18 thoughts on “New Blog in Town

  1. Did anyone catch the debate with Amando? I have watched parts of it, one part JR gives Eph. 3-4 as an answer for being able to understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit, however Ephesians was a letter written to the Church and thus to people who already have the Holy Spirit. I am surprised that was not caught!

  2. keep up Walking in (not) love
    all anyone has to do is go back for the last 6 years and see that I have been doing RR for a long time

    Religious Review was hated in Martinsville long before you fellows caught on to my work.
    Thanks for the advertising though

  3. So Johnny was Ephesians written to believers or non-believers? And was the Holy Spirit active at that time even in your theology? If the answer is no, please explain why, if the answer is yes then those people who were going to read Paul’s letter were guided by the Holy Spirit, thus you can’t simply read and understand with your carnal mind.

    As for the RR site, I have no idea who did it or why but I do know that you are falsely representing yourself and that is a lie Johnny, now in your belief system you may think it is ok, but do liars inherit the kingdom of heaven?

    And Johnny I do love you, even if you do not see it, otherwise I would not be wasting my time with you!

  4. So Robertson, you admit that you are Religious Review… but you did not see fit to disclose that fact to your viewers?

    Some would call that a “lie of omission”.

  5. Wait. If Johnny were with Religious Review years ago, and he’s still using it now, but just not announcing it from the hilltops every time, how is that a lie? I remember Samuel not telling Saul something due to God’s instruction .. lemme look that up .. Okay, 1Sam 16:1-5, it was God protecting His and Samuel’s interest by having Samuel bring a sacrifice with him so that he could honestly tell the elders what he was doing: he’s coming peaceably, and he’s come to sacrifice. (It just so happens that he’s also come for a king from Jesse.) And, looking around at the kinds of people on this blog (in the several minutes I looked around), certainly all here would agree that God wouldn’t lie (Tit 1:2; Rev 21:8). So I’m just saying, we can say we don’t *like* this kind of tactic if we want, but we can’t call it lying, or sinful, right?

  6. The lie isn’t Mr. Robertson suddenly pulling RR out of a hat, the lie is when he sends his son into churches pretending to be some sort of impartial correspondent for an organization/publication/multimedia company that just plain doesn’t exist. In other words, the “tactic” that you mention involves misleading people so that he can get juicy sound bytes for his television program.

    If he had his son walk in with a camera and telling people, “Hello, I’m with a local TV show, and I’m wondering…”, then it wouldn’t be dishonest.

    As to Mr. Robertson “being with” RR for years, I’m still not convinced. A couple of weeks ago he played a broadcast of an old show, and they were saying that it was proof that RR was around for a long time – but they were still calling it “What Does the Bible Say?”.

    About as convincing as a deed for a beachfront home in the Sahara.

  7. They have done Religious Review for quite a while now – off and on. But, it never was some organization/publication/multimedia. It was just part of “what does the bible say.”

    They would occasionally do a show on what does the bible say called “Religious Review” but it was not the name of any organization, just part of the “what does the bible say” show. A show much like all of their shows – they find a denomination that they consider non-Christian ( which is all, but theirs ) and slam on them for not understanding the bible as they – thus calling them Religious, but not saved. It’s the same old show with a subtitle, that’s all.

    Why doesn’t he take this Religious Review into all of the Churches of Christ, who disagree with his conduct and his doctrinal views? It doesn’t take much research to figure out that he is nothing like those within the conservative branch – far as conduct, and nothing like those in many Church of Christ assemblies in doctrine.

  8. Alan Highers (“Is Instrumental Music a Salvation Issue?”), Dave Miller, and Wendell Winkler, William Woodson, David Pharr, Stafford North, Mac Deaver. There is actually a third group—still among conservatives—that rather boldly claims that instrumental music, if practiced by an otherwise faithful Christian, will definitely not cause one to lose his soul. This group includes such men as Cecil May Jr. (Instrumental Music: Faith or Opinion? ) and Jimmy Allen.

    All of these conservatives believe instrumental music (and like issues) should be a barrier to fellowship, but they disagree strongly on whether it will keep a Christian out of heaven. It is remarkable to me that brothers who claim to be united in doctrine, all preaching the “one faith,” can differ over whether instrumental music is a salvation issue. One of these groups is clearly not teaching the truth about what is essential in order to be saved, yet their conservative comrades who differ with them still consider them teachers of sound doctrine.

    Wonder why you never hear Johnny talking about this “division?” Why pretend everyone else is wrong when there are hundreds of reasons the church of Christ / Church of Christ have divided. The conservatives do not agree on each and every issue, but you never hear them admit this – least not from the guys here.

    James Oldfield – I will use your quote here “Nobody likes to eat from a dirty bowl.”

    Maybe you guys should address your own problems before trying to clean everybody else up….“Nobody likes to eat from a dirty bowl.”

  9. Most conservatives use 2 John 9-11 to justify withdrawing fellowship from those who worship with instruments, who believe the Lords Supper can be another day than Sunday. These are only a couple of issues that causes withdrawing fellowship within the churches of Christ. There are many, many, more. It really depends on what each assembly has as their pattern. This is what makes them legalistic – they take these issues and make them a matter of salvation, adding to the grace of God. It is Christ + their man-made patterns. It is Christ + a cappella + Sunday Communion + the correct name of the church ( which btw, the conservatives insist to be “c” not a capitalized “C” in the word Church ) – this is just a few of the things they have added to grace. It is Jesus + works = salvation. It is Jesus + their pattern = salvation. IT IS LEGALISM !!!!!!!!!!

  10. I’m convinced that Johnny and crew are mistaken to generalize “the teaching of Christ” in verse 2 John 9 to make it all-inclusive of NT doctrine. It should, instead, be understood in light of the particular teaching of Christ identified in verse 7.

    If Johnny’s traditional conservative interpretation holds, and the teaching of Christ “refers to the whole of Christian doctrine”, then there’s not a single NT doctrine about which they can disagree without dividing. Most conservatives don’t accept that, yet some like Johnny and crew will contend vigorously for an interpretation that condemns their own practice.

    This means that conservatives like Johnny who oppose any of the following as unscriptural are required by their interpretation of this passage to correct and ultimately withdraw from those who engage in these practices if they don’t repent:

    • Worshipping with instrumental accompaniment privately in one’s home.
    • Listening to instrumental contemporary Christian music on the radio.
    • Clapping during worship.
    • Using praise teams.
    • Praying to Jesus.
    • Using fermented wine in the Lord’s supper.
    • Singing during the Lord’s supper.
    • Children’s church.
    • Celebrating Christmas and Easter as religious holidays.
    • Using tobacco products.

    Their view ( out of context, btw ) condemns their own practice. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either say the teaching of Christ here is all-inclusive of NT revelation, and that anyone going beyond the authority of scripture in any way has lost fellowship with God and must be withdrawn from by faithful Christians, or admit your view to be flawed, seeing you do not practice your own understanding of 2 John 9-11 to the letter – you bend the rules for yourselves, but damn all others to hell.

    The btm line is – John clearly was addressing a specific heresy, and he goes into great detail IN CONTEXT.

  11. Comments from Alan Rouse
    Elder in an Atlanta Church of Christ

    The Corinthian church was plagued with many serious problems. There were divisions; they were condoning immorality; there were controversies over divorce and remarriage and over meat sacrificed to idols; there was abuse in the Lord’s Supper; they abused spiritual gifts; they were ignoring the teachings on head coverings; women were speaking in the assembly; and some were even denying the resurrection. Just to hit a few highlights….
    I wonder how many conservative churches of Christ would fellowship with this church. But the apostle Paul did not hesitate to call them the church of God, sanctified in Christ (1:1), to commend them for their spiritual gifts (1:4-7), to call them brothers (1:10,11,26…)
    They were wrong about many things. If 2 John 9-11 means what some conservatives claim, then Paul shared in their “wicked work” by continuing in fellowship with them. That cannot be correct.

    Also, visit Todd Deavers blog. http://todddeaver.wordpress.com/
    I received his book last night – it’s one that conservative church of Christ members should read.

  12. randy,
    to me at least, you seem to be tired of all of
    these guys.
    i know your not a big fan of me but we would be glad
    to have you. sing or not…..clap or not….
    i believe you love jesus….he will take care of the rest.

  13. Oldfield has gone bonkers tonight.

    The summation of his show tonight is: EVERYONE who is not “Church of Christ” is actually a Mormon.


    I’m just the reporter, folks. There’s no way I could make up a tangent THAT crazy…

  14. Lee, I have nothing against you – never have. Neither do I hate Johnny. I just happen to believe that he is wrong with his conduct and wrong in doctrine…and so do many others within the conservative branch.

    Far as Mormons – they baptize “for the remission of sins” too. At what point do they become unsaved, seeing they are baptized just as those in the church of Christ???

  15. So… Johnny Robertson and James Oldfield are really a pair of Mormon missionaries?

    Now that I think about it, they do share many of the same traits with the Mormons.

    Hey, stranger things have happened…

  16. Actually the restoration movement brought about several groups with the Mormons being part of that. Thus JR is a cousin to the Mormons of sorts.

  17. Phm 1:17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
    Phm 1:18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
    Phm 1:19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.
    Phm 1:20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
    Phm 1:21 Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.
    is this a division i see?……..
    heck paul even resorts to reverse psychology and guilt to bring them together.
    johhny are you taking this in?
    you need to patch the holes in your gospel ship.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s