Tags
c3, c3 church, c3 church global, cut, cut down, gone, grass, Phil Pringle, trees
Previously we recorded people reporting Pringle making claims that God killed people because they opposed what God was doing through Phil Pringle.
Don’t Oppose Pringle Or God Might Kill You?
Here was one of the reports:
“did you ever hear Phil Pringle suggest that two women died as a result of opposing his ministry (in NZ)? We heard him make that claim in the early years of CCC (now C3).”
Now we have video footage of Phil Pringle telling the above story. He gave his account in both the morning and night time services on the 29th of December, 2013.
If you are not aware of the scandals Pringle is involved in – it is worth our readers looking up our articles that look at the C3 Asheville Scandal and City Harvest Church Scandal involving Kong Hee.
We have some VERY good inside sources in his movement. We have been informed what Pringle is saying in private meetings and in his Tuesday leadership meetings. Is it any wonder he is bringing this story up now to shut up his leaders and members? We are also aware that Phil Pringle is indeed following our blog. Therefore we wonder if he would have been more fierce with his retelling of his story if he didn’t have people monitoring him.
Reference: Phil Pringle, Nothing Is Impossible P1, http://www2.myc3church.net/videos/phil-pringle-nothing-impossible-p1, AM Service, Sunday 29th December 2013.
Reference: Phil Pringle, Nothing Is Impossible P2, http://www2.myc3church.net/videos/phil-pringle-nothing-impossible-p2, PM Service, Sunday 29th December 2013.
Phil Pringle is scripture twisting again. “Evil doers” are the unsaved. We don’t believe Pringle’s “conversation” with God. Pringle is operating on the cultish idea of not questioning the leader, and putting fear into the members so that no one dares to oppose his teachings. However, God has not given us a spirit of fear.
In these sermons Pringle is preaching from Psalms 37 and neglects to inform his listeners that the “righteous” are believers and the wicked are non-believers.
“Better the little that the righteous have than the wealth of many wicked;
for the power of the wicked will be broken, but the Lord upholds the righteous.” Psalm 37:16-17
This is all throughout the Psalm.
This begs the question: Who was speaking to Phil Pringle if it wasn’t God?
Phil Pringle exposes that the god that speaks to him is not the god of scriptures. Let us explain.
Pringle said that God accused these women of being “Christian evil-doers“. Consider that statement for a second. Now watch Pringle explain what God says about believers and non-believers.
“When God talks about you, a person planted in the house of God, a person who is in the Word of God and worships as is in prayer, he never calls you grass. He never calls you a green herb. He calls you a tree.”
According to Pringle, God never calls a Christian a “green herb” or a “grass”. Pringle announces that God only calls a Christian a tree. So we are to conclude that those women were not Christian at all.
“Grass has shallow roots. And when the sun comes up and in the summer it can wither it. If there’s no rain, within a few days it’s withered away and become nothing. And he says that’s what happens to evil doers. Well you know those two ladies- I mean the Lord says, “I will soon-” (what’s he say -uh- I’ll just read it to you), “They shall soon be cut down like grass”.
Pringle reminds his audience about those two Christian ladies in his church and has had God declare over them”They shall soon be cut down like grass”.
It looks like Pringle’s god cannot make up his mind if those women are trees, grass or a hybrid of both. As you can see, Pringle’s testimony and his own explanation fails him.
C3 Church Watch 
Wowsers.
I know Northside Christian Church (now Nexus Church) at Everton Park in QLD had massive court battles with their neighbours who complained about noise etc. Not sure about all details but I’m fairly sure they won, plus the land they backed onto has now been purchased and is extra car parking/school facilities.
I never heard of their neighbours dying suddenly.
OK, so when did God “kill” people in the age of grace (ie New Testament)?
1 – Ananias and Sapphira – for blatantly lying, NOT for getting in the way of building a church. This had to do with holiness. (I’m amazed that God doesn’t pronounce immediate judgment on many more given what they did….)
2 – Herod – for not “giving praise to God”, when people called him a god.
What does Paul say about a decisive person (Titus 3:10)? Warn them twice, then have nothing to do with them. Apparently Chris Pringle got on the phone and had some words to them. We can only guess what she said. Did he expel them from the church (ie 1 Cor 5?) Or as some have said, is this incident a reference to how important he thinks he is?
The reference to them being killed is unclear, although his “they were gone” statement make you wonder. It sounds as if he is celebrating their demise. I’m sure Gary McDougall or one of the others who were over there at the time would be aware of the incident.
As for the councillor who died suddenly, I’ve heard that before. Cue my opening point. That really disgusts me he would say such a thing. Now here is my point – if you’re on the inside (ie at the church), you’d think it’s funny. Get out of c3 or even not being churched, and it’s a horrendous thing to say or imply. And how is he going to marry it up with Scripture?
Of course, there’s the 0.1% chance I’ll be convinced God said that to him; whether or not he is hyping it up to sounds so glamourous is also wroth weighing.
“Even more disturbing is the background laughter accompanying the story!”
It’s true, it’s saddening, and it makes me angry. No wonder the modern church is so despised and rejected from the unchurched these days.
Come on you defenders of this behaviour – I’ll tell you something. YOU think this kind of stuff, about God killing people is acceptable. YOU think it’s important to have massive flashy buildings and its contents. YOU think it’s okay to preach $$$$$$ (that Mark Kelsey baptism, sorry, tithe-ism sermon makes me angry to the bone).
Guess what? The unchurched DON’T.
Mocking someone because they opposed you and they died? Why would you want to believe in a God who did that? Most churches try and preach the love of God through Jesus. “Well this isn’t a God of love, killing people who didn’t like this money magnet!”
I continue here….
Ok that’s dealt with. I might take it a little further, and people might not agree with me here, though I’ll try and take it to the more extreme view.
Scour this website and the web of things churches do, in the name of relevance. Harlem Shake (what’s that? So 2013), Halloween parties (yes, and a c3 church in Brisbane did it years ago), changing the words to “secular” songs to be hip and groovy (if I was an affected songwriter, I’d send a cease and desist letter). These things are probably at the further end of the spectrum. As some would call it, bringing the world into the church (which I don’t exactly). Are some of these events done with good motives? Possibly. Is it to outreach? Or to be hip and relevant? What has rattled my cage is the report of a US-based show, pretty much a Christian version of The Bachelor. WHY?
OK this is my point – WE might think something is relevant, is hip, is something the “world” would like. But guess what? It’s probably not. The unchurched don’t care that you change Coldplay lyrics to make a God love song, in fact they probably think it’s stupid. Why is the church always playing catchup? Even in sincerely genuine churches, good thing they’re doing evangelism, but am just wondering about the vehicle they use. I’m not really targeting them though. I think you can tell when a church is sincere. But what about the others? What does the church have that the unchurched don’t? Jesus. Quite simply, Jesus. The Love of God. Is putting a Halloween party on expressing the Love of God? You might see a vehicle there. What about a church that helps the needy in their suburb? That helps local schools etc? That offers a counselling service? That preaches you must give God at least 10% of your gross income?
I hope I don’t offend anyone here, as I’m sure a lot of local churches do things to help the community, and (in my biased eyes anyway) may not do it using the best vehicle. Am happy to stand corrected. We have the Love of God. The unchurched don’t. As I keep reading this site and others, I seem to think that the modern “relevant” seeker-sensitive megachurch is slowly declining. (some) Christians are getting sick of the shallowness, the hype, the hypocrisy, the nepotism (my favourite). I might be wrong. Maybe the church needs to re-focus. No, I’m not perfect. I feel like repeating Paul’s words of being “the worst sinner”. God will judge me alone for my opinions on here, which is why I try and be reasonably balanced. But – having been out of the church for a while (as in attendance, NOT out of communion with Christ), I see things from a different perspective – and with that in mind, if you read everything above again, it will make sense. Blessings.
Pringle seems to be trying on the ‘heavy shepherding’ for size. Throwback to the 1970’s heretical movements.
Manipulation! Twisting the Word! Cultish! Phil’s getting desperate so he’s resorting to trying to create fear in anyone who opposes him tactics. That’s what thugs do, hit men do, bikie gangs do, satan does phil does – all in the same league. That’s even m
That’s even more reason why not to associate with pp c3. Threats! How low can you go!
Totally agree with you Simeon. Seeker sensitive “churches” – nothing but compromise. A disrespect to God. I certainly won’t have anything to do with those clubs.
I just listened to the first sermon of fighting for the faith and I don’t agree with Chris Rosenberg at all. Firstly I’m still not convinced that women should not preach. The scripture that says women should be quiet in church was a cultural thing at that time. Secondly I totally relate to what she is saying and agree with her. Our walk with God is a personal relationship. Just because Chris can’t relate to what she is saying and can’t understand doesn’t give him the right to call her crazy and I found nothing wrong with the way she laughed. Chris’ comments are very arrogant and sarcastic. Now I understand why people don’t like him.
I have listened to a lot of that show from pretty much the beginning. Rosebrough was sometimes (and occasionally still is) too sarcastic and harsh, especially when getting frustrated with very poor preaching. He has matured a fair bit in that area but it is still something that comes with the package. It sure is a big contrast to the ultra-sensitive, politically correct pep talks masquerading as sermons!
Now at the beginning I also wondered why he was so anti women preachers. Over time I realised there were major weakness that women preachers have in common. Relationships before truth. Positive encouragement and never any needed rebuke. Bible passages NEVER examined and preached upon in context. Personal testimony always the top priority. Sin and the need for Jesus’s death on the cross never mentioned.
“Emergent church” women preachers directly contradicting bible passages and explaining away difficult doctrine and preaching mystical practices commonly used by other religions. “Charismatic” preachers never preaching anything but themselves and bible-verses misused to justify altered consciousness and false visions. It brought back the occasional memory of what I had heard from a female assistant pastor at one charismatic church I attended. I very reluctantly admitted Rosebrough is right on that matter. I wouldn’t attend a church who had a female pastor now.
This is classic manipulation. His tone/posture is “I’m not comfortable with this but…” and then he throws open the definition of “soon” so it could be any time period between 0 and 5 years+. Then he implies 2 people died because they got in the way. We don’t know who, when, where or why. He doesn’t go into details, in fact there is zero meaningful information.
It would be good if people who have contacts in C3 could try to find out who he was talking about (if it’s even true) so we can find out what actually happened. Hypothetically two people could have been killed in a car crash 4 years later and he’s attributing that to his issues. It’s called Attribution bias. But we don’t know. Implied in the message however is if you cross Phil Pringle, it’s bad for your health and you could be killed, even if you’re Christian.
Even I’m surprised he went down that road…
What’s the difference between a pastor, a preacher, and a teacher?
You can read or listen to the original series for FREE here. http://www.gty.org/products/audio-series/219
“BELEIVERS ARE NEVER CALLED GRASS, THEIR CALLED TREES”…is that what he said?
Yes, Wheat is a type of GRASS.
Wheat represents the harvest reaped from sowing the Gospel. Together with grapes, it is a reference to the Body of Christ. “Tares” are actually darnel, a seed hardly identifiable from the wheat seed, and immature wheat and darnel look alike. To try to destroy the darnel would mean destroying much of the wheat, and separating one from the other would be beyond the servants’ abilities. Only when the wheat has matured can the tares be detected. Then the tares are gathered together in bundles in the field and destroyed by fire.
Yes. Wheat is a monocot from the Poaceae family. This means it is classified as a “GRASS” due to its lack of cotyledons (first leaves), fibrous root system and lack of taproot (a taproot is the thick root you see when you pull a dicot such as dandelion out of the ground).
Speaking of grass Phil says, “WHEN SUMMER COMES ALONG AND THERE’S NO WATER IT WITHERS”.
On the contrary, GRASS (such as KIKUYU and BUFFALO) can be a very hardy dicotyledon. Just ask anyone with a nice patch of SIR WALTER. But on the other contrary, I guess any plant will die if it doesn’t get enough water.
Now let’s see whom God also likens trees to,-KJV,
Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath. (Amos 2:9)
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (KJV)
Looks very clear to me that God can refer to the righteous or the wicked as trees. Or rather liken them to. Parabolically speaking that is.