Click here. Then go get yourself a cup of coffee, a note pad and a pencil and get ready for the ride of your life. Once you’re nice and comfy, cup of coffee steaming beside the keyboard,read the section of Scripture John will be preaching from (Luke 16:19-31), then click on “A Tale of Two Men.”
While you’re listening, here’s what I want you to do:
- Write down all of his references to scripture outside of “today’s” text. You should record three. One was kind of explicit (though unrelated to the scripture he chose. And two were generic and unreferenced.
- See if you can spot each time he adds to what the Scripture is saying
- Determine if his overall sermon really had anything at all to do with the text he chose
Please understand, I am not asking were most of the things he said true (in and of themselves), because they were. Obviously we are not supposed to feed our flesh. We are supposed to be more concerned about what God thinks about us than what those around us think about us. And we surely shouldn’t go into debt trying to impress others. But is that what we should walk away from this portion of Scripture with?
Here are the questions I hope you have once you listen to the sermon:
- How do you determine that the rich man only wanted to impress those around him?
- How do you determine that the rich man had spent his entire life pursuing the passions of his flesh?
- How do you determine that the rich man was asking Abraham to warn his brothers about this place because of pride and arrogance?
- How do you determine that the rich man only related to people “headed in the wrong direction”?
In this sermon, with the exception of referring to Abraham’s Bosom as being just another reference to Heaven, he doesn’t say anything drastically wrong. The trouble is he spends the entire sermon making the section say something it wasn’t saying.
Some of you have referred to some of the contributors to this site as Melvinites, apparently because they agree with me on such a wide range of doctrinal issues. But I suggest that unless you are willing to ask John how he got the boatload of extras out of the text he preached from, you are the mind-numbed robots simply following a man who can string a sentence or two together in a semi-coherent manner. He did lots of supposing but little in the way of expositing.
Look at and analyze the sermon and honestly tell me there was a substantive and an accurate exposition on Luke 16:19-31.
The people at First Baptist who depend on John for their feeding are starving; becoming stunted, spiritually malnourished little Christians, able only to look at their neighbors and say whatever John tells them to say. If they use his methods as an example, they will continue to be incapable of feeding themselves and will continue to be dependent on the cotton candy he keeps passing off as meat.
The folks stuck there at FBCG are constantly saying what a fantastic preacher John is. Can you imagine what they would think of him if he actually allowed Scripture to speak for itself? That, of course, would require more than a little humility on his part. And somehow, I don’t think that is about to happen.
Can I come to your church and evaluate your pastor? I will send you my email address to reply. I will see you on Sunday with my pad and paper.
Sure. We’d be glad to have you. Send me your e-mail address and I will give you the website.
Melvin
Haven’t gotten the church info yet!
(MN: Can’t get to my e-mailbox from here. )
Yaddy, yaddy, ya!
Please forgive my honesty: “The pots always calling the kettle black.” All of you Baptist and eternal security believers do the SAME thing: read into scriptures and misinterpret the bible.
Melvin, you like calling others out on doctrine-errors, but your teachings aren’t correct neither.
Amen!
I fully agree. They’re going to be held accountable before the return of Christ.
I would like to know what church you go to as well, and why you havent repented for all the scandal you are involved in. You have alot of hate and anger toward men/women of God. This is pitiful. If you feel this way about these ladies and gents then tell them, dont slander their names and I bet you wont tell any of us what church you attend
The e-mail is on its way.
Melvin
After several tries, “the Add comment” button appeared.
Melvin, I love your website and unlike those who state that what you are doing is nothing but the devil’s work, I think that there is nothing wrong with wanting to point out those who teaching and preaching unsound/false doctrine. However, you cannot go around picking and choosing sermons and bits and pieces of those sermons to prove that Pastors are not preaching sound doctrine. In the case of Pastor Jenkins’ sermon, “The Tales of Two Men,” you are wrong and this man did not veer off from the scriptures.
To answer your four questions:
1. How do you determine that the rich man only wanted to impress those around him?
2. How do you determine that the rich man had spent his entire life pursuing the passions of his flesh?
3. How do you determine that the rich man was asking Abraham to warn his brothers about this place because of pride and arrogance?
4. How do you determine that the rich man only related to people “headed in the wrong direction”?
You must read the entire Chapter of Luke 16, where you will understand that Jesus was comparing the rich man’s actions to those of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were religious leaders that were rich and considered wealth as been righteous. In fact, prior to Luke 16, and throughout the various parables in Luke, you will see that Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees about their love of money, their need to look good for those in public and wanting to impress those around them (vs. 14-15), as well as their love and need to think of themselves as clean people; the Pharisees were more concern with presenting themselves as clean people, while ignoring the fact that the their insides (their souls) were filthy (11:39).
In reference to the rich man being proud and arrogant, this man was very hard-hearted and selfish when it came to his wealth; he did not even bother to feed a man that was poor and was lying at his doorsteps (not out on the streets, but on his doorsteps). Where the Pharisees not the same way? Were they not selfish people, who love the sit on their high thrones in the synagogues and expect people to respect them (Luke 11: 45-62)? The Pharisees were selfish people who could not hide their attitudes and arrogance from God (Luke 12:1-2). They did not associate with people who followed Christ and the refused to accept who Jesus Christ was, as well as listen to Moses and the other prophets (Luke 11:46-51; 16:29-31)
“And He said to them, ‘You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.’” (Luke 16: 15).
At the very beginning of the post I made it quite clear that John didn’t say anything that was wrong (other than saying Abraham’s Bosom is just another name for Heaven). What I did say is that he gave no support for what he pulled out of the section he preached on. In fact, I would say you did a better job than he did. In fact, you did exactly what he should have done. But notice what you did - you referenced other, applicable scriptures. He did not.
Also, I didnot choose bits and pieces of the sermon. I addressed the entire sermon. I will, time permitting, be reviewing some of the other sermons as well, especially the one where he appears to be making a big deal about the supposed “anonting” that won’t let you stay where you are. Shades of Creflo.
While I still think the judgments made against the rich guy in the sermon are unsupported, you still did a good job of building a case for your position. Too bad your pastor doesn’t do the same thing.
Somebody came through and answered your questions, and again proved you wrong! Why can’t you just face up to your demon of self and see that JLC was correct. I watched the semon and I took notes along side with your questions and saw nothing out of order. Just face it, you are obsessed with Pastor Jenkins. I have seen all the semons presented on the website, you will probably go through and try to find something useless just to support your website topics. Pastor IS preaching better that you are saying AMEN!
(MN: And now people get to go there and see on their own. )
Besides, if I were obsessing over John, the name of the site would be John-Jenkins-is-a-Pimp.org.
Don’cha think?
I don’t know Melvin. I stumbled upon your website by accident. I typed in http://www.fbglendarden.com (instead of .org) and it directed me to your page–pulpit-pimps.
I tried similar tactics with some of the other blokes and blokettes out there like Creflo. But he had already sewed up all the dot variations. He owns worldchangers.com, net, tv, and anything else you might think of to use. John was a little slow on the up take.
Also, I did attend FBCG for six plus years and I must admit it has a special place in my heart since I know so many of the people being fed the bad doctrine and light-weight sermons.
Take a look at the contents of this site. John is not even a majority of the postings. He does have more than most, but he is not the center of the site.
Thanks for submitting your comments! They made my day!
No Way, I do not think that Melvin is a demon. In fact, I praise him for what he has doing. Although I do not care too much for him picking on my Pastor, his website has opened my eyes to a few things and this, I thank Melvin for. Instead of calling people names, let’s edify and correct another faults in the name of Love.
Melvin, with regards to your last statment: “While I still think the judgments made against the rich guy in the sermon are unsupported,” it was supported because the rich guy is a Pharisee. Even though Jesus did not come out a say he was, you know that the rich guy was a Pharisee because of his same behavioral patterns.
JLC, all praises belong to GOD not man.
The Old Testament scripture says, “touch not my anointed….”. Well, if he was really talking about “God’s anointed”, Melvin might be dead by now. He’s talked about folks locally and non-locally for over a year now.
Melvin, when is your anniversary celebration party? It would be interesting to meet some of your regulars face-to-face.
The Pulpit-Pimp Anniversary Ministry has been planning the whole thing out. They are a little slow though. We probably won’t be ready ’til sometime in August. We still have to beg for enough money from all of you so we can do it right.
I figure if we have it in Bowie, I can arrive in a helicopter in front of the Hampton Inn for starters. Helicopters, nice ones, only cost about $400 per hour so that’s not too bad.
Then I thought we could have a sumptuous buffet at Tony Roma’s. I figure if we give them enough money, we can keep the place to ourselves for the afternoon.
Once we get all of that out of the way, I’m planning on preaching, encouraging you to hold on ’cause your break through is coming. Then I will give you the opportunity to sow into the mininstry because we all know that if you give to this anointed ministry, God will give to you a hundred fold or more.
If you want to get a head start on your blessing, go ahead and send cash, a money order, or a certified check to:
Celebrate Pulpit Pimps.Org’s Anniversay Ministry
12456 Anathema Lane
Bowie, MD 20716
As always, any contributors will be rewarded fro their faithfulness by receiving a free copy of “Flock Fleecing for Fun and Profit.” All you have to pay is $15 shipping and handling, which, of course, is separate from the contribution you are making.
Hey Sober & Viligant,
I think when JLC used the word praise I think it was used in the text for admiration of Melvin and not glorifying him. From reading JLC comment, I’m sure he/she is scriptually smart enough not to praise men.
God Bless You
You are correct, I wasn’t calling Melvin a demon, I was trying to get him to understand the demon of “self” and how we sometimes can’t acknowledge our own faults.
I reread you comment and that does indeed appear to be what you are saying. My apologies for misreading it.
Attention: JLC
How long have you been attending FBCG?
To Concerned: Six years
Are you actually growing? I know others who’ve been there at least 6 plus years. They are spiritually “weak”. Concerning the doctrine, another member recently said they hadn’t been “fed” within the last 3 years at FBCG.
To Concerned:
I grew up in a religious family: my father was a Pentecostal Minister and my mother, a Bible toting Missionary piano playing Baptist. Before I joined First Baptist, I thought that I knew the Bible; the basic at least. However, I learned more under Pastor Jenkins than I did growing up in a religious household. Although I grew up with Jesus being taught to me at home, spiritually, I grew under Pastor Jenkins’ teaching.
The one thing I like about Pastor is that he breaks down the scriptures and he preaches on suffering and not on “God is a good God” or that “feel good stuff”. I never heard a minister that broke down scriptures and gave points the way he does. Furthermore, I liked how he influences and encourages the congregation to not take his word for what he is preaching but to study, study, study.
One more Concerned:
The only problems that I have with Jenkins: the people that he is associating with and the people that he is allowing in the pulpit. It just does not sit right with me.
JLC -
Before I left FBCG, I spoke with John about some of his sermons and “teachings.” One you may remember, though you may not have been there long enough to have neard it, is his priceless bible study on how to distinguish Godly music.
It went something like this:
1. The beat of a song appeals to the Flesh
2. The Rhythm of a song appeals to the soul
3. The melody of a song appeals to the spirit.
Briefly, you should not listen to songs that have a heavy beat because those are simply appealing to your flesh.
When I asked him where in the BIble he got that, when I repeatedly asked him where in the Bible he got it, he finally admitted that it wasn’t in the Bible. I pointed out that there is not Biblical authority for teaching this silly lesson. He said the people will study. I responded that he knew perfectly well that they didn’t, that they took what he said, and left it at that. He then appealed to his old saw “I’ve been in ministry for twenty-five years.”
This is a man who can break scriptures down? Then how did he come to the conclusion that Jesus had to suffer in hell for our sins?
By the way, don’t the people Jenkins allow to preach to the congregation say a lot about him and his integrity? IF he really accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, why in the world would he invite a Oneness preacher like Charles Ellis to preach on a Sunday morning? Integrity? I’m not seeing it. And why would he fellowship with a man whose wife has left him because he bought many thousands of dollars worth of women’s clothing - none of which his wife ever saw?
The people he hangs with say more about him than the words that come out of his mouth.
As an experiment, ask him or, if you can get to them more easily, the nearly worthless deacons and elders to explain to you why he has such people in there. And have them explain why they haven’t objected. But have some good music ready because you are going to see some fast footwork once they start talking.
Melvin, we can dispute this over and over and over again, but I have not heard Jenkins yet preached that Jesus went into hell. In fact, I only heard this twice in my life, from the Catholics and from Joyce Myers.
I am not saying that he did not say this but until I hear this from his mouth….Let’s just pray that he no longer preaches this.
(MN: Not a problem. However, I heard it, I called him on it, and he spent the better part of three months trying to defend it. He finally ended the discussion with (that’s right) “I’ve been ministering for 25 years, blah, blah, blah.” I decided he knew better when I asked him how Jesus could have been in hell for three days if, when He was on the cross, He told the thief that that day he would be with Him in paradise. Your pastor said (and I promise I am not making this up) “It dependes on what the word ‘paradise’ means.” Ask him if he still preaches it. As far as I am aware, he has not recanted the teaching. And he hangs with people who do preach it. This is just as bad since the Bible tells us we are not to have fellowship with those who preach another gospel.)
JLC,
We live in an era where is most important to study God’s word for yourself. In the midst of that, ask GOD to give you understanding of His word. Ask God to reveal to you the truth concerning His word.
Yes; Preachers and teachers have a purpose. But we can’t rely totally on them. It’s dangerous if you do rely too much on them. Why? Many of them are false teachers. It’s the false teachers that are drawing the largest crowds. So we can’t be quick to assume one’s popularity is a confirmation that they’re teaching is divinely inspired and accurate.
With false teachers, everything they teach may not be true. But they teach enough false doctrine to be labeled as a “false teacher”. Some false doctrines aren’t as damaging as other false doctrines. An incorrect salvation doctrine can be detrimental to one’s soul.
You say you received most of your doctrinal teachings at FBCG. If that was your foundation, you’re not in a position to recognize the multitude of ERRORS that are taught almost every week. Someone who’s been underneath Baptist doctrine for many years won’t know any better.
Yes; It’s easier to understand the teaching of one who breaks down scripture. People have left churches and flocked to churches that had a so-called “teaching ministry”. The problem still remains: One can be a good teacher, but that don’t mean they’re teaching the TRUTH. Because of your indoctrination, you’re not in a position to know any better.
I don’t agree with all of Melvin’s beliefs. As former members, he and Damogah were correct in their doctrinal assessments. Melvin get the tape from the 6:30pm service on May 28th. The text was butchered in a ridiculous manner.
I can see why the members are so spiritually immature and weak.
Melvin:
The reference JJ makes about Abraham’s Bosom as being just another reference to Heaven is partially correct. I say partially because, in the text to which he’s referencing, Abraham’s Bosom (Paradise) was located in Hell (2nd compartment… keep reading… description of each compartment listed below).
Abraham’s Bosom was another name for Paradise… Paradise was the 2nd compartment of Hell that held the Old Testament saints prior to Jesus leading captivity captive (Eph. 4:8).
Paradise and everyone that was in it are now in the presence of the Lord (…to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5:8)
The five compartments are as follows:
1.) Tartarus
2.) Abraham’s Bosom (The Paradise of old)
3.) Hades or Sheol
4.) The Abyss (Bottomless Pit)
5.) The Lake of Fire (Gehenna)
Tartarus - Tartarus is the Greek form of the word Hell. It is the compartment where fallen angels are kept, reserved in chains of darkness until they are judged by God and cast into the final Hell, the Lake of Fire (II Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6).
“For if God spared not the angles that sinned, but cast them down to Hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;”(II Peter 2:4)
Abraham’s Bosom - Abraham’s Bosom is the place referred to as the Paradise of old. It was the compartment where all the righteous dead of the Old Testament were kept. There was no torment or suffering in Abraham’s Bosom. It was simply a place of holding until the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus paid the price by shedding His blood.
At the resurrection of Jesus, Abraham’s Bosom was emptied and removed from the heart of the earth and is now located in heaven. All the captives were set free and resurrected (Matthew 27:51-53). The account of Abraham’s Bosom is found in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 16 verses 19-31.
“And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angles into Abraham’s Bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried.”(Luke 16:22, 23, 25).
“And in Hell he lift up his eyes, being in torment, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”
(Luke 16:23).
“But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.” (Luke 16:25).
Hades or Sheol - This is the place for the wicked after death. When the sinner dies, his spirit and soul go immediately to this place of torment.
The term Hades is the Greek form of the word Hell. The definition of the word Hades is as follows: the place (or state) of departed souls; the grave; Hell.
Because the word grave is mentioned in the definition of
Hades, it is said by some that Hell is the common grave; and from this, the doctrine of soul sleep is derived. My friend, Hades is more than the common grave. The rich man of Luke chapter 16 was in Hades and his soul was not asleep; it was in much turmoil.
The term Sheol is the Hebrew word for Hell. In the Hebrew language the word Sheol is defined as: Hades or the world of the dead (as is a subterranean retreat). It’s accessories and inmates: grave, Hell, pit.
Hades or Sheol are the Greek and Hebrew terms for the word “Hell.” Don’t let those who try to impress you with theological terms throw you off track and teach you that Hell is just the common grave.
Note some Scriptures where they are used:
1.) Hades - Luke 16:23; Revelation 20:13.
2.) Sheol - Isaiah 14:9; Psalm 9:17.
The Abyss - This place is also known by the name “The Bottomless Pit.” This compartment of Hell is where Satan will be bound for 1,000 years during the reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20:1-7).
Also during the time of the Great Tribulation period, it will be where the locust-like scorpion creatures will come and torment mankind for five months, (Revelation 9:1-11).
The Abyss will not be the eternal home of Satan. He will be loosed from this prison to be judged, then cast into the eternal Hell, the Lake of Fire forever, (Revelation 20:10).
The Lake of Fire - The Lake of Fire is the eternal home of all sin and rebellion. Another name for this place is called “Gehenna.” At the close of the White Throne Judgment of God, this will be the home of the wicked (Revelation 20:11-15).
The Lake of Fire will be the home of those who rebelled against God. There fallen man will be, for all eternity, to suffer the pains of an eternal Hell.
Satan will be there for all eternity to suffer also. According to the Scripture, Satan will be tormented day and night forever and ever, having no rest. Also, Hades and Sheol will be cast into the eternal Hell. Those who inhabit Hades and Sheol will be resurrected to face God’s Judgement, then cast into the Lake of Fire. In the very end of God’s judgements, the wicked, Satan, fallen angels and sin will have their home in the Lake of Fire.
(MN: Two things. First, you put a lot of effort into this. You actually did some reearch. That is good. You didn’t simply respond with your emotions or sense of supposed outrage. That’s good too.
But, two, I don’t think your work addresses the complaint. Abraham’s Bosom is indeed another name for Paradise. None of what your wrote really disproves that statement. In fact, a couple of places support what I said. However, John claimed that Abraham’s Bosom is just another reference to Heaven. And from what you have presented, this is so.
It’s not quite right to say that Paradise was emptied and moved to heaven. It would be more accurate to state that the occupants of Paradise (Abraham’s Bosom) were led by Christ to Heaven, a completely different place. While I appreciate your research, again, I don’t believe you really addressed the issue. But good work all the same.
Again, too bad John didn’t do this kind of studying before he opened his mouth. The whole sermon would probably have been a good deal more effective and a lot less generic. )
Concerned Christian,
If you don’t mind, I’d like to further discern your understanding of the Bible.
The New Testament has many passages addressed to born again Christians. There are specific references to the Kingdom of God. Just a few include 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, Galatians 5:19-22, and Ephesians 5:5-6. In each passage, Paul gave a firm warning to Christians. At the end of this world, there will be those who won’t be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God.
QUESTION: Where will those who do not enter the Kingdom of God end up? In other words, where will they spend eternity?
Thanks for your time.
Melvin did you run Concerned Christian away?
(MN: Not me. He/she probably just got bored. Oh well. Right now I’m struggling to figure out how long to let the discussion between Seminary and Plain Folks go on. It’s interesting, but it doesn’t do much at this point to move us along. A couple of plain folks say nothing more than “You’re wrong, period” with no back up. Seminary doesn’t do much better making deep-sounding, but not particularly meaningful statements. And folks like Monitor (one of the primary Plain Folk offenders) are making it clear they don’t have a real good understanding of the BASIC tenets of Reformed [versus Roman Catholic] theology. I guess I’ll let it go on a bit longer and see what happens.)
Curious:
I haven’t been ran off this site, just been busy at work. In response to your question, the basic answer is the obvious. HELL.
Now if you’re wondering about the 5 compartments I presented earlier, the descriptions of each was already presented and there really isn’t any reason to relist them.
If I’m missing your point or haven’t answered your question, please elaborate.
CC…
Welcome back Concerned Christian.
The correct answer as you said is “hell”. Remember, the text was referring to Christians, right?
Concerned Christian are you a seminary student or minister? If so, what denomination are you with?
NOB… In response to your question, I’m non-denominational and I pastor a small fellowship in Maryland.
what does non-denominational truly mean? i understand it from a definitional sense, but what does it “really” mean? i hear it used often, but some describe it differently…please expound (this is to anyone), if you will…
Here’s an article I’ve been reading through. It’s kind of long, and it deals with the mega church. But he brushes up against the concept of non-denominational.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/bookshelf/thumma_article2.html
I don’t know anything about Concerned Christian and his/her teachings as a “non-denominational” pastor. Every preacher has been influenced by some form of theology and prior religious experiences.
I’ve always been warned to be careful about the so-called “non-denominational” churches. Why? They try to appease everyone of different faiths. You can’t do that because the truth of God’s word doesn’t appease everyone’s faith.
Whenever I meet someone from a “non-denominational” church, I question them concerning the salvation doctrine that’s taught. So far, I haven’t been impressed or felt lead to visit anyone’s “non-denominational” church. What they’re teaching is not accurate.
You can’t take a “balanced” approach to doctrine without watering down or misrepresenting God’s word.
Sorry, Melvin…that was me who asked the question about non-denominational. I forgot to put my name. Anyway, read the article and for as long as it was, I didn’t get too much about non-denom, but there was some other good info…Thanks
Tweet,
You’re right. It didn’t necessarily have that much on non-denom stuff.
Basically, non-denominational means you don’t “belong” to any particular denomination. That you are not officially Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or other denominations, of which there are literally hundreds.
As an example, I tend to be non-denominational. If asked what denomination I am I tend to respond “Christian.” This is because I don’t with most of the defining doctrines of the various denominations. For example, I problably wouldn’t make it as a Reformed Baptist/Pres/etc because I am not a sabbatarian. I wouldn’t make it as a Baptist (Independent or otherwise) because I don’t see the intake of alcohol as a sin (though I don’t drink because it makes it difficult to witness to others with a shot glass in my hand), I’m not a Lutheran because I reject the doctrine of Transmutation.
The bottom line, a person may hold a great deal of doctrine that is consistent with a particular denomination, but they hold it because of their own personal study, not because the denomination says it’s true. Kind of like tithing and the Baptists.
One respondant is right in that everyone has been influenced by theological teachings in one way or another. But the idea here is that the church I attend is not associated with a specific denomination. Of course there are groupings of churches who say “We are non-denominational” but have all of the trappings of a denomination including branding, doctrinal stands, and methods.
I would tend to agree with the writer. Any place that pushes too hard to identified as non-denominational is probably appealing to the public’s desire to not be associated with mainstream denominations.
Usually, a local church with no ties to other churches, except perhaps personal ties, would be considered non-denminational.
Anyone have anything to add, disagree with, or clarify?
I’m glad you agree with what I said: everyone has been influenced by theological teachings in one way or another.
Given this fact, do you believe that it is “safe” for believers to join a “non-denominational” church without first investigating the doctrinal positions of the Pastor?
Ten years ago I was an unlearned believer. I went to church, but I wasn’t able to recognize doctrine and make distinctions. Back then, I wouldn’t have been concerned about a pastor’s beliefs and church doctrine.
To God be the glory, those days are over. I’m not going to sow my finances into bad ground. I won’t support a church that preaches another gospel.
I don’t think it’s safe for anyone to commit to any congregation without finding out what the leadership is going to teach. The only thing the denominational label does is give you some idea, in general, what you can expect from the pulpit. You have to decide how much difference you can tolerate. You have to identify your own trip wires.
Virtually all of the less-than-useless deacons at First Baptist Church of Glenarden, for example, failed to identify that point. Now, it almost doesn’t matter what John teaches or does. They will be there and will encourage others to stay. Ask Deacon Lee and Deacon Featherstone if this isn’t so. Have them tell you what JOhn would have to preach before they would be willing to leave.
“it almost doesn’t matter what John teaches or does. ”
Is that why they tolerate a pastor who compromises God’s word by allowing homosexuals in music ministry?
Melvin I’m not familiar with the role and power of a Deacons Board. Don’t they report to the pastor?
How can they stop a pastor, such as Jenkins from allowing a homosexual guy to lead Praise & Worship including the Music Ministry Department?
How can a deacon’s responsibility overrule a pastor who clearly compromises the word of God?
They can do it by standing up and calling the pastor on the carpet, first privately and then in front of the church. If the congregation refuses to get behind them then they leave and go someplace else. I don’t say this as if it is a trivial thing, and I’m certainly not including all the steps between the steps listed. But the bottom line is you call the pimp out, first in private and then in public.
That is why I say the deacons and elders at First Baptist Church of Glenarden are a little less than useless. They do not have the testicular mass to do what the Bible says.
The ministers are quiet on this issue. Are they comprisers also?
The corrected question should read: Are they compromisers also?
“Can you imagine what they would think of him if he actually allowed Scripture to speak for itself?”
They’d be better off just hearing scriptures alone. Some of the most powerful scriptures are grossly distorted and weakened during his sermons.
My roommate linked me to your site. We’ve visited Jenkins’ church and I had to stop attending because I didn’t like the “drive-thru” style feeding of the services in terms of biblical teaching. On some things, technically he may be correct; however, my concern is the spiritual feeding and teaching of those new to the faith. When he starts trying to connect scriptural reference to his topic matter and there’s no connection, he’s not teaching false doctrine, but rather a combination of perpetrating in the name of the Lord, like older Baptist preachers do - they pontificate, but hope that the congregation isn’t paying attention because no one’s actually “studying to show thyself approved, a workman needing not to be ashamed.” (2 Tim. 2:14-15
I agree. I’ve said before that not everything he says is wrong. His method is flawed and I suspect he says the occasional good thing more by accident than by purposed study and prayer.
Remember, this is the man who said “God told me that all I should do is read the text and pray but not to actually write out a sermon anymore. After he said that, what little he did have disappeared in a swirl of subjectivism, shouting, and posing.
Where have you been? Many preachers nowadays pull out one or two scriptures and teach another non-related message from those scriptures. That’s the trend in many churches especially the larger ministries. Add some comedy and man-made literations to the speech. That’s what they call preaching.
What is a “Progressive Liberal” supposed to be?
Did Jesus and Paul write out their sermons? No. If the Holy Spirit is speaking through someone, they don’t need any notes. Today people are speaking primarily from the flesh and need at least an outline to stay on track.
Many people who were good at public speaking later became preachers. Those who have the “gift of gab”, ie Tim Story, don’t need to speak from notes or an outline. It’s still from the flesh.
I have no problem with a preacher being prepared by studying, taking notes and outlining his sermon. That would be the decent and orderly thing to do. As long as the message originate in the fertile heart of the preacher and coupled with a careful discernment of truth I have no problem with it. It’s the jokers who emotionally babble through their message with entertainment and empty words that concerns me.
Who knows Moses could’ve taken notes from the tablets that held the commandments and preached some good messages from it.
WOW!
Curious of Pastor Jenkins’ credentials (ie. College/University - B.A, Seminary or Divinity School - M.A. or PHD)?
Unlike what you are displaying in your writings, Pastor Jenkins is one of the most humble persons there is. You obviously have a personal vendetta against Pastor Jenkins. It comes across loud and very clear in your writings. I’m not sure what happened to you but you need help.
Humble - that’s why he has an entourage of butlers (also known as armor bearers. If he is SOOOOO humble, why doesn’t he stop calling himself God’s mouthpiece to you? Why does he get his own parking spot at the front of the church? Surely godly humility would eschew special favors like that. Why does the church pay for his birthday party as well as his wife’s. Again, would true humility avoid such public displays of near worship?
The more arrogant he gets, the more the scammed are willing to say “He’s so humble.”
C’mon Melvin……..you don’t expect our “humble servant” to pull his own car around, do you?? Or dress himself?? Or drive himself?? Or cut up his own meat and veggies??
Certainly NOT!!!!! Can’t have God’s mouthpiece lifting a finger.
I mean……….sure Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament. I guess you could say HE was God’s mouthpiece………..
And certainly Paul didn’t have reserved donkey parking outside the church, did he??
And why was Paul so often alone and hungry and beaten?? No armorbearers, that’s why!!!
And I guess Paul was just too carnal to work up the faith to stop working like Jenkins too. Poor Paul, out making tents to support himself so he wouldn’t be a burden the the churches. Silly man………..too bad Jenkins wasn’t around to set him straight. New camels to ride, flashy new clothes, bangin’ crib, birthday bashes………..all on the church’s dime, too.
Paul sure did miss out………
Wow……….just imagine how much Paul COULD have accomplished for God if only he had Jenkins to show him what REAL humility is about.
I’m back in town on US soil and only viewed this site in bits and pieces. Does anyone have any info on the OCT 4TH-Paul White on the Tyra Banks link? I just wanted to view it for myself. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK IN JESUS’ NAME…THANK GOD FOR THE PIMPS EXPOSURE!
I was trying to see if someone illegally (copyright infringement) put a clip on Youtube. Haven’t found it yet, by check this out…She has a MySpace page, and look who her “top” friends are (keep in mind she may not be the actual creator of this site…)
I had to return to this site, and couldn’t resist not responding to you. Go to http://www.tyrashow.com. When you get to the official site for her show, look on the right side of the home page, and locate the “search” box. Enter “Paula White”, and you will be directed to the Wednesday, October 4, 2006 show, “Beautiful Women, Tortured Lives”. No, this is not Pastor Paula, she actually is…”a motivational speaker and life coach who provided guidance for thousands including former presidents and Tyra…
You will notice as you continue to read, there is no mention of her mega church, her status a preacher, not even the name of Jesus or God.
I don’t fault her, because many are following her as she whitewashes her position as a preacher and exchanges it for a lifecoach.
I just pray that she will make a decision not to continue to straddle the fence by compromising the gospel for worldly benefit and acclaim.
okay…looking at some of the friends on her page, i seriously hope she isn’t the creator. at least some other so-called “Christian” artists, ministers, etc make it explicitly clear who they will and will not. she didn’t even attempt that
Sorry Melvin…couldn’t remember if I posted the link or not. please add this to one of my earlier posts:
http://www.myspace.com/pwhitemin
I really enjoyed the myspace page for Jesus.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=134679144
I have a question for anyone who would like to answer. Do you believe it is not healthy or productive for pastors or church leaders to have a website on myspace.com? I listened to G Craig Lewis and how he brought out some things with using myspace.com. But I am not certain if this is correct or not. It seems that these pastors will do anything to “fit in” yet it seems harmless. Please someone help me understand. Thanks Ce (Chris)