Ken McDonald Evangelistic Ministries Inc.
1107 S. 5th Ave. PMB 118, Yuma, AZ 85364
L__ P_____ Correspondence
In the following correspondence, at the last, I get very harsh, otherwise called, “polemic.” I do not enjoy writing like this, but there are times when we are to rebuke sharply, (Titus 1:13) and I believe this was one.
I have also removed the references to this person as his beliefs differ from those of his home church, and I do not want the impression to come across that his church believes what he believes, as they do not. I have personally talked to the pastor of this church.
On Feb 17, 2009, at 8:52 PM, L___ P_____ wrote:
I don’t know if this will get to Ken or not, but I would sincerely like to ask just one thing. I would like him to give a precise definition of exactly what a Baptist Bride Heretic is. Since heresy is such a serious matter, it is certainly easy to identify. We can give precise definitions for every heresy there is. In your anti-brider book, you did not give a straight-forward definition. You started from the premise that briders are heretics . . . . . and therefore briders are heretics. You also included names of men whom you say are brider heretics, but without a definition of what one is. It was probably just an oversight. It probably got forgotten in the shuffle with the repeating how you are a Bible believer and how these heretics lack training to properly divide like you do.
I am not trying to get you into a protracted argument. I would only like to know precisely what makes a Baptist brider heretic a Baptist brider heretic. Since you have done the research and written a book, could you please help us?
A Baptist Brider heretic is:_______________________________________
From: Ken McDonald Family [mailto:website@kenmcdonaldfamily.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:08 PM To: L__ P_____ Subject: Re: Heretics and Ken McDonald, Evangelist
Bro. L__,
If you did not understand the definition in the first chapter of the book, then I am unable to give you one for I quoted briders, and practical Brides, and explained exactly what they believe and what they are.
Bro. Ken
From: j_______@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Heretics and Ken McDonald, Evangelist
Date: February 17, 2009 10:20:01 PM EST
To: website@kenmcdonaldfamily.com
Bro. Ken,
I read it and have it in front of me. You did not give any definition of a brider. Defining the distinctions of a heresy is usually fairly straight forward. I was hoping you would give the distinction between a brider and a historic Baptist in your book. I would be very interested in your concise definition.
L___
From: Ken McDonald Family [mailto:website@kenmcdonaldfamily.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:29 PM To: L__ P____ Subject: Re: Heretics and Ken McDonald, Evangelist
L__,
Page 26
Ken
From: j_______@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Heretics and Ken McDonald, Evangelist
Date: February 17, 2009 11:16:41 PM EST
To: website@kenmcdonaldfamily.com
If that is a brider, that pretty much clears me. I would disagree with most or all of each point except point 4 and almost point 3. But I think so would those I know who are considered briders in your book.
None of them I know believe the church began with John the Baptist but with Jesus Christ (although I have heard it said in tongue and cheek as in mock ignorance). I think everyone agrees that MOST Baptists are apostate. Therefore, anyone ignorantly saying that “Baptists are the bride” in a denominational sense would necessarily deserve the derision you have for them. Most also know that NT Christians did not share the collective name of Baptist until recently. Therefore to say the Baptist church is the true church is over simplistic. It might be more accurate to say that the true line of the NT church exists in the Baptist heritage. Obviously, the catholic church is not what Christ founded. Nor are her daughters. Luther never submitted to the NT church but started his own, as did Calvin, Zwingle, Knox, etc. They may have been saved, but they brought extra Biblical Catholic doctrines with them and never joined a local NT church. The organizations they founded were not the same which the Lord founded.
If you don’t mind, let me give some bullet statement descriptions that are not defined on page 26. I will put them in the first-person representing this position. Please tell me if you believe this description fits a heretic or a historic Baptist. Ready?
I believe . . .
1. That the church started in Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry
2. That it was empowered at Pentecost and added unto
3. That this church was promised perpetuity; propagating itself in kind.
4. That if the ordinances given to this church are mimicked by other organizations, they are not recognized as legitimate. It is a matter of authority not mode.
5. That communion is a local church ordinance, and therefore closed. It is only intended for those who are part of that body.
6. That the authority of the work of the Lord in this age is through the local church. Any missionary, church planter, etc circumventing this is not Scriptural.
7. That any converts baptized abroad by a missionary effectively become members of his sending church until a NT church is established there.
Who am I?
From: j_______@gmail.com
Subject: What is a brider
Date: February 18, 2009 3:41:48 PM EST
To: website@kenmcdonaldfamily.com
Ken, I would really like your input on my last reply. This “brider” term seems to float in subjectiveness, according to who is using it. I am researching this thing and want to poll from different sources. I gave a list of 7 things that are not in your book, stating them in a first person. If a man tells you he believes those things, what is he in your opinion?
Thanks
L___
From: website@kenmcdonaldfamily.com
Subject: Re: What is a brider
Date: February 18, 2009 4:21:15 PM EST
To: j_______@gmail.com
L___,
I will get back with you but I have been in meetings for eight days straight.
Ken
From: website@kenmcdonaldfamily.com
Subject: Re: What is a brider
Date: February 20, 2009 9:56:11 AM EST
To: j_______@gmail.com
Bro. L___,
The Brider term is subjective as with any other term. It is the word of God that is not subjective. When you mention the historic baptist position that is a subjective term. "Historic baptist position" makes it sound like years ago all of the baptists were together when they were not. Histories are written by men, and I am not blanket discrediting them, but one man can find a group of baptists, or whoever he wants, and say that this is a traditional historic position, and another researcher can find another group and say that is a historic position. Historic baptist position is a very subjective term.
In regards to your 7 points, if you limit the qualification of term to your seven points there is a leaning towards briderism, but there is not enough information to come to a final judgement based only on those seven points. Again I go back to page 26 of my book, and the information after it on the practical briders, pages 28-30. This is what a brider is.
From: j_______@gmail.com
Subject: RE: What is a brider
Date: February 20, 2009 1:50:16 PM EST
To: website@kenmcdonaldfamily.com
Ken,
Heresy is a serious thing to claim. Did you ever read my book that I sent you? I use grammar and words from the Bible alone to build doctrine upward. Not from the premise you use downward. That is the biggest difference between true Bible believers and those who grand stand for it, but who believe a premise instead of the worlds. It is typical among those who base their doctrine on a system instead of the words of God that they get real nasty when their system is contradicted by the words of God. I have seen this time and time again. It is a cult mentality that subjugates brethren to another spirit.
If you will notice, your book and mine come from an opposite basis. My book comes from an inductive study, observing words, grammar and punctuation of the Bible itself. Yours comes from the basis of bashing the hated briders, maligning everyone you can name as one, but never proving your thesis from the Bible up. Your doctrine is based on the premise to proof text approach, starting from a presumption and working the circle. You repeatedly declare all who believe otherwise as not being Bible believers, and of doing the very thing you do. My book is an approach to explain and edify those who are seeking a Biblical approach to ecclesiology. I don’t need to bash those who disagree and put labels on them when I have Bible words to articulate the truth I embrace. It has been used thus far to edify and convince those who are seeking. Your doctrine does not come from that basis. Being destitute of a Biblical approach to inductively prove your premise, you can only bash those who disagree and call them brider heretics. This tactic works fine within the cult of Ruckmanism, but it does not convince those who base their doctrine on Bible words instead of a system.
While I agree that the “Historical Baptist” term can be subjective, there are some definite lines that can be proven as to why we believe as we do. I can find quotes from those calling themselves Baptist who endorsed every kind of error. True Baptists, however, have historically been local church. This is because they historically based their doctrine FROM the Book. Much of this was providential since they were historically disallowed from entering Protestant schools that taught the doctrine you believe. Their conviction has been the source of persecution from the universal church believers. I give proofs of this in my book. Your beliefs are also very old, having a long history. We can prove it is of a different strain simply by observing the words, grammar and punctuation of the King James Bible that you claim to believe.
Also, you really do not understand the Biblical position which you irresponsibly label as “Brider heresy”. Nobody believes that John the Baptist started the church. The Bible is clear that about that. However, I admit that I personally would not be above saying this with tongue-in-cheek, to a confirmed, paranoid brider hater. Especially if I thought they would oppose themselves with it. You also misunderstand the physical verses spiritual aspect that Historical Baptists believe. The Bible is clear that the Kingdom of God is universal and invisible. (Consult my book for multiple examples). It contains all who are saved, whether they are catholic, protestant or no church at all. Where you make the error is that you see “church” through the preconceived lens of all who are saved. That is where your system blinds you from being able to let the Bible interpret itself. The church is different from the KOG.
Let me mention something about the spirit of this letter also. I do not hate you. When I discuss this subject with those who are unconvinced, I typically use a totally different approach. I spend time going through Scripture words and grammar, never belittling then for believing otherwise. Even when I debate I prefer to give the other side room to think it through and avoid cornering them. (I am not like Herb Evans. I would rather convince you than blow you out of the room with both barrels.) If I thought you were seeking I would freely invest my time trying to convince you for your own sake and edification. My approach to you is therefore different, though not entirely disrespectful. In your case, you have written a book that maliciously maligns Bible doctrine and claim that you are a Bible believer. I am very familiar with your Ruckmanite frame of mind and I know that words, grammar and punctuation that contradict your system only makes you guys throw sand in the air.
Lastly, in those seven points I gave you describing a doctrinal position, I gave them in the first person and asked you to judge “Who am I”. I wrote them knowing they described the beliefs of a man you knew. You said that position leans toward briderism, which you call heresy. Those beliefs were held by my late Pastor, ______________. They are still the policy of my church (Edit: This is not true per the pastor of that church. My comment.) where you visited recently and which supports you. As I said at the beginning of this letter, heresy is a serious charge. Throughout your book you charge those of us who believe in local church authority as being brider heretics. It is very disturbing to me that you believe that of us.
L___
| To j_______@gmail.com | |
| Subject | Repy from Ken McDonald |
| Fri 3/20/2009 7:25 PM |
Reply
I know it has been a month since you wrote but I have been very busy preaching in various meetings. I finally have some spare time to reply to your email.
You asked if I have read your pamphlet. I glanced over it, but after your email I decided to read it, which I did.
After stating in chapter one:
"But Scriptural doctrines are introduced, defined and explained within Scripture itself (apart from any external premise.) Examination of its texts in light of its immediate and general context will only serve to illuminate our understanding further."
Then in your first sentence of chapter two, THE CHURCH - WHAT IT IS, you write, "let us establish from the Bible, (inductively) what the church definitely is. The root word fro which we get "church" in "Ekklessia", meaning "called out assembly."
I thought you were going to determine the truth inductively from the word of God? And then you go to "the greek"? And your definition from "the greek" is wrong! You are a bible correcting idiot! "ek" means "out of" in greek. "Kaleo" means "to call". The root for the word "assembly" is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE GREEK WORD EKKLESIA. The word assembly is inserted into the definition, but the word "ONE" would be more technically correct. "A called out one" would be the technically correct definition of the word "ekklessia".
Real inductive reasoning isn't it! You have already inserted heresy into your definition in the first paragraph. You are no bible believer, except in your mind, and your inductive reasoning is anything but.
You write, "let us establish from the Bible", and then you don't even go to the Bible, but to the greek, and on top of that you don't even define it right. You're off base from the very start.
The very next paragraph you state, "We see in Scripture that Jesus Christ is the founder of the institution He called "the church," of which He promised the gates of Hell would not prevail (Matt. 16:18)
You can't even quote the scriptures you reference right. Your inductive reasoning is anything but inductive reasoning. You are messed up in your own mind.
Jesus Christ said, "upon this rock I will build "my" church." You can't even quote it right. You do know that there was a church before Matt. 16:18 don't you? What's more, since when has the church had to be concerned with the gates of Hell? To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. It was the Rock that was on the other side of those gates. You are starting off just like a typical Brider heretic.
Now in the first two paragraphs of your pamphlet you get it all wrong. Boy, that's some real inductive reasoning isn't it!
You then go through a list of things that you say were given to "the church." Why don't you mention and practice that they had all things common Acts 2:44? And that the church had a Devil for a member Jn 6:70, and that he partook of the Lord's supper Lk 22:21.
You claim to go by the words and then you don't. In your mind you think you do, but in practice you are a mess. For instance you state about the early church that "It was composed of His followers...They had the keys to the kingdom." You are lying, they did not you old liar! You only profess to be inductive, but in practice you are a mess.
This is what the Lord said,
Matt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Those keys were given to Simon Peter, not his followers. You can't read too good can you. He used those keys in Acts 2 and Acts 10 by being the first one to preach to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. Whether you believe that or not, one thing is for sure, those keys were not given to His followers, according to the words of the text. Again you got it all wrong.
You wrote on Page 14 - When we examine the origin of the New Testament Church, there are two simple truths we can establish: 1) It was established during the Lord's earthly Ministry. Again you can not read. Now L___, are you really that stupid? You claim I have a cult mentality, and that I am in the cult of Ruckman, but I can not believe how stupid you really are.
This is what the Lord Jesus Christ said, "I will build my church." It wasn't there. You claim, "I use grammar and words from the Bible alone to build doctrine upward." You can't even tell the difference between present and future tense!
These comments only concern two pages of your heretical mess.
You claim that Eph 5 employs the use of a grammatical synecdoche. OK, then let's go with it as you say.
Eph. 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Problem: Local church contains lost people whom the Lord is not the Saviour of. For instance, Judas. If it is a reference to the church which is His body, which is all of the saved then there is no problem.
If, as you say, the church is visible, then please show me Jesus Christ, so I can see Him with my eyes.
Eph. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
So you believe that the local church is subject unto Christ? Are you crazy? How many churches would Jesus Christ lead into apostasy? Then where are the churches from 100 to 1900 years ago? You are nuts! Every local church in church history has gone apostate sooner or later, and you believe that the local church is subject unto Christ, and that the local church is THE EXAMPLE for a wife of what she is to be? You are nuts!
Yes, I know you try to explain this in Revelation about leaving your first love, but again you can not read. You write, "This same church of Ephesus is addressed by Christ in Revelation for this very thing." But the Word of God which you can not read correctly says, "Rev. 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus." You do have a time with it don't you!
But here is where I can honestly call you a Brider, even though you do not believe you are. You write pg. 35: "However, our conception of how Christ gave Himself for a local New Testament church is often nullified as a result of the popular universal church doctrine.
Let the reader not miss the importance of this. The local church is meant to perceive its relationship with its espoused head." (Emphasis added) Hello you brider you. Yes, you are a brider 100% And you are a heretic. You believe Jesus Christ has a bunch of local brides all over the world waiting to be married to Him. But, Oh no! If He waits too long they will become apostate and never be married to Him. Oh my! Even so come Lord Jesus!
This is just a small amount of heresy I found in your pamphlet, but it illustrates sufficiently that you are a Brider and a heretic.
Thankfully Not a Brider,
Ken McDonald
| website design company |
Herb Evans Correspondence
On Feb 12, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Herb Evans wrote:
Your Name: Herb Evans
Your Email: HerbEvans@juno.com
Subject: Baptist Briders
Message: I understand that I am now an official Baptist brider heretic, for I am listed by name in the book entitled “here comes the bride” by Ruckmanite, Ken Macdonald. Would you care to explain this charge, or would you care to retract it. -- Herb Evans
Bro. Evans,
I have already corresponded with you in the past on this subject. But thank you for the compliment. If I could be half the Christian Dr. Ruckman is I would do well.
In His service,
Bro. Ken McDonald
On Feb 16, 2009, at 10:04 AM, HerbEvans wrote:
Bro. Mcdonald,
I do not remember our communication, so do I understand that you refuse to retract your false charge or to give me an explanation as to why you call me a heretic publicly?
Perhaps, you are using my name to promote your own notoriety, but it has resulted in your lack of credibilty, if you cannot back up your false charge.
It is odd that you would call a heretic brother, but then that is your prerogative. Still, in the interest of fair play and brotherhood, would you be so kind as to explain or back up your charge? -- Herb Evans
Bro. Evans,
You believe the church Eph 5 is a true local baptist, and you believe 1 cor 12:13 is water baptism.
Bro. Ken
On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:54 PM, HerbEvans wrote:
Bro. Evans,You believe the church Eph 5 is a true local baptist, . . .
Bro. Ken, Although that is certainly not a quote of mine, I do believe that Eph. 5 is a local, visible church, a local visible husband, and a local visible wife, presented in generic form for all local churches, all local husbands and all local wives. I would be willing to debate this with you. -- Herb Evans
. . . and you believe 1 cor 12:13 is water baptism. -- Bro. Ken
I do believe 1 Cor. 12:13 is water Baptism as well as in Romans 6 and Gal 3. I am also willing to debate this with you
Now in these things, how do you arrive at me being a Baptist Brider? Do you even know what a Baptist Brider is, or do you merely assign the term to anyone who is a strict Baptist or someone that does not agree with your invisible church of all believers in heaven and earth?
What scripture do you base your public, heresy charge upon, do you apply it to either a real Baptist Brider or someone who believes about Eph. 5 as I do. I asked you, why that I am a heretic and you evaded the question by telling me what I believe. Is this fair play? -- Herb Evans
Bro. Evans,
That makes you a Baptist Brider in practice. You are a heretic, and you are wrong.
Bro. Ken McDonald
On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:54 PM, HerbEvans wrote:
Bro. McDonald, I expected a rational explanation of your charge, but all you are giving me is pontification. What in the world is a Baptist Brider in practice? Is that anything like a "Catholic in practice" because one believes in the trinity and the virgin birth? It is you that are wrong, and I can prove it if you will debate me.
. . . You are a heretic, and you are wrong. -- Bro. Ken McDonald
Am I a heretic because you have spoken Ex Cathedra or do you have a biblical basis for charging me with heresy for what I believe? Do you have a verse and chapter for branding me a heretic? I have attached what the following men have said about 1 Cor 12:13, and I want to know if they were heretics? Also here, and in the attachment, you will find what the Bapists of Somerset said in 1686.
1.) Menno Simons (1496-1561)
2.) William Kiffin (1616-1701)
3.) In the declaration of faith by Thomas Helwys of 1611
4.) John Spilsbury (1616-1660), pastor of the Particular Baptist Church of London, England
5.) Gov. Henry D'Anvers (? - 1686)
6.) Article XXXV of the London Confession of 1644 applies 1 Cor. 12:12-31 to the local church where spiritual gifts are exercised.
7.) The Somerset Confession of 1656, Article XXIV, reads: "That it is the duty of every man and woman that have repented of dead works, and have faith towards God to be baptized (Acts 2:38; 8:12, 37, 38), that is, dipped or buried under the water (Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12), in the name of our Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16), or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), therein to signify and represent a washing away of sin (Acts 22:16), and their death, burial, and resurrection with Christ (Rom. 6:5; Col. 2:12), and being thus planted in the visible church or body of Christ (one Cor. 12:13), who are a company of men and women separated out of the world by the preaching of the gospel (Acts 2:41); II Cor. 6:17), do walk together in communion in all the commandments of Jesus (Acts 2:42), wherein God is glorified and their souls comforted (2 Thess. 1:11,12; 2 Cor. 1:4)" (op. c.t., pp. 209-210).
P.S. Do you even know what a Baptist Brider is or what you are talking about? Please define a Baptist Brider to me
(Attached to this email was a list of quotes)
Date: February 17, 2009 2:58:04 PM EST
Final Reply
Bro. Evans,
You can quote as many men as you want but the word of God says, "let God be true, but every man a liar." The words and beliefs of men mean nothing compared to scripture. What matters is what the scriptures say, and they say what they mean and mean what they say.
For instance, 1Cor. 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
A. It does not say, For by one Spirit "is a man enabled" to baptize... That is what you want it to say so it fits your private interpretation. You have to make it say that because you believe that baptism is a water baptism and you are as messed up as a Chinese fire drill! I drank of the Spirit when I Got saved, not when I joined a "true local Baptist church."
For instance, Eph. 5:30 For we are members of his body...
A. For you that means a local group of people, in your mind, "the one true local baptistic body." but you cut out, "of his flesh and of his bones." So for you, a typical brider, the body is a local visible group of people, and for a Bible Believer it is HIS BODY ie. "his flesh and bones."
B. As a Bible Believer, "Body of Jesus Christ" means "body of Jesus Christ." But because you cannot believe that, you think it is wrong. The problem is in your heart for the failure to believe the word of God just like it says it. You have to add or change the word of God to make it fit what YOU THINK it should say.
As a typical Brider you seek to explain and remove, "this is a great mystery." There is no mystery about the local church.
As a typical Brider your "body of Christ" is a temporal, " visible body," 2Cor. 4:18: "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."
A. The body of Jesus Christ is eternal, but you have made it temporary, you are a heretic!!! The body of Jesus Christ is already in eternity where I am seated right now "IN CHRIST!" (Eph. 2:6) But you do not understand that because you make "the body" all physical, therefore local, visible and temporary. You have no SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING when it comes to the body of Jesus Christ and Christians being "bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh." (Eph. 5:30)
All you have are ways to EXPLAIN IT AWAY FROM BEING TAKEN LITERAL because you do not understand it spiritually.
As a typical Brider you do not believe there are only three groups of people on this earth ie. 1Cor. 10:32: "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:", but you have a fourth group, that being the saved who are not in what you think is the Body of Christ. By making the church of God PHYSICAL, you end up in a mess. You think "church" right there is a physical local church, and you are wrong! Church of God is the spiritual designation, and Jew and Gentile is the spiritual designation for all three groups, and there is NOT a fourth group. Everyone on earth is spiritually one of those three groups.
I could go on, but will not for I have already written a book on this heresy.
Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Titus 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
I am done writing to you.
Bro. Ken McDonald
From: HerbEvans <herbevans@juno.com>
Date: February 17, 2009 8:15:46 PM EST
To: Briders_Ruckies@googlegroups.com
Cc: website@kenmcdonaldfamily.com
Subject: Heretics and Ken McDonald, Evangelist
Bro. Evans, You can quote as many men as you want . . . -- McDonald
I did not quote these men to endorse their belief, but you can avoid and evade calling as many of them "heretics" that you want, for that is what I asked you. You still have not publicly stated that these men were heretics for believing what Herb Evans believes. -- Herb Evans
. . . but the word of God says, "let God be true, but every man a liar." -- McDonald
Did you ever stop to think that might include you? Nevertheless a liar is not necessarily a heretic or it would say "Let God be true but EVERY MAN a HERETIC. -- Herb Evans
The words and beliefs of men mean nothing compared to scripture. What matters is what the scriptures say, and they say what they mean and mean what they say. -- McDonald
Exactly! It means nothing what Ken McDonald says as well. -- Herb Evans
For instance, 1Cor. 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
A. It does not say, For by one Spirit "is a man enabled" to baptize... That is what you want it to say so it fits your private interpretation. You have to make it say that because you believe that baptism is a water baptism and you are as messed up as a Chinese fire drill! I drank of the Spirit when I Got saved, not when I joined a "true local Baptist church." -- McDonald
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
The Holy Sprit is not the Baptizer; it is the Element. Jesus Christ is the Baptizer, regarding Spirit baptism. There are several problems with your invisible, mystical, Holy Spirit baptism.
1. You have the wrong Baptizer in Holy Spirit baptism.
2. You have the wrong Element in Holy Spirit baptism.
3. You had no tongues of fire on your head in your Holy Spirit baptism.
4. There was no mighty rushing sound in your Holy Spirit baptism.
5. There was no shaking of the place you were at when you were Holy Sprit Baptized
6. There never has been an INDIVIDUAL independently Baptized BY the Holy Sprit (always corporate)
7. The seven uses of "BY" in this passage are never used in an invisible, mystical sense.
Yes, indeed, let God be true and EVERY man a LIAR. -- Herb Evans
For instance, Eph. 5:30 For we are members of his body...
A. For you that means a local group of people, in your mind, "the one true local baptistic body." but you cut out, "of his flesh and of his bones." So for you, a typical brider, the body is a local visible group of people, and for a Bible Believer it is HIS BODY ie. "his flesh and bones." -- McDonald
Again, it is not what Ken says out of context but what the Bible says.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
1 Cor 12:27 Now ye are THE body of Christ [ Corinthian church] , and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
What we have here is a comparison with Christ and his local church to a local husband and a local wife relationship. I guarantee that the wife is not INSIDE the husband's physical body here nor is the believer INSIDE the Lord's physical body. You need to do a study on Bible metaphors. The members of Christ's representative body (1 Cor. 12:12) are found in 1 Cor 12, where they were set into said local church (12:28) that is defined as the body.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 29:14 And Laban said to him, Surely thou art my bone and my flesh. And he abode with him the space of a month.
Judges 9:2 . . . remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.
The expression that you are trying to take advantage of is as old as Gen. 2:23. I thought Ruckies knew how to compare scripture with scripture and rightly divide the word of truth.
B. As a Bible Believer, "Body of Jesus Christ" means "body of Jesus Christ." But because you cannot believe that, you think it is wrong. The problem is in your heart for the failure to believe the word of God just like it says it. You have to add or change the word of God to make it fit what YOU THINK it should say. -- McDonald
Unfortunately, you do not yet realize that Jesus Christ has two bodies, one here on earth and one in heaven. A real physical glorified body as well as a REPRESENTATIVE BODY. In your haste to use 1 Cor. 12:13, you neglect 1 Cor. 12:12.
1 Cor 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body [the local church BODY]: SO ALSO IS CHRIST [ONE BODY, ONE PHYSICAL BODY]. -- Herb Evans
Context, Ken, context. -- Herb Evans
As a typical Brider you seek to explain and remove, "this is a great mystery." There is no mystery about the local church. -- McDonald
As a typical Ruckie, you seek to conceal the mystery of the local representative BODY, as well as the husband and wife to which it is compared. -- Herb Evans
As a typical Brider your "body of Christ" is a temporal, " visible body," 2Cor. 4:18: "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." -- McDonald
As a typical Ruckie, you don't understand that the local church is not temporal but will culminate in the glory church in heaven. -- Herb Evans
A. The body of Jesus Christ is eternal, but you have made it temporary, you are a heretic!!! -- McDonald
So much for editorializing my comments. I never made Jesus Christ's physical glorified body to be temporal. But I am not a false teacher that down plays His REPRESENTATIVE BODY ON EARTH, the local New Testament church. Your Ruckie doctrine proves that you cannot see TWO BODIES. Moreover, on earth, NOW, Ephesians says that there is ONE BODY. Christ's Physical BODY being in heaven. -- Herb Evans
The body of Jesus Christ is already in eternity where I am seated right now "IN CHRIST!" (Eph. 2:6) But you do not understand that because you make "the body" all physical, therefore local, visible and temporary. You have no SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING when it comes to the body of Jesus Christ and Christians being "bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh." -- McDonald
Well, now, that would be, indeed, very hard to understand. What part of you is in heaven? Your Soul? Your Spirit? Your Body? All three? Is any part of you omnipresent? Would that not be better understood to be a positional tern, rather than a physical or ethereal term? -- Herb Evans
All you have are ways to EXPLAIN IT AWAY FROM BEING TAKEN LITERAL because you do not understand it spiritually. -- McDonald
Oh, you mean that being IN CHRIST spiritually and in regard to salvation is not spiritual, rather than the mystical body of all believers in heaven and in earth? -- Herb Evans
As a typical Brider you do not believe there are only three groups of people on this earth ie. 1Cor. 10:32: "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:", but you have a fourth group, that being the saved who are not in what you think is the Body of Christ. By making the church of God PHYSICAL, you end up in a mess. You think "church" right there is a physical local church, and you are wrong! Church of God is the spiritual designation, and Jew and Gentile is the spiritual designation for all three groups, and there is NOT a fourth group. Everyone on earth is spiritually one of those three groups. -- McDonald
Well, look at that straw man. I only have 3 groups.
1. Saved and unsaved Jews
2. Saved and unsaved Gentiles
3. Saved and baptized Jews and Gentiles that are in the Local church
It is you that have a fourth Group IN THE SKY. -- Herb Evans
I could go on, but will not for I have already written a book on this heresy. -- McDonald
Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Titus 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Of course, a heretic on Ken's eyes is one that disagrees with him. Why does Ken still call me Brother? -- Herb Evans
I am done writing to you. -- Bro. Ken McDonald
Of course you are DONE for I have stuck a Fork in you. You do not have the courage to go on, for you are a coward. I answered every point and objection of yours in a biblical way. You still have not defined what a HERETIC is or provided the basis for why Herb Evans is a HERETIC. Do differences of opinion or interpretation make men heretics. Well, you have provided my lists with some entertainment and proved that reading a man's commentary is no substitute for genuine Bible Study, -- Herb Evans
Final Comments on these comments from Herb Evans:
1. He claims 1 Cor. 12:13, Matt. 3:11, and Acts 2 are all the same Baptism, when Acts two has nothing to do with baptism. To claim that Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 12:13 are the same, or references to the same event for believers is to wrest the scriptures and show your obvious ignorance of rightly dividing the word of God.
A. Baptism is not a “filling” but an immersing, and no where in the verses Herb Evans referenced is anybody baptised. Maybe he wants to claim Acts 2:38 as believer baptism, but he would be completely wrong. Yes, Briderism is very close to church of Christ doctrine so this verse would fit for them. But Acts 2:38 is a Jewish baptism for the nation of Isreal. Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel... Men and brethren, what shall we do? The “we” here is a reference to Isreal.
Now I don’t think Herb Evans was referring to this. Specifically he referenced the first verses of Acts 2:
“3. You had no tongues of fire on your head in your Holy Spirit baptism.
4. There was no mighty rushing sound in your Holy Spirit baptism.
5. There was no shaking of the place you were at when you were Holy Sprit Baptized
6. There never has been an INDIVIDUAL independently Baptized BY the Holy Sprit (always corporate)”
He obviously believes 1Cor12:13, and Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:1-4 are one and the same, and he is wrong! The fire of Matt. 3:11 is Hell fire, and it is literal fire!!! The cloven tongues in Acts 2 were not “fire” but “like as of fire.” Herbs rush to make things fit as HE THINKS IT SHOULD has caused him to not read his Bible very well. THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF ANY KIND IN ACTS 2:1-4. No body was baptized INTO ANYTHING. Something came and sat on the heads of those sitting there, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost.
Herb, “The Holy Sprit is not the Baptizer; it is the Element. Jesus Christ is the Baptizer, regarding Spirit baptism.”
In 1Cor 12:13 the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer, the element is the body of Jesus Christ. Herb is messed up. He is a heretic!
Herb quoted:
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
1 Cor 12:27 Now ye are THE body of Christ [ Corinthian church] , and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
What we have here is a comparison with Christ and his local church to a local husband and a local wife relationship. I guarantee that the wife is not INSIDE the husband's physical body here nor is the believer INSIDE the Lord's physical body. You need to do a study on Bible metaphors. The members of Christ's representative body (1 Cor. 12:12) are found in 1 Cor 12, where they were set into said local church (12:28) that is defined as the body.
Notice how he has to qualify bible terms, church is not church but LOCAL, though it never says local church. This is shown again when he writes [Corinthian church], but again Herbie can’t read for in 1Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: the epistle is NOT LIMITED TO CORINTH. It is written to “all that in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ.”
Herb has tried to remove the mystery of the church which is the Lord’s body. Notice, “they two shall be one flesh.” Herbie does not believe that and makes it a metaphore. But if it was a metaphore then there would be no mystery to it, but the mystery is “how can a man and a wife be one flesh?????” That is the great mystery. Paul says it is a great mystery.
When Herb says, “I guarantee that the wife is not INSIDE the husband's physical body here,” it shows his infidelity to the word of God. The mystery is how can they be one flesh, which the word of God says they are. If it is a mystery then accept that and believe it.
Typical Brider mentality, “Christ's representative body” Body of Christ does not MEAN body of Christ, but a group of people. Briders can never take the word of God as it says it. To them it MEANS certain things, though the words may SAY OTHERWISE.
Herbs heresy:
Eph 5: “church” means true baptistic local churches “presented in generic form for all local churches”
Eph 5: “One flesh” does not mean one flesh, it is only a metaphore.
Eph 4:4 Eph. 4:4 “There is one body”, but it does not mean ONE. Herbie “Unfortunately, you do not yet realize that Jesus Christ has two bodies, one here on earth and one in heaven. A real physical glorified body as well as a REPRESENTATIVE BODY.”
Herbie has a problem, for in his mind the “one” here on earth is really thousands of bodies all over the earth. He does not believe in only two bodies, but thousands of bodies.
Herbie the Brider has the common problem as with all Briders, church means local, body of Christ means group of people, one body means many bodies, one flesh means two flesh, and fire doesn’t really mean fire. Herbie is a heretic that cannot believe the word of God the way it says it, as it says it. Herbie, as with all Briders cannot accept the word of God exactly as it says it. The word of God SAYS WHAT IT MEANS AND MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. When taken this way Briderism becomes an obvious heresy!