I’ve got good news: I just got threatened with a lawsuit. It would seem that somewhere along the way I became more than a pimple on the behind of at least one of the pimps. Can you guess which one? That’s right – John K. Jenkins (aka John the Magnificent). I have a letter in hand. As soon as I can, I’ll scan it so you can take a look. (My VOPWM made me change the way I upload and view images on my server.) In the letter from First Baptist Church of Glenarden on the Kettering (FBCGotK), the attack dogs demand I “cease and desist” using one of my registered domain names.
When I started the site, way back in January of 2005, I had several domain names registered. One of them is “FBCGlenarden.com”. Apparently they don’t like the fact that some of their members and other people who, not paying attention, may type in “.com” instead of “.org” when they want to visit FBCGotK’s site. Of course, when they do that, they end up at my site. And once the land at my site, they don’t get the usual view of John the Magnficent (hereafter referred to as JtM) or any of the other pimps. Instead, they get his words and his actions compared to Scripture.
The lawyers at FBCGotK seem to think I registered that domain name so I could draw FBCGotK people and other seekers to my site. The lawyers say that I used a trademark that is “…confusingly similar to (fbcglenarden.org).” They point out that they view it as a violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999. According to them, I also violate the Federal Trademark Dilution Act.
This is interesting. For years I’ve attempted to engage JtM in a discussion, asking him to counsel my wife to leave First Baptist Church of Glenarden and worship with me. And for years he has ignored me after first refusing to do so. He even went to the extreme of blocking my e-mails since I insisted on sending him stuff asking if he really thought he should invite people like Charles Ellis, the pastor of Greater Grace Tabernacle, a Oneness church out of Detroit, to preach to the congregation.
When I tried to talk to him about his heretical teaching claiming that Jesus suffered in hell for our sins, he dismissed me with the usual “we just interpret it differently, and I have been ministering for 25 years.” And somehow, this “ministering” demonstrates that he is right and I am wrong.
As a result of being rebuffed (or snubbed for the plain folks out there), I decided to address not only his poor treatment of the sheeple but the poor treatment of the sheeple by other pimps and pimpettes. How many former members of first FBCGotK decided to put truth first, leaving FBCGotK even if they had to leave their wives behind? How many families have been destroyed by the insistence on the part of the pimps that people’s money, time, and effort should be focused on the church organization rather than their family? Thus the genesis of Pulpit-Pimps.org.
But notice that even now, JtM isn’t willing to talk to me. He isn’t willing to do the right thing and counsel my wife to leave FBCGotK. Instead of talking to me and doing the right thing, he hires his legal guns to come after me, to sue me (if I refuse to roll over and give up the domain name).
For the sake of the pimp defenders out there, let’s review.
I went to John and confronted him (talked to him) about his doctrine (Jesus suffering in hell, speaking stuff into existence, etc). He didn’t turn from it. I confronted him on the people he brings in to preach to the congregation (Charles Ellis and others). He didn’t turn from it. I confronted him on his decision to refuse to counsel my wife to leave FBCGotK and to join me in worship. He didn’t turn from it. I even confronted him on his basically Armenian requirement that people walk down the aisle in order to “get saved.” He didn’t turn from it.
Now, he apparently JUST noticed (“…our client has discovered that you are the owner of fbcglenarden.com…) that I run a site with the subject domain name.
As an aside, I hope you understand the significance of the statement by the lawyers. Namely, it’s not true. I am very sure they have known since the site first appeared that I am the owner of the domain name. I’ve made it very apparent who runs the site and why. But he’s saying “our client has discovered” as though it just happened. The site has been up for almost four years. We’ll be starting our fifth year in January.
So now, instead of talking to me, in yet another display of uber spirituality, JtM has decided to sue me. More exactly, he has laid the ground work for suing me. But he hasn’t talked to me as one Christian to another. He has simply sicked his lawyers on me. He hasn’t attempted to communicate with me at all, except to send his lawyers out with the threat of knee-capping me.
Samuel Y. Botts, the lawyer handling the case, is likely going to bill FBCGotK for the work he’s doing on this case. And I wouldn’t think Samuel Y. Botts works for cheap. He has some really nice stationery. You have to wonder what would make JtM spend church funds to shut down my domain name. Maybe, just maybe, this piddling little website is starting to have an impact in some minor way. Maybe. Otherwise, I just can’t see why he would pay any attention to us at all; or why he would spend big money on a team of lawyers to attack it.
I thought it was interesting that if JtM had just done the right thing when I left FBCGotK, I would likely have gotten so busy being about the Lord’s work (with a local body) that I would probably have forgotten all about him and the rest of the pimps. But God, being sovereign as He is, apparently hardened JtM’s heart and started a series of events that eventually resulted in Pulpit-Pimps.org.
But back to the point. JtM is preparing to sue me. This, in disobedience to 1 Corinthians 6:1 - 7 which, as I’m sure you who pay attention to such things, says the Christian isn’t supposed to do. But why would you expect any less from a man who tolerates oneness folks preaching from the holy desk, preaches Word of Faith doctrine, a man who has placed himself as the center of the church (check out the new website, the only names you see are “First Baptist Church of Glenarden” and “John K. Jenkins”), a man who has spent more time growing the size of the congregation than he has in growing the spiritual maturity of the congregants?
He has a perfect opportunity to talk to me. But instead of talking to me, he spends money to attempt to shut me up. Instead of submitting to God as directed in Psalms 19:12, 13 and asking God to show him his transgressions, he hides behind lawyers, sending them to attack, to silence those who would question his actions.
Eight years and $55 million later, he hasn’t changed a bit.
His consistency impresses me.
Mr. Jones the internet is proving to be very helpful in getting the truth out. Keep doing what you are doing because your site has really opened my eyes to a lot of information that would have been suppressed.
I agree totally with Ann. I have learned much from this website, though your VOPWM really should consider embedding a print feature into the threads….they get LONG! Anyway, I’m sure that JtM’s issue is that your name and/or the name of this website is being bandied about in that church. I would not be surprised if the ‘elders’ there are being challenged by the sheep because of information garnered from this site. Knowledge is power and once you expose a scam, the word will spread like wildfire. It would seem that you are considered a serious threat and the only thing that they can do to save face is to shut you down.
Since you have not reproduced any of their material I don’t think that they have much of a case. I don’t see where you have infringed upon their Copyright. But then, I’m a computer person
not a lawyer.
In any case, I have former acquaintances who hated Jesus so much that they tried to cause me some grief. I’m sure that they could tell JtM personally that it is not wise to mess with the King’s kids. Not wise at all. JtM really should reconsider this action but wisdom doesn’t seem to be his strong suit.
all of youpeople always talking about somebody isnt doing right what you so called people need to be doing is praying. The guy who started this website is mad at my Pastor because his wife didnt want to leave the church he needs to check his self obviously your not doing what you need to be doing as a man and running your household. I always wondered who this guy was you are a coward
(MN: Interesting. I haven’t heard that accusation in quite a while. Quite a while. Given that I give my name and even the city I live in, given that I have discussed stuff about my children, in what respect, exactly, am I a coward. Back when John Jenkins and I both flew out of Freeway Airport, when I saw him I always spoke to him, even if he wasn’t particularly friendly. And given that I have discussed my circumstances, why have you “always wondered who this guy was…”
I have let people know who I am, what my circumstances are, and what some of my struggles are. How am I a coward?
I would actually think John and company are the cowards since they consistently refuse to talk to me and instead sick their lawyers on me. So tell me again why I am a coward.
You, on the other hand, were too timid to even put your name on your posting. Come back when you’ve grown a pair - and once you’ve located the CAPS and punctuation keys on the keyboard. )
By the way, did I tell you the cops came knocking at my door a couple of months ago? Remind me to relate the sanitized version in the future.
Melvin,
Wow. This is where we are. Rick Warren (a Southern Baptist heretic) has an attack dog who has threatened lawsuits against servers who carry blogs that oppose him. His dog is named Richard Abanes.
On the secular political front, we are seeing the same thing. Did you hear about Joe Biden saying that reporters “don’t have the right to ask just any question they want”? Several election cycles ago, Bill Bradley said that religious ideas have no place in the public forum.
Get ready, Christians. You are going to jail or you are going to deny Christ.
Pick.
Phil Perkins.
Richard Abanes? Hmmm, he’s the one who wrote a lame anti-Harry Potter book in which one of arguments consisted solely of “Harry Potter is evil because the author uses names from Greek mythology for some of her characters.” Seriously.
Same Richard Abanes. And here’s another reason to be leery of Abanes.
But the fact Harry Potter is about a school of witchcraft should concern any Christian. The issues with it are rather apparent!
Mr Abanes is Rick Warren’s Blog Bulldog. He fairly worships the dude.
Richard Abanes has done WORSE than John Jenkins, when it comes to dealing with web sites he dislikes. While Jenkins is after a domain name, Jenkins has not made any legal effort to have a single post on this blog removed. Richard Abanes has made legal threats for actual removal of blog material he disagreed with, which resulted in an entire site being shut down and Abanes NEVER reconciled although he claimed he would if afforded the opportunity. The opportunity for reconciliation came and Abanes went silent! If you care to read a post and 42 comments, you’ll see all the evidence here.
Hello, IC:
Do you where Mr. Abanes takes his physical residence?
Peter.
Well he’s a “lay minister” under Rick Warren and used to be on Rick Warren’s staff as “Creative Arts Director”. So he might still be in the CA area. If not there, he’s somewhere that he can get his continual feeding of bad teaching from Rick.
Hey, IC:
Thanks for the info about Abanes. I had been following the thread that he dominated on phillyflash’s blog awhile back: that dog just won’t give up his bone.
Oh! As you suggested at your site, the President-elect and First Lady-to-be are now on my daily prayer sheet.
I don’t pray for our leaders often enough, so I appreciate your encouragement.
Peter.
Richard Abanes is still a brother in Christ…
Then he should act like one.
Pay no notice to that dude, Mr. Jones. He is a wolf and what happens to wolves???
seems like scare tactics to me…I dont think they have a leg to stand on because you’re not profitting from the domain name..but im not a lawyer so what do i know,lol
Melvin, it amazes me what lengths these deceivers will
go to silence the TRUTH, GOD has a plan and no lawsuit, hackers or pulpit pimp could ever stop the truth, We are praying to keep the truth going, no matter what… Thanks for being the messenger.
Melvin: They’re pitiful, ignorant, stupid and idiotic. The adjectives just listed are protected by the 1st Amendment of the constitution. You can own any domain you like - what they should do is be nice and pay you a tidy sum to sell it to them. I tell you - you’d think those people had something better off to do (like work for the Kingdom, FOR REAL) instead of wasting church funds to fight over a website. The members should get a clue and sue him for to get their donations back because of breach of contract…
Pray on, my brotha’! - WO
Melvin,
You seem to fail to see that your use of deceptive tactics to bring about good is not what God would want either. Does God need evil to do good? Certainly not! To use the same domain name with the exception of the .com in order to trick people into coming to your site is decieving
(MN: While I disagree with you [I'm not deceiving anyone], why should I worry about it? According to your theology, I’m going to get into heaven anyway. So it really doesn’t matter if I use deceptive paractices [which I don't think I do] or not. )
I totally agree with you concerning how Rev. Jenkins handled this matter. The rules of the savior concerning reconciliation in MAtthew 14 require that he come to you first, and the idea of believers suing one another is definetly off limits. I guess the bible was not considered.
(MN: And that is one of the reasons I’m putting this out here. I want to make sure everyone can see his behavior and his disregard for Scripture as a guide in his life. If he is a man of God rather than a Mand of Gawd, he would in fact submit to the authority of Scripture. His behavior, his actions, make it very aparent that he is not submitted.
The center of his “ministry”, the result of the 25 years, is a $55 million monument to him filled with spiritually empty people. I don’t know who to feel sorrier for - him when he faces Jesus Christ, or the sheep as they muddle their way blindly through this life. )
Melvin, this is in no way personal, and I hope it’s not taken that way. But, it seems to me that the FBCGLENARDEN.COM domain serves no other purpose than to indeed deceptively lure First Baptist Church of Glenarden parishners to your Pulpit Pimps site for propaganda purposes.
(MN: I don’t lure anyone to the site. Spam lures people to sites. )
This kind of practice is used frequently and quite effectively by pornographers and is beneath someone who names the name of Jesus.
Since you are no longer a member there, you should not use any form of their church name without their permission. That would be the case even if you were a member there–I’m sure.
On a legal basis, it appears that FBC’s case against you may have merit; morally and Biblically, though, we all know that bretheren are not to sue one another in the world’s court system.
However, your incessant railing against and the obvious contempt you hold toward those you deem heretics, arminians, and pulpit pimps, leads one to believe that you in no way shape or form consider them bretheren. In which case, why would you be so surprised that a lawsuit is threatened against you by a man of such “base nature??”
(MN: Who said I’m surprised by the action? My only “surprise” is the apparent fact that they notice me and are taking steps to impair the actions of the site. I would expect no less from such as them. )
One more thing. Why should it be encumbent upon the pastor of FBC to councel your wife, someone entrusted to his care, to leave just because you left? Have you ever considered that just as you consider his teachings erroneous and heretical, he may consider the doctrine you have espoused just as erroneous and heretical? As a shepherd, he would then be considered a hireling if he passively surrendered one under his watch to someone he considered a wolf even though he was her husband.
(MN: Why should he counsel her that way? Because that is what he continuously preached from the pulpit. Several of the worthless deacons said exactly that but refused to call him to account. A couple even lied to my face and said “I didn’t know you would rather have your wife with you.”
When I asked him if he thought she should leave he said “yes, that is what I preach”. When I asked him if he would counsel her that way he said “No, I will not.”) However, when he, the pastor of the church I was attending, and I met one evening, after lying and saying “I didn’t know you wanted to have your wife with you,” he then continued and said “I will counsel her to leave if you apologize for telling people why you left.”
Notice the condition for agreeing to counsel her. It had nothing to do with doctrine. In fact, as the other pastor continued to attempt to address the issue from Scripture, John stated he would break the discussion off if we kept trying to take him to scripture.
He doesn’t consider the teachings of the church I was a part of heretical. He doesn’t consider the doctrines I espouse to be heretical. His refusal to counsel her, by his own words, was not based on his pastoral concerns. They were, and are, apparently, based on his pride [How dare you tell people why you disagree with what I teach! If you're going to leave, you should slink out of here quietly.] I had no intention of passing quietly into the night, failing to warn others about the dangers I saw there. If it was critical enough for me to leave, then it was critical enough to warn those I was responsible for in the Bible Institute. What they did with it was and is up to them. )
Would you feel the same way about a pastor of a mainstream church who refused to counsel a wife to leave with a disgruntled husband who had already left and joined Jim Jones en-route to Guyana. Perhaps, but I don’t think so.
(MN: Apples and oranges. I have already addressed this in the previous MN )
In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas
Aubrey-
Melvin is right you are comparing apples to oranges. The pastor I’m sure is aware of what church Melvin is attending and knows it is not a “Jim Jones” situation.
My purpose to responding to your comment is to present some points you may have missed on marriage.
1. First, a wife’s first submission is to God. God has command that she submit to Him by submitting to her husband. “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Ephesians 5:22-24
When we submit to our husbands we are demostrating the submission that Christ had to the Father.
2. Scripture does not state that a pastor has any role in causing spiritual separation between a husband and wife. In fact, IF a wife feels her husband is moving away from God, the Word says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.” I Peter 3:1-2.
I have experienced this personally. When my husband was moving away from his walk with the Lord. I continued to submit to him and I spoke honestly, but with gentliness. I did not speak poorly of him. It was not easy and I wanted to quit, but it was the Word and the purpose of God for me to continue in submission. It was my behavior that the Lord used to bring my husband back to HIM and eventually to me.
3. We are not to take on the popular thinking of womanhood and marriage. We are not to be conformed to this world. “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Romans 12:2
I would encourage you and other women here to take a look at these two web-sites and learn more about being a Bibical woman and wife. http://www.truewoman.com/
http://www.reviveourhearts.com/
God Bless.
Cheryl! You are the first woman other than myself, that I’ve encountered who even knows about Nancy and that conference! Hey Radical Woman, how you doing!! *waving*
Did you get to go to the True woman 08 conference? I am just sick that I didn’t go but I was able to join the challenge and download the sessions. Did you know about the ‘Five Habts of Highly Effective Woman’ conference? What…a…blessing!
Here’s the link.
Wow. Well alrighty then! ‘cuse me, Melvin. hehehe
Hi Walksbyf8th-
I’m so glad that there are women out there desiring to teach the Word on the Bibical role of women. I was not able to go to the confernece due to travel cost (I live in Florida). So, I’m doing what you are doing and feasting on the teaching thru the web-sites.
Let’s visit one another on our blogs and talk more. God bless you with a weekend filled with peace, love, and joy.
Everyone else do not forget to move the clocks ahead Saturday or you will be late for church Sunday.
Oops. I made a mistake on the time change. It is “fall” back an hour, so if you forget you will be early to church. I think my brain is showing my age
Hello, walksbyf8h:
Are you a pastoress, by chance?
Thank you,
Peter
Cheryl
Thank you for you comment, and I agree with you. You’re preaching to choir, sister.
My analogy may be comparing apples and oranges and may not be applicable in Melvin’s case, but that doesn’t nagate the validity of my point.
(MN: But your point was being made in the context of your initial point - something about John not being obligated to advise a wife to leave with her husband. But as usual, you now start muddying the water rather than staying focused on the initial discussion. )
In such circumstances, should a wife follow her husband? Would you follow your husband to Guyana to drink koolaid? (MN: No one was suggesting anything like this. My statement didn’t deal with anything like this. Your response didn’t begin with anything like this. There is no reason for us to even discuss anything like this. But is is the usual tack you take in most of the discussions. ) Would you join the Kingdom Hall because your husband did? Would you stay with a husband who physically abused you or sexually abused your children? if so, banish the thought!
Christians are commanded to obey civil authorities, but when laws are enacted that conflict with our keeping the laws of God, we must keep the laws of God even if we lose our lives. (It may come to that very soon) Similarly, I think wives are to submit to their husband’s lead whether he is saved or unsaved as you have pointed out, but no wife should follow her husband into sin or apostasy. (MN: And interestingly enough, no one said they should. ) Ananias and Sapphira is a good case and point, Acts 5:1-10.
In Christ,
Brother Aubrey Thomas
Aubrey - I think your position is extremely near-sighted. Your comments suggest a low view of the Word of God as it mandates, without apology, the supremacy of covenant relationships - those between man and wife, in particular:
A true pastor would strongly encourage a wife to submit to scripture. Per scripture, the head of a wife is her husband, the head of the husband is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God the Father - 1 Corinthians 11:2-4. In effect, JtM is sanctioning rebellion within a covenant relationship over which, he has absolutely no authority. I find it quite interesting that Satan did this very thing in the garden - foment rebellion.
A husband and wife are in covenant with one another which supersedes any church relationships as well as those with one’s children. It is not to be broken, diminished, or interfered with. JtM is negatively impacting a covenant relationship that is second only to the one a person has with God Himself and if JtM was such a righteous pastor, he would care about the health of his flock instead of potentially causing dissension in their homes. That is why it is incumbent upon him - because a pastor is an under-shepherd of Jesus Christ. If you cannot imagine Jesus Christ having the same position as this ‘pastor’, then JtM is out of line behaving in this fashion.
Per scripture, the husband, not the pastor, is responsible for her spiritual health:
Ephesians 5:25-27 and 1 Corinthians 14:35. That unbiblical position that you’re espousing is called feminism. Feminism in marriage or church hierarchy, by its very nature, is unbiblical because it is rebellious. You must repent of this mindset. It is and has been Satan’s best tool for the destruction of the family in the West for at least 30 years. Destroy the family and you’ve effectively destroyed the culture.
By the way, I am a Daughter of God.
Walksbyf8h: “Aubrey - I think your position is extremely near-sighted. Your comments suggest a low view of the Word of God as it mandates, without apology, the supremacy of covenant relationships - those between man and wife, in particular:”
AT: Maam, I never made one scriptural argument in my comment you posted or in the entirety of my comment. In fact, I never used any scriptures at all. Also, I offered no exegesis of scriptures or Biblical themes. Therefore, I am absolutely flabbergasted at how you deduced from my comment that I have a “low view of the Word of God,” that I am “espousing feminism” and need to “repent.”
Melvin’s response to my post disabused me of my analogy vis-a-vis his wife and her pastor; so, the analogy is not applicable and therefore moot.
You, however, maam–given the claptrap you offered–would leave a church that both you and your husband had been actively a part of for years and blindly follow him into some false religion or worse, to Jonestown Guyana because you think the Bible mandates the “supemacy of covenant relationships??” If that is the case, then you need to be examined by a shrink right now.
(MN: Aubrey, let me try again. NO ONE IN THE DISCUSSION IS SAYING A WIFE SHOULD FOLLOW HER HUSBAND TO GUYANA. Here, let me try again - NO ONE IS SAYING A WIFE SHOULD FOLLOW HER HUSBAND TO GUYANNA. That really isn’t the issue here. Please stop wasting our time arguing against something no one is saying. )
Walksbyf8h: “A true pastor would strongly encourage a wife to submit to scripture.”
AT: No argument here. A true pastor would encourage all to submit to scripture. In addition, a wise pastor would stay out of business not his (Proverbs 26:17). Not even our Lord would involve Himself in certain personal family issues (Luke 12:13,14).
Walksbyf8h: “In effect, JtM is sanctioning rebellion within a covenant relationship over which, he has absolutely no authority.”
AT: Since he has absolutely no authority in the marriage, is he sanctioning rebellion by not getting involved??
(MN: No. As the woman’s pastor, he is standing by while she willfully sins by rebelling against her husband. )
Walksbyf8h: “JtM is negatively impacting a covenant relationship that is second only to the one a person has with God Himself and if JtM was such a righteous pastor, he would care about the health of his flock instead of potentially causing dissension in their homes.”
AT: Perhaps you are privy to information that I am not. How is the pastor of FBC negatively impacting a marriage relationship and potentially causing dessension? If what Melvin said is true, the pastor is certainly guilty of preaching and saying one thing and then doing something totally different, but it’s a huge stretch to say that he negatively impacted the marriage relationship because he refused to counsel Mrs Jones to leave. The fact that Mrs. Jones chose to stay suggests some latent marital issues that were there before Melvin left and still exist now. I don’t think you can blame the pastor of FBC or any other pastor because a wife refuses to follow her husbands lead.
Btw, I was wonderfully saved in 1974, married in 1975 to the same beautiful woman until she went home to be with the Lord in 2004. She was the epitome of a Godly submissive woman. Feminism was the antithesis of the values we espoused as Christians and shared in our marriage. So, for you to label me a feminist based on a couple of paragraphs I wrote is really laughable.
In Christ,
Brother Aubrey Thomas
I am not surprised that you are flabbergasted. However, be that as it may, the fact that you take the position that a pastor is to stand by while one of his flock willfully sins, is evidence itself of your view of scripture and its authority in a Christian’s life. Willful sin is always addressed when a man is actually a pastor and not a pimp.
If you have some scripture to support your comments or position, I’ll be happy to counter with scripture. Seeing as how you do not have any scripture, and your entire post was one of an opinion, not a measuring of the situation against the Word of God, I will wait while you go get your bible and present the scripture in any of those that I presented that have the words, ‘if’, ‘except’, or ‘but’. I’ll go one better, Aubrey. Please present any scripture where God allows disobedience based on the behavior of another. I am unaware of any scripture regarding this matter that provides an ‘out’ for not doing as instructed in scripture. So, again, unless you can present the scripture that meets the stated criteria (which you cannot), then it is you who should worry about “the claptrap you offered”. Further, shrinks are anti-biblical and trained by atheists. Please excuse my reliance upon the Word of God but the last that I read, it was ‘God-breathed’, and good for correcting all sorts of behavior such as yours which is why you’re miffed. I merely answered your question which follows as originally stated:
That you do not like the answer, is not to be considered.
Unfortunately, you are using Luke 12:13, 14 out of context. Jesus was being asked speak to a litigious matter; not one regarding a sin issue - rebellion. Jewish culture stated that the firstborn son received 2/3 of the inheritance. The man should not have expected Jesus to rule on a cultural law. This is an example of how studying ancient Jewish culture will assist you in rightly dividing the Word of God.
John 8:10-12 is a better fit. Jesus would explain to a wife that she is to submit to the authority of her husband barring marital infidelity or physical abuse. And if He knew her to be rebelling, she would be told ‘go and sin no more’.
As I stated in my original post to you. The duty of a pastor is to uphold, exalt, and protect covenant relationships - particularly those upon which society stands. Why this view is hard for you to understand is quite perplexing. This is called having a ‘biblical worldview’. Everything filtered through scripture - not just those things that make us feel good or are easy for us to do. Yes, even the hard things.
Aubrey, I’ve answered you. That JtM refused to exercise the office and responsibility of under-shepherd (aka PASTOR) of Jesus Christ, he is negatively impacting the covenant relationship by knowing about and supporting a wife’s rebellion. Every heard of ‘alienation of affections’? Though not quite that; as this is not an instance of sexual impropriety, it could be argued that he is causing dissension within the home and someone could bring suit and most likely win. But that’s the secular. Let’s go back to the Word of God. What type of man is a pastor to be?
Titus 1:7-9
For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
With regard to this discussion, JtM fails to meet the criteria set forth by the Word in:
1. arrogance
2. greedy for gain
3. cannot/does not provide instruction in sound doctrine
4. does not rebuke those who rebel or stand in contradiction of sound doctrine, but condones it.
That you do not see your comments to Melvin for what they are - the support of rebellion of a wife against her husband (aka feminism) should concern you, Aubrey. That is doesn’t does not surprise me one bit. The questions that you’ve presented to Melvin reveal a serious lack of steady bible reading and study - add to that the lack of a biblical worldview and it is apparent, to me at least, that it would do all Christian women everywhere for you to stay off the ‘market’. I cannot see how you would be able to fulfill the stated duties of a husband, per scripture, when the basics of Christian doctrine are blatantly ignored and ridiculed by you.
Lastly, I noticed that you repeated yourself a few times. None of your comments mitigate my original assessment of your condition. If you’ve nothing new to say or cannot back your position with scripture (in context) then I have no further comment to you regarding this conversation.
~ WalksByF8h
Melvin, the only issue that you had with my analogy was that it “compared apples and oranges.” As far as I was concerned, that was the end of the discussion. Walksbyf8h, on the other hand, took umbrage with my analogy and then proceeded to excoriate me, citing the “SUPREMACY of covenant relationships,” particularly marriage. She certainly implyed that the “supremacy” of the marriage covenant trumps cases where the husband goes off into erroneous and heretical teaching even though she didn’t say it directly.
(MN: Aubrey, she said no such thing. I even shouted at you that she said no such thing. As the fellow in “Shawshank Redemption” said, are you purposely being so obtuse? No one is saying the wife should follow the husband into active participation in heresy. No one. And what Cheryl is saying is exactly what Peter said, let your behavior win him over when he disobedient to Scripture. That doesn’t mean if he becomes a part of a JW organization then she should. No one is saying that. )
And Cheryl, by her own admission continued to submit to her husband even when he “moved away from his walk with the Lord.” I hasten to add that she should have. Thankfully, in her case, she was able to set an example of a Godly woman and got him back on course. How far, though, would he have to move away before she drew the line? Your glib response in no way obviates the point of when does a Godly wife NOT submit to a wayward husband?
We all can agree that no Godly wife should follow her husand into erroneous, heretical teachings or false religions or the other extreme case that I cited.
Having said that, from what I’ve gleaned from you, Pastor Jenkins, accepts pentecostalism, i.e. speaking in tongues, gifts of the spirit, etc. as being Biblical and relevant for our day. You do not. I’m not sure that you even accept pentecostals as brothers in Christ? He has no problem inviting ministers to his church who beleive and practice the same. (MN: He also has no problem bringing in men who deny the Trinity, preach that Jesus suffered in hell for our sins and other serious errors. These issues are the ones that caused me to leave. But I have to admit it is fun to watch as you begin your circling and wandering from the actual issue at hand. ) You are adamantly opposed to that.
(MN: Okay - before you start running down that path and repeating it as if it is the crux of the issue - I DID NOT LEAVE FIRST BAPTIST BECAUSE THEY ARE INTO THE CHARISMATIC/PENTECOSTAL SILLINESS. I LEFT BECAUSE JOHN BEGAN PREACHING ANOTHER GOSPEL AND BROUGHT IN PEOPLE WHO PREACH ANOTHER GOSPEL.
The issue was not pentecostalism. It was the truth of the Gospel and his failure to present it. )
According to you, he believes that Jesus suffered in hell. You do not. I’m not sure where Pastor Jenkins stands on Calvinism and TULIP. You embrace wholeheartedly this teaching. Unfortunately your wife is caught in the middle of these opposing views coupled with the acrimony between you and Jenkins–not a good look, brother. Does she share your same view on pentecostalism, calvinism and other views you’ve expressed here? That might explain why she chose to stay. In any event, Jenkins standing by while your wife rebells is not the problem. The root of the issue is why your wife rebelled in the first place.
(MN: Rather than going over all this again, take a look at the multitude of comments that have preceded yours. You are not covering anything particularly new or, despite your apparent opinion, particularly significant. )
In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas
Okay Melvin, before the dreaded gavel comes down on me as it invariably does, I thought I’d get this last comment in. I’m sure I’m obtuse at times, sir, but not in this case.
I would like to bring to your attention what I said in my comment juxtaposed with your response:
AT: “She certainly IMPLIED that the “supremacy” of the marriage covenant trumps cases where the husband goes off into erroneous and heretical teaching even though SHE DIDN’T SAY IT DIRECTLY.”
MN: “Aubrey, she said no such thing. I even shouted at you that she said no such thing.”
Now, what’s wrong with this picture? You tell me. Please! Whose being purposely obtuse and muddying up the waters??
In case you didn’t read Walksbyf8h’s latest diatribe, she again strongly implied that even in those extreme cases I mentioned, a woman is mandated to submit to her husband. Here is her response to my Guyana comment:
“If you have some scripture to support your comments or position, I’ll be happy to counter with scripture. Seeing as how you do not have any scripture, and your entire post was one of an opinion, not a measuring of the situation against the Word of God, I will wait while you go get your bible and present the scripture in any of those that I presented that have the words, ‘if’, ‘except’, or ‘but’. I’ll go one better, Aubrey. Please present any scripture where God allows disobedience based on the behavior of another. I am unaware of any scripture regarding this matter that provides an ‘out’ for not doing as instructed in scripture.”
Melvin, Ray Charles can see that she’s avocating standing by your man no matter what! If she isn’t she can say it herself. She doesn’t need you to explain her position.
finally, given the contentious nature of this discussion, it is understandable why you find my comments insignificant, but Lafe gave some very wise advice from what seemed to me a heart of brotherly love. You would do well to take heed.
In Christ,
Aubrey
(MN: Rather than spinning around a strawman, let just ask her. WBF, were you saying, implying, hinting, suggesting that if a man goes off into heresy (Jonestown, JW, Mormons, the Melvinite Temple of Wonder Happenings and Events, etc) that you should follow him in that? Or were you instead saying that if a husband goes off into heresy, he is still your husband, you are to respect him as your husband and, with respect to those actions that relate to him as your husband you are to respect him? If he has a budget, you are to follow it, etc., etc., etc? Did you not say that the only thing greater than the husband-wife relationship is the Lord-Disciple relationship? And wouldn’t that L-D relationship prohibit you from becoming a part of a heretical activity, but still require you to respect and love your husband?
Or am I putting words in your mouth? )
That is exactly what I mean; could not have said it better. In this case, the husband is calling the wife out of a heretical institution. So Aubrey’s example doesn’t work because the one with the authority is in the right and the one subject to the authority is rebelling not only against her husband but the Word, also. In no way can my comments be construed to say or infer that a woman is sanctioned by scripture to disobey the Lord by going off into a heretical organization.
I said:
As a Christian, a woman’s responsibility to obey the GOD ordained authority place over her is the same as that placed over Christians under unfair and/or ungodly government. In both instances, they are required to obey the authority (husband/government) until said authority mandates that they sin against the Higher Authority - God Himself. At that point and that point only, are they required to rebel.
So, a Christian woman would be within her “rights” as a Daughter of God to refuse to:
* attend/join any heretical church, cult, organization
* sin against God in any manner (lying, swapping, etc.)
* obey ungodly mandates of earthly government.
None of the above allow for her to disrespect her husband or to disobey him in other matters. The point that I believe is being overlooked is that Christians have very little leeway to refuse to obey whatever authority that God has Sovereignly placed over them. So, I’ll reiterate once more.
IF a Christian woman is married to a sexually unfaithful man, she is allowed to divorce him. That is not the case here. If she is being beaten or forced to attend cult/heretical services, her orders, from the Commander in Chief are:
1. Pray
2. If you can’t live with him, move out but you’re still married (1Corinthians 7:10-11).
3. Wait on God.
Those are her only three options.
Aubrey,
It is not my intent to sow discord on this forum. However, in my Oct 30th post I did not say anything derogatory to you. I spoke specifically to your comments and addressed them using scripture. I’ve seen the men on this board respond to your posts using scripture and a matter-of-fact writing style, but never have I seen you speak to them as you did to me. Words like claptrap, diatribe, etc., are highly suspect. They infer gender bias. If a reasoned, scriptural, point-by-point response is offensive to you, I would fully expect to see you tell one of the men on this forum about the “claptrap” they offer. In short, your response reveals anger that a woman spoke as I did. Let us go to scripture:
There was no need for such intense offense to what I said. That a woman said it should be of absolutely no import because I am not your wife. Women are not to submit to Men - wives submit to husbands.
Since you are the person who brought up how long you’ve attended church it should concern you, Aubrey, that when the discussion is not going the way that you’d like, you toss insults or divert the conversation that to a point that was never there. It should concern you that your post had no scriptural support but only what you thought. It should concern you that an “9-year-old” female, as you would have it, is rebuking this behavior in a 30+ year Christian, using the Word of God. And, it should greatly concern you that you became angry.
The essential Truth is this: GOD does not care one whit what you or I thinks. He expects us to obey his Word. How we feel about it is taken to the Throne of Grace and He comforts us. You are literally arguing with the Word of God. He says that He ‘has exalted above all things His Name and His Word‘ (Psalm 138:2b). The Kingdom of God is not a democracy or republic. We do not get a vote, no one’s going to tell us to ‘have it your way’. No. For the Christian, this life with its trials is the training ground for Heaven and if you cannot submit to scripture on earth, you have no portion in Heaven.
If this a hard thing for you to read then it should cause intense reflection and you should be afraid for your soul. But know this - I fully intend, female or no, to contend for the Word of God, the Name of Christ, and the saints until my time on Earth is done.
~ WalksByF8h
Walksbyf8th, I was not going to post again on this topic, but I think your comment begs a response.
WBF: “So, a Christian woman would be within her “rights” as a Daughter of God to refuse to:
* attend/join any heretical church, cult, organization
* sin against God in any manner (lying, swapping, etc.)
* obey ungodly mandates of earthly government.”
I said basically the same thing in my comment, Wbf. If you agreed with me why did you rake me over the coals? Further, if my scenario didn’t apply to Mrs. Jones, a simple “you’re comparing apples to oranges” would have sufficed. We really could have avoided this whole brouhaha.
(MN: I am beginning to doubt your sincerity, or your intelligence. You just spent the last several postings accusing WBF of saying a wife should follow her husband into heresy. Again, you just spent the last several postings accusing WBF of saying that the wife should follow her husband into heresy.
She “raked you over the coals” not because you agree with her, but because you kept trying to make her say something she wasn’t saying, and because of your response to her use of Scripture. Are you really as obtuse as you appear to be here or is it just a screen persona you are cultivating? )
My use of the words, claptrap and diatribe had absolutely nothing to do with your gender. In fact, I was going to use the word drivel, but Garyv owns the copyright to that word.
Finally, my words may have been a bit acerbic, for which I truly apologize and ask your forgiveness.
In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas
(MN: You can try all you want. Your below comment has convinced me that you are in fact obtuse. A pity really. )
Melvin, let me try once more; Walksbyf8h posted an exerpt from my initial comment to YOU, “Comment by walksbyf8h
2008-10-30 14:35:23.”
She took issue with my statement that Jenkins’ reason for not conceling your wife may be because he consider you to be in erroneous or heretical teaching. Neither you or Cheryl had a problem with the analogy except to say that it didn’t fit in your situation. Walksbyf8h proceeded to rake me over the coals BEFORE I HAD SAID ONE WORD TO HER–ZERO, ZIP, NADA.
In a subsequent post, she continues on the same path: Comment by walksbyf8h
2008-11-01 00:42:45
“… I will wait while you go get your bible and present the scripture in any of those that I presented that have the words, ‘if’, ‘except’, or ‘but’. I’ll go one better, Aubrey. Please present any scripture where God allows disobedience based on the behavior of another…”
If you can’t see in the aforementioned comments that she’s taking the opposing view–a women should submit, no “if,” “except,” or “but.” Then you’ve got some serious problems, brother. You’re either cracking from the pressure of a disobedient wife, the threat of a lawsuit, the daily grind of processing comments and being the malevolent dictator here (I’m sorry I meant benevolent) or worse, Melvin is locked up in the basement and someone else is answering the door.
Being as intellectually sharp as you are, perhaps you can shed some light on why she antagonistically opposed my comment to YOU in the first place.
It was only after I pointed out your dishonesty in mischaracterizing what I said that you told WBF what she really meant. “Comment by Aubrey Thomas
2008-11-01 22:29:22.”
Finally,
MN: “She “raked you over the coals” not because you agree with her, but because you kept trying to make her say something she wasn’t saying, and because of your response to her use of Scripture…”
AT: Again, SHE RAKED ME OVER THE COALS BEFORE I HAD SAID ONE WORD TO HER–ZERO, ZIP, NADA.
I am floored that you would sow this discord when I was attempting be conciliatory to WBF. It speaks volumes about your true character. No commentary at all was needed from you. You really need help.
In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas
Hello, Melvin:
Not only “obtuse,” but abstruse.
It is a pity, because Mr. Thomas does have a mind. But for Christ? Not so sure.
Peter.
Aubrey………you’re wrong. Why is that so hard to grasp?? Everyone sees it except you. It’s not enough to try to make the Bible say what it doesn’t, now you insist that folks who TELL you point blank you’re wrong about their own posts don’t know what they actually meant in their own writings.
And the fact that an entire MB read the SAME thing as you, yet NO ONE ELSE managed to contrive your cockamamie interpretation matters not a whit to you.
Eisegetics…….it’s apparently not just for Scripture anymore.
I thought Aubrey was a woman. Now I see why he may think the way he thinks, seeing as how he’s looking at this position from the standpoint of a man.
Now Aubrey, before you get on your soapbox, and try to rain down on me your logical appeal, I’m not making any judgments, or let me put it this way-I HAVEN’T COME DOWN ON EITHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION. I’m just making an observation.
Men at times, especially certain black men raised in, or acculturated in a contemporary matriarchal environment within the black community, can at times, be overly sympathetic to women’s issues-whether they are overly zealous, or not-more so than many women.
In other words, a woman may say that another woman is a promiscuous harlot, whereas an “enlightened” black man, full of male guilt; as well as a latent chivalrous nature, may say that the promiscuous harlot is a misunderstood “queen”, who’s still someone’s mother, daughter, sister, etc.
Of course it’s not that simple at all times, but if you’re a black man, it does explain a lot; at least to me.
In other words, it explains a lot, but not everything…
Okay, you and walksbyf8h can have at it.
WOW! What a weekend all of you had :). Sorry I do not touch the computer on the weekends. There is so much to get done at the house and church.
I will just make one point for clarification, as Melvin and Walksbyf8h commented I do not condone a woman following her husband into sin. For example, when my husband first left the marriage I did not begin to live like I was single. I still lived as if I was married. When my husband decided 9 months later to commit a crime, I did not drive the get-away car. What I did during his time of rebellion was prayed scripture over my husband, spoke to him gently and honestly, studyed the Word, and worked on my relationship with God. BUT I stayed married. Him breaking his vow to God on marriage did not give me the right to break mine. Especially, when I knew God called me to take this path.
You said, “I was wonderfully saved in 1974, married in 1975 to the same beautiful woman until she went home to be with the Lord in 2004. She was the epitome of a Godly submissive woman.” I’m so gald you had that wonderful relationship with your wife. I just would like all Christain marriages to experience that type of relationship.
I will end my comments on this thread because of these scriptures I have been studying and teaching (a women’s Bible study group) this week. “Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. ” 2 Timothy 2:14-16
God Bless Christain marriages.
Great advice, Cheryl! Thank you.
Hey guess who is back??? Well it’s about time they did something about it!! LOL!!! So what Pastor Jenkins “didn’t turn” from what you wanted him to. One thing you must understand Mellie Mel is that everyone does percieve the word different ways, anyone could argue that duh!!! Hey but I am not trying to change the way you think or look at things Mel not at all. Just stopping by since I haven’t been here in a while! God help Mel and Pastor J it looks like they both need help!!! Amen!
JKJ…………shameless. Just shameless. Don’t confront your antiBiblical doings. ADD to them by suing a Christian in yet ANOTHER middle finger in the face of God.
Melvin,
That’s proof positive that they are nothing but peddlers, who don’t care about sharing the gospel out of sincerity, 2 Corinthians 2:17. (Yea we know he teaches another gospel and not the actual gospel, but moving on…)
And you are very right in what you mentioned about them trampling scripture in their legal threats towards you.
However Melvin, you’ve got some scripture to also consider:
Luke 12:58 ESV
We could talk at length about how Jenkins needs to conduct himself, but you have been presented with an opportunity to show godliness.
Here’s the way I see it from my “I’m not a lawyer” perspective, but have been running various web sites for many years.
1) In court, Jenkins probably will win. You do have a domain name that is similar to his own in fbcglenarden.org and you set it up with him in mind. With the expressed desire to divert people who are actually looking for his web site to your own. (Everything you’ve even said in this post more so solidifies a court victory for Jenkins and his lawyers will likely have every comment you make regarding this as part of the court filing.) If you were running a business with a similar name by chance, you’d probably have a fighting chance in court. I mean like if you ran a business called First Bank Corp of Glenarden. But I think based on what I’ve seen in domain name disputes, that Team Jenkin’s has you over a legal barrel on this one and in court will wallop you. And even if you had a business with a similar name, you’d still have an uphill battle. The wrestling entertainment group WWE had to change their name from WWF because of legal disputes made by the World Wildlife Fund. And seriously Melvin, I’ve seen many domain holders lose these battles in court, when they have a similarly named domain name with the expressed intent of diverting eyes that were intending to see another web site. The only people who usually win these battles, are people who had their domain name BEFORE the offended party had a domain of a similar name AND never intended to use it in reference to the offended party.
2) You lose nothing by dumping the domain name “fbcglenarden.com” that is in dispute. You’re not cowering into removing any posts and your site is well established under the pulpit-pimps.org domain name.
Scripture affirms, that given you are being threatened with a trip to the judge, that you do all that is within your sphere of influence, to settle this out of court.
I think you should dump the disputed domain name, fbcglenarden.org.
I’d never say you should remove any posts about Jenkins or any other material that exposes him for the false teaching viper that he is, but the basis for this dispute is petty. Let the domain name go and live with the peace that the Lord called you to Himself.
Love the site and everything that you are doing on it, Melvin. I do have to agree though that there is nothing big about asking you leave the FBC Glenarden name behind. Like I.C. said, do not cower before him and remove the posts, but I would say lose the name…this is not a theological dispute, so I would say let it be.
Perhaps it’s just me, but in all realness there’re some things regarding the resistance to take down the domain name that seem a bit inconsistent with previous events..
In example, there was already previous times when the issue of sock puppetry came up as a significant issue due to feeling as if people were not coming at another straigt among other issues (such as misdirection/forcing things to happen, etc–as seen here & here, with the latter showing near the bottom of the screen when the issue came up again due to suspicions that another was attempting to do so as numerous others have done so throughout the years, even if done with good intentions ).
However, in this scenario that has been occuring for far longer apparently than those situations, people came to another domain looking for somethign and then were led to PP.org….and though perhaps they may’ve come to see many good things here, the fact remains that they would’ve never come had there not been the impression that the domain was a legitmate one. Essentially, to others this can seem like a matter of “the ends justify the means”—-as it can easily appear as “deciet” and using craftiness in the name of eventually exposing people to the truth, Proverbs 12:2…and to others, that can appear a matter of having a false witness ( Proverbs 14:25 )
Moreover, as the issue’s out there now, what’s the need in defending it—unless keeping the false domain will serve as a means to get more people from John’s church or others considering attending to to go there and then wind up here where they can be taught. To me, that seems akin to what happened in the OT where King Jehu got the priests of Baal taken out by acting as if he was one and making a sacrifice after inviting them all there to worship===only to have them slaughtered afterward, 2 Kings 10:1, II Kings 10:18-35. It’s the entire issue of “TROJAN HORSE” ministry (as well as akin to Front Companies somewhat), for one gave people searching the appearance of being what they needed in order to take them into things that’d undermine the organization you’re with—and one could possibly extend the thought to say that seems dangerously close to being a way of creating factions/divisions within another body ( 2 Corinthians 12:19-21 & Galatians 5:19-21 ). From another perspective, this seems akin to methods other ministrie use…..as I’m reminded of one ministry that’d go into porn conventions with shirts labeled “Hottie”, using the attraction of guys/awareness that they’ll look inappropiately in order to lure them them in..and when they ask “What’re ya’ll about?” and expecting to see one thing, they get the Gospel preached to them.
Proverbs 16:13
I cannot see Paul in the NT utilizing an approach to witness/”expose error”, as he spoke with sincerity and not craftiness ( 2 Corinthians 2:16-17 & 2 Corinthians 2 )….& IMHO, it’d be foolish to keep the domain name—and I agree with IC that you’ll probably lose this one if taken to court. And even if one wins, the appearances regarding one’s witness may be damaged. And that’d be something worth avoiding:
This is too funny! Your wife still hasn’t left after all of this? Melvin, I don’t think your wife is ever going to leave. Lose the address and come up with something else. What are you saying to her?
(MN: Too Funny, I’m not trying to get my wife to leave. I did that the first year. Did more damage than good. My actions to convince her to leave took her eyes off of Christ and enabled her to use me and my perceived bad behavior as an argument to refuse to follow me. I’m not even trying to get Pimp Jenkins to counsel her to leave.
She may never leave. It would certainly be a sad thing. But God is sovereign and He moves on people’s hearts as He sees fit. (Ezra 1:1 - 6) John would have one more bit of disobedience to answer for even as my wife will. I, of course, will have to explain the behavior on my part that made her willing to stay there to begin with.
I don’t take it as lightly as you seem to though. I think it is too sad, not too funny. But you likely have an incredibly low view of God, holiness and obedience to begin with. It’s a cinch you don’t have too much in the way of thoughtfulness based on the last couple of comments. )
Hey Melvin,
I agree with IC. You should dump the disputed domain name and move on. It is not worth the time and $$$ it will cost to hold on to something that at best will only bring a symbolic victory.
The real victory is here @ PulpitPimps.ORG where the wolves are outed and the lies exposed.
I am praying for you in this matter!
God Bless!
And Melvin, here are some related web sites for you to review. Keep in mind, Jenkins is coming at you as a sort of corporate entity, that is claiming it has been infringed upon.
(MN: My thought exactly. I will be addressing that approach in the next couple of posts. The man is showing that he sees FBCGotK as a business, not a ministry. Thanks for the links. I’ve already been chasing down several laws. )
Domain Name Disputes
Is Your Domain Name A Trademark Infringement?
Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Domain Names and Trademarks
Avoid Trademark Infringement When You Choose a Domain Name
Man bro Melvin, this is interesting. Does he think that the threat of a lawsuit will silence truth of God’s Word? I pray you stand strong through this my brother. What does your wife think of all this now? Is she convinced yet that she should leave the FBCG? Keep standing on the Word of God.
Karsten Miller
(MN: Keep in mind at this point he just wants me to abandon fbcglenarden.com, not shut the site down. )
Seems to me like there’s a crack in the armor.
As usual, the pimps dont follow the Bibles instructions such as 1 Corinthians 6:1 - 7 that you mentioned.
I dont think anybody will call you or talk to you from the church at all.
“our client has discovered” PLEASE, enough sheeple visit here with they’re lack of scripture and reasoning, that I am sure they have known about it for some time.
Let me stop, I feel a rant coming on.
A suggestion: Since JtM has taken this tack, and if he does contact you personally, do not accept any statement from him except in writing - in keeping with our Lord’s admonition “Be wise as a serpent.”
Hey Melvin,
Long time no hear. Hey since they requested, why not take it down out of love for your brother if he is hurt by it shouldn’t you take it down for his sake?
(MN: Sounds nice. But:
1. What do you mean by “he is hurt by it”?
2. What do you mean by “for his sake”?
Surely you’re not comparing this to the section in Romans where Paul talks about my freedoms and my brother’s faith. Are you? )
But are we sure Jekins who promotes another gospel is actually our brother? He’s a so-called brother at best, who is an idolater, not really showing fruit of a brother, 1 Corinthians 5:11 and Colossians 3:5.
Personally speaking, it seems to me that Jenkins shows the fruit of one lining up for Matthew 7:21-23.
But yes Melvin would do well to just let the thing go. And Melvin’s wife will be able to see by example, that she should never consider a word from Jenkins’ dirty doctrine mouth.
Lionel,
If I was a murderer would you tell the sheriff of my county to “let it go” because this arrest thing might “hurt” me and, after all, I’m the sheriff’s “brother”? Is that adequate to let me go on killing others?
Have you not read in Scripture that false gospels actually send folks to hell killing their souls? And have you not read that it’s better to loose an eye than to enter hell whole?
Lionel, begin to think biblically. Read your Bible gobs at a time and every day that you can. Spend hours with God in His Word. It will change how you think.
It will change your life.
Please do this,
Phil Perkins.
(MN: Don’t be too hard on Lionel. He does read. But I think his application is off on this one. I don’t know for certain though, because he still hasn’t defined his terms. )
Phil,
Read my bible? I will keep that in mind.
Melvin,
The terms is the man feels offended. Offended enough to get a lawyer, and this isn’t worth taking any further than that. It defeats the purpose of what I hope you are trying to do, which is to expose Mr. Jenkins as a false teacher (which I am neutral on I niether affirm that he is or isn’t).
(MN: The letter doesn’t indicate any sense of being offended in the sense Scripture speaks of. The laws referenced deal with comanies, trademark infringements, and impacting the ability of a company to make money using its trademark. But again, though you are at least moving in the right direction, you haven’t explained your terms. What do you mean by the terms you use (hurt, offend, etc)).
IC,
Can you explain how Mr. Jenkins preaches a “false” gospel. I think his affiliations are bad, I think some of the other things he teach are bad. But to say someone preaches a false Gospel is dangerous ground to walk on. That accusation leads to him being accursed. So you you don’t believe he is a christian? Maybe a misguided one but not a Christian at all?
(MN: False doctrine - Jesus suffered in hell for our sins. Since sin is spiritual, His death on the cross didn’t pay for our sins. It only paid for our physical healing. His spiritual suffering in Hell paid for our sin, which is spiritual. This is different than Scripture. The Bible says we were reconciled through the cross (not by His suffering in hell), by the blood of His body, on the cross (not the torture of His soul in hell). The gospel he has preached says we were reconciled through His suffering in hell.
Additional difficulties: Promoting men who promote false doctrine [Charles Ellis - Oneness, Benny Hinn - Each person of the Trinity has three spirits]. )
We throw “the false gospel” around a bit to flippantly just as we throw the word “heritic” around flippantly. I once thought the same of Rick Warren but though I think he is confused a false gospel would mean that he is hell bound.
But back to your question Melvin. Rather he is friend or foe (he can’t be neutral because you spend way too much time talking about this dude) I think you should take it down, I don’t think it is worthy hill to die on. I think he is a believer because of that, you can lose your self-interest and divest from that URL. But I could be wrong.
(MN: Sorry - I didn’t understand that last paragraph. )
I am saying if you truely feel he is not a brother then keep it up. If you believe he is a false brother who has crept in, then your ministry is to expose such falseness in the name of promoting a false Gospel.
If Mr. Jenkins teach what you wrote, the suffering in hell for atonement, then we have some serious problems. Can you send me that here at lionelwoods@hotmail.com .
I know people who have said that he feels attacked personally. That this is more than about FBCG but a personal vindictiveness. Thats all. Regardless of what you are doing, perception is in the eye of the offended, but since he isn’t a brother and you are saying he is a false teacher, then have at it. I would take it down for GP, it isn’t worth alienating others whom you want to help.
The right thing is to take it down.
(MN: Easy enough to say. Now tell me why. )
Hey Melvin,
I think there are two sections of scripture that I have in mind. If you regard Jenkins as an enemy Jesus says:
“38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
(MN: I don’t consider him an enemy. )
If you regard him as a brother:
3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others
(MN: And I don’t consider him a brother. That verse is from Phil 2:3-4.
But you still haven’t answered my questions about hurt and stuff. And until you define those terms, we are likely to simply talk past each other…again. And I’m really not interested in going through that experience…again. )
hey,
Stand Firm!!!
Hey Melvin, great site. Will you please expound on the “Arminian requirement that people walk down the aisle in order to “get saved.” It’s funny how I’ve spent my entire life in COGIC just to realize how much I don’t know. I never even heard of Arminianism, the Solas, or anything of that sort until a few months ago when I began doing a little research on my own because there HAS to be more to being a Christian than what the typical black Pentecostal church presents. I have a lot to learn,
Thanks.
D. here are some short videos that should help you regarding the “come up to be saved” approach used by some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT6rL1bvw3w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49RyyHVmXQ
I’m off subject, but I relate totally to this comment (well…at least the COGIC part). I came out of a COGIC background and I was completely ignorant of pretty much all biblical doctrine (i.e. doctrine of man, Attributes of God, Imputation, etc.).
I had (and still have) a lot to learn. I am just thankful that God got me out…and it seems that He is doing the same for you also.
Melvin, peace be too you. This post is sort sheading light on how these false prophets truely operate. Any sincere bible-believer is aware of the basic fruit of false teachers. However i think its more apparent that this is more church-’BUSINESS’ than a safe haven for biblical edification and exhortation of the saints. And i’m not saying this exclusively about FBCG, but about most mid-size to mega-size churches. Prayerfully, you wouldn’t be forced to shut the site down due to this lawsuit, let’s wait and see what happens. This is all quite interesting, indeed.
(MN: Let me clarify again. They just want me to give up the Domain Name fbcglenarden.com. No one is trying to make me shut down Pulpit Pimps or drop the domain pulpit-pimps.org. But you’re right. Everything they said in the letter, and everything in the two laws cited apply to businesses. )
Melvin, I have already posted that I don’t think saints should engage in lawsuits with each other, and that saints should seek reconciliation face to face first. And i surely support the effort to inform the saints of the wolves that are abundant in our day and age. With all of that said, If I were you, which I am not, I would let go off the domain so that there would not be the appearance that you only had the domain to trick people to coming to your site. I might consider giving up the domain just to avoid the appearance of evil. You loose nothing from giving up the domain. You are about the kingdom, let them be about business.
(MN: Let’s say I did seek to “trick people into coming to the site” [and I'm not saying I did]. Why is this an evil thing? Does it cost them anything? Does it hurt them? Were they misled once they got to the site? What, exactly, is the evil of using http://www.fbcglenarden.com as a path to my site? How are people mislead? Who is misleading them? My site doesn’t look anything like Jenkins’ site. It doesn’t have a FBCG banner at the front. There is nothing there to make a person think they are at the FBCG site. So again, who, exactly, am I misleading or deceiving?
But even beyond that, how am I “tricking” people into coming to my site? I don’t present the link as a way to the FBCG site. I don’t send out e-mails suggesting they come to the FBCG site and provide my link for them to use. I don’t actively communicate with ANY of the folks who end up there accidentally. Tricking them? How?)
Slow down Melvin,
I never said you tricked anyone or was trying to do so. Rad what I said again. I was trying to say, and maybe didn’t say it so well, was that the FBCG crew might paint you as someone who was trying to decieve. Never said you are tricking anyone, but that is how the FBCG crew might try to label you. My point was don’t give them any ammunition to question your motives which I know are genuine.
Hi Melvin, just a question. Would it be too much for you to display humility by surrending the domain name for “peace” sakes?
God bless you,
Berean Jim
(MN: As always, when folks come to the site and make generic statements, I will question them. How is surrendering the domain name showing humility? And how does surrendering the domain name promote peace?
Your pleas sounds suspiciously like the liberal’s cry to “just get along.” )
Melvin, it’s more like a biblical statement from Hebrews 12:14; it’s more conservative than liberal. Your site is pulpit-pimps.org, the fbcglenarden.com leads to pulpit-pimps.org. Therefore, if it was in your heart to promote peace by ending a dispute with a professing “Christian” (regardless of your feelings/opinions about his salvation), God would be glorifed. Such action, for the sake of peace, shows godly character.
Berean Jim
(MN: Hmm. I guess I shouldn’t say anything about anybody else out ther anymore. After all, if I’m understanding the way you are using this verse, I’m not striving for peace.
Or when the Toyota dealer refuses to honor the contract with me, as a Christian I should drop it - in order to maintain the peace.
In the words of Ronaldus Magnus, peace is not simply the lack of violence. And if he didn’t say it, he should have. )
Melvin, it seems easy for you to infer incorrectly and/or misinterpret what I wrote and offered out of love and concern for you because you have no idea of my similar experiences to yours - I can relate to your cynicism.
(MN: Sorry, it’s not a matter of cynicism. I disagree with your application of the refereneced verse. )
If you harbor bitterness in your heart, you will lack peace; the heart is truely the wellspring of life. Perhaps you should reread what several people have offered along the lines of you dropping the situation. Then, reread your comments and determine if you are misunderstanding the “good” intent from those of us who respect you and are concerned for your well being. Your sarcastic reply to well intended individuals is not befitting a man of high moral character.
(MN: Apparently, if I have peace, I will talk like Kwai Chang Caine. My question is: How do you know what I am experiencing with respect to peace? I’m particularly interested since I really haven’t said WHAT I intend to do. Many of you have made some interesting assumptions and have given some even more interesting advice. )
God’s peace surpasses our limited understanding. I pray you experience it during your current stressful and trying trial.
(MN: Again you very presumptuously assume things about me. And you say some fairly interesting things about you. )
May God bless you and your family,
Berean Jim
What presumption or assumption are you talking about? You might want to really read what I wrote - I made no assumptions, not even one. I don’t know you, nor would I pretend that which is not. For the sake of “peace” could apply to you and or Jenkins (I don’t know him either).
Is it possibe that dropping the matter could mean “peace” for him? If you are already at peace concerning the matter, why would you post the issue for general viewing? Do you feel you are doing the work of God by informing strangers that a pastor will not counsel your wife to leave his church?
You are the one who exposed personal things and information regarding Jenkins, you and your wife which possibly should not aired to the general public.
Do you think you are showing humility? Perhaps you just enjoy useless banter, I don’t know; I am not assuming. God examines the heart; He knows your motives - not me. However, if it goes to court (which I doubt it will - I think, not assume, you are wiser than that), the very words you have written will be used against you (that doesn’t mean that they would be successful).
I hope you stick to the facts, you seem to be better at that than you are at interpretation - especially when the stated words are sufficient and no reading between the lines is warranted.
Berean Jim
Melvin: For what it is worth, you need to forego this
legal squabble, remove that name from that website and concentrate on pulpit-pimps.org. When it comes out via depositions that you were using the other website to “attract” those church members, and they
take testimony from those “confused” church members, the court will not rule in your favor. Also, as
stated before, you have a chance to “humble” yourself and work this out with your accuser. God will get the victory and your ministry continues.
Sometimes, I feel that in this John Jenkins/wife/ imbroglio, you are so caught up in your fight in which you insist that you are right regardless of what others may say or see that you can lose perspective. For what it is worth, I think that you need to forgive Jenkins regarding his lack of his role in counseling your wife to leave and join you and allow God’s Holy Spirit to
heal that inner hurt/anger. You may disagree but I sense in the tone of your letters about JK…that you have not released him and you want a gut shot at him.
You must still ask yourself: why does not my wife, who purportedly prays and reads scriptures, can not see what is going on and submit to her husband and thus go worship with you? I trust that you are praying for her as much as you are involved with Jenkins?
His doctrine may/is wrong and his conduct of beng a
pulpit pimp is wrong but unless the Holy Spirit is continuing to tell you to speak out against this man and his machinations, you are dangerously close of being in the flesh and thus being of no effect but becoming an object of pity. If your wife never leaves Jenkin’s church and if Jenkins never changes his spots…what does that do to your peace? Jenkins dominates too much of your waking time. Know when to hold them….and know when to fold em’.
Excellent points Lafe!!!
Excellent point. His doctrine is wrong as so many others. The issue here is not with Jenkins but with your wife and marriage. Jenkins is not holding a gun to her head making her attend his church. She is there because she chooses to be. Sorry!!
Agreed….
I agree, that if Melvin has not forgiven Jenkins, although it’s WAY EASIER to forgive someone who offends you and does not do it continually, that Melvin still has to forgive Jenkins. And I say that with an “if”, because I can’t assert that Melvin has not forgiven Jenkins. Prior to this post, the last time Melvin made a post about Jenkins was late last year. And that only sprung up because Jenkins’ hounds were after Melvin, specifically and personally. And after that Melvin didn’t make any more posts about Jenkins till now, when once again Jenkins has come at Melvin specifically and personally. So I can’t say Melvin is showing much evidence of harboring malice towards Jenkins. Getting a legal notice from Jenkins is a latest and new offense against Melvin by Jenkins. Melvin was entitled to a Ephesians 4:26 moment to express anger.
(MN: To be fair, I did post the “Join the “When Will John Become a Bishop” betting pool thing. But you gotta admit, the way he’s going, it can’t be too far away. )
Regarding future posts, Melvin should certainly continue making posts exposing Jenkins. Given Melvin is in that area, he will hear things that he can post about, to help people there. The Lord allowed this site to be and I feel the godly response to the current situation is to let the domain name fbcglenarden.org go. For all the reasons I’ve already mentioned.
Regarding Melvin’s relationship with his wife, anything I’ve said to Melvin in detail about that I’ll leave in the private discourses I’ve already had with him. And I’ll mention, given many of you really don’t know much about their relationship other than what you’ve read here, most of you really don’t know much about it at all. I may know more, but given Melvin won’t tell ya, I won’t either
.
It’s really not Pastor Jenkins fault that Melvin’s wife hasn’t left, it is his wife’s decision to stay! I mean it is what it is. If Melvin is mad at Pastor Jenkins for his WIFE not leaving then who is to blame.
(MN: I don’t think anyone has implied that it is John Jenkins’s fault that my wife has not left. She is responsible for her actions. She may refuse to leave even if he calls her into his office, sits her down, and explains from scripture that she should in fact leave.
That is not the issue with John. Now listen closely, I’ll write slowly so you can understand. My complaint against John is that he did not fulfill his duty to counsel her on the righteous thing to do. He preached over and over again that if a man were to leave FBCGlenarden, the wife should follow. And for her not to follow is to be disobedient to God (this is called sin). The undershepherd is called to train the sheep in righteousness (obedience to God). John refused to do that. Membership and her tithes (from a job she has since I refused to allow any of the money I earned to go to the Monument) are apparently more important that her obedience to God. He failed to do his job as her pastor.
I am not faulting him under the assumption that if he were to counsel her she would leave. I am faulting him because he hasn’t done his job with her several other couple I know of. )
Leave it up. You’re going to do exactly what you want while you rip everyone else to shreds anyway, so just leave it up.
Melvin better get rid of it, he doesn’t have enough money to beat this.
Melvin, have you spoken to your pastor about the matter? If so, what were his thoughts if you are at liberty to share them.
First of all I think that you did set up that site because you were furious, and even though you are not promoting the site, deep down inside when creating it you were hoping for people interested in getting to his site would put .com instead of .org accidently on purpose so that you can stray them away from this man you claim has your wife and decieved you……..And no….I do not go to any man’s church my fellowship is truely with the Lord. If you really did not mean for it to happen that way, you would have given them the domain name and called it a day. Do you even use that website anymore?
(MN: It’s about a domain name, not a site. I have not said John decieved me. I’m not trying to “stray” anyone away. I am, however, trying to get the truth to them.
Again, it was never a site. Just a domain name. How about if you wait until you actually understand the issues before your offer your opinions? )
Now according to what you wrote “When I tried to talk to him about his heretical teaching claiming that Jesus suffered in hell for our sins, he dismissed me with the usual “we just interpret it differently, and I have been ministering for 25 years.” And somehow, this “ministering” DEMONSTRATES THAT HE IS RIGHT AND I AM WRONG.
YOU Melvin do and have done the same things……when one tells you that you are not teaching the truth and that you are still being decieved along with many others, you dismiss them as if you know all and cannot be taught even calling yourself the Benevolent Dictator (some nerve). Also what does it matter what church your wife goes to, whether yours or hers because you both are going to churches where false doctrine is being taught.
When a preacher or teacher is teaching the word of God to the congregation it is supposed to be NOTHING BUT THE WORD OF GOD {and yes I have spoken with you before}(the letters to the church are to be read word for word……that is how you cause God’s words to be heard).
(MN: I’m glad you went to the Old Testament. Tell me, why did Jeshua, Bani, Sherbiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbebiah, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Asariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites explain the law to the people after the Word was read to them? (Nehemiah 8:7) Shouldn’t it have been enough to have simply read the law and left it at that?
And I assume you are really saying that a teacher should simply stand up, read the word and sit down with no explanations.
Given that I can’t read Greek or Hebrew, and the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, is it okay if I read someone’s translation of what the Apostles wrote? And if that’s okay, which translation should I use? Which translation should a German use? Which translation should a Spaniard use? Which translation should a Frenchman or a Russian use? How about a Greek or a Turk? They can’t read Hebrew, you know. )
Example according to God’s Word: And he said unto me, Son of man, I send you to the children of Israel (the church), to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, EVEN UNTO THIS VERY DAY.
[4] For they are impudent children and stiffhearted. I do send you unto them; and you shall say unto them, This said the Lord GOD.
[5] And they, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there has been a prophet among them.
[6] And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with you, and you do dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.
[7] And you SHALL SPEAK MY WORDS UNTO THEM, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they are most rebellious.
[8] But you, son of man, hear what I say unto you; BE NOT YOU REBELLIOUS like that rebellious house: open your mouth, AND EAT THAT I GIVE YOU (true communion….not the wafer and wine you guys are decieved in to thinking means anything).
[9] And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein;
[10] And he spread it before me; and it was written within and without: and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe (the bible).
(MN: I won’t ask you how this supports your case. After all, you’d have to explain it. And if you did that, you would be violating the very rule you are trying to demonstrate.
Ezek.3
[1] Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that you find; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
[2] So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
[3] And he said unto me, Son of man, cause your belly to eat, and fill your bowels with this roll that I give you. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness. (Just as John was given a book at the isle of Patmos to eat)
[4] And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get you unto the house of Israel, AND SPEAK WITH MY WORDS UNTO THEM.
You see……..never does He say go to theology class, or learn from men.
(MN: Again, how are you reading the Old Testament? I assume you can’t read Hebrew or Aramaic. Aren’t you depending on the men who translated it into English? )
He gave him the bible to eat and commanded Ezekiel to speak HIS words only and not his own. That is where you and these false preachers have erred.
If you would like more examples:
Luke 4:16 And he (Jesus) came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, AS HIS CUSTOM WAS, He (Jesus) went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, AND STOOD UP FOR TO READ.
(MN: Uh, you forgot about Luke 24:27 where Jesus explained [as in "did more than simply read the Scripture"] to the disciples as they walked along the road. In fact, in verse 32 it says He explained the Scriptures. According to what you are saying, shouldn’t Jesus have simply read from the Old Testament (the Law) and left it at that? Or are you going to try to say that it was Jesus speaking and what He was saying is the Word?
Or Peter in Acts 2:29. Here he recites a psalm in 25 - 28 and them proceeds to expound on it beginning in verse 29 until verse 33.
Let’s not forget Phillip who, when he came upon the eunuch, explained the Scriptures [the eunuch made it clear that he did not understand in Acts 8:34. He asks Phillip to explain it to him.] He needed someone to guide him as he says in verse 31. Do you really want to say the only thing Phillip did was read more Scripture? If that were the case, how did he ever explicitly refer to Jesus and his death on the cross a couple of month before? )
Jer. 36: 2;4;6
Take you a roll of a book, and write therein ALL THE WORDS THAT I HAVE SPOKEN UNTO YOU against Israel, and against Judah (the church), and against all the nations, from the day I spoke unto you, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.
[4] Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah ALL THE WORDS OF THE LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.
[6] Therefore go you, AND READ IN THE ROLL, WHICH YOU HAVE WRITTEN FROM MY MOUTH, THE WORDS OF THE LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD’s house upon the fasting day: and also you SHALL READ in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.
I would give you more but as always you might complain that it is too much word with out explanation.
Sheer idiocy……….to claim that the Word should be read without teaching or explanation runs DIRECTLY contrary to what the WORD says, demonstrates, and COMMANDS.
Some things are so blatantly stupid that it’s aggravating.
Hey, Paisano:
I do not have your email address, so I have to resort to this thread disruptor.
Is there any way on our Father’s grey earth that we can shut Peter Popoff’s TV infomercial down and blast it into the furthest reaches of space??
I have repented of my M-60 thing, but am ready to “unrepent,” and go looking for this scumbag. His wife is fair game, too. (Yeah, I was around when the Amazing Randy busted these jagoffs back in the 70s.)
Sorry, brother IC, but I am still flesh and blood, and truly pray that I become flesh and bone, soon!
And this does not even approach a rant.
Peter.
petros, gee, i really shouldn’t encourage you like this because you’re already one amped up marine…. but what the hey~
while you’re blasting p. popoff’s show into smithereens (i am so not feeling that jet black shoe polish he dyes his hair with)~
would you mind doing the same to mike murdoch’s and robert tilton’s?
if i see one more handkerchief or bottle of ‘holy’ water……
hello, mrs.mav:
i’ve settled down. i just take a couple of kettlebells outside my hovel, and blow it off. sometimes i doubt my salvation when i get fired up like i did early this morning.
thanks for your comment; if i ever need an “a-gunner”, you’re it.
stay well and read gobs of Bible everyday, sister.
peter.
Melvin, can you please provide Peter with my email address?? Thanks!!
(MN: No problem. )
it doesnt seem personal-the name is similar to the church and he is only looking towards the well being of the church. if it were personal however, JKJ has reason. You constantly are contridicting yourself just to put down JKJ and his ministry. You often times talk about his family-ie his nephew, his wife, etc.
you even provided photos of his house.
(MN: I have discussed whether or not his wife would become a co-pastor - fair game. I have talked about the idea of First Ladies - fair game. I showed a picture of his house (shot from space) to demonstrate how much he is benefiting from being pastor. I did the same thing with Creflo and Eddie Long. Nothing personal in it.
SO how have I contradicted myself? )
I was sure that the legal matters were pertaining to the whole issue with you and his nephew. Im not saying you did what you were accused of, but that post alone was full of comments about the nephew and his family that could have got you in trouble. Lay off the family some. geesh!
(MN: I virtually never discuss John’s family. That incident was discussed only because several people had written me e-mails asking about the nephew, whom, to my knowledge, I have never laid eyes on. So I’m not sure of what you are talking about. )
I totally agree with Lafe. Jenkin’s doctrine is wrong we know that. The problem is with your wife and marriage not with Jenkins. She attends there because she chooses to attend there. I am going to add that I am not a supporter of his at all. She chooses to be there, question her.
both comments were deleted
(MN: If you’re going to comment on this site you have to be patient. It’s not too smart to throw accusations around before you know the facts. Get acclimated before you complain. )
Hi Melvin,
If I understand this correctly this issue is over a “domain name”…..and not what you write about his teachings?
You know this means you are doing your job don’t you:-)
Keep fighting my dear Brother and KNOW that I am praying for you!!
Phil
Melvin,
You stated:
“The lawyers at FBCGotK seem to think I registered that domain name so I could draw FBCGotK people and other seekers to my site. ”
(MN: Given that the FBCGotK attack dogs are likely to be visiting the site, I would prefer not to be TOO generous with information. Don’t expect me to be too quick to discuss it. I am, however, very interested in how the rest of you see the whole thing. So far, it’s been most interesting and useful. )
So maybe the real question her is why did you register that domain name? And, then you need to decide if that reason is still valid to you and justifies you fighting this lawsuit given your beliefs in what the Word of God teaches about our behavior. (MN: Please remember - I’m not being sued at this point. )
And in that same vein you also might need to decide how you view John Jenkins — brother, enemy, friend — and the conduct you should display towards him given that relationship.
(MN: Not really. He doesn’t have to be one or the other. Is the guy you see waling down the street either your brother, friend, or enemy? Can a person - who you don’t view as a brother in Christ simply be an acquaintance? Or at best someone you don’t believe has your or your wife’s best interest at heart? That doesn’t make him a friend, but it doesn’t make him an enemy either. It’s kind of like the real estate agent when I’m looking for a house. He is NOT my friend. He is not my brother. And he is not by enemy. He is my real estate agent. John is not my enemy. He is not my friend. And judging by some of the things he preaches and the actions he takes, he is not my brother.
I can’t say I much like him, but that doesn’t make him an enemy. I have brothers in Christ I would die for, but I don’t much like them. If I had to choose between them and another saint for a road trip, I would probably choose the other one [and probably much to my loss, by the way]. )
Just some food for thought….
Melvin….
I totally understand your caution as to giving your reasons for registering the domain name in question.
My questions were merely my attempt to help you sort through the whole issue by asking yourself some questions, that’s all. No answers to me are necessary or expected.
I’m sure you’ll do the right thing….
(MN: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I appreciate it. )
Interesting. I actually thought about you, the site, and if anyone had threatened you with a suit about 2-3 days ago, so I decided to check in and ‘whoala’.
Stay strong Mel.
gridikins! wow, loooong time no see. a guess a married man such as yourself has been busy tending to other matters. it’s really nice to see your name again.
Hey Mav!!
Yep…me life is different, but I stll do check in and read every now and then. I must say, this site helped way back when as it challeged and pushed me to understand and grip realities about what Christianty really is & isn’t, and now the fruit seems to be bearing as my wife understands and enrolled in Theology School (Grad) and so much of what she brings back….reminds me of the discussions here and so much I picked up.
Keep up the good work all.
GRID!!! How are you my friend?? I’ve thought about you often in your married exile and wished you would pop back in.
lol…..I do keep up every now and then. I actually popped in once last week (1st time in a couple months) and observed while you (so eloquently) broke down the word ‘eternal’ & it’s Greek counterpart ‘Aionios’….& how (whomever that gentleman was) one can’t just use differing brushes for the same word (Aionios) as in the original Gr. as how he feels when he reads it in English (Eternal), because the same Greek root being used.
I must say, no holes there.
That was pretty cool, and impressive detail once again. I see you haven’t changed there, bud.
Keep up the good work my friend!
This whole ordeal seems a bit trivial to me. Melvin, if you will be honest, you set up that first domain with the sole intention of attracting folk who would type in “.com” instead of “.org”. Be the bigger man and remove that domain and continue with pulpit-pimps. Doing the right thing often requires sacrifice and in this case, the sacrifice is your ego. You seem to harbor a great disdain for Pastor Jenkins and you really need to let it go. As far as your wife is concerned, that is a family matter. Pastor Jenkins should not have to counsel her to leave the congregation. You and your wife need to be on one accord and come to a decision. Don’t place the blame on the pastor. You are the priest of your home. Do some self examination.
Yo, derrick:
“Priest of my home.” Hardy-har-har!
May I relay that thought to my ex-wife? Be forewarned, though, your pithy remark may send her into a cardiac infarction. Are you ready to shoulder that, Christian Soldier??
Allow me to thank you on Melvin’s behalf for the “self-examination” dig. You certainly have spent enough time of your own alone with the Father, derrick.
Peter.
dickkopf,
Sounds like you had a personal issue that could not be resolved and that’s your problem. Why do you feel obligated to speak for Melvin. He is a grown man. We all need to examine ourselves from time to time, so my statement was not a “dig”. You took my entire statement out of context. Slow down brotha. Don’t be so easily offended. BTW, I do spend quite a bit of time alone with the Father(as we all should, Christian soldier)!!!
(MN: I don’t think dickkopf is being easily offended. And I don’t think he took what you said out of context. I came up with exactly the same context. The ending comment seemed very much a little dig.
It’s interesting though, that you have advice for me [about whom you know very little] and about dickkopf, whom you know even less.
Neither of of got the idea of anything approaching humility in your comment.
No one on the site feels obligated to speak for me. One of the characteristics of the site is the fact that folks are free to speak on any comment. And I certainly TRY not to dominate the discussion, often not saying anything in response to a comment, directed at me or otherwise. )
Melvin,
Now you are speaking on behalf of this grown man. I would not expect someone who dedicates a site with the intention of deceiving people to find humility in anything. This particular pastor called your bluff and now you are upset. The mere fact that your wife still attends the church you feel obligated to regularly tear down speaks to your relationship with your spouse. Don’t blame that pastor. I was speaking of holistic examination. From time to time, I have to step back and examine my temperment, relationships, commitment, etc.. That was not a dig. If you cannot “stomach” people commenting on your personal business, don’t post it.
(MN: You’re going to have to help me out here Derrick. Who has dedicated a site to the intention of deceiving people? Who is tearing someone down? Who is the “particular pastor” who called - I assume - my bluff? What exactly was the bluff and again, what pastor are we talking about?
Who said I can’t stomach people commenting on my relationship? Did I object to you commenting on my relationship? )
Derrick, are you a Sabellian/Modalist?? If not, do you think it’s Scriptural to yoke your ministry to them and put the sheep under your care to modalists??
Jenkins has done that. He has also exposed his flock to other blatantly false doctrine such as the WOF heresies and the “Jesus was tortured in Hell by the devil” heresy. Is that OK?? Is it “tearing him down” to expose such grievous error to warn the saints??
Holistically examine Jenkins’ abuse of his congregation before you comment. What he’s done in the situation concerning Melvin’s wife isn’t the disease. It’s only a symptom.
gary v,
By all means, warn the saints if you feel this Pastor is teaching a false doctrine. I am speaking of motives. Is someone motivated because they feel for the misguided saints or is someone motivated by anger because things did not go as planned(i.e. elevation in the church or wife not willing to leave) ? It seems that on this site, only Melvin and those that agree with him are scripturally astute. In these times, people are looking for an answer to their numerous problems. We have to make sure are focus is on deliverance and not on “tearing” other ministries down. The Lord knows our motivation and we have to give an account.
Since the Lord alone knows our motivations, by what Divine attribute do you ascertain Melvin’s motivations??
The spread of false doctrine is NOT ministry anyway, so your point is ill taken. There is quite a bit of “ministry tearing down” going on throughout the Bible. For example…….
Nadab
Abihu
Hophni
Phineas
Balaam
OT false prophets
Hymenaeus
Alexander
Diotrephes
Judaizers
Scribes
Pharisees
Deceiving folks as to the Nature, Person, and Work of Christ is not ministry.
Telling folks that Jesus was tormented in hell is not ministry.
Telling folks that Jesus was born again in hell is not ministry.
Allowing heretics to deceive your congregation into denying the Trinity is not ministry.
Being an instrument to tear asunder what God has joined in marriage is not ministry.
Exposing the hirelings who do such things is the TRUE deliverance ministry.
It’s called common sense. Why would Melvin choose a domain that is almost identical to First Baptist’s website? Coincidental? I think not. Feeling that Pastor Jenkins is unfit to pastor or that a church is not teaching the true word of God is one thing but to knowingly mislead people to a site with the intention of spreading your opinions or ideology is wrong. Not much of a defense to that.
So is feeding the poor with the intent of spreading the Gospel. Lousy bait and switchers.
Garyv, the word heretic is thrown around here like a dodge ball. I’m sure Jenkins and others who teach that Jesus suffered in hell base their teaching-true or false-on scriptures.
May I ask you what are those scriptures, if you know them? And what is your exegesis of the same scriptures?
In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas
(MN: I spent three months “discussing” the doctrine with John. They use Eph 4:8 - 10 to demonstrate that Jesus suffered in hell.
I saw the futility of my discussion with him when I asked the following:
If Jesus was in hell for three days, why did he say to the thief on the cross that that day he would be with Him in paradise?
His answer? John said to me “it depends on the meaning of the word ‘paradise’”
Aubrey, do you think this verse justifies the “Jesus suffered in hell for our sins” teaching? Can you identify any scripture that makes it clear that Jesus’ death on the cross paid for our sins? If not, go to http://www.blueletterbible.org and do a search on reconciled, “His body”, “on the cross” and let me know what you find. Now there may be some obscure verse that COULD, if you ignore everything else, COULD be taken to say that Jesus suffered spiritually for our sins since sin is spiritual. But I’m not sure you want to use the interpretive technique to support the heresy. )
Hi Aubrey!! The Bible makes clear that Christ’s suffering was finished on the Cross. If Jesus says “It is FINISHED”, where are we to go from there?? And the crux isn’t whether Jesus WENT to hell, but whether or not satan and the demons TORTURED Him there. Whether or not Jesus was made subject to fallen angels and demons. Whether or not Jesus was Born Again like sinful man.
These are the teachings of that doctrine.
AS for heresy, you didn’t mention Jenkins bringing Oneness preachers into his pulpit to deceive the flock. We don’t really have to break that down do we?? If you balk at Jesus being tormented in hell by demons being heresy, certainly you don’t do so regarding Oneness, which has been considered heretical throughout church history??
Along with Ephesians 4:8-10, I was hoping to get your thoughts on 1 Peter 3:18-20, and, Acts 2:24-27. Didn’t these passages come up in your discussion with Pastor Jenkins, Melvin?
(MN: More importantly, Aubrey, do you believe these verses state that our sins required Jesus to suffer in hell contrary to the clear teachings that our sin was taken care of on the cross, by the shedding of His blood, by piercing of His body? If you don’t, why are you wasting my time with the question? If you do, why are you wasting my time - period?
I have no intention of of going around in a pointless circle with you. You do it too well and I have other things to do.
By the way, before you wander on down your path of attacking what someone didn’t say, let me write this slowly and loudly: NO ONE IS SAYING JESUS DIDN’T DESCEND INTO THE UNDERWORLD. SCRIPTURE CLEARLY SAYS HE DID. WHAT PEOPLE ARE DISAGREEING WITH IS THE IDEA THAT JESUS SUFFERED IN HELL IN ORDER TO COMPLETE PAYMENT FOR OUR SINS. AGAIN, THE ISSUE IS: DID JESUS SUFFER IN HELL, TORTURED BY SATAN AND HIS MINION IN ORDER TO PAY FOR OUR SINS? DID HE BECOME THE FIRST BORN AGAIN MAN?
Are we clear now? )
Last, it is clear that the early church fathers believed that Jesus went to hell as is evidenced by the Apostles Creed:
“I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; ; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty…” (emphasis mine)
It appears to me that Jesus did indeed go into hell. If you agree, the question that must be asked and “crux” is why?
Your thoughts.
(MN: Three things:
1. You forgot to include the phrase “descended into hell.”
2. Remembering that this is a creed, and recognizing the oft lack of exactitude of men, they could have, and probably should have, stated it as “hades” rather than “hell.”
3. This does nothing to get around what Scripture says - His death was sufficient.
Remember - creeds don’t prove anything. They provide a way of encapsulating good doctrine. And no place in the creed is there the idea of Jesus suffering - just as there is no indication of such in the verses that discuss Him descending into “hell”. )
On another note, I found the following article by Cal Thomas to be excellent and it speaks to the current political discussion. http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14651
In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas
Aubrey,
“descended into hell” - This part of the creed was added in later years. Please do some research on this for yourself.
And as for this scripture:
Eph 4:9 - 10
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first[b] descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
“descended into the lower parts of the earth” is stating the fact that Jesus came down to the earth which is the lower parts being referred to. Not that Jesus went to some place called hell. He humbled himself (brought down from the glory that He shares with the Father) while on Earth during His first advent. The bible does not seem to teach that Jesus went to hell nor suffered in hell for any time period.
Melvin,
You stated that you asked Jenkins this:
“If Jesus was in hell for three days, why did he say to the thief on the cross that that day he would be with Him in paradise?”
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”
(MN: I was wondering if you were going to use the stock Jehovah’s Wittness and Kenyon answer or not. I suspected either you or Aubrey would be the one to try it. And let me guess - Thomas wasn’t really calling Jesus his God, right? )
Jesus was not stating that the man would be with Him in Paradise on that day but merely promising the man (right then on that day) that he would (in the future at the resurrection) be with Him in Paradise. The confusion comes when you consider the placement of the comma (I say to you today,.. or I say to you, today…) in some Bible translations. We must remember that the punctuation marks are added by men to God’s Word. Therefore, we must be careful in punctuation usage, in many popular Bible translations, in order to rightly divide the scriptures.
You also stated:
“they could have, and probably should have, stated it as “hades” rather than “hell.”
You seem to have finally started doing a little research on how the word “hell” has been mistranslated in some popular bible translations. Hades is simply the place or state of ALL the dead (righteous and unrighteous) not a place of buring torment (hell). The bible makes no reference to Jesus going down to a place called hell.
Melvin, to my knowledge, you have never once stated your position on those scriptures which is the reason for my query in the first place. (You may have, though, in previous discussions on the topic; I don’t know.) You have, however, excoriated Pastor Jenkins and others who believe that Jesus suffered in hell while never once clarifying that you, too, believe that Jesus descended into hell/hades, though you don’t believe that Jesus suffered there to pay the penalty for our sins. (I’m not putting words in your mouth am I?) It seemed very difficult for you to admit that.
But now that you are on the record, there are scriptures that strongly suggest that he suffered in hell. In Acts 2:27, He endured the pains of death. The Gk for pains is ODIN; it means sorror, To travail in birth. Also, Jesus likened his death burial and resurrection to Jonah being in the belly of the whale for 3 days and nights, Matthew 12:40 and Jonah 2:1-10. That whole chapter of Jonah is an elegy of Jonah’s agonizing experience; it was no picnic! Interestingly, in verse 2, the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to use the Hebrew equivalent of hades–sheol.
MN: “Did He become the first born again man?”
1. Romans 8:29 says He is the firstborn among many bretheren. He is the first, but there are many many more.
2. When was he born? In Acts 13:33, Jesus is begotten of the Father on the day of His resurrection. (Gk for begotten is GENNAO–to be born)
3. Colossians 1:18 says that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead.
4. 2 Corinthians 5:21 states that Jesus was made sin for us.
5. As sin, He was forsaken by the Father Matthew 27:46. Separation from God is death, isn’t it?
These scriptures pretty much speak for themselves. (MN: Of course they do. And where in those scriptures do they speak of suffering and sin? ) There are other scriptures and Old Testament types I could share, particularly Leviticus 16th Ch, but I won’t go into them. I just wanted to bring to light the scriptures upon which those you call “heretics” base their belief and also to ask you again, why do you think Jesus went into hell?
(MN: According to the Bible, He “…led captive a host of captives.” Another place says he preached to those in the underworld. But again, you are still trying to demonstrate that Jesus descended into the underworld. No one is saying he didn’t.)
It is very ease to sit safely ensconced behind positional ambiquity on certain scriptures and hurl “heretic”at those who don’t accept your position on scriptures. It’s another thing entirely to lay all of one’s cards on the table and allow objective readers to decide for themselves who is scriptural and who is not.
In closing, when you wrote “Are we clear now?” I thought of Jack Nicholson’s character in “A Few Good Men.” He said the same thing to Cruise when being cross examined. Cruise’s reply was the same as mine–”Crystal.”
(MN: That’s nice. But apparently we aren’t. You’re still trying to demonstrate that Jesus descended into hades. )
Btw, I inadvertantly deleted “descended into hell” from the Apostles Creed. I was trying to highlight it in bold letters but it didn’t work.
In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas
Aubrey and Melvin,
Melvin you stated:
“Another place says he preached to those in the underworld”
I believe you are referring to I Peter 3:18-19
This is another one of those commonly misunderstood scriptures. The spirits that are/were in prison are all humans who are under the bondage of sin. This is not talking about Jesus going down to some “underworld” or “hell”. Compare some other scriptures with this one and I think you may understand what I’m saying.
1 Peter 3:18-19
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and PREACHED TO THE SPIRITS IN PRISON, 20 who formerly were disobedient,…
Luke 4:18
18 “ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
TO PROCLAIM LIBERTY TO THE CAPTIVES
And recovery of sight to the blind,
T0 SET AT LIBERTY THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED;
Isaiah 42:6-7
I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the Gentiles, 7 To open blind eyes,
TO BRING OUT PRISONERS FROM THE PRISON,
THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS FROM THE PRISON HOUSE.
Isaiah 61:1
1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
TO PROCLAIM LIBERTY TO THE CAPTIVES,
AND THE OPENING OF THE PRISON TO THOSE WHO ARE BOUND;
We all (Body of Christ) were bound and held captive by sins dominion. We all were set free by the preaching of the gospel (Christ birth, death, and resurrection). We are those spirits that were held captive.
(MN: Come on everybody! We’re all saved. Let’s all get together and sing “Kumbaya”. Thanks Joe. I needed that clarification. )
Paden, just 3 things:
1. Those scriptures you cited have nothing at all to do with 1 Peter 3:18,19.
2. It’s clear from Acts 2:27 that Jesus descended into hades.
3. A spirit is not a human being! A spirit does not have flesh or bones human beings do! Luke 24:39
In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas
Egad………
Nicely said Aubrey.
Garyv, how in the world can anyone possibly believe such-ahem-drivel
:LOL:
perhaps i missed it somewhere in the comments, but does you “owning” this particular domain name serve a purpose?
(MN: Joe continued to spew more bad teachings rather than focus on the subject, even as it had morphed. Since I refuse to allow the site to be a conduit for bad doctrine, this post and similar ones in the future will be deleted. If Joe wants to get back to the subject, he can post. Otherwise, he’s gone - again - for this trhead.
)
Melvin,
Here again, you have deceived your readers. My last post related directly to the three points that Aubrey last presented to me. Why not let your readers use their own minds? You seem to run this site like many of the cults that you preach against! And you claim to have the love of Christ but insist on disrescting me by calling me Joe and distorting the truth about my comments!
(MN: I didn’t say they didn’t. I said you were using this as a platform for presenting your silly doctrine. And I will not provide you the platform from which to do it. And I do have the love of Christ. Which is why I choose to exercise restraint in what I publish from folks who preach stuff like your stuff. If the folks want to hear that, they can go to your site.
Believe it or not - I Just noticed that your name is Jon. My apologies. )
Melvin,
You lied again by stating:
“Believe it or not - I Just noticed that your name is Jon. My apologies.”
Here are some of your past post to or about me when using my name that you have now claimed that you are just noticing:
“(MN: This is where we see Jon given an explanation then either ignoring it… )”
“(MN: I have to admit he has done better this time around than the others. But he is nearing his quota. Unless folks say other wise, he gets at least one more response.
Use it well Jon. It will be the one that gets you an extra life. )”
“(MN: I’m going to give Jon, who has been pretty well-behaved this time around, another couple of rounds. Here’s my problem: Jon made a statement (Pagans supported the idea of hell, demonstrating that it is not of God). But when GaryV asked for consistency, Jon then moved on to something else. Each time, Jon has presented a position, GaryV has addressed it, and Jon has modified his position a little…,
By the way boys and girls, here’s a game for you. The one who identifies all the places where Jon makes an unsupported statement or assumption (all of which support his position) wins a free trip to the Melvinite Temple of Wonderful and Fantastic Happenings.”
“And by the way, notice again that Jon quotes scripture. Then he behaves as if the quote can serve as his answer. )”
“Jon, your first comment appeared on 08/05/2006″
Hopefully, the readers on this site are starting to see how deceptive you really can be!
(MN: Jon, I don’t think about you everyday. The fact that I called you Jon then doesn’t mean I remembered TODAY that your name is Jon. If you wish to think I was lying, that’s fine. But I say again, when I looked at the comment, I saw Joe. Believe as you wish. But gosh, do you really think if I was going to lie to you that I would tell one so easily shown to be a lie? )
Hey Melvin,
I’m just getting wind of this discussion. but I have always heard preachers say Jesus was in hell 3 days. Is this what ya’ll are talking about? If so, what do they mean by this or is it just “talk”? I have never understood this and this is a perfect opportunity for me to learn cause I have always questioned whether this was true or not but have been unable to figure it out on my own.
Thanks
Righter,
Unfortunately, Melvin will not allow further discussion about this subject. Email me if you like at: churchatheart@yahoo.com
Righter, with Melvin’s kind indulgence…
There have been two positions on this issue historically as Christians ask, “where, exactly, was Jesus between Friday night and Sunday morning”?:
The so-called “harrowing of Hell” position states that Jesus spiritually went to Sheol, the “place of the dead” (NOT the lake of fire or the place of torment — our word “Hell” is actually a really imprecise translation of the Greek and Latin terms used by the early church in describing this doctrine) to set the patriarchs free and bring them to heaven with him. It’s got some philosophical support and a handful of verses of Scripture to back it up. The Apostles Creed supports it as well, though it really should say, “Descended to the place of the dead,” NOT “descended into Hell.”
[Parenthetically, folks who don't get this linguistic issue often actually believe Jesus suffered in Hell for us, which is preposterous. Jesus clearly said on the Cross, "It is finished" -- not, "It'll be finished once I go to Hell and endure torment for the sins of my people."]
The other position is that Jesus went spiritually to heaven while his body was in the grave. This is supported by Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross, and his final prayer to the Father (”Into your hands I commit my spirit”) as well as by the OT symbolism of the blood of the sacrificial lamb being taken before God as propitiation for their sins. Thus “It is Finished” means that his sacrifice for sin is complete, after which he immediately (”this day”) brought his blood before the Father as evidence that his people were clean.
I lean toward the second view, because I think it has more biblical support, but the first, if rightly understood (i.e. NOT as Jesus suffering in Hell), is hardly what I’d call heretical.
Melvin:
Just wondering about something here, and please let me set the record straight before I continue: I’m not a FBCGotK member nor follower of JtM.
Ok, with that stated, I was scanning this thread, I noticed what appears to be your “beef” with FBCGotK… YOUR WIFE!
My question is this: If you can’t get your wife to submit to your authority, how can you expect JtM or anyone else for that matter.
I’ve been following your site for awhile now, and as I can agree with most of your positions posted here, I would love for you to shed some light on this one bro…
Don’t you and your wife communicate???
(MN: Go back and read some of the comments and postings. This is discussed in fair detail. You’re really not bringing up anything new. But to help you out a little, I don’t expect John to “get mu wife to submit to my authority.” That is neither John job nor mine. My issue with JtM is that he refused to take his responsibility seriously and counsel her to do so. What she does with that counseling is up to her, not John. But again, my beef with John is the same one I have with the rest of the pimps - they are more interested in buidling up their power than they are in helping and guiding the sheep. This has been discussed in detail in several comment threads. Look them up and read them. )
Haven’t you taken the time to share your viewpoints with her and express your deeply committed feelings about why she needs to leave and the biblical reasoning for this???
(MN: Truth Hurts, excuse me if I don’t try to answer your questions - again. If you have been visiting the site for a while, you know that this has been discussed before. Do some research on your own. )
Simply blaming another for your inability to be “Priest of your house” is kind of a stretch.
(MN: Again, read the threads. I’m not blaming JtM for anything that has to do with my marriage. )
Truth is Bro. Melvin, you resent the fact that although you saw the light of this misgivings of FBCGotK and especially JtM, you have failed in your attempts to convince your wife of the same. Otherwise, she would be with you and this site wouldn’t exist.
(MN: You’re partially right. If she had left with me, I would like have become too busy at Breath of Life to even think about the damage the pimps are doing to the sheeple. But given that I can’t function in any official teaching role within the structure of the church organization, I have lots of time. And given that I’m not one to sit around and do nothing, the site was the result. But even that took almost four years to come about. )
Don’t get me wrong man… I love your site, keep praying and keeping bringing facts, and prayerfully you wife will come to the conclusion and alignment with you and join you where you are currently worshiping.
Until then, you should check your underlying reasoning for your continued posts against JtM, while maybe true on alot of fronts, your main reason is still based upon YOUR WIFE is still a member there and your pissed off about it.
(MN: The posts “against” JtM are here for the same reasons the posts are here for T. Dexter, Copeland, Cashflow, and others. While I am more familiar with JrM and certainly have a few more insights into FBCGotK, neither he nor the church itself are special targets. )
Peace…
We love Pastor Jenkins & his teachings. He keeps our family united and growing in CHRIST everyday. We will pray for you Melvin. Pastor Jenkins is “DABOMBDIGGADI!”
(MN: Yes, he keeps your families together as long as you don’t have to choose between him and the truth. )
And crack junkies love crack.
Whitney and Bobbie enjoyed dope together.
Does not mean dope is a good thing.
JOHNSON FAM,
JF: “We love Pastor Jenkins & his teachings. He keeps our family united and growing in CHRIST everyday.”
5Qs:
1. Should I believe you?
2. How do I know that what Jenkins preaches is true?
3. Can you prove that you speak the truth?
4. Is your bishop misleading you?
5. Or do you follow your heart like the rest of the heathens do?
“DABOMBDIGGADI!”?? Is that some more of that fake tongues heard so much in Passah Jenkins’ Temple Of Doom??