is denied" while the spirit or spiritual aspirations are exalted. So the context of the words is one way that the truth of the passage is obtained.

      Either way, your retort is a weak defense against my argument for the passage and I don't believe pans out. We can think of alternatives for anything, but if there is a truth, which there is, it can be known and I believe the passage is clear on that truth.

      Delete
    2. One more thing on this...Mark 9:43 and Mk. 9:45 which is a very similar statement to the verse I mentioned previously (Mt. 18:1) says ~

      43- And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

      45-And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched

      Uses the word that Observermusic referenced as well...apokoptó, is the phrase "cut it off". That word or word group is referenced 4 other times in scripture. Here are the references:

      1- John 18:10 when Peter uses his sword to cut off Malchus's ear. The ear was physically and literally cut off his head...

      2- John 18:26 which referenced a servant of the High Priest that was in the garden and recognized Peter as the one who had "cut off" Malchus's ear, which Peter denied.

      3- During the shipwreck at Malta, the soldiers "cut off" the ropes that were holding the ship to loosen the ship to allow it to float freely. The point, there was a severing and the phrase indicated "severing"

      4- of course Gal. 5:12 already mentioned....

      Now, here we have 6 usages of the word. The variation of the word ekkopto and in each corresponding passage the word means to physically, and literally cut off or alter...not, just loose or change configuration, it meant that if there was a body part, that it was on the ground afterward. If it was a rope, one piece would be here and the other over there.

      So there is overwhelming evidence that Paul both used the word in accordance with parallel uses and that the word itself indicates and altering of what is cut or cut off, then it stands to reason that what Paul was saying or drawing a picture of which is self mutilation, is warranted.

      However, Paul was also clearly using a "double entendre" with the word circumcision and cut off to make a point and drive the point home.

      Delete
  4. I tried to post a comment but wqas unable... so I sent it to your email...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a little too long for one single post. I have reposted it in 2 parts. Thanks brother!

      Delete
  5. Gregory J. Pt. 1

    Greetings District Superintendent Burnett,

    I pray God's continued blessings into your life and ministry in Jesus' Name!! I enjoy reading The Dunamis Word. While I don't always agree with your observations and critiques, I do enjoy the intellectual stimulation and the spiritual analysis of issues and situations facing the Church of God in Christ and the Body of Christ in general. We have got a lot in front of us don't we? One such large issue is this spectre of homosexuality. The virality of the events which took place on November 8 at our Holy Convocation have amplified the issue one million-fold. Your analysis of the situation is critical of how Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake has handled the afternath. Indeed, It is a complex issue. And I have so many questions and so much to say, but here and now, I wanted to comment on the exchange you had with one of your readers who informed you of the "beef" between John P Kee and one who would challenge his allowing Tonex to take the stage with him at a concert which took place at West Angeles Church of God in Christ. You made a statement to the effect of "funny how all things questionable lead back to West Angeles".

    I have attended West Angeles Church of God in Christ since 1987 and I have always known Bishop Blake to be very forceful, clear and dead set against homosexuality and other sexual immoral scenarios. It is a trait which I have always cherished in the Pastor. A Man should be a Man. I have always known him to preach and insist on holy living. I have always heard and even benefitted from his promotion and encouragement of marriage between men and women. So to me, the whole inference that Bishop Blake supports homosexuality is patently false. The Gomes situation - it's my humble opinion that perhaps more research should have gone into his appearance. But that story is soooo old. As for Magic Johnson and his support for Prop 8. He went against his community and his church with that one. That was the subject of quite the stir in our community and church. Even though he is adored in the Los Angeles Community, he has proven more than once that he is not always right... And certainly, these situations do not indicate that West Angeles is this bastion of homosexuality.

    When we consider Tonex (I only use this example because he is the subject of the exchange), We all whispered about his presence at the concert. He has had quite an unusual and crazy legacy in his professional music career. So this appearance was surprising to a lot of us “in the know”. Before I go on, I will let you know that not only am I a man of God, I have been employed in the black radio and music industry for nearly thirty years. I am very well known as a media marketing expert and event producer. I have produced some of the largest events both on the gospel side and the R&B side and even in jazz. I have several articles published and am currently writing a book. I think that we cannot concentrate on a Tonex when we complain about gays in gospel. As you know, the gays are plentiful if not dominant in the industry. I always have been amazed at this fact. I mean, why is that??? And as you mentioned, even the Godfather of modern Gospel music, James Cleveland was whispered but widely known to prefer men and boys in his sexual proclivities. What about Bishop Walter Hawkins? I mean icon after icon, star after star, gospel music has been rife with the sin of homosexuality. I have attended some of the largest gospel music industry conventions and have been shocked and appalled at how many gays are in attendance. So if we are to condemn Tonex, then we must condemn the entire industry. And once we condemn them with our words.. then what? These gays will find themselves on the airwaves, online, and in the choirstands of churches everywhere. It is alarming most definitely and something must be done past our sermons and rhetoric. And so I ask again.. Then what???

    See Pt. 2

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gregory J. Pt. 2

    Is Bishop Blake to blame for the audacity of the LBGT community to openly flaunt their behavior around the Convocation - the sight of which caused Earl Carter to espouse such an incendiary sermonic presentation? I think not. This has been going on for decades. Mother Frances Kelly in her address during the 82nd Holy Convocation points out that she is "tired of sissies" all in the choir.... Her remarks in these days and time would be considered inappropriate. At the same time we have to stand on our biblical position which says homosexuality is an abomination to God. Gays in the church is not new. gays in gospel is not new. So we just throw them out? Or do we offer them deliverance? Indeed call them out. But what should be the tone of that calling out? This is a massive battle. One that requires prayer and introspect.

    In the end, I believe that in Los Angeles, I imagine that we see more "shocking" life situations than those you view in Peoria. So perhaps it's easy to criticize. I am not making excuses, but I just think your observations regarding West Angeles Church of God in Christ are completely inaccurate..

    As to the point of whether Bishop Blake should have taken the steps that he did in addressing the whole "I'm not Gay No More" phenomenon, I have a lot to say and a lot of questions which I have wanted to communicate on your blog and will do so under separate cover. I will leave you with this and that is that I see both sides. I am in agreement with Earl Carter. I am in agreement with Bishop Blake. I understand those who would say no apology needed. I understand why he felt the need to apologize.

    Thank you sir for your observations on this blog. Indeed they do stimulate thought and examination that's for sure.

    Gregory L. Johnson, CDMC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Brother Johnson for your reply. There are a couple of things I would like to address...

      First, the statement "all things lead back to West Angeles" is not a smear or a mark against the church or body of believers, nor the pastor of that church...it simply is notable, as you agree in your commentary, that it seems that whatever action that is taking place in COGIC at the moment, be it controversy or not, has some element to do with West Angeles. Why? Maybe it is because that's where the Presiding Bishop is at this point. I know I wasn't looking or thinking about that or anything until Bishop Blake took on the Presiding role.

      I do NOT doubt Bishop's message. I KNOW he preaches holiness and does that without shame, BUT I do question his methodology and the missteps in certain areas...As you mention, Gomes was "so long ago"...but was it really? That was in 2003 or so and Blake wrote a letter to try to clarify that he was NOT aware of this man's homosexuality when he both went to Harvard and received his award and subsequently asked him to preach at his church. Well the record will reflect that Peter Gomes was not a hidden homosexual. He had written theologically centered books some dedicated to his MALE lover.

      The reason that this is important because evil gets a hand of establishment from our acceptance of the personalities of evil even if we don't accept the evil behavior. Now, he was SLOW to distance himself from Gomes, but more than QUICK to distance himself from Carter and WE should ask WHY? Why be so quick to distance oneself from carter's message, but so slow and defiant to distance ones self from a (now dead) avowed homosexual minister?

      That only establishes base for additional questions...Magic, I know, acted on his own. He is a man with his own mind and money. However, was Magic reprimanded for his position? I know his son is gay and Magic tries to show his love for his son, but what reprimand did the Bishop give? What he did, without any open chastisement on the issue, was place this man ABOVE the who congregation for the benefit of his activity.

      He is the Bishop of over 12,000 churches, NOT ONLY West Angeles....WE are due much more clarity in dealings and associations. His church is due the same...but sine the 25,000 plus members of the church won;t require better of him ane his decisions, someone out of the 12,000 church should because OUR BABIES AND FAMILIES are at stake and can easily be associated with evil by being associated with his actions or lack thereof...

      Delete
    2. I'll even go further...The LEADER is REQUIRED to manage his steps (as they should be ORDERED by the Lord, NOT a desire for expanded ministry and associations) and he can cause ALL OF US to err if he leads wrong or leads us to a place that god is not pleased with...He is FLESH as we are. Not an incarnate Christ or a Vicar as the Pope claims...We are REQUIRED to judge his actions to make sure they are in accord with the WORD which will judge us all. If his leading is not in accord with that, then WE should not follow...What did Paul say? (no need for me to quote what you know)

      THEN to top it off, you mention Tonex...Tonex is about the most spiritually oppressed person on the planet...he has a history of church abuse (where he has been abused), used and simply deceived. The boy has a demon. This is one someone reported about his show:

      "After arriving where the stage was I could see this black sweaty thing in UGG Boots flipping his/her hair clip side to side. When I got to the stage and listened even closer I realized it was Gospel Singer Tonex! As I sat there he danced around as if he was on some type of drug, sweating all over the place.

      He jumped off the stage and began doing shablams! For those who don’t know what that is its when a gay boy makes certain movements and then falls to the floor to what’s usually a techno beat… Tonex ended singing Janet Jackson’s ‘Feedback’ and screaming at the top of his prayer filled lungs and by laying on his back and kicking his feet in the air. I just hope he’s not on drugs.”
      YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE

      Now how is it that someone in such a dire spiritual condition see the stage (AFFIRMING that his actions are at least acceptable) and does not come to an order of deliverance or greater purpose from the pulpit of the highest office the nations's leading in a Pentecostal/Holiness church?

      Now, do I question Blakes character? NO!!!! I KNOW he is a good man and I am glad to know him. However, I senators and representatives and folk elected to political office as well...I never fail to hold them accountable!!!! No matter how much I like them...you don't believe me? Ask my cousin who is an Illinois State Rep...Love her to LIFE, but I hold her accountable for her votes and what she promotes....

      So the fact is that the LGBT community grows by the actions of our silence and disinterest supposedly done in the "fear" of turning off a soul. That by itself lets me know that there is a fundamental difference in understanding. When did the Bible instruct us to "appeal" to folk so that they can be saved?

      All things to all men that I might win some? R U serious? Does all things allude to becoming a prostitute, drug dealer, murdered, thief, so that we might "win some"? We are at best MISDIRECTED using that premise to minister to souls....

      Then the "he who winneth souls is wise"...OK, does this mean to "trick" folk into being saved, or to create some grand illusion so that they can be saved? Does anyone in their right mind believe that God uses deception to save?

      Once again this motif falls far short of the bible definition of how souls are saved...GOD IS THE SAVER. He is the one that draws the souls of men. We make disciples of them that come and hear HIS voice. Anything outside of that is not what God has called for. We have no disciples...THE CHURCH is HIS!!!

      And herein is the problem...we have reduced this institution to an institution of men and not an institution of God. When WE took it over, it ceased from being HIS and now we suffer.

      Whether West Angeles, or New Bethel...WE have a God to serve and a duty to uphold in HIS service. Simply put, I am mindful of my DUTY and from that I extend the ministry that God has given me to share with the world.

      Thanks for the commentary, I hope I have cleared a few issues...

      Blessed!

      Delete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.