Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: David P. Brown on brethren who "lie"! - A Paraphrase

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    ContendingFTF • Contending For The Faith Message 1756 of 1756 From: David P Brown Date: Thu Apr 6, 2006 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [ContendingFTF] Re: Update
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      ContendingFTF • Contending For The Faith
      Message 1756 of 1756

      From: "David P Brown"
      Date: Thu Apr 6, 2006 12:30 pm

      Subject: Re: [ContendingFTF] Re: Update on Simons--TCSOP--Fellowship
      [A PARAPHRASE]

      (excerpt)

      It should be noted and emphasized that one of the sad facts about
      some people is the seemingly routine practice by several brethren in
      their efforts to defend and protect commonly held doctrines in the
      brotherhood at all costs, even seemingly taking pleasure in "playing
      foot loose and fancy free" with moral conduct in regard to simple
      honesty.

      It seems that some brethren think that if anyone is opposing their
      pet doctrine, no matter whether the reason for the opposition is
      scriptural or factual, they are at liberty to say or do anything (or
      for that matter intentionally omitings undone what ought to be done
      or said) no matter how contrary to what the facts actually are in
      their sad attempts to defend their pet doctrine.

      Is it or is it not a sin to lie (deliberately tell a falsehood as if
      it is the truth with the intent to deceive the hearer into accepting
      the falsehood as the truth)?

      Also, there seemingly is no compunction of conscience with some
      brethren when they know they are misrepresenting the facts in a
      case. They behave as amoral pragmatists - if something works in
      their efforts to preserve their pet doctrine - that makes it right.

      Shades of Bill Clinton.

      Furthermore, they have no problem in seeking great sums of money
      from the brethren, while refusing to answer questions about what
      they believe, practice, and who they support/fellowship.

      They expect the brethren to accept and live with the arrogant
      attitude that declares, "Don't expect us to answer your questions,
      but give us lots of your money, your approval and promote us" - a la
      MSOP, AP, GBN.

      And we thought such mind sets and tactics were only to be found at
      ACU, her sister institutions, along with the R. Shelly, and Max
      Lucado types.

      Brethren we might as well face it - we have had the wool pulled over
      our eyes by some brethren that we thought stood for truth simply for
      the sake of truth itself, no matter the sacrifice they would have to
      make to continue to stand by whatever the truth happens to be and
      expose anyone who would oppose and compromise the truth on anything.

      But the reality is this: these brethren are false. They were and are
      self-serving characters who will compromise truth for power or
      money, or for simply an intransigent closed-minded adherence to a
      traditionally and fondly held doctrine that we now know happens to
      be utterly wrong, while making merchandise of faithful brethren.

      For those who cannot see through a barrel with both ends knocked
      out, they will have to continue to make their minds up, such as they
      are, on the basis of subjective emotionalism.

      They will have to continue to blind themselves to the facts in the
      case(s) and be happy - such happiness as it is - while willingly
      ignoring the facts in any given case as well as the truth of and
      application of 1 Thess. 5:21 ("But examine everything carefully;
      hold fast to that which is good") and like verses in there efforts
      to determine right from wrong.

      After all the subjective, emotional, and relative mind set is the
      easy way out (for the present). It is the wide gate and broad way in
      which the great majority of people find themselves as they rejoice,
      for the time being, in it.

      Indeed, this certainly covers some so-called "sound brethren" who
      think more in terms of religious tradition or a "buddyhood" than a
      brotherhood, and "flattership" of fellow followers of the tradition
      than religious fellowship that does not shrink from truth and
      correcting that which is known to be wrong.

      But the faithful need to remember the words of Paul to Timothy
      regarding such characters. Paul declared: "But evil men evil men and
      seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived"
      (2 Tim. 3:13).

      Let us highly resolve to be no part of them, oppose them no matter
      who they are, proclaim the gospel no matter what befalls us, and
      know that this is the way that is right and cannot be wrong.

      David P. Brown

      1 Tim. 1:3-7 (NASB):
      As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus
      so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
      nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give
      rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration
      of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love
      from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For
      some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless
      discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do
      not understand either what they are saying or the matters about
      which they make confident assertions.
    • Todd S. Greene
      Pardon me, there s one sentence I started to edit and then got interrupted and forgot to finish that one. ... — Todd Greene
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Pardon me, there's one sentence I started to edit and then got
        interrupted and forgot to finish that one.

        --- In Maury_and_Baty, I wrote (post #7797):
        > It seems that some brethren think that if anyone is opposing
        > their pet doctrine, no matter whether the reason for the
        > opposition is scriptural or factual, they are at liberty to say
        > or do anything (or for that matter intentionally omitings
        > undone what ought to be done or said) no matter how contrary to
        > what the facts actually are in their sad attempts to defend
        > their pet doctrine.

        The parenthetical phrase is supposed to be:

        > (or for that matter intentionally omitting relevant information)

        — Todd Greene
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.