What are the most ridiculous rules/traditions that the New Testament Christian Church leadership ever dreamed up? If any come to mind, please post them if you get a chance. I know this has been done before but repetition is often a good thing. In the previous thread, Don effectively referenced an applicable scripture which most effectively describes the attitudes of the NTCC Pharisees.
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Does that describe the NTCC leadership or what? Kekel, RWD and Olson act just like the Pharisees with all their man-made rules and traditions. One of the most ridiculous rules I can remember, is being told that we couldn't use our computers to do our soul-winning reports but rather we had to write them by hand twice over; one for our records and one for the pastor. We could have done it on our computer and printed out two copies ten times as fast. That was just one example of Mayers trying to run his church like the NTCS a.k.a. the school of ridiculous rules. Of course Mayers only got that from Kekel and RWD. Kekel taught it in conference and RWD endorsed it and I was there. If Kekel says he didn't teach that he is a liar because I listened to him. He said you should do your reports in a predetermined location such as a fast food place prior to ever going home. I suppose we were all supposed to walk into KFC with desktops? I wanted to do the report back at my house on my "desktop" and Mayers said no, thanks to Kekel's bright idea. They can take all those rules and shove em. Jesus didn't like those rules and neither do I.
Chief
251 comments:
1 – 200 of 251 Newer› Newest»During fellowship we were not allowed to talk about the bible to anyone. Only the pastor was spiritual enough to answer any questions or talk about the bible. We were encouraged to ask questions but we were not allowed to answer any. Anytime a brother or sister wanted to know anything about ntcc man made rules or the bible we were directed to keep our mouths shut or say, "ask the pastor". Any thing with 2 heads is a freak, blah, blah, blah. I've seen a lot of control freaks in the ntcc. There was a whole list of things we were not allowed to speak to "new people" about. Our past. Rules. Anything that was considered sin. The only thing we were allowed to talk about was how great the home was, how great th church was ornhow great the pastor was. Now in all fairness there were a few that would give you a little bit of latitude. But the majority were Davis clones. They were control freaks on a serious power trip.
the women soul win women and men soul win men.
perhaps this was created to cover up davis's own possible failings.
but i remember two cases where there were no women to be with the single military woman.
I remember one instance where there was a girl who was interested in coming to God and I know it was God prompting me to just go out for a walk or something with her and talk like a normal human being.
BUT instead,
we all just sat around the table quietly reading our Bibles.
I was frowned at by the pastor because i was trying to hold a normal conversation with this fellow soldier who happened to be a female and i'm a male.
I had no alterior motives.
just think how wierd it is if you were "new" and all everyone did was sit around a table reading their bibles no one speaking to one another.
They encourage women to look weird, and different. They say we are in the world but not of the world. You cannnot bring others to Christ when you look like a NTCC woman, 99.9% of women want no part of looking the way NTCC women look. They don't want to talk to you and they want nothing to do with you. So, how can a NTCC woman help bring other women to Christ, it is extremely hard to do. Been there, done that. This to me is considered man made. Man made by RWD and of course the rest follow his lead. There are no mirrors in the church in Graham. That to me is odd... probably because it really is not easy to look in the mirror when you are a NTCC woman. This may sound mean but it is true. I felt that way myself. I cannot think of any woman that is truly pretty or attractive in the NTCC that I have witnessed. Do you want to know why, you can do nothing to make yourself look good. Fat or skinny, we all looked frumpy and old before our time. Why, because that is the norm in the NTCC. No Thanks.
Anonymous said...
I was frowned at by the pastor because I was trying to hold a normal conversation with this fellow soldier who happened to be a female and I'm a male.
Chief said...
Rules, rules, rules. That's a great example of how ludicrous the rules are in NTCC. Can't even sit and talk to someone of the opposite sex? STUPID! An NTCC pastor had me go by myself to pick up a female soldier for church. I didn't think anything of it and neither did he until she gave me a thank you card for driving hours out of my way to pick her up for church. I didn't tell him about the card because I didn't feel like it was any of his business. The girl mentioned it to a sister in the church and the sister ratted me out. We spoke to each other "ONE" time on the phone. We never so much as even held hands. When the pastor found out, he went nuts and he told me I could no longer go to the bible school.
Thank the Good Lord above that the pastor was such a control monger because he saved me from making what would have been the biggest mistake in my life. As a result I stayed in the military for over twenty years. That is one time I'm thankful for the NTCC's wacky rules.
Chief
Anonymous said...
99.9% of women want no part of looking the way NTCC women look.
Chief said...
Imagine that. That's no surprise that they don't want to run around looking like someone's grandmother. Once RWD kicks the bucket I'll bet that'll change. You already have some wives of NTCC pastors wearing finger and toe nail polish and spandex tight pants to public gymnasiums. Another stupid rule is the no facial hair on men. Jesus had a beard but RWD is so much smarter than Jesus. RWD is stuck in the 1940s and he has the women stuck in the 1890s. He's got these men running around with their hair slicked back or combed to the side like the 1940s and the women running around looking one of those girls from Little House On The Prairie or the Beverly Hillbillies. Once again, that ain't what Christ was all about. There is no evidence that Christ got caught up in all that stuff and Paul never said you had to run around looking like Elly May Clampett. Wearing modest apparel didn't mean you had to run around in a bag from the 1890s.
Chief
Chief, you make me laugh. But, in all honesty, I collect old photos, they have always interested me. Sometimes, I see photos of women from the 1920's the women of the NTCC look so much like that, except of course the clothing, but neck up, there is not much difference. Especially when their hair is put up. I remember seeing a photo of some school teachers from the 1920's they where all sitting around a table eating their lunch. Except for the clothes and the surroundings I felt as though I was looking at a bunch of NTCC women. Thats how much they reminded me of the way they look and I how I use to look too. I know very little women will comment on this but if they would just think about it and really take a hard look at themselves they will see what I am talking about. Once you leave the NTCC why is it that you still need to look as though you are still with the NTCC, what is this a testimony of. Please tell me I don't understand it. At all.
Anonymous said..."I was frowned at by the pastor because i was trying to hold a normal conversation with this fellow soldier who happened to be a female and i'm a male."
How NTCC Wants You to Talk to a Woman...
Jenny Curran: Have you ever been with a girl, Forrest?
Forrest Gump: I sit next to them in my Home Economics class all the time.
***********
We've all heard them say that men soulwin men and women soulwin women. So when a woman makes the choice to come, whether out of want or necessity to keep the NTCC women to stop bothering her in the barracks or the PX/BX - what does she encounter?
First, she has to be picked up or drives to the church. In a Servicemen's Home, as she walks in it's as if ravenous wolves stare at her from the pews wishing that they could just taste this new and delicious morsel. Most likely she'll follow the NTCC woman because she is new and will be directed to that lady's favorite area to sit.
She'll probably be greated by the pastor's wife and other ladies in the church and most likely be looked up and down for what she is wearing (clothes, shoes, jewelry) and her hair. She will most likely notice the looks as she is being greeted but shrugs it off and sits down.
Then she'll go through the highly diverse NTCC musical repertoire with 2 songs and maybe a "special" (after tithes / offering are collected of course). For the next 30-60 minutes she'll endure a message ranging with anything from attitudes, outward holiness, current events, anecdotes of "my pasta", being loyal to the Church, and a little sprinkling of Jesus for good measure.
Afterwards she'll be directed to pray at the front of the Church (she's proud if she doesn't) and openly say the "Sinner's Prayer". As this is happening - music, people shout praying, and singing are happening as the Pastor bellows from the microphone to "give it all to Jesus" and "don't hold back".
Afterwards, she is asked to go to the Servicemen's Home (NTCC women are directed by the pastor to bring them there) and will be escorted to be with the other ladies in the kitchen to make or prepare things and to setup the table for eating and "fellowship". After engaging in a nutritious snack she'll probably be asked questions by the other ladies there, like where she is from, how long she's been there, etc. She try to find some common ground and appear somewhat normal but alot of the conversation steers back to shopping, clothes and who's going out with who.
The guys there are wishing they could talk to her, but because the Pastor is there and wants her to prove her faithfulness, they will not be allowed to unless they also are in the lineup for the next single lady that comes through the doors of NTCC. After the night's events, she'll be asked if she wants to come again and so the cycle begins. "Get them back to church" - "Don't teach them, that's the Pastor's job", etc.
So it goes on until they commit to God and the NTCC to be faithful to them, change their style of dress and begin giving in tithes and offerings - only then they'll be considered faithful and earn the title of Sister.
Having to ask permission to carpool to class with someone always struck me as odd. I heard about a single female student whose car broke down on the side of the road. A couple stopped to help her(don't remember if they were students or ministers) but they couldn't bring her to class because they couldn't get ahold of anyone to ask permission. She had to retake the entire class because she missed the one and they would not excuse it.
Not being able to put gas in my car if we was on E or go to the grocery store because we had to go straight home after classes.
Having to ask permission for EVERYTHING!!!!
You couldn't have last minute fellowship with someone if you couldn't "get it approved" first.
Mandatory attendance at Conferences.
Having to ask permission to quit a job!!! What a crock of...!
Women not being able to wear make up including CLEAR fingernail polish but Tanya can wear FAKE fingernails.
If you were not the leader you were supposed to be and you couldn't make it to a MANDATORY conference, you had to pull guard at the church for a couple of hours and then depending on what time you had to be at your full time job, go to that.
I mean the lis goes on and on. I could name many many more. Stupid rules that I had to adhere by becaus if I didn't, I'd be condemned to HELL.
I remember the stupid permission rules were so ridiculous that Joan St. Clair refused to lend a toilet plunger to John Whitekettle to unstop the dorm crapper because he didn't have permission...and Gary Freeman refused to jump Zingle Boggus' battery one morning so he could go to work because there was no official dispensation from on high. It forced otherwise rational people to act like idiots.
Anonymous said...
I heard about a single female student whose car broke down on the side of the road. A couple stopped to help her(don't remember if they were students or ministers) but they couldn't bring her to class because they couldn't get ahold of anyone to ask permission. She had to retake the entire class because she missed the one and they would not excuse it.
Chief said...
The NTCC leadership lacks common decency. I hate that stuff. What kind of indecency is that to leave a lady stranded on the side of the road? Why would you even call her sister? If I was a woman, don't call me "sister" if you are going to leave me stuck on the side of the road. That ain't Christianity, that is EVIL. I can't stand the phrase I'm about to use and I've never used it one time on this blog, but that mentality "is of the devil".
The NTCC sucks and they don't know the first thing about real love.
Chief
Vic said:
"I remember the stupid permission rules were so ridiculous that Joan St. Clair refused to lend a toilet plunger to John Whitekettle to unstop the dorm crapper because he didn't have permission...and Gary Freeman refused to jump Zingle Boggus' battery one morning so he could go to work because there was no official dispensation from on high. It forced otherwise rational people to act like idiots."
DnA said:
They teach people to walk by on the other side of the road when they see someone in need. "If your suffering interferes with my traditions and policies, don't expect me to lift a finger to help." Take the path of least resistance when it comes to showing charity to others, but when it comes to pleasing the "Elders" sacrifice everything.
If we realized how fake and artificial these users and abusers were, we would have done the right thing. If people in the ntcc would stop and look at how irrational and uncharitable the rules are when presented with the opportunity to do right or wrong, they would see through the facade and make better decisions.
Pastor, can I borrow a plunger from Sister St. Clair, or should I just leave the toilet plugged up, stinking and unusable for the next person? Pastor is it alright if I give Bro. Boggus a jump, so he can get to work and keep his job, or should I just walk by him and say, "If you had been a better steward and managed your cars battery reserves better you wouldn't be in this predicament?" If you have to ask for permission from a man to do what's right, what does that say about your religion?
The problem is that Kekel, and Davis do not want you to do what's right, but they want you to bow down to them. They don't do what's right. If you were to do the right thing it would create a precedent and pretty soon people would make friends and feel good about themselves, and all the sudden people would see through the phony rules. The ntcc teaches people to do opposite of what a Christian should do. They are so far away from the unobtainable perfection they claim to possess.
DnA
Here is a stupid rule. You can only have so many kids over to your house for your own child's birthday party.
Chief said..."Here is a stupid rule. You can only have so many kids over to your house for your own child's birthday party"
Of course unless your name is Grant Kekel, then you can have as many kids from NTCC and also "sinner kids" from your school that you want. Now they're rewriting history and you can have more than just 2, but those that have been around long enough know the deal. Another thing tied to this was that those other kids parents couldn't spend alot (no more than $20) on the birthday boy or girl and some pastors went so far as to make you tithe on the fair market value of a toy or on the cash that may be given. What's it to Kekel and RWD-bag if I want to be a blessing and get someone's kid a new bike or something really nice? His kid get's a car off of the tithe and offerings we've put in, gets sent to a "sinner" religious school on our dime, and I'm supposed to listen to them when they say I can't have all of my kid's friends over or get someone an awesome gift?
Another rule in the bible school dorms: No reading in the bathrooms.
In one class he was teaching eli gesang said he might have actually caused that rule to be made by reading the bible for long times. I presumed he meant after lights out. In ntcc it is all about the loop holes.
If you think about it, Rules make it easy for people who can't, or won't think for themselves. It's easier to have someone think for you than for you to think for yourselves.
Right now NTCC is in the process of trying to "Reinvent" themselves, But they are not doing a very good job of it because the people who where/are former members are not at all mesmerized by their BS.
Steakboy said...
Another thing tied to this was that those other kids parents couldn't spend alot (no more than $20) on the birthday boy or girl and some pastors went so far as to make you tithe on the fair market value of a toy or on the cash that may be given.
Chief said...
Wow! That's a new one. Just when I thought I'd already heard every rule the NTCC ever dreamed up, someone comes out with a new revelation. I know why they didn't want you spending more than $20 on someone's kid; that was less money that you would have to put in their basket. So the NTCC leadership put out a mandate on how much money you could spend on someone's kid for their birthday? That's just wonderful.
Next thing they'll do is put out a mandate on the maximum amount of time you can spend making love to your spouse. "All that time you spend making whoopee could be dedicated to the program of GAWD, you need to get right with GAWD so you'll have a heart to spend that time soul winning"
I don't know if I'm going to laugh or cry when I read about these rules. The NTCC is a CULT and it's just that simple.
Chief
Many of the stupid rules that the ntcc enforced, centered around one word. "Worldliness". Don't dress like the world, don't talk like the world, Don't walk like that world, etc.... So many things were placed under the category of worldliness. Pastor, is there any thing wrong with wearing a NY Giants hat? It's worldly. Pastor, is there anything wrong with going to a "sinner" friends house for dinner? Worldliness rubs off, holiness doesn't. Pastor, is it all right if my 7 year old child goes to one of his friends houses for a birthday party? Kids are born in sin and I wouldn't let my son or daughter go to some worldly sinner's house and be corrupted by their filthy and evil habits. Pastor, can I grow a mustache? No, it makes you look worldly, like a car salesman. Pastor, can I go to the state fair? Your going to do what you want to, anyway, you need to chose between Christianity and the world.
Do you think I'm making this stuff up? We've all heard this junk many times over. If you are a Christian in the ntcc, you are expected to follow all of the stupid ntcc rules or you are considered worldly. The bible says in 2 Cor 6:17 "Come out from among them and be ye separate", which is a favorite scripture used by the ntcc to turn people into mindless dorks that are so peculiar that no one can stand to be around them. But does this scripture really mean to isolate yourself from everyone around you? Jesus dined with sinners, pharisees and publicans. Jesus spent a large majority of his time around worldly people and it never seemed to rub off on him.
Let your hair down and stop being so super spiritual. If we have to walk on eggshells all the time what's the point? If wearing jeans is worldly then I guess I'm worldly. If having facial hair makes me worldly than I'm worldly just like Jesus according to the ntcc. They make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. They walk around like their fruit of the looms are 3 sizes too tight. No wonder they are having so many problems getting people to stick around. Who wants to be a part of that? Come to our church so you can look and act like a bunch of kooks. No thanks, if this is what being a Christian is all about, I'll have to pass.
DnA
Ho, Steakboy's throwing out some more meat! Sure enough, RW's a real-life Elmer Gantry, and we were just too befuddled with sincerity and love for God to even suspect the truth--that this "Apostle" was just another typical two bit poser and ripoff artist with a personality disorder that enabled him to shamelessly exploit the most decent people just for his own gratification and gain, and without appearing to suffer the least pang of conscience.
Sick mofo indeed.
So we just submerged our own personal knowledge and common sense and imbibed the poisoned sensibilities (if they can be called that) of a twisted man. It was a weird experience to try to assume the personality of another, especially when it involved alien values and kitschy nouveau riche aesthetics (ever see his living room--it looks like a cheap plastic imitation of Louis XIV's drawing room, and he dresses like the loud, crass salesman that he is). Well, I never did wear wingtips, so the assimilation was incomplete and eventually overthrown.
To a neutral observer, our lives must have resembled a tortured Elaine Benes dance, as we jerkily hurled ourselves through all those invisible hoops trying to please the one who was trying to usurp God's position in our lives. Do this, don't do that, whirl around three times and touch your nose before you go to bed. Type your notes on a junky old typewriter instead of a PC, so you have to haul a boatload of useless class notes around the country, instead of a CD or thumb drive (which are apparently sinful and only suitable for porn...). I'm surprised they didn't have us pressing hieroglyphics into clay tablets.
At one point in St. Louis, there was a rule that we couldn't talk to one another AT ALL, regardless of gender! We were such robots. These guys held us with unseen chains of fear and guilt. No fate is too harsh for them.
The org has always been the personification of its founder. Olson: "Brethren, the organization IS RW Davis." Everything had his stamp on it. Now he's fading away, and the young turks are striving to reinvent NTCC's image. Unfortunately for them, there are hundreds, even thousands, who were there during the heyday, and we haven't forgotten the culture. They can't have it both ways; they can't completely change while simultaneously denying they have changed. Well, they can (and do), but it only reveals their utter lack of credibility. But no change is genuine with out full disclosure, acknowledgement, and repentance of their sinful origins and longstanding exploitative tactics.
NTCC has been thoroughly discredited in public by dozens of witnesses and hundreds of factual accounts of hypocrisy and arrogance. I hope it continues to dwindle; each one who leaves represents another triumph over bondage.
In Graham, the NTCC is known as a bunch of weirdos. I can tell you, people want nothing to do with you if you remotely appear to be part of that church. You are truly shunned...
"...people want nothing to do with you if you remotely appear to be part of that church. You are truly shunned..."
Now that's poetic justice, visited on the shunners-in-chief!
Tell me, how do you see the NTCC as trying to reinvent themselves. I see no such thing in Graham. It seems like the same old thing to me.
I remember a long time ago when at this serviceme's home, a lady was talking to me and she was pregnant and she told me that she was forbidden, when the child was born, to breastfeed!
I know that the servicemen's home was a home away from home to the young gi's but I didn't think that it was fair for the pastor to totally forbig her from breastfeeding. Is not like she was going to be at the servicemen's home with the baby anyways.
According to what she told me, the pastor and his wife asked her to just bottle feed the baby and forget about breastfeeding, and she did, because she was a young mother and wanted to be "right" with God by obeying those that had the rule over her.
Maybe this is not exactly what you are talking about, but it's an example of how much control some pastors have over their members.
Looking back at this, I can't believe we were so dumb and stupid to even think that we did those things!
I can come out with more instances of not using our God given common sense but it is what it is and may God forgive us!
"Tell me, how do you see the NTCC as trying to reinvent themselves. I see no such thing in Graham. It seems like the same old thing to me."
They're not trying to reinvent themselves; they're only trying to reinvent their image. Fundamentally, they're still control mongers, but they don't want to be perceived as such. So you have all this revisionist history going about about "policy" vs. "doctrine." It's a bogus distinction, but with the internet in play, they're anxious to whitewash their true sepulchral nature. Anyone who follows the path too far will find the same bondage that NTCC has always imposed.
"According to what she told me, the pastor and his wife asked her to just bottle feed the baby and forget about breastfeeding, and she did, because she was a young mother and wanted to be "right" with God by obeying those that had the rule over her."
That's pretty bad. In fact, it's making my groin ache a bit, because it brings to mind a certain bit of surgery that many of us underwent because we were young and wanted to be "right" with God by following the "apostle's" "advice" (which he presented as emanating directly from the Holy Ghost).
I had mine undone, which cost way more than the original neutering. But it was important to me to remove as many vestiges of conformity to NTCC's bizarre world as possible.
Speaking of meddlers and faultfinders, this post also reminds me of Mike (The Whirlwind) Kekel's FACTnet criticism of me for having a midwife deliver my son. These guys think they are the sole arbiters of what's acceptable.
Jackasses.
I feel so sad for those people that gave their entire life to serve in servicemen's home.
They did give their all to the point of being childless and I can only think of the time I got pregnant, I was actually mad at myself because I thought I was ruining my husband's ministry!
I remember people looking at me with disdain and instead of being happy knowing that I was bringing a gift of God to our marriage, I was miserable thinking that the doom of God was over me!
How sad!
Well, I did obtain some mercy in that before I got to the snip doc, Edna came up pregnant. We had just gotten to Alaska, and were almost broke. I knew that I was supposed to be upset about it, but when she told me, it was a huge thrill.
No matter how hard those idiots tried to wreck my spirit, they failed miserably. Despite their dreary manmade rules and oppressive jusrisdiction over my life, they were never able to completely kill my joy and cause me to succumb to the hopeless misery they were peddling.
Fight back--have fun in spite of them. It'll empower you to sever yourselves from their pernicious control, and then you'll wonder how on earth you ever fell for their fake religion.
Anonymous asked...
Tell me, how do you see the NTCC as trying to reinvent themselves. I see no such thing in Graham. It seems like the same old thing to me.
Chief said...
For starters, going to the local mall and singing Christmas Carols. There was a time when RWD and his pastors taught that Christmas Caroling was unchristian and a waste of time and a poor approach to winning souls. They are certainly trying to change their image with that one.
Chief
I remember him saying "Some people act like they're Jackasses" from the pulpit during a conference. Does anyone else remember that? That kinda threw me for a loop when he said that.
Carolling at the mall is unchristian. How absurd. What that basically says is whatever RD and Kekel and the likes of them say is unchrisian {in their opinion} then that is the gospel truth and we are to believe that.
I'll tell you what is unchristain. Doing all that they have done in the name of God. Now that is unchristian. I am sorry I ever got involved in that church. The prayer of serenity is what I need to pray every day.
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
Has anyone seen the newest message posted on Kekel's blog titled, "Indecent Liberties", dated 6 Mar? Kekel warns people to stay away from Christian Rock, cross-gender dressing, immodesty and fleshly lusts. Kekel wrote that (this day and age), the Apostle would have instructed us to de-friend people who participate in such activities. Kekel wrote that people's idea of liberty is warped.
Well imagine that!!! We know who Kekel was directing that message to. Lets take a closer look at some of Kekel's references.
He referenced modesty: I wonder if he was talking about paying for his son to run around a football field in tight football pants that showed his physique or his wife running around in her tight clothing showing every curve she could squeeze in?
He referenced Christian Rock: I wonder he considers Christian Rock as "worldly" as the winter-grass blue-grass music festival that Kekel himself was caught attending just a few years ago? The same music festival Kekel admitted to attending and he justified it in writing on his very own blog? Imagine that and he is worried about someone listing to contemporary Christian Music? I wonder if he classifies all that hee-haw, honky-tonk, country, southern Gospel music that the NTCC listens to as "Christian Southern Country Rock. It's just a different flavor of the same stuff, Mr. Kekel you hypocrite.
Oh, and he also mentioned fleshly lusts: I wonder if he considers it a fleshly lust for his father in law to try to get people to purchase him a $17,000 Rolex which is totally unnecessary, or his wife's endless shopping sprees, or his collectible automobile that I believe is a Mercedes? How about RWDs excessive knife and gun collection when RWD probably doesn't hunt at all? And if he does hunt, how come he is not out soul winning? Is it a fleshly lust to purchase some really expensive brand name suits? I mean, I don't know, just wondering? How about having a big fancy house when just a regular 2 or 3 bedroom house would clearly do?
He referenced cross gender dressing? I wonder what he was talking about but I digress. You'd have to want to "really" study Deu 22:5 to know why I'm asking that question. I know where it talks about that The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man. If you care to study that with and open mind by looking in the Strong's concordance you'll find that it means that a woman shall not wear a warrior's battle gear. If you don't believe me look up the Hebrew words for yourself from that verse in the Strong's concordance. Kekel says that is twisting the scriptures but I say he is twisting the scriptures and I can prove it.
Hey, I have a nice house and a nice guns but I'm not a hypocrite like Kekel who runs around judging others for giving in to quote "fleshly lusts". I just looked up the word "lusts" in Strong's from 1Pet 2:11. It means "desire or craving". Kind of like RWD desiring or craving a totally unnecessary $17,000 Rolex or Tanya's craving for yet more clothes and household adornments or Mike Kekel's collectible "self car". I only called it a "self car" because I heard an NTCC preacher call it a "self car" and guess where he got that term from; RWD. Kekel is a hypocrite and his message is hypocrisy and double standards.
Chief
Now that we've left, I can read posts by Kekel and not be fooled...we can see right through it! I feel sick just reading his post. Kekel said (and my response in parenthesis) that the gospel and holy living have come under attack...he said those who are slothful about God’s work (what? knocking on doors? Does he even knock on doors? Does he even do follow up? He sure never called us...until he heard we were leaving), who don’t want to persevere to success in what God has called them to do (yeah, not what a man told them to do?) and excuse their failure to follow through (maybe we realized that we shouldn't have started in the first place and don't want to be a part of something that is forcing us to be hypocrites and critical of others), maintain loyalty to the body of Christ (you mean NTCC?) and the brotherhood (meaning NTCC?), and integrity (or do you mean blind obedience?), by resorting to the basest form of excuse; “I’m not saved by working”(Is that not true?...we are NOT saved by working...but it would do some good if they did some work like the rest of us had to before they say things like that)...
It would not be so bad if he didn't write things like that. When he said people have no money because they spend it on toys, when in reality, the money was spent on fixing the church or cooking meals for church members, but he has plenty of toys...it just would not be so bad if he didn't say things like that. Maybe it's true for some, but when it's generalized, those who were sincere and really did work and weren't lazy and really tried...and yet things didn't work out...it's like he's opening the wounds!
We are doing so much better now that we have left. People don't run from us in the store. People actually see Christ in our lives without us having to invite them to church all the time. People see Christ. I really want to know, do the Kekel's go soul winning like everyone else does? Every week? If someone's not willing to do the work, how can they talk against those that work?
-Just Venting
secular music? what about the classical his son plays? I was so scared to listen to anything other than mike purkey and btc until a church member (who's been w/NTCC longer than us) introduced us to Chris Tomlin...which was a blessing. There's some contemporary Christian music out there that is less worldly than the way they I have heard them sing. And then one feels guilty to listen to anything else, but then you find out it was "recommended" to listen to worldly stuff to see how they play music...
I had to find out through face book that people are allowed to watch dvd's now. They can't say it was never not allowed. It was preached against and we all heard it. If they want to lift some rules or change policies...it would be really nice if they could let everyone out in a work know so that they can enjoy their lives a little more too! Maybe a letter...
Dear so and so,
You can now go ice skating because everyone in Graham is going ice skating now because it is more family friendly...
Enjoy yourself a little,
...yeah, a letter would've been nice.
When I see barak obama on TV, he reminds me of Mike.
Just sayin
after having been under the ntcc of southern gospel is the only music.
i realized that any music is christian music if it directs your mind towards the things of God. It's that plain and simple.
by the way kekel kek kekel, here's a song for you. she is a cross-dressing, worldy christian artist (sarcasm). I'd rather listen to her than your worldy bluegrass festival.
http://christian-music-videos-4me.com/jamie-grace-god-girl.html
Just Venting wrote...
Now that we've left, I can read posts by Kekel and not be fooled...we can see right through it! I feel sick just reading his post.
Chief said...
Join the club. Every time he writes something it's a bunch of hogwash. I can see right through it as well. His whole message was about two things; an attack against people who've left the org and org preservation. Kekel and RWD have personally violated everything he's written about. It gets harder for me to understand how people can take Kekel serious especially with the internet being a available as it is. His message was a joke, same old NTCC song and dance. "Be separate from the world" meaning "only deal with people in the NTCC and no one else and certainly no one who has left the NTCC. "Holiness" meaning following the NTCCs man made rules that aren't biblically based to begin with. Kekel said it himself on his own blog and his statement is posted on this blog about 10 or 15 threads back when he ripped his father in law.
Kekel and RWD are the two biggest hypocrites I've ever known.
Chief
Don and Ange wrote, They were control freaks on a serious power trip.
Were? They still are on a serious power trip. People will live for God on their own, according to their consciences, but this micro-managing of people's every move and all these rules are just their carnal and Pharisaical ideas, all this hammering and beating laws and commandments into people's brains shows that it's all about men's ideas and not the truth of God that He puts into peoples' hearts. Trust them because you are too spiritually dull to know what the Lord really wants. After all, there is no private interpretation, so don't try to figure out what God is really trying to tell you personally. Hogwash.
I went out to Kekels blog, is he calling women who wear pants cross dressers? Am I understanding his blog correctly? That is absolutely crazy. I never in all my years in the NTCC never thought a woman wearing a pair of pants was a crossdresser. A crossdresser is a man or woman dressing like the opposite gender that they where born. This is new terminology for the NTCC. He has really gone off the deep end with that one.
Here's a link to that video address: God Girl by Jamie Grace
Thanks for the video. It's a fun song.
kookel is calling women who wear pants cross dressers? Does he call Jesus a cross dresser for wearing a robe or gown? He would probably scoff at that notion and blow up about that (gowns) being the custom of those days. Well guess what. "This day and age" the custom is for women to wear pants. What's the difference?
These silly debates arise when men add to the Word of God.
God said modest apparel:
As the Apostle instructed then, and it is still good this day and age:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; [1 Tim 2:9]
kooky kekel should preach against his wife with the costly array of diamond rings he bought to pacify her fleshly lusts. Or was it to pacify her when she found out about him satisfying his fleshly lusts [think Kobe Bryant and Tiger Woods]??? The bling in those rings alone constitutes costly array. Why doesn't kekel preach about that? Hey? tanya's many skin-tight outfits certainly are not modest. Why doesn't kekel preach against that?
KOZ KOOKEL IS A HYPOCRITE!
Hey, Little Mike. I have a message for you.
Matthew chapter 23.
Your Text...verse 26.
THOU BLIND PHARISEE....
Anonymous asked...
I went out to Kekels blog, is he calling women who wear pants cross dressers?
Chief said...
The NTCC considers pants a "mans" garment so even thought he didn't come right out and say it directly, I think that conclusion can be made with 99% certainty. They don't have a problem with men wearing robe like garments because they had them on while Christmas Caroling in the mall. Of course Kekel doesn't advocate men wearing dresses but that is not what he was referring to because that is not an issue with people who are in the NTCC or were in the NTCC so that wouldn't have been his reasoning. That message was directed with purpose and intent.
Logical deductive reasoning would indicated that he was referring to women who wear pants.
Chief
Mr. Kekel is trying to convince people that the freedom people talk about when they leave ntcc is all about sin. Those same people are slaves to the whims of men who change the rules whenever they feel like it. If everything that was taught through the years was really of God, none of it would have changed.
Some women who wear pants are way more modest than his wife in her tight clothes, and those same women in pants don't have a lascivious spirit like his wife does either.
By ntcc standards, it was taught you can see how Godly a man is by looking at his wife and whether his children are saved or not. I think the fruit on Mr. Kekel's family tree is rotten because as the head of his household he has failed greatly.
Lots of people leave that church organization because of the way he and other leaders treat them, period. They can't see that because they are blind Pharisees, full of pride, thinking they are the last hope for the world.
Very well put.
Chief
MDR said:
"Hey, Little Mike. I have a message for you.
Matthew chapter 23.
Your Text...verse 26.
THOU BLIND PHARISEE....
DnA said:
Actually the whole 23rd chapter of Mathew applies to the ntcc. You can just take out the word Pharisees or hypocrites and replace it with ntcc and it would very accurately describe the ntcc leadership (or lack thereof).
The ntcc leaders sit in Moses seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye afer their works: for they say and do not. For the ntcc binds heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Pastor, Pastor.
But woe unto you , scribes and Pharisees, ntcc'rs, for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you ntcc'rs, for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you ntcc'rs! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made ye make him twofold more the child of hell then yourselves. Woe unto you , ye blind guides (ntcc'rs).
Woe unto you ntcc'rs, for ye pay tithe of nint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides which strain at a Gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you ntcc'rs, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind ntcc'r, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter that the outside of them may be clean also.
To be continued...
Continued from above...
Woe unto you ntcc'rs, for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Woe unto you , scribes and Pharisees, ntcc'rs! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents (ntcc leadership), ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
DnA
DnA said "Actually the whole 23rd chapter of Mathew applies to the ntcc."
Thanks, Don. That was my message for Little Mikeeee. The whole 23rd chapter, but I wanted him to know verse 26 was the title/text of the message. You saved me a lot of typing.
It is amazing that his message doesn't contain anything in it about the Mercy,Grace and love of God...it's about works with this sociopath.
Everything is about rules with the NTCC leadership because they see themselves as everyone's "RULER". When you see yourself as everyone's "RULER" then you expect everyone to follow your "RULES". Parents expect their children to follow their rules and the NTCC leadership expects their church members and ministers to also follow their rules because they consider you equal to their children and no more. It's true.
The problem is, the NTCC leadership constantly makes up rules based on their own greedy whims. Now that people have left, Kekel can't stand that he no longer has rule over these people and he has written this message in an attempt re-validate his self given authority. Kekel is ungodly so therefor his authority isn't of God and I'm not following just any old hypocrite just because his spoiled wife is the daughter of the big cheese.
So what is the moral of the story? Kekel and RWD only have authority over you if you allow them to. So if you let them boss you around and enforce their stupid rules upon you, that is your problem, not mine. I hope you are having fun getting treated like a misbehaving child. Having to ask them permission for everything is not is not what Christianity is supposed to be all about. Not only that and like I already said, Kekel ain't godly anyway, so I'm certainly not following him as a spiritual leader and he doesn't pay wages so he is not my boss and he is not going to boss me around under any circumstances.
Chief
You are right MDR, most of Mat 23 applies to Mck, Rwd and others that know better. There are a lot of good people in the ntcc that are just trying to make the best of a bad situation as all of us did at one time. Mercy is not in their hearts, therefore they only have room for their own egotistical exploits, and if anyone gets in their way, they get trampled on.
Chief said..."Oh, and he also mentioned fleshly lusts: I wonder if he considers it a fleshly lust for his father in law to try to get people to purchase him a $17,000 Rolex which is totally unnecessary, or his wife's endless shopping sprees, or his collectible automobile that I believe is a Mercedes?"
The phrase that came to mind when I was reading some of the recent posts was the words "filthy lucre" (1 Tim 3:3, 3:8, Titus 1:7, 1:11, and 1 Pet 5:2). These were qualifications for bishops and deacons within the church and its a specific Greek phrase that basically means "eager for base or illicit gain, greedy for money". Other words in the Bible that can be associated are mammon (profit, monetary gain) and covetousness.
So do they have investments outside of renting to minister's and their families? How did they even get the money to even make those investments if they have them? Stock wiz, real estate investing pro with Lou Ricketts in St Louis, lottery? Please don't tell me working for $5 an hour, walking everywhere, eating bologna because doing that you'd only gross $10400 a year if you worked 40 hours every week. I do know that RWD-bag gave them a house for a wedding present (now its in Olson's name and is right next to his current one). Please don't tell me about savings bonds either, while in their hey-day had good returns are worth less than the paper they're printed on right now and could do in a pinch if you run out of Charmin toilet paper.
Plus I'm sure his wife would have left him long ago because she's been the spoiled self-absorbed princess of NTCC since its inception. She'd have found another guy that made more money or that had more going for him financially. They've never seemed to be ones to live a life of delayed gratification because them and their wives seemed to always be spending.
The only rentals I've ever heard about are the ones in Graham and in St Louis, where most of them are in the name of NTCC. RWD-bag has also said before that the org is paying him back for him fronting the money ($600K) for the Bonco compound land and building the houses on it. Also RWD-bag's vacation home is in the name of NTCC as well and no doubt he used one of the local pastors that were there at the time to be his eyes and ears with the realtors. Then you have the org office being the negotiators and notary on all of this as well. You would have to be absolutely blind or in pure self-denial to not see how that the NTCC corporation's status is being used to privately benefit their leadership.
"You would have to be absolutely blind or in pure self-denial to not see how that the NTCC corporation's status is being used to privately benefit their leadership."
"HELLO!" as rdub used to say...
Steakboy said,
"Plus I'm sure his wife would have left him long ago because she's been the spoiled self-absorbed princess of NTCC since its inception. She'd have found another guy that made more money or that had more going for him financially."
...or... that had good hair.
And the congregation said...
AMEN and AMEN!
Come on now...
You can get louder than that!
Minsters and members are leaving. They can't stop the bleeding. They don't get it. It's not about holiness or worldliness. It's about being mean-spirited and the treatment.
We are winning.
MDR - They think that people don't know or that we're incapable of connecting the dots when it comes to stuff like where the money comes from or how the rules have changed. It also sounds like the NTCC leadership must have been taking their own "stupid pills" lately.
those of you in washington still going to ntcc should go to the third day concert in may and either see how judgemental you are or see the blessing you recieve from something outside ntcc
If you equate freedom with sin, then you are in bondage. Keep beating the dead horse of works because that is all the Gospel message is to you. Crack that whip and pray people keep believing they are righteous and accepted by God because of what they do or don't do. That's some theology you've got there.
People who leave ntcc actually don't have to do a thing but sit back and watch you push more people away from God. You're doing a good work, Mr. Kekel. From the abundance of your heart, your mouth is speaking, and if you could see yourself, you would become a different man.
Anonymous said..."those of you in washington still going to ntcc should go to the third day concert in may and either see how judgemental you are or see the blessing you recieve from something outside ntcc"
It's only been recently that they've been able to come out of their musical repertoire and have sung things that they previously considered to be "black gospel". For groups like Third Day, they were relegated to the NTCC definition of "wordly music" and people were looked down upon if they mentioned anything that was contemporary Christian or Christian rock music.
Previously, none of this music could be played in the Servicemen's homes or in the dorms at their seminary and you were held in as much contempt or disdain as an "unsaved" visitor that is too ignorant to have been enlightened by the Gospel of NTCC.
Steakboy said: the Gospel of NTCC.
Yes, and the Gospel of NTCC is NOT the Gospel of Jesus.
Steakboy said:
"Previously, none of this music could be played in the Servicemen's homes or in the dorms at their seminary and you were held in as much contempt or disdain as an "unsaved" visitor that is too ignorant to have been enlightened by the Gospel of NTCC."
Do you remember back in the day when Sandi Patty was worldly? Amy Grant was forbidden because she was wearing a leopard skin outfit in one of her concerts, plus she was worldly. I seen some old records that were laying around in one of the Servicemen's homes and it had some women with their hair in a bun from the 50's and some old geezer with a guitar that was dressed like an ntcc soul snatcher.
We were pretty naive to think that we were experts on what kind of music God wanted us to listen to. I personally like TobyMac. Now, while I was in the ntcc, I hated rap and still do to some degree. I'm not a big fan of someone that is filled with hate rapping about hating their parents and stealing, killing and raping. We went to a Christian Music Festival last year and TobyMac put on a really good show. His music is very diverse and he uses a fresh mix of christian lyrics, jammin guitars and great sounding Keyboards with a little bit of rap mixed in. What a great show that was.
When my wife first introduced me to his music my first thought was I hate rap, but after listening to a couple songs, the music was unlike anything I ever heard and I listen to it all the time now.
I prefer Christian music but I can listen to any station on the radio and enjoy a tune without losing the victory. The ntcc has a very shallow taste in music and if you allow them to dictate your music choices to you, you will miss out on some great music and fun. Of course, that's the goal and it's more than just music that the ntcc would like to steal from you.
Next time Davis comes to visit your servicemen's home you ought to blast some TobyMac into his ears and tell him if he doesn't like it, he ought to take his sour-pus, frowning attitude out to his motor home or motel and listen to his cow-pie stompin, hoot an hollerin, countryfried southern gospel and give us all some peace.
DnA
DnA said,
"The ntcc has a very shallow taste in music"
That's because the ntcc has a very shallow taste of Christianity. It's just religion, not relationship.
Anon said "you would become a different man."
You first have to be a man before you can become a different man. I say this because anybody that can get up in a woman's face to intimidate her is not a man in my book. I might not have seen you do it, but it did happen, because my wife doesn't lie and other people, including your wife, saw it too.
Hey, Mikey, if you ever see me while out and about, I hope you're "man" enough to come and get in my face, but I think you're hardly man enough to do try it. Other than that, you're a pretty nice fella.
Anonymous said,
"Mr. Kekel . . . if you could see yourself, you would become a different man."
He sees but refuses to repent. Therefore his sin remains.
Anonymous said..."those of you in washington still going to ntcc should go to the third day concert in may and either see how judgemental you are or see the blessing you recieve from something outside ntcc"
We have main floor tickets for the show and are really excited about going.
I used to be very judgmental about these type of bands until I really listened to some of the songs. The rest was history. We have been to many shows and I get a blessing every time I go, unlike when I've ever listened to bluegrass.
Wait a minute! I couldn't have been blessed...'cause the Lord didn't get permission from Mikey to bless me at the show... I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that.
Matthew West is my favorite artist. man, that dude can sing the Glory right out Heaven into my soul.
Third Day, here we come. Anybody from ntcc that would like a blessing, come on and join us!
Steakboy quoted...
"eager for base or illicit gain, greedy for money".
Chief said...
Sounds like RW Davis and crew. They are certainly some greedy folks and they love their filthy lucre. Working for money ain't bad but when you get it from taking advantage of people it is bad. RWD has more schemes for conning people out of money than a shark has teeth.
Chief
I always wondered, do they think wearing animal prints is a sin? I would not be surprised, with the NTCC there is some kind of disdain in it. I have always loved animal prints, but never felt quite "right" wearing them to church. Now I know why, they did not really approve of that either.
Give me a break...
Animal prints in church? Come on. You guys are going overboard. Not EVERYTHING about NTCC was wrong. It is illogical to say that, because many things someone does are bad, that if I want to be good I should do the opposite of EVERY thing that person did. Let's not be so simple.
Case in point: If an abusive parent beats her child for doing drugs, does it mean that doing drugs is good, because an evil person is against it? Or if a parent beat her child to get them to go to school, can you not be a little conservative about your criticism and see that the person was right for wanting their child to go to school, but wrong for beating them? Holiness is still holy, and if you think you can wear animal prints to church that's your prerogative, and you may say it's only my opinion if I say you are immodest. However, NTCC did not invent the standard of modesty. The ancient church writers give their opinions on how women ought to dress too, and it was very simple so as not to draw attention to yourself. Go ahead and wear leopard spots or zebra stripes and see if you don't get attention in a room full of people wearing clothes that are meant to NOT draw attention to themselves.
NTCC taught that women shouldn't wear tight pants because it is immodest. I am sure that the ancient church leaders would have very much frowned upon that style for women as well. If you have a problem with NTCC for them upholding the ancient church practice of modesty, I wonder who your problem REALLY is with.
Come on. Can't you draw the analogy. Luke was told by Darth Vader- as Luke was whipping up on him in the famous lightsaber battle, "use your anger." He wanted Luke to join the dark side. Luke was defeating him, yes, but the lesson was that you should be careful not to be taken by the dark side in your effort to destroy the dark side. Take heed lest you be devoured by your desire to destroy anything "NTCC," and be careful to do your research and find out if it really originated with the NTCC or not.
Recommended reading would be: "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. Get educated on true Christianity. A cursory survey of the "Clothing" section easily backs up much of what NTCC promotes about modesty and tight pants as far back as the late second century. We believe John died in the very late 1st century. So about a century later and we have preserved words of the early church writers already speaking about it. I don't think the church changed that much in the first hundred years after the death of the last living apostle.
God is love. John emphasized this perhaps more than any apostle, in 1John and his Gospel, but God is also a judge. John also wrote Revelation. I don't throw away every jot and tittle of what I was taught in NTCC. That would be silly. You didn't "waste" all of those years of your life. Recognize what was good and what was bad, and move on. Don't try to justify doing NOTHING that they said was good if some of it or even a lot of it had virtue to it. It's just like organizing your file cabinet. It would be easy to just dump everything in the trash, but one might be wise to look and see if there is anything in there that you should hold on to lest, having tossed it for the sake of making room, later you realize you needed a few things in there. :)
Anonymous said...
Holiness is still holy, and if you think you can wear animal prints to church that's your prerogative, and you may say it's only my opinion if I say you are immodest. However, NTCC did not invent the standard of modesty.
Chief said...
I'm glad you addressed this. First, define holiness? Well you talked about the ancient church writers so I just looked up the definition of holiness from the Greek word found in Strongs. The Greek word for is holiness is "hä-gē-äs-mo's" and it means consecration. So then I looked up the word consecration and it means "dedication to the service and worship of a deity". Ok, what in the world does that have to do with a bunch of man made determinations on how a woman should "style" her hair, whether or not she should wear fingernail or toenail polish like I know one NTCC pastor's wife wears, whether or not she should wear pants or specifically spandex pants like Pastor Hunt's wife was wearing to Smith Gym on Fort Benning, or whether or not a woman should wear tight dresses (which brings attention to herself like you mentioned) like Tanya Kekel wears who happens to be Davis' daughter and Kekels wife? You could be "consecrated to the Lord wearing burlap bag say no less an animal print outfit.
Then Anonymous said...
NTCC taught that women shouldn't wear tight pants because it is immodest. I am sure that the ancient church leaders would have very much frowned upon that style for women as well. If you have a problem with NTCC for them upholding the ancient church practice of modesty, I wonder who your problem REALLY is with.
Chief said...
No you are absolutely and verifiably wrong. The NTCC didn't teach that women "shouldn't" wear "tight" pants. The NTCC leadership taught that women were not allowed to wear "ANY" pants regardless or whether or not they were tight or loose even though certain wives of NTCC pastors have been breaking that rule all along to go exercising in places like public gyms or out running in public. Of the 6 NTCC pastors I had, the wives of at least two of them that I know of, wore pants to exercise in. Where in the Bible does it say that a woman can't wear pants unless she is exercising? Additionally and once again, you mentioned wearing "tight" pants. Well according to your own written standards, wouldn't wearing tight dresses be just as bad? Tight is tight regardless of whether or not it's pants or dresses.
My point here is that the NTCC is much more bad than it is good and as a result many consider it a plague to our society. So using your logic, if a man goes in to your house and rapes you wife and then rapes your children and beats them to death, do we look at his good just because the very day before he helped the old lady cross the street? I could care less about the good. The dude is an evil criminal who abused my family and he deserves capital punishment. Well the same logic applies to the NTCC. This ain't just some organization that did some things bad and some things good. This organization and it's leaders wrecked the lives of many people and abused many people and used many people and I could care less about what little good they've done and I don't agree with your analysis of the word holiness and I proved it?
Not only that, you said you were sure what the ancient writers were thinking. Oh really? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or degrading but when did you become a mind reader of dead people who died about 19 centuries ago? Not only that, your speculation is the whole problem in the NTCC. The NTCC rules are too often based on speculation and not biblical facts.
Continued briefly below...
Many of the NTCC rules exist because Davis is an old fuddy-duddy 1920s wannabe and because of his nature, chauvinism and narcissism that many of these rules even exist and not because of conclusive scripture found in the Bible. You can't make up your own religion based on what you are sure the ancient writers were thinking? Come on, that is the whole problem.
Chief
Anonymous said..."Animal prints in church? Come on. You guys are going overboard. Not EVERYTHING about NTCC was wrong. It is illogical to say that, because many things someone does are bad, that if I want to be good I should do the opposite of EVERY thing that person did. Let's not be so simple."
I get "the trash" vs. "the good" analogy, but are you currently with NTCC? I've read all the "move on" appeals and "love and pray for them" speeches on this blog. Logically, not everything in NTCC was right either but I'm sure we received some rudimentary Bible knowledge, the need to invite people to church and probably quitting habits and sins that would have hurt you are a few things you MAY have learned after starting to attend NTCC.
But what did you ACTUALLY learn as you became more entrenched and steeped within their theology, attended Conferences, and if applicable went to their Bible college?
Did you become more critical of other churches? Did you maintain an air of superiority as to your knowledge of the Bible compared to other Christians? Did you adhere to their standards of outward holiness and have your family recognize the same? Did you believe that it was wrong and sinful for women to wear pants, jewelry, cut their hair, etc. and condemn those that trangressed these beliefs? Did you break up relationships with former friends or family members because they did not fit in with your new commitment to NTCC and its doctrine of "holiness"? Did you begin to compromise your integrity when it came to trying to impress the NTCC leadership with your faithfulness and loyalty?
I ask these questions because after peeling back the layers within NTCC, one has to commit themselves and sear their conscience that much more to what is around them. It is a broken system based upon the works of your hands, where you worship those things that are made by them and the creature rather than the Creator. You begin to become worn down under the weight of "eye service" and being a "man pleaser" rather than living for the glory of God. What about the liberty in Jesus Christ and the joy (not the forced farce of a fellowship kind) that so many in NTCC seem to be missing?
Here is Ancient for you and you say "if you think you can wear animal prints to church that's your prerogative, and you may say it's only my opinion if I say you are immodest. However, NTCC did not invent the standard of modesty."
Oh really? Really?
Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea
Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
Chief said...
That's Ancient for you and I'm not just guessing what the writer was thinking. That dude was running around preaching wearing camel's hair and a leathern girdle on his butt or if you want to be more specific on his "hips" which is connected to his butt. Come on dude, you tell me he wasn't considered holy? He was leading church service and preaching wearing camel's hair and you think it's a problem for a woman to go to church in animal print? John wasn't just wearing an animal print, he was wearing the hairy animal for crying out loud!!!!
You see that is the problem with the NTCC leadership and that is your problem. Y'all place way too much emphasis on how people look and how they dress and not nearly enough emphasis on their heart. What about Davis and Kekel running around in extremely expensive suits? Why is that necessary? "Look at the suit that I"m wearing", is that the mentality? Yep, you better believe it!! The NTCC leadership could care less about someone's heart and they've proved that with their heartlessness.
Chief
Anonymous said:
"Animal prints in church? Come on. You guys are going overboard. Not EVERYTHING about NTCC was wrong. It is illogical to say that, because many things someone does are bad, that if I want to be good I should do the opposite of EVERY thing that person did. Let's not be so simple. "
DnA said:
I am amazed at the hypocrisy of this statement. Why do you not use this very argument to reveal the false teachings of the ntcc that you are defending? You use the same logic to isolate yourselves from all other religion. Just because the Baptists believe in eternal security doesn't mean you have to preach against what they wear to church every week. Just because many of the Pentecostals have evolved faster than you, into a church that accepts people that wear make-up and jewelry, which is exactly where the ntcc is heading, doesn't mean you have to get up behind the pulpit and call them Plenty-crossed, and preach about their compromising ways, sending them to hell.
Not everything about the world outside of the ntcc is wrong either. You are worried about animal prints? You need to clean the inside of the cup and platter first and then worry about the outside. You claim to love Jesus, don't you? Why don't you show us where Jesus is as concerned about the outward appearance of a man or woman as much as the ntcc is? Why are you digging through centuries of history to find justification of the ntcc's legalistic ways when all you need is a Thompson Chain with red letters? Read those red letters and get back with us on the whole modesty issue, please. Let us know if the conditions of our salvation are to be found in church history written a century after Christ died, or should we be more concerned about loving our neighbor instead of looking down on them for what they wear. I am of the opinion that if it were so important what a person wears that Jesus in all the words he spoke, would have mentioned it to us.
DnA
Chief said..."What about Davis and Kekel running around in extremely expensive suits? Why is that necessary? "Look at the suit that I"m wearing", is that the mentality? Yep, you better believe it!!"
Chief Dog in the House...You absolutely hit the nail on the head. Why would I need to get up in front of a congregation and talk about my Hart, Shaffner & Marx Gold Trumpeter or Hickey Freeman suit that I have hanging off from my rotund body like its the "robes of righteousness" that Jesus just gave me? The suit doesn't make the man, the man makes the suit - NTCCers - keep letting RWD-bag be a well dressed hypocrite that lives off the tithes and offerings of others and dupes you to buy yet another suit for him the next time he comes to your town. That's right you got it cheap at Nordstrom's for him, so it only cost $500 and not $1000. What a blessing!
Don't forget they're not going to wear the cheap Walmart see through shirts that you do or the paisley ties that you pickup from the thrift store (they call it kook store). They also want some Bostonians or some nice Stacy Adams shoes to match, so you better start working on it before he comes to your town...
Anonymous said:
"Go ahead and wear leopard spots or zebra stripes and see if you don't get attention in a room full of people wearing clothes that are meant to NOT draw attention to themselves."
DnA said:
Do you really want to talk about clothes that draw attention to themselves. If you enter a room full of normal people dressed like you are getting ready to act in a scene of "Little House on the Prairie" do you not think that you are drawing attention to yourself? Zebra outfits, would probably draw about the same amount of attention, as what you define as "God's" holiness standards. They are not God's standards, they are Davis's standards and they are not even being adhered to by his own daughter who is Lascivious and would draw an awful lot of attention if she walked into a room full of normal people.
DnA
Anonymous said:
"Take heed lest you be devoured by your desire to destroy anything "NTCC," and be careful to do your research and find out if it really originated with the NTCC or not."
DnA said:
Okay, now we are justifying false doctrine by claiming that it originated a couple centuries after Jesus walked the earth? We need to take heed? We are not the ones that go around jacking people up for what they wear or what they don't wear. We are not the ones that blast people from behind the pulpit for not conforming to the ntcc standards, which may not have originated from the ntcc, but they are being emphasized as mandatory rules that if broken will make you ineligible for eternal life. Just because all of the rules did not originate in the ntcc, does not mean that they originated from God. The ntcc scam hinges on people believing that God is more concerned about a bunch of rules governing outward appearance and non-biblical cult-like policies that garner obedience without common sense. If they can get you to dress like Martha Washington, they can also get you to give your money to them so they can live like the Pharisees and the rich religious elitists.
DnA
romans 6:22 shows how we achieve holiness. ntcc has it all.wrong.
romans 6:22 states being made free from sin which is we become free from them by accepting jesus.. and living our life for god... you have your fruit unto holiness. now fruit grows on its own based on the conditions. we have holiness as a result of giving our life to jesus and being obedient to god
I'd like to see John the Baptist come rolling up in an NTCC church with camel's hair on his back wearing a leather girdle?
I know what some NTCC people are thinking and what their answer would be to that question: "Running around in camel's hair was an acceptable practice back then but it's not a practice now. The traditions have changed".
Oh really? Don't you think the Pharisees were finely dressed and don't you think they'd have turned their noses up at John the Baptist even back then just like the NTCC would turn their noses up at him now if he walked into and NTCC church wearing a camel's hair coat and a leather girdle? You better believe they would have then and they still would now and Anonymous proved it with his very own statement.
Oh and get this. NTCCers would be right in suggesting that it's no longer a tradition to wear something like a camel's hair coat and a leather girdle and guess what wasn't a tradition then and guess what article of clothing hadn't even been invented yet? PANTS!!! So when the ancient writers wrote about modesty, pants didn't even exist and I have a history book which says that. Pants must be stitched up both sides of each leg and back then, rather than trying to construct such an article of clothing, men and women simply wore rap around robes. They didn't have sowing machines that were capable then of doing what our sowing machines can do now, so pants didn't even exist. Even if they could have made them by hand (which they didn't), pants wouldn't have been practicable.
So here is my point. There are modest pants and their are pants which are not modest but to suggest that the Bible teaches that pants are a mans garment can't be true because because pants didn't even exist back then and I have a history book in my closet with states as such. I can pull it out and quote the book, author and page number and the quote if anyone is interested. And guess who advised me to get this book? An NTCC pastor. The irony of it all.
Chief
Anonymous said:
" I don't throw away every jot and tittle of what I was taught in NTCC. That would be silly. You didn't "waste" all of those years of your life. Recognize what was good and what was bad, and move on."
DnA said:
That's great advise as we all learned a lot about the bible while in the ntcc. We also learned much about what not to live like from our experience in the ntcc. I have absolutely no problem with what you are calling holiness, although there is really no definition of such in the bible. There are many people that have lived large portions of their life in a church that preached strict standards of dress and they still adhere to them after leaving the ntcc or whatever cult they came out of.
The problem that many of us have with the ntcc is the way in which they force fed their rules to people and used their rules as a condition of eternal life, when in actuality a select few were getting rich off of our sacrifices. Many people were ridiculed and harassed for their outward appearance and so many people were excluded from the church for what they did or did not wear. When you put yourself on a pedestal and look down your nose at everyone else because of your own works, this is pure hypocrisy and goes against the love that you were talking about.
Recognizing what was good and bad about the ntcc and "moving on" as you put it would be convenient for you and others perhaps, but what about all the people that don't realize they are being conned and used? Is it a sin for us to warn them that they are all being played like fidels in a symphony? Why are we the ones that always have to move on? Why are people like you so worried about us pointing out the obvious? If you invested more than a decade of your life for a cause, only to find out that it was a scam, would you try to warn others or would you just go on about your merry way and laugh at people as they ruined their lives being caught up in the same lies that you were caught up in? If you gave thousands of dollars to help children in undeveloped countries and were told for years that your money was going directly towards helping those children, but you found out that all of your money really went towards making a couple of wealthy tycoons richer then they already were, would you except it if someone told you that you need to move on and find closure? You are just bitter and you need to stop focusing on the bad.
This should be a wake up call to all those that follow this blog.
DnA
Chief that was an awesome analogy of John the Baptist. That really sums up this topic better than any thing that was written to date. I'm sure that if animal skins were a problem, Jesus would have rebuked John the Baptist, but this what Jesus had to say:
Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
DnA
That is interesting also because I just looked up winebibber in Strongs and the definition is interesting. For decades, the NTCC has got on the Catholics about this practice.
Strongs definition of winebibber: a winebibber, given to wine, a wino
Imagine that!!! So John didn't drink wine and they found fault with him and Jesus did and they said he was a wino/winebibber. Sounds like the way the NTCC operates to me. I know, the NTCC would say that Jesus drank "grapejuice". Sounds great but that is not what Jesus said of himself in Mat 11:19. Jesus didn't however say he was a "drunkard" but the scripture surely does suggest that he drank wine and it doesn't say it wasn't fermented.
Things that make you go hmmmm.
Chief
Anonymous said,
"Animal prints in church?
Go ahead and wear leopard spots or zebra stripes and see if you don't get attention in a room full of people wearing clothes that are meant to NOT draw attention to themselves."
Now who is being simple?
I've seen Gail Olson, Angela Barden, and one other lady, I think Curry's wife, wear leopard print blouses in church.
So what? I think God could care less about the print. He said modest apparel. The blouses were of modest fit.
Truth is that righteousness is by Christ. That includes the holiness. It is a heart matter.
I've also seen Gail Olson wear a blouse with see-through sleeves and the bodice was so sheer you could see her skin-tight undergarment / girdle or half slip. That, to me, was immodest. Apologists were convicted by it too, trying to say, "Oh if you are lusting after a woman's arm, you need to get saved." That's reasonable enough. But when they blast people from the pulpit with that in conjunction with the Overseer's wife wearing a questionable blouse it's obvious that they are convicted and know that something is wrong, but don't want to admit it and repent. So they lash out. Guess they just need to get saved. Ahem.
The same thing happened when Gen Cowan was wearing a dress with a skin-tight top that outlined the bra and nipples of her already pronounced (read large) bosom as she stood at the door of the church to greet folks. "Hello!" It was, to say the least, 'in yo face' shocking in an organization that blasts holiness as a weapon; and you could hear a ripple go through the crowd as ladies exchanged raised eyebrow glances or shakes of the head. Of course kekel has favorites, and large breasted women are at the top of that list, so he defended her vehemently (spitting and hissing) from the pulpit. Yeah, right, whatever. In ntcc it depends on who you are and who you know. Had another woman tried that, the results would have been quite different. Just look at how davis shredded Maria Moreno for stopping to admire horses in a pasture. davis defamed her from the pulpit for something that is not a sin. But the lasciviousness, coveteousness, adultery, fornication, child abuse, and malice of pet people in ntcc is overlooked or touted as model Christianity or liberty.
DnA said "If you enter a room full of normal people dressed like you are getting ready to act in a scene of "Little House on the Prairie"...
Don, this is a good analogy. I saw a bunch of ntcc ladies going into the Puyallup Fairgrounds and every one of them looked like they just came off the set of an episode of Little House on the Prairie. I thought, "These women look like KOOKS!" and then I thought, "Would I go to their church if invited?"
So for all the folks who think holiness is about what you wear, I ask the question: Is looking like a kook a good testimony for the Gospel? I'll take my chances with the animal print folks, since it's a better testimony than looking like a kook from that cult out there in Graham, which is what most of the population in this are think about that bunch.
The other day my wife was sharing some things with her professor about her background and why she had returned to college, and the professor asked, did you go to that church in Graham? She said she knew all about them and that the women act like robots. Great testimony, huh?
Chief,
You asked where I get my information from.
My information comes from a variety of sources, church history books, lexical aides such as "A Greek lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (BDAG)," Louw and Nida's, LSJ (little kittel), Thayer's lexicon, BDB, and others, and yes, Strong's. I also have studied Greek New Testaments such as the Greek New Testament NA27, and the Byzantine Text compiled by Maurice Robinson and William G. Pierpont. I have also studied Greek from Mounce's "Basics of Biblical Greek," and I regularly use bible programs with powerful searching and analytical features. I use a variety of parallel Bibles, commentaries, Bible dictionaries, and I consult the book I mentioned earlier at times. I will stop there.
It is nice that you discovered the lexical aide in the back of your Strong's Concordance. This is is a good starting point but rudimentary in it's entries. There have been made many advancements in lexicons since the discovery of a lot of koine greek secular literature was discovered and studied in the turn of the 20th century. The application of this knowledge seems to be reflected best in BDAG according to many scholars. There the various meanings of single greek words have been appropriated to particular verses of scripture so you may see which definition of a greek word may have been the most fitting given the context of a particular passage of scripture- as opposed to simply a list of definitions for a greek word.
Your premise of only desiring to use the Bible to establish what is holy is admirable. However, extra biblical sources may be required in order to determine definitions of greek words used by the NT writers. What exactly did 'lascivious' mean back then and not 200 years before then, but right around the time that it was written in the NT? We can rely on context in the scriptures but what if context does not answer this as when the word appears in lists with other words such as in Gal 5. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, (Gal 5:19 KJV) We can consult the ancient writers of that day to see how the word was used in places where more context is given as to the intended definition of the word. This is one way where applying extabiblical sources of info to your research may be considered responsible exegesis.
Cont'd...
Another way that post biblical sources may be cited in determining what God's will is might be to examine the very early Christian church practices, although of course this is not without flaw. However, when you can read from a variety of sources what early Christian writers thought about modesty this may compliment your biblical sources such as:
present your bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God.
The question may arise, well what does that mean in practice? If you read the literature from the earliest Christian sources, you can see at least what they felt that it meant having lived during a time that was much more close to the time of the apostles then we do now. Then you might say, this is interesting because their views parallel the views on tight clothing, etc. that NTCC promoted.
Then you can examine their use of NT scripture and their application and weigh it with your common sense and Bible expertise and decide if you want to adopt the ancient church practice or refute it. The choice is yours. For example, Clement of Alexandria wrote:
"By no means are women to be allowed to uncover and exhibit any part of their bodies, lest both fall- the men by being incited to look, and the women by attracting to themselves the eyes of the men."
I don't blindly follow Clement, Chief, because like you I acknowledge that he is not an apostle or NT writer. However, do I think his words make sense? Yes, in light of the scriptures he may be alluding to.
Namely,
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Mat 5:28 KJV)
You want to only use the Bible and not rely on any extrabiblical sources from what I can infer from your words. If I am wrong please forgive me. However your logic is flawed in my opinion. When you write on your blog concerning the Bible, do you simply quote scripture or do you often expound on the scripture quoted, saying things such as, Jesus would have said this or that, or Paul would have told them to do this or that? Or do you sometimes string a few scriptures together into one complete thought and share it? So what's wrong with me comparing what early church leaders taught? Should I rely on my contemporaries more then them? I trow not.
I believe it was Justin Martyr, one of the earliest sources of information about the early christian church, who wrote that the church would read from the scriptures and that the chief elder would then expound on them. So if the early church was not just reading scripture but relying on men who were not apostles to instruct them on what the apostles meant, then logic instructs me that I can safely rely on the early church writers for sound exposition on the Bible, though I will also consult modern sources as well, and of course rely chiefly on scripture.
The South Jefferson Girls team just won their game and will be playing in the final four for a chance to win their 3rd state championship game. Congrats to the Lady Spartans and to Bernie Bassett and family.
DnA
Do you really think that God's plan was intended to be this complicated, anonymous? What percentage of the population is going to study out all the lexicons and church history to find out exactly what every word meant two thousand years ago? I'm not speaking for Chief, here and I'm sure he has something to share about this topic but my own personal belief is that although we find that it's a narrow path that leads to life everlasting, salvation and living for God is not meant to be so complicated that you need 500 books and a doctorate in church history to know what's right and what's wrong. The Pharisee's made things complicated by imposing a whole bunch of stupid rules in other people's lives while they would not abide by many of those rules themselves. They used the letter of the law to try to place a stumbling block before the Jews, but they themselves were the biggest offenders when it came to their doctrine.
The ntcc is no different. They have made salvation complicated by setting up a system of a whole bunch of legalistic rules, policies or whatever you want to call them, that are just as impossible as the old testament law to keep, and then labeling anyone that falls short of their unreasonable man made expectations as sinners. Jesus didn't tell his disciples to carry around a library full of books to supplement his words because they were too complicated to understand. Sorry, anonymous, I'm not buying it. God has chosen the foolish things of this earth to confound the wise.
DnA
Anonymous quoted:
"28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Mat 5:28 KJV)"
DnA said:
The emphasis on this scripture was on the person who lusts, not on the person that is being lusted after. The ntcc has a history of blaming victims for sexual misconduct. "That woman deserves to be raped because of what she is wearing". This condones the sexually deviant behavior of the criminal and places the blame on the victim that was not dressed appropriately. Does that mean that we should run around naked and wear clothes that shows off our body? Of course not, but you don't stop eating all together to avoid gluttony. You don't quit your job because someone expects you to be in church service 5 times a week. You don't isolate your family on a compound because you are afraid to let them be around people that are not in your cult because you are afraid that sin will rub off on them.
You have to use a little bit of common sense. You don't cover every square inch of your skin because someone else is sick and they are going to lust after you no matter what you wear. That's how cults are formed. They make mountains out of mole hills and expect people to blindly follow rules that have no biblical roots. Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.
DnA
Do you want to know something, women do not have to look homely, as the NTCC women do. It is not a requirement to look like a lady from the 1920's so that you will not have a man lusting after you. Some women are just attractive and they attract attention whatever they wear, they could be in a burlap dress. However, wearing clothing that is too small or too tight or shows what cup size you might be wearing, is that not considered enticement? Of course it is, Oh, and by the way, in Graham, the NTCC is well known. People do look at you like you are some kind of weirdo, and believe me, you are treated as such. You can be the nicest friendliest person around. But when you look like a NTCC woman you can forget about inviting people out to church or making friends with a person not in the church. They really want nothing to do with you. Women have absolutely no desire to look and dress the way that NTCC women look. For men, not wearing shorts is a far cry from what the women have to go though to conform to the NTCC women standards of dress. After all, in order to really invite people to church don't they kind of want to get to know you a little first. Most people don't want to give you the time of day much less go to your church. The NTCC puts so much emphasis on the way a person looks, but what about you as a person. It really is what's inside your heart that really matters. The NTCC is the most judgemental church I have ever encountered and probably ever will encounter again. I want no part of it...
Sorry, but logic does not say that because someone is mean and doesn't teach you about how to be on the inside that the way that they dress is wrong.
If Hitler killed millions of jews, and he had a mustache does having a mustache constitute evil?
Just because the NTCC may not have showed us godly examples with words seasoned with the salt of grace, but they may have been at times rude, demeaning and condescending, doesn't mean that their manner of dress was wrong for a Christian to follow.
You have to come up with sources that back you up otherwise you are just bloating.
Hey Kris, thanks for identifying yourself and hope that all is well with you. It sounds like you have gone from one controlling cult to another. I hope you find peace but I have to say that not long ago you were in agreement on much of what was shared by many of us on this blog. This blog exists because many have realized that they were part of a big money making scam, not a Christian organization that cared about souls. There are those that will admonish us to get on with our lives or find fault with many of us that have chosen to share the truth with all that will hear, but what are you accomplishing by coming on here and preaching your version of holiness? Is this supposed to help us?
Chief does not make any spectacular claims but I'd have to say that he has done quite a bit to help folks find perspective on the true nature of the ntcc and cults like it. That's more than I can say for a lot of folks. They just want to continue on in ignorance, and whatever you do don't rock the ntcc boat. When people leave a cult it is a step in the right direction. When people open up and talk about their experiences it can bring about healing and when healing takes place lots of other good things happen. Don't put God in a small box, Kris, and if you are going to flip flop on issues, maybe it's you that needs to move on with your life and pay a little closer attention to your eternal soul. I'm not saying this to demean you but just hoping that you think about things a bit before jacking everyone up. We will be here for you as usual if you find yourself in need of a friend.
DnA
If you think they are too old fashioned take a look at some of the groups that stem from the Puritans, like the Mennonites or the Amish. I believe their clothing dates back to the 18th century.
MDR,
Your logic is flawed, too, in my opinion. Does looking 'strange' justify changing the traditions of dress for Christians so we can fit in with the world? Didn't the Bible teach us that we are strangers and pilgrims in this world? Listen, the early church leaders and their followers were tortured in front of people in the amphitheaters. You think it was popular to be a Christian among the pagan masses? Did it seem advantageous to join a group that was outlawed at times because they wouldn't worship the emperor and give sacrifices to the gods they relied on for victories over their enemies and for rain for crops? Why did people join anyways? Because they saw the love in the people and that their philosophy of their religion was higher than that of the jews (which was the highest prior to our Lord) and that of the Greek philosophers.
The answer, Sir, to 'growing the church' is not through attempts towards secularism for here we have no continuing city. We show people that this life does not matter. The elements of it along with the fashions thereof will be set on fire one day and a new heaven and earth will be established wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Chief does not make any spectacular claims but I'd have to say that he has done quite a bit to help folks find perspective on the true nature of the ntcc and cults like it.
And then? So he leads them out of NTCC and into a life of secularism. Is that better?
"maybe it's you that needs to move on with your life and pay a little closer attention to your eternal soul."
DnA,
You said that, but isn't that NTCC tactics? Do what I say, or you will pay in hell. You have left NTCC, but it seems that their shenanigans are still in you. It's just that you are using them to promote worldliness now. I don't think it's admirable to lead someone out of a holiness church and into a life of worldliness. You would have been better off to stay in the borg then to go into a life of worldliness. You all don't seem to have a problem with NTCC, but with holiness. You want to be more worldly than NTCC was. You want to be the deliverers from God's sound doctrines that NTCC promoted. You encourage people to err from the truth. It's one thing to say you are being used for your money, but to put down practices that evidence shows existed in the ancient church seems to me that you are fighting God rather than man.
Kristopher Moore said:
"And then? So he leads them out of NTCC and into a life of secularism. Is that better?"
DnA said:
And just what is it that you are doing Kris? Leading them from one cult into another? I'd rather listen to Chief than you. He makes sense and you are out there. Do you think that jacking a bunch of people up over holiness is going to help folks? Especially your own ideas of what holiness is really all about? What do you really expect to accomplish? Are you helping anyone here?
DnA
I can tell you this, if it was not for a certain individual and the delemna this person went through AND THIS BLOG, I would most likely still be in the NTCC. Looking back, I now see the mistakes I made while in that church. The teachings there may be based on the bible, however, I didn't see Christian like attitudes, it really only was a facade. It was not genuine and I am ashamed to say I did not see it, until it was brought to light by this individual and this blog.
So why do I come out to this blog, it sheds some light on questions I alreay had in my mind. Who can you ask? If you have questions, the ministers where the last people I would have gone to talk to. Problems, forget about talking with them. They would have been the last people I would go to. Kekel once said over the pulpit and I quote "don't come to me with your problems" That told me, I can
't talk to the pastor. He is not interested in helping me through anything.
I use this blog as a way to deal with the lost years and it helps me to move on. I am not living in the past, I am moving forward.
DnA,
Pointing out the negative things about NTCC may be fine, but pointing out why you think it is dumb to dress modestly and instruct people in your congregation to not dress like the world- that is where I say that you may be biting more than you can chew. You continue the heritage of disdain for scholarly research taught in NTCC by your comments against me using scholarly works for my citations, by the way.
"Especially your own ideas of what holiness is really all about?"
DnA,
Again, I cited "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" as my source. Who do you cite for your ideas on holiness?
As far as whether I am helping anyone? I don't know. If anyone listens to me, perhaps. I have faith that I am standing for the truth, and that this often has a double result in those who follow it. They often are hurt in this world but I believe they have a benefit in the world to come.
Man Kris, you are all over the map. Who's promoting worldliness anyway? Tell me where I've promoted worldliness, please. Do I speak against the ntcc and those that try to justify their abuse and cover it up with what they call holiness? Of course I do, because not even you and your library of books can show any of us definitive proof that true holiness is about women wearing dresses and men wearing polyester loose fitting geek pants. You sit in the seat of the scribes and Pharisees if you think that God's holiness is about a bunch of legalistic rules controlling every aspect of a persons life. I don't even have a problem with what you are calling holiness. My problem is with people that preach this stuff and live contrary to what is even more important than the outward appearance of man.
I'm not going to tie up the rest of my weekend with this but I might find some time later to explain this if you still do not understand. I think you do, deep down inside. You know better.
DnA
History shows that Marin Luther set a lot of people (millions or more) from the clutches of the Catholic Church. However, now there are a lot of antinomial churches who don't believe in any need to teach any system of right and wrong because we are covered by grace. However, right scriptural teaching says that grace saves us, but grace also produces grace within us and good works and holiness. Capitalizing too much on grace is bad, and that historically is what seems to happen when people leave a church that may be too slanted towards holiness and righteousness, and not teaching much about love for God and for your own fellow man.
I am well aware of the benefit of having a blog to discuss grievances with companions and building up one another in love. I appreciate the benefit of it, too. I don't appreciate, or I don't give praise for people who tear down maliciously precepts that were established in the early church, such as proper and befitting clothing, disdain for riches, etc.
Jeff,
Your approach to re-calibrating the minds of people who leave NTCC is crude and worldly, encouraging people to leave NTCC to advance in worldly ways. Listen, leaving one place that may not have been very spiritual to become even less spiritual is not commendable in light of sound doctrine from the Bible, and the traditions of the ancient church. Disdain for riches is a theme prevalent throughout the ages in the Christian church. Now we have the prosperity gospel and I think it has poked it's ugly head up in NTCC, and you- like it or not- are a by-product of NTCC to some degree, and it is up to you to continue to adhere to it or to re-program yourself of that, too. Whether you do or don't is your choice, but I am simply critiquing you on the practice of promoting this concept to others. As Jesus taught us that if we teach against any of the commandments we will be least in heaven.
I thank you and DnA for allowing open dialogue contrary to the custom of NTCC.
The whole modesty thing is a fabrication. The admonitions we see are against ostentatiousness, not nakedness. Pearls, gold, and costly array were being denounced, not midriffs or thighs. I should think that the vain NTCC leaders would have more to fear than a bikini wearer.
It's astonishing that people actually buy into the whole puritan abnegation of the human body, given that there isn't scripture to justify it. Resorting to ancient extra-biblical "authorities" is just another path to deception. Some of them were just RWDs of their day, each with his own deluded followers. But the gospel is simple and basic; there is no need to complicate it with endless theological speculation, which is often presented disguised as truth.
Just back from a trip to Antigua; enjoyed hanging out in my "colored underwear," guilt free. Puritanism is a dead end of legalism and control; don't let it rob you of your rightful heritage. And don't flatter yourself that anyone is lusting for your body, either.
anon said "The answer, Sir, to 'growing the church' is not through attempts towards secularism for here we have no continuing city. We show people that this life does not matter. The elements of it along with the fashions thereof will be set on fire one day and a new heaven and earth will be established wherein dwelleth righteousness"
Look's like we have a real "Richard Cranium" on here right now.
I think so many people stay trapped in the ntcc mindset because they are seeking validation. They want somebody to tell them what a good teacher, preacher, man, or woman they are. It's nice to be appreciated. But the fact is if you are a Christian you are accepted in the beloved. That is all the validation you need. You don't need a man's approval.
Anon said "MDR,
Your logic is flawed, too, in my opinion."
Anon, I normally will not address those who cowardly post anonymously. But you have compelled me. After reading your diatribe I was so spiritually stimulated that I so desperately want to come back and join your ranks. Can I come back?
Pretty please?
NOT!
why do people make it hard? I am sure there are more verses but romans 6:22 explain how one gets holiness
You gotta cut some of the ntcc women some slack. they don't all look like old mother hubbard. You can still keep a standard of dress that pleases the Lord without looking all crazy. Ntccs problem is that they make salvation all about what you wear or don't wear and everybody ends up looking like clones. Its not by works.
Yes, they pretty much do, I can say in Graham at the NTCC, take 100women 97 will look like all the rest. Of course, there is a few that really stand out in manner of dress. However, you feel like a fish out of water if you try to break from the "norm" Wearing something the least bit fashionable is very few and far between. I understand most of the time it is most likely due to finances. However, a woman can still find nice clothes at the thrift store or Target. They just pretty much all dress like Grandma, or something close to it. I think it is becasue you just don't feel you can truly be yourself. You really do fall into the clone mentality. I did it too.
jeff doesnt lead people in the direction of worldliness or even hate for the ntcc leaders. he points out hypocrisies and jesus did the same.
"Puritanism is a dead end of legalism and control"
Vic,
Puritanism originated after the development of the church of England. That's post Henry the 8th. I cited one source from the 2nd century A.D. And there are more- quotes from early 'church fathers' as they are called, admonishing women against tight clothing and revealing the body. My point to you is that this did not originate with some group from the enlightenment era.
"why do people make it hard? I am sure there are more verses but romans 6:22 explain how one gets holiness"
This is known as 'proof texting,' using one verse of scripture to try to answer a question. I think this verse that you cited could be used to argue my case as well.
The verse you cited was
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. (Rom 6:22 KJV)
Anonymous, what do you consider tight clothing? Anything that shows the female figure? what about a T shirt is this considered tight? Jeans? Anything with any amount of cling to it. What about men. Can they not wear a T shirt. I think that the NTCC takes the manner of dress so far to the extreme it is rediculous. Come to think of it. I don't remember men wearing T shirts. When it would have been appropriate to do so.
"However, you feel like a fish out of water if you try to break from the "norm" Wearing something the least bit fashionable is very few and far between."
And I say to you that if this is your grievance with NTCC, then you would have been extremely unhappy with the ancient orthodox Christian church (prior to the developed Roman Catholic Church). I think their standards were stricter.
Vic, you are wrong. Outward modesty is not some invention that came about after the dark ages. It was practiced by the early church. They practiced outward modesty.
"What about men. Can they not wear a T shirt. I think that the NTCC takes the manner of dress so far to the extreme it is ridiculous."
I am not the authority on what men can and can't wear. The Bible just tells us not to cause someone to stumble. If you cause someone to stumble you will prefer to have had a large stone tied to you and you cast in the water. And someone can stumble if they lust after you.
Use your discretion, but I think a good rule of thumb is, if you have to ask, "is this too tight?" it probably is.
My main point is, don't act like NTCC imposed these things on you from their own inventive ideas. Though you and I may have legitimate grievances with them, on this point they may be following legitimate and well-founded Christian convictions stemming back from a long (though in these days unpopular) history of practice in various holiness denominations who followed traditions laid down as recorded in some of the earliest extant Christian literature.
Anon, I normally will not address those who cowardly post anonymously.
MDR,
It's me, Kris, one of your converts into the holiness doctrine back in the 90's.
"Vic,
Puritanism originated after the development of the church of England. That's post Henry the 8th. I cited one source from the 2nd century A.D. And there are more- quotes from early 'church fathers' as they are called, admonishing women against tight clothing and revealing the body. My point to you is that this did not originate with some group from the enlightenment era."
Yes, I'm aware of all that. I was using Puritanism in its more generic, rather than specifically historic, connotation. Puritanism was just another manifestation of early church uptightness. These attacks of legalism break out periodically in the church, despite being specifically repudiated by Paul.
It really doesn't matter how many ancient patriarchs you appeal to for support, since there's naught in the bible itself to support their position on this issue. Don't be a follower of some ancient RWD ANALogue. Don't go from the frying pan into the fire. The basic lesson of the whole org experience is that there are no works based approaches to God, and that men are all too eager to usurp divine privileges in order to lay their personally invented rules on those they love to control.
You really think that God cares for a millisecond that some chick wears an "animal print" to a building full of people? Get real, dude. Didn't you learn anything at all? Are you insisting on a do-over? I had enough the first time around to last three lifetimes. Chill out and accept God's forgiveness; quit trying to figure out how he ought to be doing his job or you'll be found just as overbearing as RWD (and some of the holy "early church fathers"). We shouldn't be looking to the Pharisees as our model (like NTCC does).
"Vic, you are wrong. Outward modesty is not some invention that came about after the dark ages. It was practiced by the early church. They practiced outward modesty."
So what? That the "early church" practices something means nothing at all; we know that humans corrupt everything in short order. Don't be a sucker for the doctrines of men.
And so, which church was the true church after the apostles died, Vic? If the church that i cited was following these principles, where was the church that believed you could go to the beach in a bathing suit? Or did the church fall into apostasy entirely and was full of charlatans all promoting a false holiness/ modest doctrine?
True, Vic, the New Testament is vague about holiness and it's practice in the real world. Yet, this is why appropriate measures of biblical exegesis should be applied when deciding how to apply the scriptures to our contemporary issues such as, "is it holy to do what women do in this post-modern era, namely going to the beach in bikinis and even wearing short shorts and tank tops that aren't much less revealing than their bathing suits in public buildings and out on the streets of their cities.
I don't think ANYONE was running around in colored underwear in Jesus' day, but they do now. Jesus is not here to tell us what to do about this, but common sense tells you that if it's wrong to lust, and I shouldn't cause my sister to stumble (despite how funny looking i am) then I shouldn't go out in immodest apparel. I was shocked one time to be told by some girl that I was attractive, when I figured I was unattractive. You just don't know what other people's tastes are, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I take no offense at any of your crass remarks, your's or MDR's. I got a back like a wet duck.
That was kind of dumb of me. As if it's the wetness of the duck that causes the comments to go off his back. It's the nature of his feathers that the water goes off his back. I guess I may have given some of you a good laugh at my own expense.
the issue about being too tight or not too tight shouldn't be a concern. if you get the inside clean, the outside will come clean.
The Holy Spirit leads and guides into all truth. The Spirit can lead a person in the right direction.
Concerning lusting.... why is all the weight placed on the woman ? (i'm a guy by the way).
maybe she is wearing something that us men consider enticing but she may have put it on to look nice.
Yes, some women do wear clothes to be enticing but not all.
Proverbs has a verse warning the man not to be enticed by her beauty.
Is it the womans fault that she is beautiful ? That as a man we like to look at beautiful things ?
If the whole responsibility is the womans, then why is that verse in there warning the men not to be taken by a womans beauty ?
the verse i'm talking about is proverbs 6:25 by the way
maybe you could be out helping someone in need instead of spending all your time studying trivial matters
MDR said...
Anon said "MDR,
It's me, Kris, one of your converts into the holiness doctrine back in the 90's"
Kris, I'm sorry, but you were not a convert of a "holiness doctrine" as you put it. You were supposed to be a convert of Jesus Christ.
After reading all of your diatribe I just have one thing to say, You're out there, man.
March 11, 2012 12:41 AM
"You're out there, man."
MDR,
You're disparaging remarks add nothing to the discussion.
"Kris, I'm sorry, but you were not a convert of a "holiness doctrine" as you put it. You were supposed to be a convert of Jesus Christ."
MDR,
I was already a convert to Jesus Christ before I met you. You taught me outward holiness.
MDR,
That kind of one-upmanship of trying to be the super spiritual man reminds me of Mr. Gandy. I asked him one year if I could work for him at the conference this year. He looked at me in a condescending super spiritual way and said,
"NO, but you can help me work for God."
So now you are implying that I am not even a servant of the Lord simply because I still adhere to the doctrine you taught me. Now you don't believe in it and anyone who stands up for it scripturally and scholarly is not a servant of the Lord. But you were even when you promoted and jacked people up for it, because you are saying that at that time, I was supposed to be a convert of Jesus Christ under your ministry. Do you see how that once again, what you are saying is vain?
But your words support my original point that you can become saved in NTCC and become a convert to Jesus Christ because much of what they taught was right. And so to try to destroy all things NTCC is foolish. Some of it may be scriptural, and necessary to get to heaven.
"the verse i'm talking about is proverbs 6:25 by the way"
You mentioned a verse admonishing a man not to lust.
In the NT, Paul lets us know that to lust is to covet. He said that he didn't know lust until the law said not to covet. Rom 7:7
A quick look in a few lexicons shows that to covet is to desire. I don't think you have to go through the motions in your mind with her to lust or covet.
So knowing that we ought to keep our minds on things that are pure it seems to be to be common sense that we should not show our body curves by wearing tight clothing, or clothes that show too much of the flesh. Some of you may be old already and forget what it was like when you were 20 and a curvy woman walked into your view with spandex on or a miniskirt. Oh, I know you were so spiritual that when you saw her you were like a dead man and you thought, I bet she has a nice personality. I don't think so. You had to fight the TEMPTATION to stare, so why would my Christian sister dress like that in church or anywhere for that matter?
But your argument shows me what is your true reason for being against outward holiness. You like looking apparently. But I don't think you are supposed to.
You guys can cite nothing in scripture that says you can dress any old way you want, and nothing from the early church indicating that your habit of anything goes in dress code was practiced, and you would have me to believe that the reason for this is because the entire church was apostate and teaching man-made doctrines only 100 years after John died. I don't think so. I've given you enough evidence to the contrary, that common sense dictates that in order to put into practice what the scriptures teach we ought to dress modestly, and the early church put it into practice by dressing modestly. you want to adopt the by-product of Martin Luther's grace doctrine that works don't save you, and teach the extreme radical version of that (that therefore we don't need to be holy) then go ahead. Goodby.
You're really out there!
Kris said:
"Jeff,
Your approach to re-calibrating the minds of people who leave NTCC is crude and worldly, encouraging people to leave NTCC to advance in worldly ways."
DnA said:
Let's see, Jeff encourages people to love their neighbor, to love their families, to provide for their families, to be responsible with their finances so that they can have something for their future and to avoid the phony hypocrisy and condescending attitude of the Pharisaical ntcc leaders that use people for their money and then kick them to the curb.
This pretty much falls in line with what I've read in the bible, Kris. "Love your neighbor, as yourself" and "He that provideth not for his family is worse than an infidel" are fairly simple biblical principles. I've never seen Chief tell anyone to leave God, or to forsake Christ. I've never seen him tell anyone to live worldly or to disregard God's word.
I have seen him and others expose the ntcc on this blog. I've seen many people share their stories of how the ntcc split up thier families, and I've seen you share how the ntcc messed up your life and deprived you of any relationship you might have had for 13 years. The ntcc messed you up, plain and simple, just like they did to so many of us. It's disconcerting to see you vacillating back and forth, when you know better. Knowledge can be a good thing but I think that you make things too hard on yourself at times. Sometimes you just got to go back to the basics and don't complicate but rather keep things simple. Just ask yourself, what would Jesus do? Or what did Jesus do? He's the one we have to answer to, not Chief, not me or you or RWD or anyone else on this planet.
You used to write some very good stuff on this blog and you never looked down your nose at people, but for some reason it seems like you are on the warpath. Demanding folks to live according to standards that Jesus never required and accusing people of worldliness because we don't live by the letter of the law is not what Christianity is all about. Have you ever heard of Grace and mercy? Why do people find it so necessary to control folks?
My guess is that you joined another "holiness" church. You have my best wishes and prayers, and I hope things work out for you.
DnA
Leopard Print said...
Go ahead and wear leopard spots or zebra stripes and see if you don't get attention in a room full of people wearing clothes that are meant to NOT draw attention to themselves."
Chief said...
That wasn't the point. The point was the NTCC leadership has made up rules which enable them to judge people for anything and everything and they are being hypocrites in the process. The excessively expensive suit was intended to draw attention. The high heels were intended to draw attention. The big gaudy cluster ring was intended to draw attention. The fancy Cadillac was intended to draw attention because it certainly wasn't purchased as a result of it's reliability history. I read consumer reports and for years Cadillacs were absolutely one the most problematic cars you could purchase. The list goes on and on. This blog ain't about me or whether or not animal print clothing draws attention to it's wearer. It's about the sorry NTCC leadership who judges people for such things while doing everything they can do to draw attention to themselves.
Chief
Anonymous said...
It is nice that you discovered the lexical aide in the back of your Strong's Concordance. This is is a good starting point but rudimentary in it's entries.
Chief said...
Whatever!!! Oh wow, so now that you've spouted out all the reference manual that you use, I'm supposed to be impressed? All that just showed me is that you are full of yourself and you think you understand God because of your learning. There are Buddhists and Muslims who spend extensive amounts of time studying reference guides and does that mean they understand God's intent for mankind? Of course you'd say no because you think you've got God all figured out. I could care less how much time you've wasted trying to master God in a book. It's clear you've been unsuccessful because salvation ain't based upon your notion of "holiness" and whether on not someone wears animal prints or all the sacrifices that you make. It's based upon the sacrifice that Christ made and his blood that was shed on the Cross. Without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins. What do all your reference manuals say about that?
It's apparent that you are full of yourself and much learning hath made you a "know it all". You remind me of RWD. "I'm have a doctorate in theology". When do you want me to bring in the cheerleaders?
Chief
Anonymous said...
And then? So he leads them out of NTCC and into a life of secularism. Is that better?
Chief said...
Very good question. I can categorically say that any life is better than wasting your time in dedication to RWD and Kekel. And who says I'm leading people to secularism? They can live however they want to. Larry Travis talks to me about his experiences with God and I don't try to convince him to do otherwise. MDR went to a fellowship meeting and I was happy for him and I expressed that.
If you consider secularism anything other than living like people in the NTCC, you are just like a blind judgmental Pharisee and I have no qualms saying so. I'll tell you what secularism is: Telling people for decades that they're not good Christian parents if their children don't attend the NTCS only to send off G. Kekel to a "SECULAR" Catholic college. How in the world should you have any reasonable expectations to make it to heaven following a group of hypocrites like that? The people in the (as you called it) "secular" Catholic church have a better chance of making it to heaven then those crooks in the NTCC, so why in the world would you want to waste time spinning your wheels with RWD?
If the truth be known the NTCC is secular. I know of nothing more secular than a Rolex watch. A rolex watch is the epitome of secularism and RWD's desire for riches, quest for wealth, and a Rolex watch is what the NTCC is all about and the people who blindly give to such causes are seriously deceived. I'll take common every day "secularism" over that any day. You can have the NTCCs secularism.
Chief
Anonymous said...
I use this blog as a way to deal with the lost years and it helps me to move on. I am not living in the past, I am moving forward.
Chief said...
I sincerely appreciate that. Thank you very much. Yesterday I was spending time with my son and as a result I didn't get to read all the fireworks until this morning. Of course I don't have a problem defending my own statements and intentions but it was cool to read the remarks from people who've defended me on this blog. Thank you. See that is what "real" friends do. You don't often see that in the NTCC. Everyone is too scared of Big Bad RWD and Kekel to speak up. Around here we stick up for each other and we are not ashamed to do so. I'm not ashamed to be associated with DnA, MDR, Vic and Larry Travis. We don't all even share the same spiritual views but we aren't running around judging each other either and neither did Jesus.
The story of the good Samaritan tells it all. NTCC people in Graham on the other hand, (for example) will leave one of their own stranded on the side of the road unless they get permission to pick them up by Kekel the con-artist. What kind of Christianity is that? That is not real friendship like David and Jonathan. David didn't mind the King and NTCCers would do good not to mind RWD and Kekel either when they want you to forsake one of your real friends.
Chief
Anonymous said...
Jeff,
Your approach to re-calibrating the minds of people who leave NTCC is crude and worldly, encouraging people to leave NTCC to advance in worldly ways. Listen, leaving one place that may not have been very spiritual to become even less spiritual is not commendable in light of sound doctrine from the Bible, and the traditions of the ancient church.
Chief said...
I'll make this plain and simple. You are nothing but a holier than thou, judgmental Pharisee. You use the words, "worldly" and "secularism" and you remind me of those judgmental jerks in the NTCC who feel like they are justified expressly because of their works. They say they are justified by the Blood but their actions and mandates prove otherwise. There is nothing wrong with good works but making mandates and rules out of every little thing you can dream up is acting just like the Pharisees who Jesus rebuked.
Give me one example of how I've tried to make people quote "worldly"? Getting a job? You call that worldly. Working on Saturday or Sunday? You call that worldly? Having nice things? You call that worldly? If that is the case, RWD, Kekel, Verna and Tanya are DEFINITELY worldly!!!!!! Tell me one thing I've written in an attempt to make people worldly? Watching a football game? Kekel's own son played football in high school! If that is worldly then you have no business going to the NTCC.
Worldly to you seems to be doing anything other than studying a bunch of historical Christian reference books!!! You ought to become a Monk. If that is your idea of what it takes to get to heaven you are an idiot and it would certainly appear to be that way.
Chief
"And so, which church was the true church after the apostles died, Vic? If the church that i cited was following these principles, where was the church that believed you could go to the beach in a bathing suit? Or did the church fall into apostasy entirely and was full of charlatans all promoting a false holiness/ modest doctrine?"
Now how would anyone know a couple thousand years later? You really think the early church didn't lose its way in short order, having been vanquished by the control freaks of the day? You're really willing to take the extrabiblical word of someone who's been dead for centuries about whether you can legally go swimming at the beach? If you're so familiar with the "church fathers," you must know that most of them are generally acknowledged, even by those far less narrow and bigoted than yourself, as holding heretical beliefs. If you're so impressed with these guys, and if you really think they have something substantial to add to the bible, why don't you just cut to the chase and join the Roman Catholic church? I think you'd find yourself quite comfortable there amongst all the false doctrine. You seem to have an affinity for it, and NTCC apparently didn't give you enough.
NTCC, the church fathers, you, and others who love the preeminence are cut from the same cloth, and work ceaselessly to deprive us of the liberty that was dearly purchased for us. We're not backing up one micron for any modern Pharisees--get thee behind us, along with your false guilt trip of "touch not, taste not, handle not."
Here's some food for thought, from http://www.wayoflife.org/files/4074b9fdcb5ca916653014d7bce8cf3b-129.html:
"The “church fathers” are grouped into four divisions: Apostolic Fathers (second century), Ante-Nicene Fathers (second and third centuries), Nicene Fathers (fourth century), and Post-Nicene Fathers (fifth century). Nicene refers to the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that dealt with the issue of Arianism and affirmed the doctrine of Christ’s deity. Thus, the Ante-Nicene Fathers are so named because they lived in the century before this council, and the Post-Nicene, because they lived in the century following the council.
All of the “church fathers” were infected with some false doctrine, and most of them were seriously infected. Even the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the second century were teaching the false gospel that baptism, celibacy, and martyrdom provided forgiveness of sin (Howard Vos, Exploring Church History, p. 12). And of the later “fathers”--Clement, Origen, Cyril, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Theodore, and John Chrysostom--the same historian admits: “In their lives and teachings we find the seed plot of almost all that arose later. In germ form appear the dogmas of purgatory, transubstantiation, priestly mediation, baptismal regeneration, and the whole sacramental system” (Vos, p. 25).
In fact, one of the Post-Nicene “fathers” is Leo the Great, the first Roman Catholic Pope!
Therefore, the “church fathers” are actually the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. They are the men who laid the foundation of apostasy that produced Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy."
Seriously Kris, get some perspective and quit putting your faith in men. I don't hate you, but I hate your doctrine and vigorously oppose it.
PREACH VIC!!! And the church said, AMEN!
And what would you expect me to do? Compile a list of churches that people "should" attend. You won't get me touch that one with a ten foot pole. I don't recommend churches. I had a couple buddies who left the NTCC and tried that approach. The churches they recommended to me were just as bad as the NTCC and it took those guys a year to figure that out. I figured it out day one. If someone wants to visit or attend a church that I happen attend that is going to be completely up to them with no prodding from me. People need to make their own determination in that area and not because I say, "Boy my church is so great, the Lord sure does "move" in my church".
I'm no longer interested in all that "sensationalism" because that is all it is. Ashmore is a prime example of that stuff.
Chief.
That is why i cited the antenicene church writers and the ancient church. 'Ancient' refers to prior to the fall of Rome. If you wrap up all the writers together it certainly bolsters your point, but I cited Clement of Alexandria who was not in your list of heretics.
Some of them may have planted seeds of heresy but did not outright promote a heretical doctrine, but writers later on took their statements to the extreme, much like the extremist grace movement after Luther taught that works don't save you. Now people think once I am saved God doesn't require anything from me.
You can point out the faults of them and just assume that there was no good insight into the scriptures because they were incorrect on a few points, but you deprive yourself of an understanding of the very early- first 200 years- Christian church.
The power struggle in my opinion to control the church historically came from one church- the Roman church and Constantine the emperor. That is why ALL the major churches- Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem- all left them early on and Constantinople was excommunicated by them in 1054 for non-compliance with Rome. Do your own history instead of just copying and pasting someone else's article.
kris...you cant see the web of distraction you have become entangled in .
"Do your own history?" No thanks; that's what you're doing. The fact is, you don't really know what happened in the "early church." All you know is what the control mongers who prevailed in the visible church want you to know, because they ran the competition off and had the sole privilege of recording "church history" and even deciding what books were included in the canon (look up that fiasco in your spare time for some enlightenment).
If you insist on going to extrabiblical sources for doctrine, there really isn't any difference between you and the Roman catholics you pretend to despise.
Jeff totally smoked your ridiculous "animal print" doctrine with his appeal directly to John the Baptist. I suppose you think wearing such constitutes bestiality, or something equally silly. Grow up and quit letting RWDs from past centuries rule your life. You have some nerve calling others crass.
Quit doing your own history and stick to the bible. And here's some info on your hero Clement, lazily cut and pasted by me from the previously referenced source:
"Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 230)
1. Clement headed the allegorizing school of Alexandria from 190 to 202. This school was founded by Pantaenus.
2. Clement intermingled the philosophy of Plato with Christianity.
3. He helped develop the doctrine of purgatory and believed that most men would eventually be saved."
And from Wikipedia, more idol-shattering truth about Clement:
"According to Clement, though Christ's goodness operated in the creation of the world, the Son himself was immutable, self-sufficient, and incapable of suffering. According to his interpretation, such are the characteristic qualities of the divine essence. Though the Logos is most closely one with the Father, whose powers he resumes in himself, to Clement both the Son and the Spirit are "first-born powers and first created"; they form the highest stages in the scale of intelligent being, and Clement distinguishes the Son-Logos from the Logos who is immutably immanent in God. Because of this Photius would later charge that he "degraded the Son to the rank of a creature." Separate from the world as the principle of creation, the Logos is yet in it as its guiding principle. Thus a natural life is a life according to the will of the Logos. Clement has also been accused of Docetism in his teachings on the Incarnation. According to him, the body of Christ was not subject to human needs. See the following passage from Stromateis which clearly denies Christ's full humanity:
In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for
its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those
in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as aftewards some did certainily supposed that He had appeared
as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure
or pain.2
Instead, Clement's Christ is a supernatural physician; He is not subject to humanity's bodily pain. The medicine which he offers is the communication of saving gnosis, leading men from paganism to faith and from faith to the higher state of knowledge. This true philosophy includes within itself the freedom from sin and the attainment of virtue. As all sin has its root in ignorance, so the knowledge of God and of goodness is followed by well-doing. Against the Gnostics Clement emphasizes the freedom of all to do good (for which he has also been called Semi-Pelagian)."
Whoever this anonymous person is, I was a member of the NTCC for some 10 years. I left because in my mind there was something amiss, I could not put my finger on it until I witnessed another persons departure and this blog. In no way have I ever felt Jeff or the rest of the regulars on here are leading us away from God. I feel he is shining a light on this fake church. We are all free agents to do what we please when we leave. Never have I felt that he or any others are leading us away from God. You can come on here all you want talking about the early church, however, this is 2012 and we still live in this time. We do not live in Christs time or any other. Your opinion just sounds like another brainwashed version of the NTCC, for all we know, you most likely are still attending. Nothing that you say can me feel any better about being duped by the NTCC. This blog answers questions and sheds light on questions most people would be asking if they had any sense about them. Robots of the NTCC can't think for themselves, they just blindly believe whatever they are told. No Thanks...
Changing the subject, I have a question for anyone who has been through bible school. When a person goes to orientation, is it plainly told to you that you will be solely financially responsible for starting your own church? Is it told to the student once he signs up that he will need to start his own church with no help from the NTCC? I have been told that this is something that you are told from day 1. Is this correct?
"I have been told that this is something that you are told from day 1. Is this correct?"
I don't remember it specifically being mentioned during orientation, but we were never under any illusions about it. Great emphasis was laid on NTCC's status as a "pioneer organization." It didn't matter to us; we weren't there for any kind of handout. They filled our heads with glorious ideas of "digging out a work." All kinds of war stories were rehearsed, and we ate them up. We were such suckers that we fell for the whole Tom Sawyer scheme, paying these guys for the privilege to go out and work ourselves half to death trying to build a church with such weird doctrines and values that failure was all but guaranteed.
No, there was never any help offered or expected from Graham. We all knew we were on our own. That's just how they rolled, and I'm sure that aspect of their methodology will survive the current image rehabilitation.
"All you know is what the control mongers who prevailed in the visible church want you to know, because they ran the competition off and had the sole privilege of recording "church history" and even deciding what books were included in the canon (look up that fiasco in your spare time for some enlightenment)."
Alright Vic,
I will respond to this without going to some church history website and copying and pasting my response as some who don't know what they are talking about and speak in generalities may do.
I think what you are doing is re-telling what many who try to re-write history and abolish the foundation of the Church have propagated. In reality, the doctrines that did not get preserved were such heretical doctrines as sabellianism. Sabellianism for example, was the teaching that Jesus WAS the Father. The written defenses of Sabellianism have not survived to us, neither have many other unorthodox beliefs. The reason we know they existed is through the writings of the orthodox theologians in their apologist answers to them.
The canon was not decided on like you say as if it was just in one meeting by Constantine that they were decided, but there were many churches throughout the Roman empire that generally agreed on the authenticity on many of the books that are contained in our present day canon for Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox believers. There were a few in question as to who actually wrote them such as Revelation because John does not mention his own name in his gospel, but mentions it numerous times in Revelation. That is just one example. However, much of the books we hold as canon are held that way because of the GENERAL acceptance and use of such books throughout primitive Christendom BEFORE the organization known as the Roman Catholic Church.
Vic said... probably copied and pasted from perhaps his favorite source (Wikipedia)
"Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 230)
1. Clement headed the allegorizing school of "Alexandria from 190 to 202. This school was founded by Pantaenus.
2. Clement intermingled the philosophy of Plato with Christianity.
3. He helped develop the doctrine of purgatory and believed that most men would eventually be saved."
And from Wikipedia, more idol-shattering truth about Clement:"
Vic,
If you go to college, you will find that your professor will probably give you an F if you cite the encyclopedia as your main source of information.
In answer to these uneducated arguments:
Bible hermeneutics was in it's developmental stages in the early church. This does not mean we can not glean valuable information from the early church fathers about holiness and manner of life and love, etc. and even find accurate theology from them. I did not say I copy and paste their theological views into my sermons, but I can learn from some of the things they said, with a grain of salt just as I may glean from my contemporaries with another grain of salt.
Allegorical interpretation is now considered to be irresponsible because there are no rules such as
1. looking at the context of the scripture,
2. Considering the author
3. Considering the original audience
4. Considering the relationship between the two, the culture, setting, etc. at the time of writing
5. Examining the Greek or Hebrew syntax and definitions
Allegory was just that- Finding meaning in pictures in the OT and NT, such as one early writer tried to find all kinds of symbolism in the clothes that the father gave his prodigal son. The problem was that one writer might fancy attributing one feature such as righteousness to the shoes that the father gave him, while another might say they represent faith (just an example- I don't honestly remember what each one attributed to each item or if that was one of the cases where multiple allegories were made). Anyways, hermeneutics which developed initially one might argue from the rabbis, and we see traces of it at qumran in the writings of the Essenes, and Philo I believe was the first to begin combining Greek philosophical advancements in learning such as logic and reasoning to the study of Hebrew scripture.
Yes, the early church fathers at the school where Origen eventually taught his allegorical (primitive attempt at) hermeneutics. This is a rough sketch into the development of hermeneutics which to this day is still ongoing.
I did not cite Clement's doctrine of Christ, but simply showed you that NTCC did not INVENT OUTWARD HOLINESS. They may have a point in continuing this ancient tradition that is evidenced confidentially to have existed long before RW Davis.
Vic,
What I was trying to say as far as the history of hermeneutics got garbled at the end as I was combining multiple facts in short space...
What I meant was that:
Yes, the school of Alexandria did subscribe to using logic and reasoning in their hermeneutics. Is that bad? The Gospel came into the world at a time when Greek philosophy gave us such tools and the Alexandrians had benefited from the fact that there was a large scholarly and famous library there before there was the school that Origen is famous for having taught at and introducing his allegorical approach towards hermeneutics. Yes, they applied logic and reason to their hermeneutics. You would be hard pressed to find a commentary today that has any credibility within Christendom that doesn't.
Now... moving on to the issue you brought up about Clement's doctrine on Jesus.
Just so you know, the doctrine of who Jesus actually was and what was His nature was absolutely the focal point in theological discussions across the church general. This was definitely in it's beginning stages in such a primitive point in the Church, and they were working hard apparently to establish the answer to the question.
Before the first men flew (Orville and Wilbur) there were many theories of how to fly. They still hadn't figured it out yet. But gradually different ideas were proposed and they finally flew. You are critiquing someone for proposing ideas about a subject that many people did not know the answer to yet. There were Aryans who thought Jesus was not God. There were trinitarians who believed that Jesus was God. But the question about the EXACT NATURE of Jesus as a man and God, and how this was possible was mind-boggling. It still is to you. You can not explain to me scientifically or mathematically or any way how Jesus can be fully human and suffer and be tempted and at the same time be fully God who can not be tempted. There exists today a doctrine known as the "kenosis of Christ" and they believe that Jesus relinquished his powers attributed to deity upon his entrance into the world. There are many others who would say, No. You are taking away from his deity. This question split the church at the Council of 451AD. The name of the council escapes me at the moment, but I am not copying and pasting.
Anyways, the point I was making as I said before was not that you can rely on the ancient church theology to establish all your doctrine, but that
NTCC DID NOT INVENT OUTWARD HOLINESS. IT MAY HAVE BEEN INVENTED BY ...... GOD!
Well that is great. Either way. John the Baptist wore camel's hair while he preached and once again, the Pharisees no doubt turned their noses up at him then and I'm sure the NTCC leadership would turn their noses up at him now. If someone wants to turn salvation into a bunch of do's and don'ts that is fine. I'm simply not going to have any part of it. It's going to be a hard life for you if you think that following a bunch of rules will get you into heaven. What happens when you overlook one of the rules? Did you miss heaven? Is it possible to faithfully follow every single moral statute and law contained in the Bible? Absolutely not because if it were possible, Jesus never needed to come; the law would have been good enough.
It was impossible for the Jews to keep the law and it is impossible for ANYONE to keep the many mandates the NTCC leadership has dictated over the years. Kekel proved that cause he did as poor of a job as anyone. There is not one person perfect and RWD is a liar. Is it good to live a moral life? Absolutely! Is watching a football game immoral? Absolutely not but if I'm wrong, I'm not alone. Grant Kekel played football all through high school so I guess the Kekel's and I will hang out in hell together. I can't think of a worse fate. Hell would be bad enough without Kekel being there with me. RWD will be there also because he showed preferential treatment in not making Mike step down for failing to be a good enough example as a Christian parent. RWD obviously wasn't a good enough example of a Christian grand parent and as a result Grant didn't want anything to do with the NTCS so he went off to a Catholic college. Either that or the plan was never for Grant to attend the NTCS all along. That is more likely the case. Why else would Mike and Tanya send Grant to an academy which has a history of sending 100% of it's graduates off to a "real college"?
What I don't understand is how anyone can trust the Kekels with all this knowledge? Folks, we all got duped.
Chief
"Absolutely not but if I'm wrong, I'm not alone. Grant Kekel played football all through high school so I guess the Kekel's and I will hang out in hell together."
Do what you want to do. Don't set men as your example of how high you should take your spirituality. Jesus said except your righteousness EXCEEDS the righteousness of the Pharisess you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of Heaven. You may just wind up in hell with some worldly-minded ministers if you set them as your standard of just how much to devote yourself to God and how much to forsake the world.
Anonymous said...
NTCC DID NOT INVENT OUTWARD HOLINESS. IT MAY HAVE BEEN INVENTED BY ...... GOD!
Chief said...
And you may be a little off your rocker. God sure wasn't worried about it when John was preaching in a leather girdle. God didn't seem to worried about it when this event took place either.
Jn 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
I may be wrong but between John the Baptist and Peter, it doesn't seem to me that the disciples were too worried about what they wore back in those days.
Oh and this is great: Here is what Jesus thought about being dressed real nice.
Jesus said...
Luke 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
Yep it does sound like Jesus is really concerned about people being dressed real nice with "long modest" clothing. I don't think he liked it too much. Christ knew, that people like the scribes and Anonymous were overly concerned about the clothes that they wore and not concerned enough about their heart. Christ didn't give a warning about those kind of people for nothing. Hey Anonymous: Should that scripture have not been included in the Canon. I think the Ancient fathers might have messed up when they included that one?
Chief
Anonymous said...
You may just wind up in hell with some worldly-minded ministers if you set them as your standard of just how much to devote yourself to God and how much to forsake the world.
Chief said...
And based on the scripture that I just referenced from the book of Luke, I might just as easily wind up in hell if I worry as much about clothing as you do. Jesus didn't care for the Scribes to much and I suspect he doesn't care too much about your theories concerning holiness and clothing either. You are kind of like the Scribes that Jesus referenced in the Bible but don't get mad at me, get mad at Jesus when you put on your nice long robe or nice modest suit and shoes that you are so worried about.
Chief
And you don't need to come back with, "I never said anything about a suit and shoes". You didn't have to. The shorts and short sleeve shirt I wear out in the summer is modest enough. I might just try out a leather girdle and go into church and preach with it on like John the Baptist.
Chief
What point do you think you are making about the camel's clothes and leathern girdle? Do you think he was revealing his body or that he was wearing clothing similar to the clothing I was referring to (like cheata spots)?
I have seen plenty of indiscreet provocative women's clothing with cheata patterns, but can not recall one with a camel pattern.
I am merely applying the NT scriptures to my CONTEMPORARY culture in my instruction to people TODAY. As I said, I don't think too many Christians were dressing in colored underwear or tight shorts in Jesus' day. Why would he have preached against it if it wasn't happening? Should you watch internet porn since Jesus also did not mention it?
Just look at the last hundred years, let alone 2000 years. It's only within THIS century that women started taking off their clothes in public and dressing immodestly on such a large scale as we see today. My family had a picture book of the development of the woman's bathing suit. They were able to take pictures with cameras before these fashionable revealing bathing suits came out, and the devil had to introduce them gradually. Haven't you ever seen the early designed bathing suits for women that looked like holiness dresses compared to what women wear today. They covered more of the woman then what women wear to church today!
Now... about the pharisees. This is classical EISegesis- a poor form of Biblical interpretation, that is one that misses the historical interpretation and true meaning by INTRODUCING one's own thoughts into their own fabricated interpretation.
Exegesis is getting the historical meaning, what it meant back then, and then applying it IN THAT CONTEXT to what it means to us TODAY.
The clothing Jesus refers to is clearly clothing that demonstrated that they were very religious and that they wanted respect for being such holy religious people- not that they were covering their bodies in humble modesty and subjection to God, and in LOVE to their sister to not tempt them to lust.
Look at the rest of his statement, Chief. He says that they also:
love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
Look at each one: they love greetings (respect)
highest seats (respect)
the chief (or best) rooms at feasts (public get-togethers) (respect)
They wanted respect. They wore long robes in order to get religious respect from others.
Therefore, the interpretation of this is clear to me that we should not be religious for the sake of getting respect and honor, but serve God in the spirit of humility.
You assume that people who dress that way ALL do it to be seen of men. If they are doing it for that reason then it is wrong. But I doubt they are. I am pretty sure most of them do it out of obedience to God, especially when it's hot out. Who WANTS to dress like we do in the summer! At least I know in my heart I do it as unto the Lord and because I love my wife and I love my fellow sister and as a testimony to the world.
And why do you think Peter jumped in the water? Jesus had died and I think they were going back to the world. They were fishing instead of being fishers of men. I think Peter was going back to his old ways, and when he heard that it was Jesus, he got instant conviction, and jumped in the water, because he knew he was wrong, OR, he was out with only men, and didn't have a lot of clothing on. I doubt he was entirely n his birthday suit. Naked back then didn't always necessarily mean completely nude. I may not exactly put on a pair of pants and an outer garment type of shirt in a house full of a bunch of men either. But if I go out where women may be, I probably wouldn't do that. I doubt women hung out with the men at the ocean while they were fishing.
Anonymous said...
OR, he was out with only men, and didn't have a lot of clothing on. I doubt he was entirely n his birthday suit. Naked back then didn't always necessarily mean completely nude.
Chief said...
That spells it all out right there. Pure and undefined speculation. The Bible said he was naked but just like the NTCC leadership, you want to make scriptures mean whatever supports your cause. You are constantly adding to the scriptures with your tireless speculation. If you were a pastor and I went to visit your church, I'm sure I'd leave within the first five minutes that you began to speak. You think you've got God all figured out and you are constantly attaching your own private theories to the Bible. The bottom line is, Jesus didn't seem too worried about what folks were or were not wearing unless they were all caught up in what they wore like the scribes or you.
Chief
Chief said...
Anonymous said...
You assume that people who dress that way ALL do it to be seen of men. If they are doing it for that reason then it is wrong. But I doubt they are.
Chief said...
Well I don't doubt they are. Why do so many in the NTCC and many other churches pride themselves on stuff like Swedish nit suits and the expensive suits that Kekel and RWD flaunt? Why are so many women worried so much about what they wear? Why have so many churches turned into a fashion contest? I suspect because of people like you. Here, I got a better idea. Tell me what you consider modest for men and women? Can a woman wear pants and if not why? Can she wear makeup? What about jewelry? What about her shoes? Can her toes be showing? Is it modest for men to wear shorts? How about a nice pair of shorts to church? Is it modest for a woman to wear shorts? How long does a womans skirt or dress have to be to be considered modest? What colors should her dress or other clothing be limited to? What colors would be considered modest for a man? If we follow all your guidelines at least in the area of modesty, have we at least got past the first checkpoint to avoid hell?
Please answer some of these questions.
Chief
In light of scripture, it is up to the discretion of each head of household, which scripturally is the man. Therefore, the pastor of a church logically would set the example in his home, and the congregation will typically follow his example, if he has a congregation.
There is a wide variety of differences of opinion on what it takes to be holy, just as there are a wide variety of differences of opinion on just what the nature of Christ is? or whether Revelation is symbolic or literal, or whether Paul was married or not.
Some say you should have long sleeves even in summer. Some say you should at least have short sleeves (not sleeveless). Some say your skirt should go below the knees. Some say it should be at least below the knees when sitting.
I have not actually preached against whether your skirt is exactly a certain length, but that if you are wearing a miniskirt, you should sit in the back, because it's indecent, and God should be the focus of attention, not your legs. And it is a distraction. How I encourage my wife to dress is my own opinion, but I am responsible for my family and to govern it according to the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
So to answer you, Jeff, the conviction of the Holy Spirit should convict you. But if you have seared your conscience, then you will not pay attention.
so if the holy spirit convicts why are you wanting to tell people how they should dress?
Jeff,
Let me just say that I appreciate this discussion we are having. I hope I can convey that in all honesty, and that I don't mean any ill-will towards you.
This is not between me and you and I am sure that you don't see it that way either. Nor do I mean it to be between Vic and me, or anyone else. I am simply trying to stand for the truth.
Sorry for the delay... Okay...
Just in analyzing your question, I have to say, I don't WANT to tell ANYbody to do anything. Whether I felt convicted or pressed to say something- that may be more accurate. So, if I may just assume that your next move would be to say, "why do you feel convicted to tell people how to dress" then I have to look at the second part of the question. Is this about me telling other people how to dress?
I just said that the Holy Spirit SHOULD tell the LEADER that, and I believe he would find out what the answer would be for his family through reading the scriptures and reading what the ancient church felt convicted to do, and by reading other books on holiness by some others more contemporary writers, etc.
This goes in line with the OT when revivals broke out in Judah, not because the king received a direct revelation from God, but the priests so to speak "discovered" again the scriptures and brought them to the king and they held a large general passover to begin to serve the Lord again.
If Christian men leaders would READ about their Church and it's history, and study how to rightly interpret the scriptures (hermeneutics) then I believe the Holy Spirit would convict them as to what is appropriate.
But, again, my main point in saying these things is because of my conviction that:
You may be doing well to help people to escape oppression, but if you encourage people to then value monetary gain like our former leaders did, and to put down an ancient tradition of dressing very modestly, then I think you may be escorting people form oppression by men to oppression to sin... for if you are subject to sin then you are the servants of it.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Rom 6:16 KJV)
Naked I came into this world, and Naked shall I leave this world. So Hey Man, Let's just be naked in this world also! Nudists have so much more fun and That makes it so much easier! If God wanted us to wear clothes, then He would not have created us Naked.
Jeff,
You are leading people OUT of something, but did Moses lead the Egyptians into the desert and say, "ok, you guys figure out what to do. I'm not going to be like the Egyptians and give you another set of rules to follow." The exodus is a type of our deliverance out of sin and to the promised land, yet on our way to New Jerusalem, we have a law of love and of the Spirit.
Look at the example of Jehu, Jeff. He could kill the evil kings, but then he himself was not a good example in the end.
Moses brought the people out of bondage and into subjection to the law. If you want to lead an exodus you need to follow the example of Moses who is perhaps a type of Christ. Don't say to God, what should I do? I didn't give birth to all these people. Do you believe your philosophy on religion? Put it to the test by reading and educating yourself on Christianity. You have begun by checking things in Strong's, but I am convinced that if you thoroughly seek the truth, you may have to amend some of your ways, as you study subjectively, giving other contrary points of view a chance and seeing if your own theories can stand up against them.
If you are leading people out of Egypt, you need to show them what is the more excellent way. 1 Cor 13, not just say, I don't put any burdens on any of you.
You are a false prophet, prophesying good to the people when the Lord has not spoken to you. Jeremiah put on a yoke to show the people that they would be in bondage to Babylon. A false prophet took his yoke and broke it and told the people that he would break the yoke. Then the Lord told Jeremiah to tell the false prophet something.
Jer 28:13 Go and tell Hananiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast broken the yokes of wood; but thou shalt make for them yokes of iron.
I believe this is a type of what you are doing now, Jeff. You have removed the yokes of wood, and Satan will make for you yokes of iron.
Jeff, in case you want to say that you are not leading anybody in any way, just innocently leading them out of bondage, you taught with boldness that
01397 geber {gheh'-ber} does not mean, man only, but specifically a warrior, because you relied on a very simple lexicon.
Holladay says, Hol1409 rb,G: — 1. young, strong man Pr 3019, new-born male
about the same word.
In BibleWorks9 here are some of the uses of the word I came up with:
KJV Job 3:3 Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived.
(Job 3:3 KJV)
KJV Job 4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
(Job 4:17 KJV)
This is a warning to you, Jeff. Don't meddle with the word of God if you are unskilled in doing so.
"I have not actually preached against whether your skirt is exactly a certain length, but that if you are wearing a miniskirt"
would you say the same to the guy wearing shorts in church?
Kris, you don't have anything but speculation and the opinions of some dead guys to bolster your doctrine, and yet you're so sure about it that you want to impose it on everyone else. You're still looking for some man to tell you how to live. And there's no need to be patronizing; I know about kenosis and Sabellianism and all the other fancy words with which you're trying to impress us. I used to be all gaga over such myself, until I discovered that "authorities" frequently don't know what the hell they're doing, and we place faith in them at our peril. Just because I quoted a website doesn't mean that I've never read any of the church fathers; in fact I spent days downloading about 80 megabytes of the complete set back in internet dialup days. I have a degree from a "real" college too, where I got 17 As and 2 accursed Bs, so I'm familiar with academic standards. I didn't really think I was trying to write a term paper here on the blog; maybe you should revise your expectations. You're so full of yourself that you don't think anyone else knows anything. But you're the one filling your head with empty words from dead guys whom you really don't know much about.
You're excusing these guys based on the rudimentary state of doctrinal development then. So why should we automatically assume they got it all right? You're just asking to be deluded if you're going to place your faith in fallible men.
Jesus said not to sweat the small stuff, but to love God and love our neighbor and all the rest will work itself out. Obsessing on interpretational minutiae is just going to drive you mad. It's already given you a superiority complex and made you a condescending religious snob.
Kris, I get that NTCC didn't invent "holiness" doctrine. No one suggested they did. We suggest that those who did invent it are as wrong about it as NTCC is, and that that part of the org experience definitely qualifies as bathwater. Walking around on eggshells in fear of "causing people to stumble" is hogwash. Some people will stumble over anything. Should we therefore all go around in burqas? Trying to out Pharisee the Pharisees of Jesus' day isn't the path to enlightenment.
Anonymous quoted Holladay as defining Geber...
young, strong man Pr 3019, new-born male
Chief quotes Strong as defining Geber...
man, strong man, warrior (emphasising strength or ability to fight)
Chief says...
I see one commonality. Both references included quote, "strong man". Once again, Strong translated "shall not wear that which pertaineth" as meaning vessel, instrument, weapon, armour. So Mr. non-Bible scholar: I can once again safely conclude that in Deu 22:5, the meaning was that a woman is not to wear weapons or articles that belong to a "strong man" or warrior.
Now this will be the last time I ask you or rather make a mandate being that you seem to understand people who like to give mandates. You wrote...
"This is a warning to you, Jeff. Don't meddle with the word of God if you are unskilled in doing so."
Don't come on here giving me warnings like you are some kind of prophet of judgment. I will delete any such statements in the future. I don't take kindly to threats, and your quote "warning" certainly wasn't inspired by God. It was inspired by your own ignorance and wishy washiness. You no doubt jumped out of the pot and into the kettle with another cult and I heard enough NTCC jargon over the years without you bringing in on to this blog. Here is a "warning". Unless you just feel like wasting the strength in your fingers, type anymore of that garbage and I'll waste a little finger strength hitting the delete button. Save your preaching for people like you who are brainwashed enough to want to hear it.
Chief
My main point was that the early church writers were probably no more divided on the harder questions in the Bible then today's scholars, which local pastors get their teaching from. Everybody works hand in hand. Local pastors have to get their licensing from an education. Who do you think the schools get their information from? each other? I am pretty sure that someone in the schools had to read something scholarly to form their courses. Theologians and scholars disagree on many things. But there are recurring and quite universal answers to questions among them, and if one group practices and teaches the same application that countless others throughout history applied (and probably only within the last century have the tables been turned statistically) then why do you bash them for their convictions, when they have quite a few reasons to uphold them?
So you disagreed, then go run around any old way you like. Agree to disagree. Why slam them for teaching their convictions? I understand sharing that they seem to have spent a lot of money on themselves and abused people, but criticizing them for teaching outward modesty - that is where I think you crossed the line. That is a perfectly legitimate practice in light of scripture, and the unanimity among early and modern (not post-modern) scholars in light of the fact that scholars so often disagree on things attests to their safe and conservative choice in instructing their disciples so that they can be sure that they are not violating the law of love and of the Spirit.
Sorry for the disrespect. I can appreciate your educational background.
Kris said...
then why do you bash them for their convictions, when they have quite a few reasons to uphold them?
Chief said...
Because they've attempted to turn the grace of Christ back into the law of Moses and many of these type churches do far more damage than good. Everything becomes a mandate with these quote, "holiness" churches but none of the leaders of these churches ever seem to be able to adhere to their own mandates. They often make life impossible for everyone else while making life easy for themselves. Dude, we are not interested in that stuff. This blog is not a pulpit for your preaching. Save that for the church you attend if they'll even let you get behind the pulpit. I won't be going to listen to you preach and that is for sure.
Chief
You must like being in a church where folks chased you out of the sanctuary and snatched you up by your shirt and held you up against the wall until RWD came to give you a good butt chewing. Well I don't, so there is no need to come on here and try to chew me out. Express your theories all you want but I'm not the one for your warnings. I'm not stupid enough to walk into an NTCC church and try to chew out RWD or Kekel but you seem to think that approach will work around here. I'm sure that wouldn't get me very far. Now in public, that would be a different story. MDR has recently expounded on the Word of God with me. I have no problem with that. Don has done the same. Larry Travis has done the same. I have no problem with that either but don't come on here giving me warnings. I might have a flash-back to my NTCC days and go ham. LOL.
I was the one who stuck up for you when a few other people on these blogs thought you were a nut. You're wishy washy dude. You can keep your legalistic stuff to yourself cause we are not interested in it.
Chief
Can somebody say " KOOKINESS?"
Kris, I'll say it again, You're out there, man.
I tried to warn you too. Can you spell deleted? I don't need your warnings. Keep preaching on here and giving me warnings and your messages will keep getting deleted.
Dude you are out there.
Chief
So let's see... Before grace... King David committed adultery, and had the husband of the woman he committed adultery with killed, and he asked God to forgive him AND GOD DID!!!
Before grace... King Ahab, one of the most wicked kings Israel ever had, accepted a gift of land from his wife Jezebel after she had the original owner falsely accused of idolatry and stoned, and he asked God to have mercy on him and not judge him, AND GOD DID!
And now, AFTER GRACE, you want to tell me that if a woman wears pants, shorts, make up, or jewelry that she is going to go to hell?
This thinking is exactly what Jesus showed us of the Pharisees. The Pharisees and others like them strained at gnats and swallow camels. They forget about love, mercy, and grace. They become so caught up with their own "holiness" which is really sanctification and is between an individual Christian and God, that they forget the weightier matters.
NTCC calls sanctification holiness so that they can use the scripture, "follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord" to scare people into conforming to their standard of holiness. If a man or woman decide God wants them to dress a certain way then that is bewteen them and God and not some mandate to be saved or right with God. And that is what this blog is saying. NTCC tries to make these things heaven and hell issues when they are not. NTCC and other Pharisees look on the outward appearance, but God knows the heart.
It seems like you are still stuck in the mindset that being affiliated with a certain church that teach a certain way determines if you are saved or not. I completely understand this, because that is something that I struggle with, because of the NTCC teaching, but that is not God nor what his word teach us. The believers make up God's church and he is the one that makes us "without spot or blemish." Don't think that I am giving anyone a license to sin. We are not talking about sin; we are talking about sanctification. Taste not, touch not, and handle not all deal with sanctification, which we all grow in the grace and knowledge of God. Anything else and we are creating our own righteousness and not accepting His righteousness.
The sooner we stop being a Pharisee the sooner we can really love our neighbor, which is more important than what we look like according to Jesus.
More to follow later.
Bro. Bellamy
Kris, Hawaii has lots of Nude Beaches. You should try it...You'll like it! It is very enlightening to bask in the sun, completely naked, just like God created you. Nothing can compare to the feeling of the UV rays penetrating your skin and warming the nerves in those areas of your body that are subjected to perpetual darkness by Religious Hypocrite Snobs. What really makes it so spiritual is when you realize that naked men and naked women are all around you and everyone is enjoying the complete nakedness of everyone else!
Thank you Ed for the simple, yet informative post. Showing Before grace and after grace.
We now turn to one of kris friends' doug h.
hi kris,
You should ditch all those books and what other men say. They are no more authority on the Bible than Kekel, Davis, joel osteen, etc. Just because "men" regard them as something doesn't mean they are.
Seek God and His answers and viewpoints on things. He said if you Ask you'll get an answer. Seek and you'll find. Use the Bible for your studies.
I think the whole "morality" thing is cultural based. The Bible isn't just written for our culture but it is written for the world... for all cultures. I've read some things in the Bible that "doesn't apply to me" but in another culture it would.
Modesty is what the culture / society at the time considers modesty. In Africa, the women walk around topless with their breasts hanging out. That is because to the men and women there, those are feeding for the babies. It's our own western culture that wants to go over there and put shirts on them.
The men aren't oogling their breasts like we would here in the west.
When I was in germany, there was a an african sister who said a "bad" word.
She said "the baby shiitt". In her culture "sh*t" isn't a bad word but "poo" is a bad word.
It's the reverse here in the USA. Are africans going to hell because they say the word "sh*t?". Are we because we say "poo"? Ridicuolous.
It's not even the word that is bad, it's your "heart" behind saying it.
Yet, as Paul said, as not to offend others, you wouldn't go around cursing up a storm just because you can.
If in Africa you wouldn't go around saying "poo" because in your culture it isn't a bad word.
Concerning looking at a woman, it's not "looking" nor is it a sin (even though we often think it is) if you're going through the store or restaurant,etc and a woman walks across your path and you think "she's pretty/ beautiful", etc.
It becomes a sin when you start to try to get second, third, fourth, looks.
You had no idea she was going to walk in front of you.
God made our eyes and brains to respond with "that is nice, that is ugly" whether it is a person, a car, a flower, anything.
If you are trying to avoid looking at white cars, and one drives in front of you or across you, it isn't "lusting" unless you start to follow it to get multiple looks,etc.
get out of those books and use some common sense. Ask God for wisdom.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled blog posters.
Doug H.(will be known as network 23 from here on)
Jeff, you missed one ! LOL
in heb. 11:37 the people of faith wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins.
and in genesis god used animal skins as well.
Kris, just like davis and kekel gave warnings and they never came true, this makes them false prophets. i guess jeff will let us know if your warnings come true or not and we can see if you are a false prophet or not.
this blog post has been brought to you by sanford and son.
everyone go watch it and laugh a little.
Sanford and Son - The puerto ricans are coming
Bro. Bellamy said:
"And now, AFTER GRACE, you want to tell me that if a woman wears pants, shorts, make up, or jewelry that she is going to go to hell?"
DnA said:
Those are really good points. The ntcc emphasizes the keeping of so many rules with each one of them being mandates if you wish to continue as a brother or sister in good standing with the ntcc.
When you look at this for what it is, you can leave a sister stranded on the side of the road because you were not able to ask a Pharisee permission to help her and you are commended for being loyal. But if you refrain from screaming and hollering at some 18 year old girl for wearing pants to church and you don't use this criteria as a holiness or hell ultimatum you are compromising and you are disobedient, and you become a target to the ntcc leadership.
What happened to grace? If God had mercy on David and others in the old testament, how much more will God have mercy on us whom Christ died for? What was the purpose of Calvary if people have to work their way into heaven?
DnA
Hey Doug, I remember that and she couldn't understand what she had said that was "wrong."
I agree with you about those books. Anyone can make the Bible say what they want it to say with using part of a definition and looking at history of any culture and taking from that to support their agenda, but we should not leave the simplicity of the Gospel.
Example: The Apostle Paul said that "if it be a shame" for a woman to cut her hair then let her be covered. Doesn't that speak to us as culture and not commandment. He even said if anyone is contentious then we have no such custom.
NTCC leadership has place themselves as God's law and standard, but they are not.
Bro. Bellamy
DnA said:
What happened to grace? If God had mercy on David and others in the old testament, how much more will God have mercy on us whom Christ died for? What was the purpose of Calvary if people have to work their way into heaven?
LTravis said:
"We are saved by grace…In our flesh dwells no good thing."
"We are saved by grace…In our flesh dwells no good thing."
I think everyone who has some vague belief in God, until he becomes a Christian, has the idea of an exam or of a bargain in his mind. The first result of real Christianity is to blow that idea into bits…God has been waiting for the moment at which you discover that there is no question of earning a passing mark in this exam or putting Him in your debts.
Later Lewis said that such an awakened individual "discovers his bankruptcy" and so says to God: "You must do this. I can’t." He elaborated: "Christ offers [us] something for nothing…." In connection with good works he stated: "[You are] not doing these things in order to be saved, but because He has begun to save you already."~C.S.Lewis
Kris said:
"Let me just say that I appreciate this discussion we are having. I hope I can convey that in all honesty, and that I don't mean any ill-will towards you."
Then Kris said:
"This is a warning to you, Jeff. Don't meddle with the word of God if you are unskilled in doing so."
DnA quotes:
James 1:8 "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways".
Kris,
You are fighting against yourself. Stop trying to change everyone else and concentrate on you. Endless contradictions of your own words are not going to win anyone over to your cause. Nobody hates you and we are not all against you but you have been going on for days about your knowledge. Give it a break and get some sleep. Study to show yourself approved unto God, not man.
DnA
"Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth"
"My main point was that the early church writers were probably no more divided on the harder questions in the Bible then today's scholars...Local pastors have to get their licensing from an education. Who do you think the schools get their information from? each other? I am pretty sure that someone in the schools had to read something scholarly to form their courses. Theologians and scholars disagree on many things. But...if one group practices and teaches the same application that countless others throughout history applied (and probably only within the last century have the tables been turned statistically) then why do you bash them for their convictions...?
So you disagreed, then go run around any old way you like. Agree to disagree. Why slam them for teaching their convictions?...in light of the fact that scholars so often disagree on things attests to their safe and conservative choice in instructing their disciples so that they can be sure that they are not violating the law of love and of the Spirit."
So if they were divided, why quote them as if they were authoritative? You're making my point--they were men with opinions that can be freely disputed should they conflict with the bible and human experience. The fact that they lived centuries ago invests them with no particular wisdom. They were part of a church establishment that by the testimony of the apostles themselves had already been corrupted. Yet you worship at their feet as if they were the kings and arbiters of doctrine. And where do you find "licensing" in the bible? NTCC loves to charge you for a little card to carry around giving you permission to preach. I'd like to know who gave John the Baptist and Jesus their "licenses." License schmicense. Don't hold mens' persons in admiration because of advantage. If the "fathers" had an opinion, so can we. If their erroneous opinions were taken as gospel by gullible people, even for centuries, we can break free and think our own thoughts based on the scriptures, not the doctrines of men. As far as "outward holiness," the opinions you cite aren't monolithic or established, and as you acknowledge, likely conflicted with the opinions of others (opinions which may have been suppressed by those who disagreed and had the means to do so). The history of the church shows us that dissent from the mainstream can be dangerous, and multitudes of truth tellers have been persecuted and even killed for daring to question some dead theologian.
Disagreeing with someone is my prerogative, and shouldn't be seen as "bashing." I don't care if some old dead dude thought you had to wear a burqa to be righteous, but I do care if people nowadays want to quote him as an authority who is transmitting valid doctrine to us to be applied to our lives today. The bible is very explicit regarding legalists, and it doesn't matter how many ancient authorities succumbed to the heresy, it's still bad doctrine. You seem to think that Christianity is all about conformity, when the opposite is true. Christianity is about conflict, and some of the biggest conflicts an individual believer can ever engage in are those with the established church hierarchy, which has been wrong historically on countless occasions. Don't try to preserve the errors of the past; repudiate them and leave the people to their liberty. There is no valid reason a normal believer shouldn't go to a beach, dress in a modern bathing suit (not one of those tents from the 19th century that seems to meet with your approval), and enjoy the creation. The only objections are those manufactured by type-A control mongers who are dragging around a bag of guilt too big for themselves, so that they feel compelled to dump it on everyone else too. All this "modesty" and "holiness" claptrap is just another attempt to bring the saints into bondage, and that's what I'm "bashing."
Who is this person named Kris? Is he related to a last name Streeter? I don't remember the mans first name? If it is, I wonder why he would come on here and spend his time trying to tell Chief he is leading people to satan... His words are wasted space here.
no its not streeter. kris has a well meaning heart that really desires to be and do what is right.
doug h.
Wow, go read one of the comments on DnA's blog about some dude getting suck in bed with a bunch of other brothers? The comment is found under the latest thread. Apparently these dudes were getting it on. Man, the NTCC has a sick history. The guy said it happened in Mom and Pop Gaylord's house.
Chief
Glad to see Bellamy back in the action.
Edward said "The Pharisees and others like them strained at gnats and swallow camels. They forget about love, mercy, and grace. They become so caught up with their own "holiness" which is really sanctification and is between an individual Christian and God, that they forget the weightier matters.'
Edward, How's it goin' my man?
You hit the nail right on the head and drove it home. ntcc makes it all about they're stupid rules and works. I guess what Jesus did for us wasn't good enough, huh.
Great to see you back on here again.
Changing the subject a bit, does anyone miss knocking on doors? I think it's funny how they call that "soul winning". It should be more like "bothering people and wasting time". THAT is NoT soul winnig!!!! And for all we know, the leaders don't even do it.
Not me!
Doug said...
kris has a well meaning heart that really desires to be and do what is right.
Chief said...
You know I actually believe that. I think he is just going about it the wrong way and I think he's misguided. That I also believe. He left the NTCC and based upon something he'd written previously, I suspect he's gotten involved with another church similar to the NTCC. He can live however he wants but it's a bad approach when he tries to cram it down everyone else's throat. I no longer have patience for people who are overly judgmental and I truly believe (based on the Gospels) that Jesus didn't have much patience for those type of people either.
Kris is entitled to express whatever views he would like on this blog but I draw the line when he starts to give all these warnings like he is some kind of prophet of judgment. If an NTCC minister tried that junk with me tomorrow, I'd tell him to take a long walk off a short pier and I have no tolerance for that stuff on this blog either. Especially when it was about the types of clothing that people wear. Buddy, those days are over for me. I I truly understand how Jesus felt about the Scribes and the Pharisees because that is exactly the way I feel about the NTCC and other similar churches.
Chief
Thanks for putting a stop to that Chief, I was getting tired of reading that "opinionated trash". If I wanted to hear that stuff, I'd go back to the ntcc. But with the help of God, that won't happen again. What a crock! And I don't miss knocking on doors either.
DnA said "... are not going to win anyone over to your cause."
Don, that stuff doesn't win anybody over to the Lord. Anytime, or anywhere. I didn't get saved because some "Kook" told about a so-called holiness dress standard. I was lost, lonely, and looking for love.
The Taylor's showed me that and then unfortunately RWD exploited it.
Anon said " THAT is NoT soul winnig!!!! And for all we know, the leaders don't even do it."
Anon, you're right. The so-called leaders are shopping online, furnishing their museums, I mean, their homes with fine furnishings while the little people are out doing their bidding.
Anonymous said...
Thanks for putting a stop to that Chief, I was getting tired of reading that "opinionated trash"
Chief said...
I'm with you.
Chief
Hey MDR, I haven't forgot about that thread. I'm just letting this one run it's course.
Chief
199 comments, Chief. Come on, Baby, with that new thread! LOL
Chief, You be da man.
Anon, that was funny. I agree, bring on the new thread, cause I couldn't take much more of Kris' post.
Post a Comment