I'm surprised Bernard responded at all; much less in such depth.
Before I make any comment on the content of his response, I'm curious about a couple things:
Now according to Riggen, he turned Reckart's membership request down at CAF so I'll assume that Reckart is not a member there.
So are you saying here that these accusations were made solely by Reckart and Smith and NOT by ANY member of CAF?
I wonder at this because I think I could say without reservation that Bernard would never take the time to write such a detailed response to a couple off-the-wall characters like Reckart and Smith.
In fact, I don't think Bernard would relieve himself on them if they were on fire. And I don't blame him. I wouldn't either.
Now Bernard didn't say that - I did.
Is Bernard a member of CAF?
Where was Bernard's response originally written and if Bernard is not a member of CAF, then how did he read the accusations against him?
Sorry, but I just do not believe Bernard would take the time to write this solely in response to Reckart.
I'm even surprised he took the time to respond to UPC ministers on CAF.
Legitimate questions and observations ...
I think ...based on a comment RevRandy made in this thread that this was a case of dogpiling.
I don't see why a man of his gravitas would stoop to answer these "accusations". His body of work stands for itself.
So, then Staysharp are you asserting that all the teachings that Jesus Christ did as a child in the temples is not worthy and should be ignored?
If by receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost we are transformed by the renewing of our minds, does God not make us complete in our minds. Are our minds not whole in Christ Jesus? But, if we were to listen to you then this world would go to hell if anybody is not over 30 years old.
And I would dare you to stand up before your district presbyters and the brethren in your district at your next fellowship meeting and make the statement to them, that you believe the psychologist that state "disregard all that a man does before he is 30 years old".
Wasn't Jesus God? Didn't His wisdom confound the priests? Jesus doesn't count because His anointing was not from this world. He was not born from the earth as you and me,
Secondly, you are saying that just because someone speaks with tongues, all of a sudden they have complete and perfect wisdom??? And no our minds are not whole in Christ just because we speak with tongues. Try reading Romans 7. Just because you speak in tongues doesn't make you all of a sudden superhuman and all knowing. That is ludicrous.
As long as we are human, we will always have the sin nature and flesh to contend with, I don't care how much you speak in tongues.
Are you saying dear ghostrider, that you have never changed your mind. That who you were as a young man, you are still the same today. Have you not learned from your own experiences?(by the way, what does that name (ghostrider) even mean) do you think you are illusive? lol What ghost are you ridding??? Sounds like the ghost of Christmas past!
I'm surprised Bernard responded at all; much less in such depth.
Before I make any comment on the content of his response, I'm curious about a couple things:
Now according to Riggen, he turned Reckart's membership request down at CAF so I'll assume that Reckart is not a member there.
So are you saying here that these accusations were made solely by Reckart and Smith and NOT by ANY member of CAF?
I wonder at this because I think I could say without reservation that Bernard would never take the time to write such a detailed response to a couple off-the-wall characters like Reckart and Smith.
In fact, I don't think Bernard would relieve himself on them if they were on fire. And I don't blame him. I wouldn't either.
Now Bernard didn't say that - I did.
Is Bernard a member of CAF?
Where was Bernard's response originally written and if Bernard is not a member of CAF, then how did he read the accusations against him?
Sorry, but I just do not believe Bernard would take the time to write this solely in response to Reckart.
I'm even surprised he took the time to respond to UPC ministers on CAF.
I think DB is maybe too concerned about his reputation among the conservative wing. He needs to give up, because reason won't neccessarily help his cause.
DA.. you sure cared to come to your defence when New Wine come at you...
I would as well.
I ain't David Bernard ... the man has a body of work to support his views.
I'm just Dan ... trying to carve a niche in cyberspace.
Yesterday's deal was one on one ... real time ... in the heat of discussion.
Second, he's not even on the forum in question.
The whole thing is BAFFLING.
Stuff is said on these forums about the likes of Kenneth Haney, Kenneth Philips, TL Craft ... and others ... I don't see any them responding to some of the hellacious stuff posted on any of these forums.
If the accusations were "life-altering" I'd understand ... accusation of immorality,fraud, etc.
... these guys he's responded to are leaving which makes it more baffling. Politically it's a bad move, also.
I'm surprised Bernard responded at all; much less in such depth.
Before I make any comment on the content of his response, I'm curious about a couple things:
Now according to Riggen, he turned Reckart's membership request down at CAF so I'll assume that Reckart is not a member there.
So are you saying here that these accusations were made solely by Reckart and Smith and NOT by ANY member of CAF?
I wonder at this because I think I could say without reservation that Bernard would never take the time to write such a detailed response to a couple off-the-wall characters like Reckart and Smith.
In fact, I don't think Bernard would relieve himself on them if they were on fire. And I don't blame him. I wouldn't either.
Now Bernard didn't say that - I did.
Is Bernard a member of CAF?
Where was Bernard's response originally written and if Bernard is not a member of CAF, then how did he read the accusations against him?
Sorry, but I just do not believe Bernard would take the time to write this solely in response to Reckart.
I'm even surprised he took the time to respond to UPC ministers on CAF.
Tim
Bro. Bernard as of 30 minutes ago, was not a member of CAF.
Bro. Bernard sent a letter to UPC preachers entitled "TV Advertising Resolution Update 11/21/07" concerning the upcoming Tulsa meeting.
That letter was posted on CAF and men responded, some negative and some positive, some UPC, ALJC and some GIBs.
Someone who is not a member (Caston Smith??? the investigation continues) copied the letter and sent it to Bro. Bernard and then let other CAF members know.
Bro. Riggins then contacted Bro. Bernard, apologized and allowed Bro. Bernard to write a rebuttal/answer letter.
The discussion of both letters has slowed down and both letters are now on page 2.
I ain't David Bernard ... the man has a body of work to support his views.
I'm just Dan ... trying to carve a niche in cyberspace.
Yesterday's deal was one on one ... real time ... in the heat of discussion.
Second, he's not even on the forum in question.
The whole thing is BAFFLING.
Stuff is said on these forums of the likes Kenneth Haney, Kenneth Philips, TL Craft ... and others ... I don't see any them responding to some of the hellacious stuff posted on any of these forums.
If the accusations were "life-altering" I'd understand ... accusation of immorality,fraud, etc.
... these guys he's responded to are leaving which makes it more baffling. Politically it's a bad move, also.
Obviously he feels strongly. To me, you're right, the man doesn't have to defend himself at all...
I wouldn't want to be one calling his motives into question.
Some of these ones that are leaving are demonstrating something deeper than just their conservative views. It appears to me that some of their motives might not be so pure, if they wish to attack men like DB.
Either way, it's a sad thing and it hurts... many.
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
Someone who is not a member (Caston Smith??? the investigation continues) copied the letter and sent it to Bro. Bernard and then let other CAF members know.
Bro. Riggins then contacted Bro. Bernard, apologized and allowed Bro. Bernard to write a rebuttal/answer letter.
Someone copied the letter .... or the responses to the letters? I gather that the mole sent DB responses to his letter?
Why would Brother Riggen feel he had to apologize about those responses? He didn't make them, I don't think. Whose idea was it to write the rebuttal ... DB or Bro. Riggen?
Once again, I don't see the nature of the accusations warranting such a detailed response.
Linear Mode
