Help With Discerning a Blog Post

Status
Not open for further replies.
The lady blogger seems fairly insufferable and self-righteous.

Parents deserve more respect.


Jonathan Edwards on spiritual pride and control:
--- "One under the influence of spiritual pride is more apt to instruct others than to inquire for himself and so naturally puts on the airs of control. The eminently humble Christian thinks he needs help from everybody, whereas he that is spiritually proud thinks everybody needs his help."
 
I don't think that she has read much Shakespeare.

But perhaps she should spend some time with the 10 Commandments.
 
I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time around this blogger. She's suffocatingly self-righteous. Everyone is a vile sinner apart from her and "brother Jim".
 
Wow..that was one of the worst blog posts I've read, in many respects. Needless to say, don't take her advice. :)
 
She sounds like she's either still in the "cage stage" of her Christian life, not knowing how to respond properly to unbelievers, or she's, as others here have said, just arrogant and full of herself, with a very low level of self-awareness. Not a good role model either way.
 
This poor young lady is really mixed up. She says, “We are not to be mean or hateful to others, we are to be kind and loving BUT we don't change the message.” She has the wrong message! She's ignored the biblical command to honor and care for her parents. She's made up her own unloving message and called it biblical. She's bringing reproach on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
This poor young lady is really mixed up. She says, “We are not to be mean or hateful to others, we are to be kind and loving BUT we don't change the message.” She has the wrong message! She's ignored the biblical command to honor and care for her parents. She's made up her own unloving message and called it biblical. She's bringing reproach on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I think she's in her sixties
 
To answer your two questions, Nikki, "Is this how we are supposed to relate to unbelievers? What would you do if you were in this person's shoes?" No, it's not how we are to relate to unbelievers. Of course she indicates a possibly abusive past with her mother, but still. In her shoes, I would ask for a lot of grace from the Lord to love her parents and do them good (including speaking of Christ as opportunity arose)- and then do it.
 
ZackF said:
I think Nikki is asking what about it makes it so?
Click to expand...

Isn't it fairly obvious?

But here's an example:

"They(worldly people) are not allowed to be by us as God is dealing with them and if they don't repent then they have chosen that fate by the hardness of their hearts, but in the meantime we are free, without their hinderance, to spread the truth to those who will listen!

Sisters, you need to examine your life and see if you still have people like that(worldly people) in your life and cut them off, lest you be in sin yourself for enabling them to do so. The loving and biblical thing is to turn them away into their choice and allow God to work with them while you move on."

So much for being salt and light, eh? Glad some believers didn't feel that way about me in the past, but kindly and gently shared the Gospel. I try to do the same with my unsaved family members, which are legion.

So, perhaps my dislike of this blog post is colored by my own experiences with my own family.

It's uncharitable in the extreme, in my opinion.

But by all means, this woman SHOULD separate herself from all 'worldly people'.

I heartily endorse her doing so. :D
 
https://www.dontperish.com/10-point-biblical-test.html

It sounds like their model for a Christian is not to be a member of a local body (which they say is unbiblical), but rather to be vagabonds wandering around by yourself. It is frustrating, some things I would affirm like "We want to ask you, are you seeking ALL biblical truth like a Berean (Acts 17) or do you settle for man’s religious ways that are not in God's truth?", but then follow it up with "we do not belong to any religious organization..."
 
nickipicki123 said:
Would someone be willing to read a blog post and tell me what you think? I did not write it but I'm not sure how to discern it
Click to expand...

First, I want to heartily applaud Nicki's wisdom, discernment and humility for posting this and getting other opinions. Sometimes I'll read something and go "Hmm... something doesn't smell right." But when error is hiding within truth, sometimes it's hard to catch it. Always helpful and wise to get extra eyes on it. :)

Second, I want to say positively Jim and Debbie Polanek seem to teach a good sin-savior gospel message, affirm Jesus' divinity, are against female pastors, she seeks to dress modestly and even wears a headcovering (see Sproul's argument if you're undecided). She criticizes easy-believism and seeker sensitive churches. Is against musical instruments [God's Word teaches no instruments for the New Testament.] Against [pagan holidays (like Christmas and Easter).] Against celebrity pastors and entertainment-show churches with [lights, smoke machines]. Against [worship leaders, practiced choirs, Sunday school, youth pastors]. [Lord’s Supper is for true holy, obedient saints and not just an assembly line tidbit (it was a full fellowship meal)]. She is anti-Word Faith cult/Pentecostalism [I learned he is a unbiblical AOG/ word of faith type into rebuking demons, binding demons in his revival tent]. Against Free Grace Theology. Against pre-trib rapture. Against the anti-alcohol practice. Against dispensationalism. Sounds a lot like many of my serious Reformed Christian friends and the Puritans in this.

She also says she welcomes correction: [We encourage modern pastors or you to test our words here and meet with us to correct us. We will repent and correct it if shown in God's Word. Will you reason with us over God’s Word?]

Theologically, I'd notice the following concerning quotes:
  • They are anti-Calvinist, anti-Lutheran, anti-Rome, anti-John MacArthur [The Baptist system will often quote men like Luther and Calvin; who are VERY unbiblical (they are murderous men/see our link here for that:http://www.dontperish.com/martin-luther.html )... Calvinist once saved always saved false teachers ....But we know the Jews could and did turn away from their faith MANY times to their demise not salvation. ( Romans 11 tells how they were cut off over this and it warns..... the gentiles can be cut off too!]
    • They mistakenly think "once saved, always saved" (OSAS Arminianism) is a belief of Calvinists. Also seems to believe you can lose your salvation by not persevering in saving faith and be cut off. When they speak of salvation, they speak of the gospel broadly to include sanctification.
  • [We were false converts in man's modern denominational religion for many years. ...we saw through the many falsehoods and lies of the man made denominational religious systems... Today we have and seek the true New Testament biblical church over man made religion that we see on every corner in America. (We are not linked to any religious organization.) ....we call out to those still lost in man's religious false systems. ...... exposing man made denominational religion and striving for the true New Testament church that Christ ordained". Religion cannot save you ... The worlds religions and denominations are full of the false gospels of man. ... Please know that we do not belong to any religious organization... Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist... We believe and will practice only holy, orderly controlled OPEN gatherings (mostly in homes or out doors) where all born again obedient men can bring what God gives them to share.]
    • Perhaps she had a bad experience with one denomination. If one of the above, I can't blame her. There is a lot to reject. Instead of finding a biblical denomination, she's rejected all denominations as "unbiblical man-made religious systems." Perhaps she never knew a good denomination existed. Still, Christ is the husband of one body (the church). The church is to be united (head, arms, hands, feet), not divided. If the PCA did you wrong, go to the OPC. Or the URC. Or RPCNA. Or PRCA. Or FCC. Etc.
  • [They avoid partaking of the carnal (sinful) culture ( sports, TV, movies, feminism, man made denominational religion etc )]
    • Many will disagree that all sports, all tv and all denominations are sinful. However, the Puritans might be somewhat on her side.
  • [The early true New Testament body had no "modern pastor role" (one man teaching and running the entire gathering)... "multiple elders" to oversee the body not lord over it. ... men step up and minister to each other. (This works best in small bodies that meet in homes.) ... They had no need of special religious buildings, parking lots, stages, lights etc. that misuses the Lord’s money. ]
    • This sounds like she has a House Church where any man can get up to speak.
  • In her attempt to promote modesty, she calls sin: [Jeans, pants, shorts, short or tight skirts, tight shirts, t-shirts, capris etc are not flowing and form covering, and therefore are unbiblical. ... flowers, lines, dots etc are unnecessary for the clothing and are nothing more than adornments. ...we do teach that elbow length is good coverage...]
    • I would strongly disagree these are always sin and do think she takes these too far into a legalistic view. Loose jeans and pants should be able to be worn. T-shirts can be very modest. She seems to consider any pattern on fabric to be sinful. Reminds me of the Amish but they aren't Amish and while appreciating them, they do criticize the Amish for a few things.
  • Against church membership
  • Against NT tithing and accepts no donations
  • Holds Saturday is the Sabbath, not Sunday. [Jesus was laid to rest on Wed evening and thus he HAD to rise before Sunday ( on Saturday ) to meet his promise and prophecy of 3 days and 3 nights.]
    • Must be honest. This is one area I seriously struggle too. The early church who received the teachings directly from the apostles considered Sunday the Lord's Day and the Sabbath still to be Saturday. I do not believe we have adequately proved this one.
Basically, they are an anti-denom non-denom, male lead house church who believe in female submission and modesty. They are anti-pastor-led churches but believe the men should all speak on Saturdays Sabbath (they reject Sunday). They try very hard to be holy and reject anything modern that they see as "added to the NT church." They reject Calvinism and Lutheranism but believe people fall way and backslide. They may be Arminian, or *think* they are "no theological system" - for everyone has some system. They seem well meaning but they go too far. They claim they are not a cult but I would be concerned following a number of lay men leading a house church.
 
psycheives said:
First, I want to heartily applaud Nicki's wisdom, discernment and humility for posting this and getting other opinions. Sometimes I'll read something and go "Hmm... something doesn't smell right." But when error is hiding within truth, sometimes it's hard to catch it. Always helpful and wise to get extra eyes on it. :)

Second, I want to say positively Jim and Debbie Polanek seem to teach a good sin-savior gospel message, affirm Jesus' divinity, are against female pastors, she seeks to dress modestly and even wears a headcovering (see Sproul's argument if you're undecided). She criticizes easy-believism and seeker sensitive churches. Is against musical instruments [God's Word teaches no instruments for the New Testament.] Against [pagan holidays (like Christmas and Easter).] Against celebrity pastors and entertainment-show churches with [lights, smoke machines]. Against [worship leaders, practiced choirs, Sunday school, youth pastors]. [Lord’s Supper is for true holy, obedient saints and not just an assembly line tidbit (it was a full fellowship meal)]. She is anti-Word Faith cult/Pentecostalism [I learned he is a unbiblical AOG/ word of faith type into rebuking demons, binding demons in his revival tent]. Against Free Grace Theology. Against pre-trib rapture. Against the anti-alcohol practice. Against dispensationalism. Sounds a lot like many of my serious Reformed Christian friends and the Puritans in this.

She also says she welcomes correction: [We encourage modern pastors or you to test our words here and meet with us to correct us. We will repent and correct it if shown in God's Word. Will you reason with us over God’s Word?]

Theologically, I'd notice the following concerning quotes:
  • They are anti-Calvinist, anti-Lutheran, anti-Rome, anti-John MacArthur [The Baptist system will often quote men like Luther and Calvin; who are VERY unbiblical (they are murderous men/see our link here for that:http://www.dontperish.com/martin-luther.html )... Calvinist once saved always saved false teachers ....But we know the Jews could and did turn away from their faith MANY times to their demise not salvation. ( Romans 11 tells how they were cut off over this and it warns..... the gentiles can be cut off too!]
    • They mistakenly think "once saved, always saved" (OSAS Arminianism) is a belief of Calvinists. Also seems to believe you can lose your salvation by not persevering in saving faith and be cut off. When they speak of salvation, they speak of the gospel broadly to include sanctification.
  • [We were false converts in man's modern denominational religion for many years. ...we saw through the many falsehoods and lies of the man made denominational religious systems... Today we have and seek the true New Testament biblical church over man made religion that we see on every corner in America. (We are not linked to any religious organization.) ....we call out to those still lost in man's religious false systems. ...... exposing man made denominational religion and striving for the true New Testament church that Christ ordained". Religion cannot save you ... The worlds religions and denominations are full of the false gospels of man. ... Please know that we do not belong to any religious organization... Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist... We believe and will practice only holy, orderly controlled OPEN gatherings (mostly in homes or out doors) where all born again obedient men can bring what God gives them to share.]
    • Perhaps she had a bad experience with one denomination. If one of the above, I can't blame her. There is a lot to reject. Instead of finding a biblical denomination, she's rejected all denominations as "unbiblical man-made religious systems." Perhaps she never knew a good denomination existed. Still, Christ is the husband of one body (the church). The church is to be united (head, arms, hands, feet), not divided. If the PCA did you wrong, go to the OPC. Or the URC. Or RPCNA. Or PRCA. Or FCC. Etc.
  • [They avoid partaking of the carnal (sinful) culture ( sports, TV, movies, feminism, man made denominational religion etc )]
    • Many will disagree that all sports, all tv and all denominations are sinful. However, the Puritans might be somewhat on her side.
  • [The early true New Testament body had no "modern pastor role" (one man teaching and running the entire gathering)... "multiple elders" to oversee the body not lord over it. ... men step up and minister to each other. (This works best in small bodies that meet in homes.) ... They had no need of special religious buildings, parking lots, stages, lights etc. that misuses the Lord’s money. ]
    • This sounds like she has a House Church where any man can get up to speak.
  • In her attempt to promote modesty, she calls sin: [Jeans, pants, shorts, short or tight skirts, tight shirts, t-shirts, capris etc are not flowing and form covering, and therefore are unbiblical. ... flowers, lines, dots etc are unnecessary for the clothing and are nothing more than adornments. ...we do teach that elbow length is good coverage...]
    • I would strongly disagree these are always sin and do think she takes these too far into a legalistic view. Loose jeans and pants should be able to be worn. T-shirts can be very modest. She seems to consider any pattern on fabric to be sinful. Reminds me of the Amish but they aren't Amish and while appreciating them, they do criticize the Amish for a few things.
  • Against church membership
  • Against NT tithing and accepts no donations
  • Holds Saturday is the Sabbath, not Sunday. [Jesus was laid to rest on Wed evening and thus he HAD to rise before Sunday ( on Saturday ) to meet his promise and prophecy of 3 days and 3 nights.]
    • Must be honest. This is one area I seriously struggle too. The early church who received the teachings directly from the apostles considered Sunday the Lord's Day and the Sabbath still to be Saturday. I do not believe we have adequately proved this one.
Basically, they are an anti-denom non-denom, male lead house church who believe in female submission and modesty. They are anti-pastor-led churches but believe the men should all speak on Saturdays Sabbath (they reject Sunday). They try very hard to be holy and reject anything modern that they see as "added to the NT church." They reject Calvinism and Lutheranism but believe people fall way and backslide. They may be Arminian, or *think* they are "no theological system" - for everyone has some system. They seem well meaning but they go too far. They claim they are not a cult but I would be concerned following a number of lay men leading a house church.
Click to expand...

Even a blind pig finds a nut every now and then.......
 
nickipicki123 said:
Is this how we are supposed to relate to unbelievers? What would you do if you were in this person's shoes?
Click to expand...
  • I am concerned with her unbiblical basis of judgment and her definition: ['a pound of flesh' means that someone got a little bit of you, got the best of you, got just what they wanted from you.]
    • Other sources define "pound of flesh" differently:
      • A debt or punishment, especially a cruel or unreasonable one, that is harshly insisted upon.
      • Something that is owed needs to be paid back at every cost. Shakespeare has coined this phrase in a figurative way, which refers to a lawful but unreasonable recompense during the late 18th century. Here, the mentioning of flesh suggests vengeful, bloodthirstiness, and inflexible behavior to get back borrowed money.
  • [Mother... She's a 'professed believer' and 'goes to church' often. ... asked her why she never told me these things in the bible (of course I didn't realize she had no clue not being born again) and we had some email conversations back and forth over this and all she did was protect her sin etc.
    • Knowing Jim and Debbie Polanek's rejection of EVERYTHING but a Saturday-keeping House Church as sinful, we should be cautious of how she views her mother's faith and church. When Debbie claims her mother was in sin, what sin? Why doesn't she name it? Or is this sin simply one of Debbie's new harsh judgments?
  • [now I was moving on. But she wasn't. She would send an email out of the blue with one of those religious 'e cards' about love. ]
    • So she judged her mother as a fake Christian and cut her out of her life? When her mother reached out, Debbie reacted with... disgust?
  • [She would send an email out of the blue with one of those religious 'e cards' about love. (You know the verses that all the worldly people use to make themselves feel loved by God.)]
    • This is a terrible way to view one's mother and her gift of a greeting card. Debbie shows zero appreciation for her mother's heart in the gift and spits back in her mother's face. I know some of these cards but some of them actually include a bible verse and some are just sweet sentimentality that show an expression of love and do no harm. Debbie's remark is cruel, condescending, and prideful. Certainly not honoring her mother.
  • [I would send her back an email talking about what real godly love was etc and she would disappear again. This went on every few months for a few years...]
    • So she replied to a greeting card by criticizing her mother's understanding of love. Yet, Debbie herself failed to show love to her mother by being her harshest judge. And cutting her mother out of her life for YEARS. She does not say she reached out to her mother at all. That is unChristian. We are to reach out to those even who are "excommunicated" to call them back to the faith.
  • [My mom and dad happened to be going through that area and stopped by. It shocked me because I hadn't seen them in years and all of a sudden there they were, but sisters, I was already strong of heart and I had no anger, nor sadness. I was pretty much neutral and just wanted them to go away, but I thought I had to be a good Christian witness so I gave them the hug they were looking for.]
    • This paragraph is a tragic display of hardness of heart and unloving behavior. Her words portray hatred of her parents and "she was so strong of heart" that she didn't miss them at all. She was "neutral." Dead-hearted. Instead of rejoicing and asking if they had "repented and abandoned that sin," she just wants them to leave. She doesn't want to check up on them or see how they are doing. Her pride is evident in her claiming to be "strong of heart" and "a good Christian witness" who scornfully gave them a hug while in her heart she was throwing up. This is truly awful and unChristian.
  • [That night I was grieved. The next day it was worse and by the third day I was in full righteous anger! How dare I let them get a pound of flesh from me again!]
    • She was grieved? Not that she hadn't seen them in years. Not that they once again reached out to her and she shunned them. No, she was grieved because [someone got a little bit of you, got the best of you, got just what they wanted from you]. WOW. How heartless. She is FURIOUS because her mother got a hug out of her. That her mother loved her and missed her and longed to hug her daughter.
I think I'll stop here because we can see Debbie's hateful heart. But hope this helps. :)
 
*Moderation*

Please stay on point with the OP. It would be most helpful to offer the biblical reasoning behind the negative critique of the blog post. It seems that our sister is as much concerned with why the statements made in the blog are not in accord with biblical thinking as she is in being informed that they are indeed off center.
 
psycheives said:
First, I want to heartily applaud Nicki's wisdom, discernment and humility for posting this and getting other opinions. Sometimes I'll read something and go "Hmm... something doesn't smell right." But when error is hiding within truth, sometimes it's hard to catch it. Always helpful and wise to get extra eyes on it. :)

Second, I want to say positively Jim and Debbie Polanek seem to teach a good sin-savior gospel message, affirm Jesus' divinity, are against female pastors, she seeks to dress modestly and even wears a headcovering (see Sproul's argument if you're undecided). She criticizes easy-believism and seeker sensitive churches. Is against musical instruments [God's Word teaches no instruments for the New Testament.] Against [pagan holidays (like Christmas and Easter).] Against celebrity pastors and entertainment-show churches with [lights, smoke machines]. Against [worship leaders, practiced choirs, Sunday school, youth pastors]. [Lord’s Supper is for true holy, obedient saints and not just an assembly line tidbit (it was a full fellowship meal)]. She is anti-Word Faith cult/Pentecostalism [I learned he is a unbiblical AOG/ word of faith type into rebuking demons, binding demons in his revival tent]. Against Free Grace Theology. Against pre-trib rapture. Against the anti-alcohol practice. Against dispensationalism. Sounds a lot like many of my serious Reformed Christian friends and the Puritans in this.

She also says she welcomes correction: [We encourage modern pastors or you to test our words here and meet with us to correct us. We will repent and correct it if shown in God's Word. Will you reason with us over God’s Word?]

Theologically, I'd notice the following concerning quotes:
  • They are anti-Calvinist, anti-Lutheran, anti-Rome, anti-John MacArthur [The Baptist system will often quote men like Luther and Calvin; who are VERY unbiblical (they are murderous men/see our link here for that:http://www.dontperish.com/martin-luther.html )... Calvinist once saved always saved false teachers ....But we know the Jews could and did turn away from their faith MANY times to their demise not salvation. ( Romans 11 tells how they were cut off over this and it warns..... the gentiles can be cut off too!]
    • They mistakenly think "once saved, always saved" (OSAS Arminianism) is a belief of Calvinists. Also seems to believe you can lose your salvation by not persevering in saving faith and be cut off. When they speak of salvation, they speak of the gospel broadly to include sanctification.
  • [We were false converts in man's modern denominational religion for many years. ...we saw through the many falsehoods and lies of the man made denominational religious systems... Today we have and seek the true New Testament biblical church over man made religion that we see on every corner in America. (We are not linked to any religious organization.) ....we call out to those still lost in man's religious false systems. ...... exposing man made denominational religion and striving for the true New Testament church that Christ ordained". Religion cannot save you ... The worlds religions and denominations are full of the false gospels of man. ... Please know that we do not belong to any religious organization... Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist... We believe and will practice only holy, orderly controlled OPEN gatherings (mostly in homes or out doors) where all born again obedient men can bring what God gives them to share.]
    • Perhaps she had a bad experience with one denomination. If one of the above, I can't blame her. There is a lot to reject. Instead of finding a biblical denomination, she's rejected all denominations as "unbiblical man-made religious systems." Perhaps she never knew a good denomination existed. Still, Christ is the husband of one body (the church). The church is to be united (head, arms, hands, feet), not divided. If the PCA did you wrong, go to the OPC. Or the URC. Or RPCNA. Or PRCA. Or FCC. Etc.
  • [They avoid partaking of the carnal (sinful) culture ( sports, TV, movies, feminism, man made denominational religion etc )]
    • Many will disagree that all sports, all tv and all denominations are sinful. However, the Puritans might be somewhat on her side.
  • [The early true New Testament body had no "modern pastor role" (one man teaching and running the entire gathering)... "multiple elders" to oversee the body not lord over it. ... men step up and minister to each other. (This works best in small bodies that meet in homes.) ... They had no need of special religious buildings, parking lots, stages, lights etc. that misuses the Lord’s money. ]
    • This sounds like she has a House Church where any man can get up to speak.
  • In her attempt to promote modesty, she calls sin: [Jeans, pants, shorts, short or tight skirts, tight shirts, t-shirts, capris etc are not flowing and form covering, and therefore are unbiblical. ... flowers, lines, dots etc are unnecessary for the clothing and are nothing more than adornments. ...we do teach that elbow length is good coverage...]
    • I would strongly disagree these are always sin and do think she takes these too far into a legalistic view. Loose jeans and pants should be able to be worn. T-shirts can be very modest. She seems to consider any pattern on fabric to be sinful. Reminds me of the Amish but they aren't Amish and while appreciating them, they do criticize the Amish for a few things.
  • Against church membership
  • Against NT tithing and accepts no donations
  • Holds Saturday is the Sabbath, not Sunday. [Jesus was laid to rest on Wed evening and thus he HAD to rise before Sunday ( on Saturday ) to meet his promise and prophecy of 3 days and 3 nights.]
    • Must be honest. This is one area I seriously struggle too. The early church who received the teachings directly from the apostles considered Sunday the Lord's Day and the Sabbath still to be Saturday. I do not believe we have adequately proved this one.
Basically, they are an anti-denom non-denom, male lead house church who believe in female submission and modesty. They are anti-pastor-led churches but believe the men should all speak on Saturdays Sabbath (they reject Sunday). They try very hard to be holy and reject anything modern that they see as "added to the NT church." They reject Calvinism and Lutheranism but believe people fall way and backslide. They may be Arminian, or *think* they are "no theological system" - for everyone has some system. They seem well meaning but they go too far. They claim they are not a cult but I would be concerned following a number of lay men leading a house church.
Click to expand...
Great write-up!
 
psycheives said:
First, I want to heartily applaud Nicki's wisdom, discernment and humility for posting this and getting other opinions. Sometimes I'll read something and go "Hmm... something doesn't smell right." But when error is hiding within truth, sometimes it's hard to catch it. Always helpful and wise to get extra eyes on it. :)

Second, I want to say positively Jim and Debbie Polanek seem to teach a good sin-savior gospel message, affirm Jesus' divinity, are against female pastors, she seeks to dress modestly and even wears a headcovering (see Sproul's argument if you're undecided). She criticizes easy-believism and seeker sensitive churches. Is against musical instruments [God's Word teaches no instruments for the New Testament.] Against [pagan holidays (like Christmas and Easter).] Against celebrity pastors and entertainment-show churches with [lights, smoke machines]. Against [worship leaders, practiced choirs, Sunday school, youth pastors]. [Lord’s Supper is for true holy, obedient saints and not just an assembly line tidbit (it was a full fellowship meal)]. She is anti-Word Faith cult/Pentecostalism [I learned he is a unbiblical AOG/ word of faith type into rebuking demons, binding demons in his revival tent]. Against Free Grace Theology. Against pre-trib rapture. Against the anti-alcohol practice. Against dispensationalism. Sounds a lot like many of my serious Reformed Christian friends and the Puritans in this.

She also says she welcomes correction: [We encourage modern pastors or you to test our words here and meet with us to correct us. We will repent and correct it if shown in God's Word. Will you reason with us over God’s Word?]

Theologically, I'd notice the following concerning quotes:
  • They are anti-Calvinist, anti-Lutheran, anti-Rome, anti-John MacArthur [The Baptist system will often quote men like Luther and Calvin; who are VERY unbiblical (they are murderous men/see our link here for that:http://www.dontperish.com/martin-luther.html )... Calvinist once saved always saved false teachers ....But we know the Jews could and did turn away from their faith MANY times to their demise not salvation. ( Romans 11 tells how they were cut off over this and it warns..... the gentiles can be cut off too!]
    • They mistakenly think "once saved, always saved" (OSAS Arminianism) is a belief of Calvinists. Also seems to believe you can lose your salvation by not persevering in saving faith and be cut off. When they speak of salvation, they speak of the gospel broadly to include sanctification.
  • [We were false converts in man's modern denominational religion for many years. ...we saw through the many falsehoods and lies of the man made denominational religious systems... Today we have and seek the true New Testament biblical church over man made religion that we see on every corner in America. (We are not linked to any religious organization.) ....we call out to those still lost in man's religious false systems. ...... exposing man made denominational religion and striving for the true New Testament church that Christ ordained". Religion cannot save you ... The worlds religions and denominations are full of the false gospels of man. ... Please know that we do not belong to any religious organization... Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist... We believe and will practice only holy, orderly controlled OPEN gatherings (mostly in homes or out doors) where all born again obedient men can bring what God gives them to share.]
    • Perhaps she had a bad experience with one denomination. If one of the above, I can't blame her. There is a lot to reject. Instead of finding a biblical denomination, she's rejected all denominations as "unbiblical man-made religious systems." Perhaps she never knew a good denomination existed. Still, Christ is the husband of one body (the church). The church is to be united (head, arms, hands, feet), not divided. If the PCA did you wrong, go to the OPC. Or the URC. Or RPCNA. Or PRCA. Or FCC. Etc.
  • [They avoid partaking of the carnal (sinful) culture ( sports, TV, movies, feminism, man made denominational religion etc )]
    • Many will disagree that all sports, all tv and all denominations are sinful. However, the Puritans might be somewhat on her side.
  • [The early true New Testament body had no "modern pastor role" (one man teaching and running the entire gathering)... "multiple elders" to oversee the body not lord over it. ... men step up and minister to each other. (This works best in small bodies that meet in homes.) ... They had no need of special religious buildings, parking lots, stages, lights etc. that misuses the Lord’s money. ]
    • This sounds like she has a House Church where any man can get up to speak.
  • In her attempt to promote modesty, she calls sin: [Jeans, pants, shorts, short or tight skirts, tight shirts, t-shirts, capris etc are not flowing and form covering, and therefore are unbiblical. ... flowers, lines, dots etc are unnecessary for the clothing and are nothing more than adornments. ...we do teach that elbow length is good coverage...]
    • I would strongly disagree these are always sin and do think she takes these too far into a legalistic view. Loose jeans and pants should be able to be worn. T-shirts can be very modest. She seems to consider any pattern on fabric to be sinful. Reminds me of the Amish but they aren't Amish and while appreciating them, they do criticize the Amish for a few things.
  • Against church membership
  • Against NT tithing and accepts no donations
  • Holds Saturday is the Sabbath, not Sunday. [Jesus was laid to rest on Wed evening and thus he HAD to rise before Sunday ( on Saturday ) to meet his promise and prophecy of 3 days and 3 nights.]
    • Must be honest. This is one area I seriously struggle too. The early church who received the teachings directly from the apostles considered Sunday the Lord's Day and the Sabbath still to be Saturday. I do not believe we have adequately proved this one.
Basically, they are an anti-denom non-denom, male lead house church who believe in female submission and modesty. They are anti-pastor-led churches but believe the men should all speak on Saturdays Sabbath (they reject Sunday). They try very hard to be holy and reject anything modern that they see as "added to the NT church." They reject Calvinism and Lutheranism but believe people fall way and backslide. They may be Arminian, or *think* they are "no theological system" - for everyone has some system. They seem well meaning but they go too far. They claim they are not a cult but I would be concerned following a number of lay men leading a house church.
Click to expand...
Wow that was extremely thorough. Thank you very much! I appreciate your time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

turmeric
  • Locked
Help with my blog...
Replies
6
Views
2K
Bryan
B
C
  • Locked
Help with a conflict
Replies
13
Views
2K
Scott1
Scott1
ReformedWretch
  • Locked
Help with a quote!
Replies
3
Views
1K
Learner
L
Ryan&Amber2013
  • Locked
Need Help With a Verse
Replies
3
Views
537
Deleted member 7239
D
R
  • Locked
Discerning Reader
Replies
5
Views
2K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
Back
Top