Clemson and NewSpring

[Trading Tiger]

Originally posted by HFBTiger:

Originally posted by Trading Tiger:

The truth is, talking about money makes people uncomfortable. Other churches don't talk about money because they don't want to make their members uncomfortable.

Newspring/Perry doesn't care about making people uncomfortable

The cross makes people uncomfortable. Some churches choose to focus on the empty tomb instead of the cross because they don't want to make their "owners" uncomfortable. Good thing Newspring/Perry don't care about making people uncomfortable.

"Other churches" don't need to talk about tithing every week because their members already do it.

Not attacking you personally Trading, just trying to add another page to the thread...

WOW, you're just a tad bit off. The difference between the cross and money is I don't know any Christians who are uncomfortable with the cross, I know lots of Christians uncomfortable talking about money.

And LOL at your absurd belief about how many people tithe. A quick search shows varying results, but even taking the most aggressive stats, less than 10% of all Christians tithe. Seems like the rest of the churches in America need to take after Newspring and preach more sermons about money.

 

[tigerjl]

Orange Forever comes out of retirement to own a thread about Christianity. True sign of the apocalypse....seriously though, lots of clear agendas, clear bias and massive axe grinding in this thread. Interesting questions raised about NS and Perry.

Question for the traditional church crowd concerned about money....what concerns you more, a fancy contemporary church raking in millions, "over paying" staff and going overboard with bells and whistles....

or a dying southern baptist church that is 100% inwardly focused with no desire to grow, reach the lost or help the community....yet 100% ok with taking your 10% to make sure the deacons have enough to pay the light bill and buy the spaghetti for Wednesday nights?

My point is this...NS may spend money like sailors, but at least they aren't satisfied watching another generation grow up and leave THE church because they can't see it working in the lives of it's members or the community.

I don't go to NS. I am cynical about many of their ways. But I do believe that a vast majority of the staff and owners are fighting to spread the gospel. I can't say the same for all the "safe" churches that we are more accustomed to.

 

[SWUtigers]

Tigerjl, I'm sorry but this is an 8 page thread and the COMMON theme in all of this is transparency. If you can show me ONE southern baptist church that won't show a detailed account of their revenue, I may concede your point but this '"church" won't produce anything more than how many lives they've "saved". You won't be taken seriously if you can't at the very lest acknowledge that simple fact.

 

[False9]

Trading Tiger - You completely misunderstood my point, and maybe that's my fault so I'll try to be more clear. You stated that NS/Perry doesn't care about making people uncomfortable, and presented as evidence the willingness to talk early and often about tithing and money (I have no problem with someone preaching about tithing or stewardship).

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) NS doesn't have crosses but instead focuses on the empty tomb. Many seeker churches eliminate the cross because it makes seekers feel "uncomfortable." I'm just curious if NS reasoning is the same, since they don't care about making people uncomfortable?

Not worrying about offending anyone by preaching about tithing every week but worried about offending someone by displaying the cross in His house of worship? Maybe I have the wrong impression. Or maybe "I love my Church" t-shirts are a better idea than the symbol of Christianity since the advent of Christendom.

Also, if only 10% of church members (i'm not sure how "Christians" are defined in your survey that you made up for this post) are tithing, then the Lord is multiplying those dollars as he did the loaves and fishes based on the church buildings, budgets, and outreach that I see.

 

[JP09191978]

I don't have a problem with Nuke wanting to be baptized this way. And let me disclose....I am a Newspring owner. A couple of people on here that know me at church will give me hell for what i am about to say but i think it needs to be said...I have a problem with this.....Do you think for a second if I called Newspring to have Perry baptize my son or anyone else's son that isn't sammy watkins or nuke hopkins....that he would do it? What does it say to the average guy that he has time for Sammy and Nuke but not anyone else's son? I think it sends the wrong message.

Originally posted by SWUtigers:
Here's the thing and I'll hope the thread dies after this.

I do hope NewSpring and Clemson are not intertwined and that the revelations coming from this kooky Wisconsin outfit are inaccurate. But when I see Perry Noble on our practice fields, I can't help but become extremely worried that Dabo is "all in" with NS, too.

This post was edited on 4/18 11:32 PM by JP09191978

 

[firegiver]

Originally posted by JP09191978:
I don't have a problem with Nuke wanting to be baptized this way. And let me disclose....I am a Newspring owner. A couple of people on here that know me at church will give me hell for what i am about to say but i think it needs to be said...I have a problem with this.....Do you think for a second if I called Newspring to have Perry baptize my son or anyone else's son that isn't sammy watkins or nuke hopkins....that he would do it? What does it say to the average guy that he has time for Sammy and Nuke but not anyone else's son? I think it sends the wrong message.

Originally posted by SWUtigers:
Here's the thing and I'll hope the thread dies after this.

I do hope NewSpring and Clemson are not intertwined and that the revelations coming from this kooky Wisconsin outfit are inaccurate. But when I see Perry Noble on our practice fields, I can't help but become extremely worried that Dabo is "all in" with NS, too.

This post was edited on 4/18 11:32 PM by JP09191978

It says he likes money and publicity. I belong to no church, but I've buried my share of church going relatives, if their pastor were not involved exclusively then I don't know why people even bother titheing. If the church is so big that a pastor/preacher/priest/whatever can't make the time to come to your family's aid in the most difficult of times. Then what are they good for?

 

[SWUtigers]

Originally posted by JP09191978:
I don't have a problem with Nuke wanting to be baptized this way. And let me disclose....I am a Newspring owner. A couple of people on here that know me at church will give me hell for what i am about to say but i think it needs to be said...I have a problem with this.....Do you think for a second if I called Newspring to have Perry baptize my son or anyone else's son that isn't sammy watkins or nuke hopkins....that he would do it? What does it say to the average guy that he has time for Sammy and Nuke but not anyone else's son? I think it sends the wrong message.

Originally posted by SWUtigers:
Here's the thing and I'll hope the thread dies after this.

I do hope NewSpring and Clemson are not intertwined and that the revelations coming from this kooky Wisconsin outfit are inaccurate. But when I see Perry Noble on our practice fields, I can't help but become extremely worried that Dabo is "all in" with NS, too.

This post was edited on 4/18 11:32 PM by JP09191978

I'm glad to hear an owner speak out against them and I hope you do not catch any grief for expressing your feelings. The fact that you can't share your thoughts about the church without fear of retaliation tells me a lot and confirms my suspicions, frankly.

 

[False9]

Tigerjl - honest reply from a "traditional" church guy. I'm not concerned at all about the money, NS isn't and shouldn't be accountable to me regarding their finances.

I think churches should be accountable to three groups - nominally to the IRS to prove that it operates within the parameters established for tax exempt entities (and let me be clear that I'm not accusing NS nor do I believe there is any wrongdoing in that area), accountable to it's members who are the body of the church, and ultimately accountable to God. Any unwillingness by the leadership to be accountable to those three authorities would be worrisome to me - again I'm not saying that is happening with NS.

I am confident that there are inwardly focused churches that are dying due to lack of outreach, I just haven't seen them and thus can't speak intelligently about them.

 

[JP09191978]

Originally posted by SWUtigers:
Although I thought the atheist/agnostic article about Clemson is nothing to see, I can't help but wonder how influential NewSpring is to the Program. Anyone care to elaborate?

Also, what is it about this "church" that makes people get so defensive? I have close friends that work and/or attend services and they are borderline militant about this place. This blog, in particular, makes me wonder about the "culture" being created in mega churches.

Perhaps I just don't understand because I've never set foot in there but I wonder what some here have to say.

Let me clarify...im not "speaking out against" anyone. I just don't agree with Perry only agreeing to baptize "stars". There are a lot of great staff members at Newspring that have spent time with me and helped me grow closer to the Lord. My kids LOVE Kidspring and I love my homegroup. There have been a TON of positives that have come out of my years at NS. I put my faith in Christ and not Perry Noble. I just do not have a problem speaking my mind when I see something I do not agree with. At the end of the day I feel it is where God has lead our family. I tithe and support our church and pray for Perry and staff...but that doesn't mean I will agree with everything they do....my trust and hope is in the Lord...not Perry Noble or anyone else at NS...

This post was edited on 4/18 11:53 PM by JP09191978

This post was edited on 4/18 11:59 PM by JP09191978

 

[SWUtigers]

I understand completely, jp and know that Ihave friends and family members there, too. I don't want anyone to think that the individuals are bad people nor do I think the upper echelon folks are either. My beef is transparency. Are you at the very least concerned about the lack of transparency? Are you confident your money is being spent worthwhile? If so, how can you be certain? I truly hope NS is doing good in their respective community but I have my doubts.

 

[acwill07]

Originally posted by JP09191978:

Originally posted by SWUtigers:
Although I thought the atheist/agnostic article about Clemson is nothing to see, I can't help but wonder how influential NewSpring is to the Program. Anyone care to elaborate?

Also, what is it about this "church" that makes people get so defensive? I have close friends that work and/or attend services and they are borderline militant about this place. This blog, in particular, makes me wonder about the "culture" being created in mega churches.

Perhaps I just don't understand because I've never set foot in there but I wonder what some here have to say.

Let me clarify...im not "speaking out against" anyone. I just don't agree with Perry only agreeing to baptize "stars". There are a lot of great staff members at Newspring that have spent time with me and helped me grow closer to the Lord. My kids LOVE Kidspring and I love my homegroup. There have been a TON of positives that have come out of my years at NS. I put my faith in Christ and not Perry Noble. I just do not have a problem speaking my mind when I see something I do not agree with. At the end of the day I feel it is where God has lead our family. I tithe and support our church and pray for Perry and staff...but that doesn't mean I will agree with everything they do....my trust and hope is in the Lord...not Perry Noble or anyone else at NS...

This post was edited on 4/18 11:53 PM by JP09191978

This post was edited on 4/18 11:59 PM by JP09191978

Well the fundamental aspect of Newspring and PN's ministry that you don't agree with is pretty weighty wouldn't you say? Even though you love other aspects of the church: your home group, kidspring, etc., how could you give money to a church that has a preacher that won't preside over funerals or weddings for people in his congregation yet he will baptize an all American football player for the nation to see?

I totally agree with you and am glad you are willing to speak your mind despite what harassment and retribution may come your way, but your beef with the church is a significant one IMO. It's significant enough that I would rethink who I give my money to. But obviously that's JMO.

 

[GamecockTears]

Man this is a long thread. I will say this, Newspring has made church fun for me again. My parents church is boring as all get out and I just quit going. I do understand the skeptics, but it get a lot out of going there.

 

[SWUtigers]

Originally posted by BCTiger8:
Man this is a long thread. I will say this, Newspring has made church fun for me again. My parents church is boring as all get out and I just quit going. I do understand the skeptics, but it get a lot out of going there.

So does Mr. Noble.

 

[GamecockTears]

I just don't have an issue with it in all honesty. He preaches for 20,000 plus folks. He should make a lot more than Mt. Zion's Baptist's pastor. Plenty of the money they bring in goes to good things.

This post was edited on 4/19 12:46 AM by BCTiger8

 

[tigerjl]

Actually, SWU, the most common thing in the 8 page thread is you. Your anti-newspring hard on is more troubling than Perry's 200 dollar jeans or the scarves their band members wear in the summer.

I am not defending their lack of transparency, in fact I am not comfortable with it either. My point was simply that transparency doesn't equate to responsible spending. I can find you countless numbers of transparent churches that will show you their books...line by line budgets showing over half the budget paying staffs whose sole function is to keep deep pockets and deacons happy.

Lots of churches, big and small, traditional and progressive, have money issues. They are ran by people...enough said.

I do think members/owners do have a right to know where their tithes are going, so i can agree with you on that point.

I do believe this is personal for you, however. Not sure how you were burned by NS, but you are hell bent on "exposing" them to the world.

Hope you have a great Easter though, SWU.

 

[SWUtigers]

Originally posted by tigerjl:
Actually, SWU, the most common thing in the 8 page thread is you. Your anti-newspring hard on is more troubling than Perry's 200 dollar jeans or the scarves their band members wear in the summer.

I am not defending their lack of transparency, in fact I am not comfortable with it either. My point was simply that transparency doesn't equate to responsible spending. I can find you countless numbers of transparent churches that will show you their books...line by line budgets showing over half the budget paying staffs whose sole function is to keep deep pockets and deacons happy.

Lots of churches, big and small, traditional and progressive, have money issues. They are ran by people...enough said.

I do think members/owners do have a right to know where their tithes are going, so i can agree with you on that point.

I do believe this is personal for you, however. Not sure how you were burned by NS, but you are hell bent on "exposing" them to the world.

Hope you have a great Easter though, SWU.

Well of course. After all I created the thread and posed the questions. I asked to elaborate. I tried to make keep it as civil as possible, have I not? And seriously, you're more trouble by this thread than your "pastor" wearing high-end clothes and acts like a rock star? Wow.

You're exactly right but does it curtail it? Aren't we better off with checks and balances? And I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of misused funds within other churches. My issue is we aren't even allowed to see the funds at all with NS.

Your admission about tithes is really what I have been asking for. I appreciate your honesty and pray that many more keep them accountable. I do, like I said before, hope that there is no funny stuff going on and they are geniunely giving back to their communities but I do have my doubts...like you.

And yes, I do find it to be personal in a sense. When the school that I hold dear is under investigation by outside groups about their religious practices on public property, then I see Perry Noble standing n the football field baptizing a high-profile athlete, yes, I do have a problem with that.

The whole point of this thread is to find out more about this church because, like I said in the intial post, have never set foot in there before. I wanted to learn more about the church and after searching the internet for answers, I uncovered more questions than I thought. Religion is such a hot topic...you know this, but I NEVER expected this to grow to 8 friggin pages, though. I will say that for the most part people have been respectful and I have learned a lot, no doubt.

And finally, I hope you have a wonderful Easter and I also hope that this thread hasn't ruined it, either. That was not my goal. May God bless you, your family and church, my friend.

 

[JackPackTerrier]

OF glad to know you are back. Glad you found the Lord. Now Batson dosen't have to worry about your threat of Anal rape. You sir are a small minded moron, glad your'e not teaching or coaching my kids.

 

[JackPackTerrier]

NM
This post was edited on 4/19 7:08 AM by JackPackTerrier

 

[jimmyvee]

This has a Jim Jones smell to it .

 

[lctiger831]

The only thing that I do not care for about new spring is that the majority of their members try to get me to go to their church knowing that I am a devout Catholic.
This one woman that I am dating will not give it a rest. Always talking about new spring. "Perry noble is a special man." And gets shittin if I question new spring. I just think the members get a little bit too butt hurt if someone questions their tactics. If I was like that about the Catholic Church, I would not have any friends. Us Catholics do not take criticism to heart.
One last thing, is it a requirement to be baptized in order to become a member? Meaning, if you were already baptized when you were younger, they want you to be baptized again?? If so, why in the hell get baptized twice if original sin is already washed away? She mentioned to me that the Bible says submerging the entire body.. but do they actually take the bible literally in that sense? Catholics are taught that the stories in the bible are exactly that, stories. Used to draw in a crowd and teach about a man named Jesus. I do not believe in Adam and eve, Noah ark.. I might get flamed by the fundamentalists on this board. I could care less, I am a member of a church that is over a billion strong. I am comfortable in my beliefs.

 

[MBRO]

Thread is like a car wreck I can't look away from.

 

[TAINT_PAINT]

Originally posted by lctiger831:
I could care less, I am a member of a church that is over a billion strong.

POPE GANG ON LOCK, MUTHERFVCKERS

 

[diehardtiger1989]

As my pastor says, you put your faith in God and not in a man.
Those who "follow" Perry Noble or any other preacher do so at their own risk.

 

[lswon812]

Originally posted by lctiger831:
The only thing that I do not care for about new spring is that the majority of their members try to get me to go to their church knowing that I am a devout Catholic.
This one woman that I am dating will not give it a rest. Always talking about new spring. "Perry noble is a special man." And gets shittin if I question new spring. I just think the members get a little bit too butt hurt if someone questions their tactics. If I was like that about the Catholic Church, I would not have any friends. Us Catholics do not take criticism to heart.
One last thing, is it a requirement to be baptized in order to become a member? Meaning, if you were already baptized when you were younger, they want you to be baptized again?? If so, why in the hell get baptized twice if original sin is already washed away? She mentioned to me that the Bible says submerging the entire body.. but do they actually take the bible literally in that sense? Catholics are taught that the stories in the bible are exactly that, stories. Used to draw in a crowd and teach about a man named Jesus. I do not believe in Adam and eve, Noah ark.. I might get flamed by the fundamentalists on this board. I could care less, I am a member of a church that is over a billion strong. I am comfortable in my beliefs.

No, if you were baptized before you are not required to do it again.

I can see the Catholic church calling the old testaments "stories" but why would they say Jesus was submerged if he wasn't? Why would they say he went down in to the river with John the Baptist if he didn't go into a river? Wouldn't they just say, "he go water sprinkled on his head and then began his ministry"?

It just puzzles me that people try to make baptism something other than submerging. I don't think it's that big of a deal actually as it doesn't save you and is and outward display of an inward decision. But I don't get the argument that baptism, as performed by Jesus, was/is not a submersion of the body in water.

 

[tiger_echoes]

if what i read is true then the tactics NS uses is very similar to that of scientologist's when trying to silence critics

 

[TillKnows]

Originally posted by tiger-gal2:

I understand the concept of tithing and it is biblical. But also in the bible we are admonished to be wise stewards of our money. Do you think the thousands of people that gave Jim and Tammy Faye Baker 10% of their income were wise stewards? That is why it is absolutely ESSENTIAL that there is complete transparency as regards finances within the church. Not some percentage chart but a honest dollar by dollar accounting of what comes in and precisely where it goes.

EXACTLY. Has anyone been able to tell us why they require 17. MILLION. PER. YEAR. in salaries?

This is especially disturbing when you take into account only 9% (4.6 Million) went to outreach and 21% (10.9 Million) went to facilities upgrades.

Still waiting.

 

[NottingHillTiger]

Thread has jumped the shark

 

[wta21080]

Originally posted by nseverett:

Originally posted by CUTigerfan33:
It's Steven Furtick from Elevation in Charlotte. It's a sister church of Newspring. Douchebag just built a 10,000sq ft. Multi million dollar house in Charlotte. Oh and he also wears makeup. Just google him. There's a lot of great articles about him.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

So he's a douchebag because he built a big house? He's written several best selling books--if he wants to enjoy some of they money from them, good for him. People have this idea that all pastors should be broke--that's ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with having money--the people that complain the loudest are usually the people that don't have any. As long as he's building the house with his money and not the church's money, I have no problem with it. Show me some proof of wrongdoing and I'll sing a different tune. I know Steven and his family pretty well and he's not the villain people try to make him out to be.

Nothing wrong with having money. Although there is something wrong with twisting scripture to get it.
This post was edited on 4/19 11:27 AM by wta21080

 

[Chefkdh]

Why is this thread still going?

If you want to know more about Newspring then go there and experience it for yourself.

Quit sitting behind your computer screen and accusing/talking about something you know nothing of

 

[The89Tiger]

deleted
This post was edited on 4/19 12:18 PM by The89Tiger

 

[lswon812]

Originally posted by wta21080:

Originally posted by nseverett:

Originally posted by CUTigerfan33:
It's Steven Furtick from Elevation in Charlotte. It's a sister church of Newspring. Douchebag just built a 10,000sq ft. Multi million dollar house in Charlotte. Oh and he also wears makeup. Just google him. There's a lot of great articles about him.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

So he's a douchebag because he built a big house? He's written several best selling books--if he wants to enjoy some of they money from them, good for him. People have this idea that all pastors should be broke--that's ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with having money--the people that complain the loudest are usually the people that don't have any. As long as he's building the house with his money and not the church's money, I have no problem with it. Show me some proof of wrongdoing and I'll sing a different tune. I know Steven and his family pretty well and he's not the villain people try to make him out to be.

Nothing wrong with having money. Although there is something wrong with twisting scripture to get it.
This post was edited on 4/19 11:27 AM by wta21080

Even if he got all of the money from books he has written, don't you find it a little odd that a guy who preaches about a guy that told people to store nothing up on earth, that our treasures in heaven, would even WANT a 10,000, or even 4,000 sf house?

He preaches about a guy that said blessed are the poor, he preaches about another guy who said try our best to follow Christ's example. How is keeping enough money for yourself that you can afford things like that following Christ's example? If you, or FreeSC, or anyone can explain that to me then I'll change my stance on pastors living more than just comfortable.

 

[Mr. Clemson]

Chefkdh - Amen. That's exactly what I've been saying. Too many people on here with an agenda or just making stuff up. Attend our church for yourself, meet some of us owners/members and staff in person and ask as many questions as you want. But that's too much to ask. They would rather sit like boys behind a computer screen instead of being mature men and doing the aforementioned things. It's sad but expected with this crew.

*** For full disclosure, I haven't gone back and read anything on this thread since about 24 hours ago. Nor will I. Get from behind the computer for once and enjoy your Easter weekend.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[The89Tiger]

Originally posted by TigerDutch:

Originally posted by nseverett:

Originally posted by TigerDutch:
Then do it at newspring, don't do it on the practice field or anywhere on campus. Invite all the players & coaches if you want. The problem is it was done on a practice field.

That's the way Nuk wanted it. It was done after practice and everyone was told they could stay if they wanted but it wasn't mandatory.

You don't get this, especially regarding a public college. It should not be done at a public school and Larry even mentioned this as a problem he found. But, I don't think it has been repeated. Just because a player wants it does not mean it's right.

MUSC and the Citadel both have chapels that are used for all sorts of Christian ceremonies. They are public schools.

All public schools are available to be used by Christians, Muslims, atheists or anyone else for services, meetings, etc.

If it is voluntary and not during a school event or activity, it is completely legal.

Sorry, you are off base here and the law is clear. Otherwise the FCA couldn't meet on campus anywhere.

 

[The89Tiger]

Originally posted by TillKnows:

Originally posted by tiger-gal2:

I understand the concept of tithing and it is biblical. But also in the bible we are admonished to be wise stewards of our money. Do you think the thousands of people that gave Jim and Tammy Faye Baker 10% of their income were wise stewards? That is why it is absolutely ESSENTIAL that there is complete transparency as regards finances within the church. Not some percentage chart but a honest dollar by dollar accounting of what comes in and precisely where it goes.

EXACTLY. Has anyone been able to tell us why they require 17. MILLION. PER. YEAR. in salaries?

This is especially disturbing when you take into account only 9% (4.6 Million) went to outreach and 21% (10.9 Million) went to facilities upgrades.

Still waiting.

The percent quoted for missions can be misleading. I mean all churches are accomplishing ministry and mission with their staff and facilities. Those numbers don't bother me in and of themselves. The problem is no one can say what really makes them up.

I have yet to see a New Spring owner be able to give a good reason that their budget is not transparent. I would not be a member of any church that kept information like that secret.

I understand Tithing and why it is not designated giving. However, many here connect tithing with budgets. That is the mistake. You don't wash your hands of where the church spends its money because you tithe. As an active member, you are called to help discern the God's will for His church. God tasks us with being good stewards of His resources and working together to spread the Gospel.

The idea that a church isn't willing to share its plan for mission and ministry (ie, the budget) with the members that support it is totally opposite of how we are called to serve Christ in my opinion. One of the purposes of corporate worship and fellowship is to hold each other accountable and support each other when someone struggles.

As others have pointed out, we are all sinners. That includes the leaders of the church. Secrecy is not a good thing for our leaders. It allows them to fall into sin and not be held accountable. Just because NewSpring or Elevation purports to bring thousands to Christ, they are not above operating in a responsible manner that is above reproach. The issues with most church scandals can be traced back to secrecy and cover-ups. When a scandal happens it can cause huge issues for members as well as those that have yet to find Christ. This is how roadblocks to finding Christ are built. Transparency can help prevent scandals and sin.

So, again, I am waiting to hear why it is necessary to keep a Church budget secret.

 

[OrangeTigerTower]

Originally posted by lswon812:

Originally posted by lctiger831:
The only thing that I do not care for about new spring is that the majority of their members try to get me to go to their church knowing that I am a devout Catholic.
This one woman that I am dating will not give it a rest. Always talking about new spring. "Perry noble is a special man." And gets shittin if I question new spring. I just think the members get a little bit too butt hurt if someone questions their tactics. If I was like that about the Catholic Church, I would not have any friends. Us Catholics do not take criticism to heart.
One last thing, is it a requirement to be baptized in order to become a member? Meaning, if you were already baptized when you were younger, they want you to be baptized again?? If so, why in the hell get baptized twice if original sin is already washed away? She mentioned to me that the Bible says submerging the entire body.. but do they actually take the bible literally in that sense? Catholics are taught that the stories in the bible are exactly that, stories. Used to draw in a crowd and teach about a man named Jesus. I do not believe in Adam and eve, Noah ark.. I might get flamed by the fundamentalists on this board. I could care less, I am a member of a church that is over a billion strong. I am comfortable in my beliefs.

No, if you were baptized before you are not required to do it again.

I can see the Catholic church calling the old testaments "stories" but why would they say Jesus was submerged if he wasn't? Why would they say he went down in to the river with John the Baptist if he didn't go into a river? Wouldn't they just say, "he go water sprinkled on his head and then began his ministry"?

It just puzzles me that people try to make baptism something other than submerging. I don't think it's that big of a deal actually as it doesn't save you and is and outward display of an inward decision. But I don't get the argument that baptism, as performed by Jesus, was/is not a submersion of the body in water.

You do understand that Christ was before indoor plumbing or even aquaducts, right?
You went into the River to bathe, to get clean, to remove the dirt and filth from your body. The idea was after clenaing your body John was then cleansing your soul. It was largely a symbolic act. It conveyed a message in a sense that people could readily grasp.

Today we have plumbing, clean water, etc. The act of water pouring Baptism started in early ministries when testifying to poeple who lived far from accessible water sources. People who were to old, feable, sick to wade into a river.

As sure as you say baptism must be submerging, then why must it not be in a river?

In the words of Jesus God recognizes "one Baptism for the forgiveness of man's sin." It could be argued that not only is a second Baptism not "necessary" but that it is in fact AGAINST the teachings of Christ. Afer his Resurrection Christ annoited the Disciples with oil and said they had been baptized in water already he was now baptizing them in his blood.

Again sorry for the derailment but this struck a chord with me.

FWIW I totally missed the part of the Bible where i talks about destroying the business and personal property who choose to worship elsewhere than the preferred location. If a representative of the community committed those actions he should be repentent and (In my opinion only) apologize to the entire community for his actions and for portraying their entire congregation in the wrong light.

With that I hope the entire TI family has a great Easter weekend. I do not think I can proivde any further "good" in this thread and due to my personal experiences I am closed minded to having my opinion swayed, therefor I am going to refrain from further input, unless addressed directly.

OTT

 

[TAINT_PAINT]

Originally posted by The89Tiger:

Originally posted by TillKnows:

Originally posted by tiger-gal2:

I understand the concept of tithing and it is biblical. But also in the bible we are admonished to be wise stewards of our money. Do you think the thousands of people that gave Jim and Tammy Faye Baker 10% of their income were wise stewards? That is why it is absolutely ESSENTIAL that there is complete transparency as regards finances within the church. Not some percentage chart but a honest dollar by dollar accounting of what comes in and precisely where it goes.

EXACTLY. Has anyone been able to tell us why they require 17. MILLION. PER. YEAR. in salaries?

This is especially disturbing when you take into account only 9% (4.6 Million) went to outreach and 21% (10.9 Million) went to facilities upgrades.

Still waiting.

The percent quoted for missions can be misleading. I mean all churches are accomplishing ministry and mission with their staff and facilities. Those numbers don't bother me in and of themselves. The problem is no one can say what really makes them up.

I have yet to see a New Spring owner be able to give a good reason that their budget is not transparent. I would not be a member of any church that kept information like that secret.

I understand Tithing and why it is not designated giving. However, many here connect tithing with budgets. That is the mistake. You don't wash your hands of where the church spends its money because you tithe. As an active member, you are called to help discern the God's will for His church. God tasks us with being good stewards of His resources and working together to spread the Gospel.

The idea that a church isn't willing to share its plan for mission and ministry (ie, the budget) with the members that support it is totally opposite of how we are called to serve Christ in my opinion. One of the purposes of corporate worship and fellowship is to hold each other accountable and support each other when someone struggles.

As others have pointed out, we are all sinners. That includes the leaders of the church. Secrecy is not a good thing for our leaders. It allows them to fall into sin and not be held accountable. Just because NewSpring or Elevation purports to bring thousands to Christ, they are not above operating in a responsible manner that is above reproach. The issues with most church scandals can be traced back to secrecy and cover-ups. When a scandal happens it can cause huge issues for members as well as those that have yet to find Christ. This is how roadblocks to finding Christ are built. Transparency can help prevent scandals and sin.

So, again, I am waiting to hear why it is necessary to keep a Church budget secret.

PERSONALLY, I'M EAGER TO SEE THE LINE ITEMS FOR ULTIMATE FRISBEE, CHACOS, ORANGE OVERALLS, & NALGENES.

 

[lctiger831]

Lswon.. so basically they would grab the bedridden, paralyzed and whomever and submerge them in the water? Also, in Acts 2:41, whenever Peter baptized 3000 people, they just allowed 3000 dirty people to pollute their water supply? Hence why I asked, people actually take the submerging part literally?? This is why people cannot take parts of the bible literally. Actual meanings are lost in translation.
One last thing, Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God'" (Luke 18:15?16). Children= Infants

 

[lswon812]

Originally posted by OrangeTigerTower:

Originally posted by lswon812:

Originally posted by lctiger831:
The only thing that I do not care for about new spring is that the majority of their members try to get me to go to their church knowing that I am a devout Catholic.
This one woman that I am dating will not give it a rest. Always talking about new spring. "Perry noble is a special man." And gets shittin if I question new spring. I just think the members get a little bit too butt hurt if someone questions their tactics. If I was like that about the Catholic Church, I would not have any friends. Us Catholics do not take criticism to heart.
One last thing, is it a requirement to be baptized in order to become a member? Meaning, if you were already baptized when you were younger, they want you to be baptized again?? If so, why in the hell get baptized twice if original sin is already washed away? She mentioned to me that the Bible says submerging the entire body.. but do they actually take the bible literally in that sense? Catholics are taught that the stories in the bible are exactly that, stories. Used to draw in a crowd and teach about a man named Jesus. I do not believe in Adam and eve, Noah ark.. I might get flamed by the fundamentalists on this board. I could care less, I am a member of a church that is over a billion strong. I am comfortable in my beliefs.

No, if you were baptized before you are not required to do it again.

I can see the Catholic church calling the old testaments "stories" but why would they say Jesus was submerged if he wasn't? Why would they say he went down in to the river with John the Baptist if he didn't go into a river? Wouldn't they just say, "he go water sprinkled on his head and then began his ministry"?

It just puzzles me that people try to make baptism something other than submerging. I don't think it's that big of a deal actually as it doesn't save you and is and outward display of an inward decision. But I don't get the argument that baptism, as performed by Jesus, was/is not a submersion of the body in water.

You do understand that Christ was before indoor plumbing or even aquaducts, right?
You went into the River to bathe, to get clean, to remove the dirt and filth from your body. The idea was after clenaing your body John was then cleansing your soul. It was largely a symbolic act. It conveyed a message in a sense that people could readily grasp.

Today we have plumbing, clean water, etc. The act of water pouring Baptism started in early ministries when testifying to poeple who lived far from accessible water sources. People who were to old, feable, sick to wade into a river.

As sure as you say baptism must be submerging, then why must it not be in a river?

In the words of Jesus God recognizes "one Baptism for the forgiveness of man's sin." It could be argued that not only is a second Baptism not "necessary" but that it is in fact AGAINST the teachings of Christ. Afer his Resurrection Christ annoited the Disciples with oil and said they had been baptized in water already he was now baptizing them in his blood.

Again sorry for the derailment but this struck a chord with me.

FWIW I totally missed the part of the Bible where i talks about destroying the business and personal property who choose to worship elsewhere than the preferred location. If a representative of the community committed those actions he should be repentent and (In my opinion only) apologize to the entire community for his actions and for portraying their entire congregation in the wrong light.

With that I hope the entire TI family has a great Easter weekend. I do not think I can proivde any further "good" in this thread and due to my personal experiences I am closed minded to having my opinion swayed, therefor I am going to refrain from further input, unless addressed directly.

OTT

whoa, I don't think a 2nd baptism is biblical...where did you get that from my post?

And to your point about indoor plumbing and such...they had bowls. You're kinda proving my point for me. You had to cleanse the body, the body was submerged to symbolize you dying (going down into the grave) to your old, flesh-driven self and rising a new creation.

If a church has no access to a tub then I guess you gotta work with what you got...but Jesus/John the Baptist could have easily just used a bowl and kept people from walking all the way to the river if being sprinkled with water was all that was necessary.
Everything else in your post I agree with.

 

[The89Tiger]

Originally posted by lswon812:

Originally posted by OrangeTigerTower:

Originally posted by lswon812:

Originally posted by lctiger831:
The only thing that I do not care for about new spring is that the majority of their members try to get me to go to their church knowing that I am a devout Catholic.
This one woman that I am dating will not give it a rest. Always talking about new spring. "Perry noble is a special man." And gets shittin if I question new spring. I just think the members get a little bit too butt hurt if someone questions their tactics. If I was like that about the Catholic Church, I would not have any friends. Us Catholics do not take criticism to heart.
One last thing, is it a requirement to be baptized in order to become a member? Meaning, if you were already baptized when you were younger, they want you to be baptized again?? If so, why in the hell get baptized twice if original sin is already washed away? She mentioned to me that the Bible says submerging the entire body.. but do they actually take the bible literally in that sense? Catholics are taught that the stories in the bible are exactly that, stories. Used to draw in a crowd and teach about a man named Jesus. I do not believe in Adam and eve, Noah ark.. I might get flamed by the fundamentalists on this board. I could care less, I am a member of a church that is over a billion strong. I am comfortable in my beliefs.

No, if you were baptized before you are not required to do it again.

I can see the Catholic church calling the old testaments "stories" but why would they say Jesus was submerged if he wasn't? Why would they say he went down in to the river with John the Baptist if he didn't go into a river? Wouldn't they just say, "he go water sprinkled on his head and then began his ministry"?

It just puzzles me that people try to make baptism something other than submerging. I don't think it's that big of a deal actually as it doesn't save you and is and outward display of an inward decision. But I don't get the argument that baptism, as performed by Jesus, was/is not a submersion of the body in water.

You do understand that Christ was before indoor plumbing or even aquaducts, right?
You went into the River to bathe, to get clean, to remove the dirt and filth from your body. The idea was after clenaing your body John was then cleansing your soul. It was largely a symbolic act. It conveyed a message in a sense that people could readily grasp.

Today we have plumbing, clean water, etc. The act of water pouring Baptism started in early ministries when testifying to poeple who lived far from accessible water sources. People who were to old, feable, sick to wade into a river.

As sure as you say baptism must be submerging, then why must it not be in a river?

In the words of Jesus God recognizes "one Baptism for the forgiveness of man's sin." It could be argued that not only is a second Baptism not "necessary" but that it is in fact AGAINST the teachings of Christ. Afer his Resurrection Christ annoited the Disciples with oil and said they had been baptized in water already he was now baptizing them in his blood.

Again sorry for the derailment but this struck a chord with me.

FWIW I totally missed the part of the Bible where i talks about destroying the business and personal property who choose to worship elsewhere than the preferred location. If a representative of the community committed those actions he should be repentent and (In my opinion only) apologize to the entire community for his actions and for portraying their entire congregation in the wrong light.

With that I hope the entire TI family has a great Easter weekend. I do not think I can proivde any further "good" in this thread and due to my personal experiences I am closed minded to having my opinion swayed, therefor I am going to refrain from further input, unless addressed directly.

OTT

whoa, I don't think a 2nd baptism is biblical...where did you get that from my post?

And to your point about indoor plumbing and such...they had bowls. You're kinda proving my point for me. You had to cleanse the body, the body was submerged to symbolize you dying (going down into the grave) to your old, flesh-driven self and rising a new creation.

If a church has no access to a tub then I guess you gotta work with what you got...but Jesus/John the Baptist could have easily just used a bowl and kept people from walking all the way to the river if being sprinkled with water was all that was necessary.
Everything else in your post I agree with.

Baptism is an act of God's grace toward the one being Baptized. It has nothing to do with the symbols being used or if a person is dunked, sprinkled or poured upon. God is the one doing the Baptism, no the minister or the water.

 

[lswon812]

Originally posted by The89Tiger:

Originally posted by lswon812:

Originally posted by OrangeTigerTower:

Originally posted by lswon812:

Originally posted by lctiger831:
The only thing that I do not care for about new spring is that the majority of their members try to get me to go to their church knowing that I am a devout Catholic.
This one woman that I am dating will not give it a rest. Always talking about new spring. "Perry noble is a special man." And gets shittin if I question new spring. I just think the members get a little bit too butt hurt if someone questions their tactics. If I was like that about the Catholic Church, I would not have any friends. Us Catholics do not take criticism to heart.
One last thing, is it a requirement to be baptized in order to become a member? Meaning, if you were already baptized when you were younger, they want you to be baptized again?? If so, why in the hell get baptized twice if original sin is already washed away? She mentioned to me that the Bible says submerging the entire body.. but do they actually take the bible literally in that sense? Catholics are taught that the stories in the bible are exactly that, stories. Used to draw in a crowd and teach about a man named Jesus. I do not believe in Adam and eve, Noah ark.. I might get flamed by the fundamentalists on this board. I could care less, I am a member of a church that is over a billion strong. I am comfortable in my beliefs.

No, if you were baptized before you are not required to do it again.

I can see the Catholic church calling the old testaments "stories" but why would they say Jesus was submerged if he wasn't? Why would they say he went down in to the river with John the Baptist if he didn't go into a river? Wouldn't they just say, "he go water sprinkled on his head and then began his ministry"?

It just puzzles me that people try to make baptism something other than submerging. I don't think it's that big of a deal actually as it doesn't save you and is and outward display of an inward decision. But I don't get the argument that baptism, as performed by Jesus, was/is not a submersion of the body in water.

You do understand that Christ was before indoor plumbing or even aquaducts, right?
You went into the River to bathe, to get clean, to remove the dirt and filth from your body. The idea was after clenaing your body John was then cleansing your soul. It was largely a symbolic act. It conveyed a message in a sense that people could readily grasp.

Today we have plumbing, clean water, etc. The act of water pouring Baptism started in early ministries when testifying to poeple who lived far from accessible water sources. People who were to old, feable, sick to wade into a river.

As sure as you say baptism must be submerging, then why must it not be in a river?

In the words of Jesus God recognizes "one Baptism for the forgiveness of man's sin." It could be argued that not only is a second Baptism not "necessary" but that it is in fact AGAINST the teachings of Christ. Afer his Resurrection Christ annoited the Disciples with oil and said they had been baptized in water already he was now baptizing them in his blood.

Again sorry for the derailment but this struck a chord with me.

FWIW I totally missed the part of the Bible where i talks about destroying the business and personal property who choose to worship elsewhere than the preferred location. If a representative of the community committed those actions he should be repentent and (In my opinion only) apologize to the entire community for his actions and for portraying their entire congregation in the wrong light.

With that I hope the entire TI family has a great Easter weekend. I do not think I can proivde any further "good" in this thread and due to my personal experiences I am closed minded to having my opinion swayed, therefor I am going to refrain from further input, unless addressed directly.

OTT

whoa, I don't think a 2nd baptism is biblical...where did you get that from my post?

And to your point about indoor plumbing and such...they had bowls. You're kinda proving my point for me. You had to cleanse the body, the body was submerged to symbolize you dying (going down into the grave) to your old, flesh-driven self and rising a new creation.

If a church has no access to a tub then I guess you gotta work with what you got...but Jesus/John the Baptist could have easily just used a bowl and kept people from walking all the way to the river if being sprinkled with water was all that was necessary.
Everything else in your post I agree with.

Baptism is an act of God's grace toward the one being Baptized. It has nothing to do with the symbols being used or if a person is dunked, sprinkled or poured upon. God is the one doing the Baptism, no the minister or the water.

Umm...not really. In the Bible baptism always followed someones acceptance of God's grace. God's grace is already upon them. Baptism is an act of obedience. Romans talks about how it's us sharing in his death. It has nothing to do with salvation. Jesus instructed his disciples to go and teach/disciple the people of all nations and to baptize ("baptizo", Greek for immerse, submerge, plunge).

Again...it's us sharing with the world that we have made a decision to follow Jesus. We share in his death, by symbolically going to the grave (down into the water) and being "resurrected" into our new identity (raised out of the water).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying if someone is sprinkled they're not as good as someone who get's dunked, I just don't get why people want to say Jesus went down into the water for any other reason than showing that he would go to the grave and be raised again, showing what our souls would do if he followed him.