Sunday, April 29, 2012

Guest Poster: The Whole Bible . . . really?

I've copied two excellent comments from Friday's post here.  Looking at the posting time, it's likely they are from the same anonymous commenter.  My comments are in blue.  Thank you, Anonymous, this is good stuff!

Beaverton Grace Bible Church Motto:
Our Motto
is the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible! (Isa. 55:11 & Heb. 4:12) The Word of God will bless your life, your family, and your eternity.

Let's see if this is true.

The Bible says:

1 Corinthians 6:7
Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?

(Sorry - I have to interject here:  how does he get to determine which text applies to him or not?  Do we get to do that with scripture, too?  I don't remember him preaching that from the pulpit.   Is it all the Bible or not?)  

Chuck O'Neal says (per Google review):

The context of 1 Cor. 6:7-8 is primarily that of business, property, and financial matters. We are not wrangling over some monetary loss that we have been defrauded. We are not losing financially due to some dispute of business with a fellow Christian. There is no property in question. There is nothing petty at stake. The local church, the ministry of the Gospel, and our families are under attack.

Julie Anne's question:  Then why is he suing for $500,000 - - - - - women with children and two young adults?  I don't know - - it just makes me think there's some women issues going on beneath the surface.  What Man of God goes after mothers and children?  Wait isn't he accusing me of harming wives, harming children?   So, is he doing what he is accusing me of doing?    ( FOR THREE AND A HALF YEARS JULIEANNE AND THOSE WITH HER, HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN PUBLIC, CHURCH TO CHURCH, AND WORLD WIDE WEB DEFAMATION IN A SELFISH WILLINGNESS TO DISCREDIT GOD, HARM THE CHURCH, HARM WIVES, HARM CHILDREN, AND HARM THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST’S GOSPEL (review)

The Bible says:

Matthew 5:43-45a
You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you that you may be sons of your Father in heaven...

Chuck O'Neal says (per Google review):

After three and a half years of suffering a great many injuries tamely, without stirring for our own relief, we are now using lawful means to right the ministry of the Gospel at BGBC and to protect our families.

The Bible says:

Matthew 15:7-9
Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of Men'.

Now...let's take a look at Chuck O'Neal's excuse for why 1 Corinthians 6 does NOT apply to him. In his Google review he quotes from Matthew Henry's commentary:

This part is NOT in bold, so apparently does NOT apply:
“Here is at least an intimation that they went to law for trivial matters, things of little value; for the apostle blames them that they did not suffer wrong rather than go to law (v. 7), which must be understood of matters not very important.

This part is in BOLD and, of course, applies:
Can you imagine Jesus pulling that line when he was hanging on the cross?   Was he all about protecting his reputation and suing people?  I think not.

This last part, of course, does NOT apply:

but, in matters of small consequence, it is better to put up with the wrong. Christians should be of a forgiving temper. And it is more for their ease and honour to suffer small injuries and inconveniences than seem to be contentious.

1 Corinthinians 6:8

No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!

Those of us with eyes to see can see so clearly!

No kidding.  Great posts!

So from the reviews, I gather it is being said that I and "those with me" are waging battle against Chuck and the church, and we are the "enemy".  But I remember sermons preached about being persecuted for Christ's sake.  I assume he thinks he's (and the church) being persecuted.  Is he taking up the cross like he told us to do?  Does he and the church think they gets to pick and choose who "persecutes" him/them and make sure the timing is on his/their schedule?  So he'll only take it like a good soldier by "putting up with the wrong" and "suffer small injuries and inconveniences" if the conditions are right?  And if the conditions are not right, then they get to sue, which is contrary to scripture?  Is that how it works?  I'm just trying to sort this out here.   It's all very confusing to me. 


  1. Why now? It looks as though the reviews he refers to are several years old. Has he only just discovered them? Has he just recently been informed that some have been dissuaded from attending his church by negative reviews? Do they just need an infusion of cash or a common enemy to fight in order to maintain unity? What an ego trip for a church to say they are being persecuted for doing good! But really? Hurting people is doing good?

    1. No, he's known about the reviews within a few wks of my original (now removed) review in late 2009 and in fact he and Stephanie responded to it. I posted more reviews because my reviews were continually being removed. More people from the church added glowing reviews to the Google and Dex reviews sites in an obvious attempt to keep the positive reviews on top and push down negative reviews so they would not be easily seen.

      Just as he used shunning in the church to prevent people from church to talk to others, he appears to be attempting to shut down my right and the right of others who comment to free speech on the internet. He simply cannot enforce the no-talk rule in civil society.

  2. Forbidden Lawsuits
    John MacArthur

    "The point is this, no Christian is ever to take another Christian to court. That is sin and terrible testimony to the world."

    Here is the above statement in context:

    "Now, again, I say to you he’s not complaining that Christians can’t get justice in the court. There’s justice to be gained in the courts. Not always. Jesus couldn’t get it, and there was some political intrigue with the life of Paul, and there may be from time to time times when the courts don’t give justice; but, for the most part in Roman law, as in law today, thee is justice there; and government is established to protect good people and punish evil, and it just generally works out that way. So that isn’t what he’s saying. He’s not saying every judge in the world is unjust morally. He’s talking about their spiritual state before God, not their ability to evaluate a given case. They’re unregenerate. They don’t know Christ, and he’s saying, “How could you possibly take matters within the family outside the family?” The church is responsible for these decisions. It should be taken to the saints is what he’s saying in verse 1. Let the believers, and the word saints is the holy ones. Why would you give it to the unholy to judge? Why not to the holy, the family, the church? The point is this, no Christian is ever to take another Christian to court. That is sin and terrible testimony to the world."

    Chuck stated in a google review that someone from MacArthur's church gave him the go ahead on a lawsuit. That is strange in light of the sermon "Forbidden Lawsuits". Also, the fact that there are numerous website's calling John MacArthur a heretic, wolf, etc. and as far as I know he isn't suing them.

    Why would Chuck sue former members in a secular court of law but not meet with them and another local pastor?

    1. It is interesting. I imagine it would be challenging to have to answer to a pastor, but to skip that very obvious step and now put yourself in a position where you have to answer the civil court system? Wow . . . just wow. Are we having fun yet? It baffles my brain. My brain has been baffled more than once lately. Perhaps it's time for a nap.

    2. I am glad someone brought up the issue of Chuck supposedly getting the go-ahead from someone in MacArthur's church. I was beginning to think I was crazy and that I hadn't really read it. I am curious as to what John MacArthur would think of knowing that his name is being used as partial justification for a lawsuit.

    3. Anon 9:55 - I, too, would be very curious to know John MacArthur's thoughts. He doesn't mince words on the topic of Christians using the government to solve disputes.

      I know of at least two pastors from Grace Community who were aware of John MacArthur's name being used in this capacity. I personally told them.

    4. "someone from MacArthur's church gave him the go ahead on a lawsuit."??? Is this church even affiliated with MacArthur? Is he the pope for evangelicals or something? Ridiculous!

    5. No, BGBC is not affiliated with Grace Community. I am not convinced that Grace Community gave him the "go ahead" to sue us. It has not been confirmed to me by anyone at Grace Community. At least 2 pastors are well aware of the lawsuit, however.

    6. That was kind of what I thought - did he actually ask? and this is weird even if he really did ask. Maybe he did. The whole thing, start to finish, is just WEIRD. Among other things.

    7. Oh my - - - - you just helped me to realize. Thank you!! I have a new blog post to type up right now!

  3. I just have to make an observation here. Chuck says in his review that you are trying to "HARM THE CHURCH". This is incorrect. As I understand it, you are still an evangelical christian. Thus you have not acted against "The Church". "The Church" as the Bible defines it is all believers, worldwide since Christ's death and resurrection who will become the pure, spotless bride of Christ. You have only spoken about this small church in Beaverton, OR. It is presumptuous and egotistical of this pastor to refer to his small congregation as "THE CHURCH".

    1. Indeed! It would be interesting to compare BGBC pastor/church to the biblical model of pastor/church. How would they line up?

      We have already discussed that pastors are not to be using their position in an authoritarian way. Can you have a "true church" without a "true shepherd"? That would be an interesting study.

    2. We have already discussed that pastors are not to be using their position in an authoritarian way. Can you have a "true church" without a "true shepherd"? That would be an interesting study.

      someone from MacArthur's church gave him the go ahead on a lawsuit."??? Is this church even affiliated with MacArthur? Is he the pope for evangelicals or something? Ridiculous!

      Both these comments need to be explored further. Julie Anne, would you consider adding these to your blog workload?

    3. Anon 8:25:

      I would love for my readers to help on the first issue. If you have references on "true church" without a "true shepherd" - send them along!

      The 2nd issue you mention is troubling to me as well. I'm looking into it.

  4. In regards to 1 Corinthians 6:7. Chuck probably feels justified in filing suit against you and the others because he probably no longer considers you and "the others" as part of the church or even as true believers. Which means, and this is probably Chuck's favorite reply, "The rules don't apply!"

    Maybe that sounds Jaded. But in all seriousness, if Chuck was any kind of decent man, he would have come to you as a brother in Christ to resolve the matter. It sounds like Chuck is more of a, "You come to me and repent", kind of guy. That's so very unfortunate. I wonder if Chuck knows that he is a sinner and capable of sin. I guess he doesn't know how to recognize sin in himself as he is clearly committing it here.

  5. I think Anon 1:02 (funny how that looks like a scripture) has a point.

    CO'N may be using this line of reasoning to justify suit:

    Whereas, the position of the BGDC is that they are the only church to belong to (akin to the "one true church"), and

    Whereas, you are now shunned and cast out, having essentially become excommunicated from the Church of Chuck, and are no longer a true "Christian".

    Therefore, it's no longer a sin to sue you.

    (Thought you'd get a kick out of the legaleze formatting of this comment.)


Please refrain from using "Anonymous" as your user ID. Instead, click on Name/URL. In the "name" field, type your pseudonym, ie, Fred Flinstone.

You may leave the URL field blank. Thank you for commenting!

I reserve the right to remove or not publish disruptive and/or rude comments.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.