This is my response to William's letter. I had to go through a number of emails to get him to state clearly what it is he wanted. I did not know that William wanted me to respond to this, and he expressed how displeased he was that I did not respond, but he never asked me to respond. After stating to him, in big bold print that he needed to make a clear request of what he wanted, he finally asked for a response, and I spent that afternoon working on it. Here is that response:
This write up by William Cullum, is being presented to Chris, Timothy and Jeff. It is my wish that this remain between the four of us unless we come to an impasse. Jeff can be contacted via phone or Skype but hasn't the equipment to fully engage a discussion through typed media. Hopefully Chris will be willing to forward this to Timothy, as I do not have an e-mail address for him. This write up has taken several days. I do not believe I could use the CLE Forum for this because I lack certain skills and technically savvy to be on a level playing field.First of all, that does not take technical skill; it just takes writing, which you have done here, so that's fine. I'm just pointing out that it is more difficult to sign up and use Facebook than it is to use our forum.
The confusion that I have is that, if you wanted this to remain between four people, but then said you were only not using the forum for lack of technical skill, which means you would have put it on the forum if not for a lack of technical skill, that means it would not have remained between four people because the forum is public, so that leaves me very confused because I would prefer just to respond to this on the forum publically, since all the comments were made publically. The only reason I did not just go ahead and post this to the forum and respond to it there, was because of your second sentence.
Jeff tells me he has been IP banned from viewing the Forum.I can confirm that is not true, and I'll explain in my next comment.
"IP banned" is something I'm not familiar with, but I believe Chris can say whether or not he is responsible for the ban. It is my understanding that Jeff can't even see the Forum at all.Tim is the one who banned Jeff, but he only beat me to it by a few minutes; I would have done it myself if Tim had not done it, and I would have done it exactly how Tim did it. The username and email address were banned, so it would prevent Jeff from logging back in to make comments, but his IP address was not banned at all, so if he cannot view the forum, that is a technical issue on his end.
If memory serves, I've seen a teaching that Chris put together that illustrates how the same sentence can have several vastly different meanings based on where the emphasis is placed.Correct, but I also taught that what verifies the interpretation is the context, which we will look at more closely in this letter. Please do not forget that I have also taught that what a man speaks comes forth from his heart.
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18Perhaps Chris would be kind enough to direct us to that for a reference source?Probably the King James Bible teaching, but I've taught that in many cases because it's just a teaching to help people understand that context is key to understanding the interpretation of words.
When words are spoken there is little question about where the emphasis is placed.Hmm... that depends, but I believe in most cases, I wouldn't argue that.
However, with written words it is sometimes not as clear.Hmm... that also depends, but I believe in most cases, I wouldn't argue that.
As we go forward please know my goal is to humbly seek truth.Good, and I hope we can get to truth of the matter together.
If I could just ignore what I've seen and walk away with a clean conscience I would. However, loved demands I sacrifice time to exhort my brethren.Assuming that is the case, then I appreciate you taking the time.
Timothy:
"I assume I'm "that guy" lol. You don't have to be afraid to call me out by name if you have a
problem with what I've said here. It's odd to me why a former Marine needs to hide because
I'm not that scary, or whoever else it is you're talking about. Also your introduction is viewable
to the public. Not everyone is going to know who or what you are talking about if you don't
specify anything, so keep that in mind. I also find it odd about that last paragraph where you
put it in as an 'Edit' meaning that wasn't part of your original introduction. You read some
other posts here and added that in after you read what I, or someone else, had said and you
instantly got defensive about the topic on repentance. I'm not the best and catching things
like that, but what you said actually tells me more than you may think, but right now I can only
assume."Timothy, Perhaps Jeff's understanding of how to discern a repentant believer from a pretender is lacking. However, is that an excuse to accuse him of being fearful and defensive?It wasn't just Tim; I saw it too. I just had not said anything at that point because it was not just Tim; others on the forum have done the same thing. Jeanne, myself, Kevin, Caleb, Billy, and many others have also questioned people on repentance, so my only concern that I had with Tim's post is how he knew that Jeff was referring to Tim specifically, and perhaps Tim caught something that I didn't.
The problem is that everyone's name is listed right beside their post. If he had a problem with something someone was writing, all Jeff had to do was call out that specific person, but instead, he said "
that guy," and kept it vague. How would he even know that "
that guy" would read his post? (That is actually what led me to believe that he was trying to rebuke our entire community, not just Tim, and as it turns out, my suspicion was correct because he ends up arguing with everyone.) The defensiveness came from the fact that Jeff went back to edit his introduction, instead of just replying in the part in the thread he had a problem with (i.e. why did he feel the need to come back to his introduction to talk about repentance if he wasn't on the defensive?), and the fearfulness may have been interpreted by Tim in one way; I'm not sure if I would have interpreted it that, but rather, I would have said it was "
defensiveness and LAZINESS" (not necessarily fearfulness) because Jeff didn't even bother to identify who was saying what, which is not hard to do.
Can you provide an example of what Jeff said that was defensive, because I'm not seeing it?Again, it's not words, it's context with those words that carries the interpretation, and that's why I corrected that concept at the beginning.
Could it be you are reading into what Jeff said that which wasn't there?The Pope claims to believe on Jesus, but I guarantee you don't believe that the Pope believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, so could it be you are reading into that which wasn't there? Not at all, because you know the context by which the Pope is speaking, he is not referring to the Jesus Christ of Scripture; he only claims to profess the Jesus Christ of Scripture on the outside, but inwardly, there is a serious problem. I am not saying this is [in] relation to Jeff, don't misunderstand; I'm saying this to give you an example by which you judge righteous judgment on a matter by the context and doctrine, and not by surface words.
I can remember when I joined the forum I didn't know how to find one's name. I referred to Chris as Creationliberty, because at that time I wasn't sure how to address others.Yes, that's understandable, but you did
MORE than Jeff did in that example. You addressed me as "Creationliberty" because you looked over and saw the username, which was fine, and I never corrected you on that in any way. Tim's username is "Timothy." So, essentially, you didn't defend Jeff there; instead, you actually helped prove my initial point, that was lazy (which shows an uncaring attitude), so I appreciate that.
It's not like a guy can join and spend a couple weeks observing how the forum works.That's deceptive Will. The forum is
PUBLIC. That means, anyone can read it unless they get IP banned. That means, they have all the time in the world to observe how the forum works. I have provided instructions for new members on how to start a new topic and where to post first. They don't have to understand all the technical details, all they have to do is write something, and press "POST" [at] the bottom. That does not take rocket science, and that's how everything else computer/phone-wise works; everything from programs to social media works the exact same way. If people cannot figure that out, then they should not be using the internet in the first place. And I'll add this; we have a woman in our church who has brain damage and has a hard time learning things, and she figured out how the forum works, so neither you, nor Jeff, have any excuses, and to me, it's insulting to that Christian woman for you guys to sit back and give Jeff an excuse like that.
A new member is thrust into the spotlight and must come up with a written testimony right now. New members aren't "
thrust into the spotlight," rather, they
CHOOSE to be in the spotlight. No one has to register an account; no one held a gun to their head and made them do anything. Not to mention, all of our posts are made open to the hundreds, if not thousands, of other people who read the forum, so we are in the spotlight all the time; if these people do not want others reading what they say, then they should not join in the first place. (And if they are preaching the gospel of Christ, they should already be used to a negative spotlight, by which the "spotlight" on our forum should be cake walk after that.)
This is showing your bias Will, and that you are not judging righteous judgment in all areas; you are speaking in terms of your opinions and feelings, not according to the facts, otherwise, you would not make such statements, and that's why I know your PDF is going to get much worse from this point on.
I'm not implying that would prefer the rules change, I like the way the rules are. I believe the way Jeff was talked to could have been less rude. Can we know why Jeff didn't use one's name if we don't ask? Should we jump to the conclusion he has something to hide?Well, we would have to ask Tim how he knew that Jeff was referring to him. I don't have that information. Can we know how Tim knew who Jeff was referring to if we don't ask? Should we jump to the conclusion that he was rude (i.e. rough) to Jeff?
Jeff:
[Yes i understand, im just not sure if asking if they've repented is the best test for legitimacy.]
Timothy:
This tells me you don't think repentance is important to salvation. What do you think of
repentance when it comes to salvation? By the way, I may have asked you about repentance
even if you didn't mention it and if nobody else beat me to it. But since you did mention it,
now I'm even more interested to know what you think of it (so it's your fault I'm asking lol).Wait a minute Timothy, Could it be that Jeff hasn't yet made the connection between repentance is part of salvation and also a good test, perhaps the best test, to determine a true convert? It appears to me you are missing an opportunity to teach and in turn accusing Jeff of lying. Perhaps Jeff has faith in God's word and has drawn a conclusion on how a believer is confirmed based on what he has read therein? Is Jeff's understanding perfect?
Timothy when you conclude a sentence with "lol", what exactly are you saying?Laugh out loud, which Tim should have made more clear, that is, what "lol" meant, and
WHY he was laughing. When I first saw it, I knew what Tim meant (because I've known him for the past six years), but I was bit uncomfortable with it because of the way I thought Jeff might take it, but that's something for Tim to answer, as I did not speak to Jeff in that manner. That would be one of the very few things in your PDF that I would be in agreement with, only because of the manner in which someone might take that, and that Tim may want to be more careful in the future, even if he is at work at the time.
My impression is that this passage from Proverbs 26 would apply. As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?Accusations are not a problem Will; what
IS the problem is accusations implied, or accusations that are not explained, which is what you just did. By this passage, you have implied that Tim deceived Jeff (i.e. the man who says "
am I not in sport" is the one who deceived his neighbor), so you need to start by explaining where Tim deceived Jeff.
I'm going to organize this next part with color codes and line returns, because all of this running together without names is making it confusing:
Chris:
The next contradiction I'm seeing is this: "Not sure if demanding an acknowledgement of repentance is the best welcome but to each his own."
Then: "Being online and all i think the only way may be to just get to know their doctrine, and willingness to change their doctrine when presented with appropriate scripture."
The problem here is that repentance IS doctrine. It seems like you're presenting a disconnect between repentance and the foundation of the Christian faith. I'm actually kind of surprised by this because your introduction seemed more genuine than most, and that you at least expressed that you had understanding of the matter.Chris, I don't see contradiction you speak of.I say this only because you are someone who is deep into evangelism: The fact that you do not see it is a serious problem. This is the gospel of Christ 101; meaning this is the basics of the understanding of salvation unto Christ, and you do not see the contradiction that Jeff made here?
Jeff stated that the only way [to] discern between those who are of Christ and those who are not of Christ, is "
to just get to know their doctrine," but at the beginning, he had a problem with us asking people about their doctrine. That's like if Jeff said, "
The only good meat for a sandwich is beef," and then turned around and rebuked us for eating hamburgers; that does not make any sense. I would have to look up a past example, but we have had people join the forum, and in their introduction post, they never once mention Christ or faith. In that regard, we questioned them on the matter, and it turned out, in every instance I can remember, that those people came to cause contention and bring strife, and we had to remove them.
Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.
-Pro 22:10If salvation is by repentance and faith, and someone comes onto the forum to introduce themselves to everyone else, and does not mention anything concerning repentance and faith, then we question their doctrine, which is according to what Jeff believed was a correct approach, so why question our correct approach? That's the problem; it's based on his personal feelings, not based on the Word of God.
So now, logically following his words, why would he have questioned our approach to one part (i.e. repentance) and not the other part (i.e. faith)? Well, he responds to that, and read carefully, don't skip past this:
"I don't think you absolutely shouldn't do it, (that is, to request an acknowledgement of repentance) but it seemed to me like unless it was specifically stated, you were asking for it. To me, it would be more appropriate to wait until you see an indicator of a lack of repentance, before asking if they have."In case you missed it, I'll summarize what he just said. "
I don't think you should not ask about repentance, but I don't think you should ask about repentance either."
That does not make any sense; you cannot have it both ways, which means, since he's not being reasonable, there's likely a problem with the pride in his heart, in which Jeff is now unwilling to see what he is saying, and that demonstrates that Jeff has a void of understanding of this matter. That's why, when someone comes along and says he found our ministry through 501c3 (as Jeff did,
SEE HERE), I am cautious because, in most cases (not all, but most), those who find us about 501c3 were not understanding of the Gospel of Christ as a whole, and were rather just looking up stuff about politics. (Which is why many hate what I teach once they start reading it, and I rebuke their sin.)
I'm not saying that's what Jeff was doing, but what most people do is want to understand 501c3, and not understand the core problem with leaven, and the reason for that is because they do not have a firm foundation in the gospel of Christ, nor do they want it, meaning that they want to dig into my book on 501c3, but will go nowhere near my book on
Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell, and perhaps if Jeff would read that (which, by the way, I suggested to him on the forum more than once), he would understand more clearly that Jesus taught the opposite of what Jeff stated:
"The reason i say this is because the tests set forth in scripture are not to ask the individual if they have repented but rather if they can say Jesus is the Lord, and if they confess that Jesus is come in the flesh."And yet, Jesus said:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23So when Jesus tells us that professing Him to be "Lord" is not a sufficient test, but Jeff says that it is a sufficient test, who's right? Jeff or Jesus? But Jeff would
NOT listen to me (or to others on the forum), which means he has two options; either he needs to silence himself on the matter and move on (which he refused to do), or leave the forum (which he also refused to do, lying on the way in, and lying on the way out), and that resulted in his ban.
You use the word "seems". Could it be that you are making up a contradiction?No, I was telling Jeff what it appeared to be based on everything he had written so far (that means, taking caution not to falsely accuse him of something, and waiting for him to explain himself further), but after he wrote more (i.e. provided more evidence to me by his words), it verified the matter for me that, yes, indeed that's what he was doing, and that there was a contradiction, as I just explained.
It appears to me the point Jeff is making is the way we go about to learn someone's doctrine should be done in a way that is hospitable.If we have not been hospitable to others in the way we have asked them about their doctrine, then it was up to Jeff to prove that point by quoting our words and comparing it to Scripture. He refused to do that out of pride and laziness, and by the evidence of his words, I have been persuaded of it, and therefore, if he has a repentant heart, I would look for him to repent of the sin in his heart.
1Let brotherly love continue. 2Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.
Jeff is suffering adversity having only a phone to type on and there are more than one person
demanding answers.Alright Will, then I'll quote you:
Can we know why Jeff didn't use one's name if we don't ask?If that is brotherly love, and if you want to judge righteous judgement, then pose those same types of questions back to Jeff, and ask yourself why he did not first
ASK us about why we did things the way we did them? If a man came into your home and upon introduction, suggested (and then later, after arguing, insisted) that you change the way you do things in your household, would you not consider that to be "rude?" I don't need you to answer that for me because I already know you would consider that rude. In fact, you can go back to the forum and check because I asked Jeff those types of questions, and I exhorted him very clearly (without being "rude" as you say):
"Or... do you believe it might be prudent to first ask us WHY we are doing these, instead of just assuming whatever you please based on how it makes you feel?"http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7657#msg7657 Jeff being on a phone is no excuse. I know enough about how phones work; my wife has one. If he wanted to have those discussions, then he should not have been lazy; he should have got out a pen and paper to write down the quotes (if he does not know how to copy/paste quotes between tabs on his phone), got out his Bible, and sat down to reason the matter out with us instead of demanding that we change how we do things to fit his personal tastes. That is what I would have done in his situation, and that's what many of us here on the forum would have done in his situation as well, not because we have experience on a forum, but rather, because we have the mind of Christ, and so he needs to learn a Christian work ethic.
The Christian Work EthicChris:
So what's confusing me is why you believe that godly sorrow of wrongdoing (i.e. repentance)
is not a topic of importance concerning foundational Biblical doctrine, especially that of
salvation? If you connect your posts together, that's the conclusion you've drawn for us so far.Who exactly is "us"? Could this be a cue for your clique to join an offensive? It appears to me based on Jeff's comments he believes repentance is a fundamental part of salvation.That's what I mean when I knew you had a bias for Jeff, and were not judging righteous judgment. You need to stop the childishness and back-handed slaps. (i.e. "
a cue for your clique to join an offensive") Before I ever posted anything, others on the forum had written to Jeff the same explanations and arguments I would have made too; therefore, it proves that your comment is not only incorrect, but it also reveals the pride in your heart as well, in which you were
NOT judging according to the words being spoken and the context of them, which you stated at the beginning is what should be done. The reason I said "
us," is because we (i.e. those of us speaking with Jeff) were all of like-mind together (despite the fact that we had no private communication with each other during that time), and even later, after Jeff was banned, I brought up this issue with our church, and we were all in agreement, but Jeff brought in contention instead of trying to understand. (i.e. Meaning that he came to exert his opinions rather than coming to join in learning with us.)
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
-1Co 11:16You need to learn to judge righteous judgment on the matter by putting aside railing accusations that come from heat of passions because they do not [come] from reasonable arguments, which would be founded in the Holy Spirit in understanding. I had not read this far into your PDF until now, but now I see that my prediction that it would get worse was correct, and the reason I knew that is because I am judging a man's heart by the words he uses, and therefore, I am rebuking and exhorting you, along with Jeff.
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
-2Ti 4:2For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Heb 5:12-14Chris:
I would have to guess, based on your bold statements, you must have some experience in
running an online Christian forum, otherwise, I do not see a reason that you would come here
and almost immediately tell us that you know better how to run things than we do, despite
the experience we have gained over the past few years in speaking to hundreds of people on
this forum. So would you please share with us your extensive experience in creating and/or
managing a Christian forum online? I think that might help clear up some of the confusion so
we can learn better what we ought to do.I don't believe Jeff's statements have anything to do how the forum is managed. I believe Jeff's statements are clearly about hospitality among brethren.Will, I am not concerned with what you personally believe about it. I look at what Jeff said, not how you feel.
"im just not sure if asking if they've repented is the best test for legitimacy. Being online and all [which is a reference to the forum]
i think the only way may be to just get to know their doctrine, and willingness to change their doctrine when presented with appropriate scripture"http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7644#msg7644He later said:
"I don't know if these tests can be 'administered' properly in an online setting or not, but those are the tests i know of from scripture."http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7647#msg7647These comments about an "online setting" are referring to the forum. That's the context because that's what he was questioning at the beginning. If you do not want to acknowledge that and choose believe something else, that is your business, but I am going to judge Jeff by the context of his words. And by the way, it should be noted that Jeff refused to respond to my questions (go check it out for yourself); is that "rude" according to your definition? (If so, then you are not judging Jeff in righteous and fair judgment.)
Jeff:
To state more clearly what i was getting at, i do not see a problem with ensuring genuine
repentance, rather i think it could be done differently. By this mean that how something is
said is equally important to what is said, and ill throw in as well, when it is said. Ill leave it at
that because i don't want to turn this into something it doesn't need to be. Ill just say that as a
newcomer, it was somewhat offputting to me that specific acknowledgement of repentance
was being brought out so early after someone introduced themselves. I hope that makes
sense.It appears to me Stop right there; you do realize that "appears" and "seems" mean the same thing in the context we were using those words, right? The word "seems" literally mean "appears," and so, if I were to judge your words in the same way you judged my words earlier in this PDF when you quoted me saying "seems," then I could dismiss your next comment as figment of your imagination. Just to remind you, you said:
You use the word "seems". Could it be that you are making up a contradiction? So because you used the word "appears," should I then conclude that you are just making up whatever you want to believe about Jeff? That doesn't "appear" to be very fair judgment, does it?
It appears to me that Jeff believes demanding someone exhibit repentance in an introduction post is less than perfect hospitality. Perhaps a bit of longsuffering and an explanation to Jeff why repentance must be covered in the introduction phase would have been a way to make peace. Can we agree our Father loves peace makers?It appears to me that Jeff walking into someone else's home and demanding they change how they operate in their house to suit his personal feelings, while refusing to answer questions and be held accountable for his words, "
is less than perfect hospitality," just to make sure we're putting everything in perspective.
To one point, I agree with what you just said, and I'm going to repeat it:
Perhaps a bit of longsuffering and an explanation to Jeff why repentance must be covered in the introduction phase would have been a way to make peace.Now, explain to me, with the hours I took writing responses to Jeff, asking him questions he refused to answer, was I not longsuffering with him? I even told him:
"Perhaps part of the disconnect is that you do not believe that a new member's lack of repentance is seen in their introduction when we ask them those questions; could that be the case? I'm not sure."http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7649#msg7649I didn't conclude anything yet. And later, I said:
"That's why I was giving you an opportunity to clarify what you said,"http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7657#msg7657And Will, I would have just thought it was ignorance on your part to say that "
an explanation" was not provided to Jeff, but you told me you read the posts, and I believed you. So I'm going to prove you wrong right now (i.e. that an explanation
WAS provided to Jeff at the very beginning), and then I'm going to conclude one of three things about you:
Hi Jeff, and welcome to the forum! I suppose I should say that one of the reasons we ask people about repentance is that a lot of people come here claiming to be Christians when they really aren't, as you've obviously noticed from the number of church buildings you've been to. It just saves time to know where a person stands up front so we know who we're talking to. A lot of false converts come here just to argue or to defend their pet sins/false doctrines and we like to know who to watch out for. That's why we ask for a testimony. I, too, hope you find what you're looking for here. We all try to learn from each other.http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7643#msg7643That was Jeanne, who was left out of this conversation, and she explained the matter to him with patience and that "
perfect hospitality" you mentioned.
Okay, so now that we have established that longsuffering and explanations were provided to Jeff, there are one of three problems going on with Will and his lack of discernment, and I suspect I know which one it is:
1. Lying. You may have lied to me that you read the posts, which I do not believe is the case; I don't think you would lie about that. I don't think option one is the case here.
2. Reading comprehension problems, and to that, I can totally understand because I have struggled with that all my life, but you claimed that you understood the posts, or you would not be arguing this, so I would struggle to believe option 2.
OR...
3. Pride. That you trusted in your own heart, rather than judging righteous judgment. Based on my conversations with you historically, I think option three is more likely.
He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Pro 28:26But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. For ye remember, brethren,
our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto
any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. Ye are witnesses, and God also, how
holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: As ye know
how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,
That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
Chris, I won't address, at this time, the posts you made November 20, 2019, 02:37:24 PM and after. Because I believe they are based on a false premise.If you cannot understand the things I've written to you here, you are definitely not going to understand the later stuff, and so there would not be much point to addressing your concerns on that.
I would like to point out that Jeff was new to the forum and the format was new to him. He was bombarded with several making an effort to twist his statements and demand he answer. And he was trying to participate with a phone.And I firmly disagree, and you never once, in this letter, provided evidence [of] anyone "twisting" Jeff's statements, so I'm not going to suffer accusations from you without evidence.
If Jeff had come in humility and started with a question, wanting to gain understanding, I think a lot would have gone differently, but the reason he avoided asking a question is
NOT because he slipped on a banana peel and accidentally typed the wrong thing. That's the way
YOU are treating this matter. No, the problem is in his heart, and that's what both you and Jeff are refusing to understand, and I believe it's not just about Jeff, but about yourself as well.
And again, the phone is an excuse, nothing more. If he does not understand how to use his phone, then he should not have registered an account on the forum in the first place.
It is my prayer, however, that both you and Jeff would be richly blessed by God in all the works of your hands, and that you both remain in good health. I would end by reminding you that peace-making is not about creating communication triangles. (which, by the way, is why I'm avoiding your other email -- I receive emails almost daily; I just received a letter this morning from a Christian in Siberia, so it's not a bug on the contact page; it's a bug on Jeff's end, as is viewing the forum, which we had almost 200 people reading the forum all at the same time yesterday, so it's a problem on Jeff's end) Peace-making is about trying to gain understanding of a matter, and if no understanding can be gained, it's about peacefully departing from one another, just as Paul and Barnabas had done (Acts 15:36-41); both departed from each other over a heated debate, but the Holy Spirit was with both--and yet, it should be noted that Paul and Barnabas never had a problem with their lying tongues, did they?
The major question for you is this: Did Jeff repent for his lying tongue?
Jeff:
"This is nothing new, i will move along. Sorry for wasting your time."http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=926.msg7668#msg7668 The words "
I will move along," means that he is leaving (i.e. there is no room for misinterpretation in that context), and yet, he turned around, came back, and kept arguing because his pride would not allow him to let things go. Will, that's a lie. If Jeff did not repent of that, and you're still here arguing against the people he lied to, then I believe there is a problem in your heart (as well as Jeff's) because that's not the only lie he told those posts (i.e. there were three lies I caught), but a Christian will not be able to see the things he is refusing to look for.
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
-Col 3:9Nevertheless, have a great day. I'll forward a copy of this to Tim.
END OF RESPONSE
I suspected that would be the end of the matter, but now, a couple of weeks later, I received another letter from Will, and I will publish that exchange in the next post...
