Why Is Deceit And Untruths So Dominate With The County Executive?
I requested to speak before the special called meeting of the County Legislative Body on 10 September 2012 about the matter of the budget which is the only business on the agenda to be discussed today.
My request was denied because the County Executive incorrectly reads T.C.A. 5-5-105 as prohibiting any discussion of business in a special called meeting.
This was my response to that rejection; "I received your letter rejecting my request to address the Special Called Meeting of the Giles County Legislative Body to be held on 10 September 2012 at 9A.M. in the Giles County Courthouse.
I am very disappointed that you have rejected my request but even more disappointed that you have used Tennessee Code Annotated 5-5-105, a copy of which I have included with this letter.
I suggest that a more careful reading of this Code will reveal, that nothing I have requested is out of compliance, nor prohibited by TCA 5-5-105.
As you know TCA 5-5-105 (c) (1) states, “The call shall be made by publication in some newspaper published in the county, or by personal notices sent by the county clerk, at least five (5) days before the time of the convening of the county legislative body, which call or notice shall specify the objects and purposes for which the special session is called, and no other business but that embraced in the call shall be transacted during the sitting of the special term”.
As you can see plainly Tennessee Code Annotated, appropriately as does Robert's Rules of Order, states only business that is specified in the announcement of the called meeting shall be transacted. I do not disagree with that limitation but the problem is the deceitful and wrong way this Code is being misused. .
I clearly stated in my request that the only business I sought to speak on was the budget, which starts out over $600,000.00 in the hole even with the exaggerated projections of greatly increased revenue.
I have posted T.C.A. 5-5-105 for everyone to read and decide, is Mrs Vanzant's interpretation and use of this law appropriate or is this just another effort to shut down any debate and allow her to continued running the county in secret and into bankruptcy
posted by Allen Barrett | 8:50 AM
195 Comments:
Mr. Barrett...
You need to be very careful in making your allegations. Just a friendly warning.
I would like to see our County Executive bring a law suit against Barrett for this blog or his comments as stated in this blog.
LOve the warnings....yeah that'll stop things. And why exactly would you or could you sue someone for a difference of opinion or by stating and showing facts or opinion?
I wish she would sue him.
Do you really think she would ever allow herself to be put in a position where she swore to tell the truth.
did the budget pass?
Why do people get so upset over things that are none of their business?
2:40 I just read about the meeting on WKSR's web site.
If you pay taxes and it has to do with your elected officials---it is your business.
Unless you are talking about the folks who wish she would sue commentary.
If Janet Vanzant tried to sue every person that said she was a liar and decitful the courts would be tied up for years
Barrett, Why do you keep trying???This county hates you! You are an idiot and no one wants to hear from you except a handful of people that think like you!
4:50 Your last sentence is correct.
5:59 To your sorrow he has done some good.
I just don't hear many people talking bad about the County Executive. I'm not sure how many folks actually post on this blog, but I don't think it is very many. I think someone could do a better job sometimes but I also feel she is doing pretty good with the hand she has dealt to her.
Some of our commissioners are the real problem. I know debate is good but there are some that will vote for wrong just to go against the others. If you are one that complains all the time you should vote for someone else. It is your job to make known what you expect of your commissioners.
I think most of you have a problem with your presentation of what you believe should happen. If Barrett wouldn't have come out with both guns blazing many years ago he might be more respected. Those of you who follow him on here and praise him should realize that his course of action is not very smart. If you ever want someone to listen and respect your opinion you have to learn to do the same in return.
Thank the Lord that Bill Holt is NOT a commissioner anymore.
7:43
Yours is one of the best posts I've sdeen yet on Allen Barrett and his followers.
7:43 are you even aware of how Mr. Barrett was treated at the school board meeting where he and another man were arrested. I was there and I saw it first hand.
Are you aware that 911 was called as soon as he asked to speak. At that time no member of the public was allowed to speak without prior approval which had been given by Mr Jackson.
Are you aware that Mr Barrett was not arrested until after everyone started to leave the meeting more than two hours later?
Are you aware of the conflicting testimony between Mr.Jackson and Mr. Gonzolas in court?
Are you aware that as everyone watched in court the arresting officer apologized and stated he had been very misled?
Are you aware that Mr. Barrett was recovering from bypass surgery at the time and was treated so rough that he still is being treated for a injury that night?
Are you aware that he chose not to sue the school system out of concern for reducing school services? I would have sued every damn one of the board member and the director.
You talk about coming out with a bad attitude or "both guns blazing"
hell, he showed more restraint than I would have.
One thing that many have forgotten is until the incident no member of the public was allowed to speak without a written request stating exactly what they wanted to say. Variations were not allowed. Today anyone can speak at the end of the meeting for two minutes and questions are even allowed during the meeting.
While I disagree with Mr. Barrett on most things political, I'm one of those dreadful liberals, I do respect him very much and I have never had him raise his voice to me or refuse to listen and allow others to talk. So you may think he is some wild person with hate and fire in his eyes but for those who know him there is not many better or more willing to help.
Don't bother to say I'm not in the phone book I only use my cellphone, in fact this message is from my phone not a computer.
7:47 Not that's the best post I've read on this blog.
I wonder why any one who despises WAB like CG does reads this blog.
I have to agree that I do not like or appreciate Mr. Barret when he goes on a political rant. He should keep his personal political agenda and thoughts to himself. I do appreciate when Mr. Barrett presents local news, political or otherwise.
He should just keep his personal opinions to himself and report just the facts without his personal twist.
It is not what he presents but, at many times ... how he presents the "news"
Monday, September 10, 2012 5:59:00 PM, thanks for your pig-headed statement, but please keep in mind that you are not the voice of this county. I personally appreciate the time and effort Mr. B puts into keeping us informed on county issues. Absolutely no one forces you to read this blog, a fact that you would do well to keep in mind.
7:47, great post.
10:20, with all due respect, that is what blogs are for. Now, go forth everyone, and enjoy this beautiful day.
Ray Lanier
It's great that someone like Mr. Barrett provides information on county events. County business should be wide open to everyone. It's time this county moves forward. Mrs. Vanzant told the channel 4 news that Giles county doesn't need the charter, that the county has been run the same way for 200 years. That is a sad statement. If that were true it would paint a pretty poor picture of the county.
10:20 It is Mr.Barrett's blog isn't it? So he can post what ever he wants.
Why don't you start your own blog?
With his busy medical practice, I for one, am very glad Dr. Barrett finds time to post and blog here.
1:58, it's a shame he's not in the psychiatric field. It's evident you could benefit from his services.
Keep practicing on that sarcasm. The key is to be a bit more subtle about it. I can probably offer you a few tips, if you want. Gratis, of course.
Ray Lanier
1:58
Hilarious.
Come on Ray, we all know that you are a few bricks short of a load. Has Dr. Barrett been mentoring you? You have definitely made it clear you want to be just like him.
I suppose you think it's best to be liked by idiots and troublemakers than nobody at all.
What's the problem 4:57 are you jealous because you are in the latter
group?
Sarcasm??? You mean he is not a women's doctor??? All that glorious research and training going to waste. What a shame.
Now that Bill Holt has resigned as commissioner, who will be taking his place? Anyone know which district he moved into?
4:57, anytime you want to match i.q.'s, just lay yours out on the table. I'm pretty sure you'll run home shouting "duh" all the way. I don't yet know who you are, but your posts are too similar to each other for you to be able to match wits with me. Try to be like a good pitcher, change it up a bit so I don't always know what you're going to throw.
5:21, the key with sarcasm is you have to inject just enough sincerity to make the recipient wonder if you are being for real or not. You obviously have a long way to go to become proficient at that. Keep trying, though, at least your efforts are good for a chuckle or two.( See if you can identify the sarcasm in the above post. It's there, but I'm afraid you'll never see it.)
Ray Lanier
If Ray has a high IQ, which I doubt, he is proof that a it isn't indicative of success, common sense or restraint from portraying ignorance.
Though I sometimes disagree with WAB, I do not despise him. We sometimes meet and have gentlemanly discussions in our homes. CG
11:46 You meet with WAB in your home or his? You are not the Christian Gentleman. No way would he/she do that!! laughing.
11:44, if you doubt my intelligence, why make that statement? Aside from the oxymoronic factor, you sorely need to proofread your comments. My point has been proven, dumbass. You make it way too easy.
Ray Lanier
What point you dumb shit? I am a MENSA member. I highly doubt you can say the same.
12:11
You can bet I won't be at Barrett's house and rather doubt that he will ever be invited over to my home. And yes, I am a Christian gentleman.
A Christian gentleman who practices that Christianity toward his fellowman except for Mr. Barrett I suppose. You're just too funny CG, you have to be funny because i hate the thought of anyone is so hypicrital.
6:24, I certainly hope that is not true. Surely MENSA advocates reading what you write before you post on blogs or anywhere else.
"Highly doubt?" That's the best adjective you could come up with, using all that power in your souped-up brain?
A person posting as anonymous can claim to be a member of anything. Are you afraid to sign your name because MENSA might realize their mistake in including you in their organization? Oh wait, the one you belong to is Morons Even Nitwits Should Avoid. It makes perfect sense, now. What a dumbass you are, even for a cowardly,nescient and meretricious individual such as yourself. MENSA my ass. Not even in your wildest, drug-induced dreams. D U M B A S S!
I hope I typed slowly enough for your paracosm-filled brain to understand.
Ray Lanier
How long did you it take you to switch pages back-and-forth on your computer between the post comment section and the thesaurus to make that post Ray?
You are way to easy to pick on.
Seriously, you voted for Obama, how smart can you be?
Evidently I've got you beat. Stings a bit, doesn't it? How long did it take you to look up the words I used? I'm guessing about 2hrs. It pays to enrich your word-power, dumbass.
Seriously, you post anonymously, how smart can you be?
Ray Lanier
BTW,your first sentence is a run-on; it needs a comma. Your use of "back and forth" doesn't have to be hyphenated, and you need to check the spelling of the third use of "to." Yeah, MENSA I'm sure.
You should really put more effort into trying to appear intelligent. Your current method isn't working out too well for you. Now, go put some ointment on that burn, hero; you'll feel better in the morning.
I am the one they call christian gentleman, and I DO in fact meet with WAB sometimes to discuss issues. The previous is an imposter! There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, we are told to forgive as well. CG
I teach English and can't see where the person needs a comma in the first sentence. They were probably in a hurry and used to instead of too. That is a very common mistake.
Why don't you steer us to one of your articles Ray? You clearly spend more time searching the dictionary and thesaurus when you post than the common man.
If you were smart you would know that spelling and grammar is no indication of intelligence. I taught kids who had trouble spelling their names and had genius level IQs.
4:06, I hope you don't teach my child. If you teach English, why would you want to mouth off to someone who is trying to use it correctly?
Using the AP Styleguide, I would put a comma between "post" and "Ray."
Of course "to" instead of "too" is a common mistake; so is "your" instead of "you're" and many more. They are still mistakes. Someone wanting to brag about being a member of MENSA shouldn't make those simple mistakes.
I read a lot, so I have a well-developed vocabulary. I also like "word of the day" sites. The fact that I know more than one word for something doesn't mean that I keep my thesaurus open all the time.
I'm a common man myself, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't use proper grammar. I would also put a comma between "articles" and "Ray" in your post, but I'm not an English teacher. Perhaps you're the reason some of the kids you taught had trouble spelling their names.
As far as my articles are concerned, I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Ray Lanier
I thought you were bragging about being some low-level journalist? Where can I find an article?
I wasn't bragging about anything. I was stating what I did to help feed my family. I'm a freelance or "ghost" writer, among other things. Clients who may not be particularly proficient at writing post topics they would like to have written for them. These same clients then publish or post the articles as if they had written them.
You can do a Google search for almost any of the titles I listed on here and probable find more than one site with something I have written on it. It won't have my name, however. That's another and much higher paying job of writing that TB does not broker.
I'm proud of being able to write and receive payment for it, but I never claimed to be a journalist.
If you had read my posts for the content -- instead of trying to find something to belittle me about -- you might have already known that.
Ray Lanier
I guess you meant to say probably rather than probable? See how everyone makes mistakes when typing?
So you have no proof that you do what you say you do? It has never been hard to belittle you.
Ray,
You should be commended for working to support yourself and your family. Hang in there. Peace.
Ray, Ignore them. They are bored with nothing to do but say things about people.
What you or anyone else does is none of their business.
Thanks 9:38/10::12.
Yes 8:30, I guess I did. I run my paid pieces through Word and After the Deadline; it's not worth the time to do the same for you. I know what I get paid to write. I don't have to prove it to you, I still get my check from Textbroker.
I also didn't say that you belittled me, only that you tried. Truth be known, you're not a pimple on someone's ass, compared to me. I don't know that I'm better than you, but I'm certain that I'm smarter than you. If you have anything else to say to me, sign your name or admit to the blog that you're scared of an old cripple like me. I think everyone knows which choice you'll make.
Ray Lanier
You are only smarter than me if your IQ ranges in the top 99.8%. That is fact.
New to this post, but both of you sound like you are the students and NOT the teacher (not that Ray claimed to be the teacher). "I am smarter than you" or "My IQ is higher than yours" or "I am a member of MENSA." This sounds like banter from second grade kids. Pitiful. You are grown men and/or women.
Christian Gentlewoman
11:03
Thank you for referring to yourself as a Christian. I just hope you aren't criticized for that. I've seen it done on this blog several times. Oh, but they who are guilty of that would ask you and me to not be judgmental.
My brain is smarter than your brain,
My brain's smarter than yours.
My brain is smarter 'cause I eat Kennel Ration.
My brain's smarter than yours.
Is this Robert Frost reincarnated or the Riddler? Hard to tell.
The person that posted 5:43 also posted 5:46. Stupid
Were they criticize because they said they were a Christian or was it because they thought saying they were a Christian proved they were, when no one knew who they were?
Ok teacher go for it!
7:48
Wrong.
11:58
To say one is a follower of Christ should have been enough to prove that Barrett told a lie, but it wasn't. And my comments about Tee Jackson and Dan Speer were disregarded as well. So the real enabler of wrong seems to be the one (perhaps you) who willfully goes along with and promotes that lie. Can you see the irony in that?
8:02 Wrong! Anyone can say anything but when people don't know who they are it proves nothing. Lies are easy told, who knows if it's true.
Your comments about Tee and Dan sounded like you didn't go along with enabling all the officials to me.
816
Wrong again. Lots of people know who I am, and that's what makes the lie Barrett told even more glaring.
Wrong again. I don't respect either of these two men and strongly believe both of them must go. Just because my views about other elected officials who are routinely crucified on this blog are not the same as yours does not make me one who willingly goes along with wrongdoings. Again, that was a lie Barrett told on me. Accept it and let's get past this, ok?
I accept it could be a lie WAB told on you. St least you don't approve of Jackson and Speer, so that's not enabling them.
How about you accepting that people that don't know you, saying you are a Christian don't prove anything to them? That is all I've ever said.. "telling something when most people don't know you don't prove anything."
You sound like an educated person, why can't you see that people that don't know you, saying you are a Christian don't prove anything.
I doubt I would know you even if I knew your name or wouldn't know anything about you. Really don't care. You just can't accept what I said, so why should I accept what you said?
3:43
Well, you do have a valid point, and I must agree that people who do not know me have no reason to believe me. But I know my heart and just find it repulsive that Barrett can make such a presumption about my relationship to Christ. I only claim what he does. And, as for my disappointment with Speer and Jackson, I have statement several times on this blog, but it apparently was ignored or disregarded.
Accept or reject what I said; that's your choice. This is STILL a free country. Thank you.
I have made that statement several times on this blog.
You said "Well, you do have a valid point, and I must agree that people who do not know me have no reason to believe me."
That is what I wanted to hear. Now maybe you will stop saying that telling people "I'm a Christian should be proof I am." Then that will show you are acting like a Christian if you stop.
Say anything else you want to, I don't mean stop posting.
No one knows what is in my heart because they don't know who I am.
I could probably sign my name and most still wouldn't know who I am.
As for the names that have signed on this blog, Barrett has his picture as well as his name, so I guess it's him. I wouldn't know him if I met him in the middle of the road The rest of the names that have been signed may be theirs and may no I don't know.
I have read this blog for a long time and Mr. Barrett did not question your relationship with God, I've heard him preach and he has said many times it is neither our place or responsibility to judge another persons heart or something like that.
What I do remember is him saying that just because you call yourself something don't make it so, and certainly is nonsense if the one making the claim is unknown to those they are trying to convince.
A disappointment I have in the Christian Gentleman is his over abundance of pride and arrogance that disallows every other opinion but his own, As the saying goes even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Mr. Barrett can;t be wrong all the time especially when he provides the back up facts to support his positions but he is often treated as though he is never right.
11:33 Good post and so true.
7:49
Before you gloat about what I said, please allow me to make a correction. Those who know me have no reason to disbelieve my claim to being a Christian. However, you did prove one point. I need to read over my posts before entering them.
Yes, Barrett did question my relationship with God, and he hasn't that right. But, to be honest, I certainly question his.
Is it pride or arrogance that causes one to claim Christ? Absolutely not. God will be my judge.
8:50 I don't doubt the ones who know you believe you are a Christian. I just can't understand that you can't understand the people who have no idea who or what you are shouldn't be suppose to believe what you say is really proof.
I don't care what Barrett said against you or what you say to him.
I just say "to the people that don't know you saying I am a Christian isn't proof."
Does Barrett know who you are?
I go to church with a few I wonder about their Christianity.
Do I go to church with you?
Shouldn't the post be titled "Why Are Deceit and Untruths So Dominant With The County Executive?" It would be easier to take you seriously if you used proper grammar Mr. Barrett.
Sorry for this post to be so tardy ...
The weekend was here and it was time to party.
7:48 it's plain to see,
That 5:46 is not 5:43.
I'm not him, and he's not me.
Loosen up man, don't you agree?
Cow poop in the pasture, one man out ..... Next!
9:09
I don't know of anybody I go to church with who is as judgmental as you seem to be. Would you require more "proof" from those you know who claim to be Christians or just those who take issue with Barrett? Just saying.
I take issues with anyone that thinks all they have to say is "I'm a Christian" when posting anonymous where most people don't know who they are and think that proves they are and they do no wrong because they said they were a Christian.
I don't know anyone who goes around saying they are Christians. Most people prove it by the way they act.
2:52 If you happen to drive by a beer joint and saw a man you went to church with come wobbling out what would you think?
If you saw a woman you went to church with hugging another man not her husband what would you think?
If you heard someone tell something you knew was a lie what would you think?
5:22
Oh, rest assured that I do prove I am a Christian by my daily walk. That is precisely what all Christian people should do. Otherwise, we become a stumbling block and hypocrite to others.
Those who know who I am and that I post on this blog can attest to my being a Christian...and a gentleman. I tend to take people at their word when they tell me they are Christians. I don't ask them for proof.
As for a Christian doing wrong, of course we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. But that doesn't mean a Christian would willfully go along with something he believes to be wrong. That's what makes the lie Barrett told the lie that it is. I would never be a part of wrongdoings. That doesn't mean that I am sinless; none of us are.
I really don't know why we continue to have this argument over whether or not I'm a Christian. What would you expect Barrett to say if you asked him that same question? What proof would you require of him?
Speaking of Christian people and the upcoming election, I am troubled that the media says Obama and Romney are in a virtual tie. Some liberal polls even have Obama ahead. How on earth can this be? Where are the Christians in this country who should be able as a voting block to defeat Obama in a landslide? Where are they? Or do things like murdering the innocent (abortion) and gay marriage no longer matter to Christians? Those issues alone should defeat that guy who is also on record as saying he would stand with the Muslims if the political winds should change in our country! How can he be re-elected?
When accused of enabling wrong doing and you answer I am a Christian then sign Anonymous that proves nothing to the people who don't know who you are.
8:00
It proves everything to me. I know Whom I have believed. hether you believe me or not makes no difference.
The accusation that I enable wrongdoing is simply a lie Allen Barrett told on me. I think that, in his mind, he actually believes that. But he is lying, and I have offered sufficient "proof" that he did. But pride and arrogance can often make it hard for some people to apologize.
6:08 Just what sufficient proof did you offer? "I am a Christian?"
I'm not doubting you are a Christian or that you don't enable anything wrong Mrs. Vanzant does or Barrett lied about you.
Just simply stating when anyone don't know who you or see you saying I'm Christian isn't proof.
To 6:10 You stated, "I would never be a part of wrongdoings. That doesn't mean that I am sinless; none of us are." Can you not see the conflict in that statement?
If sin is wrongdoing and we all sin aren't we automatically guilty of wrongdoing?
8:32 You might as well give up CG is to full of him self to ever admit just posting something don't make it true or proof of anything.
Barrett
No, as a matter of fact, there is NO conflict in that statement. If you think there is, please by all means explain.
Since you claim to be a "man of God", I am certain that you understand the concept that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. That does NOT mean that, as Christians, we would knowingly go along with things we know to be wrong or evil. You know that, so what is your argument?
Let me give you an example that may help clear up your misunderstanding. Let's say there's a man going to church everytime the doors open and portraying himself as a devout Christian. However, he is guilty of an ongoing adulterous affair with another woman. That man is willfully going along with wrong, because he doesn't truly repent but continues the affair, week after week after week. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid! That is NOT the same as the truly Christian person who, like every single one of us, sins each and every day of his or her life. The difference between that man and most Christians is the fact that the Christian must repent and turn away from the sin in order to receive God's grace. I think you need to review those concepts. There is a difference between willfully going along with something and with true repentance. Check it out. We are ALL guilty of sin, but that doesn't mean we carry on adulterous affairs, thievery, and the like and expect God to just keep on forgiving us for things we won't give up. In other words, we don't go to church on Sunday and go right back to the adulterous relationship on Monday. Study your Bible.
There are many a "Christian" who begs for foregiveness on Sunday and continues his ways On Monday.
Have you ever repented? Or, are you above all of that?
7:41
I would suggest that you get with Barrett and set up a weekly Bible study. You apparently do not know the difference between repenting and turning away from sin and in being a hypocrite who continues in it.
You pose an interesting question but from an unrealistic premises. First look at your statement, "I would never be a part of wrongdoings. That doesn't mean that I am sinless; none of us are”.
If a person is not sinless then they at some point and time were engaged in wrongdoing, basically it’s a matter since we are all sinful we all have the potential to sin, that doesn’t make them the worst person on the face of the planet, only like everyone else. The character of a person is not seen in the words they write on a blog as an unknown but in the display of their entire life. As an unknown, no one can have any idea other than what you write as to who you are and therefore cannot reasonably put their trust in your words. Would you believe someone who came on TV wearing a mask and announced that because they are Christians they cannot lie? Well it’s the same principle.
Of course I understand the concept of sin, that’s why I accepted the Christ as my Savior. But here’s my argument as you asked, sometime a person does wrong by just their willful acts, sometimes it’s because of a necessity, and often it’s a result of denying that the thing is wrong to begin with. A willful act is when you know a thing is wrong and you do it anyway as you described; a sin by necessity is one of doing wrong for a truly good purpose such as a lynch mob is chasing a person with the intent to murder them, you hide the person in your basement and the mob comes and asks where is he. A lie is a lie regardless of the reason but to tell the truth in this situation is to become a part of the murder; the third example is that of a person who has been convinced that what they are doing is not wrong such a thing as killing a baby for convenience.
One clear instance where I see you having enabled wrongdoing falls into the third category when you spent so much energy defending Mrs Vanzant when she was caught in a blatant lie involving the moving of distances for selling beer. I believe you did not understand the facts or refused to accept them based on your relationship with Mrs Vanzant instead of their merit.
Your example of the man in adultery is somewhat judgmental as there are other factors that need to be considered. First of all simply going to church is not a sign of a person’s relationship with God at best it is an act of simple obedience. The second question is this adultery in the eyes of God or man? Suppose the woman’s 1st husband died and she is living on his social security and retirement if she remarries both will be cut off. The man also draws a small retirement but not enough to live on, they decide to live together and share expenses. They have no physical relationship except in the eyes of gossips. Is a marriage determined by paying the state a fee and getting a paper that allows you to live together until you get tired of each other or is a marriage determined as God declared it, a man and a woman who consummate the relationship? This means basically that the first person you have a sexual relationship with is your wife in God’s eyes. Some claim that marriage is based on the state’s determination and that anyone who does not stay with their first wife and marries another is committing adultery and they behave as if this was the unpardonable sin. If the state authorizes the marriage then they have the power to authorize the divorce, if God authorized the marriage then only He can legitimately give the divorce. He has made it clear as to what His expectations and requirements are and they are very different from man’s.
You state, “The difference between that man and most Christians is the fact that the Christian must repent and turn away from the sin in order to receive God's grace”. God’s Grace is not dependent upon our actions if it was then it would no longer be grace but a payment for our behavior.
Part One
Part Two
I certainly have no problem understanding the difference between “willful wrongdoing and true repentance”. The problem is that only God knows if our repentance is true and we have no part in the repentance of others as to whether it’s true or not. Here’s the problem with many people that tend to see the sin of others as worse than their own. Basically it a matter of yes I sin but not as badly as old Joe down the road. My understanding of sin is simply that all things in disobedience to God’s declaration is sin against Him. What your sin is, unless it directly affects me, is none of my business. As a minister it is my primary purpose to declare the Word of God under His leadership and show the means by which a person can be saved from those sins, not salaciously identify them.
Certainly we go to church on Sunday then sin on Monday sometimes earlier than Monday. We may not commit adultery or steal but every sin, other than the rejection of God, is equal in the eyes of God and they are all forgiven equally or not at all.
Barrett
Part One...
You can write all the epistles you wish, but the fact remains that I am NOT an enabler of wrongdoing,and I would appreciate it very much if you would stop falsely accusing me of that. Surely you have better things to do with your time.
You did say one thing that is correct. Only God knows if our repentence is true or not, and, thank God, it is not up to you to pass judgment on me. And if my sin is, as you say, none of your business, then stop saying I am an enabler of wrong. That is a lie anyway.
Are you saying that a man who goes to church regularly and who is all the while engaged in adultery is constantly forgiven over and over even though he stays in an adulterous relationship? That's NOT what the Bible teaches. Again I say, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. Study your Bible.
Part Two...
And I fully understand that we are not lawkeepers (legalism) but are now under God's grace. But, as I said, we do not continue in sin that grace may abound. Read the scripture and ask someone to explain it to you if you still can't comprehend it. We all sin and have that avenue of forgiveness through prayer and repentence, but the man who remains in the adulterous relationship must turn away from that sin in order to receive God's saving grace. Your Bible should read like mine where it says that no adulterer shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Just stop telling that falsehood on me, and I will forgive you and forget it. Ok? You are the one who seems to want to continue making this an issue, and I would just as soon see it end.
More food for thought
To continue in that adulterous relationship while playing church on Sunday makes the man not only a hypocrite but one who has not repented of the sin. To repent means a turning away from that sin. Didn't Christ tell the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more? Yes, He did. But that didn't mean the woman lived totally sinless for the rest of her life. .
CG, Did Mrs.Vanzant move the distance for the selling of beer or lie about it?
No need to tell me to call her, I'm asking you what you think.
Call her; I don't know. What does that have to do with the present discussion? Aren't you trying to change the subject as you guys accuse those like me of doing?
It has to do with the present discussing because Barrett said that was why he said you was enabling wrong doing.
Did you not read this?
"One clear instance where I see you having enabled wrongdoing falls into the third category when you spent so much energy defending Mrs Vanzant when she was caught in a blatant lie involving the moving of distances for selling beer."
11:26
Well, here we go again. You just can't seem to let this go, can you? But I am determined to defend myself, and anonymity has nothing to do with it. You people think you can get on here and, in some instances, the newspaper and destroy those you dislike for whatever reason. It's just a shame, and I wish more people would tell you that. The problem is that most who would disagree with what you guys are doing will not read this blog.
No, Barrett told a lie when he accused me of willfully going along with wrongdoings. Yes, it is true that I have and continue to defend Mrs. Vanzant against the dirty and low-down attacks. I just don't believe she's the monster Barrett and a few like you have made her out to be. Furthermore, I do NOT know enough about the situation you bring up to even comment on it. Ok?
I'm sure you will have a rebuttal, so have at it. Why can't you just let this go?
Ask your preacher if posting I'm a Christian is proof you are one.
Don't forget to tell him people don't know who you are so they don't know if you are one or not.
You cry for others to stop posting about it, why don't you stop?
8:49
Ask Barrett if he's a Christian. Will you accept it as proof if he says he is? Ridiculous.
1:04 If Barrett said he was a Christian to prove something he posted, No I wouldn't accept that as proof because I don't know him any more than I do you.
Wow CG , you don't know enought about the situation of moving the beer distances to talk about but you just know that Mrs Vanzant would not have anything to do with wrongdoing!!!!!!
What a crock with a crack.
Look CG your whining has gotten old and is just as untrue today as it was when you began more than a year ago.
Understand I never said you enable all wrongdoing but that you enable wrongdoing by not standing against wrongdoing when it is so clearly proven by facts not opinion.
I admire that you claim Christ as your Savior, but a claim by an anonymous person is proof of nothing. State who you are and the issue would be resolved as everyone could put a life with that claim. Simply claiming to be a Christian but unwilling to be identified with Christ makes one a lukewarm, closet Christian.
I have never said Mrs Vanzant is some kind of a monster, I'm sure, to many she is a very good,kind friend and family member. I have never, not once attacked her personally and have only been critical when I had positive proof of what I claimed. Proof that she is untrustworthy because she tells one person one thing while telling another the opposite and she has a tremendous adversity to the truth. She has shown a vindictiveness toward anyone who has opposed her and an incredible level of incompetency in financial matters.
I think as you took cover by saying, "I do NOT know enough about the situation you bring up to even comment on it", is an appropriate response but if you don't know enough about it to comment why would you choose to support the main antagonist who was engaged in reducing the distance between churches, schools and public gathering places and the point of sale of alcohol? If you don't remember, she created a situation in which it took the state sending a letter demanding a change be made in order to get the mess straightened out.
So the simple matter is an issue of facts vs opinion and I have presented the facts that support my positions while you have presented opinions. While I may respect your right to an opinion that does not mean I should accept it as a fact.
Barrett
Then stop telling the lie that I enable wrongdoings. THAT is what's getting old, but you seem too proud to admit it and stop bearing that tale. I never said you accised me of enabling ALL wrongdoing. You said I enable wrongdoing and that sir is simply not true.
As I said, I am more than willing to forgive you if you will stop this.
3:45 why would someone seek your forgiveness when they have proven themselves to be right? Mr Barrettt has stated the reason he called you an enabler of wrongdoing and gave examples, your response was to say you can't be an enabler of wrongdoing because you simply said you weren't. Excuse me but Mr Barrett seems to have the upper hand in this matter and you should consider apologizing to him.
4:43
No, he told a lie, and you just can't accept that. As I said, I am more than willing to forgive him if he will just stop it. Perhaps this would go away if YOU would stop bringing it up.
Hey cg "I'm a Christian" and I believe God knows what everyone posting on this blog is doing.
8:27
But you have no proof of that claim, do you? Laughable and hypocritical indeed.
7:47 You are right. Funny cg can't see there is no proof in it. Don't you think so?
If I said "I'm an atheist" would there be any proof in it?
9:03
Is there an issue you really want to discuss, or would you prefer to continue this stupid game? You are so consumed with taking shots at me that it's ebcome pathetic, and I truly think you need some serious therapy.
Why don't you go ask Barrett if he's a Christian? If he says he is, DEMAND PROOF other than his word on it.
Here is an example of the deceit and untruths that seem to control the County Executive and her need to dominate.
The printed agenda for the Legislative Meeting held last Monday stated this in reference to the "Financial Management Committee- Members are Janet Vanzant, County Executive, appointed by statute, School Superintendent, appointed by statute, Barry Hyatt, Highway Commissioner, appointed by statute,
Chairman of the Budget Committee by rule of the court,and three commissioners. Present Commissioners are: Tommy Campbell, Tommy Pollard, Tommy Pope."
First deceitful part is the fact that there is no court order or court rule that requires the Chairman of the Budget Committee and three commissioners be appointed.
TCA 5-5-101(B) makes it very clear that there has not been a County Court in Giles County since 1978.
It is a COUNTY LEGISLATIVE BODY, there is no judge, no courtroom, no court. Does it really take over 34 years to make the same change everyone else made in less than a year? Could that be part of the reason some consider this county legislative body to be backward thinking and out of touch?
State law does not require the Budget Chairman and three commissioners be appointed to the Financial Management Committee.
TCA 5-21-104. Financial management committee -- General provisions.
(a) A county financial management committee is hereby created.
(b) (1) The committee shall consist of the county mayor, supervisor of highways, director of schools, and four (4) members elected by the county legislative body at its regular September session of each year or at any subsequent session.
(2) The four (4) members elected by the county legislative body need not be members of such body.
The only requirement for those four members not specifically identified is that they be elected by the County Legislative Body. Requiring that they all be commissioners is nothing but an arbitrary decision by the County Executive. While I agree the Budget Chairman should be a member why can't general members of the public be appointed. As it stands now they can't even be nominated.
Perhaps the reason members of the general public can't be nominated or appointed is to prevent what recently happened with the election commission from happening again. I'm just saying.
I was in Lauderdale County, AL last weekend and noticed they still vote for their school superintendent.
To 9:15 Why don't you ask me if I'm a Christian instead of putting it off on someone else. I gratefully am a Christian and the only proof I have for that is God's word. I would never use the idea that I am a Christian, a Christ follower, to justify anything other than my firm belief that when I die I will be with Jesus.
Being a Christian is not dependent on me and my behavior but upon what Christ has done. You see no matter what I now do, my salvation is complete. If it depended on my actions then salvation would be a payment for good behavior instead of a gift to an unworthy servant.
What a person does after they are saved is a response of gratitude for that salvation. I try to do what God says, not to gain salvation but to become a pleasure in His eyes. It's like when you disappoint someone you really love. I remember my greatest fear growing up, it was never about being punished, a whipping only lasted a short time and it was over, my greater fear was the possibility of disappointing my Uncle and then having to see that disappointment on his face. It's the same as with Jesus, I seek to be obedient not to avoid the loss of salvation but to avoid the look of disappointment in His face.
My verbal claim of being a Christian has no more power to justify me being an honest, thoughtful, loving etc person than a verbal claim that I am a Unicorn.
A person is known by the character, the integrity they display. I could proclaim I am a Christian all day from the steps of the courthouse and each person would come away with a different idea of what that meant if anything, but if I consistently display a strong moral character, each person that contacts that character will eventually come to a more full trust in that character. Basically it's the better a person gets to know another person the more trust they will put in that persons' words because they will have seen a consistency in their words and actions.
Barrett.
Well, are you truly a Christian or not? I want some proof. Just becasue you claim Christ doesn't make you one either. Does a Christian go about calling people names and stirring up trouble? Does he? I really don't think so. In fact, the Bible itself condemns such behavior. Furthermore, what about the teaching on removing the beam from our own eye before we try to remove the splinter from another's eye? Huh?
I happen to be a follower of Christ and NOT one who would go along with wrongdoings. Agaim, anything to the contrary of that would be a falsehood, and we are not supposed to be bearers of tales either. Would you agree?. Just because I don't see things as you do doesn't make me wrong.
I noticed in your sermonette that you said no matter what you do now your salvation is complete. Are you sure that's what the Bible teaches? My mind goes back to passages which clearly teach that we can indeed fall from grace. I don't have my concordance handy or I would cite you some of those.
I too am known for my character and integrity. Nobody holds a corner on that market. How we behave in life and treat others is a personal choice. Doing good to all men, especially those of the household of faith is also in the Bible. Don't you think God would approve of all people treating each other as fellow human beings?
Study your Bible.
To 6:26 I told you clearly that the only real proof I can offer that i am a Christian is God's Word. Man, if that isn't good enough for you then you got more trouble than just your hatred toward me.
Do Christians go about calling names and stirring up trouble? Well, ask Paul, Peter, even Jesus. The problem today is that Christians don't follow their example and go about telling the truth more often. Where does the Bible say to remain silent in the face of misbehavior? I would really be interested in knowing that verse.
You offered your claim of being a Christian, as an unknown person and claimed it as proof you could not go along with wrongdoing, I offered my claim, along with my name, of being a Christian solely on God's Word and proof of nothing about that would prevent me from acting wrongly, you see I still have my will to contend with.
Again I instruct you in a simple truth, no one has questioned the fact you are a Christian, I have even commended you for it, what people have challenged you on is the idea that as an unknown person on this blog saying you are a Christian and therefore unable to enable wrongdoing is a total waste of effort. Without knowing who you are how can anyone even suggest what you are without more substantive evidence. Your comment "I too am known for my character and integrity. Nobody holds a corner on that market." is exactly the point i and others have tried to make, no one knows who anonymous is therefore have no idea what your total character is. My assessment of you is based on the small amount of information you have revealed on this blog and that sir is clearly that of an enabler of wrongdoing, not all wrongdoing as you have certainly expressed your opposition to much wrongdoing. Our responsibility is to firmly oppose all wrong doing as it is revealed.
Don't you think your sarcasm in the way you used the term sermonette much like you have used the term epistle is somewhat in conflict with the times you have accused me of being sarcastic?
Barrett
Of course I was being sarcastic aboutm your sermonette and previous epistles. You see, I too can have the right to doubt an individual's Christianity based on his behavior. Doesn't the Bible teach us to mark those who cause division among you? Forgive me, but I can't hear a word you are saying.
No, I am not one who would enable, promote, or go alongm with things I believe to be wrong. It seeems to me that youmwant to lable anyone who doesn't share your views. That sir, is the problem I have with you.
You never mentioned anything about my anonymity until one of your supporters started making that an issue. Furthermore, you say the only proof you can offer that you are a Christian is the Word of God, and yet you refuse to accept that same premise from me.
Oh, before I forget, would you mind addressing what you said about your salvation being complete? Do you think the Bible teaches that one can fall away? That's what it teaches. Thank you.
Barrett
Don't forget that it was YOU who demanded proof. I gave you what I knew in my heart to be proof, but you JUDGED me to be a liar. How dare you! So don't even talk to me about being sarcastic.
How can anyone prove they are a Christian when posting on a blog?
Mr. Barrett does sign his name so those know him have an idea whether he is or not. I don't know because I only know what he post on the blog. Wouldn't know him if I met him in the middle of the road.
Anyone posting as Anonymous on the blog, you have no way of knowing they are a Christian.
You may think you know someone is a Christian but there is an old saying, "who knows what goes on behind closed doors."
I think Barrett's comment that his only proof of being a Christian is in God's word not his, is absolutely correct. God says that His Son will identify those that are His.
CG has let his hate for all things Barrett to destroy his common sense.
I have read nothing from Barrett that challenged CG about being a Christian he only challenged the idea that because he said he was a Christian that somehow was proof that he could not enable wrongdoing. Now he can't accept the total absurdity of his claim and tries to shift the subject to a totally different matter. The difference in Barrett and CG is Barrett we have the opportunity to know but CG is totally anonymous so there can be no comparison of what he says and what he does.
Show me where the Bible teaches that God will withdraw His salvation after He has given it to a person. Is God a liar when He declares no one can pluck us from His Hand. Is God's salvation not permanent and given and withdrawn at any moment, does the Blood of Jesus only cover us temporarily? How absurd.
2:11
Look, Barrett is the one who told the lie in the first place and then DEMANDED proof that I don't enable wrongdoings. I gave sufficient proof and yet, I'm the one whose motives are suspect...at least here on this blog. Surely, there are more important things to discuss than speculation about my Christianity and faith?
Of course Barrett signs his name. I think he loves the attention and the spotlight. But his saying he is a Christian carries no more weight than my claim to the same thing.
What goes on behind closed doors could very well disqualify one from being a Christian just as willfully going along with wrongdoing might do. But I love the scripture that says as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. And, as far as going along with wrongdoing, I'm not going to do that.
Can we let go of this NOW? What more needs to be said?
6:47
You just made a few incorrect or false statements.
First of all, I do not hate Barrett. I intensely dislike the way he treats people, and I truly see him as a troublemaker and a hypocrite. Those are opinions for which I am entitled. Would his claim to being a Christian mean that he would never be either of the two? I'm just using your logic that my saying I'm a Christian doesn't exempt me from going along with (and I don't) something I know to be wrong. Can you see the irony?
Oh, and the "behind closed doors" thing could apply to Barrett and any one of us for that matter. Who knows?
I won't take the time to look up scripture for you that shows that Christians can fall away. Grab a good concordance and see for yourself. There are plenty of passages that prove that we can fall from the Grace of God. Even Lucifer was with Christ at one point in time. NO, the blood of Jesus continues to cleanse as long as we walk in the Lord. That means you can't get saved and then go right out and start committing adultery all over again. You'll remember that Jesus told the woman taken in aduultery to go and sin no more. Didn't we already have this discussion? You can look all this up for yourself. The Bible is clear on such things as obedience, repentence, and salvation. We don't just get our ticket punched and then live any old way we please for the rest of our lives. We have to continue in the straight and narrow way.
Hey, I just had an idea. Instead of all the name-calling, mud-slinging, accusations, and etc. why not make this a blog for Christian people to discuss ideas and to help one another? Would you be agreeable to that? Perhaps then you would see that I'm not such a bad person after all. Just a thought.
Only God knows if any of us are true Christians. God is the only one we have to prove we are Christian too.
The only one we can prove it to.
7:11 no one said you were a bad person but you certainly are a confused one. I'm sure you wont look up verses that don't exist. Your claims are as empty as your head.
you need to read what Christ said instead of what the Campbell brothers said.
Here's a question for you CG. Barrett posted an example on Friday at 7:29 of wrongdoing that Vanzant continues to do, he even put the law on with it to show where and how she is wrong so do you still say she is one of the most honest people you have ever known and would not do anything wrong intentionally? How can you justify her actions with the law as stated?
9:18/9:24
Do you ever stop? What in the world is wrong with your head?
Is this what the blog is all about these days...a discussion on whether or not I am a Christian? What about you? What about Barrett?
I suggested what I thought to be a good idea. Why not make this a blog in which Biblical principles are discussed instead of one in which people like you constantly take cheap shots and try to play gotcha with people who point out the evils that go on here? What about that?
Exactly when did I say that Mrs. Vanzant is one of the MOST HONEST people I have ever known? Could you cite that post for me since you have such a vivid memory?
I neither justify nor condemn her actions in the situation you brought up. Why? Because I do not know the circumstnces. Why don't you and Barrett schedule a meeting with Mrs. Vanzant (be sure to take your camera) and find out? Barrett can post any laws or TCAQ codes he pleases, but HE is the one I would not trust.
Disgusting.
6:11 here. Campbell brothers? I missed that slur. Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't know those gentlemen. Is there a specific name you really want to call me now? Go ahead. It can't be any worse than some of the others I've heard.
You can call me empty headed and confused, but you just can't honestly get around what the Bible teaches about grace and salvation unless you choose to do so. You can deny that one can fall away, but that doesn,t change one jot nor tittle about the matter. Once saved, always saved is simply not taught in the scriptures. If it were, why would we even need churches? What about Lucifer? Why was he cast down from Heaven? Was the apostle Paul in a saved condidtion when he stated that he must buffet his body daily so that after he had preached to others he himself would become a castaway? Oh, there are so many passages that prove this point. But even so, I would NEVER sit in judgment of those who live out their lives by the doctrine of once saved, always saved. People can and do fall away. Hopefully, most eventually come back and repent, and that is good. But, having said all that,I think God's grace will take into account that we don't all see things alike. Ok?
I have no problem with people seeing things the way they want too. Each person must make their own decisions whether it be to worship a wooden cat, a golden calf, man or whatever they choose, each person has the God given right to be wrong as well as correct. I can not, however, be silent on this issue of being saved it is far to great an issue.
Salvation has nothing to do with what happened to the devil or Lucifer. Lucifer was an angel created by God as a messenger and as such has no soul. He was cast out of Heaven because he refused to be obedient and submissive to God.
Man is different in that he does have a soul and was created for an entirely different purpose from satan. When God created man it was for companionship with Him. Unfortunately man, thinking he was right over God, decided to do things differently and we have suffered ever since. We still think we can do different from God and everything will be OK, thousands of years of history disproves that absurd idea.
When God gave His Son Jesus it was to save man from himself and his grossly wrong ideas. It was an opportunity to start over by allowing God to completely and permanently wash away our sins with the blood of His own Son and remove the void that separated us from Him.
Our Salvation is a gift from God not an earned benefit as though we work at a job and receive the benefits from that work. Salvation is God's gift to all who would accept it through acceptance of His Son as their Savior.
As a result of our acceptance of Jesus we are given a full measure of the Holy Spirit, from which there are wonderful benefits beyond simply going to Heaven and being identified by Christ as one of His. The benefits result in direct per-portion to had we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us in obedience. Disobedience always leads to a lose of joy but never a lose of salvation. It's like a child that disobeys their parent, they may be scolded, spanked, restricted etc but they can not be unborn to that parent. No matter how badly a child behaves or how harsh the punishment for that misbehavior the child remains a product of that parent. The joy of the parent child relationship may be lost but the child remains the product of the parent. It's the same with God, our actions, rebellion, disobedience will lead to a loss of joy and injure the relationship but it does not sever the relationship. When we repent we can regain the joy just as David did and so many others.
Here's the thing, if we can not feel confident in the power of God's Word about the permanency of His gift how can we feel any confidence in any of His other words? Just as God's gift is determined by His Will and not man, so to is the permanency of that gift determined.
Believe what you will, everyone believes something and many believe wrongly but sadly that is their choice. As servants of God we must teach the truth and allow God to work on the decisions. My choice is to believe God and rejoice in the gift of His eternal salvation, there is no security in a wish-washy god.
Barrett
Who said salvation had anything to do with Lucifer? That was given as an example to show you that even he (Lucifer) was once in God's good graces before he was cast down.
Believe what I will? Well, thank you for giving me consent to do so. I happen to believe the scriptures teach that we can in fact fall away from grace. However we can be restored to that cleansing blood if we humble ourselves and repent. What about the parable of the prodigal son? Also, why did Paul say he must buffet his own body lest after preaching to others he could be a castaway? What did he mean by that if there was NO possibility that he could backslide out of a covenant relationship with the Father? Of course there is permanence in God's free gift of salvation as long as we trust and obey Him. That's the key. We can't continue in sin that grace may abound.
No, our God is certainly not wishy-washy when it comes to His commandments. I believe He is very clear on this. To paraphrase, doesn't the Bible say that it would be better had one never known the holy scriptures than to have tasted them and then turn from them?
Would you agree that this kind of discourse is far better than name-calling, playing gotcha, the bearing of tales, etc? I do. Thanks.
Sorry 12:57 but you're the one who brought Lucifer into the conversation with this comment, "Once saved, always saved is simply not taught in the scriptures. If it were, why would we even need churches? What about Lucifer? Why was he cast down from Heaven?"
Lucifer never was a part of salvation,therefore he could not be removed from something he was never part of. Grace is not the same as salvation. Grace is kindness or favor. I've never denied that one could "fall from grace", anyone can get on the wrong side of God but that does not mean they stop being His child. The tale of the Prodigal son is a prime example. Where did the prodigal lose his son-ship to his father? He was certainly out of his graces but never lost his son-ship.
In deed the greater condemnation was on the elder son for his self-righteous attitude than was laid upon the younger son.
Paul was never concerned with losing his salvation only losing the joy of that salvation by being disobedient and getting out of God's favor (grace).
To claim, "Of course there is permanence in God's free gift of salvation as long as we trust and obey Him" puts everyone outside the blessing of God's gift of Salvation for who can "trust and obey" completely. If after a person is saved they disobey as everyone does and lose their salvation, then they repent and come back into salvation basically starting over, so that they then must be baptized all over again. No, if such were the case no one would ever make it out of the baptismal waters. Sin destroys grace but not son-ship. Ephesians 2:4-9 "By Grace are ye saved through faith and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not of works. Obedience is works and they place us in God's Grace, disobedience robs us of that blessing. Salvation is in the Blood of Christ and can never be taken away. John 3:15-16 "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Romans 5:8 "...God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us".
You see since on one can live a perfect life before or after accepting Christ the gift of salvation is there eternally while the joy of that salvation, getting out of God's grace can be lost by disobedience.
Certainly as you state, "We can't continue in sin that grace may abound" but salvation is altogether a different thing.
Barrett,
As I said, I used Lucifer as an example and thought you would have grasped the meaning. I NEVER said he was part of salvation. You missed the point. And the prodigal son was in a lost condition until he saw it and returned to the father. Can't you see that? Nobody said the son ever stopped being his father's son.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that a man can be in a saved relationship with God and that there is nothing he can do to ever change that, regardless of how he behaves or what he does? I don't think that's taught in the scriptures.
Here's a far-fetched example for you to consider. Let's suppose that a Christian man deserts his wife and starts having an overt affair with his neighbor's wife. The situation becomes intense, and the Christian man decides to murder the husband so that he can take his wife. Following the murder, they move in together, and he becomes a drunk in addition to the other sinful acts. The man refuses to repent and TURN AWAY from those sins. Are those not sins unto death unless he repents? If once saved, always saved, then why would he need to repent? I'm just trying to understand you.
No, a perswon who is saved does NOT have to keep running back to get baptized everytime he sins. If that were the case, he would be on the road to the baptistry every single day of his life. We ALL sin and fall short of the glory of God. We must pray and continually ask God's forgiveness for those sins we commit each day. But that's not what we are talking about in the above example. In short, do you think that man will still be saved even though he never repents? You mentioned that disobedience robs us of the blessing of salvation. Interestingly, I agree with you, because that's exactly the point I've been trying to make with you.
The scripture that warns...shall we continue in sin that grace may abound is just more proof that accepting Christ does not give us license to continue or return to a sinful life. To do so would be to serve satan and not God. Therefore, one can fall.
Look, I'm quite familiar with the passages you took the time to mention, but I just don't see things as you do. Nor would I judge you, even though I feel that you are mistaken on some points. For example, John 3: 15-16 mentions whoaoever believeth in Him should not perish (the second death) but have everlasting life. I agree, but does that mean the unrepentent man in the above example has no need for making things right with God before he has to meet Him? Again, I'm just trying to understand and not pass judgment on your thinking. I believe we are all trying to serve the same God and get to the same place.
Let me try to make this as simple as it is. A man buys a brand new car pays the full price drives it home and parks it in his garage with seven miles on the odometer. From that day forward he never drives, rides in or even sits in that car again. It's still his, it's still fully functional but it's not used. The man has lost the benefits of having the car and certainly over the years the car will deteriorate because nothing is done to maintain it. Eventually the gas will go bad, the rubber will turn hard, the fabric will rot and even the metal will rust away. The car still belongs to the same man but he has never benefited from having it. One day the man decides to get the car out and give it to his son. The son says, "why would I want that" I never saw you use it or benefit from it in any way, so what good would it be to me?" The man realizes he has made a mistake so he gets the car out and restores it, makes it almost like new. He drives it, polishes it, maintains it and begins to love it more than any of his other possessions. The son begins to see how the father values the car and he begins to change his mind about it, he wants it now because he sees the change it has made in his father. It's the same car but now it is no longer just sitting there, it is valued, prized appreciated and benefits are derived from it continuously.
The car represents our salvation, the son is those who see our reaction to that salvation, and the restoration is the coming to our senses and repenting. Our benefits are derived from how we treat that salvation.
Your example is so reflective of David the king, who did those things and more yet God continued to refer to him as his son, his pride and joy. David got to a point where he described his life as, aching to the very bone under his sin. David lost the joy of his relationship with God but God never dropped him. When David repented he was restored into a right relationship with God, just as the prodigal, in Jesus story, was restored into a right relationship with his father, not restored as son for he never stopped being his son. When we become sons of God through Jesus Christ we are held in God's hand by the Blood of Christ not by our grip but God's. Our behavior is a reflection of how we value that relationship with God. Little value, little obedience. Obedience to God is our action of appreciation not a means of salvation or retaining that salvation. Why do we try to honor our parents and be obedient, not because we fear being kicked out of the family but because we do not want to disappoint them.
I apologize for being apart of hijacking this thread topic and will post a separate topic thread later today to cover this very important subject matter.
I would also invite others to join in this discussion of salvation.
Again I apologize for getting off topic but not for responding to the most important matter of our lives.
Now that the Sunday School Lessons are over how about some responding to the Friday, September 21, 2012 7:29:00 PM where Barrett made a very clear case that Mrs Vanzant and the commissioners are way out of touch with the current events and that deception is being used to manipulate people into do her will.
Barrett
You say you want to make this as simple as it is. Well, what a statement. That is exactly what I have been trying to do for you. Your attempt at condescension is noted.
Please answer my question. Are you suggesting that a person who enters a covenant relationship with God can never fall from that grace, no matter what he does after receiving it? Wouldn't it be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and his being cast into the sea? That's just another example of how we can fall away. Where do you think the word "backslider" came from? Please tell me you understand that. And you clearly miss the point about the prodigal son. He was "lost" from the father until he came to himself and was restored back into his father's graces. What is so hard to understand about that? If one can't fall away, then please tell me why he would need to repent of anything? It amazes me that you can't seem to grasp the realtionship between repentence and obedience to one's salvation.
Recall where the Bible says I marvel that ye are so soon removed from ME? I'm not trying to be cute here, but that DOES NOT mean they went on vacation somewhere.
As I said, I'm not trying to judge you but merely trying to understand how you think.
Would you agree that discussiing Biblical principles would be far better than calling people nasty names, playing gotcha with select individuals, etc?
Even I understand the difference between Grace and Salvation 6:33 I;m surprised that someone who professes to be a Christian hasn't been taught the difference. Falling from grace is different from falling from salvation. Anyway you need to take this to the new topic and answer why Vanzant continues to act so deceitful.
6:38
Then explain to me what the difference might be. Either one is a falling away. You see, it's grace and not legalism that saves us. And since the Bible teaches in several passages that one CAN fall from grace, what does that tell you?
Truthfully, I think the doctrine of once saved, always saved is an erroneous one, and I do not believe it. However, it is not up to me to be the judge of that. As I said, I believe we are all trying to serve the same God and trying to get to the same place ultimately. And the grace of God surely will take into account the fact that not everyone interprets the Bible in the same way.
I don't know about mrs. Vanzant's being deceitful. However, I would disrespect her just as I do a couple of other individuals I've mentioned if she were. I don't know whether she is or not. Ok?
It's as clear as did she follow the state law are did she not follow it. Barrett put the law onm here and then put what she did on here if they match do problem and Barrett is just stirring the pot if it don't match then she is acting outside the law. What's complicated or confusing about that?
Interesting 5:00. Looks like to deny she violated sate law is to enable wrong doing, while admitting she violated state law is admitting the most honest person known is doing wrong.
5:24
You just can't let this go can you? Please stop enabling and promoting the lie Allen Barrett told on me that I willfully go along with wrongoing.
If Mrs. Vanzant broke the law, call the authorities and stop trying to stir up trouble. Stop listening to a hate mongerer and help make Giles County a better place to live.
May God richly bless our county and our nation.
5:00/5:24
If you feel she's done so wrong, then why don't you pray for her that she may be rstored...as was the case when the prodigal son came to himself and was restored back to his father?
I thought Barrett put a thread on here for religion post.
There goes the enabler again, when confronted with the facts of a matter he either says "I don't know enough about the situation to comment on it" even though that never stops him from commenting about everything else until he's forced to take responsibility, or he yells, "take it to the authorities if she did something wrong".
It must be an odd existence to deny reality in order to protect a fantasy. It must also be a sad thing never living the truth. The facts are the facts and you are an enabler based on the facts.
8:38
You are still promoting the lie you know who told. Why would you defend that?
Poor .... poor .... CG he is being picked on by everyone and he is so sad.
7:49
By "everyone" are you referring to yourself and perhaps as many as one more? What a joke.
I think cg said it all in his Saturday, September 22, 2012 1:26:00 PM post when he stated, "Forgive me, but I can't hear a word you are saying." Perhaps that's been his problem all along, he neither hears what someone else says nor reads what he rights.
He seems to ignore everything that proves him wrong. I really feel sorry for him.
9:51
You ONCE AGAIN miss a simple point. The statement about not hearing a word someone says has to do with hypocrisy. Have you ever heard the old saying that I can't hear a word you are saying because your actions are deafening? I'm thinking about the teacher who instructs her students on the dangers of smoking, and they see her out in the parking lot enjoying a cigarette. Ok?
Poor .... poor .... CG he is being picked on by everyone and he is so sad.
9:51
By "everyone" are you referring to yourself and perhaps as many as one other? What a joke.
Poor .... Poor .... Pittifull CG he just hates it when someone, even just one, is making fun of him and he is not in control. It has to be his way or no way.
CG is sad, whines, pouts and has tantrums.
No cg, but I've heard the one that says" do as I say, not as I do". Perhaps that one is more suited to you.
8:22
Wrong. I was talking about the hypocrisy of not practicing what one preaches.
Is there a topic that you would like to discuss? Taking cheap shots at me must be tiresome when you keep losing. You must lead a dull and boring life. That's sad.
You are right CG about words not matching actions. Christians for the most part are very brave in church and surrounded by other Christians but they tend to become silent in the midst of non Christians. They rely on the perverted idea that one must be polite and considerate of others in order to be a Christian. A Christian must speak out with boldness of their love for God and what is right. There is no polite way to deal with the devil or his slaves. The truth must be revealed even at the cost of politeness and hurt feelings. Paul was a perfect example of this as well as Jesus.
The inconsistency exist not so much because of hypocrisy as for fear, plain old stinking fear of what someone else might think of them if they speak out. It seems that some are more concerned with what man thinks about a person than what God thinks about them. Christians like other men who cower in the closet aren't worth spit on a hot stove.
Barrett
You just proved my point that I am bold in declaring myself a Christian...and a gentleman. Christians should never be ashamed of that.
All of you seem to hang your words on what has been published in the Christian Bible. You might even claim that the Bible is the word of GOD.
But, am I not mistaken that the Bible was written by mortal MEN? That the Roman Emperor (a man) held a conference (the First Council of Nicaea) in modern day Turkey, to decide what the relationship between Jesus and GOD would be and which parts of the Bible were to be published and what parts were to be left out an ignored????
That does not seem to be the word of GOD; rather, the written word and efforts of a very select few MEN who did not want to give up their created power over the common people.
Now you may claim that the gospels are the word of GOD as spoken by Jesus; but Jesus never word a word or gospel. The “Gospels” are accounts written by MEN recounting what they remember. Not that any one of them would or could make a mistake.
CG and Barrett please feel free to wade in and disprove (by facts) anything I have published.
I'll wade in. The Bible was written by inspired men under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If you find that amusing, I pity you.
Did the Holy Spirit direct which gospels were to be published and which were not? Or, was that the decision by a group of men under the Roman Emperor?
Did the Holy spirti direct the translation from the original Hebrew into Latin, and then into English; or, again was that the effort of mortal men?
At least Barrett practices what he preaches. He is always impolite, inconsiderate and hypocritical no matter what he is talking about.
4:16
I believe if you would grab a concordance and look in II Timothy, you will find that all scripture is given by inspiration (meaning God breathed)of God. But if you don't believe that inspired men wrote the gospels, then I suppose it's a moot point.
I too feel sorry for you. However, Where is the wisdom of the wise? I can tell you. God will destroy it in the end.
5:16
To answer your question, of course not. Translations and certain book deletions were conducted by the best scholars of the day. Those ommitted books or gospels were not relevant in terms of salvation. But you knew that, didn't you?
Even the haughty and wise will one day bow and cofess that Jesus is Lord. Even YOU will bend your knee and confess Christ. I just hope it's not too late.
Just a question: Why was it up to man to decide which books should be left out?
10:38 Because some of the books were not relevant.
The gospels that were left out did not support the belief that Jesus was the son of GOD and that he was the divine son of GOD
The Nicaean council settled, to some degree, the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ, along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from God, had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome. The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.
These were men, not GOD, who decided what was to be believed and it continues to this day. They were in charge and they were not going to allow anyone to take away their power.
How many female Bishops, Cardnals, and Popes are there? Yes, females are now becoming allowed to be prists; but not many.
Why do men have the advantage? Why are men so special?
8:01
Regardless of how you try to smooth it over and deny the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, not one jot nor tittle is or will be changed. And, like it or not, one day, you, me, and everybody else will kneel and confess that Jesus is the Christ.
You are truely a narrow minded follower and not a leader. You have no desire to learn about true history and its affects upon mankind.
The Holy Scriptures are a treasure and provide inspiration to many; that does not change the proven fact that mankind altered the published texts to suit their own needs. Unless you believe that the Earth is only 3,000 years old.
I never professed to be a leader but rather a follower of Christ. It's too bad that you don't seem to be able to accept the inspiration of the Bible. I truly feel sorry for you. Does that make you an atheist or an agnostic? Just asking. Either way, every knee, including yours, WILL bow and every tongue will confess, like it or not.
I never said that I did not accept the inspiration of the Bible. I stated that the Bible is the work of men who purportedly recorded the "Word of GOD". Those writings have been changed, altered, translated and mistranslated over thousands of years; yet remain the work of individual men and not a deity. Sections have been purposely removed by men and not by GOD.
Why not publish the entire writings? Why hide what was written from the public unless they have something to hide?
For your information I am Christian and a post graduate from Our Lady University and am well versed in the Holy Bible and its writings. I am also well versed in what went on during the early years of Christianity and why. You seem to be very lacking in historical knowledge or are willing to be a complacent sheep who only knows what was taught at you local Sunday school sessions.
1:51
The point you missed in all your arrogance is the fasct that these were inspired men. Is it too simplistic for you to grasp? That's how it appears. Again, God will destroy the wisdom of the wise.
Emperor Constantine was inspired alright; by his own ambition.
Broaden your view and knowledge or are you afraid of truth? I guess it is more confortable to be in a hole.
Inspired they may have been, but they were men nonetheless. So according to 5:13 and 8:01, parts of the bible weren't relevant or did not conform to what these MEN thought they should. The word may not have been changed one "jot", but some of the words were left out...
Make some sense of that.
2:3
Yes, some of the books were omitted. Nobody said they were not. If you can't accept the fact that inspired men wrote the Bible, then try to wrap your mind around this. The twelve apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit to preach in various unstudied languages on Pentecost. They were also given the power to heal the sick and even to raise the dead. Uneleievable, right? But if you don't accept that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then you are not likely to believe that either. Again, moot point.
Regardless every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord when Judgment comes. That would include you and me. Like it or not, that's the gospel.
Question, have you always held your views or did you learn them from leftist liberal professors in college? Just asking.
2:14/2:33
I too heard all that leftist garbage when I was in college. It floored me that supposedly learned and intelligent men could not humble themselves and accept Christ. One such professor would even tell vulgar jokes about Christ. I pitied them just as I do you.
The teachers at Our Lady University are about as conservative as one can get in American educational institutions. I have been a Christian for over 60 years. If the original authors of the gospels were inspired by GOD (as they undoubtedly were) why (I ask again) did a select few MEN remove written gospels from the “official” Bible as decreed by the Roman Emperor? Why not include all the inspired writings?
The reason the gospels were removed is that those gospels did not fall in line with what the Emperor wanted as Christian doctrine. This is not GOD making the decision but a mortal man who had the mortal power to bend religion to his way of thinking.
Now I do assume that you realize that gospels have been removed from the original Bible and that you know who Emperor Constantine was?
2:56
I wouldn't be assuming if I were you. I trust that you know what that might entail?
I believe it has been suufficiently talked to death about why some of the books were left out of the Bible. Why do you insist on splitting hair?
To have atttended a conservative university, it appears to me (my opinion) that you got a liberal dose of liberalism. I attended a very liberal and leftist uniersity and did not allow those kooky professors to sway me one inch. You see, Christians must guard against that. Oh, but you would say my being steadfast and unmoveable is because of my narrow mindedness, right?
Yes, I'm familiar with several of the emperors (e.g Domitian, Constantine, Nero).
3:14 would have burned those removed gospels.
There is no absolute proof that will ever be sufficient to change the mind of someone who has convinced their-self that the way they see a thing is right and closed the door on everything else. No one can absolutely prove who wrote the Bible, who decided to include or exclude whatever anymore than anyone can prove absolutely that there is not life on some distant planet. Unless you were in the room at the time most everything is speculation. Certainly there is much circumstantial evidence. History proves much of the claims in the Bible and just as with life on another planet time will reveal the truth.
The question is not so much who wrote the Bible or even how it was written but does what it contains lead one to a better life. I believe, based on that simple idea of it leads to a better way of living, the Bible is worthy of study and life applications. I believe, as found in the example of C.S. Lewis, that even when a person approaches the Bible with a predetermined outlook if they will simply have a partially opened mind they will come to see the truth of it's words.
Can anyone force another person to accept what the Bible says, of course not man's responsibility is to show the benefits and truths the Bible provides and leave the rest to God. I understand the reluctance to accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God because it requires a decision about our own lives and the acceptance of responsibility for that decision. So 2:56 I will not try to convince you about the truth of the Bible and those things it speaks of to come, you have already made up your mind and decided that your intelligence is greater than all the intelligence in the Bible or even in God.
I will pray for you and hope that you will soon become dissatisfied living in your world without a hope for the future, pick up the Bible and begin an earnest study of it.
Same is true of the Torah and Koran.
Sorry but the Koran is an evil book that teaches violence as a means of conversion and the total domination of women as third class people also homosexuals areput to death.
Have you even read it? Are you referring to stoning as in our old and new testaments? Do you deny the belief of billions that it was divinely inspired too, just as we believe of the Bible.
Be careful not to confuse radical Muslims with mainstream Islam. If you do you are no different from someone in Saudi Arabia condemning all Christians as snake handling witch burners.
I have read as much as I could stomach, I have also read histories of Mohammad the prophet and it ain't pretty.
Of course there is a difference between a radical and a "Mainstream"
Muslim but it's the sameness that creates the danger, When the leaders of the Muslim religion declare a holy war against everyone not a Muslim and millions act on that declaration while most of the others remain silent for fear of their lives, when you have :mainstream" parents kill their children for not following traditions you can't say there is a lot of difference.
Nor can you say that there is a lot of difference between them and when the religious “conservatives” burned witches in Salem, MA or when the conservative priests slaughtered (or had slaughtered) entire races of Indians in South, Central and North America.
Any religious zealot is dangerous be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist pr a follower of any sect.
2:43, I didn't realize my questioning of the books left out of the Bible made me a leftist liberal. That statement would seem to make you a narrow-minded right-winger with tunnel vision, wouldn't it?
So who would you rather have as President:
A candidate whose faith is based on the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
or one whose faith is based on the books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman and Nephi?
9:36 Who called YOU a leftist liberal? Nobody. The reference was to leftist liberal college professors.
Oh, I'm certainly a conservative Christian whom you guys would call a right-winger. I take that as a compliment. And no tunnel vision here. I amd many many like me see clearly what Obama and the leftists are doing to this land I love.
Really? What's he doing to it?
Y'all got to remember that Pulaski is the birthplace of one of the most concervative Christian groups ever founded within our country. Pure whit, pure rage, our way or no way.
Where are my robes?
2:17/2:50
Do you simply choose to be that naive? Are you defending Obama because of his skin color? That's a poor reason to support him.
I would suggest that you ask the Democrats where those robes are. That's the KKK party. By the way, the real hate-mongering KKK actually started in Georgia. But then again, I'd bet you think Dr. King was a Democrat.
1:23, the question was did I learn my views from a leftist liberal professor. That implies that my views are the same as the profs, making me one too.
Pay attention to what you read.
4:16
Wrong again! You were asked if you learned your way of thinking from a leftist liberal. There was no implication that you are the same. You were asked a question; no accusation was made. Do you want to argue semantics now?
No, there is no sense in arguing with an idiot like you. You will never admit you are wrong, even though you are. What did the statement imply, if not that? I was asked if I learned my views from a leftist liberal, implying that my views were the same. I realize it probably comes as a shock to you, but you are not always right.
It simply amazes me how you always try to twist everything around to try to appear intelligent, when all it does is prove you the fool.
Now, go ahead and spin that statement to suit you, it really does not make any difference. Everyone on here knows how you operate.
Just to throw a monkey into the wrench ... I was the one who started the discussion regarding the missing Gospels from the Bible. And, the last time I posted a comment was at 8:01 Saturday morning.
CG it seems that you are continuing to stir up more resentment from others. I guess that does make you an enabler of trouble. Proven by your words and your actions.
Too true, 6:07,and the kicker is that most of the trouble he stirs up is none of his business.
It seems that he responds to 9 out of every 10 comments made on here, and seldom in a favorable light. Go figure.
8:22
Is this not a free speech blog. If it is, then I have every right to state my views. And the leftist agenda of this current administration IS very much my business.
I don't believe 4:16 is a member of the current administration, but you still had to put your nose in his business. So like you.
1244-sept 30...
You give a choice of a pres that believes Mathew, Mark... Etc or Nephi, Alma etc
With no disrespect that is the same individual. Those additional books you refered to do not replace, over-ride, or contradict ANYTHING in the King James Bible. In fact, those books support and back up the bible as an additional testemant to Jesus Christ. Just wanted to point that out as you seemed to cast that in a derogatory fashion.
Really, you believe that Jesus lived with the Native Americans in North America?
My church, and candidate, do not believe that.
What I believe is not for a source argument, we both believe according to the light and knowledge we have.
I'd simply say this, if you read the Book, then inquire of God with an open heart as to the truth of the writings you can't go wrong.
Actually 9:05 I could not agree with you more. I offered the challenge in response to people attacking the religion of President Obama, which I also think is not proper for debate.
Perhaps now we can leave religion out of the discussion.
Excellent response.
It's hard to leave religion out of the discussion when one religion seeks the total destruction of the other religions. With the leaders of Islam declaring a holy war on all other religions and their followers carrying out their mandate how can there even be a discussion. Death to infidels is the war cry of Muslims and no other religion.
I think the religion discussion was only intended to be left out of this thread topic....
8:34
Where is your mosque located?
We have one in Huntsville. We would love to have you join us in a service and see for yourself what our worship is about. I think you would be pleasantly surprised.
8:00 are you talking about Christianity's attack on all other religions? If your not with me you are against me philosophy? That seems to be the only attacks I ever see posted on here.
I wonder just how stupid the people who attacked Barrett and others who told the truth about this event must feel by now. Defending the Obama administration in their treasonous behavior and lies has to be embarrassing to any reasonable person.
Yeah, I'm sure the mittster would have handled it differently. What a joke you are.
Post a Comment
<< Home