Johnny Robertson: Text Twister

Posted in the Martinsville Forum

Whitman

Martinsville, VA

#1 Feb 28, 2013
see how Johnny and his cronies twist certain text look on the link and read http://answeringthecoc.wordpress.com/
Whitman

Martinsville, VA

#2 Mar 1, 2013
http://answeringthecoc.wordpress.com/

Another contributing factor for Johnny Robertson’s spirit of division is his misinterpretation of 2 John 9-11, especially the radical right of each of the parties.

"Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If anyone cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works."

Johnny’s interpretation placed upon this passage is that the “teaching of Christ” is generic, meaning it applies to everything Jesus taught. In other words,“teaching of Christ” equals “truth.” With this prefabricated “yard-stick” one can measure any “teaching” to see if it conforms with “the teaching of Christ.” If it does, he has “both the Father and the Son”; if it does not, that person does not have God. Furthermore, if he comes to your house, you cannot admit him, nor give him greeting. If you do, you come under God’s condemnation – right Johnny.

Armed with this interpretation, Johnny can measure the “soundness” of each individual. What Johnny believes the truth to be on any subject becomes the STANDARD. Stray from that standard and you will find yourself on the outside looking in.

For example: Hebrews 10:25 teaches we are not to forsake our own assembling together. Since this was taught by an inspired writer, it must be a “teaching of Christ”; if you disagree, you are not “abiding in the teaching of Christ”; therefore, you do not have God, and I cannot fellowship you. This is only one of many examples I could cite to show how easy it is to cause strife and division. 2 John 9-11 has been invoked on many occasions in the church of Christ to cause this sinful condition.

What is the meaning of 2 John 9-11? The answer is in the context, which is ironic, for members of the church of Christ say they insist on leaving passages of scripture in context. The “teaching OF Christ” concerns His deity per the context. Jesus taught that He was God come in the flesh. The apostles believed that (John 1:1,14). Later, a group claiming to be Christians refused to accept the idea that deity could take on sinful flesh. They rejected “the teaching of Christ” on this point. In John’s second epistle, he states,“For many deceivers are gone forth in the world, even they that CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST COMETH IN THE FIESH. This is the deceiver and the antichrist”(v.7) This is the context by which we understand the point John is making in verses 8 through 11. There, the apostle warns of the dangers and consequences of rejecting the teaching of our Lord (i.e., that He was both man and God) in favor of the deceptive doctrine of the “antichrist.” Johnny using this passage to club people into submission of his church doctrine is inexcusable. It promotes strife and division which are serious enough to keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21).

As the truth about Johnny became apparent to me, I became more cognizant of the way he misuses this passage and others to win his arguments and to force conformity upon the masses. Gradually, I reached a point where I no longer considered Johnny honest and forthright. I honestly believe he purposely twisted Scriptures to mold his personal doctrine.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#3 Mar 1, 2013
I've looked at that passage, as well as all the teachings of Jesus and those directly related to the topic. Let's also consider the prophecy of the gospel in the geneology of Genesis 5, as it could well provide some consideration.

‘Man is appointed mortal sorrow. The blessed God shall come down teaching, and his death shall bring the despairing comfort.’

Following this, Jesus affirmed that John the immerser taught truth, and John said Jesus alone has testimony directly from heaven and that His words are above all others ever given to men.(John 3)

Then we have the testimony of God regarding Jesus: "Hear Him".

And we have Jesus repeatedly telling people they need to be hearers and doers of whatever He taught - further backed up by Moses and Peter quoting Moses in Acts 3:22,223.

From beginning to the end of the Scriptures, doing what God has declared to be the truth actually matters, and mere belief, without doing, is only ascribed to the damned.

Your take to twist Hebrews into a doctrine of Johnny shows you don't even understand what John was saying, and I hope Johnny has more understanding of Jesus Christ and the doctrine He taught that you've exhibited in your post above.

If the doctrince of Christ is merely to believe He came in the fless, that must of necessity say that what He told us has the same impact/import as if each and every word IS the word of God that we need to hear AND do.

His words are for the here and now, not just the hereafter.
Whitman

Martinsville, VA

#4 Mar 1, 2013
In context John is speaking on a particular doctrine … the doctrine of Christ coming in the flesh. Johnny Robertson and his cronies makes the “doctrine of Christ” applicable to things such as a cepella, etc. I was not implying that Jesus has no doctrines outside of what John said. My point is Johnny Robertson take this as whatever he and his cronies believe the bible to teach. If you have music in worship you are not abiding in the doctrine of Christ according to JR.
New Guy

Dahlonega, GA

#5 Mar 1, 2013
Why are not both views correct? The immediate context is indeed about those not believing Christ came in the flesh. The broad context can include the words and teachings of Christ as Barnsweb points out. Again, both are valid and scriptural.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#6 Mar 1, 2013
I'll have to agree New Guy, as they are points made separately, one following the other.

Had a few interesting conversations today - started with Catholics and ex Catholics... the one who converted to Pentecostal was far more confrontational about things though - Good discussions though.. Ohio seems to have more Catholics than CA!
New Guy

Dahlonega, GA

#7 Mar 1, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
I'll have to agree New Guy, as they are points made separately, one following the other.
Had a few interesting conversations today - started with Catholics and ex Catholics... the one who converted to Pentecostal was far more confrontational about things though - Good discussions though.. Ohio seems to have more Catholics than CA!
One of my former professors is a.former catholic from Lima, OH. There are many catholics there.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#8 Mar 2, 2013
New Guy wrote:
Why are not both views correct? The immediate context is indeed about those not believing Christ came in the flesh. The broad context can include the words and teachings of Christ as Barnsweb points out. Again, both are valid and scriptural.
I am sort of on the same page as you on this but I understand Whitmans post as well. I agree that the teachings of Christ include a broader context - however, in the immediate context John is ONLY dealing with issues that specifically relate to the nature of Jesus Christ - his deity, etc. When we take questionable or disputable matters and make them the 'doctrine of Christ' and then demand they be followed or else, is when I draw the line. I am quite sure JR and many other church of Christ will include non-music in worship and others things as the 'doctrine of Christ' whereas you would not. The 'doctrine of Christ' varies from church to church.
New Guy

Dahlonega, GA

#9 Mar 2, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sort of on the same page as you on this but I understand Whitmans post as well. I agree that the teachings of Christ include a broader context - however, in the immediate context John is ONLY dealing with issues that specifically relate to the nature of Jesus Christ - his deity, etc. When we take questionable or disputable matters and make them the 'doctrine of Christ' and then demand they be followed or else, is when I draw the line. I am quite sure JR and many other church of Christ will include non-music in worship and others things as the 'doctrine of Christ' whereas you would not. The 'doctrine of Christ' varies from church to church.
I do understand it as well. I was just speaking of the text itself and the implications, as I believe BW was doing as well. Whitmans point is well taken, as is yours. I have been told by a n/I brethren that since we have the Bible, there are no disreputable matters anymore. Perhaps this is the source of such thinking?
Donna

Martinsville, VA

#10 Mar 2, 2013
Whitman wrote:
see how Johnny and his cronies twist certain text look on the link and read http://answeringthecoc.wordpress.com/
Good website Whitman :)
Here is another good website...
Ex-Church of Christ Blog
Support for people who have left the Churches of Christ

http://exchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/2012/07...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#11 Mar 2, 2013
Donna wrote:
Nice Blog. I will comb through this one later. However, I think Whitman should leave JR out of the lime light and do as this blog - just focus on the teachings. Im not saying its bad to use Johnnys name but no point in name calling and things
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#12 Mar 2, 2013
Donna wrote:
<quoted text>
Good website Whitman :)
Here is another good website...
Ex-Church of Christ Blog
Support for people who have left the Churches of Christ
http://exchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/2012/07...
I especially like this article on the "correct baptism"...

http://exchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/2012/06...
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#13 Mar 2, 2013
The viewpoint of both views: Christ coming in the flesh, AND the teachings/doctrine that He taught is further evidenced by I John and the gospel written by John. John, I John and II John are all in harmony of both points. In fact, John has more record of what He said about the teachings given than any other gospel account, although we do have a number of explicit statements in Matthew and Luke. I'm still pondering one difference between these though, as Luke records of those 'doing nothing' with His teachings, were Matthew leaves the impression of the need to take the whole of them without question - .... Any feedback on what you think about that would be appreciated.
Stacy

Alexandria, VA

#14 Mar 2, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I especially like this article on the "correct baptism"...
http://exchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/2012/06...
is this the blog randy said nobody knew about well looks like his site busted now

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#15 Mar 2, 2013
I have never seen that blog before but will read through it. I do find many of the post very interesting. The author was raised in the conservative noninstitutional churches of Christ and attended Florida College in Tampa, Florida. He served as a minister for 12 years in two wings of the churches of Christ.

Randy
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#16 Mar 2, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
I have never seen that blog before but will read through it. I do find many of the post very interesting. The author was raised in the conservative noninstitutional churches of Christ and attended Florida College in Tampa, Florida. He served as a minister for 12 years in two wings of the churches of Christ.
Randy
I don't think the coc people on these threads are aware of how many people have left the coc. We have former church of Christ preachers in our bible church. The transition from obedience through law keeping to obedience through grace is so amazing that it boggles the mind. There is something about the power of grace that words cannot properly define it.

This is the reason I keep referring to the term "Christ in us our hope of Glory". Often times we think of ourselves as having the power to change ourselves into the image of God. We do participate in that, but the power to overcome is not from ourselves.

All of us have different backgrounds and different gifts. Some are highly educated and others are less dignified common folks. But, because of the love of God working in us and through us, we become one body designed to benefit the whole-reaching across all walks of life according to our God given gifts. This is Christ in us our hope of Glory at work.

27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Some people want to teach us out of what God has already given us by his Spirit and require us to walk according to their legal dictates-thus binding us with what God has not bound. One is natural law the other is spiritual law.
Stacy

Alexandria, VA

#17 Mar 2, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice Blog. I will comb through this one later. However, I think Whitman should leave JR out of the lime light and do as this blog - just focus on the teachings. Im not saying its bad to use Johnnys name but no point in name calling and things
yes it is randy and much better than your speak where the bible speaks. I thought it was your work until I read more
Whitman

Palmyra, VA

#18 Mar 2, 2013
Randy wishes he had that site. It is good and coming from a ex preacher in the Church of Christ is one big blow to johnny and his cronies. maybe afer Randy reads that site he will come completly from that cult yeah it does suck that jason left but he better off that have that mind control crap now if Rand y will wake from his sleep and see through that crap
Stacy

Alexandria, VA

#19 Mar 2, 2013
The church of Christ is a cult like you said but some are not but Johnny is a cult leader and he is only helping bringing down the church of Christ.
nobody

Morehead, KY

#20 Mar 3, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I especially like this article on the "correct baptism"...
http://exchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/2012/06...
I disagree with the last paragraph. We do need to believe something, I think according to the baptism of the eunuch in chapter eight of Acts that belief of Jesus being the Son of God is necessary. The church of Christ likes to add things but we should not remove what the bible does actually say, I don't think.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Book of Revelation, Before AD70 or in AD96?... 6 min Axel Reid 3
Did the Second Coming of Jesus Occur A.D. 70 10 min Axel Reid 100
Able... a part of a covenant? 13 min Axel Reid 4
World without end 1 hr Axel Reid 87
Catholics (Feb '14) 1 hr Mike_Peterson 2,136
Biblical Symbolism Fri HEATH - 72 4
The 2nd coming of Jesus Apr 21 HEATH - 72 22
More from around the web

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]