Church of Wells/YMBBA Ministries

You are not logged in. Would you like to login?

8/24/2013 7:52 am  #21

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

jimmy26 wrote:

So, apparently I have been blocked on the Rick Ross forum. Also, my username on that site no longer exists.



8/24/2013 2:58 pm  #22

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

I am really sorry to hear that. There was a lot of important information on that page that is gone now. That is really frustrating. I browsed some of the other forums once, just to see what they were about, and discovered some of the most amazing garbage. And they delete our thread?! My goodness.


8/28/2013 12:42 am  #23

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

MW G. April 23, 2013​

Cult-y Christians and Charitable Pagans

I heard that a street preacher was giving UPD trouble because they didn't know what to do with him. I thought it might have been the guy who comes on campus every three years and stands on a literal soap box, shouting at people. No, it was way weirder. A short guy was standing on a bench with an officer holding his arm. He was flanked by an army of long-skirted women with strollers, which was for some reason, the most disturbing part of the whole scene. Most of these kids just thought he wanted to hear himself speak. One druggie-looking kid mocked him with slurred words and that made me feel sad in a way that made me laugh. This all looked like a scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian" and the comparison wouldn't end there. He was facing away from me and of the bits I heard "...turn from sin... love of God...Hell..." seemed pretty blandly standard.

I decided to test the waters and engaged with one of their women. Seeing what's going on with their gals is usually the best way to test the pH of their Koolaid. The uniform dress was the first thing that made me suspicious because modesty is great but I've never been keen on dress codes (I'll keep leather and my denim, thank you). I asked if the preacher was going to get a ticket or something and we mentioned the first amendment with a shrug. "Oh well, civil disobedience has always been expensive."
"Do you profess yourself to be a Christian?" she asked, wasting no more time.
She gave me her sweater because a cold drizzle started to fall. She wrapped her baby in her jacket. Gave me the shirt off her back, sounds about right. She gave me a brief overview of her personal testimony; left home at fifteen, addicted to drugs, fornication. She listed them all, thankfully without detail because it always seems to be pissing contest for who has the saddest story or who was the most repentant.

Then our conversation started to derail very quickly. I tried to explain that I had left the church I first belonged to on my own volition and now after several years I am exploring the religious field to see where my spirituality with Jesus fits. Apparently, when I was a teenager, I was "a willful sinner" and "an enemy of God."
"Well, yeah!" I said. "I was a teenager but an enemy of God?"
"Yes! You clung to sin in your heart and therefore scorned God. You were not a real Christian, you were an enemy of God."

There was some dangerous rhetoric in there, starting with "enemy of God." I believe the PCC term (Politically Correct Christian term) is "lost sheep" and "prodigal daughter"-- I'm not being completely facetious. To imply that the minute you stumble, the second you trip and fall, you fall headlong into the Lake of Fire is completely wrong. It implies a work-based faith. I asked her if there church was into that sort of doctrine and she said it wasn't but kept on rattling the same argument, refuting her own statement.

"If that tree does not produce fruit it must be cut down and thrown into the fire," came up. I wondered how any of this was producing fruit. Because there was a weird look that passed over her eyes anytime something I said something that made sense to her and momentarily caught her attention. It was a flicker right before it glazed over to frustration -- particularly when I said, "Sure, they say love the sinner, hate the sin but do you really love the sinner? If you can actually do that, then you can bring up the sin."
She parroted practiced arguments and I made the grave, grave mistake of mentioning that my fiance is not a Christian and that I have no problem with that. That really set her off. Oh please -- Christians married non-Christians all the time, as cited by the debate in the bible about divorce: 'when a non believer asks you for a divorce, give it to them because they are not under God's laws or grace'.
"But that was before they were saved," she said and went on, getting all frothy and mad. This was the wrong lady to discuss the historical context of the Bible with. Women seldom had a choice in who they married so that argument is moot from the start. I assume they think equality sends you to hell too. But there is one thing women like these understand on some level and that's "Stand By Your Man" and I will not have my fiance insulted within my hearing.

I decided to be nice and not tell her that he is a Buddhist and offend her further. My whole life seemed to enrage her delicate sensibilities enough. But I did tell her that I refuse to believe that he is anything other than my true soulmate and a direct blessing from God. She wanted to say more but the door is firmly closed on that debate. Ghandi said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike Christ" and honey, I'll protect my fiance from crazy Christians like you any day. But being contentious never solved anything so I didn't jump down her throat and instead tried to make a polite exit. I still was curious about their whole idea of God's grace so I asked for their information. I was very interested in attending on Sunday but not for the reasons she thought. She wanted nothing more to do with me anyway. I do have a sick fascination with the repressed Christian and I always want to poke around people's heads.
"I learned to be a bitch from two places: church and ballet."

I already knew that I was not going to join because when I was a teenager - the years that she found me to be a reprehensible human and a damned soul - I started to wonder if I believed in Jesus because my parents told me to or because I actually believed. Make no mistake, I was not allowed to not be a Christian on the outside. I was also as open as I could be out by duplicitous church/school life. I would tell people "Of course I lie at church. You can't tell those kids anything without them tattling to your mom" and it was the truest statement. I ended up just skipping all together to make-out in a field and looking back on the mess my youth group was in (expelling kids for having premarital sex and saying that handholding is the gateway drug all the while girls and boys were trading each other like Pokèmon cards), it's hard to say it was a waste of time in a 'lesser-of-two-evils' kind of way. The church environment was teaching me to be mean and spiteful and as soon as I left I was nicer to people.

Things got way worse as soon as I Googled them. I typed in "Church of Wells" and Google filled in "cult". Maybe it was the wrong one. I typed "Church of Wells" and "Wells, Texas" and "cult" came up again. The first hit was from a man's blog (here) who is a cult survivor and was evaluating this church after the suspicious circumstances around the death of a three-day-old infant who was sick. I ended up asking their pastor directly about the incident and he says they do believe in going to the doctor, but she had a disease that couldn't be detected in a CAT scan or MRI.
How nice to get that all cleared up, except the comments on his blog were alarming and then their websites. Then I went to their website, checked their roster to make sure I had the right place and the right people. Everything looked okay. I hadn't even clicked on a sermon yet before I saw a section called "Extensive Answers to Frequently Asked Questions." Here are those questions:

♦ "I understand PERSECUTION, but from the godly?"
♦ "Only God can judge, you can't"
♦ "You don't know my heart"
♦  "You guys are Legalistic and you don't understand GRACE."
♦  "An Open Response to Steve Smith & Liberty For Captives"-- If you look at the Liberty for Captives link that evaluated them, this is one of their leader's rebuttal and worth a read, just so you see both sides.
♦  "How do I know if I'm UNCONVERTED."
♦  "An Alarm to the Unconverted" by Joseph Alleine. If you look at the bolded bits, those are direct accusations of cultism and if you have to even ask if a church cuts people off from their families, and if you have to ask it twice on the same page, you might be a cult. 

It actually gets worse. One male student told me that their preacher told a girl that she was a sinner for going to college and exposing herself to sin. He told the same thing to a girl in one of my classes. This university is primarily filled with education and nursing programs, two of the best in the state. When it was founded it was a Women's University. It is not only dangerous but deplorable for any preacher to tell a person that they shouldn't go to college for any reason. Wisdom outweighs knowledge but it is unwise to eschew the acquisition of it. They sprinkle in the word love and salvation here and there but all I see is division, and exclusivity. As much as they preach love, all I see is shunning and no loving.

I wandered over to the Pagan Student Alliance because I used to go to their meetings once in a while my first semester. Their table at freshmen convocation had been next to the Mormon table and if there's anything an eighteen year old appreciates, it's irony. They were accepting of all religions and most of them described their spirituality as "pick and choose" and "eclectic" like an iPod shuffle. I don't agree with that myself, but I'd rather do like Jesus did and hang out with them. Like a lot of school clubs, it was really just a few friends hanging out and doing arts and crafts. I got busy and only went a few times.

But one of their members, an elfin-looking Wiccan boy named Thomas walked me home one morning at dawn, when I had snuck out of the dorm me and my friends were drinking in. The boy my friend was trying to get in bed with had, drunkenly and belligerently, asked if I was a Christian when the late night infomercials and evangelists come on. He actually yelled at me for believing, even though I told him I didn't care if he thought I was stupid and I didn't care if he was an atheist, let's just get loose and party because I'd had a rough day (I'd witnessed an attempted kidnapping behind my dorm and really needed a beer after). My friends and I had very strict safety rules when we went drinking and to sneak out of the boys dorm and risk getting caught or snatched up was a no-no, but the guy would not calm down no matter how much the group asked him to drop it. Then the guy said I had a big Jewish nose because I guess he needed to throw some sort of anti-semitism in there, even though I'm not Jewish. I slipped out when they weren't looking and on my way back saw Thomas waiting for the library to open. He walked me to my dorm and listened without judgment but shocked at the kidnapping story and the riled-up drunk that followed.

That same club had a table a few yards from the street preacher's set-up. I went over and asked them if it was a reactionary statement. "No," a girl said. "We are actually selling these bracelets, bowls and picture frames made from recycled materials. All of the proceeds will go to Habitat for Humanity (if i remember right) in honor of Earth Day."  I sighed with relief and then talked crafts.
Actions speak louder than shouting, indeed, and I couldn't help but be reminded of the Good Samaritan.


Last edited by Hythlodaeus (8/28/2013 12:47 am)


8/28/2013 2:31 am  #24

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

Tiny question: Are you quoting MW G, or are you them?


8/28/2013 8:22 am  #25

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

It's an article from a blog, reposted with some minor editing for clarity. 


9/10/2013 2:04 pm  #26

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

Why is the Church of Wells Drawing Scrutiny?
Taking a look at ‘perceived’ problems in this Texas ministry

September 4, 2013

       We (the church of Wells) have been called “ugly, aggressive, confrontational, hateful, arrogant, legalistic, reckless, belligerent, prejudiced, infanticidal, isolationistic, hoop jumping, satanic, scripture twisting, family destroying, brainwashing, evil predators; used by the devil as a cultic trap and stronghold of deception and lies; who speak CRAP and GARBAGE.”

                                                                      Daniel Pursley


In all likelihood, these two stories provide just a glimpse into this religious group, and they certainly appear to be red flags; however, those involved in the Church of Wells believe that theirs is the 'true church'.  Where have we seen this before? 

We are left wondering about the continuum of religious organizations.  Perhaps the broader question that needs to be asked is how does a 'Christian' group go from being healthy to being manipulative/controlling to being a whacked organization?  What are the signs that a decent ministry is starting to get weird?

Continue reading →


     Thread Starter

9/11/2013 1:34 pm  #27

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

In researching one of many commandments they break (Honor your father and mother) I found this by their beloved Baxter who holds a place on the top of their site...It is lengthy so I didnt copy and paste.
You can read it here:


9/11/2013 1:38 pm  #28

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

4everfaithful wrote:

In researching one of many commandments they break (Honor your father and mother) I found this by their beloved Baxter who holds a place on the top of their site...It is lengthy so I didnt copy and paste.
You can read it here:

They're really good at ignoring information/facts/scriptures that don't fit their M.O.


9/11/2013 4:50 pm  #29

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

They're really good at ignoring everything and making up an alternative universe.

You know the header at the top of their website? Here's a little primer on who those people were. I saw some comment about at least they had a woman preacher up there. They don't. It's James Renwick. 

So why these guys? What do they all have in common? Nothing.


9/30/2013 1:45 pm  #30

Re: Food for thought - articles and papers

The Church of Wells’ Startling Doctrine

The Church of Wells is a closed fellowship. Persons they believe are not saved are not allowed to attend their solemn meetings (Sunday, i.e. Lord’s day gatherings). Other meetings are reserved for persons they deem unbelievers. These meetings are more evangelical in nature, in that their aim is conversion of the attendees. Whether someone is a child of God or not is determined by the three church elders.

1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

This scenario is not possible for an unbeliever during their Sunday meeting(s), for unbelievers are not allowed in.

The Church of Wells: Sounding an Alarm, Unconditional Election, is it Biblical?

Before I begin, I would like to preface this with a few scriptures to still the waters that may already be stirred:

He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. – Proverbs 18:17

Open rebuke is better than secret love. – Proverbs 27:5

Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. – Proverbs 27:6

…rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith… – Titus 1:13

The purpose of this writing is to publicly address The Church of Wells‘ belief in the so-called biblical doctrine of Unconditional Election

or “U” in T.U.L.I.P, an acronym associated with Calvinistic theology standing for:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election***

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

The doctrine, Unconditional Election, claims that God “elects” men and women to salvation without condition (unconditionally), that is, without faith, cause, or agreement on the elect’s part: according to this camp, God saves on the basis of an immutable decree and not by foreseeable faith in Christ, seemingly contrary to the plain teaching of holy writ:

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father… – 1 Peter 1:2

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate… – Romans 8:29

Essentially, in this view, God picks his favorites (vessels of mercy) from the vast ocean of mankind throughout all ages and leaves the rest (vessels of wrath) to perish in everlasting flames, God willing most to eternal perdition.

To be clear, those Protestants that espouse Unconditional Election universally agree in justification by faith; however, their faith is a faith manufactured solely by God upon the “vessels of mercy”/”the elect” and is a mere result of God’s electing decree.

According to them, man believes because he is part of the “elect” and not the opposite: man is elect because he believes.

Is this the God of the Bible? Does not God want all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)? Is He, Jesus Christ, not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)?

Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (This verse does not promote Universalism, but rather Unlimited Atonement. The free gift of eternal life must be received [Rom.5:17, John 1:12].)

1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

1 Timothy 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

1 Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have (desires) all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

From one (John Wesley) they espouse:

But if this be so, then is all preaching vain. It is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. … This, then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself. A Second is, that it directly tends to destroy holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. … the doctrine itself, – that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, – has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell. … This doctrine tends to destroy the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity. … How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings! … This uncomfortable doctrine directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works. … this doctrine not only tends to destroy Christian holiness, happiness, and good works, but hath also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation. … For supposing the eternal unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the Christian Revelation were not in being, and the other part of mankind must be damned, notwithstanding that Revelation. And what would an infidel desire more? …

it is a doctrine full of blasphemy … this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, “Jesus Christ the righteous, “the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth,” as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be denied that the gracious words which came out of his mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, he did not intend to save all sinners, is to represent him as a gross deceiver of the people.

… You represent him as mocking his helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to give. You describe him as saying one thing, and meaning another; as pretending a love which he had not. … It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. … This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. … This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination … Sing, O hell, and rejoice, ye that are under the earth! For God, even the mighty God, hath spoken, and devoted to death thousands of souls, from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof! Here, O death, is thy sting! They shall not, cannot escape; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Here, O grave, is thy victory! Nations yet unborn, or ever they have done good or evil, are doomed never to see the light of life, but thou shalt gnaw on them for ever and ever!
(The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) (1996) Volume 7 – Pages 376-384)

It might also be added, The Church of Wells believes not only in Unconditional Election, but also in 2 types of elections (both unconditional). The first type, is the type a typical Calvinist would believe — elect and persevering to the end. The second type, could be deemed “elect and reprobated”. One is “elected” and then reprobated to hell. This makes three types of people: Elect and on their way to heaven, Elect and will be reprobated, and Un-elect, hell-bound. Persons within these three groups, according to them, are fixed, unable to change their eternal abode assigned by God, God having determined everyone’s fate by an unchanging, eternal decree.

Men they seem to herald as “of the Lord” seen clearly on their website include a majority of Calvinists and a couple non.
(This is not meant to deride these men of old, but rather, to delineate the groups’ doctrinal makeup, inspiration, and tenor.)

On a final note, consider this verse compared to the man-made doctrine of Calvin.

“For there is **no** respect of persons with God.” Romans 2:11

Jake Gardner of The Church of Wells Exposed

The following arrows are not hurled from the deluder’s quiver put rather from a contender of the faith once delivered unto the saints on grounds of utter pull and importance.

The Charge:

Holding that form of doctrine so subtly called Orthodoxy by some reformers of old and present, specifically the so-called doctrine of Unconditional Election sometimes met with its daughters Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

To be fair, judicious and forward, the only reproof is on the grounds of the erroneous, idolatrous belief and intellectual sleight deemed Unconditional Election which Jake Gardner, elder of The Church of Wells, holds forth as the Word of Life.

Evidence of this stance can been heard in the church’s preaching, declaring God, who cannot lie, as a worker of damnation — willing some to salvation (having mercy) while neglecting the most, i.e. damning the most in the guise of Godly mercy (proof encapsulated on the church of wells homepage under “Must Hear Sermons”, a sermon titled “Sovereign Mercy” Evangelist Rolfe Barnard). This is evidently not the burden of the LORD, nor is it manifestly prescribed in the Holy Oracles of God, both Old and New Testaments. Having witnessed Calvinistic preaching from the elders, the following verses are simply meant to noise abroad that which is written in reproof of the teaching of Unconditional Election.

*While it is evident that all mankind will not be saved, God does desire it (1Timothy 2:4); For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:17)

Evidence Against:

The following verses are kept short and to a minimum in number to expose this party’s Biblically precarious and frail foundation.

Verses even a child can understand:

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now ***COMMANDETH*** ***ALL men*** ****EVERY WHERE**** to repent:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that ***bringeth salvation*** ***hath appeared*** to ***all men***

*hath appeared in the Greek

e.g. Luke 1:79
To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift ***came upon all men*** unto justification of life.

1 Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

1 Timothy 2:4 Who ***will have*** ***ALL MEN*** to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

* In the Greek:

to will, have in mind, intend
a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love
1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d) to take delight in, have pleasure

James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and ***easy to be intreated***, ***full of mercy*** and good fruits, ***without partiality***, and without hypocrisy.


Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

©2012-2018 all rights reserved.

This is a conversation, an open dialogue, in the tradition of Free Speech. The purpose is to promote independent investigation, public debate and dialogue on cult and mind control issues critical to our social and individual well-being. Statements made reflect the writer's opinion. This forum acts to provide a space for electronic medium of information transfer, with the explicit understanding that each user will independently evaluate it and carefully make up his or her own mind as to its factual accuracy and usefulness. Independent individuals, organizations, authors, researchers, academicians and contributors may be exercising constitutional rights of petition, free speech, participation in government, or freedom of religion in researching, evaluating and freely discussing any matter. These discussions or statements may be constitutionally-protected opinions, speculation, allegations, satire, fiction, or religious beliefs or religious opinions of independent individuals, organizations or authors and as such, may or may not be factual.