Church of Wells/YMBBA Ministries

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

10/20/2013 10:04 pm  #1

What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

It appears to be pretty standard fare, I'll grant you, for a modern American "non-denominational" church (I prefer older, les western, more sacramental understandings of the Holy Scriptures, myself.) There are some red flags for me down deep under some of what is written there.
The first red flag for me was raised by this: "We further believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved word of God for English speaking people. We believe this based on the glorious fruit this translation has evinced throughout the last four hundred years of history since its inception: the fruit God has been evidently pleased to grant by way of this translation in mighty revivals, in the formation of innumerable mighty men of God, as well as in the life changing and faith strengthening fruit it has produced in our own personal lives. 'Ye shall know them by their fruits' (Mtt.7:16a)"

I assume they include this in their fundamental statement of faith because they believe use of the KJV is necessary to properly understand the Word of God, or to avoid doctrinal error. I make that assumption because I've run into this very teaching many times. Over the years I've had encounters with individuals and groups who share this curiously unnecessary addition to the KJV. Everyone has their favorite translation, paraphrase, etc., of course, and I certainly have mine. But a statement like this posted as fundamental to the organization's statement of faith betrays a deeply-rooted tendency toward misunderstanding the nature of the Word of God. KJV-only churches are often caught up in heterodox teaching, and sometimes, even heresy.

Note that the scripture cited at the end of this paragraph has nothing to do with the position per se; it is Jesus' warning to us about how to spot false prophets! Red Flag! Red Flag! If they misuse the Word of God in their statement of faith to support an adiaphoron like choice of Bible translation, in what other ways have they turned words of Gospel and grace into law?

Don't get me wrong. The KJV is a good translation, and for many it has deeply emotional roots in their lives and their church experience, and it is often cited when the Bible is used as literature. But it is neither the oldest or the best English translation, and in my opinion it's one of the worst choices for a new English-speaking Christian who has little or no connection with the anachronistic idiom of 17th-century England! So why would a church post this on their web site?
(FWIW, for my undergrad degree I double-majored in Biblical and Ecclesiastical languages. That first one means Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, of course. I take the transmission and translation of the Biblical text as seriously as anyone you'll meet!)


   It seems just from my reading of their statement of faith that they seem to be very confused. They also have the images of men who were very at odds with each others' doctrines on their website. Spurgeon and Whitfield? Bunyon? Bunyon, Ravenhill, and Whitfield, did not believe in a Calvinistic OSAS position but Spurgeon and Knox did.
They also mentioned they believe the KJV but hold to a "sin nature" doctrine which is not found anywhere in the KJV but is found in the 1984 edition of the NIV and corrected in the 2010 version to line up with the KJV. They often call the "sin nature" doctrine "the original sin doctrine" which in itself is faulty as the original sin was committed by Lucifer who became Satan. He then tempted Eve and Adam also ate and they died spiritually at that time passing mortality to us all.

They confuse the actual commission of sin and personal responsibility of that commission with a "sinful nature" that is that sin itself is inherited when we are born. This is an ancient gnostic teaching that infiltrated the early church and was refuted by the Apostles. If sin were inherited and resides in the flesh as opposed to acts we do or fail to do, then Jesus' flesh would have inherited "sin" and he would have found himself in the same predicament we are in i.e. needing to be saved. This is why the early gnostics said Christ came but not in the flesh. You see at least they were logically consistent in their error. Today we have the same gnostic teaching of a "sin nature" but a disconnect from what it really means. Some denominations will fix it by having infant baptism so if a baby were to die he would not go to hell.
Some now say that the sin nature is only inherited through the father so as to excuse Christ from having a sin nature in his flesh. The Roman Catholic "church" came up with the doctrine of immaculate conception which meant that MARY was born of a virgin and without sin, which covers the theological problem of Christ having a "sin nature." But that creates another problem doesn't it?

   Without further inquiry I know enough to stay away from them. If they have centralized authority this too is a problem and one is one big indicator of a cult. Many "Christian" cults have started this way and the best advice I can give is to probably avoid them. One thing about a cult is what they promote on the surface seems Christian but they do not let outsiders see their stranger doctrines until they are already committed. Both Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons claim to be Christian and neither of them use their stranger doctrines (of devils) to capture people, they make it sound as close to Christianity as they can until the person is sucked in then gradually indoctrinate them with their false doctrines over time. I suspect that we may see some of this happen here given time.


The Main pastor would be the centralized leadership I spoke of. Everything you wrote is exactly the marks of a cult. The control over other people, what they read, watch, listen to, who they associate with, the cutting off of relationships, them seeing themselves as the only ones in the truth, the isolation and indoctrination all forms of mind control and when it is boiled down is satanic. They may use the name of Jesus, even use the KJV but it is a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible. If they read the scripture carefully communal living did not work out very well for the early believers either. They had to take collections from other churches to support them later on. God never told them to do that but they did so voluntarily and I am sure they had all the right motives of separation and wanting to devout their lives to Jesus, but it was not in the Bible as an example for us to follow but factual history of what they did and perhaps even a lesson not to do it.
Anyway in the case of this modern day cult I would say to stay away.  


10/21/2013 10:23 am  #2

Re: What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

Great post! I'd love to hear more about your language and historical studies as it pokes hole in CoW's doctine. 


10/31/2013 11:23 am  #3

Re: What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

I would also like to inquire if there has been any formal evaluation by local or even remote church pastors and leaders regarding thendoctrine and practices of the church of wells.  If not, then how could a formal letter or request for evaluation or comment be initiated?  Let "bretheren" speak together in this - i would very much like to hear the collective opinion if pastoral leaders.


10/31/2013 12:37 pm  #4

Re: What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

Of course not.
Religion is personal. Religion doesn't have "oversight." Preachers can make up anything they want. Preachers can say anything, promise anything.

You would think those in the spiritual profession would want to speak out about stuff like this, but they don't. Probably because it's all a little risky. All subjective. Every religious leader experiences somebody who doesn't like what he says.

Here's what you do - if you're a minister, do an evaluation. Ask your own pastor and preachers that you have relationships with, to do an evaluation.
Why not?


10/31/2013 1:06 pm  #5

Re: What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

In the meantime, make sure you go a little deeper and explore all parts of this forum. There's a ton of very good information here. 
There are writings from credible sources and many links to a broad variety of outside information, from a variety of different voices and perspectives.


10/31/2013 1:47 pm  #6

Re: What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

There are ministers looking at and studying the CoW with a critical eye in hopes of God breaking the spiritual bondage that is there. 


10/31/2013 1:55 pm  #7

Re: What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

Boy, they sure are a silent lot, aren't they?


12/01/2013 6:23 pm  #8

Re: What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

From the baby Faith thread.


     Thread Starter

12/01/2013 8:32 pm  #9

Re: What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

I am a Baptist Pastor and until a few weeks ago, had been in communication with one of the so called elders of CoW. I had hoped to offer some help to some friends of mine who have a daughter in the group. They even drove to the state I live in for a face to face meeting. In the coming days I will be sharing my personal conclusions and observations from my talks with them.

They recently decided to cut communication with me but not before offering a rebuke to me. It was only a matter if time.


12/01/2013 8:50 pm  #10

Re: What other spiritual leaders/pastors have to say

We look forward to your input concernedhere.


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.