AssemblyBoard

Yesterday I was driving home from a lovely afternoon tea with my six year old daughter when I passed a church with one of those “drive-by” quotes posted under their name sign. The quote read “forget the past & forgive.” I thought about that quote as I finished the drive home and by the time I pulled into the driveway, I had come up with an alternate rendering: “remember the past & forgive.”
   You see, I don’t ever want to forget the past. Erase the past (or even revise it) and you are more likely to repeat the same mistakes in the future, right? Is it possible to learn from our mistakes and make new choices? Is it possible to say: no more, this will not happen again, the buck stops here, the cycle ends with me? I have to believe the answer is yes. My future depends on it. How that happens is still a bit dicey for me, but I’m determined to figure it out.
   Is it more difficult to remember the past & forgive? I think so. I accept what has happened, but that doesn’t mean it was OK. Forgiveness has come in pieces, like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. I’m not there yet, but I can see the picture emerging from the chaos.
   
   What do you think?    

Elizabeth Henderson

Elizabeth

You are right don't forget the past for the lessons you have learned. However we are not to be dragged down by the past and be still living in the past.

I for one have no ill will towards anyone because I believe I must forgive and let people be free to learn how to live a new life. I do believe however that people should ask for forgiveness and not expect it because this brings closure for them and the person offended.

You can change your life. I was raised in a double alcoholic home and the odds statistically of me becoming an alcoholic or marrying an alcoholic are 70%. I don't worry about that like I might have before because this knowledge allows me to avoid the pitfalls that others made before me. The scripture comes to mind "These things were written afore times" for us to learn by them. If they were not remembered we would not learn from them.

But now that I know what to look for in my life as a result of my upbringing I can heed the warnings and turn from them. You see I am not useless and stupid and all the other terrible things that were said to me when my parents were drunk. I believed them because you trust your parents and you want their acceptance. Well I now know that it is not true and I know when I feel these ways it is a lie and now I can say to myself. Hugh you are loved and you are accepted and don't let anyone tell you differently. Oh yes and now I know what the Alcohol did to my parents I can forgive them and see how wounded and hurt they were to resort to the bottle. Thank God I know I don't need drugs or alcohol to prop me up.

In knowing how you are conditioned by the Assembly you can help yourself and others to be free from the feelings of guilt and insecurity and lack of worth. I know for me more and more I am seeing that it matters who you associate with. The people in the gathering I go to now are very supportive and loving and do not go around labelling me to keep me under their thumb. There is a genuine desire to better the other guy.

But back to your point. You can help steer yourself and others away from the dangers you experienced but the forget the past does not apply but rather forgive those who hurt you in the past and help them to acknowledge their sin so they can finally be free of it.

By God's enabling you can be what God intended you to be. A happy vital and encouraging part of God's Church who can reach out in love to others and thereby bring glory to God. Seek out those who are encouragers who will help you to grow in a healthy environment.

Hugh

Normally, I would have read this post and moved on, but it snagged me with "What do you think?"

Since you asked, Elizabeth, I think that God has gifted you with uncommon wisdom.  (The same is true of Hugh, but don't tell him I said so ;D ;D ;D!)

Considering where you have been and what you have experienced, your grasp of reality is astounding, inspiring and encouraging-- a bright ray of hope to many, I'm sure, as it is to me.  Please keep posting here as you keep discovering and learning.

And buy that six-year-old and her favorite dolly each a cup of tea for me
and send me the tab :) ;) :D.

al

I think you are one smart cookie Elizabeth.
The happy beneficiary of your assembly experience will be that precious six-year-old.
I left the assemblies while I was still single, but for the primary reason that I was determined to not raise priceless children in an atmosphere as baneful as that place. I am now ashamed and embarrased at the hogwash I spouted to some of my friends who had young children. They were smart enough to reject it as the perversion it truly was, like the sick and soul-stifling mat- training idiocy. God help us!
The wisdom  passed to the next generation in my view makes the hardship we all endured well worth it.
I am personally convinced this is the reason God permitted it...
Verne

Amen!  It cannot be repeated too often nor too strongly:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. Rom.8:28 (emphases mine)

The functional relevance of this truth is far broader in scope than we are inclined to realize, factually binding us together within all the body of Christ.  For those who are able and willing, I urge you to consider it within the context of the entire book of Romans, most particularly chapter 8:16-39!

Because of His grace,
al

Thank you so much for your kind words---although I have a hunch my "wisdom" is over-rated. Just ask my four year old!  ;D

Part of my post Assembly experience has been to sift the chaff from the wheat, if you will. I didn't have the luxury of disappearing into the night (although I dreamed about it many times!), because that would have been like running away from my own skin and bones. Not possible. Rather, I am faced with the rather daunting task of examining the evidence, weighing what was "of God" and what was not, listening to new thoughts and perspectives and learning how to construct a new worldview.

I liked Hugh's point about not dwelling in the past. To be honest, I think my sufferings were nothing compared to what many on this BB have experienced. The first time I started reading the stories (back in '02-'03) I wept for about 2 weeks straight. I have learned so much from just reading what everyone experienced during their various tenures in the Assembly. It has given me perspective, certainly.

I was so broken. The foundation upon which my entire worldview had been built was crumbling all around me. I can honestly say that in that darkest moment, God was there. I can't explain what He was or what He was doing, but He was definitely there. In my journal at the time I describe it as "God holding me up."

If God hadn't been there, well, I don't know what would have happened to me. Utter despair, probably.

What I would like to hear is how others have changed their lives. What helped the most? How does one let go of certain habits of thinking (I don't want to say "thought patterns" because it brings to mind those wretched sin-charts & the selfer's prayer! BLECH!!)....but you know what I mean...how do YOU change the biases?

Hugh: HOW did you choose differently from your parents? What was the process?
Verne & Al: HOW did you get yourself to think differently about things?

Please keep posting, this is helping me! Thank you!

Elizabeth

The thing that was of greatest help to me personally was getting into fellowship with spiritually healthy believers.
To my great embarassment, in the assemblies I had acquired the notion that there were godly people nowhere else.
We all know the awful pride and spiritual arrogance that notion bred in all our hearts.
We thought we were spiritually superior.
I still remember my first Christian and Missionary Alliance General Council in Florida.
I stood in that auditorium in stunned silence as scores of spirit-filled and radiant believers serving in every country imaginable gave remarkable testimony about what God was doing.
I remember feeling so ashamed and wondering where I had been all these years.
The evidence before me put the lie to the notion that I was ever anything special; in fact the opposite was true - I was nothing!
God convicted me of many wrong things I believed and had tried to teach others - like chastising my best friend for not mat-training his two delightful little kids who loved to run around like all healthy kids.
I spent many prayerful hours in confession of,  and repentance from my own sin.
The process of recovery continues...will probaly be life-long but God is indeed faithful.
I want to be ever teachable...
Verne

Elizabeth

I went to a program called Alateen which is for Children of Alcoholics. It is sponsored by Al-Anon which is the Adult spouses and friends of Alcoholics. Both Alateen and Al-Anon are based on and cooperate in the conventions held by Alcoholics Anonomous.

The thing I had to learn was that my parents did not have me to blame for their drinking problem. Even if they said it was my fault there was no basis of truth in these statements. I had to learn to realize this and stop reacting to my gut feelings that were conditioned in me from hearing the lies they told me about myself and their personal problems and how to function in normal loving relationships. They distorted the truth so I could not function like normal people function. I had fears that were not normal and I had deep depression at times. I could not understand what was happening and thought I was going to go mad. I would do anything to have my parents love me and respect me but they could not help themselves.

Well Alateen/Al-Anon taught me what common patterns are found in Alcoholic families and they stressed it was quite common for the Alcoholic to transfer their guilt to the children and for the children to accept it and feel guilty. This is hard to break but if you remain in that sitution (living in an Alcoholic home) you will not recover quickly and may never recover at all. You need to find people who have a loving foundation and as you go through flashback moments where you start acting by conditioning you need to let people love you and accept you and tell you it isn't your fault and you are not responsible for another persons actions. Now I know that no Alcoholic looks to become one but they find the alcohol fills a void in their life. They are empty and distressed and have a poor self image and turn to the bottle. If I continued to believe the things I was taught at home about myself I would be ruined in my spirit and would probably have turned to the drink or some other crutch to maintain myself and cope with the dispair. A young girl who is raped may believe she is to blame and she turns to prostitution because she believes she is no better than trash. Who was to blame there not her but she takes the blame and it changes the course of her life and she goes from bad to worse one bad choice at a time.

In the Assembly I got the heavy hand from people who would not allow me to disagree. It was labelled as being unentreatable. In a healthy Church you can have disagreements with others and that is how people learn to adjust things when they need adjustment. Insecure people like my alcoholic parents or a dominant leader in a Church quash all proper discussion to protect their weak ego and turn the blame on the person questioning them. They rally others to help them assault the individual until they either leave or submit.

You hopefully will come to the understanding by being around healthy Christians that there is room for healthy discussion of topics considered taboo in the Assembly. There is also some evaluation of the deny self teaching that is not allowing you to be a whole person that God created you to be. It is normal to express yourself uniquely and although you are a part of the body your gifts and your phsycological wellbeing are important to your growth in Christ. You are special in your entire person. You do not have to change who you are to make yourself like others. The idea of killing the self life is asthetic and is Eastern mystic teaching and not Christian. When you deny self as a Christian you are willing to sacrafice to serve the Lord when it is necessary but not destroy who you are.

People who are comfortable with who they are will not be threatened by you becoming a unique and dynamic individual. That is part of self-esteem and without that you cannot Love your neighbour as yourself because you won't love yourself but rather you loathe who you are and cannot understand true love.

Live and let Live is important. My goal is to make others as fulfilled in Christ as I can and that should be everyone's goal I believe. It is primarily by love and example and not by law and restriction.

Hope that helps a bit.
Hugh

Weighty words my friend. Too many do not realise what a perverted and unholy teaching this is.
The quint-essential  Scriptural methphor of "going he way of the cross" is "not my will, but Thy will be done".
Some generalised notion of denial of self apart from the revealed will of God, is nothing but doctrines of devils, and Paul sternly warns against it.  It is a first century heresy arising out of ascetic dualism and this teaching in particular was used in the assemblies to subjugate and dominate the will of many, and resulted in untold misery.
There are misguided people who would still foist this deviltry upon the free in Christ. God forbid!


 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
  Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. Colossians 2: 16-23

You have struck upon what I consider a major factor in our former imprisonment and our present-and-future recovery, Elizabeth, in the technique you employed above.  Some may be tired of my discussing this, but we were ensnared and held captive by the abusive use of language.  Both scriptural phraseology and plain everyday English terminology were hammered into our minds with twisted, distorted meanings.  It was as effective a brainwashing technique as hypnosis or sleep-deprivation.  In fact, I distinctly recall it involving forms of sleep-deprivation :'( :'(.

Today, there are multitudes of ex-assyites who literally cringe to hear such terms as "thought patterns," "practical application," and dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other perfectly normal phrases that were given specific definitions purely for the purpose of controling the masses (us).  Likewise, we heard grace, peace, mercy and love preached constantly, but in the context of real suppression by dictatorial rule and consistent wrong demands upon our behavior.

By recognizing that certain words and phrases affect us in a knee-jerk manner, and by deliberately overcoming such reactions through reassessing our interpretations of what we hear and say (I'm not kidding: some serious dictionary-reading may be in order!), we can begin to reclaim our possession of our own minds, breaking free of the thought-chains of our former masters.

It is a cruel reality that many former assyites are intimidated, even terrified by the prospect of prayer and/or Bible reading purely out of reaction to the extreme, severe mental conditioning (brainwashing) we underwent.  But the "things" we fear and dread are innocent!  It was the monsters that abused them and us that are guilty of doing harm.  God enabling us (and He can, will and does!), we must reclaim our lives inch-by-inch and ounce-by-ounce.  We didn't become what we eventually were in a flash, and there is no quick-fix for our condition.  Gradually the quicksand of error swallowed us, and only by persistence in our pursuit of knowing Christ personally (as He truly is, not as He was portrayed to us) will we regain the lost ground.  But the effort required in this pursuit is infinitely worth our investment!

---

I can't ignore this question, but will have to return to it later...

al

Liz -

I like Hugh's answer about learning the truth about his situation compared to his parent's verision of the truth (somewhat of a paraphrase I guess)--

What has transformed me the most was going out into the adult world and functioning.  I started graduate school a year ago.  At first I was terrified of failure, that it was the wrong time, the wrong vocation etc.  As time went on I began to be rewarded for my hard work and intelligence.  I discovered who I am intellectually and personality-wise all over again.  The redevelopment of my personality has been the most healing and wonderful thing in my post-assembly experience.  Prior to this I remained in my guilt-ridden, depressed, indecisiveness dependent upon everyone else's opinion, leading, will etc.  Now I consider myself the authority on my life, my field of study and my future.  Isn't that the way it aught to be?  What a relief.

I can't say that I don't ever struggle though.  Especially when my children bring up Christianity and the Bible.  I have no answers for them.  That is the next part of my life I need to come to terms with and I am sure it will be far more unsettling.  Friendships and relationships are also difficult.  We had such superficial and unhealthy relationships.  Now I find myself keeping everyone at arms length and then complaining about how unfriendly they are.  I am definitely messed up there.

I am able to change my ways of thinking about myself, because I can see myself in the true light of my accomplishments, strengths, weaknesses and know that I am not judged by them any longer. What will take longer to change is my views of others, Christians, churches etc.  but in the meantime I a free from self[-doubt and guilt and loving my life.

Hope you are finding the same
me

To paraphrase (following 'just me''s example)  :) , would it be safe to say that in order to change my mind and start thinking new thoughts I should try:

1. Setting goals and accomplishing them in the "adult world" or the "real world" (just me & Hugh)

2. Become friends with other Christians who are strong in their faith & actively living it (Al & Verne)

3. Re-learn the language in order to stop having reflexively "allergic" reactions to words like: "Practical application" & "thought patterns." (Al).

This last one will probably be the toughest for me. I still have a love-hate relationship with hymns, for example. On the one hand, I enjoy the "depth" of doctrine in such hymns as "Immortal, Invisible, God only wise" etc.; but then I experience major flashbacks every time I hear them and I want to run around the house screaming and pulling my hair out (kidding!...but you get the picture).

Some Sundays I want to go to church. Most Sundays I don't. I still hold the core beliefs. But I think I've developed an allergy to meetings (or maybe I've always had it since one of my childhood friends reminded me that I used to stay home from a lot of meetings with "stomach aches"!!  ;D )

Any ideas how to deal with these allergies?

Elizabeth

Elizabeth

All three would help and a lot of prayer.

Being aware of what is "Normal in you and your belief system" is key to knowing what to let go of and say that is not true and saying yes this is good and holding on to that. As you practice letting go of these things that are not true they eventually leave.

To know what is Normal though you need people who are strong and loving Christians and Non-Christians too who can help you see what is the truth both in the Church and out there in the world. I look for those who have a positive attitude and are accomplishing things to better their life and others.

Definitely you need to relearn scripture. But take it slowly. You can pray and ask the Lord to lead you and gradually I found I can read a little here and there and be really blessed by it. When I try a full blown Assembly type morning time I can't help but hear the Assembly interpretation on much of what I read. But that is changing as I listen to the ministry in the Church I go to when they open those passages I listen very carefully to see where my indoctrination lay and where they have seen a more liberating understanding. I also have talked here with different ones and expressed my need to rethink a verse or two and I have been helped alot to see other things. When I do it sticks and I don't fall back to the old way of thinking.

What you believe is what is most important. If you have a distorted belief in God or yourself or others it affects everything you do. At your core you reflect on your beliefs in various areas to give you a sense of stability especially in new untried areas of life. If you are off in your understanding it messes up everything.

So Good people, Good understanding of the words and most of all seeing God's grace and forgiveness over every circumstance. Look for God's goodness and accept His forgiveness and let Him lead you to new friendships in Christ. You will have His leading He promises if you seek Him with all your heart. Don't get mystical or take promises and misapply them. Read scripture in context with the setting and you will get a true meaning then apply that meaning to your life. We really mess ourselves up when we try to go for some ecstatic revelation. God was with you as you said and He let you know it too. That is fabulous. You will make it.

Hugh

Marcia,

I read the book review.  Looks good.  However there is one aspect I have questions about.  The review says:

Although I agree with the basic premise that forgiveness is a process dependent upon the Holy Spirit, I definitly do not agree with the idea that you should never forgive people who refuse to admit their wrongdoing or to repent of it.
 
First of all, forgiveness is a command.  I am well aware that we cannot "forgive and forget".  You do not forget pain and suffering, especially if it is the result of injustice and oppression.  Nevertheless, we are commanded to "Forgive, as the Lord forgave you, (Col. 3:13).  Jesus settled the forgiveness issue on the cross.  It was from the cross that he said, "Father, forgive them..."  No one was repenting or sorry for what they had done. In fact, when he said this they were openly mocking him!

But the scriptures do say, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, (Lk. 17:3).  When Jesus said "Father forgive them..." from the cross, no one was acknowledging his Godhood or Messiahship.  No one was repentant either.  This demonstrates his fundamental attitude towards these people.  His attitude towards them was one of forgiveness, and they had fulfilled none of the supposed conditions of forgiveness.

The Luke 17:3 passage is speaking of forgiveness in relationships.  In this context, forgiveness is an invitation to the restoration of fellowship between brethren.  But the basic attitude of forgiveness is already there.  Otherwise, why bother to rebuke the offender.  Why not just reject the jerk and avoid him/her?  A legitimate rebuke presupposes the intention to forgive and restore fellowship.  Otherwise one is just "telling someone off!"

Secondly, forgiveness is a necessity.  It is a necessity for the spiritual/moral/emotional health of the offended party.  If we do not forgive, the offender exercises power over our lives every time we remember the offense.  You cannot forget these events.  If you go back and mull over them, remembering the words and acts, revisiting the feelings and emotions you experienced, you will suffer through it again and again.  Meanwhile, the offender is going merrily about their own life, not thinking of your suffering at all!

People who do this are in bondage plain and simple!  Go back and read about the person called "Ann" that Mark Campbell writes about.  Events that happened years ago, even decades ago  :o are controlling this poor woman's life!  She is in bondage to the memories of past offenses.  This is very common.  I do not believe that we have to suffer this way.  And I do not believe that we have no control over these feelings.

For years I suffered under regular regular spiritual and emotional abuse by George Geftakys and the men around him.  I was rebuked, criticized, told I was deceived, told I was serving Satan, lied about, had my character assassinated, on and on.  Just today, a brother told me of disparaging comments about me that were said to him in my absence. It was not limited to me.  My family suffered as well.  Not one of these people has ever asked my, or my family's, forgiveness.

Now, what am I to do with this.  Fuss and stew?  Avoid all contact with others so I won't be hurt again?  Give up on all churches and all leaders?  No way Jose'!  My life is a gift from God, renewed every hour, and I am going to live!  I am not going to allow George Geftakys or anyone else to steal my life from me by the constant revisiting of old wrongs.

When I do remember these things, I just have to remind myself: I forgave them, and in so doing I "rolled my burden on the Lord".  I "cast my care upon Him."  I am free, and they must settle matters with my, (and their) lord.   Yes, I can conjure up those feelings anytime I mull over the past.  So I cut the chains of oppression through forgiveness.

I hope this helps someone else.  I know how much it has helped me.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

I think you miss the point the author is trying to make. Of course, a book review is not the same as actually reading the book, but even so, the point about forgiveness is that if we neglect "Bold Love," we don't help those who offend us.

On the contrary, we are told to extend real love towards people, especially those who offend us, and doubly so when those people are fellow Christians.  While your current healthy, lighthearted approach to the abuse you suffered under George is good for you and your family, it hasn't served George, or others who have been offended by him very well.  In fact, your "forgiveness" actually allowed George to continue to abuse others for years, while you stood by and didn't protest too loudly.  (I may be wrong about this last statement, so please accept my apology if I have misrepresented you.  I am making this statement based on what I have been able to learn from your own posts.) In any event, a person who walked away from it all, and didn't confront George did nothing to help George, or those whom they left behind when they left.  That is the point of Bold Love.

I don't suppose that you and George are on speaking terms, let alone reconciled.  The point the author is trying to make is that this reconciliation and forgiveness can't take place without rebuke and repentence.  It is the job of the offended to  rebuke, and then forgive...or not, depending on how the offender responds.   


How much better if you could remember these things and NOT have to get your feelings of anger, betrayal and sadness back under control?  These chains of oppression remain, otherwise you wouldn't be able to conjure up old feelings any time you mull over the past.

What if mulling over the past led you to an amazing story of God's grace?  What if you remembered the abuse you suffered, and how you confronted the abuser, who then repented, and the two of you were reconciled and there was a general clearing of the matter?  That would be amazing.  It is also highly unlikely to take place in your situation, because you have chosen the easy, incomplete way, that only provides for periods of relative comfort in between times of "mulling over the past."  Do you see how this is the only way to truly experience God's forgiveness in this situation?  Never again would you have to "remind yourself," that you forgave them!  Instead, the very thought of the past would lead to to remember a tearful, joyful reconcilliation.  Then, the chains of oppression would actually be gone.  This can't happen with your current model, unless someone else confronts these people and they remember you.  Why not you be the one who does something about it?

I would like to suggest that you contact these people, tell them what they did, and how you feel, and seek reconcilliation with them through real forgiveness.  That is what the authors of Bold Love are trying to say.  Of course, that is a rather bold and daring course of action, is it not?

bystander

All,

Marcia's post, to which these posts respond, is on another thread under the "Grace and Truth" category...

---

Tom,

I have read a couple of reviews of the book Bold Love, but have not been able to find any background information on either of the authors.  I have not seen the book itself.

I am not well enough educated to comment on the theology of the point in question.  I do however believe I understand your perspective, as it is similar to my own manner of dealing with the issue of past mistreatment/abuse by others.

---

Bystander,

Your comments appear presumptuous, e.g. calling Tom's attitude "lighthearted" and his actions "the easy, incomplete way."  Conclusions about Tom's personal history which you say you have drawn from Tom's posts do not seem consistent with his posts that I have read.

Regardless of that, do you speak from your own personal experience in dealing with hurtful people and events, or are you theorizing?  You said you have not read the book Bold Love, yet you speak with certainty of the authors' intentions:


With all due respect, your "What if..." suggestion seems vague and unfounded.  It would be helpful if you could share actual experiences in which you have successfully employed the ideas you recommend.

al

Thank you bystander.  You have expressed my thoughts, in your response to Tom, and said it far better than I could have.

I am also interested if any one has actually read the book and can comment on it.

Marcia

P.S. I moved my post to another thread.
MM

Al, you said below,


Dear Al,

I certainly meant no harm in what I was saying to Tom.  Please accept my apology for coming off as presumptuous!  In re-reading what I had said, I think I should have put the word, "healthy" in bold.  That would have made it clearer that what I was saying was not a condemnation, or presumptous writing off of Tom's approach, but a contrast between what he is doing and what the authors suggest.  Certainly, Tom's approach is far better than being bitter and angry!
As for conclusions from his personal history, again, I apologize.  I should have put the following statement, from my post, in bold Italics: 
(I may be wrong about this last statement, so please accept my apology if I have misrepresented you. I am making this statement based on what I have been able to learn from your own posts.)
Had I done so, it would have made it easier for people to discern that I was quite tentative in suggesting what I did about Tom's exit from the Assembly.  My point was that a person who leaves and says/does nothing isn't helping others too much....which is the point of what the authors of Bold Love are saying.
Again, I find myself having to take my foot out of my mouth!  I re-read my post yet again, and didn't see where you got the idea that I hadn't read the book!  In fact, I have read the book.  I should have plainly stated that fact in underlined text in order to avoid confusing people such as yourself.  What I meant to say was that while Tom hasn't read the book, and was only commenting on the review, the point the authors were trying to make was X. 

I wish to retract the whole post!  What a mess I have made!  Thanks for diligently pointing out my mistakes, Al.

I want to thank you for pointing out another grave ommission in my post, that of using a "What if," type of conjecture.  I agree, it seems vague and unfounded.  As you so ably pointed out, I should rather have shared a personal example.

OK.  Here's one:

Several years ago, a family left our church without really giving an explanation for doing so.  I contacted them, and was able to draw out the real reason.  One of our elders was a contractor who had done some work for the family, the results of which turned out badly.  In short, the contractor didn't stick to the signed, contractual amount of the bill, and didn't do  good job.  The family was offended that an "elder" would act that way, but intead of saying something about it, they stewed, for several months and then decided they could no longer watch the man function as an elder, knowing that he didn't keep his word, etc. They felt they must leave the church, due to their discomfort.  They had forgiven him, but couldn't face him, or enjoy fellowship with him.  (I know it sounds crazy, but that's what they told me)

To make a long story short, I convinced the two parties to meet, and our elder was convicted.  He finished the job, and refunded the difference in money, and everyone lived happily ever after.  It was very difficult and uncomfortable for the offended family to confront the man, but their joy upon doing so made it all quite worthwhile.  There is more to the story, but hopefully this will make what I wrote to Tom seem less vague and unfounded.

Thanks Al, for your contribution and diligence to get to the bottom of all this.

bystander

Bystander,

I was not offended at all by your post.  In fact, you made me look at the situation in ways I had not considered before.

I do, however, think that applying the idea that real love rebukes and then forgives with restoration of fellowship as a goal does not really apply to the assembly situation.  The reason is that you must be able to communicate with people in order to "rebuke" them. 

Sociologically and psychologically, the assembly was cultic.  Cults protect themselves from criticism by: 1. Character assasination.  The departing critic is attacked as a servant of Satan so that no one will listen to his/her objections.

  2. Shunning.  They just won't talk to you.  I my case, I told the leading brothers, (before I left) that I would meet at any reasonable time at any reasonable place with a few of them to discuss what was on my mind.  I'm still waiting.  A few months after I left, I encountered a leading brother at a street fair.  As soon as I mentioned a problem, he said, "This conversation is now over."  Another former leading brother encountered George Geftakys at a funeral.  He said something like, "Its nice to see you" and walk away quickly.

 3. Insulation by indoctrination.  Members are taught that the cult is the true work of God and that Satan is attacking God's true church.  Therefore any criticism, however valid, is deflected by the "shields".  You shouldn't listen to the voice of the Devil.

In an attempt to overcome these methods, a few of us started a mailer called The Noble Bereans (or something like that).  We mailed one to just about everyone in the assemblies.  Geftakys just told them to ignore us, and most of the recipients wrote back and told us to take them off the mailing list.

In my case, I did help a few people to see through the assembly and leave.  These, however, were people who were beginning the painful exit process due to their own experiences. They were willing to listen and discuss issues.  One couple later returned to the assembly.

The situation you described that happened between an elder and some church members is the type of situation the scripture applies to.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Thanks, fellers, for clearing things up (for me at least).

Bystander, sorry I misunderstood you to have said that you hadn't read the book when you actually had, and did not, in fact, state that at all.  Mea culpa, as Tom would say :)

Tom, since I have blatantly borrowed your Latin phrase, I feel I owe it to you to explain that Ancora Imparo translates to "I am still learning." ;)

al

Bystander,

Here is an account of a brother who tried to contact George Geftakys and discuss the way he was sinned against.  It is posted, along with other testimonies, on www.georgegeftakysassembly.com .

----------------

I'll never forget my last conversation with an Assembly Member--it was George himself. I finally worked up the nerve and called his house--the conversation( I swear upon the Lord Jesus Christ this is the absolute truth) went like this:

"Hello" "Hi, is this Brother George?" "Yes it is, who's calling please?" "My name is ____, and I used to be a member of the Assembly. I went through a lot of pain there and wanted to talk to you about it." "Oh, this is George's brother, George isn't here right now". "What? I thought you said you were George"
"No, I said this was George's brother." "Well, Can I talk with Brother George then?" "Brother George isn't here right now".
(CLICK). I couldn't believe what I had just heard. I called back immediately and a woman answered. I asked for brother George and she said he had just left. I then asked if George's brother was there. "George's Brother??" she said. "Why would you ask for him?" "Because someone on the phone just said they were him"
"Well George's brother lives in Chicago I think, and he hasn't visited here in quite a while." "Well, someone just said they were George's brother after saying at first they were George." "Well George was the only one here, and he is a holy man, why would he lie to you?" She promptly hung up the phone. I tried to explain this to some members and they all called me a liar and said George was incapable of such a thing. But he did--he was afraid to confront and talk to a former member of the Assembly, or he simply felt it wasn't worth his time. But he chose lying as a way to deal with the problem. I FINALLY realized who this person and this Assembly was--it truly was way off base. believe it or not this event began to really bring me closure and I was able to REALLY investigate some of the teachings without a supreme feeling of fear overwhelming me for questioning doctrine. You see, I had felt that because I left the Assembly God would no longer bless me as those who were still in the Assembly. But when you turn that thought around you see how "pride-filled" and horrendous it is!!!! To think that God would bless 300 people far more than all of the other children in all of his other churches, and give them deeper insight and spirituality is spiritual pride carried to it's highest level.

-------------

Thomas Maddux

I have read that statement, and many others before.  I certainly am in need of no convincing as to the evil nature of the Geftakys organization.  (For those sensitive souls who carefully read the threads, I am not saying that every person there was evil.  I am saying that George is evil, and that his methods and tactics were and are evil.  I completely concurr that there is a difference between my personal example and that of trying to contact George.

I assume that the same holds true for several of the other leaders?  What attempts have been made to contact them and lay out the matter of their offense?  What was the response?

If they refuse all attempts, then it is my contention that they be written off and avoided for several obvious reasons.  That being the case, by definition, they are not forgiven.  If they were forgiven, they would owe nothing, and there would be no hinderance to fellowship.

If I am not mistaken, the point you are trying to make is that it is a tragic thing to let the abuse and offense of these men rob people of joy and happiness, for years after contact has been broken.  I fully agree with this advice, but I do not call this forgiveness.  Neither do I call continued bitterness, anger and even hatred toward the offender forgiveness.

If we attempt to follow God's instruction for forgiveness, and having done so to the best of our ability the other party refuses entreaty, we can only plead for grace to not let anger and bitterness rob us.  It won't be easy, either.

If this is the case, I ask you, how much good can come from re-hashing, re-examining, re-analyzing and re-telling the past?  It seems to me that the healthy thing to do is cut the cord, and move away.

On the other hand, how many ex-members can really say that they made a worthy effort in trying to reconcile with their abusers?  How many left without saying a word?  How many allowed themselves to be silenced or slandered?  How many made a vigorous attempt to expose George and his Assembly?  How many gave up after giving it a good try?  How many even bothered to "tell them off," let alone rebuke them?

Bold Love means waging war against sin, using the tools of rebuke, entreaty, forgiveness, patience and persistence. 

How many have a clear conscience in this matter and can honestly say, before God, that they have made every attempt to rebuke, win, warn and save their brother?

I don't know the answer to that.

bystander

I also agree with bystander regarding contacting those who have hurt you. I have done this myself with mixed results.

I have to make my peace with my own anger, bitterness and betrayal BEFORE I approach the offender. Otherwise, I am allowing the offender to determine the outcome. For example, if they refuse to see how I was hurt, or perhaps are not able to understand the magnitude of how they hurt me, I am left with partially resolved feelings & frustration. This only impedes MY forward progress. In other words, I am letting them win. My anger only hinders the grievance from being properly addressed. It's also important that the offender doesn't feel threatened by me, ie. that I'm demanding retribution OR ELSE. If they feel threatened, they will naturally clam up and stone-wall.

I have made the mistake of approaching my parents and others in anger. "Look what you did to me!!! How could you do this?!!" Throw in a few expletives and that was about the extent of my reasoning for a full year after we left the Assembly. However, this didn't get me anywhere. It just made me feel worse.

I think I was in a state of shock.

The healing has come slowly and in pieces and in unexpected ways. Here's what I do when approaching family members or LBs:

1. Be specific: give details about a specific situation, what was said, how it hurt you, don't editorialize (at first), just state the facts.
2. Wait: this is huge. It's so tempting to want to get in their face, demand an apology, get emotional (speaking from experience here!) When I present things to my parents, sometimes I have to wait a couple of weeks, sometimes a month. But they always get back to me.
3. Listen: hear what they have to say; they may throw in a general apology
4. Editorialize: if the apology isn't specific or it sounds like this: "IF I offended you, then I'm sorry"; then it's time to go a little deeper, re-state specific points that need addressing
5. Wait: I know, it's REALLLLY hard to wait. Sometimes I think I'll be waiting my entire life for them to finally understand my point. But that's why it's vital that I've already dealt with my anger. My anger just gets in the way and hinders the actual grievance from being addressed.
6. Forgive: tell them you forgive them. This doesn't mean you have to be friends or send Christmas cards. But it does mean you don't bring it up again, to them or anyone else.
7. If, however, they are not willing to see your point or adamantly refuse or start calling names, etc., then you know it's not time and you have to give it back to God. Again, this is why it's important to deal with the anger BEFORE going into the situation.

This is the method I use, thought it might help those of you considering seeking redress of grievances.
My goal is to see the actual issue be addressed and resolved. This cannot be accomplished if I am still bearing anger or bitterness toward the offender personally.

E.

I commend you, Elizabeth, for your patience with those who have grieved you (after you have stated your grievance with them).  Good job. 

Rick

Verne, you are right on the money.

Liz, IMO, you are on the right track.  You might discover that your guidelines will change as you learn from your experiences with 'approaching' others re. past offenses.  Family members are different than those you will encounter only occasionally.

My experience has been that, no matter what tactic I used, I got the silent treatment.  The only time an audience was meritted was when it was necessary to 'protect the testimony' 'protect the leaders reputation' and to try to convince me to keep my mouth shut (which I did not agree to do).  So it's on with my life and take any opportunity presented to re-visit the need for true reconciliation.

My fantasy meeting:

Brother D is preaching today.  He says that he is inclined to believe that Christ was 'superhuman', not in those exact words but basically it boiled down to that.  Brother B stands up in the midst of the meeting and says, "that's a lie."

or another:

Brother G is answering questions and says that he is inclined to believe that Christ never sweat nor choked nor...
Brother and sister M approach Bro G after the meeting and inquire about his comments.  Being a worker LB he does not stand corrected, and brother and sister M walk away incredulous.


But, but, that's not fantasy.  Those things actually happened.  The sad thing is that Brother and sister M did not know how to add 2+2 because they were dedicated to 'preserving the testimony'.  The fantasy part would have been Brother and sister M packing up and leaving fellowship before George's excommunication.

Marcia

P.S. Verne, I shall not be deleting my account, but will pop in from time to time to give my 2 cents. :)

Marcia

[continued from above]

And so, in regard to forgiving George - No, I haven’t forgiven him, but I stand eager and ready to do so, should he repent.  To close one’s heart to forgiveness and to say, “I can never forgive,” is to deny the sufficiency of the grace of God.  God forbid that we should ever lose faith in Him or in His grace.
To my knowledge, George has neither confessed, nor asked forgiveness for his sins.  So, I don’t believe that we are under obligation to forgive him until such time as he should repent.. The  reason I point this out is because one can inadvertently hinder the process of restoration by continuing to have fellowship with an unrepentant sinner.

In noting that neither Matthew 18:17 nor 1 Corinthians 5:13 instruct us to shun the one who has been cast out of fellowship I have no  aversion to anyone reaching out in compassion to an unrepentant one in an effort to aid in his restoration.  But, such a one is to be regarded in the same manner as one would communicate with an unbeliever and that means that we should have no Christian fellowship with him, until, such time as he acknowledges his sin and asks forgiveness.  Those who would do so, or allow the unrepentant one to preach or teach, violate Jesus’ command, and place an obstacle in the way of his repentance. 

I would only request that those who would disagree with my reasoning would take the time to rebut in toto the contents of my post and not read into it what is nether stated nor implied.  I welcome your rebuttal since I admit that I could be in error in my evaluation of this important issue and desire nothing more than to walk in observance of the instruction of the Lord Christ Jesus.

In closing I would like to offer some advice to those who are struggling with anger and bitterness and have been unable to close out the “Assembly” chapter in their life.

 I believe you must cease in desiring to receive the apology of others who have offended you, and instead, seek forgiveness from those who have been the object of your own anger and bitterness. 

No doubt some will re-read my admonition and wonder - “Is he saying that I should go to those against whom I have (“justifiably”) held anger and bitterness, and ask them to forgive me?“ 
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

And please note that I say “justifiably” tongue-in-cheek, since I find no justification for bitterness in the scriptures.   
Prayerfully contemplate, if you will, the words of the writer of the Book of Hebrews:   

Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.
See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled;                    Hebrews 12:14-15

If there is any hope of attaining permanent relief from anger and bitterness, it lies in our willingness to obey this blatantly lucid admonition.   I won’t take up any more space on this post, but I will just say that I am not just theorizing one of God’s principles.  I will share in a subsequent writing, my own experience and how it led to the peace that only comes by His grace. 

So, yes, Elizabeth, I’m saying you must go to your parents and ask them to forgive you for your anger and bitterness.  Yes, Tom , Bystander, and others; I’m telling you to go to George Geftakys and ask him to forgive you for your anger and bitterness.  I won’t belabor the point, but just admonish those of you who are harboring or have harbored bitterness against another - you know who you are - Go!

No doubt there are those who will protest, “But I’m not bitter.”   To them, I would say, “Great! Then you have a clear conscience before God, and have nothing for which you need to seek forgiveness.”   “God bless you.”

In His service,

Chuck Miller

P.S. - When it is impossible to physically “go,” I believe that a letter, phone call or other means of communication is acceptable.  Expediency I believe, is more important than method.









 

[continued from above]

For if we look at the rest of the passage that precedes Jesus’ warning, we see that it is in reference to His comparison of the kingdom of heaven being likened to a certain king who wished to settle accounts with His slaves.  In both instances, the slaves asked forgiveness of their debts.  The king granted forgiveness to his debtor who pleaded with him, but that very same man refused to forgive the man who pleaded with him.  The master of that man did not forgive him until he should repay all that was owed him.  In conjunction with the rest of the passage, this seems to support the idea that forgiveness is not to be granted unconditionally. 

Again,  this is consistent with Luke 17:3-4 which reads,   "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
"And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."  Isn’t it implied that if he doesn’t repent, we aren’t obligated to forgive?

Then, as we look at the way that Paul instructed the church at Corinth to “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor 5:13), there is not even a hint of forgiveness until we read Paul’s admonition in 2 Cor 2:5-9.  There it would appear that the man was sorrowed by being cast out of the church, and repented.  We don’t know how the grace of God worked through his being rejected by the church, but we hear Paul commending them for evidently having “passed the test,” of being obedient to his directive (vs. 9). Paul, evidently knew that some would consider his command to be harsh and excessive, as evidenced by their having been arrogant in their tolerance of the man’s immoral conduct (1 Cor 5:2).  And we know that Jesus said,   "I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7)

Now consider this:  If the Corinthians were to forgive unconditionally, wouldn’t Paul have commended them for their having tolerated the sinful man?  And why was there no forgiveness for Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) when they withheld some of the price of the land?

I don’t think our not forgiving an unrepentant sinner is in any way an affront to the mercy of God and the completed work of Jesus on the cross, if - and to me, this is critical - if we relate it to our sanctification and not to our justification. 

However, we must also consider Mark 11:25-26 ,which, at first glance,  seems to support the contention that we are obligated to forgive even the unrepentant sinner.  It reads:

 25 "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.
 26 ["But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."]

In addition to the fact that many of the original manuscripts do not contain verse 26. I also believe that there is a difference in the thought  “if you have anything against anyone” 
as compared to  “sinning against a brother.”  In the first place, the “anyone” seems to imply that it doesn’t necessarily mean someone in the church,. Nor is it necessarily “sin” to which Jesus is referring here.  I believe that Jesus was here addressing those areas that we can not absolutely categorize as “sin.”

For instance, I was disappointed with our children because they didn’t come to us when we were accused of sin.  But were they sinning by not coming to us?  I don’t think so.  Was I holding it against them?  Yes.  And I guess it was not until one morning when God put it on my heart in a very bizarre manner, that -  “Love doesn’t take into account a wrong suffered“ (1 Cor 13:.5). - it was then that I knew God wanted me to forgive them.   Again, “a wrong suffered” does not necessarily mean a sin.  Consider the times when fellow Christians, or non-Christians have done something, or do something, that bothers us, but is not actually a sin.  I believe that this may be what the Lord was speaking of here.  No doubt we ourselves have offended others by our conduct at times, and we should be ready to ask forgiveness for doing so, even though it isn’t sinful.   

Then too, do we not sometimes have something against someone who may not even be aware that we do.  And isn’t it possible that we could be in error by not having all of the facts.  Some of the saints from the Assembly have apologized to me for having believed the accusations against me, when they actually didn’t know what had transpired?  They had something against me, but did they sin?   I don’t think so. But wouldn’t it have been more profitable for them to have assumed the best,  and forgiven me instead of holding it against me?  Their letters of apology indicate as much.  That would have been consistent with Paul saying, “Love believes all things.” To me, this means that we are to believe the best of a brother or sister when we don’t have absolute evidence against them.  Outward appearances can be deceiving.  But then, I don’t remember these scriptures that expressed such an attitude ever being expounded upon in the Assembly.

And so, at this point, at least, I’m able to reconcile these verses  in what I believe makes them harmonious instead of conflicting.  I am, by no means, claiming to have exhausted all areas of seeming conflict and I’m giving consideration to the meanings of the words, “trespasses,” “debts,”  “transgressions, “  and “offenses,”  and from what I have come across so far, their meanings lend even more understanding to these verses.  Note that Jesus didn’t say, “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.” Is there a significance to that?  I believe so.
 
[continued below]

No doubt someone will point out  Matthew 6:14-15 - “if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.”  But this does not in any way negate the need for repentance, for we see in the companion verse in Luke which reads:  "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him" (Luke 17:3-4). 

If forgiveness is to be unconditional, why would Jesus have given the apostles authority to retain sins when he instructed them,  "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23) This can be a confusing passage, both for those who espouse unconditional forgiveness, and for those who don‘t.  But I believe this directive is consistent with its application of Matthew 18:18, where Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, ‘whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”   This ties in with the verse preceding it where it speaks of exposing the unrepentant sinner before the church.  I believe that those who have thus been justifiably cast out of fellowship in the church (bound on earth) will subsequently face a denial of entrance into the kingdom (bound in heaven).  Please notice two things about this statement. 
(1) I have used the qualifier “justifiably” cast out of fellowship, since there are obviously some who have been unjustifiably cast out.  Such injustices will, I believe, be rectified at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
(2) I have specified that the unrepentant offender will be “denied entrance into the kingdom.”  I have not said that he will loose his salvation. 

I realize that this second statement is going to prompt some serious rebuttals from those who have rejected George’s teaching about the Kingdom.  However, I am not speaking in reference to George’s teaching, whatever that may be (I was not in the Assembly long enough to have heard George‘s teaching on the kingdom), but rather, the teachings of men such as Robert Govett, G.H. Lang, Joseph Dillow, E.M. Panton,  and others, and men such  as Hudson Taylor and George Muller who subscribed to the teaching.   

To those who reject the teachings of these men concerning the  Kingdom, I would ask you not to post a rebuttal unless you are prepared to include your explanation of the meanings of John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18.

But, getting back to Matthew 6:13-15:

12 “And forgive us our debts , as we also have forgiven our debtors”
14 “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Again, I don’t believe this has any  reference to our justification, since we are not saved on the basis of works.  Jesus is speaking to his disciples here - saved men.  He certainly wasn’t instructing them to pray for their salvation.  They were already forgiven on the basis of their faith in Jesus.   I agree with Joseph Dillow  (Reign of the Servant Kings) - that “There is a forgiveness for salvation and a forgiveness for restoration.”  Is it possible that some have commingled the two?

I believe that the warning in Matthew 6:15 is in relation to our sanctification, and how we live our life in obedience to Christ.   Think about it.  It doesn’t negate the premise that repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness, since it is possible that the verse could be assumed to be understood as follows  - "But if you do not forgive others [who ask your forgiveness], then your Father will not forgive your transgressions [at the judgment seat of His Son]?”  Now if I seem to be taking liberty with the verse to make it fit with what I believe, hold on until you read the rest of what I have to say. 

[continued below]

 
I would like to add my comments to this discussion on Forgiveness.

If someone were to ask me if I have forgiven George Geftakys for the grief and distress he has caused my family, I would have to answer in the negative.    I have read the posts concerning the exhortation of Jesus on the cross, when He said,  “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do,” with the implication that we must therefore forgive as Jesus forgave those who crucified Him . 

In thinking about this, the verse in 1John came to mind “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness“ (1 John 1:9).  Does God forgive all of our sins?  Certainly Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but is forgiveness of our sins unconditional, or is our confession required?  The “if” in 1 John 1:9 seems to indicate confession as a prerequisite? 

In response to those citing Jesus’ exhortation on the cross, I believe we must look at the circumstances leading up to His plea to the Father, which reveal an ignorance on the part of the Jews who had been incited by the Chief Priests and rulers.  They did not realize that they were crucifying their Messiah.  Remember that even Paul, who was present at the stoning of Stephen and had heard his plea, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them,” - even he didn’t realize that Jesus was truly the “Anointed One” for whom all Israel had awaited.  Paul revealed as much in his letter to Timothy, saying, “even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13). 

My point is, that there is a vast difference between the ignorance of many of the Jews and the willful sinning of George Geftakys.  We see that in Acts 2, when the Jews heard and believed that Jesus was “both Lord and Christ“ (vs. 36), they repented and were forgiven for their former ignorance.     

So, I don’t believe that we can use Luke 23:34 as some kind of proof text for forgiving someone like George who did not act in ignorance, but instead propagated his own brand of control over his Assemblies and used it to attempt to induce young women into immoral relationships. Neither can George plead ignorance of the sinful conduct of his son, nor justify his attempt to conceal it. 

[continue below]

Chuck,


It seems to me that requesting that someone "rebut in toto" a four page post is exposing oneself to disappointment, at the very least.  I would suggest a more workeable method: State your argument simply and clearly, then support it with what you believe is the strongest evidence.

Then if anyone replies and offers counter arguments, use your other evidences to reply to the specific information offered in rebuttal.

Othewise, it might take eight pages to reply to your four pages, then you must type twelve pages........

No one wants to get that involved.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

That's fine.  Whatever suits you.

Chuck.

Hi Chuck, :)

I read your four post post and yours is one of the best explanation I've read on the topic of repentance forgiveness and reconciliation.  I also agree with pursuing peace as much as one is able to do so.  I will not however be calling nor writing George or any of his faithful leaders/workers to confess any bitterness of heart on my part.

God bless,
Marcia

Few words and simple thoughts cannot always express important ideas.  If we limit ourselves to short and simple, at all times...we become short and simple.  In that case, strength of personality and intensity of arguments win over sound reason and logic.

I enjoyed the long post, Chuck, only because it was logical, carefully worded, and important. 

bystander

Without reposting Tom's remarks, I will just say that Chuck's four-page post seems to me quite clear and to-the-point, and very helpful.

If a suggestion is needed re: rebuttal, I would suggest Chuck ask for clear and direct response to whatever part of his post may be found objectionable (not every poster may be capable of a four-page post, and should not be penalized for questioning only one point).  Better to hear from such ones than to intimidate them into silence.

For any who would pursue an opposing view to Chuck's, I suggest (as has Chuck) prayer, the referencing of scripture, and conciseness.

The key to all such considerations is not whether they delight us, but whether we are willing to see, learn and do the Lord's will concerning them.

al

Marcia, it would appear, above, that Verne's post was in response to Brent's post, but such is not the case.  Verne's post was in reply to (and quoted separately) both mine and bystander's, all of which appeared on a different thread ("fantasy meetings") from this one.

al

Hi Chuck

Your post(all of them) are very clear, to the point and to me are very thought & prayer provoking. For me it prompted me to think about what I want for my young family.

Thank you for points you have made


Al,


You said
"The key to all such considerations is not whether they delight us, but whether we are willing to see, learn and do the Lord's will concerning them."

I think this is very important.

I appreciate the kind comments.  If there is any commendation to be made it must be directed to the One, the depth of whose infinite wisdom is beyond our finite comprehension.  That is why obedience is more to be sought after than knowledge.

It is a rare brother or sister who will put personal feelings and relationships aside in order to correct, in love, the failings of another.  It’s much easier to avoid the discomfort and possible strain in relationships that can occur by dong so. 

God used just such a brother in the fellowship in Lawrence, Kansas many years ago, to point out my bitterness.  I had shared with him, much of what had transpired in Omaha during our time of fellowship in the Assembly there, and the manner in which we were treated after we left.  He listened very patiently, and it was a genuine relief  for me to be able to relate to him the injustices we had suffered at the hands of George and the Leading Brothers. So, when he admonished me with Hebrews 12:14-15 - “Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.  See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled” -  it was not what I had expected or wanted  But, the Lord, in  His faithfulness, convicted me that the brother was right.  And even though I would much rather have had his sympathy at the time,  I came to see that my bitterness was defiling our children who were still with us, and causing much unrest in my own life.. This brother was like a son to me, but he understood that “Faithful are the wounds of a friend,” and didn’t  renege on his obligation to speak the truth to me in love. This led to our going to Omaha to confess and to ask forgiveness for our bitterness. 

Had someone, prior to this, even suggested that I would be traveling to Omaha to ask their forgiveness for my bitterness, I would no doubt have questioned their sanity, their intelligence, and especially their concern for my feelings.  Nothing could have sounded more repulsive to me. But the leading of the Holy Spirit was so powerful, I couldn’t deny it.  In the process, I found out why John could say,
“For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).  His commandments are not burdensome because when we decide to obey them, He pours out His grace, and we find it quite easy to carry them out.  And what can surpass the joy of knowing that our obedience is pleasing to Him?

To Marcia, I will only say. Rejoice if you have no bitterness toward George.Geftakys or any of the Leading Brothers, but you are  a rare individual if you haven’t experienced what the rest of us have, or have been able to deal with it to where you have no bitterness or animosity towards them.  I commend you.

Unfortunately, as it turned out, the Leading Brothers misinterpreted our repentance as being a desire on our part to return to fellowship, and they regarded it with suspicion rather than gracious acceptance.  Their speculation about our motives led them to place some ridiculous restrictions upon us  It didn’t seem to matter to them that there was no biblical  precedent for doing so, and to me, the restrictions seemed to be of no consequence since we had no intention of attending  future Assembly functions - so, I never  raised a question about them at that time.  Even more unfortunately, as it turned out, it led to us having to forego attending two of our daughter’s weddings.  But through it all, I experienced a peace that can only emanate from His marvelous grace.

I  don’t  know each of your individual situations, so it may have been presumptuous of me to have coined my suggestion as an imperative, but I pray you will consider what I have said and allow the Lord to lead you in the way that you should go.

In His service,

Chuck

Hi Chuck and others!

  This has been an oft discussed topic on the BB and a very difficult one at that.

  It is difficult because the Bible clearly commands us to "forgive" those that sin against us and yet we see Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. just as clearly exhibiting behavior that was angry, sarcastic, and generally not what we would normally consider "forgiving" (some might have suggested that these persons above were "bitter")

  I believe it is important to be clear as to what Jesus was teaching re. forgiveness and to do this we must compare Jesus teaching to "forgive them for they know not what they do" alongside passages like his "scourging of the Temple."   

   Likewise Paul's teaching to "forgive one another," next to his very passionate sarcastic statement for his desire that certain false teachers "demasculate themsevelves!"

   We will be less than God would have us to be if in the face of evil we interpret forgiveness as a passive indifference to such as GG and his creation, the Assembly.

 We cannot see the issue of religious evil (that which hurts God's people) only in terms of my personal emotional state (bitterness), and so to speak, "turn the other cheek," in trying to make ammends with GG, etc.

   How can we make the distinction between "bitter and unforgiving" vs. "defenders of the sheep against evil?"

   I still have considerable anger against GG and those that still defend him, and I believe it is the only appropriate response to such evil.   When I consider those that have been crushed by his false use of authority, beating of the sheep, the heaping of false guilt, shaming,  the damaged and shipwrecked, etc.

   The focus should be on what GG did, his need to admit it, and his open and clear repentance----- not , on individuals hurt by that evil learning how to somehow rid themselves of the bad feelings that they have toward him!

  When those slain "for the testimony to Jesus" cried out for vengeance against their persecutors in Rev. they were not corrected by God to change their desire for judgment against such evil doers.

  Here are the key distinctions, IMHO, between when I am being "bitter" and when I am "standing against evil" (in the context of the Assembly discussion):

1.) I'm bitter if I see it as "they done me wrong" and I'm just responding out of my own personal hurt.

   The Matyrs in Rev. quoted above were not crying out for personal revenge against the individual who killed them, but because they were passionately against the "evil" that produced the agents that killed them. Evil, in the form of teaching and practice, becomes a systemized force (ex.= radical Islam).

  2.) I'm standing against evil if I understand that GG and the Assembly are fundamentally opposed to God's will and are a stumbling block to those seeking to follow God.

   If I don't believe this than the Assembly is just another church that is just as bad (or good) as the next church and we are making much ado about nothing.  However, the facts seem pretty clear that GG is the one needing to get things right in his life with God, not those he wronged.

  3.) My emotional state is a poor gauge for discerning when to forgive and when to take a passionate stand against evil.       

       Much of the discussion surrounding "forgiveness" is an effort to make us feel better.   When we have hurt feelings we try to find a "spiritual solution" to take away that pain.  This "solution" drives us inward to exam our own motives in an attempt to judge whether we are in tune with God.

   Unfortunately, this takes our attention away from what is actually happening in a situation, like evaluating my responses to GG, etc.----- the truth should always be our focus, and this is how God leads us, not by the absence/presence of emotional conflict in my heart. 

                                         God Bless,  Mark C.

Hi Chuck,

Here's the deal.  Yes I have experienced bitterness and anger at George and his leaders.  However, I have not been malicious or whatever else from a bitter and angry attitude.  Hence my bitterness and and anger has been resolved before the Lord.  Admittedly it does re-surface expecially when I see assembly residue affecting former assembly members.

But, it is also the "unfortunately" that ensues that is better left alone.  Been there tried that and we'll see what the future unfolds.

I really would caution people from contacting George and other faithful assembly ones.  Remember that they are deceivers and smoothe talkers.  I could use a few colourful metaphors here, but I think you get the picture.

When I first left the assembly every waking thought was about assembly matters.  Now I rarely think about them, except if I run into them at the corner store or a school rugby game or something.  There is life after the assembly.  PTL. :)

Marcia


Tom, I am amazed at this comment from you.  It is mind boggling that you have been in assembly meetings and various Christian gatherings and have heard language like this and now you claim that it is not at all clear to you what Verne is saying ??

Marcia


Sorry Al, I do not have the gift to explain things to you.  I will say that you have a great sense of humour.

Marcia

To Mark and Marcia,

I will be spending time today considering your posts and will respond as time permits, hopefully by Tuesday.

God bless,

Chuck

Marcia, 

I've considered your response and want to share with you what the Lord put on my heart,

YOU WROTE:  Hi Chuck,  Here's the deal.  Yes I have experienced bitterness and anger at George and his leaders.  However, I have not been malicious or whatever else from a bitter and angry attitude.  Hence my bitterness and anger has been resolved before the Lord.  Admittedly it does re-surface especially when I see assembly residue affecting former assembly members.

MY RESPONSE:  Then let me suggest that it has not been entirely resolved before the Lord, else it would not “resurface.”  It is commendable that you have not been malicious in your bitterness and anger, but notwithstanding whatever measure of confidence the outer appearance may give you - by your own admission -  the root is still there.   

YOU WROTE:  But, it is also the "unfortunately" that ensues that is better left alone.  Been there tried that and we'll see what the future unfolds.
I really would caution people from contacting George and other faithful assembly ones.  Remember that they are deceivers and smoothe talkers.  I could use a few colourful metaphors here, but I think you get the picture.

MY RESPONSE:  You must understand, Marcia, that my admonition was not made in ignorance of the deviousness and cunning of this man and the gullibility of those who still follow him - and we must be ever aware of the source of this deviousness.  But we must never forget that; “greater is He that is in you than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4)
In my own strength, I could never have gone to Omaha to ask their forgiveness for my bitterness.  It was only in the power of the Holy Spirit that I was able to do so, and to overcome the temptation to air my grievances against the Leading Brothers.  Oh, to be sure, the temptations of the flesh were still there, but the Lord put it upon my heart that He hadn’t sent me there for that purpose.  What ensued after that was all part of His plan that, only in retrospect, am I now able to see and understand the wisdom of His ways. 

We must recognize that bitterness is sin and must be confessed before He will cleanse us of it (1 John 1:9).  Don’t even for a moment dwell upon things like “colorful metaphors”  that only lead to more bitterness.   And don’t presume that you will always understand the wisdom of God that is inherent in His word and His ways.  He may want to use our obedience as much for the conviction of the other party,  rather than strictly for our own benefit.
Remember, He may use us as instruments of His judgment as well as His mercy.  It is not for us to try to determine which it is in any given situation.   

YOU WROTE:  When I first left the assembly every waking thought was about assembly matters.  Now I rarely think about them, except if I run into them at the corner store or a school rugby game or something.  There is life after the assembly.  PTL.

MY RESPONSE:  Those reminders will always be there, Marcia,  and will continue until you resolve this in the manner prescribed by the Lord.  Let that “life after the Assembly” be one of humble submission to His word, and more and more each day may your every waking moment be focused upon Him, having as your ambition, to be pleasing to Him. (2 Corinthians 5:9).  God bless.

In His service,

Chuck

Thank you Chuck.  I appreciate your good advise and your devotion for the Lord.

There is no cookie cutter solution to any of these scenarios and an internet BB is definitely not the place for extensive counselling.  While I believe that you did the right thing in going to Omaha when you did, each person's "solution" will differ depending on what has already transpired and where they are at.

I agree with you that it is vital to maintain a focus of pursuing peace as much as one is able to, and keeping one's heart from bitterness.

God bless,
Marcia

P.S. re. the colourful metaphors, I was thinking along the lines of snakes, brood of vipers ....  that kind of thing.
Marcia

                                                                                 PART I


Chuck,


The "Overcomer Teaching" that you have espoused above is, of course, familiar to all of us who have a PB or assembly background.  IMHO, it suffers from several probems.  So I will make a few comments.

It is true that a number of godly, serious, Christians have held and do hold this teaching.  It is also true that only a tiny minority of Evangelical bible scholars accept the teaching, and as far as I know, they are also godly, serious, Christians.  So, if voting establishes truth, the "Overcomers" lose.  (It doesn't, as I am sure you will agree.) 

When we were in the assembly, the explanantion for this state of affairs was that the scholarly community were all "dead fundamentalists" but GG was receiving "a living word" that was "fresh baked in heaven."  If so,  ;) there must have been some copies of G. H. Lang's books laying around heaven's kitchen because his teaching was almost word for word taken out of Lang's books.   ;)

I rejected this teaching many years ago.  Here, briefly stated, are a few of the reasons I did so:

1. These men hold a very low view of the forensic theory of justification.  (I know they would deny this, but that is what I see in their position.)  The forensic view explains justification in legal terms.  We are guilty of sin.  A holy God must punish sin.  Christ bore the full punishment for our sins on the cross.  The forgiveness purchased by Christ is applied to us when we believe, resulting in our "justification by faith alone."

Some of these teachers attempt to maintain both salvation by faith alone and also the conditional inheritance teaching by saying, "All your sins before salvation are forgiven when you are justified, but then you must confess all your sins and serve God zealously in order to receive a full reward."  In other words, Jesus made the down payment but you must make all the other payments. 

This leads them to believe that when a Christian dies and goes to be with the Lord, his sins are both forgiven and not forgiven.   :o  Some of them throw the Undercomer into the lake of fire for a thousand years as a sort of "Protestant purgatory".  All of them exclude the Undercomer from the kingdom, consigned to "outer darkness" forever.   Then some leave the Undercomer on the earth while the Overcomers enjoy heaven with Christ.  For them, the blessed promise of "absent from the body, present with the Lord," is nothing but a warning of being judged with a definite possibility of being booted out!!

It reminds me of an insurance policy that "gives it to you in the large print, and takes it away from you in the fine print."

This is very similar to Roman Catholic teaching on confession.  Martin Luther used to drive his confessors nuts with his constant anxiety attempting to confess every possible sin so that he would escape the Catholic purgatory.  Same idea.

The great Reformation proclamation of Sola Fide  was his response to this.

2. These men also hold a very low view of the High Priestly Ministry of Jesus.  The purpose of his ministry in heaven is to "bring many sons to glory", which btw, is part of salvation, (Hebrews 2:10-11).  This is what Paul was speaking of when he wrote:

"For those God forknew he also predestined to by conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called; those he called he also justifed; those he justified he also glorified," (Romans 8:29-30).

To deny that this is the destiny of all the saved is to deny the efficacy of Christ's ministry in heaven!  It is tantamount to saying that he regularly fails in what he attempts to do.  Or worse, you must actually enable him to complete his minstry by your own success at obeying the rules, ie, by your own works. 

However, the apostle Paul told us that, "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-how will he not also, along with him
graciously give us all things, (Romans 8:32).  Sorry, Overcomer friends, it is all in Christ, and it is all by grace.

3. Now this does raise some questiions about all those warnings....and I will address that in my next post, God willing.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Forget and forgive...what an interesting discussion.  Here's my two cents, with which you may have enough change to buy a tall herbal tea at Starbucks.  First, Christ does most emphatically command us to forgive those who wrong us.  I know that there has been much Calvinistic discussion in the past over whether we really ought to forgive Assembly leaders, et. al., or whether we should check to see if they are of the "elect" first and hate them if they are not.  But John Calvin does not outrank Jesus Christ.  That is why I never participated in Calvinist wrangling over abstruse points.

Having said that, I can say that I have had my struggles with forgiveness.  I have now come to a certain conclusion.  I believe that God is displeased every time I harp on past hurts with the aim of fantasizing about revenge or poetic justice.  However, this does not mean that I am to forget what certain people did or what kind of people they were while they still refuse to repent.  Matthew 18 says that after a first, second and third warning, a so-called brother who has sinned against the Lord's people is to be left alone.  I think there is wisdom in this.  After all, why open yourself up to further manipulation and abuse?  Would you hop the fence of a yard containing a pit bull which recently chased and almost bit you, in order to confess that you've had bitterness in your heart over the incident?  That is why I am not in a hurry to contact former leading brothers or elders from Fullerton.  When they are truly repentant, they will let us all know.  In the meantime, it's not safe for me to "go out" to them!  Perhaps in the future God will teach me to pray for them with His care, but I don't think one can go farther than that until the offending parties show genuine movement toward repentance.

Clarence Thompson

Tom,

I remember reading your dissertation on the kingdom teaching many years ago, and wrote you my rebuttal at the time.  I don't remember receiving a reply.  But, I'll be glad to hear it again and while you're at it, you might include your explanation of John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18.

Chuck

You are hereby summarily stripped of your esteemed title of "Virulent Dog".   ;D
Verne

p.s. you now need only apply this same scintillating line of reasoning regarding the believer's security to your thinking about the doctrine of election and you are home free!
As your post aptly illustrates, all the confusion on these matters has do with a lack of understanding of what the Scriptures teach about Divine purpose. :)

Very good, Clarence. I agree, and this can apply to more life situations than just the fall-out of the collapsed empire of the Greek tycoon.

Moonflower2

Chuck,

I did not write that "dissertation."   That was written by Dave Sable as a consideration of GG's teaching.  The purpose was not to refute him as much to show that if you follow the logic of his teaching it works out to believers ending up in the lake of fire.  To most Christians, such an idea is so far from anything you could legitimately call salvation as to be refutation enough.

There isn't really a need to write long posts supporting or criticizing these ideas, as it is all available on the web.  All one has to do is Google Hodges, Dillow, Faust or such and there it is.  Faust, btw, openly teaches that the believer ends up in the lake of fire.  Seems ironic to me....a guy named "Faust" sends Christians to the lake of fire.  Nice. 

There are many articles critical of the teaching on the web.  A good one is found at http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesov.htm

Tomorrow I will try to finish my comments on the Overcomer teaching, and will deal with the verses you mentioned.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews wrote:

13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.
14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.
15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled;                                                               Hebrews 13:15

And the apostle Paul said:

17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone  Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
19  Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.                                  Romans 12:17-19

I have considered the comments of those who have a different opinion concerning their need to deal with the bitterness they hold toward those who have offended them.  Most have disagreed with my suggestion concerning what I believe to be a scriptural means of dealing with our feelings in the aftermath of the Assembly meltdown.

I don’t mind a difference of opinion, and I welcome the comments of those who have  found another means of extracting the root of bitterness that inevitably springs up when we have been subjected to the kind of treatment that we received at the hands of George Geftakys and those in leadership in the Assembly.  However, to date, I’ve heard very little about how to effectively deal with anger and bitterness, but instead, I heard mostly reasons why we are not obligated to ask forgiveness of those against whom we still hold bitterness in our heart.

So, let me strike a bargain with you.  For the sake of more fruitful discussion, I will cease striving to convince you to go to those who have offended you and ask their forgiveness for your bitterness,   In turn, I will ask that you refrain from further commentary on the action I took, and instead, offer an alternative means by which I might have dealt with my bitterness, and also,relate how you have successfully dealt with your own.

I am at peace with the Leading Brothers (all of whom have since repented and asked my forgiveness) and with George Geftakys (who has not). 
For my own part, being “at peace” with George means that I am no longer unduly concerned with him.  I pray for his repentance, as I have for years, but having confessed my bitterness and asked his forgiveness, I have fulfilled my obligation of “so far as it depends on you” (Romans 12:18 ).  I am not accountable for the manner in which he responded.  It is now almost as though he is a non-person to me.  I have no “feelings” except that I abhor his teaching on church government and would not hesitate to warn others about this perverted doctrine.  If this seems to be a strange dichotomy,  I feel content to attack the message and let the Lord continue to deal with the messenger.
Each of you has to determine in your own heart what it means - “See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God;  that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled"  If the Lord doesn’t show you how He would have you appropriate this command in your life, then I certainly won‘t venture to try.  Or if He shows you a different way, why should I contend?  After all, you  have no need to try to convince me.  This is a matter between you and the Lord.

One thing that has concerned me about the Assembly implosion that took place about three years ago is the fact that it came about due to the expose of the immoral conduct of George.  My initial exuberance (yes, after 25 years, I was elated) was soon tempered by the realization that with many, George’s teaching on the role of leadership in the church did not seem to be a major issue.  I guess it has made me ponder how much would have changed in some of the Assemblies had not George’s immoral conduct and David’s abuse of his family been brought to light.  Would they still be functioning in the same manner as before?
From what I can fathom, there are some who are continuing to meet as George’s Assemblies and are still willing to subject themselves to being “lorded over” by those in leadership.  Then there are others who did leave, but did so because of George’s scandalous conduct with no reference to his corrupt doctrine on authority.   

In any event, I don’t claim any exclusivity as to the mind of Christ, so I will try to give objective consideration to your further thoughts on bitterness, and I would be interested in having someone submit an exegesis on the two passages - Hebrews 13:15 and Romans 12:17-19 - so that I can determine if I am mistaken in my understanding of how they are compatible with the other scriptures relating to forgiveness and repentance.

In His service,

Chuck

yes, Clarence, I agree with this point. The issues I have with my parents and others are only fully resolved as the offending parties demonstrate willingness to admit fault. Otherwise, it's pointless. I have the advantage/disadvantage of interfacing with my parents pretty regularly and issues arise during the course of simple, mundane activities which allow for discussion of more significant issues. Sometimes we reach a stalemate, other times there is true progression toward agreement. It's a delicate thing, this tight-rope walk of forgiveness & reconciliation. Sometimes I am wrong, too. Sometimes there are things I have to apologize for. The most important part for me is making sure nothing (not my anger, not the wrongs done to me, etc.) robs me of my peace with God.

Chuck, if you will allow me just a few parting words on the subject...the only thing I would say is that the Assembly forcefully taught that any anger or bitterness on a victim's part that arose from being mistreated by others made the whole thing the victim's fault.  Matthew 18, however, says that if your brother sins against you, you are to go to him and let him know that he did wrong.  And Matthew 5 says that if you remember that your brother has something against you as you go to worship, you are to get it right.  These verses were turned upside down by the Assembly.

However, I think you ask a very good question about how to deal with the normal human reaction to being wronged by others.  I think that this is a question each of us must face, and I commend you for asking it.  In my opinion, facing questions like this is part of the process of recovering from a group like the Assembly.  BTW, I appreciated your posts on Christianity and politics in the USA.

And along the line of recovery, I think there are many other questions which should be confronted on this board.  For while we are commanded to forgive the leaders and other perpetrators of abuse in the Assembly, the fact is that the Assembly left quite a mess.  It's like a tornado a mile wide, that left a few houses undamaged, left many others moderately to heavily damaged, and all but wiped many others.  The question now is how to clean up the mess.  In practical terms, I think that means considering questions on such subjects as:

Financial, professional and career development in the aftermath of the Assembly.  Going to meetings and doing stewardships and consequences all the time doesn't exactly prepare you to be a brain surgeon or airline pilot!  Do you feel like you're now playing catch-up?  Are you nervous about retirement?  Are you wondering how now to get out of a tight spot caused by your Assembly involvement?

How to relate to family and children lost because of the Assembly.  How do you apologize?  How do you re-establish a relationship?  How do you deal with what these children or family members think of you?  This is good for ex-Assembly singles also, because we were all taught to be more or less authoritarian micromanagers.  And some, like me, were actually "Children's ministry" teachers! Ouch!!

For older singles whose love life was jacked around by Assembly micromanaging leaders, and who are still single as a result, where do we go from here? Do we just resign ourselves to Sgt. Pepper's band?  What have some of us done about this?  Did it work?  Do you regret how things turned out?  Do you now just claim the gift of celibacy?

Are there those who are still struggling to find a church they can swallow?  I know that churches aren't perfect - yet how does one find a church one can live with?

I can think of lots of questions beside these.  And people could share their own testimonials of how they confronted each of these questions.  (Please, let's not have anyone saying "I have the answers to your questions, and there's no other way but mine.")  There's just one thing I wish.  If we're going to have a discussion or discussions about the many and varied aspects of cult recovery, I only ask that those who still want to defend the Assembly or spiritualize it or try to tell us how good it was for us all not try to hijack these discussions.  Perhaps for those people we could have a thread entitled "Why the Assembly was such a wonderful thing."  Then those who want to have a discussion with each other re. the good parts of the Assembly could have a place all to themselves.

Clarence Thompson

Say, now that's a great topic for discussion! ;D  It has sometimes seemed to be the very spirit of this board. :'(

al

Tom,

YOU WROTE:  Chuck, I did not write that "dissertation."   That was written by Dave Sable as a consideration of GG's teaching.  The purpose was not to refute him as much to show that if you follow the logic of his teaching it works out to believers ending up in the lake of fire.  To most Christians, such an idea is so far from anything you could legitimately call salvation as to be refutation enough.

MY RESPONSE:  My error. I apologize.  However, that is not the conclusion at which I arrived in reading the writings of the men I previously listed.  If this is what George taught or alluded to, I  disagree.  I have written my own thoughts in an article entitled “Entrance Into the Kingdom.” 

YOU WROTE:  There isn't really a need to write long posts supporting or criticizing these ideas, as it is all available on the web.  All one has to do is Google Hodges, Dillow, Faust or such and there it is.  Faust, btw, openly teaches that the believer ends up in the lake of fire.  Seems ironic to me....a guy named "Faust" sends Christians to the lake of fire.  Nice.

MY RESPONSE:  Brother, you do both of us a disservice by including this man Faust’s writings in your criticism.  I haven’t read any of Faust’s writings and probably won’t, nor did I include him on my list of aiuthors.  I have read Hodges and Dillow and concur with much of what they have written on the subject.  I won’t presume that you ascribe to some of the distorted teachings I have read in refutation of their writings and would ask that you reserve your opinion concerning what I believe until you have read what I have written at some length on the subject.

YOU WROTE:  There are many articles critical of the teaching on the web.  A good one is found at http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesov.htm

MY RESPONSE:  I shall read it. There are also quite a few sites on Dillow’s book “The Reign of the Servant Kings.  There are arguments pro and con, and although most of the essential thoughts have been condensed, one can get an idea about both sides of the argument - but the book itself, although quite lengthy, I found to be very complete, concise and very convincing.  Understand. Tom, I am very firm in my convictions, but not locked into any position.  I could be wrong   I will just say that in reading the reasoning, pro and con during the past 15 years or so, I have found the “kingdom doctrine” (for lack of  better description) to be much more convincing than the counter arguments.  I’ll be happy to read yours. 

YOU WROTE: Tomorrow I will try to finish my comments on the Overcomer teaching, and will deal with the verses you mentioned.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

MY RESPONSE:  I shall read it.

P.S. I trust that my method of responding to your posts and those of others is not a source of irritation to anyone.   I have a very difficult time reading the small print in the standard boxed quotes and thought others might have the same problem.  However, if my method is confusing to some, I will adopt the standard procedure.

In His service.

Chuck

Clarence, 

Allow me to make a few observations and suggestions concerning your post.  Having left the Assembly after only about 2 years of involvement,  I never went through what many of you did, so I can’t say “I know what you are going through.”  However, regardless of your prior involvement and your current situation, there are, I believe, some basic scriptural principles that can be applied universally to encompass every area of our life. 

Concerning financial, professional and career development, each individual has a different level of skills, training and education, and will have to seek a job commensurate with those skills and training.  But regardless of what that entails, we must adapt a work ethic that will apply to whatever area of endeavor we pursue.  I found that the application of  Colossians 3: 22 to 4:1 covers just about any work situation imaginable except for the one who is self- employed, with no employees.  Now I’m well aware that Paul is speaking here of slaves and masters, but the principles that Paul sets out are perfectly adaptable for anything from simple janitorial work to the highest level of management.  Let’s first take a look at Paul’s instruction in verses 23-24 and simply substitute “employee” for the word “slave.”

 22 Slaves [employees], in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
 23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,
 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.                                                  Colossians 3:22-24

Whatever job I have, I should consider that I am working for the Lord, and  I should be diligent, honest (impeccably so) cooperative with those either above me or below me, and always striving to make them successful in their jobs.  The quality of my work should be such that it would pass the Lord’s inspection and even surpass the employer’s standard of  excellence.  I should have no expectations as to how “fairly“ I am going to be treated by my employer, but rather, respond in the manner prescribed by Peter when he said:

18 Servants [employees], be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.
19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.
20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.    1 Peter 2:18-20

If this sounds like I’m touting “Uncle Tom” as an example, you’re absolutely correct.  Personally, I can’t think of a higher complement one could be paid by the Lord Jesus.

If one should find themselves in a position of management, then you should apply Col 4:1 which reads:

1 Masters [employers, managers], grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.

One who is in a position of authority over others should apply the same principle of Jesus’ instruction to His disciples,
 
42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.
43 "But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;
44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.               Mark 10:42-44
 
I realize that some of you will view these verses as limited in their scope, and not strictly applicable to the work ethic.  I won’t argue the point, but I do know that they worked in my own life and I believe they can in yours. 

In 1980, at age 53,  I began employment at a Workshop and Training Center for mentally handicapped adults.  I began at the lowest level as a part time employee, doing primarily janitorial work for minimum wage.  I had no previous skills and my highest education level was 2 years of College, majoring in Mechanical Engineering  (I had flunked out in my second year).   I had no illusions as to my future career development nor my financial  security.  Five years later, I was one of two assistants to the Director, having worked up to that next-to-highest tier on the Center’s corporate ladder.  I don’t say this boastfully, since I can only attribute it to the work ethic I had gleaned from the scriptures. Having attained a position where I was in middle management, I was able to apply this ethic, both to those over me and those under my supervision. 
At my last review before resigning, It was gratifying when the Director commented,  “Chuck, the thing I really have appreciated about your working here is that, no matter what I ever asked you to do, you always did it to the best of your ability, willingly and cheerfully.”  When the Director retired, I was encouraged by some of my former fellow employees to apply for the position.  I declined for personal reasons, but it was a joy to reflect on how the Lord had honored my commitment to His word.   He is a great God. 
May you be encouraged by this little vignette of His faithfulness

In His service,

Chuck

Hi Chuck,

I have been giving your "confess your bitterness" suggestion some thought.  I don't see that the verses that you quoted suggest that we do so.  The verses also do not indicate that if I do not "confess my bitterness" that I am still bitter, or that I am not doing all possible to be at peace with the brethren.

On the other hand, if I were to "confess" I may actually be giving ammunition to the leaders to hold their captives in bondage.  Let me give you an example that is based on an actual event.  A local mega-church has outgrown its sanctuary.  They have purchased land and plan to build a new larger one and sell the existing property.  In the mean time they have 2 Sunday services at their existing location and have told those with no kids to meet in another location where the morning message is viewed on video for another service.  An assembly person, in recounting this news, simply said "the church has split".  He did not lie, but possibly by stating it that way he intended to communicate that they were having problems.  Of course, I happened to be around so i set the record straight.

Think about what George could do with a "confession".

Marcia

[continued from above]

YOU WROTE:   I still have considerable anger against GG and those that still defend him, and I believe it is the only appropriate response to such evil.   When I consider those that have been crushed by his false use of authority, beating of the sheep, the heaping of false guilt, shaming, the damaged and shipwrecked, etc.

MY RESPONSE:  We’ve already seen that the Lord has exposed George’s immoral conduct and in the process, many have come to understand his false use of authority.  He  will accomplish what concerns us (Ps 138:8), but He doesn’t condone our working in contradiction to His commands.  I pity those who still defend him.  They are blind and have fallen into the pit with him.   

YOU WROTE:  The focus should be on what GG did, his need to admit it, and his open and clear repentance----- not , on individuals hurt by that evil learning how to somehow rid themselves of the bad feelings that they have toward him!

MY RESPONSE:  The focus should be upon how each one of us responds in obedience to the word of God and not upon trying to compel George to repent.   As we do this, we will find that there is no need “to learn to somehow rid ourselves of the bad feelings we have toward him” - the Lord will relieve us of those feelings.

YOU WROTE:  When those slain "for the testimony to Jesus" cried out for vengeance against their persecutors in Rev. they were not corrected by God to change their desire for judgment against such evil doers.

MY RESPONSE:  Take note, Mark, that they were crying out - "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" (Revelation 6:10).  They were admonishing the Lord to exact His vengeance upon those who had persecuted them.   Have we any doubt that, in His time and in His own way, He would do so?   I don’t believe it is wrong for us to implore the Lord to do what He has promised to do.   

YOU WROTE:  Here are the key distinctions, IMHO, between when I am being "bitter" and when I am "standing against evil" (in the context of the Assembly discussion):

1.) I'm bitter if I see it as "they done me wrong" and I'm just responding out of my own personal hurt.

The Martyrs in Rev. quoted above were not crying out for personal revenge against the individual who killed them, but because they were passionately against the "evil" that produced the agents that killed them. Evil, in the form of teaching and practice, becomes a systemized force (ex.= radical Islam).

MY RESPONSE:  Again, I see no scriptural justification for bitterness.  To me it can signify a lack of confidence in the Lord’s plan to bring about justice in His chosen time.  God used a woman named Betsy Ten Boom to witness to the inmates in a Nazi concentration camp.  She was more passionate for the testimony of Christ than she was against the evil (fascism) that produced the agents of Hitler’s hatred.

YOU WROTE:   2.) I'm standing against evil if I understand that GG and the Assembly are fundamentally opposed to God's will and are a stumbling block to those seeking to follow God.

MY RESPONSE:  And stand we should, but we should not allow anger and bitterness to detract from our stand.  He has promised that He will deal with those who stumble His little ones.

YOU WROTE:  If I don't believe this than the Assembly is just another church that is just as bad (or good) as the next church and we are making much ado about nothing.  However, the facts seem pretty clear that GG is the one needing to get things right in his life with God, not those he wronged.

MY RESPONSE:  George’s Assemblies were (are) not functioning in accordance with the instructions of Christ for His body.  Unfortunately, that can be said of many of the traditional denominational churches today, so, to some degree they are “just another church that is as bad as the next church” 
Certainly, George has a need to get things right with his life, but that doesn’t excuse away our unscriptural conduct.   

YOU WROTE:  3.) My emotional state is a poor gauge for discerning when to forgive and when to take a passionate stand against evil.   

MY RESPONSE:  Correct, Mark, that’s why we have to rely upon the word of God and not upon our feelings.   I believe we can take a passionate stand against evil, without forgiving an unrepentant sinner.   

YOU WROTE:  Much of the discussion surrounding "forgiveness" is an effort to make us feel better.   When we have hurt feelings we try to find a "spiritual solution" to take away that pain.  This "solution" drives us inward to exam our own motives in an attempt to judge whether we are in tune with God.

MY RESPONSE:  I don’t know of any other solution but the “spiritual solution” that will take away the pain.  And why shouldn’t it make us “feel better” if we are responding in obedience to the Lord.  I believe the “feeling” comes from experiencing His pleasure. 

YOU WROTE:  Unfortunately, this takes our attention away from what is actually happening in a situation, like evaluating my responses to GG, etc.----- the truth should always be our focus, and this is how God leads us, not by the absence/presence of emotional conflict in my heart. 

                                         God Bless,  Mark C.

MY RESPONSE:  Yes, the truth should always be our focus, and I believe the emotional conflict in our heart is caused by the conviction the Lord lays on our heart when we aren’t acting in obedience to His commands. 

In His service,

Chuck

Mark,

YOU WROTE:  Hi Chuck and others!  This has been an oft discussed topic on the BB and a very difficult one at that.

It is difficult because the Bible clearly commands us to "forgive" those that sin against us and yet we see Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. just as clearly exhibiting behavior that was angry, sarcastic, and generally not what we would normally consider "forgiving" (some might have suggested that these persons above were "bitter")

I believe it is important to be clear as to what Jesus was teaching re. forgiveness and to do this we must compare Jesus teaching to "forgive them for they know not what they do" alongside passages like his "scourging of the Temple." 

MY RESPONSE:  I covered this in a previous post (Reply #28. October 29, 2005), so I won’t repeat what I have already stated.

YOU WROTE:  Likewise Paul's teaching to "forgive one another," next to his very passionate sarcastic statement for his desire that certain false teachers "demasculate [sp] themsevelves

MY RESPONSE:  Yes, Paul exhorted, “Be kind to one another, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you” (Eph 4:32), and he also said, “I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate (emasculate) themselves.”

I don’t have a positive opinion about what would appear to be an unseemly remark made by Paul, if we were to take it in a literal sense.  Theologians have grappled with this for centuries and haven’t come to an agreement concerning what Paul is implying.  So it would be presumptuous of me to suggest that I have discovered the truth on the subject.  So I can only give my opinion based upon what we know about Paul from the scriptures.

What these Jews were preaching to the Galatians was a different gospel (Gal 1:6-9). They were claiming that circumcision was necessary for salvation.  The issue here was their justification, not their sanctification.   I could perhaps, liken Paul’s feelings to my own about the false doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the need to be baptized into the Catholic Church in order to be saved.  So in like manner, I might say that “I wish that those who are troubling you would even drown themselves” - out of hatred - not for the individuals who preach it, but out of concern for the testimony of Christ and His completed work on the cross.  I have often said, “I don’t hate Catholics, but I do hate Catholicism.“

So as far as I know, George does not preach a “different gospel” relating to justification, but from what I gather, his doctrine about “Overcomers “ concerns the sanctification and glorification of one who has been justified.  I haven’t heard anyone imply that George preaches a “different gospel.”  And although I would probably disagree with him on certain aspects of how a believer becomes an “overcomer,” it would not cause me to be bitter toward him.  It is the same feeling I have toward those who are strict ‘Calvinists’ or strict ‘Arminians” – disagreement, but not hatred.  My bitterness stemmed from the unwarranted authority he and his leading brothers assumed in lording over the saints.  It was something that I had to “see to it” that I, by His marvelous grace, dealt with in my life.

YOU WROTE:  We will be less than God would have us to be if in the face of evil we interpret forgiveness as a passive indifference to such as GG and his creation, the Assembly.

MY RESPONSE:  I do not interpret forgiveness as a “passive indifference.”  I consider it to be one of the greatest achievements of the grace of God in the life of a believer.   However, this is not a matter of forgiving George, but a matter of  seeing to my own shortcoming concerning availing myself of the grace of God.

YOU WROTE:  We cannot see the issue of religious evil (that which hurts God's people) only in terms of my personal emotional state (bitterness), and so to speak, "turn the other cheek," in trying to make ammends with GG, etc.

MY RESPONSE:  Mark, you err in suggesting that I advocate “making amends” to the likes of George Geftakys.  I have nothing for which to make amends to George.  I do advocate obeying the commands of the word to “see to it” I don’t come short of the grace of God; and that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble.  That doesn’t constitute “turning the other cheek,” but rather, guarding against bitterness in my own heart that was destructive to myself and to others around me.  It was for my own benefit, and for my children’s benefit that the Lord led me to go to Omaha to ask forgiveness.  As it turned out, the LB’s missed the point, and suffered the consequences by spending another 20 years under George’s dominance. 

YOU WROTE:  How can we make the distinction between "bitter and unforgiving" vs. "defenders of the sheep against evil?"

MY RESPONSE: We can do our best to defend the sheep against evil without being bitter. James said: “This you know, my beloved brethren, but everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;  for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God“  (James 1:19-20).

 “It is a rare individual who recognizes his own bitterness and it is rare for a bitter individual to be able to expound on the word of God effectively.

And Paul said:
 
24The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them
repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
 26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.                            2 Tim 2:24-26

We all pray that those who are being deceived will come to their senses, and Paul instructs us in the manner in which should attempt to correct them.

[continue below]

Chuck, thanks for the following:


Yes, indeed, Paul told Timothy to be not quarrelsome, be kind, able to teach, patient when wronged, gently correcting his opposers, thus granting them the opportunity for repentance which could lead them to the knowledge of the truth (Christ).

Then Paul continues from that very point with these words which begin chapter 3 (from the English Standard Version):

1  But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty.
2  For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to    their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3  heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self control, brutal, not loving good,
4  treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5  having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.  Avoid such people.
6  For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened    with sins and led astray by various passions,
7  always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
8  Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth (Christ),    men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.
9  But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

2Tim.3:1-9(ESV)

Having been in "the work" for some years and having later had my eyes opened, I suppose you can guess what man that passage most perfectly describes to me. 

My question to you, Chuck, especially in light of Marcia's recent post, is twofold:

First, how to recognize when someone has gone beyond the description in 2:25-26 and become one of those described in 3:8.

Second, based on the answer to the first, how we should know when to observe the instruction of 3:5c, to
"Avoid such people?" 
KJV: "from such turn away";
NIV: "Have nothing to do with them.";
NASB: "Avoid such men as these.";
Phillips: "You must keep clear of people like this."

al

Part II


Chuck,



A few days back I said I would finish my comments on the “Overcomer” ideas of Dillow, Hodges, and others.  In my previous post I stated that I feel that this teaching is wrong in a number of very serious ways, and listed two: 

1. It denigrates the efficacy of the finished redemptive work of Christ by illegitimately dividing its application into two phases.  In the first phase the sins committed prior to salvation are forgiven unconditionally.  In the second phase, only the sins specifically confessed are forgiven.  Therefore the sinning Christian carries a burden of guilt beyond death and into eternity, with resultant judgment falling upon him after death. (Roman Catholicism, btw, developed this idea into major doctrinal errors.)  I stated that this constitutes a salvation based on faith plus works, and that this teaching directly contradicts the clear teaching of such verses as Ephesians 2:8-10 and Romans 8:28-30.
It also rejects the great Reformation principle of Sola Fide, (Faith Alone).

2. It denigrates the efficacy of the high priestly ministry of Christ heaven.  Since the purpose of his ministry is to “bring many sons to glory” as the “author of their salvation”, ( Hebrews 2:10-11), the overcomer teaching is tantamount to saying that he regularly fails to fulfill the purpose of his ministry.

I also said I would have more to say on the subject.  So, here are some further comments.  I have neither the interest or the desire to parse every scripture that these folks bring up, so I am going to address principles rather than verses.

3. The teaching is based on a purely Baconian interpretive method.  Theological Baconianism arose as a result of Francis Bacon’s development of observation and experiment followed by arriving at likely interpretations of the data by inductive reasoning. We call this the "Scientific Method." During the 19th century it became very popular and was applied to Theology, Law, and Social Science.  It is no accident that the Restorationist movement that produced the Campbellite, Plymouth Brethren, and Mormon movements appeared at this time.  In theology, it was not really a useable interpretive method before the invention of the printing press (1463), the Protestant Reformation, (1517), and the division of the scriptures into verses, (1560).

The way the method works is to treat the various verses of scripture as scientific data.  One collects the “data”, ( the passages of scripture), examines them in relation to one another and then, by induction, develops general principles. We apply a “lite” version of the method when we “compare scripture with scripture”, and it is a quite legitimate interpretive method.  But only when used with other methods. 

It is, for example, the way in which we show that Presbyters and Elders were the same individuals in the early days of the Church.  It is also, however, the way that the Campbellites, (Christian Church and Church of Christ), derived their teaching on baptismal salvation.  They collected all the verses on baptism, including Acts 2:38, and concluded that Christians should be baptized in Jesus name for forgiveness of sin!  This happened because they ignored the fact that the verse was addressed to a special class of believer!  These folks were already believers, they were “God fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.”  This verse is addressed to a group of people who no longer exist, ie, OT believers who lived in the days of Christ’s earthly ministry!  The Baconian method alone led the Campbellites to make this error, and develop a confused gospel message.

The Overcomer teaching we are discussing is the result of the application of Baconiansim primarily to two classes of scripture; parables and prophecy.  These two areas are the most inferential passages of scripture, and the ones in which we find the most disagreement among Christians.  In order to accept the Overcomer teacher’s conclusions, one must first accept all of their interpretations of these two areas.  That is where I got off the bus back in my assembly days. 

Most Overcomer teachers teach partial rapturism.  Panton, Lang, Pember, and Groves for example.  Matthew 15:1-10, the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, is one of the verses they cite in support of their error.  They use this, and other parables, to exhort Christians to diligence and holiness. Now these things are good.  But they are not the point of this parable.  I remember laughing when I noticed that there is absolutely no difference in the behavior of the two classes of people.  The difference was in what they possessed, (the oil), not in what they did.  And “many such things do ye…”

CONTINUED

Part III


4. Major Christian doctrines are taught in clear passages.  This is known by theologians as the “perspicuity of scripture.”  This Overcomer teaching is not clearly taught in any
passage.  Its proponents see it all over the Bible.  But you have to already believe it and read into passages where it is not explicitly taught.   This teaching concerns the very nature of salvation, and therefore qualifies as a “major”, if not “the major” Christian doctrine.

5. The overcomer teaching is a recent innovation.  To me, the idea that the apostles failed to transmit the message of salvation clearly to their disciples is incredible.   :o That is what you must believe if you accept this teaching.  The church at large, in this view, did not really understand salvation until the 19th century!  I just can’t buy that.

6. The Overcomer teaching changes our entire basis for Christian life and service from loving gratitude to our all sufficient savior to a fearful anticipation of judgement that cannot be relieved by any of the Bible’s promises.  One just never knows if they will receive a passing score for a “full” salvation.

There is much more that could be said, but I think this is adequate to show why I, at least, will not be riding on the Overcomerism bus any time soon.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Al,

You asked:
First, how to recognize when someone has gone beyond the description in 2:25-26 and become one of those described in 3:8.

Second, based on the answer to the first, how we should know when to observe the instruction of 3:5c, to
"Avoid such people?"
KJV: "from such turn away";
NIV: "Have nothing to do with them.";
NASB: "Avoid such men as these.";
Phillips: "You must keep clear of people like this."
--------------------------------------------
Al,

I would say simply that when someone has become one who is described in [2Tim] 3:8, they have gone beyond [2 Tim] 2:25-26 and we should follow Paul’s instruction and turn away from them and avoid them.  However, again, we must guard against any ensuing animosity.  Please understand, I am not concerned about George’s welfare, but for the welfare of those who are battling bitterness. And remember, we are told:
   
Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles;
Or the LORD will see it and be displeased,
And turn His anger away from him.
Do not fret because of evildoers
Or be envious of the wicked;
For there will be no future for the evil man;
The lamp of the wicked will be put out.             Proverbs 24:17-20

All I’m saying is that the Lord’s promises are true and we must not fret out of impatience because He isn‘t acting on our time schedule.  “The lamp of the wicked will be put out” That is a guarantee. 
Speak out against unrighteousness and refute false doctrine, but, let me repeat it one more time - guard your heart  against bitterness - for your own sake.  BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity”  (Ephesians 4:26-27)

In His service, 

Chuck

Chuck,

You asked how I would explain Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23.

This was, of course, within our discussion of Overcomerism.  Actually, it is quite simple.  

The context shows that the authority given to the apostles and the church was to be exercised on the earth.  For example in Matthew 18:20 it says, "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."  Since the church is on the earth, the application of the verse is as well.  The promise empowers the church with heavenly sanction.  That, however, does not imply that the consequences are heavenly.  The Roman Catholics made this error, and ended up with purgatory.  Most of the Overcomer" teachers also have some form of purgation.

The John 20:23 verse, in context, applies to Christ's sending the apostles into the world.  Verse 21 says, "...as the Father sent me, I am sending you."  The Father send Christ into the world.

I am not ignoring the fact that heaven's authority accompanies the (legitimate) decisions of the church.  But there is nothing in the verses
which indicate heavenly consequences.  On the other hand, there are many verses that speak of earthly consequences for sinful behavior among Christians.  

Some examples: 1. Hebrews 12:7-12.  2. I Corinthians 11:27-32.  

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

      [Continued from above]

Tom,

YOU WROTE:  6. The Overcomer teaching changes our entire basis for Christian life and service from loving gratitude to our all sufficient savior to a fearful anticipation of judgement that cannot be relieved by any of the Bible’s promises.  One just never knows if they will receive a passing score for a “full” salvation.

MY RESPONSE:  Whatever it is that you are speaking of here, Tom, it certainly isn’t what I believe, so I’d prefer that you discontinue associating me with “The Overcomer teaching” that you describe  and confine your criticism to what you know that I do believe.
 YOU WROTE:  There is much more that could be said, but I think this is adequate to show why I, at least will not be riding on the Overcomerism bus any time soon.

MY RESPONSE:  I don’t consider myself an “ite” ( as in Campbellite) or an “ist” (as in Baptist or Methodist ), nor do I “ride on buses” of “isms”  ( as in Overcomerism, Baconianism, or Calvinism).  I don’t subscribe to dividing the body of Christ into factions, or denominations.  We are followers of Jesus Christ who hold to some different beliefs, but should seek to become of the same mind and in the same judgment so that there will be no division between us. (1 Cor 1:10).  I could be in error.  If you believe so, correct me.
YOU WROTE:  You asked how I would explain Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23.
This was, of course, within our discussion of Overcomerism.  Actually, it is quite simple. 

The context shows that the authority given to the apostles and the church was to be exercised on the earth.  For example in Matthew 18:20 it says, "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."  Since the church is on the earth, the application of the verse is as well.  The promise empowers the church with heavenly sanction.

MY RESPONSE:  Your answers raise some questions in my mind, Tom.  Authority to do what?  Matthew 18:18 reads: “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” Exactly what is it that is "bound" or "loosed" on earth? 
 YOU WROTE:  That, however, does not imply that the consequences are heavenly.  The Roman Catholics made this error, and ended up with purgatory.  Most of the Overcomer" teachers also have some form of purgation.

The John 20:23 verse, in context, applies to Christ's sending the apostles into the world.  Verse 21 says, "...as the Father sent me, I am sending you."  The Father send Christ into the world.

MY RESPONSE:  John 20:23 reads: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."  What happens to a sinner whose sins are retained?   Are there any after-death consequences to a sinful or unfaithful Christian life?
 YOU WROTE:  I am not ignoring the fact that heaven's authority accompanies the (legitimate) decisions of the church.  But there is nothing in the verses which indicate heavenly consequences.
On the other hand, there are many verses that speak of earthly consequences for sinful behavior among Christians.  Some examples: 1. Hebrews 12:7-12.  2. I Corinthians 11:27-32. 

MY RESPONSE:  Jesus’ decree, ”whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven” sounds to me like there will be heavenly consequences as well.

More later,

God bless, 
Chuck

 

Tom,

We're going out of town for the weekend, so, I'll address some of your response now and the rest later. 
 YOU WROTE:  Major Christian doctrines are taught in clear passages.  This is known by theologians as the “perspicuity of scripture.”  This Overcomer teaching is not clearly taught in any passage.  Its proponents see it all over the Bible. 

But you have to already believe it and read into passages where it is not explicitly taught. 

MY RESPONSE:  You never say which of the “Major Christian doctrines” you ascribe to, Tom, nor do you quote the “clear passages” in which it is taught.   And perhaps you could tell me how you came to accept it.  The “Kingdom” teaching , that I find to be in harmony with all of scripture is, as you say, “all over the Bible.”  Is that bad? 
  YOU WROTE:  This teaching concerns the very nature of salvation, and therefore qualifies as a “major”, if not “the major” Christian doctrine.

MY RESPONSE:  To me, it certainly is a major Christian doctrine.  Yes, it concerns the very nature of salvation, beginning with condemnation and progressing through  justification, sanctification, and glorification. 
  YOU WROTE:  5. The overcomer teaching is a recent innovation.  To me, the idea that the apostles failed to transmit the message of salvation clearly to their disciples is incredible.  That is what you must believe if you accept this teaching.  The church at large, in this view, did not really understand salvation until the 19th century!  I just can’t buy that.

MY RESPONSE:  For centuries, the teaching on salvation by grace through faith alone (Sola Fide) was obscured by the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on Salvation through works, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Bible plus Tradition (theirs),  Papal Succession, etc., etc., etc.  It wasn’t until the early in the sixteenth century that Luther opened the door to the then “new” doctrine.”  Those who rebelled against the dominant Catholic doctrine (which, in many countries, had even become the doctrine of the state) became - as they came to be called - “Protestants.”  Had the apostles failed to transmit the message of salvation clearly to their disciples?  I don’t think so.  But wolves and Judaizers came in with their false doctrines and drew many away.  Much of what was written in the apostle’s letters to the churches was written to combat those false doctrines.

And here we are in the twenty first century and according to George Barna, many in “the church at large“ still don’t believe, or even understand, or agree upon, much of what the Bible teaches.


       [Continued below]

Tom,

In giving your reasons why you feel that the "Overcomer" teachings of Dillow, Hodges and others is wrong, you make, what I consider to be, a very questionable observation.  I'm referring to your post #58 of November 3rd in which you list 3 reasons why you believe the teachings are "wrong in a number of serious ways"

I am not knowledgeable regarding the "Scientific Method" that you claim was used by these men for interpreting scripture, nor am I aware of any of the "other methods" that you classify as "legitimate" interpretive methods.  I am curious to know how you have arrived at your conclusion and would like to know whether it is a result of your own deduction, or if you have taken it from something you read?

In my own case, I have never attempted to determine what "method" these men used in developing their doctrines, nor have I attempted to do so concerning other theologians, most of whom fall into groups commonly referred to as "Calvinists," or "Arminians," (or variations of them).   Inasmuch as you seem to be very confident in your assessment, Tom, I would like to ask you the question it brings to mind - Who determines which interpretive method is "legitimate," and how did they become qualified to make that determination?

Consider my problem when I discover that we have had many theologians, all of whom have claimed that they arrived at "the truth" concerning issues such as Eternal Security, Predestination, Election, The Gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc., etc., etc.  And each of them assures us that they have "studied the scriptures long and hard and, that the scriptures are their only source of truth."  Many of them have contradicted the opinions of other theologians who also assure us that they have "studied the scriptures long and hard and, that the scriptures are their only source of truth."  We might even find that they have used identical "interpretive methods" in doing so, yet, oddly enough, have arrived at conflicting ideas concerning those issues, some of which are even diametrically opposed to those of their "opponents" (for that is what they become).  Many of them, in order to distinguish themselves from others,  take a name - i.e. Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc. etc., etc.  They have no aversion to being called a "denomination."  This, I believe, is derived from the Latin  nomen  for "name," and denominatus  - "to name."  These denominational theologians give no indication that they consider it possible that they could be wrong in what they believe.  Many publish a "doctrinal statement," the acceptance of which may then becomes a requirement for "membership" in their denomination.

Then there is Roman Catholicism, that, some erroneously claim, is just another denomination of Christianity.  But they too have their method of interpreting scriptures - one that they claim is the only  legitimate  method.  It's called "Papal Infallibility."  And since they preach a "different" gospel, it becomes apparent that their claim of  "legitimacy" is merely a self-serving postulation, and, therefore, unacceptable as a criteria for scriptural interpretation.

In like manner, Tom, I would have to regard your claim of "legitimacy' simply on the basis of your subjective opinion, no differently than I can accept the Catholic's claim of infallibility in regard to theirs.  After all, aren't your claims of "legitimacy," in actuality, just another term for "infallibility?"

As I've sought, and continue to seek, the truth of God's word in order to appropriate it for my own life, there are certain things that I try to keep in mind.

I'm a fallible human being and as such, will probably be subjective to what I've been taught by others, all of whom are also fallible human beings.  Only God's word is infallible.  I want to be firm in my convictions, yet not to the extreme of being "locked in" to any doctrinal position or teaching.  Therefore, except for those basic tenets about which all Christians agree, I must be willing to admit that I could be in error in what I believe and be willing to change should I be proven wrong.

I believe that Jesus has sent the Holy Spirit to help us in our pursuit of truth, and if we abide in His Word, we will know the truth, and the truth will set us free.

I recognize that God has given to the church, some who are teachers, and I have to try to determine if the one to whom I am listening is one of those, or whether he is a false teacher, while always guarding against viewing any one of them as being above error.  First and foremost, I want to avoid being a follower of any man, except the man, Christ Jesus.  Although I don't disdain the use of commentaries in seeking biblical truth, I do feel it's a mistake to rush to read those of one's "favorite" theologian when confronted with a question concerning a doctinal truth.  I often find it just as profitable to read dissenting opinions, since that may be where the truth is found.

Tom, these thoughts are just some of the basic principles I try to use, but even as I think about, and share these thoughts, I remember that the pursuit of truth is a never-ending process.  We are continually learning - or I should say - being taught.  For we don't always learn what the Lord is trying to teach us - at least, not immediately.   I can now see, in retrospect, how He was trying to teach me His ways about His church and how leadership in it is supposed to function, but, I was rash in receiving George Geftakys as "God's servant" without verifying, by God's word, what he said and did. That was costly.  But then, I've found that it's always costly and painful when we ignore God's warnings or disobey His commands.

So, I'll sign off on this, Tom, and respond later to your two other reasons stated in your post #58.

In His service,

Chuck

Tom,
 I would like to respond to your reason #6 for feeling  that this [“Overcomer“] teaching is wrong in a number of very serious ways.  You wrote:


RESPONSE:  I believe you have misunderstood the teachings of Dillow, Hodges and some of the others who teach on the doctrine of the kingdom, and what I believe concerning it, Tom, but rather than reiterate much of what I say in my own writing on the subject, I thought it would be profitable to all if you could give your explanation of certain scriptures that I myself had found hard to explain in reference to a believer’s eternal security

Philippians 2:12
 
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;

Question:  How am I, a believer,  to “work out” my salvation?

2 Thessalonians 1:5

This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.

Question:  How can I, a believer,  be considered “worthy” of the kingdom?

Romans 8:16-17

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Question: What is it to which we are fellow heirs with Christ?

1 Corinthians 10:11-12

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

Question:  In looking at verses 1-10 that precede 11 and 12, what happens if we do fall?

I have more questions Tom, but these are some that came to trouble me after I had accepted the premise that a believer could not lose his/her salvation.

God bless,

Chuck

Interesting discussion.
I will make the very brief observation that a lot of erroneous thinking about the destiny of believers has to do with an improper understanding of the Biblical teaching of sonship, which is directly related to the entire question of inheritance.
You are either a son, or you are illegitimate, spiritually speaking.
The distinction that the Scripture makes among those who are sons, is not whether or not they will inherit, but when.
The when of inheritance is conditioned only by the heir's maturity.
An understanding of this simple principle would go a long way toward dispelling a lot of the confusion regarding some of the more difficult warnings and caveats issued in Scripture - you have to be clear on who is being addressed...
Verne

Verne,
A couple of quick questions.
1.  What will the sons inherit?
2.  When will they inherit it?

Chuck

Great Questions Chuck.
The fact that you did not ask who are sons probably suggests that we are in broad agreement about who comprise that category.  :)
As to the what of inheritance, I will do a bit of thinking and soon post a few suggestions that I trust will have Scriptural warrant.
I think it is good to keep in mind that inheritance per se, is strictly a function of relationship.
Rewards, on the other hand, are clearly presented as being dependent on assesment of the quality of our work. How have I built? Gold? Silver? Precious Stones? or Wood, Hay, Stubble.
I have been looking at some of these 300.000.00 plus houses in Champaign and some of these builders here are really scary... :)

Chuck---

William Bridge, an old Puritan writer,  has a very comforting book in which he mentions
how "scripture answers scripture". One scripture will say from "our" perspective: "work
out your salvation with fear and trembling" but this will be answered with "who WILL
confirm you to the end". I think a lot of the scriptures which can cast doubt are answered
by other scriptures which remove all doubt.

"If ye continue..."(casts doubt and implies one can falter or fall)--answered by "And the very God of
peace sanctify you wholly, and your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless unto the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Faithful is He that calls you WHO ALSO WILL DO IT" (1 Thess.
5:23,24).

Unfortunately, people like George didn't like 1Thess 5:24 and he tried to imply one could have
his spirit sanctified, but wind up coming in incomplete in the soul area. He just couldn't accept
a "finished" work. As Scripture says: We are saved(inheritance) UNTO good works(these works
will be judged, but this doesn't make the person someone who didn't "overcome", as all christians
are overcomers!! We are overcomers because he already overcame!!!)

1 John 5:5:
"Who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes Jesus is the Son of God?". All true christians are overcomers. Because our overcoming is not dependent upon US, but upon a finished work won on the cross.

--Joe

Chuck,

I will respond to these posts, but I am about to leave town for a couple of days.  I will be back on Sunday afternoon, and then will get to it as soon as I can.  It may be Monday, though.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Quote from Joe Sperling  on: November 10, 2005

Joe,

You include a qualifying factor in your definition of "overcomers."  How am I to distinguish the difference between  a “true” Christian and a false Christian?

Chuck

Chuck----

Only the Lord knows who is a true believer. My point is that anyone who truly
believes in Jesus Christ WILL overcome, because we are "in Christ" and he has
ALREADY overcome. There are those who teach that "true" believers may not
overcome(as George did), confusing the "rewards" at the BEMA seat with the
inheritance which is "sealed" by the Holy Spirit for all believers.

I will say this though (in my opinion)--those who were deeply bothered about not
overcoming were most likely true believers, because why would an unsaved person
be concerned about the inheritance?

Another point I would add is that Satan's greatest hatred of all are the words "It is
finished", because they are three words which signaled his defeat. He will do ANYTHING
to hide, manipulate, or lessen the power of those words. If he can keep a Christian worrying,
or trying to be "good enough" to "overcome", he has focused that person on his own works,
rather than on what has ALREADY been DONE for him. The Bible says we are "seated" with
Christ in the Heavenlies, and that we are "more than conquerors". Romans 8:30 says in the
past tense that we are "justified, sanctified and glorified". And 1 John 5:5 says that he who
believes in Jesus Christ HAS overcome the world. These are "finished" things---and Satan rages
at that concept. "NO!!!! It's not over!! It's not finished!! You could still lose!!! You better work
hard, 'cause you just might lose out!!" And that's where "religion" comes from--a concept that
it's not finished--we must work, we must try, we might just lose out in the end if we're not good
enough. As long as it isn't finished, Satan still has the upper hand, and it dishonors the victory that
Jesus has accomplished for all Christians on the cross.

Every cult and every aberrant group always "adds" something to what Christ has accomplished. It is an attempt by the enemy to thwart the words "IT IS FINISHED". In the Assembly it was "yes, you
are saved, but that is just a doorway.." This in effect belittled salvation to "just" being a starting point to a journey to overcoming. And this overcoming depended on US. When, in reality, salvation is a "completion" that we rejoice more and more in as we realize what ALREADY is ours. It's "do" vs. "done"--and we really do far more  good when we realize what is already DONE, than when we strive to "DO" good as a basis for overcoming.

--Joe

Joe, 

My comments on your post of November 10th


It certainly would be very comforting, Joe, if I could believe that there will be no after death consequences to a careless Christian life.  As I constantly battle the desires of my flesh, I think of what Paul said - “but I buffet (discipline) my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:27).  From what was Paul  concerned about being disqualified?  Certainly not his eternal life.  And if Paul was concerned about it, should not I be? 

Look up the meaning of “salvation” (soteria ) in the Greek, Joe, and see that one of its primary usages in scripture is “deliverance.”   I believe that “working out our salvation” has to do with working out our deliverance from our fleshly desires.   

I believe that Paul was no different than you and I, in that he too was constantly battling his fleshly desires.  This is pure conjecture on my part, but I like to think of the “thorn in the flesh” of which Paul speaks in  2 Corinthians 12:7 as being some sort of fleshly desire or even lust that he could not completely master, saying, “Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself!” Perhaps the Lord was showing Paul that he was still just a man.
 

Joe, I’ve even prayed - “Lord, just take over my will so that I don’t even have an opportunity to sin against you,” - but it doesn’t happen.  It wasn’t until the end of his life that we find Paul attesting,  “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing“ (2 Timothy 4:6-8).
When Paul was speaking of “fighting the good fight,” “finishing the course,” and having “kept the faith,” I believe he’s talking about his sanctification.  And the “crown of righteousness” bespeaks his glorification. The Catholic Church teaches that justification is a process and we can never be assured of our salvation until our earthly life is over.


I believe that in the book of Revelation, John is speaking of “overcoming” in the same sense as Paul spoke in 2 Timothy.  In 1 John, I believe he is viewing it in the sense of the completed work of Christ and the sufficiency of that work in appropriating it in our own life to overcome sin - the key being, to “abide in Him.“  (verses 2:6, 10, 14; 24, 27, 28; 3:6, 9, 24, 12, 13, 15, 16).  He has overcome the world and we overcome, but only as we abide in Him and in His word. 

I’m puzzled, Joe,  by your parenthetic equating of “saved” with “inheritance."  Would you mind explaining the significance of your reference.

God bless,

Chuck

Chuck----

I agree with you that there will be consequences for how you lived your Christian
life. These will be dealt with at the "Judgement Seat of Christ", where crowns will
be awarded, etc., and where some will "be saved though as by fire". But George
(and others) have taught a Christian can lose the Inheritance, or even be thrown
into the lake of fire.

The reason I put saved(inheritance) together is because I believe the Scriptures teach
that when you are saved you have "inherited all things". The Bible doesn't teach you
can lose the inheritance.

"Therefore, let no man glory in man for all things ARE(now) yours. Whether Paul, or Apollos,
or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all ARE(now)
yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's"(I Cor. 3:21-23).

"In whom also we HAVE OBTAINED an Inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose
of him who works all things after the counsel of his will."(Eph. 1:11).  Note: Doesn't say "might obtain".

"In whom after that ye believed, ye WERE SEALED with that Holy Spirit of promise, which IS(now)
the earnest of our Inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possesion."(a finished matter).

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. To
an Inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, RESERVED in heaven for you,
who ARE KEPT by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."(1Pet. 1:1:3-5).

I think a matter that caused a lot of confusion is WHAT the inheritance is. George spoke of it as kind of like a "place"--like crossing Jordan into the promised land. But do you remember what the inheritance of the Levites was? Their Inheritance was the Lord himself.  As Christians we are as the Levites--priests and Kings(per 1 Peter). Our Inheritance is Jesus Christ himself!! When we receive Jesus Christ into our hearts we have received the Inheritance. What would the "inheritance" or heaven be like without Jesus there? Once we receive Jesus into our hearts and are saved, can we ever lose him? "I will never leave you nor forsake you". Romans 8 teaches that NOTHING can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. If the Inheritance is Jesus(and I believe he is our inheritance) I can never LOSE him---"he who comes to me I will in NO WISE cast out". I cannot scripturally call Jesus the Inheritance, but I do remember the hymn that says "Where Jesus is tis Heaven there". Since I can never lose Jesus, I could never lose Heaven.

--Joe

Joe, as I read your posts in response to Chuck you frequently refer to George and his teachings to valid your point. Chuck is not mentioning George nor trying to defend him. He is separating salvation from inheritance. Is being saved from the “wrath which is to come” the same as “receiving the crown of righteousness”?

You also referred to believers as ones who will stand at the judgement seat of Christ. Receive consequences for how they conducted themselves on earth. At this time crowns will be awarded. Is that not talking about inheritance? Is that not suggesting that some may not receive what others may? It has nothing to do with Georges teaching or lake of fire or any such thing. It has to do with what Christians receive after this life.

A reasonable question would be, do careless Christians receive the same crowns (inheritance) as faithful Christians? I know I struggled with that in my life and I suspect many others have.

Ah yes, Jesus!  Jesus is the reward...Jesus is the inheritance.  Jesus!  Closeness to Jesus!  He's our blessing, reward, inheritance...He will be all in all.

Proximity - Do you suppose that all believers will share the same intimacy and nearness to Jesus? 

::c:v::

Marty---

Actually Chuck mentioned George back in his 11-8-05 post and how rash it was of
himself not to have investigated his teachings further before accepting them. I
don't mention George to "validate" anything I've said--I believe the scriptures which
teach that we ALREADY HAVE OBTAINED an inheritance are sufficient for that(see
Eph 1:11).

***add---Chuck actually stated that he was rash in accepting George as "God's Servant"
without investigating further.  --JS

My point is that the "rewards" of crowns are NOT the inheritance. They are rewards
for service, and those crowns will eventually be thrown at the very feet of Christ,
acknowledging that it was HE who actually got the victory and deserves all of the
glory(see Revelation).

It is difficult NOT to mention George when talking about "overcomer" theology, because
that was the thrust of his whole ministry. George confused the Inheritance with the
Judgement seat of Christ---but losing a crown is a far cry from being banished to darkness
or thrown into the lake of fire. Overcomer teachers actually teach that this can happen
to Christians which is entirely unbiblical. We cannot lose the inheritance because the inheritance
is part of salvation, received the day we are saved, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

--Joe

What will we inherit?
I trust that there is no disagreement as to the who of inheritance.
The book of Galatians is the tour de force on the subject and unequivocally establishes that inheritance is based solely on promise, and that in turn on relationship.
While there are many warnings contained in the Scriptures, violence has been done to the faith of many by a mis-application of such texts, and a promulgation of doctrine contrary to what is clearly taught in God’s Word.
The subject of inheritance is typically presented in the Bible by more frequent references to God’s dealing with Abraham than any other subject.
Some contend, and I tend to agree, that in in fact the key verse of the entire New Testament is found in Romans 4:16

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed;

What will we inherit? That is simply a matter of looking in our Bibles at verses that talk about the subject and there are many.
One must ever keep in mind that the subject of promise (inheritance) is inextricably linked to the seed! That is the secret.
I will now suggest that several of you look through your Bibles and post a few of those incredible promises.
I will next talk about the when of inheritance.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you...  1 Peter 1:3,4

Verne

Chuck,

You said:

Chuck, I have been a student of Church history, and therefore a student of theological develolpments, for over 40 years.  An understanding of what has happened in church history is closely related to an understanding of how they thought, ie, how they did theology.   You gain understanding of the "what", by understanding the "why".   The way differing traditions approach the scriptures largely determines what they believe and practice.  They "way they approach the scriptures" is simply another way of saying "their principles of biblical interpretation".  Take a look, for example, at "The Story of Christian Theology" by Olson or Louis Berkhof's "Development of Christian Doctrine."  Even better, read Schaff's "History of the Christian Church" , (8 volumes).  Works at this level show up such works as "The Torch of the Testimony" or "The Pilgrim Church" as mere pablum.

You asked "who gets to determine which interpretive method is legitimate?" A better question would be, "which interpretive method is legitimate?"  This avoids the subtle implication that human folly/evil/pride is behind everyone else's beliefs, and focuses on the real issue of "what is true?" 

You also said:

Since all opinions are subjective, it is difficult to understand what you mean here.  In my opinion, your name is Chuck Miller.  Am I to doubt that because it is my subjective opinion?  Do you doubt that because it is your subjective opinion as well?  In reality, opinions can be evaluated in two ways: 1. They must be factually based. 2. They must be clearly thought out. To say, "that is just your subjective opinion" is a tautology.

In addition, to make the claim that if someone holds an opinion strongly they are claiming to be infallible is to violate both #1 and #2.

Now to business.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Chuck, 2:12 begins with the word "therfore".   What is it there for?  It means that this is the action that the Philippians should take on the basis of verses 1-11.  He gives practical guidelines in verses 1-4, and then describes the proper attitude in verses 5-11.  No mystery here.

However, notice that there is no mention of overcoming, inheritance, eternal consequences and such.  Individual verses are to be understood in their context, the passage in which they occur, not subjected to "private interpretation."

You might want to read verse 4...."we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials that you are enduring."  They are evidencing the "faith that overcomes the world' ie, saving faith.  They are real Christians.  Real Christians have been made worthy of the kingdom, (Colossians 1:12-14).

btw, I don't think that we will be accounted worthy of the kingdom by waving the "filthy rags" of our works of righteousness, (Isa. 64:6) at God.

Among other things, we will share in his resurrection, his reign, and his glory.  But did you notice who this verse says will do this?   Not a special class of "overcomer", but "children of God."  Every true child of God has suffered because of it, just as he promised. Do you know any Christians who have never, in any way, suffered because of it?  I don't.  Those who suffer will be glorified with him.

1. First, notice that it is not specified what will happen!  The warning is drawn from Israel's experience.  They got killed!  In 11:29-30 similar consequences are said to have happened to Christians.  Sin can lead to discipline, up to and including death.  But notice also, the judgement of God upon Christians is applied in order that they may avoid the judgement of the world.
This type of judgement takes them out of the world.  It is applied in this life, not the next.

2. This list of questions is a good example of the abuse of Baconianism!  What you have done is to cobble together a group of isolated and unrelated passages in order to support a doctrinal position. None of the verses even so much as mention the doctrine that you are trying to support!   That, my friend, is how this whole "Overcomer" teaching was originated. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Since you all seem reluctant to post any verses on the subject of inheritance, I have taken the liberty of looking up a few.
Keep in mind a correct understanding of what Scripture is saying critically depends on understanding whom is being addressed and why.
If you fail to strictly apply this fundamental hermeneutical tenet, you will get in trouble.
Some of the most incredibly confused and misguided notions arise because of folk who ignore this principle, and the question of God's promises is no exception.
What will the sons inherit?
Here is a smattering:

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

I can just hear it now...but Verne, it does not say sons, it says the meek does it not?!

You are missing the point if that is what you think.
Everytime  you see in Scripture any mention of inheritance, your mind should immediately fly to the limiting designation and that is the seed of promise!
The vouchsafed promise is not not be appropriated willy nilly by anyone who simply imagines themself entitled- that is presumption and dangerous.

The warnings we see in the Scriptures are warnings against presumption!

 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.


Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.


Verne

Verne,

You said:

And all the saints said.........AMEN!

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Verne,

Revelation speaks of a kingdom into which no liars, adulterers, murderers, etc., will be admitted. Can we assume that those outside of that kingdom are the unsaved, who are not written in the book of life, and that this is referring to the eternal kingdom and not the millenial kingdom?

Moonflower

Apart from the remission of sin through the shed blood of Christ, I would have to be excluded as as being guilty of all of the above offences.
It is pointless for me to insist that I have always been faithful to my wife so therefore not guilty of breaking the seventh commandment. Failure to uphold any part of the law means that I am guilty of transgressing all
of it.
The folk outside the kingdom will be those whose sin remain unforgiven in my view.
Verne
p.s it does appear that sin will still plague humanity at the conclusion of the millennial reign as Satan's release results in deception of the nations once again...an astonsihing possibility after Christ's perfect rule...!

So it seems that all believers will inherit..............(which is most definitely not what gefjack taught.) Is this what you are saying here?
This has always struck me as being a really scarey thing. After seeing evil at its worst, then good at its best with Christ ruling on earth, and sin as non-existant (men will want to sin, but be unable to), man will then choose evil.

This choice doesn't even begin to compare to Adam & Eve's choice in the perfect garden, where they had no knowledge of sin and its resultant chaos.

Another question for you, Verne:

Who will the inhabitants of the millienial kingdom be? I think this would include anyone who will not be in the sheep/goats great white throne final judgement.
I've heard it said that they will be only those who were martyred.

Moonflower

[continued from above]

In regard to 1Corinthians 10:11-12 - "Now these things happened to them [Israelites] as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.  Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." - I believe that the "example" that we are expected to see in the entire passage (verses 1-12) has to do with the fact that, even after the Israelites were miraculously delivered out of Egypt, they sinned against God. I’m sure that most of us would rebel against the idea that we would have done the same. But to those who would scoff at such a possibility, Paul is saying, "Be careful that you don’t repeat the sins of the Israelites," but "take heed; for you too can fall just as they did."
And because of their failure to believe God that He would drive the enemy out of the land, He didn’t send them back to Egypt, but they forfeited their inheritance of the land.   Of all the fighting men, only Joshua and Caleb were allowed to enter into the promised land.  Would you say that all those who perished in the wilderness were unsaved?

You stated:


I'm not sure I exactly understand your inference here, but I have a different view of 1 Corinthians 11:28-32 which reads:

But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

Notice that it reads "many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. It does not say all sinners will be taken out of this world.  We also read in Hebrews 12, the following:

For they [our earthly fathers] disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.  All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Hebrews 12:11-12

I believe the Lord gives His children discernment to judge when we are sinning and gives us the opportunity to turn from sin.  But if they do not repent, we see that the Lord is going to discipline them in order that they may "share His holiness,"  But I don't see that He guarantees that every child will respond to that discipline.  He does say that "to those who have been trained by it, it will bear fruit in their lives.  I believe there will be consequences in the next life for those who do not respond.

One quick word on "inheritance."  I don't believe it's just coincidental that God has used the father/son relationship in regard to His own relationship with us.  A father may raise all of his children in the same manner, yet some may turn out worse than others.  The father may, for that reason, leave less of his estate to  ones who have been disobedient or unfaithful. They may have not responded to the discipline he administered, and he may, if he so chooses, even dis-inherit some.  Yet that does not change the fact that they are still his children. Nothing changes that, unless, upon a rare occasion, the child seeks to legally change his name and completely disassociate himself from the father. Some may learn of their father's disapproval and change their ways, in sorrow for having offended him.  Others may repent in order not to be dis-inherited.  Unlike our Heavenly Father, the earthly father may, or
may not, be able to discern the difference. Then, as often is the case, the children may not learn of their father's disposition toward them until after His death.  Then it will be to late for the dis-inherited one to repent.  I don't want to strain the analogy and try to twist it to fit my beliefs, but I do believe there are some similarities worth considering.  I'll touch more on my thoughts concerning the inheritance in my next post.

God bless,

Chuck

[Continued from above]

In regard to the questions I raised as to the meaning of several verses, you summarized your responses by stating:  "What you have done is to cobble together a group of isolated and unrelated passages in order to support a doctrinal position."

Well actually, Tom, I merely quoted a few verses with which I had had a problem in the past in trying to reconcile them with what I previously believed. I was curious as to how you interpreted them.  And as for them being "isolated and unrelated," I guess that too is a matter of subjective opinion. For your consideration, I’ll just give you my idea of how I believe they harmoniously blend together into a reasonable exposition of a biblical truth.

In regard to Romans 8:16-17 - "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him" - I view this verse in a relationship to Daniel 7:18 and Revelation 11:15  which read:

But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever. Dan 7:18.

There are other references in Daniel that speak of the coming kingdom; (i.e. 2:44, 7:14, 7:22 and 7:27).

I accept this as a literal prophecy and we find that its fulfillment is spoken of in the book of Revelation:

Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever. Rev 11:15

From this testimony, I believe it is undisputable that Jesus is the heir of the kingdom and we - if we suffer with Him - are fellow heirs with Him.

In regard to Thessalonians 2:5 - "This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering." - I believe that in order to obtain our inheritance of the basis of faithful service and perseverance in the faith.  In 2 Thess 1:4, we find Paul  commending the Thessalonians for their perseverance in the midst of all the persecution and afflictions they endured. I don't think this is in anyway a reference to our justification.  Take note that it doesn't say, worthy of "eternal life," but rather, worthy of "the kingdom of God. And no, Tom, - I don’t believe "that we will be accounted worthy of the kingdom by waving the filthy rags of our works of righteousness, at God."  If you are insinuating that I do, then you really haven't the faintest idea about what I've been saying.

In regard to Philippians 2:12 - "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling" - Since I find it impossible to believe that Paul is saying that we can "work out" our justification, I believe that the word "salvation" as used in this verse is best understood in one of its primary meanings of "deliverance." So
then, I believe it would mean that working out our salvation refers to our sanctification, and availing ourselves of the grace of God to deliver us from our fleshly desires - desires which lead to disobedience and sin and thus to the possibility of some severe consequences.

For we read : "For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we  escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard" (Hebrews 2:2-4).

It is obvious that the writer is speaking to believers (Yes, Verne, I do believe it can be important to know to whom the passage is addressed), therefore, he wouldn't be speaking of their justification, since these "holy brethren" (Heb 3:1) had not neglected to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation.  But the writer is exhorting them to have fear and trembling of the consequences ("a just penalty") of neglecting to obey His commands.

[continued below]

Tom,

Just a few observations before I respond to some of the statements in your last couple of posts

In trying to determine the credibility of your statements, I have to consider the fact that you remained in the Assembly for 18 years, and as you said, -  It took you years to work your way out of the Assembly, even after you knew that GG's ideas on prophecy and church polity were in error"

So when you profess to having been "a student of Church history, and therefore a student of theological develolpments, [sic] for over 40 years," perhaps you'll understand why I'm not overly impressed, since it really doesn't seem to have been very helpful in governing your building and acting on your convictions.  So when you try to convince me of your ability to interpret scripture, or to determine which interpretive method is legitimate, your inability to have recognized George's erroneous teaching on church government belies your credibility as a student of theological development. But, be that as it may, I'll gladly listen to, and consider your reasoning and opinions, as I would anyone else who disagrees with me, regardless of their credentials. Now, let me touch on some of your responses.

To me, some of your reasonings lack clarity, Tom, and I find them quite confusing and at times baffling.  Let's look at some of them.

You made the following statement:


 Tom, you have a way of making statements that I find to be so strangely worded that it makes me wonder if you are being evasive, or have just misunderstood my question.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that my question was meant to subtly imply that I believe that there is something foolish/evil/prideful in every one else’s beliefs.  That's a false and unwarranted assumption, but since you didn't seem to like my question, perhaps you would answer your own "better question" instead. 
And along with yours, let me add another of my own,

1. Which interpretive method is legitimate?
2. How does one make such a determination?


Then you stated:


  To me, it sounds as though you're confusing "opinion," with "fact," Tom. I have documented proof that my name is Charles Miller, and I haven’t found anyone who has any doubt about it. It isn't an opinion; it is a fact. Therefore, I find your analogy to be, at best, weak and totally unconvincing. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of strange reasoning doesn't do anything to enhance your credentials as a reliable exegetist of scriptural truth, your 40 years of study notwithstanding.

And, Incidentally, Tom, do you know of any theologian who wouldn’t claim that his opinions are "factually based" and are "clearly thought out?"  Yet learned ones arrive at conflicting positions on the same topic.  So what are we supposed to make of that?  No, Tom - opinions on scriptural matters must be based upon the truth of God's word. And, lest we forget, we have been given the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, and if we abide in His word, we shall know the truth. I believe that the simplest peasant from Guatemala has as much opportunity to understand the truth of God's word as does the student at the most prestigious Bible College.

And by the way, I don't mind having to look up a word with which I'm not familiar, since it's part of the learning process.  But when I looked up "tautology," I found Merriam-Webster define it as is "a needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word," and when I tried to apply this meaning to your statement, it didn't seem to be an appropriate use in your criticism, and raises a question as to whether you actually understand the meaning.  You might want to be careful that you don't give someone the wrong impression that your trying to impress them with such words.  But, let's continue on with your reasoning.

[Continued below]

Chuck---

I know your discussion is with Tom, so I will keep this short. I mentioned in an earlier post that
"scripture answers scripture". You mention below the verse that says "If we suffer with him, that
we might also be glorified with him."  Then you mentioned 1 Thessalonians 2:5 "This is a plain
indication of God's righteous judgement that you will be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God for which you indeed ARE suffering". Notice: One verse says "IF you suffer" and the other verse says you ARE suffering".

The verse you mentioned which says "IF we suffer with him, that we MIGHT also be glorified with him"--this is speaking in the present tense. But notice Romans 8:30 in contrast: "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, he also justified, and whom he justified,
THEM HE ALSO GLORIFIED". This is clearly in the past tense--God considers it an accomplished fact.

There are verses which point at OUR responsibility. But can we do it? Can we make it on our own? Of course not!! "If we suffer..." is answered by the Lord who says "for which indeed you ARE suffering".  "If you suffer with him, you MIGHT be glorified with him.." is answered with "Them he justified, them he also glorified(past tense). In effect God asks the question "If" and then gives the answer "You are and you shall".   "it is finished"  FAITHFUL IS HE WHO CALLED YOU, WHO ALSO WILL DO IT(1 Thess. 5:24).

--Joe

Joe,

Are you saying here that ALL Christians will receive ALL the same things in the life after? That a Christian’s faithfulness or lack thereof here on earth has no bearing on what they will receive after?

If this be so, why would a Christian who struggles with a particular sin bother to deal with it? Why not just succumb to it? After all Hebrews does tell us that there is some pleasure in sin. Why not just live for our self indulgence if there is no consequence in eternity for it?

I believe that I am not the only one who would like to know the answers to these questions.

Martin

Marty---

I explained this before, but I'll try again. I believe the Scriptures teach that when you are saved,
you "inherit" all things. The joy of the Christian life is realizing what is "already" yours in Christ. BUT,
this does not apply to the "rewards" that will be handed out at the judgement seat of Christ. I
believe that ALL Christians ARE overcomers. Why? We are "IN" Christ---and Christ has ALREADY
overcome. The "rewards" that Christians receive for service are not "inherited" as Christ and Heaven
are. The rewards will be given for your service to Christ. You can lose a crown, but you cannot lose
Christ or heaven. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance"--and remember whom God
has "called" he ALREADY sees as "glorified"(See Romans 8:30--argue with it all you want, but it states
this in the past tense).

Remember Jesus' parable about the workers agreeing to be paid a penny, and the one's that started
early in the day complained because the people who came later in the day were paid the same? They were angry because they felt they should be paid more, but they had agreed to a penny when they started. This to me sums up salvation--ALL Christians will receive the same in HEAVEN as an inheritance, whether they have been a Christian 30 years, or 3 days---because you CANNOT EARN
heaven.

But again, this does not apply to the "rewards" for service. These are crowns---not the inheritance which is common to all Christians. If you say "Wait, but that isn't fair!! Why should all Christians receive the same Inheritance??" you are reacting just as the workers did in the parable. I hope this explains where I am coming from a bit better.

--Joe

Joe:

I know I am butting into a conversation between you and Marty.

I just want to say.

I agree with you.

Because the Bible says that our position in Christ in regards to salvations is free.
We cannot lose our salvation.

The Bible also says we also need to build up our rewards in heaven, as we serve Christ here on earth.  In other parts, we can enter heaven with everything burned up, including hairs on our body. We can enter heaven smelling of smoke and fire, becaused we havent given our best to Christ. 
We must earn those crowns that Paul mention, so when we are presented to Christ, we will have something to give to him.

Recently in a Bible Study we were talking about this very thing.
A question popped up.  Do I want to enter heaven, presented in front of our Lord and King, with smell of smoke and fire and nothing of value to give to him? We have salvation and assurance of eternal life. But the quality of that eternal life as we are servants of Christ here on earth is our choice isnt it.

Thanks for listening .

Lenore

Tom, Verne, Joe

The contention that all believers are “overcomers raises some interesting questions.  I would ask those of you who hold to that belief to take the time to post your answers for me to consider. 

When does a believer become an overcomer?  Is it at the moment he believes on Jesus Christ for his salvation?  If so, then what happens when that one sins? (Surely you won’t contend that a believer will not sin, so what happens when he does?  Is he still an overcomer?  What if he dies before confessing his sin?  Is he no longer an overcomer?  Will he still inherit the kingdom?  Will he still inherit eternal life?

If he does not become an overcomer at the moment he believes, then when?

God bless,

Chuck

For anyone who might be interested in reading a great book, written by a theologian in a manner that helps regular folk understand some of these things, I recommend,

Be Free---commentary on Galatians,  by Warren Wiersbe.

Warren Wiersbe didn't spend any time being fooled by Geftakys, and does a fine job explaining why and how people get caught up in that sort of thing.  You might be interested to know that it is nothing new, and that it was going on in Galatia two millenia ago.

Warren Wiersbe is not a recent seminary graduate, neither is he an eclectic sort of theologian.  He is a pastor and scholar, not to mention a gifted author and teacher.  I recommend his book!

bystander

I was getting ready to post a response to the "when" of inheritance as per your original query but the above post raises a question that I would like to pose before doig so Chuck and it is this:

Do you believe that once saved, a person can loose their salvation?
Verne

Vern,

No, I don't believe that, once saved, a person can lose their salvation.

Chuck

Thanks for the response Chuck.

I will freely confess that the when of  inheritance is a dicey subject. It is very clear to even the most casual observer that much of what God intends to do in the life of his children as regards their salvation is yet future, for example the redemption of the body.
In that sense, we can obviously then speak of the matter of inheritance as being something future.


That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body…


Having given that caveat, is it possible that we are so conditioned to thinking of the believer’s inheritance in terms of some future event or events, that we entirely miss the power and reality of the earnest of the present possession?
The tense used by Paul in speaking about the believer’s inheritance in Ephesians is present perfect.

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance…Ephesians 1:11

I am going to say something about the when of inheritance that some of you will probably find just a bit radical, but I hope nonetheless will spur some serious reflection… 
Verne

Chuck,

You said:

Actually, you have a document that says your name is Charles Miller, (I assume you are speaking of a birth certificate).  You also believe that the document is valid.  It probably has the seal of the county registrar's office and such.   Your parents and relatives told you your name was Charles Miller when you were a kid.  There are probably still a few living witnesses to this.  The documents and the testimony of witnesses are objective evidence.  You believe that this is sufficient to prove that your name is, in fact, Charles Miller. ( I do not doubt that this is correct, btw.)

Beliefs, however, are not objectivly demonstrable.  You can't take them out and line them up on your desk.  Beliefs exist in our minds, not in the world of physical reality.   Opinions are a type of belief.  They are, by nature, subjective.  Therefore, the phrase "subjective opinion" is, in fact, a tautology.  It is tantamount to saying, "a subjective subjective belief."

More importantly though, the phrase, "in your opinion," or "that is just your opinion" when used to discount someone's position in a discussion simply states what everyone should already know.  In my opinion, I am Thomas Maddux.  The fact that it is a subjective belief about my identity says nothing whatsoever about its validity. 

Let's say that  in a discussion a person says, "We are saved by grace through faith," and the other person replies, "in your opinion." The respondent has said absolutely nothing about the validity of the first person's belief.  In order to discount the stated opinion, the respondent would need to give a valid argument against it.  Statements like "in your opinion" are actually a weak form of ad hominem argument.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

From the very beginning, Satan's project was to deny, discount, distort and obscure God's truth.  God said, "you will die."  Satan said, "Has God said...?" And "You surely will not die."  The great conflict of the ages is the conflict between God and satan, light and darkness, truth and the lie.

  As a result of believing Satan's lie, Adam and all mankind lost the direct apprehension of God.  As a result, God had to reveal himself to men sensibly, as in the burning bush, the pillar of fire/cloud, or in dreams, visions, inspired utterance or angels.

Satan is the god of this world, and the whole world lies in his power, (I john 5:19).  He is the Father of Lies.  He has inspired religions and philosophies in all the ages to blind men's minds to the light of the gospel, (2 Cor 4:4).  He has demonically twisted men's political systems to persecute and obliterate the testimony of God, (Eph. 5:10-12).

When a man believes the gospel of the grace of God he is born of God, (I John 5:1).  The light of God shines in his heart giving knowledge of the glory of
God in the face of Jesus Christ, (2 Cor. 4:6).  Through grace, the sinner has placed his faith in the One who overcame the world, (John 16:33), by overruling its god and his demonic hosts, (Lk 10:17-18).  He is immediately "rescued from the domain, (rule) of darkness" and transferred to the victor's kingdom, (Col. 1:12-14).  He is now redeemed, his sins are forgiven, and he is "qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints in light", (Col. 1:12).

So, saving faith, producing a new man who is "born of God", is the victory that overcomes the world. "Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God."   Overcoming the world does not mean conquering its kingdoms or the flesh.  It means becoming one with the Victor.

Having said this, let me point out that the Bible does not call anyone an "overcomer".  Rather, it speaks of individuals or groups overcoming the world, the evil one, their persecutors, etc.   It is not the name of a class of people.  The teaching is that in Christ, we overcome.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Joe, In your post to Marty, you wrote:


And we also read: 

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.       Ephesians 2:1-6

And

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me.       Galatians 2:20

Joe, would you say that that you have been physically crucified with Christ and that you are now seated with Him in the heavenly places?
If you do, then I won't venture into further discussion with you about overcomers.  But I don't think you do, Joe, and if not, what do believe Paul meant for us to understand by these verses?

Chuck

Word!
Verne

To the degree that God gives some control of the course of events in the progress of space-time to His creatures, on the question of the when of inheritance, let me pose this stunning question:

When do you want to inherit?

Someone has stated that inheritance is a matter of authority and there is some truth to that.
I would argue that inheritance is more importantly a matter of power...
Why do I make what might seem a minor distinction?
Simple - it is entirely possible to have authority, yet lack power.
If you doubt thte truth of this statement, just take a look at the vast majority of Christian marriages today. Some of you will get my subtle drift on this and it has nothing to do with chauvinism - my own wife happens to be my intellectual superior :)
There is no question that while all believers are saved the same way- by grace through faith, not all believers live the same way.

When do you want to inherit?

How is it that when we look at some of our brethren, we get the distinct sense that they must know something that we don't?
I still remember having the Alliance pastor from Mali, Maurice Guindo as a guest in my home and thinking that this man reminded more of the Lord Jesus Christ than anyone I had ever met.
I watchd the incredible gentleness of spirit with which he interacted with my precious daughters and remember thinking: I would like to be like that...

Why is it that so many of us have no expectation of enjoyment of inheritance in the present life, and our view of the walk of faith is merely fearful prospect of what we might loose at some future date?

When do you want to inherit?!

Is it possible that God in His remarkable grace and loving-kindness has made it possible that in some respects, the when of inheritance depends entirely upon you?!

I can hear it now, Whoa.... Nelly!

As a couple of comedians used to say ( I think it was Hans and Franz):

Hear me now and believe me later...!   :)

If it is indeed possible for us to experience and enjoy inheritance in the here and now, then why don't we? What's up with that??!

In my humble opinon, so many us of think and live like spiritual indigents
because:
1. we do not know how to eat (or drink) and
2. we do not know how to fight...
Verne

Next ...nourishment and warfare....

Verne,

A couple thoughts regarding inheritance.  I posted on SWTE in order to keep the continuity of the thread on SWTE.  http://www.soaringwiththeeagles.com/yabbse/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=437;start=0#msg1995

Sondra

Hi Sondra:
Please forgive me if you thought my reference to authority in marriage was a reference to the issue of divorce and remarriage - that was the farthest thing from my mind actually.
I was talking about the fact that I personally believe that God wants men to take the spiritual lead in their families, yet is is very often more common to see wives being the better example in this regard.
I believe that Christian men have God-given authority to set a high standard for their families yet many fail to do so. Setting a godly example is not just a matter of having the authority to do so. Husbands, parents, pastors and presidents clearly all have it. The fact that we so often fail to do so is what I was referring to in my distinction between authority and power.
There is not a Christian man alive who will not tell you that whatever perceived authority he has means absolutely nothing apart from the enabling power of the Spirit of God to be the kind of man God wants him to be.

Interesting points about inheritance. The issue of rewards is a complex one and I agree that there does appear to be designated ranks as mentioned by Paul in in his discussion about resurrection glory. It is a topic I have not done much study on but there is no question that rewards are not a given. I do distinguish them from the matter of our inheritance as God's children.
Verne

Is that a fact?!! ;D

In my opinion, yes.    ;)

Thomas Maddux

When instructing His disciples as to the manner in which to pray (Mt.6:9-13), Jesus closes His prayer with this declaration to the Father: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.  It is reasonable to consider these words in terms of
the kingdom = the authority to rule (the throne);
the power = the capability to exercise that authority (the scepter);
the glory = the majesty of kingship (the crown).
Of course, unless one is reading the Geneva Bible or the KJV, these points may be missed  ;), so the same three aspects of God's reigning are emphasized in other passages such as 1 Pet.4 ;11 and Rev.1:6.

al

Yep! The synthesis of the first and second results in the third, only under divine aegis...
Some philosopher said authority without power is pathetic, and power without restraint is terrifying...
Verne

Tom,

You wrote:


I’ll accept your explanation , Tom, and apologize for my lack of understanding your reasoning. 

Now, if I may revert back to the questions I previosly posed, I’d like to hear from you and others who believe that every believer is an overcomer.

In my opinion, the whole thrust of what Jesus was conveying to the churches was tantamount to saying, “Since I have overcome the world, you who are abiding in Me and in My word are now able to overcome temptation and sin in your life.  To him who does overcome, I will grant certain privileges and rewards.   But take heed to the warnings and exhortations I am giving you so that you don’t miss out on these promises.”

So, it is my opinion that not every believer is going to live an overcoming life. But to those of you who believe differently, I’m willing to consider your thoughts and answers to these questions.

(1)When does a believer become an overcomer?  Is it at the moment he believes on Jesus Christ for his salvation? 
(2)If so, then what happens when that one sins? (Surely you won’t contend that a believer will not sin, so what happens when he does?  Is he still an overcomer? 
(3) What if he dies before confessing his sin?  Is he no longer an overcomer? 
(4) Will he still inherit the kingdom? 
(5) Will he still inherit eternal life?
(6) If he does not become an overcomer at the moment he believes, then when?

God bless,

Chuck

Chuck---

No--I don't believe I am physically crucified with Christ, or at this present moment seated
in the Heavenlies. But, IN GOD'S EYES I am already there with him. I AM seated with Christ
in the Heavenlies because the end and the beginning are the same with the Lord.

"If any man be IN CHRIST he IS a new creation, old things have passed away, behold ALL
THINGS HAVE BECOME NEW"(2 Cor 5:17). There is a tendency on our part to read this
verse and think "OK, we have been given the power to become something new, we just
have to work at it faithfully". But does the verse say we will slowly change into something
new, or that WE ALREADY ARE new? Does the verse teach that we are pigs slowly being
turned into sheep, or that we WERE pigs who have been turned into sheep in an instant?
And once a sheep, can you be anything else? No--you are always a sheep.

It says if any many be in Christ he "IS" a new creation. We may still feel like pigs because of our
failings and sins, but the Bible says we ARE sheep, and completely new creatures. That is how GOD SEES US. And according to the Bible that is WHO WE ARE IN CHRIST. When the Bible says "we HAVE OBTAINED an Inheritance" do I believe it and rejoice? Or do I want to change the meaning into something that will fit my theology? False teachers like to twist obvious meanings of verses to fit their theology, and ruin the "simplicity that is in Christ". False teachers bring people into bondage and fear, and into a "works mentality". But "perfect love casts out all fear".

The thief on the cross had no time to "work out his salvation with fear and trembling", he had no time to "earn a crown", yet Jesus said "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise". In the Assembly "fatihfulness" to us meant many meetings, total days of worship, much evangelism, stewardships, etc. etc.---these things were supposed to be "forming us into the image of Christ", and such "faithfulness" would one day be rewarded. There was an "elitism" attached to all of this, and a feeling we were doing more, and thus were far more faithful than other Christians.

I still say that when one has a mentality that one might "lose out" he will work hard alright, he'll slave on in fear, and fill his days with anything that will keep him from falling. His "faithfulness" will all be based on fear of failure, and of doors being shut.  But when one knows he is "saved to the uttermost", "Has obtained an inheritance", is "more than a conqueror in Christ" he will rejoice in thankfulness, and run full force towards the Lord who loves him so much. "There is no condemnation
to those who are in Christ Jesus". It is the Lord himself pushing us towards "crowns" because he doens't want anyone to come up short. He is not some being standing there with a hammer over your head saying "You'd better be faithful or you might lose out" or "Look out or I might just shut the door on you!!"   NO---he is like the faithful loving father on the sidelines of a race shouting "Go Joe Go!! Remember, I love you and I'm always with you--I will never leave you nor forsake you--keep running Joe!!!"  And you know what? Whether I come in first, or come in last he STILL LOVES ME with all of his heart, just like any loving father who has children and wants the best for them.

I believe this is the God of the Bible.

--Joe

A couple of pennies' worth:

You can pretty much count on this:  Anyone who is preoccupied with overcoming, rewards and the like is surely missing the mark (and all that goes with it) by a wide margin...  Mt.10:39, Rom.12:1-2, Col.3:1-2.

al

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Chuck,

You asked me these questions:

(1)When does a believer become an overcomer?  Is it at the moment he believes on Jesus Christ for his salvation? 
(2)If so, then what happens when that one sins? (Surely you won’t contend that a believer will not sin, so what happens when he does?  Is he still an overcomer? 
(3) What if he dies before confessing his sin?  Is he no longer an overcomer? 
(4) Will he still inherit the kingdom? 
(5) Will he still inherit eternal life?
(6) If he does not become an overcomer at the moment he believes, then when?

In light of the first question about becoming an overcomer, my answer would be that the Bible never calls anyone an overcomer.  The word simply does not occur in scripture.  More importantly, I have never found the concept either.  It doesn’t show up in the places that one would expect to find it. 

An example would be Matthew 25:31-46.  The sheep are called “the righteous”, (V.37), they inherit the kingdom, (V34), and obtain eternal life, (V46).  The goats, (those on the left), are cursed, expelled from God’s presence, sent to eternal fire with the Devil and his angels, (V41). 

But where are the Shoats and Geep?  Those who are righteous like the sheep, but behaved like the goats?  No mention.  In addition, where is the place where they will spend eternity?  No mention.  Instead, the issues are being in God’s presence or expulsion from it, inheritance of the kingdom or entry into the lake of fire, possession of eternal life or receiving eternal punishment.  Two classes of people, not three.

In addition, this observation is in harmony with the Biblical doctrine of justification.  Justification is a legal declaration of righteousness by God himself.  We do not obtain justification by works, we obtain it by faith.  There are two aspects to justification.  Forgiveness of sin and imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

In the OT David said,
“Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him, (Rom. 4:7-8)”.

This is in keeping with the New Covenant that God has made, and that includes us, (Eph. 3:2-6).  A key provision of this covenant is that, “I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more,” (Heb. 8:12).  In his high priestly ministry in heaven, Christ himself is the “mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance”, (Heb. 8:15).  Right now, Jesus himself is covering your sins with his blood.

This makes us forgiven.  As blessed as that is, there is more.  God sees us as righteous!  That is pure grace.  The scriptures give abundant testimony to this.

1. Rom. 4:3 “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

2. Rom. 4:6 “David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.”

3. Isa 61:10 “I delight greatly in the Lord; my soul rejoices in my God.  For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness.” 

4. Rom. 5:19 “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man, the many will be made righteous.” 

5. Phil 3:9 “…not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”

And so on, and on, and on…there are many other scriptures that express this truth.  And remember, Chuck, the sheep that inherit the kingdom…are the righteous!  Remember, they have no consciousness of having served Christ…they just lived like true disciples.   

Now here is a question.  Did they do so perfectly?  Did they ever sin?  You bet!  “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, (I John 1:8.  Now one could say, “but you have to confess your sins to be forgiven…” Yes and no.  In matters pertaining to justification, such as eternal life, inheriting the kingdom, and reigning with Christ, no.  The reason for this is that God has already imputed to us the righteousness of Christ himself!  In his ministry as the High Priest mediator of the New Covenant he continually cleanses us from sin, (Eph. 5:25-30, keeping us undefiled.  How else could Paul have promised the most problem ridden believers in the New Testament that, “He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (I Cor. 1:8. 

In matters pertaining to fellowship with God, and with others, yes.  We cannot come to God in prayer with a load of sin and rebellion on our consciences.  To the question, “but what if someone refuses to repent?”, I would reply, a repentant heart is a characteristic of being a true Christian.

So, Chuck, I agree that there are rewards for faithful service according to talents received.  But the rewards do not include forgiveness, justification unto righteousness, inheriting, or entering into eternal life.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer.

Tom,

I asked the following questions:

(1) When does a believer become an overcomer?  Is it at the moment he believes on Jesus Christ for his salvation? 
(2) If so, then what happens when that one sins? (Surely you won’t contend that a believer will not sin, so what happens when he does?  Is he still an overcomerr? 
(3) What if he dies before confessing his sin?  Is he no longer an overcomer? 
(4) Will he still inherit the kingdom? 
(5) Will he still inherit eternal life?
(6) If he does not become an overcomer at the moment he believes, then when?

You responded:


And in case you’ve forgotten, Tom, you were the first to describe it as  “Overcoming" teaching in your post #42. on October 31st.  And, please, don't bring up George Geftakys' teaching.  If you want to debate George and his teaching, have at it, but I'm really not interested.  So, O.K., let me rephrase my questions:

In reference to Revelation 2:1 to  3:22:

(1) When does a believer become one "who overcomes?”  Is it at the moment he believes on Jesus Christ for his salvation? 
(2) If so, then what happens when that one sins? (Surely you won’t contend that a believer will not sin, so what happens when he does?  Is he still  one "who overcomes?" 
(3) What if he dies before confessing his sin?  Is he no longer one "who overcomes?” 
(4) Will he still inherit the kingdom?  (5) Will he still inherit eternal life?
(6) If he does not become one "who overcomes” at the moment he believes, then when?

God bless,

Chuck

It is certainly helpful to look at the way the Spirit of God has employed the word that the Lord Jesus uses here in other portions of Scripture. I would again like caution against failiure to recognise the critical matter of relationship in any discussion of even an ability to respond to the commands of God.
The danger with the way the subject of "overcoming" is often presented is that it tends to lead one to imagine that this is a privilege reserved for a select few.
Is it?
The apostle John contends in 1 John 5:4

 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

I am  not prepared to argue that the "overcoming" that Christ is referring to is any different from the one John references.
Christ is not preaching another gospel in these revelation exhortations, or somehow invoking some new standard. We overcome the same way we are saved - by faith!
Verne

Chuck,

Regarding my post #42, here it is:
*****************************************************************************************************************
The "Overcomer Teaching" that you have espoused above is, of course, familiar to all of us who have a PB or assembly background.  IMHO, it suffers from several probems.  So I will make a few comments.

I rejected this teaching many years ago.  Here, briefly stated, are a few of the reasons I did so:

1. These men hold a very low view of the forensic theory of justification.  (I know they would deny this, but that is what I see in their position.)  The forensic view explains justification in legal terms.  We are guilty of sin.  A holy God must punish sin.  Christ bore the full punishment for our sins on the cross.  The forgiveness purchased by Christ is applied to us when we believe, resulting in our "justification by faith alone."

Some of these teachers attempt to maintain both salvation by faith alone and also the conditional inheritance teaching by saying, "All your sins before salvation are forgiven when you are justified, but then you must confess all your sins and serve God zealously in order to receive a full reward."  In other words, Jesus made the down payment but you must make all the other payments. 

This leads them to believe that when a Christian dies and goes to be with the Lord, his sins are both forgiven and not forgiven.     Some of them throw the Undercomer into the lake of fire for a thousand years as a sort of "Protestant purgatory".  All of them exclude the Undercomer from the kingdom, consigned to "outer darkness" forever.   Then some leave the Undercomer on the earth while the Overcomers enjoy heaven with Christ.  For them, the blessed promise of "absent from the body, present with the Lord," is nothing but a warning of being judged with a definite possibility of being booted out!!

It reminds me of an insurance policy that "gives it to you in the large print, and takes it away from you in the fine print."

This is very similar to Roman Catholic teaching on confession.  Martin Luther used to drive his confessors nuts with his constant anxiety attempting to confess every possible sin so that he would escape the Catholic purgatory.  Same idea.

The great Reformation proclamation of Sola Fide  was his response to this.

2. These men also hold a very low view of the High Priestly Ministry of Jesus.  The purpose of his ministry in heaven is to "bring many sons to glory", which btw, is part of salvation, (Hebrews 2:10-11).  This is what Paul was speaking of when he wrote:

"For those God forknew he also predestined to by conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called; those he called he also justifed; those he justified he also glorified," (Romans 8:29-30).

To deny that this is the destiny of all the saved is to deny the efficacy of Christ's ministry in heaven!  It is tantamount to saying that he regularly fails in what he attempts to do.  Or worse, you must actually enable him to complete his minstry by your own success at obeying the rules, ie, by your own works. 

However, the apostle Paul told us that, "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-how will he not also, along with him
graciously give us all things, (Romans 8:32).  Sorry, Overcomer friends, it is all in Christ, and it is all by grace.

3. Now this does raise some questiions about all those warnings....and I will address that in my next post, God willing.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer
 
 ***************************************************************************************************************

If you will notice, I called it the "Overcomer teaching", not the "Overcoming teaching".  Since the teaching is about a purported class of "Overcomers" that seems, to me, to be an appropriate name to call it.

Regarding George Geftaky's ideas on the matter, when I checked this out many years ago he was teaching exactly what G.H. Lang taught.  He preached through Lang's books, claiming it came from his own study.  It has been many years since I read those, so I wouldn't try to repeat it today.  GG did teach that Christians can end up in the lake of fire.  The reasoning that kicks believers out of the kingdom seems to lead there, although I know that Dillow denies it.

As to the rephrased questions, I would just say that if the doctrine of justification by faith alone that was taught by the reformers and is held by every protestant body I ever heard of is true....your questions are not really necessary.  However, here is a comment about #2.

When a Christian sins it is covered by the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.  When God looks at the sinning Christian, he sees him as in Christ.  Christ's righteousness has been imputed to the saved individual, and God sees him as righteous.

Legalism always tries to "dumb sin down" to a list of prohibited observable actions.  Then the legalist can just keep the rules on his list and imagine he is ok, (and usually that everyone else is not ok).  But this is a delusion.  God's standard is his holiness.  So unless you know someone who walks in the holiness of God 24/7/365 for his entire Christian life, the "overcomer" kingdom will be empty of inhabitants.  The idea that we can recover our standing by confession of sin doesn't work.  One little shred of forgetfulness.....and bye bye kingdom.

The appears to me to be exactly the same reasoning the Catholics use about being in a "state of grace" or a "state of sin".

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

The thing that I find curious about the overcomer teaching is whether or not those who espouse it consider themselves to be in that category. James teaching on faith and works notwithstanding, how does one know when his faith had indeed produced work that proves the former exists?
Am I the only one that has concluded that the case James is making is simply that true faith cannot exist apart from its evidence?
If that is the case, why should anyone we consider a child of God, in whom faith by definition is presumptive, be consiered the target of the admonition that James is delivering?
I would be ashamed to consider myself, or to be considered by anyone else an overcomer.
My walk with the dear Lord Jesus Christ over all these years has shown me with increasing clarity what a wrteched sinner I am.
Overcomer??!!
My plea is that God would be merciful to me a sinner.... :'(
Verne

You are not alone, Brother.  John, throughout his first epistle, states in different words much the same case as does James.  Unless I am misreading him, Tom's query about the "Stoats and Geep" was tongue-in-cheek testimony to his belief that all who abide in the Vine bear fruit, borne out by much of his other postings. (Tom?)


James' (and John's) cautioning seems twofold:  First that those among  the apparent church who trust in their self-righteous pretense of piety (talking the talk, but not walking the walk) wake up and repent, calling upon the Lord's mercy and grace to grant them true conversion.  Second, that those who in any way look up to members of the former class would also awaken to a consciousness that the fruit must bear witness of the Seed (Christ will be seen in the behavior of the redeemed).

Needless to say, my awareness of James' and John's teachings on this, as well as our Lord's own words in the gospels, was sadly lacking in my former years.


Amen.  Concurrently, we are entitled to genuinely rejoice that He has been merciful.  Such true rejoicing (unlike the assy version) can only flourish within our deep humility and grateful thanksgiving.

al

I understand the motivation of those who insist that the Christian should bear fruit.
The real issue is how and why this happens, or does not.
This discussion is I believe  of great importance because it is dealing with what I think were the fatal flaws of the kind of indoctrination we were exposed to under Geftakys.
You will inevitably desscend into the most destructive kind of legalism whenever you try to focus the attention of the child of God on the doing as oppposed to the being.
Look at all of Paul's epistles and the way in which he consistently makes his case.

It is a relentless tour de force of if(since), then propositions!

God's people are desperately in need of sound and edifying instruction in the ways of growing, a process which will in every case result in good works. We must be extremely careful not to put the cart before the horse. This discussion is really encouraging for we are dealing here with the very fundamentals of the faith. Carry on!
Verne

Brethren,

I inasmuch as I don’t like to selectively choose to answer which rebuttal, or which part of a rebuttal, I will answer, I am finding it somewhat overwhelming to try to respond in totality to every post that is either directly or indirectly aimed at refuting what I believe (or what some seem to assume I believe), so I thought it might be more profitable for me to take time to consider your responses and determine if I am in error in some of my beliefs, and most importantly, to reflect upon my  own walk with the Lord. 

For in all of this, it has occurred to me that, somewhere there is a believer who is sitting in a cold dark prison, starved and beaten, suffering and tormented, forgotten by many of his or her brothers and sisters and yet rejoicing in the inner knowledge that the Lord Jesus is with Him and will help to sustain him in his ordeal.  He may not  know much about the theological arguments for justification, sanctification, glorification, predestination, overcomers, methods of interpretation, etc., etc. What He does know to the very depth of his soul and spirit is that Jesus died so that he might have his sins forgiven and rose again so that he might have eternal life, and that some day he will be with Him in heaven.  Nothing that his tormentors do to him deters him from testifying to the love of Christ to others, and nothing compares to the joy he experiences when he guides another hopeless sinner to receive Jesus as his Savior.

Inadvertently he accomplishes the ideologues of the Calvinist, the Arminian, and the Overcomer in that he perseveres to the end; he does nothing to lose his salvation; and he overcomes in the world - all the while being oblivious to the fact that he is doing so.  Pray for him, but don’t pity him, for his reward in heaven is great (Matt 5:12) and his is the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:10).  Pray not for his release or relief from his persecution, but pray that he will continue to accept whatever is God’s will for his life,  and that he would remain a good witness for Christ in his ordeal. 

I have also come to realize that I fall far short of living an overcoming life and I’m asking the Lord to teach me how to ”build my house upon the rock” (Matt 24).  That means hearing His words and acting upon them, and what better way to begin than to concentrate on His teaching from His sermon on the mount.  Perhaps, by His grace, I may again do the things I did at first and re-kindle that first love.  Please pray for me.

So, I’ll  refrain from further debate about “overcoming” and try to concentrate on being a doer of the word instead of just a hearer. I will share thoughts from time to time and maybe pose a question or two; not to back anyone into a corner on what they believe, but to reap the benefit of others knowledge, remembering what Paul said,  “The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God” (Romans 14:22).

God bless,

Chuck Miller

Chuck----

Very well put--I appreciate your post very much, and your sincerity. From the
direction your posts seemed to be going I thought you were espousing "overcomer"
theology, but as you have stated, perhaps that wasn't the case.

God bless you Chuck.

--Joe

In my humble opinion, there is defnitely a case to be made that the vast majority of us remain spiritual infants far longer than we should. I consider the kinds of issues Chuck is raising to be in the category of "strong meat"
His core point on the need to live in a manner that glorifies God is very well taken.
I fear a lot of us have not had our senses sufficiently excercised... :)
Verne

In a conversation with Betty years ago I was questioning her on "works."  Her perspective was one of outward works it seemed to me.  I was sick at the time and made the point that it would seem to me that if God has given equal opportunity to all to achieve the perfected Love of 1 Cor 13, shouldn't a quadrapelegic be able to achieve perfected love in Christ?  My point is not Betty's response, but I think a lot of former Assembly members can relate. 

Not all can serve the man in prison except to pray.  Martyrdom is to die in prisons, but I don't believe the bars need to be made of steel necessarily.  My heart surely goes out to all of God's loving, dying people who are suffering under a terrible trial or perhaps several at the same time, but to win the crown means great suffering and that of lonliness is often the breaking straw.

Sondra

 [Continued from above]

YOU WROTE: 
 Good point, Joe, but first consider that Jesus couldn’t have been saying “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise," since He, Himself didn’t rise until the third day.  One Bible scholar suggests :

“The word “verily” points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said.  The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word “today” with “I say.”  “Verily, I say unto thee this day.”  This day, when all seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die.  This day, I say to thee, “Thou shalt be with Me in paradise. “

That certainly makes more sense to me - and note that Jesus didn’t mention earning a crown or rewards or anything else except the promise to the man that he was going to be with Him in paradise.

YOU WROTE: 
All of these externals may give an appearance of holiness, but don’t reflect the feelings of the heart and did nothing to form anyone into the image of Christ.  Rewards for this type of “faithfulness?”  No, I don’t think so, Joe and neither do you.  So don’t judge anyone else’s admonition to holiness with your Assembly experience.

YOU WROTE:

 I remember going out sharing in the parks in Omaha, after the Sunday morning meeting.  I really didn’t have my heart in it, but it was something that we were all expected to do, especially, the Leading Brothers.

I also remember spending 30 days with my son-in-law, Chuck Vanasse, in Hungary right after the wall came down.  It was a joyous time of sharing and prayer with nothing to motivate us except the love of Christ and the desire to share that love with ones who didn‘t know Him.  The greatest reward was to feel His pleasure, and we looked forward to each coming day when we could go out again.   

YOU WROTE:
 I believe there is a reason for Paul specifying, “those who are ‘IN’ Christ Jesus,” otherwise, why would Paul say ”But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned“ (Gal 2:11).  Was Peter “in Christ” when he hypocritically withdrew from the Gentiles.

I believe the “condemnation” of which Paul speaks of in Romans 8:1 is the same as Paul used in (Gal 2:11) - and in the same sense that James used  “judgement” in reference to teachers -  “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1)


YOU CONTINUE:   

 Right, Joe, but if we don’t bother to train, or if we don’t put forth our best effort, is He going to say, “Well done thou good and faithful servant?“  And wasn’t He also urging on those carnal Christians in Corinth; yet not all responded.  And didn’t He still love those who were weak and sick, and those whom He took in death?   And regarding the immoral man in the church (1 Cor 5: 1)  didn’t Paul say “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5:5).   I’ll admit that I don’t know exactly what that’s all about,  but it seems to me that Paul is indicating that even this immoral man could be saved.

Anyway, if anyone has a different view on this, I’m still reading the BB.

God bless,

Chuck

Joe, 

YOU WROTE:
Perhaps, like Joe, some of you may have gotten a wrong impression from my last post on the board.  Call it “overcomer” theology, or what you will, I don’t believe all believers will heed the warnings or admonitions that Jesus gave in His messages to the seven churches (Rev 2:1 to 3:22) and will suffer consequences.

I don‘t feel the need to always get in the last word, but in light of Joe’s statement, I‘ll address his post to me from November 21st.   

YOU WROTE:

Then the question I have, Joe, is -“Did not God also see the brethren at Corinth “seated with Him in the heavenlies,” and didn’t He see them as those who “overcome“?“  Yet Paul said,

“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?“(1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Vines Expository Dictionary defines carnal (sarkikos) as follows:

from sarx, "flesh," signifies (a) "having the nature of flesh," i.e., sensual, controlled by animal appetites, governed by human nature, instead of by the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 3:3 (for ver. 1, see below; same mss. have it in ver. 4); having its seat in the animal nature, or excited by it, 1 Pet. 2:11, "fleshly," or as the equivalent of "human," with the added idea of weakness, figuratively of the weapons of spiritual warfare, "of the flesh" (AV, "carnal"), 2 Cor. 10:4; or with the idea of unspirituality, of human wisdom, "fleshly," 2 Cor. 1:12; (b) "pertaining to the flesh" (i.e., the body), Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11.

I don’t believe we could say that they were being governed by the Spirit of God or that the were IN CHRIST, even though they were brethren.  Nor do I believe, Joe, that they were “pigs slowly being turned into sheep.”   But we know that His sheep can go astray (Matt 18:12)  and that "When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice"(John 10:4).  Yet we see that some of His sheep followed the voice of another (i.e. George Geftakys) even though John said, "A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." (John 10:5).

YOU WROTE: 
Again, Joe, I notice it says “IF any man is IN CHRIST.”   Why would Paul put in the “if?“  I don’t believe that every believer is constantly IN CHRIST.  I find that I still have to battle some of the “old things” while there are some that I have gotten victory over.  However, I don’t want to get the false notion that I can’t slip back into some of those “old things” I used to do.  When Christians attend  “R“ rated movies,  are they “in Christ” when they do?  Paul said:

“Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:25-27)

From what was Paul concerned about being disqualified?
[Continued below]

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong on this this, but your line of reasoning poses some real difficulty as to how we should interpret Paul's use of this same expression in 2 Corinthians 5:17.
The subjunctive mood is tricky as the English does not always make it clear if one is talking about the conditional if, or the resultant since. Either way, if you apply your understanding of "in Christ" to  2 Corinthians 5: 17, you can see that it raises some weighty questions...good points though...
Verne

p.s one of the things that has had a profound influence on my own view of my sin is an increasing awareness that the Spirit of God is present with me in all circumstances...

Chuck----

I won't reply to everything in your post, but in response to your questions about
2 Cor. 5:17, you said that a person isn't "in Christ" if they fall into old sins. But ask
yourself what the verse says--"If any man be "in Christ" he is a new CREATION"--now,
if a person fails and falls into sin, do they need to be CREATED again anew? Of course
not!! A new CREATION is a brand new thing!! To be "in Christ" is to be born-again. And
once you are born-again, you cannot become unborn once again. You will always be
"In Christ" from that point on--God sees you in his son "positionally".

A Christian can and will sin. A Christian can backslide into old things and forget, as Peter
mentions, that "he was cleansed from his old sins". But he will still be "in Christ"--but will
be chastened by God if he truly is born-again and a child of God. The test is whether a
person can backslide and be comfortable there--if yes, he isn't a child of God. A child of
God can fall miserably, but there will always be something inside(The Holy Spirit) convicting,
and calling and making that person miserable until they return to him.

The prodigal son is a good example of this. Did the Prodigal Son stop being a son (or "out of the
family") for straying away? Did the Father see him as no longer "in the family"? No--he ran and
embraced him immediately. In like manner no Christian is "out of Christ" because they stray. They
are eternally saved--but will be severely chastened for their turning away--and chastened in love.
You cannot be "in" and "out" of Christ and created and recreated again. You are positionally a mem-
ber of God's family forever.

Concerning the thief on the cross, Jesus did not say "verily I say unto you today, thou shalt be with
me in paradise"--he said "Verily I say unto you, Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise"---and this is why: When Jesus died he descended to preach to those below in Hades. There were two sections to Hades--Sheol(Hell) and Paradise--these were separated by a great gulf(see the story of Lazarus and the rich man). Jesus entered the Paradise section and told the good news---so the very day he
died he did go to Paradise, and so did the thief. The thief was most likely the last man to enter that section of Hades before it was eternally closed forever. I point this out because some teachers have tried to manipulate the passage to have Jesus say "I say unto you today" to refute the teaching that one immediately appears before God---they are teachers of "soul sleep" and want to say the thief will "one day" be in Paradise---but that is not the true teaching of the verse. The thief was immediately in Paradise(the paradise section of Hades) with Jesus after he died.

Cephas wasn't "out of Christ" when Paul confronted him. Peter "stood condemned" but not in any eternal
sense, but in a moral and spiritual sense. Again, Scripturally, a man cannot be "in" and "out" of Christ evey time he slips up or falls. "There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" is an eternal proclamation!! Once you are "in Christ" you are justified before the Lord forever through the righteousness
of Jesus Christ. You are "positionally" justified before God and no one can condemn you(see all of Romans 8--who can separate us from the Love of God? Nothing can--not even ourselves!!).

To hold a position that one is "in Christ" when he is faithful, but "out of Christ" if one falls puts righteousness
and justification into our hands, and dependent on US. The Bible simply does not teach this. Our righteousness and justifiaction are "of God"--whom he declares righteous IS righteous. As Tom mentioned, the Bible calls out (2) classes of people: The righteous and the unrighteous(see Daniel when he speaks of judgement day). The righteous are those who have been eternally justified before God, and are "in Christ"--the unrighteous are those who refuse the Gospel and are "out of Christ".  Can one be declared righteous by God and then undo this through his own power? The Bible says "No one can take them out of my Father's hand".

--Joe

Ok, let me get this straight: Jane Christian, walks up to the movie ticket booth "in Christ," but once she purchases a ticket for an R-rated movie, WHAM! she is "out of Christ"?

Falling in-and-out of Christ is a pretty scary assertion to make, especially when being "in" or "out" is determined by such (arbitrary) measures  as which movies are/are not "in-Christ" appropriate.

Besides which, is the verse Chuck (partially) quoted REALLY addressing the issue of our supposed conditional position in Christ?

Let us try a different angle besides the question of, “Am I in Christ or not in Christ.”  Consider Chuck’s questions through the lens of the reality that the apostle Paul teaches in Gal. 5, “Am I in the Spirit… or in the flesh at this moment?”  If I am in the flesh in this moment, is there any possibility that this moment shall be reviewed by Christ the Consuming Fire at His Judgment Seat?  Not so much for what I did perhaps, because the Blood shall remove my fleshly moments, but for what I was supposed to be doing when I instead gave into the flesh.  Was there something else that I should have been doing that could have been recompensed with His, “Well done, good and faithful servant?”

“To him that knows to go good and does it not, to him it is sin” (Jam. 4:17).

“So run, that you may obtain” (I Cor. 9).

Rick

As in the physical creation, God's spiritual work in redemption proceeds in stages.
There is evening, and morning in both.
In both, the work is advanced by the power of God's Word, not by effort of the creature.
In both the ultimate purpose is the creation of God's image - this is God's work!

A preoccupation with rewards, or loss of them, which after all is the outcome of our work, is to entirely miss the larger issue.
If we pay attention to God's work, the question of rewards (our work) becomes moot.
What I said will go right past a lot of you, for some the lights will go on...I hope...

God did not redeem so we could glory in rewards, He redeemed us so we could be conformed to the image of His Son!

Verne

p.s George and his ilk have served too many with a pot of fear-inducing and poisonous stew...

Rick,

You said:
With great interest I have followed the discussion of inheritance and rewards on various threads of this bulletin board.  The discussions have prompted me to dig out my copy of Joseph Dillow’s THE REIGN OF THE SERVANT KINGS - A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man.  I heartily recommend reading this book, and, for those of us who have been given the responsibility of teaching in the body of Christ, even re-reading some chapters from time to time.  I think we all agree that when the Lord judges his people that there are going to be different rewards for grateful and faithful service.  In Dillow’s 650-page book I believe he does a thorough job teaching from the scriptures two main truths: 1) That if one has truly been born into God’s family through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, then he shall always be in God’s family, but 2), a child of God can still suffer negative rewards both in this age and at the beginning of the age to come at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

I am familiar with Dillow’s book, and find that there are some interesting insights in about several scriptures.  However, I would not recommend it to anyone for any positive purpose.  It is rife with circular reasoning, theological speculation, attempts to use analogies to “prove”  interpretations, and appeals to fine points of Greek as a method to avoid the clear meaning of texts that don’t fit into his scheme.  Thankfully, most folks will not be willing to endure all 605 pages of text as he spins his theories out in detail.  The book is, IMHO, mind numbing.

Having said that, I must go further.  When I read Chapter 23, entitled “Negative Judgement and the Believer”, I was quite plainly shocked and alarmed.  It will take a few paragraphs to explain what I mean.

Here is the statement that first caused my sense of alarm, and further statements that strengthened that feeling:

1.  “The atonement must therefore be a satisfaction for the sins of all men without exception.” (p.540)

2. “…the atonement must be a satisfaction for sin in a special sense.” (p.541).

At this point I was saying to myself, “Can he really mean what I think he means?”  He then goes on to convince me that he does.

3. Describing the ideas of a theologian named Dabney, he says, “He argues that the satisfaction of Christ does not obligate God to cancel our whole indebtedness, precisely the view of this writer. His acceptance of Christ’s death as a legal satisfaction ‘was, on His part, an act of pure grace; and therefore the acceptance acquits us just so far as, and no farther than God is pleased to allow it.’ “. (p.541)

I became alarmed because I recognized what he was teaching.  He confirms this over the next several pages. 

Earlier in this discussion I stated that anyone holding the Overcomer teaching must have a “low view of the forensic theory of Christ’s atonement, ie, that Christ bore the punishment for our sins and that our account is “reckoned” clear by God when we believe, who subsequently imputes the righteousness of Christ to us.  From then on we have a standing with God as possessing Christ’s righteousness.  All our sins are forgiven when we enter heaven.

I was wrong.  Dillow does not have a low view of this crucial doctrine. He has rejected it outright!   :o In its place, he has resurrected the medieval Catholic speculations known as the “Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement”.


According to this theory, taught by speculative Catholic theologians such as Anselm of Canturbury, (1033-1109AD), God, the great sovereign of the universe, has been “offended” by man’s sin.  Now these folks understood just how much trouble you could get into if you offended a king or other high ranking official.  These folks were powerful and could do terrible things to you if they wished to.  God, in this view, condemns man because his honor is offended. 

The way to get back into a king’s, or in this case God’s, good graces is to make up for the offence, and then to go beyond the damage you did to the king and do something really great for him.  He will then have received sufficient “satisfaction” to restore you to favor to the degree he wishes to do so.  This is the meaning that this theory places upon Christ's work upon the cross.  He satisfied God's offended honor when we could not do so.

The reformers of the 16th century rejected this teaching and insisted upon a return to Apostolic and Biblical theology.  The Catholic Church rejected their pleas, and you know what happened.  It was the cries of “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”, (Scripture alone and faith alone), that were the battlecries of the Reformation.  It was for preaching the apostolic doctrine of forensic justification by faith alone that many were persecuted, even burned alive, by Catholic officials.

Now a few “evangelical” theologians such as Dillow and Hodges are returning to the errors of past ages in order to find a way to teach that only some of our sins are forgiven, and that we will have to bear others into heaven.

I will not be following these fellows any time soon.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Tom's analysis of Dillow is good...very good in fact, and I for one agree with this assessment...



This the confession of every mature saint of God. Thank you Mark!
Anybody holding forth to you about some method of achieving holiness, other than growing in grace, namely maturity, is either dishonest or deluded IMHO...
Verne

p.s. One thing that is becoming clear to me is that to many of us as Christians lack a true grounding in the fundamentals of the faith. If more of us really understood the basic doctrines taught in the Scripture, we would be far less susceptible to error in the form of "winds of doctrine".  The doctrine of the atonement is one such fiundamental concept and much erroeneous teaching has issued from either its misunderstanidng or its misuse.

Hello Tom,

I reread chap 23 of Dillow's book and am meditating on your points below.  In trying to understand what the atonement of our Savior accomplished,  how do you explain that I as a believer can be saved, but at the Judgment Seat I still might "suffer loss" (1 Cor 3:15), and I might still have to answer for "bad" things done in my body (2 Cor. 5:10)?

Blessings,

Rick Samuel

Rick wrote


Good questions Rick, but I haven’t gotten any answers to the questions I asked a couple of weeks ago, and later, even re-phrased to satisfy Tom.

And now I have another for Elizabeth who wrote:



O.K., Elizabeth, let me pose a hypothetical question to you

Your neighbor (or co-worker, relative, whoever) who is not a Christian, invites you to go out for coffee.  After a little small talk, she says, "Elizabeth, I saw you at the movie last night and since it is rated "R," I wondered - ’If I were to become a Christian would it still be O.K. to go to movies like that?  It was pretty bad.'"

How would you answer her?  Now don't be too hasty, Elizabeth.  Remember that your greatest concern is for her eternal life and your greatest desire is to win her to Christ.

Chuck

Mark C wrote:


Vern responded:

Mark,

Let's assume for a moment that there are some unbelievers reading this BB.  One of them decides to respond and he writes:

"Hey, Mark, I've been having the same problem for years.  I've even reformed my life a time or two, but it never lasts. You sound like a bumper-sticker I saw on a Christian's car that read "Christians aren't different, they're just forgiven"  I've heard Christians talk about how their lives changed when they got "born again," but It doesn't sounds like it worked for you.  How does that make me any worse off than you, a "mature saint of God," as your friend calls you?   As I began reading your post I was assuming you were an "unbeliever" like me, but I see I was wrong.  I guess it doesn't make any difference, since I figure God won't be any tougher on me that He is on you.  Anyway, thanks for your help.  I feel better about myself now.

Signed,

Relieved

Thanks Chuck for the challenge!

  Your question is a very good one, and I'm glad that you asked it.

  When I first received Christ, all alone and having never heard of the Assembly, there was a fundamental and truly demonstrable change in my life:

1.) A tremendous feeling of dark oppression left me and a great one of joy replaced it. (a conscious awareness that I had passed from darkness into light).  I knew my sins were forgiven and that I was right with God! :)

2.) I knew that the Bible was God's word and the words therin were intended to communicate to me the truth, the
way, and the life.

3.) A conviction that now my life was filled with purpose, and that God wanted to use my life to further his will.

    Though I had the three things above, which filled me with a great amount of passion and enthusiasm, I had no understanding of what either of these three things really meant in real life.

   This is when the Assembly came in and took advantage of my lack of wisdom and manipulated my newly discovered joy of salvation.

    Groups such as JW's, Mormons, the Assembly etc. attract members based on their promise of a superior performance in attaining a "godly life" that far exceeds the "worldly churches".

   I have no desire to feign a dishonest testimony of some high degree of spiritual attainment in my life via my strong effort (be that presented in some kind of language that uses "faith and grace); and with great eagerness agree that the only difference in my life, vs. any human, is God's mercy in Christ!

  We do not advance the cause of the Gospel by "making disciples" in some kind of dishonest hype that promises super-spiritual attainment via our own actulazation of our faith.

  "Doesn't that open the door to a 'cheap and shallow' kind of easy believism?"

  Yes, it can, and the bible deplores it, but the answer is not a phony holiness either, but a honest reflection before a loving and merciful God.  Holiness, as Verne said, is a part of the free gift of grace just as much as forgiveness is (though I recognize they work out in our lives differently-- forgiveness is instant and holiness does take time to grow.)

   This kind of honest humility does produce a change in us, though not the kind we expect sometimes:
 
1.) Less sure of self---   Hence, "just forgiven", but with it a more sympathetic and less critical view of others (loving).  This does not mean we get down on ourselves as I did in my Assembly days, but we understand that God accepts us just the way we are---- which is still, though regenerated, very human and thoroughly mortal.

  2.) A truer, and more stable, kind of faith----  This faith is not based on some kind of personal pragmatic test where, "if it works I believe and if it doesn't I don't" that your potential unbelieving poster presented.   

   I would tell this would-be reader of my previous post that, "yes, I made a serious mistake after my salvation in getting involved in a false holiness movement, but I have now learned that the reality of God and His Gospel are only discovered by those painfully aware of their own sinfulness, not by those wanting to establish their own righteousness.
  If you are offended at the bumper sticker "not perfect, only forgiven" then I would suggest, my unsaved friend, that you are unaware of your own sinful heart and pray that God would grant you to feel the conviction of your own deep need of mercy! 

                                      God Bless,  Mark C.
                     
                         Not perfect at all and wonderfully forgiven !

   

Hey Chuck,

How's it going?

Hmmm... I guess this is The Battle of Hypotheticals. Problem with hypothetical questions is, they tend to assume a great deal. They can also easily become loaded questions. Hypothetical questions are useful at times, but in this case I fear we are only using them as a means by which to prove the other wrong.

Alas, it's just not that important to me that I be "right."

My hypothetical scenario was meant to simply illustrate what I perceived as a false interpretation of that verse you quoted. To me, it seemed largely legalistic. Obviously, you believe differently. Fine. OK. We are not going to be able to change each other's minds about this.

I, for one, desist from battle.

E.

Mark,

You wrote:

The purpose of my question to you and the one to Elizabeth was to point out the fact that unbelievers should see something different in our life, not just an outward show of spirituality, but rather a genuine difference emanating from the leading of the Holy Spirit.  If it’s there you can’t hide it, and if it’s not, you can’t fake it.  It can be used by the Spirit to convict others of the sin in their own lives - and I don’t mean finger-pointing or judging.  It should be such that it may used by the Spirit to cause unbelievers to want it in their own life. I remember our daughter, Becky, coming to us before she got saved and said, “Mom and Dad, I don't  know what has happened to you, but whatever it is, I want it too”  And it should be such that it brings glory to God and not ourselves. 

So, if the unbeliever sees us doing the same sinful things that they do, there’s something wrong. 

Just as there came out of the Reformation an almost disdain for “works” - to the point where Luther even wanted James’ Epistle excluded from the canon of scripture - so, it seems there is a similar contempt for the type of works that were practiced by the Assembly.  Such healthy contempt is justifiable in light of the legalistic approach to spirituality that George inflicted upon his sheep.  But who will find fault with works that are done for the purpose of bringing glory to God and to His Son?  And if the reward is a closer proximity to Christ in His kingdom, then who does not cherish it.

As Robert Govett so aptly expressed it,

“The fear of being led into Romish error has too much kept Christ's ministers from proclaiming the duty of good works; and from enforcing them with the motives which God has attached to the duty.  Put good works as the way to justification, and the means of earning eternal life, and 'tis deadly doctrine.  But speak of them as God's demand from those already justified, and possessors of eternal life; and there is no danger.  Nay, it is necessary that they should be enforced.”

You are right Mark when you say, “We do not advance the cause of the Gospel by ‘making disciples’ in some kind of dishonest hype that promises super-spiritual attainment via our own actualization of our faith.”  The cause of the gospel is advanced by our being in constant communion with Christ and being led by the Spirit.  I’ve never  been too taken up by slogans and methods, but I wouldn’t find fault with the latest Christian WWJD (What would Jesus Do?) means of seeking His guidance.

It’s true, Jesus receives us  - “Just as I am,”  Then He admonishes us -  “Trust and Obey.”

I also appreciate the way that R.E. Neighbour differentiates between grace and rewards.

Grace is unmerited favor; Rewards are always merited.
Grace is a free gift; Rewards are wages.
Grace is without money and without price; Rewards cost labor and sacrifice.
Grace looks to God's faithfulness; Rewards look to the believer's faithfulness
Grace places us on the race course; Rewards lure us to "so run."
Grace introduces us into the games; Rewards urge us to "so fight."
Grace says, "Not by deeds of righteousness which we have done;" Reward says, "Well done thou good and faithful servant..." 
                                      
God bless,

Chuck

[quote author=Chuck Miller link=topic=1007.msg27967#msg27967

 
The purpose of my question to you and the one to Elizabeth was to point out the fact that unbelievers should see something different in our life, not just an outward show of spirituality, but rather a genuine difference emanating from the leading of the Holy Spirit. 

 
It’s true, Jesus receives us  - “Just as I am,”  Then He admonishes us -  “Trust and Obey.”
Chuck

  Hi Chuck, and Others following this conversation,

  It is plain that the bible directs believers to live righteous lives, and warns Christians of the consequences of disobedience to God.  It is also quite clear that there are rewards that believers can earn for their pursuit of godliness. 

    Our actions and attitudes (expressed behavior) are under our direct control, and believers are told that they are no longer prisoners to sin and can choose to do what is right. 

    The presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives helps us, if truly saved.  Jesus, as our Great High Priest, intercedes for us and the Father watches over (child training) our lives and intervenes as he sees fit.

   I think all evangelical Christians would agree with the above, even those with bumper stickers on their car that say, "CHRISTIANS AREN'T PERFECT JUST FORGIVEN."

   This business of God as regards his child's upbringing is a very individual relationship that we do well not to meddle with.  Yes, we are instructed to rebuke open sinful behavior, and the church is to follow NT instructions for discipline for the unrepentant; all with the intention to bring restoration.

   How do we really know what is going on between God and a believer?  Shall we be like Eli with Hannah and misinterpret her messed up emotional state as being drunk?   

   A former member of the Assembly while attending a church service gets up and runs out the door crying after hearing a message from Acts. 2 on "The 4 Anchors."  Church members might think the woman (not knowing about her Assembly past) was convicted of her sin and was running from a deep feeling of guilt.

   They just don't know what is really going on------ but "God is able to make her stand."  And God really knows how to shepherd his sheep.

    Or, are we to take on the role of Simon the Leper, who was filled with disdain over the sinner woman washing Jesus' feet with her tears?  Simon, "knew what kind of woman she was", but he really didn't, did he?

    This "sinner" was a known prostitute who was totally excluded from the religious community.  She didn't hear the scriptures read, attend public prayer meetings, etc. and as such was judged to be about as far away from "intimacy with Christ" as possible.

  Yet, Jesus had great regard for her and announced that her action would be recorded more than any other individual encounter that Jesus ever had!   

   Even the Disciples didn't understand and incorrectly judged the heart of this woman and what Jesus thought of her----"a broken and contrite heart, oh God, you will not despise."

   Maybe Simon and the Disciples expected that Jesus would have rebuked her for her sinful life? 

   She knew she was a sinner, but she mainly knew that Jesus was her Savior and all her actions were as a result of her trust in that fact.  She was not motivated by rewards for her devotion, rather she was devoted as a result of God's great love for her!

  Yes, it was "trust and obey," but this phrase is only a motto if we don't know the whole story of this life and her God!

  God did reward her though: He announced to those present that her deeds were of the highest order of human acts in godliness, and then promised her story would be told "wherever this gospel is preached."

  I think this is more likely to be the character of the kind of rewards that will be issued and reveals the manner in which these rewards will come about in the lives of believers.

  Simon and the Disciples hoped to earn that kind of reward, but they misunderstood what it truly means to have an "intimate relationship with Christ."  And, what it means to represent Christ to a needy world.

                                                 God Bless,  Mark C.   

   

Dear Chuck,

Hey there. I've never responded to you, so how do you do. Your thoughts are interesting. You said "People who aren't Christians ought to see a difference in people who are Christians. They ought to see something that inspires them to want what Christians have." (paraphrased)

As I read that I immediately had a memory. This summer - when my husband and I were separated - I was over here and our kids were watching videos of kids camp the teenager camp. I found the videos disturbing and I wanted to walk, no, I wanted to run away. Why? First, there's these busloads of kids arriving, doing stupid things that made everyone laugh (except me). Then the video shows wholesome games and activities and guess what? All the kids at kids camp- from the Jr. Counselors (my older kids) to the youngest campers (my younger kids) were having a fantastic time. No one was hanging around the edges talking about how stupid it all was. I'm sure there were a few of those who didn't make it to the video, but they were an exception. Same story for the teenage camp. I felt like I was on an alien planet watching a different species. I became extremely uncomfortable when clips were shown of the worship times. My family goes (and I use to go) to a foursquare church, so worship times often become emotional experiences. I honestly got quesy watching children hug each other, sobbing, pouring their hearts out, raising their hands, falling on their knees. I KNOW most of these children. They're children who struggle with attitudes, desires, family breakups and  school-time drama just like their non-Christian friends. Why was I upset???? Because they were so ***@@@ vulnerable. And watching them watch this I knew they didn't see the big deal of it all, but I did. My life was all about NOT being vulnerable ever, ever, ever, ever, ever again. In my heart I was commending them. "You go guys. Hold onto this. Never let it go. And when you want to let it go - when you want to run away from vulnerability - maybe this memory will sustain you and help you to hold fast." And it isn't just me. Every single adult person I met, and most children, since walking "away from vulnerability" (away from God? away from morality? away from whatever) has a series of walls to protect themselves from the world. I know - we all have them. But they are so ingrained, justified, accepted as normal, EXPECTED for survival, in this other world of mine.

I keep making my posts too long! More in the next one.

Karey

Part Two:

This vulnerability and wholesomness wasn't only confined to camp. They live in it. They reach for it. They are stronger, more stable because of it. Most of their parents are the same way. When I see them from time to time I am embraced. Hi Karey! How are you? It's so good to see you. I suppose that can be accomplished through other means - AA, Tao, name your philosophy - but IMO nothing beats the vulnerability of Truth. (So, why am I still fighting it? I don't know. I'm working on that.)

I don't look at the movies these people go to. I don't care, even while I'm admonishing my children about negative influences. (This is why my 10 y.o. isn't allowed to watch most R-rated movies, though I admit to letting him watch The Patriot recently. My 15 y.o. isn't allowed to be at friends houses when the parents are gone, no matter how nice the family because teenage boys can do some really dumb stuff. Our parenting choices are challenging. We second-guess ourselves all the time, sometimes doing about-faces.)

I know that a person's choices about where they go, what they do, can say a lot about who they are - but mostly I don't care about that. I care about who they are, how they treat others, how they live with dignity or not.

So I would never - and I do mean never - ask that hypothetical question to a Christian that you posed. And I don't know anyone who would. Not a single person. The people in my 'other world' couldn't care less about that (unless they saw them coming out of something generally agreed upon by society as questionable, like: a striptease club or a married person having sex with other people or stealing money or partying like a dog). During my assembly days I worried about that stuff a lot, now it seems like so much of a non-issue. What Christians get dissed about is their heart, or lack of it. Or when they blow it big and don't accept responsibility for it. Or when they are judgemental. Well, their politics, too, but that's a separate issue. Sometimes they get dissed for being goody-goody, but far less than I expected, and often done by people just trying to get attention by how tough and cool they are. Often Christians are praised. "They're good people, good neighbors. I like having my kids hang out with them." I've also had people recoil slightly - like when I told a friend my son was getting baptized. They didn't know I was "church folk". It was uncomfortable for a bit. But people adjust to that - they look at me with a different lens now, they have more questions. I tell them I haven't been involved with church for awhile, but my family is. I say this so they won't think my behavior is typical Christian. I don't want to spoil the name.

I hope this view from 'the other side' is helpful. What people want to see is heart, reality, truth. Their lives are so completely and utterly separated from Truth that it makes no impact whatsoever. Truth is an alien nation to them - weird, uncomfortable. It's been so distorted, too, by ourselves, by the media, by lies, mostly by ourselves. The only way to bridge the two worlds is action - heart, vulnerability that makes you stronger, helping, accepted as a friend even though they know and you know you both live in different worlds. That is what draws me. That and seeing the consequences of walking away from everything I ever valued (except my kids. They're the only things I held onto) But I'm different than them. I'm already a Christian. I've just lived in their world awhile. And it's a world that doesn't give a fig about what movie you see. They're so busy being lost and doing the best they can in that condition that it doesn't matter. What will I eat, what will I wear, how will I feed my family now that my job is gone, how will I deal with my crazy family/ex-boyfriend/school. These are the places they live. Most are not responsive to religion. They are extremely responsive to caring people.

Chuck, it wasn't my intention to beat you up for your hypothetical question. I hope you don't feel that way. I realize you weren't merely speaking of movies. I'm not either. It's a different world out there. Hoardes of people are dying here in America w/o knowing intimacy with Christ. I've often been frustrated that "church" is like putting a bandaid on a hemmoraging artery. What good can it do? But the only way is one person at a time. Acceptance, reaching out, practical love are the only things I've come up with to make that bandaid stretch a little further.

I'm limping along, not a 'practicing' Christian at this time, but I did want to share that memory in hopes that it helps. When I saw the videos I wanted that. I wanted that ability to be vulnerable, that ability to do wholesome stuff and have a good time in it, rather than sitting in a dark bar getting wasted and calling it fun. I wanted what they had.

Karey

This is nothing more than an arrogant AD HOMINEM attack on orthodox Christians.  His teaching was not rejected merely out of the "fear of Romish error" but out of a desire to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints."  It was only ever received by a tiny minority of the Plymouth Brethren, who constiitute a tiny, tiny minority of the body. 


Chuck,

No one denies that there is a difference between that which comes to us by grace, such as being qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints in light, (Col. 1:12), and "rewards", which are usually described as "crowns".  These crowns are probably symbols that stand for some heavenly reality, but their exact meaning is not explained.  I doubt if they are simply pretty hats.  But this teacing attempts to shift important blessings of grace onto the ground of works.

In an earlier post you said:

Why do you have such a strong desire to advocate a doctrinal stance that you yourself find unnatainable after many decades of Christian life?  This reminds me of Peter's statement in Acts 15:10, "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the discoples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?"  I know you are not teaching exactly the same thing that Peter is addressing, but he does point to the fact that they had all failed at it, just as you have.

Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that:
1. God does not seem to have told us exactly what the rules are?
2. No one I have ever heard of or read about was sure that they had actually obeyed the rules? (With the exception of George Geftakys!)
3. No one knows what a passing score is?  (Your position demands that the believer attain sinless perfection or that God must "grade" on a curve.)

Does this hymn sound like true Christian teaching?

My hope is built on nothing less than I have tried to do my best.
I know not that I've been approved, but I have tried my heart to move.
I've given it all of my best stuff, I only hope it's good enough.
On my obedience to Christ I stand, and that is really sinking sand, Oh that is truly sinking sand.

I sincerely believe that underneath this "overcomer" teaching there lies a root of elitist pride.    :'(

I hope not....but in every case I have enountered it has come out sooner or later. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Chuck,

Here are the questions you asked:

I do not believe these questions are about anything real.  They presuppose that there is a special class of believers that are called "overcomers" or "those who are overcoming" or something like that.  The Bible simply never says that.

Before anyone could answer the above questions he would first have to understand the exact description of the special class of believers that they refer to.
If there is no special class to belong to, questions about how one attains or loses their membership, or how they regain lost membership, are meaningless.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Rick,

Your question about I Cor 3:15 is puzzling.  No one on this BB has denied what this verse actually says.  It speaks of a testing of the quality of a man's works, and a reward or loss thereof.  This is not being debated.

What is being debated is whether or not things clearly granted by grace such as being eligible for the kingdom or being glorified with Christ are rewards.  The "overcomer" teaching claims that what is granted by grace can be lost.  This verse, however, says nothing about these things! 

It is only be circular reasoning that one can make this verse teach such a thing. 

Stay off the logical merry-go-round.  It muddles one's thinking.

As to 2 Cor. 5:10, (I think that is what you meant isn't it?), once again it is only by assuming that these things can be lost, (negative rewards!), can this verse be said to teach this. Yes, it does teach that we will "receive what is due us" for things we have done in the body, good or bad.  But our "due's" are not delineated.   It is only by assuming that they mean what you are attempting to prove that those things can be brought in at all.  This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question", ie, just plain circular reasoning.

BTW, the term "negative rewards" is an oxymoron.  If the results are negative, they can't be rewards.  If rewards, they can't be negative.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

As I recall, I joined the topic in response to a query from Chuck regarding inheritance.
I have been trying to make the case that the Scriptural teaching on the question of inheritance is that inheritance is based on the twin pillars of relationship and promise and not on merit.
I have also suggested that the time of our inheritance (the when) is not so much time denominated as it is condition denominated.

What is that condition? - The believer's maturity!

It would seem to me if this is indeed the case, the most critical question that a believer can ask is what is the Biblical prescription for the believer's growth and maturity?
Unless one seriously considers this question, attempts to explain the admittedly substantially varying degrees to which Christians live effectively, will generally fall into serious error.
This error often takes the form of some kind of legalism and/or a misapplication of Scripture in an attempt to establish heirarchy of acceptance and approval of His children by God.
I had planned on posting as promised on the topic of nourishment and warfare but misplaced the file I was working on.
While I try and locate it, I will repost something I found that I must have posted sometime in the past, but which I think speaks to the issue. My apologies to those who have previously read it.



Sonship Part I

The position of the believer is sonship.
The implication is freedom. Sonship equals freedom. No principle of redemption is more important. While the New Testament uses the expression of adoption to describe the transaction, it starkly differs from its sociological counterpoint in that this is indeed a blood relationship! The above corollary is frequently presented to us in the Scripture:

What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?.  Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Here is an equally important principle:
Absent sonship, present bondage. This is immutable.
What is meant with regard to freedom, as a result of the Christian’s position of sonship?
Is this just some rhetorical nicety?
It is clear that not all Christians exhibit any such freedom. Look at what George Geftakys and his enablers did to countless numbers of God’s blood bought people! The enslavement was as tragic as it was undeniable! What is the explanation for this remarkable anamoly?

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

As bad as is the enslavement visited upon many by false teachers of all kinds, it is really symptomatic and illustrative of a more insidious kind of bondage as described for us in Romans 7.


But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

No less an eminent Christian than  Dr. D. Martin Lloyd Jones contends that the believer is not in consideration in this passage. Even apart from an appeal to Scripture, there is no serious child of God who had s not seen himself in Romans 7, no disrespect to Dr. Jones. Just  as the Socratic observation that experience flies in the face of the Platonic notion that a knowledge of the good results in its embrace, so the Christian experiences this conflict between the law of the mind and the law of his members. The propensity for evil is in no way forestalled by simply a knowledge of the good. Life bears undeniable witness.
Nonetheless, God’s Word is indeed clear. Our position is that of sonship. Therefore freedom should be our expectation and our experience - unless of course we remain in infancy…!

Sonship Part II

Let’s get serious. The thing that attracted many of us to Geftakys in the first place was the magical tale of glory that he spun. This pied piper piped a tune of a victorious, overcoming life, a securing of the full reward of our inheritance, attainment indeed to the first resurrection. – all the elements of being an “overcomer”. Who in their right spiritual minds would not desire these things? Our initial attraction is entirely understandable and forgivable. The question that should haunt everyone who remained in the clutches of this apostate should be:

“Why did I continue to believe that I could achieve these things by sitting under the ministry of a man who in no way exemplified them?”


The man’s vulgarity was commonly known to those around him, Why did the absence of Christlike-ness not cause more of us to examine ourselves? The absence of genuine spiritual liberty in the life of Geftakys should have raised a red flag in the mind of every observer. Despite his often forceful rhetoric, he lacked the power that matters most in the life of the believer, and absolutely marks him as someone in whom the life of God dwells.


 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 
2 Peter 2:18


The sad legacy is that service under this man’s auspices represented a life of bondage, antithetical to the liberty to which the child of God has been called. Geftakys marvelously illustrated the Biblical type of those exhibiting a form of godliness, but lacking the power thereof – the power to overcome their own sin.

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,   Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.   Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
2 Peter 3:5-9


This brings me to the reason for starting this thread. What is the evidence, both to the heart and mind of the believer, as well as to those who observe him, that he is experiencing this liberty of sonship we speak of, this power of godliness referenced by the apostle Peter?


He breaks the power of cancelled sin
Hes sets the prisoner free
His blood can make the foulest clean
His blood availed for me!

Verne

p.s. can' find that file... guess I will have to start from scratch...although I imagine some of you know where I was going with the idea of nourishment.. :)

To all,

For those of you who missed reading Mark C’s post on November 23, 2005 under the BB Topic  “its nice to be one of the elite superovercomers,” I’m posting it here for your consideration with a quote from another post..

Mark wrote:

Hi All!

   I think Tom has done a very good job answering the "overcomer" questions from the bible.  You can't approach this question by pulling out a text here and there as a proof text for you will ignore other one's that contradict the point you are trying to prove.

   Tom shows the importance of developing a consistent theology from the entire revealed text vs. the proof text method we learned so well under GG. 

  I will confess to one and all that I tried my very best to be the most pure, committed, surrendered, yielded, dead to self, denying myself etc. (all by faith in God's grace, btw) believer that I could be, however----- I never improved my actual character one little bit as I attempted to assainate my sinful old man!

  I can actually prove that it made me a much worse person in my vain attempt.  It was like a religious version of binging and purging (bulimia/anorexia) where a good thing (losing weight) becomes very unhealthy.  I also have a huge store of biograhies of others that proves this same point.

  In the Assembly (as I pursued excellence) I was so "humble" I let people I knew who were lying walk all over me and watched in silence while God's little children were abused!!!

 Christ like??!!   In Christ??!!  In The Spirit??!!  Oh Brother!

 I have discovered that I am very, very, far away from expressing the actual love of God (the pinnacle of God's holy nature) and if there is anything in my actual experience that demonstrates even a small part of this I can only thank God's grace.

  If we follow a teaching that makes us proud, rude, cruel, unloving, vindictive, malicious etc. maybe we ought to get the idea that we are not on the right track?

   A recovering alcoholic following the 12 step program (for the third time) is much closer to God than somebody like GG who thinks he's one of the elitle superovercomers that is the subject of this thread.

                     God bless those that know they need it!   Mark C.



I have copied this other quote frrom Mark's post on BB Topic  Forget & Forgive? on: November 26, 2005, 12:57:37 pm

Mark wrote:

 "When I first received Christ, all alone and having never heard of the Assembly, there was a fundamental and truly demonstrable change in my life."

Tom,

I really enjoyed your last couple of posts. This whole Overcomer/Rewards/Inheritance issue really strikes a nerve with me. I guess you know why. Your posts were truly helpful.

What keeps a Christian living the Christian life? Is it the prospect of rewards "luring" him on? This seems like a questionable motive.

We follow God because we love God, right? Not because we're hoping to score big on the mansions, crowns & crystal-sea-front property!?

E.

E,

Right you are.  If the prospect of scoring big in the rewards lotto is really our motivation for serving God, why doesn't the Bible just say so?  Instead, it contains passages like John 14:15, "If you love me, keep my commandments."  Did Jesus have it wrong?  I don't think so.

Using punishments and rewards as modifiers of behavior belong to the childhood stage of life.  We all used this with our kids.  The Bible says that the husband/wife relationship is illustrative of the church's relationship with Christ.  Love and care are the motivators, not fear and desire for gain. In marriage we do gain much, and could lose much by careless or selfish treatment of the beloved.  But these motives, while real, could not possibly be an adequate foundation for a healthy, God honoring marriage.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Tom  Maddux wrote:


Psalm 19"7-11
 7The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
         The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
    8The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
         The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
    9The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
         The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.
    10They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
         Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.
    11Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
         In keeping them there is great reward.

Matthew 5:12
"Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Luke 6:35
"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.

Hebrews 10:34-36
 34For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.
 35Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
 36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

Hebrews 11:25-27
 25choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin,
 26considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.
 27By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen.

Revelation 11:18
"And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth."

40 years of study, Tom?

God bless,

Chuck Miller

Chuck,

   Please explain why you quoted me in the way that you did.  What point are you trying to make?  I ask, because I only can guess at what your intention was, and would like to respond.

                                                 God bless,  Mark C.

Mark,

You wrote:


Read Joe's reply #126 on November 23rd and Elizabeth's reply #127 on November 23rd,  then re-read yours.  I'll  be posting further comment later.

God bless,

Chuck

Chuck,

It would seem that you are under the impression that I do not believe in rewards.  Since I have clearly stated that I do, I don't understand why you are doing this. 

The issue we have been discussing is not the reality of rewards and their possible loss. No one has posted anything that argues that this is not taught in the Bible.  It is about whether or not things clearly bestowed by grace fall into this class at all. None of the verses you have quoted address this.  If you have a few verses that clearly state that they do, you might wish to post them.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Hello Tom and others who are following this discussion,

We agree that I as a saved person may suffer the loss of reward (and the Greek word for “suffer” in 1 Cor 3:15 denotes painful loss).  The question is, “What is given to us irrevocably from God, and what can be lost?  Can this loss occur to some measure with respect to a believer’s “inheritance” from God?”  Well, since the apostle Paul uses the word “recompense” (“reward” in the KJV) with respect to the inheritance in Col. 3:24-25, I think, yes, there is an aspect of my inheritance that could be lost.  There is an aspect that is not automatically given to me as a gift of grace.  May each of us fully possess our inheritance.

I believe entrance into the kingdom of heaven is given irrevocably to us believers as a gift of God’s grace – an “inheritance” secured by the Savior’s blood (Heb. 9:15).  So there is an irrevocable aspect to the inheritance.  But Peter speaks of having an abundant entrance dependent upon our works (2 Pet 1:11), thus making out “calling and election sure.”  Paul prays that each of us comes into the full measure of the stature of Christ – it is not automatic. 

Let me plainly state what aspect of the inheritance I believe may be lost: it is varying measures of reigning with Christ.    To the measure that we endured with Him, to that measure we shall also reign with Him” (see 2 Tim. 2:12).   

“And to the one overcoming, and keeping my works unto the end, to him will I giving authority over the nations: And he shall be shepherding them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be crushed: as I also have obtained from my Father. And I will be giving him the morning star” (Rev. 2:26-28).

Why am I posting these considerations?  Because in Hebrews we told to exhort one another daily, and that we should serve God with fear, because He is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29).

On the one hand, if we are abiding in Him, then perfect love casts out all fear.  However, if I am not abiding in Him, then there is the possibility that I shall shrink back at owning my name at His judgment seat (1 John 2:28).  Though the Lord Jesus is the Royal Bridegroom who courts His bridal church, still one of His final encouragements to us is, “Behold, I come swiftly, and My wage [“reward” in the KJV] is with Me, to pay each one as his work is” (Rev. 22:12).

Blessings,

Rick

Tom,

You wrote:

If you will tell me what are these “things clearly bestowed by grace,“  I’ll be able to understand and respond to your statement, Tom.

Chuck

Hi Chuck!

  I've read the posts that you mentioned and my own, and think that I might have an idea re. the point you are trying to make, but it might be better if you just came out and plainly say what's on your mind.

  I realize you have a lot of people who are talking with you here and I don't mean to be rude by saying the above.

                             Thanks, and God bless,  Mark C.

To Mark etal,

I was curious as to whether anyone would comment on Mark’s post of November 23rd, since he was quite adamant in insisting that he was NOT “Christ like” - NOT “in Christ” - NOT “in the Spirit” when he was pursuing excellence in the Assembly.   I couldn’t have made the point any better than Mark has done inadvertently.  Oddly, none of those who contend that believers are always “in Christ”  seemed to be bothered by Mark’s comment, or at least, not enough to comment on it. 

Take note that Mark said that  "When I first received Christ, all alone and having never heard of the Assembly, there was a fundamental and truly demonstrable change in my life."  So, he was obviously what some have called a “genuine” Christian at that time. 

I venture to say that each of us has experienced that noticeably changed life when we came to know Christ.  And I would assume that this “first love” spurred you, as it did me,  to try to live in obedience to His commands.

Then, we who became “saints” in George’s Assembly were encouraged to pursue a pseudo-spirituality that was based upon “doing things” (I.e. all nights of prayer, witnessing in the park, extended “quiet time,”  participating in LB orchestrated worship services, etc., etc., etc.). I remember my very first encounter with “Brother George.”  He told several of us who were meeting in our home church group that in order to be “Godly brothers” we must spend time studying, praying, witnessing, and meeting with other committed Christians.  These things - that we had already been doing out of a simple desire to know and serve Christ - these now became an obligatory exercise in spirituality under George’s watchful and critical eye. Those who complied with unquestioning obedience were qualified to be “workers” as an acknowledgement of George‘s approval. Perhaps, because of my early deoparture, I never qualified.  And, oh yes,  for some unexplained reason, we were expected to address him,  not as “George“, but as, “Brother George“

Well, many of us eventually found out what Mark discovered and suffered the consequences of a sterile Spirit-less Christian life.  No doubt that there were those who maintained a genuine devotion to Christ during their time of bondage, but more often than not, we succumbed to the pressure of conforming to the image of the “gawdly” saint in the Geftakys Assembly. Oh, yes, there were even those who tried to speak and pray like George.  With some, pleasing George seemed to take precedence over pleasing Christ.

Like Mark, any thought of this life having been a life “in Christ,” or “Christ like,” or being “in the Spirit” became repulsive.  These deeds were “fleshly”  not spiritual, and yet, it was not entirely and perpetually so.  Every so often, I would find relief in my unstructured time of prayer, study, or witnessing, that led me to question the teachings of the so-called “Lord’s Servant.”  Eventually, the inner pressure that the Lord was applying, began to overcome the external pressure of conformity, and eventually it led to my exodus. When I left the Assembly, there was the tremendous relief of being released from the pressure of a life of counterfeit spirituality, and once again experiencing the  joy and peace that had accompanied my pre-Assembly days.

So, what I have been trying to convey (unsuccessfully, it seems) is that being “in Christ,” or “Christ like,” or being “in the Spirit”  can be a temporary state of being that has no effect on my eternal life, but may have a very positive influence in how I live my life and the “reward” for doing so. I make no apology for the word “rewards,“ nor for being motivated by them, and would only like to say one more thing about it.

The greatest reward that I know of is to feel God’s pleasure.  It is beyond the realm of comparison with anything we experience in the secular realm.  The only thing that even remotely compares, is the pleasure we feel when our earthly father commends us for a job well done.  I can well imagine that it is the only thing that sustains the Christians suffering persecution and torture for Jesus.  I believe they feel His pleasure.

I cannot believe that anyone who has ever known His pleasure, would regard God’s reward with a cavalier attitude of being above such motivation. I find it hard to believe that such a one has ever known God’s pleasure. It is the greatest motivation for doing His work, and in His kindness He allows us to experience it from time to time.  Would anything compare to His constant pleasure?  To know, like Paul, that - “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing” - for Paul to know that with such confidence could only come from feeling God’s pleasure and assurance.  Keep in mind that an award is merited. Paul wasn’t saying that his eternal salvation was merited.  Let each of you discern then, what Paul was saying. 

Unfortunately (or fortunately), when I temporarily lapse from walking in a manner worthy of the God who calls us into His own kingdom and glory (1 Thessalonians 2:12), I subject myself to the application of His discipline.  And though it may seem harsh at the time, when viewed retrospectively it reveals the wisdom and mercy of His ways.  His purpose for disciplining us is to restore us to walking in His ways.  For He says, "If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15)


"Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven"           Matthew 5:16

God bless,

Chuck

As I recall, this whole discussion re. rewards and position in Christ began because someone tried to use the threat of loss of reward to motivate the rest of us to follow some questionable advice regarding going to ex-Assembly leaders to confess our "bitterness."  I hate to say it, but that advice and some of the statements made since then remind me very much of Assembly teaching.  If my tone or attitude are a bit too heavy, please let me know. But for me, my theology is a work in progress right now, and it's my work.  We don't need to prepare a word of ministry for each other on this thread, but rather, it's more helpful for people to discuss how they are recovering from the Assembly, in my opinion (for what it's worth).  Btw, I'm not saying that doctrinal discussions are bad.  It's just that I don't think this is the right thread for that.

And I see a potential danger in discussing doctrine.  In the Assembly, we (especially us U.S. Males) were trained to defend, dissect and dish out doctrine as a means of forcing others to adopt our point of view.  I know I was good at this.  We made points and made stands that we considered non-negotiable, and defended them almost to the death.  Why did we do it?  Because we were trained to think that by this we were defending the one true faith.  I think (but I don't want to be dogmatic) that perhaps we need to lighten up a little...

Clarence Thompson

The use of the word translated "reward" in Colossians 3:24 in association with inheritance is unique in the Greek text and indeed a very interesting passage to note in view of the present discussion. "Reward" everywhere else is misthos, eg. Matthew 5:12; Rev. 22:12
This is a great example of the power of principle in helping us to arrive at correct answers to these kinds of questions. Thoughtful observation Rick.
Verne

Rick,

I Corinthians 3:15 speaks of a man's life work being tested as to its quality.  If "what he has built survives, he will receive his reward."  If it is burned up, he will suffer loss.  He loses what he has built, and any reward due him for that work.  It is talking about rewards, not inheritance.  His works were destroyed, so there is nothing to reward. The passage says absolutely nothing about losing something you already possess.

Colossians 3:22-25 is talking about slaves serving their masters as "...working for the Lord, not for men, since you know you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward."  Paul's argument is not, "work hard for your master and the Lord will reward your work with an inheritance."  Paul's arguemnt is "serve God faithfully where you are in the confidence  that God sees you and us going to do something for you that is far better than any earthly master".  The passage also says that "Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong."  However, it does not say that the repayment will be in heaven.  I could just as well mean discipline in this life.  It also does not say that the "repayment" will be a loss of the inheritance.  You are reading tht into the passage.


Which version are you quoting?

Rick, I would like to point out a couple of passages that tell us what we receive by grace.

Romans 5:17 "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."

Reigning in life with Christ is based on two things: 1. Receiveing God's abundant provision of Grace. 2. Receiving the gift of righteousness.  In other words, being saved.

Revelation 20:5 "...this is the first resurrection.  Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection.  The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."  In V11-15 it describes the second death.  "The lake of fire is the second death."

If you compare these passages with I Thessalonians 3:13-18 it is clear that "the dead in Christ will rise first."  All the "dead in Christ" will "have part in the first resurrection", and all who have part in that first resurrection will reign with Christ and "be with the Lord forever."

Rick, a sound and widely received principle of Biblical interpretation is that unclear passages are to be interpreted in light of clear passages.  I am well aware that there are things in the Bible that are "hard to be understood".  But much is very clear.  Among the very clear things is that the saved will reign with Christ.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Chuck,


Where does the Bible teach that we can "feel God's pleasure?"

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

I had just finished writing a response to one of your previous posts when I received this latest one.
You wrote:


 I guess I hadn't fully realized that 18 years of following a man coiuld create such a vacuum in a Christian's life.   For what purpose it will serve to discuss these things any further, I have my doubts, but, anyway, here it is.

You wrote:

Tom, you don’t seem to have any problem calling one who believes; a “believer,” or one who sins; a “sinner,’ or one who deceives; a “deceiver."   Why do you have a problem with calling one who overcomes, an “overcomer?”   And why do invent a word  such as “undercomer“ to indicate your disagreement with the doctrine.  Do you call one who does not overhear an“underhearer,” or one who does not overeat an “under-eater.   I know that you are using “undercomer” tongue-in-cheek, but it looses it’s whimsicality in the seriousness of its implication.  For if an under-achiever is the opposite of an over-achiever, aren’t you implying that you are the opposite of an overcomer.  Careless words, Tom.

Paul classified some Christians as “carnal,” or, “men of flesh,” as opposed to spiritual (1 Cor 3:1), and Jesus classified those “who overcome” as opposed to those who don’t.  So, I believe the questions are about “real” issues, Tom.  But I won’t ask them again.  Let any who read this decide in their own mind. 

YOU STATE:
 But inasmuch as you have asserted that all believers are overcomers,  the question of how they attained that membership or how they regain lost membership are germane to the discussion.

God bless,
 
Chuck

P.S.  But  now, I see no benefit in pursuing this any further with you Tom.

It seems to me that the emotional reaction to the word "overcomer" is when it is applied as a certain class of Christians who passes a certain criteria and thus enters into certain gospel privileges (marriage supper of the lamb, the rapture, seeing God, heaven) that other Christians, who have mere "bare bones" salvation, do not enter into.

If the word "overcomer" is used to describe what an individual has personally accomplished through God's provision, I think the term is fine.

In the book of Revelation, most churches were confronted with a problem that they had to overcome if they were going to continue as a legitimate church.  Ephesis needed to overcome by returning to their first love.  Smyrna had to stand fast in persecution.  Thyatira had to deal with an influential false "prophetess" in their midst that was unchecked. 

I don't read these verses as saying, If Ephesis returns to their first love, they will enter into an elete group of Christians who will be invited to the marriage supper of the lamb.  Thus, if we meet the criteria of "overcomers" we will be there, too.

I see this as a historical exhoration to the church to get their act together.   Some didn't and the church eventually folded.  So also, a Christain may be called to overcome by dealing with their sin of laziness or sexual lust (or whatever issue the Word reveals).  By overcoming, I don't become a part of the elite that gets taken up in the rapture or get to live inside heaven as opposed to a shack just outside by the gate where the non-overcomers live.  However, by not doing so, I lose out because I mar my testimony and my effectiveness for Christ.  My loss is that I have less to show for my efforts in the last day.

Hi Clarence,

No offense intended, but each one is free to make one's own conclusions from what is discussed here.  I usually treat what I read here and elsewhere as information that I am free to draw my own conclusions about.  e.g. while I disagree with Chuck's suggestion to all to confess bitterness to assembly leaders, his post of November 28, 2005, 06:32:33 pm is an excellent testimony of his/our assembly experience.

Discussing doctrine helps us to renew our thinking on various Scripture passages and themes.  IMO I do not see any reason that we cannot discuss both ie the doctrine, and the post-assembly recovery process.

All,

GA.com has posted some Quotations on Rewards: www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/BiblicalExposition/QuotationsOnRewards.htm (http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/BiblicalExposition/QuotationsOnRewards.htm)

re. Tom, I see that Chuck has now come to the same conclusion that some of us had a few months ago. :o

My take on rewards, good healthy friendships are rewarding.  Life experiences teach that to us.  Do I love the Lord because it will be rewarding, or do I love the Lord and that love relationship is/will be rewarding?

Marcia

It was a great line by Eric Liddell in one of my favorite movies... :)
Verne

One of the things that has happened to a lot of us, and the effect is sometimes imperceptible, is that we bring to Scripture a perspective borne of years of indoctrination by the apostate Geftakys.
Geftakys in his dialectic, often appealed to some of our baser instincts - competition, ambition, spiritual avarice.
I do not mean this in any critical way, but it is understandable, having listened to a man like Geftakys for as long as many of us have, someone would interpret Colossians 3:24 as making the case of inheritance by merit.

I read the verse with an open mind (in fact I had briefly thought about it earlier but did not pursue it until Rick's comment) but also with an understanding of what Scripture so clearly and powerfully teaches about inheritance in numerous other places, especially the book of Galatians.
I then checked the Greek text for instances where the word used for the English "reward" clearly suggests the thought of merit, and there are many such passages.
I was not in the least bit surprised to discover that the word used in Colossians 3:24 was different and in fact unique.
I did not know this beforehand, but this is what I expected for God's Word is consistent in what it teaches even when we fail to recognize that fact.
Without getting too techincal,  syntax further suggests that the reality of the inheritnace (not just the possibility) is what spurs our joyful service and Tom alludes to this.

In fact, I suspect much of our temporary sorrow in heaven will be over finally realising the magnitude of what Christ has done for us, yet how we squandered our opportunities to glorify His Name...
The only thing the elders do with their crowns is cast them at the feet of Jesus...

Why am I saying all this?
I think when we think about and discuss matters of doctrine of this nature, we ought to be aware that our perspective may have been previously conditioned. It is something I deal with everytime I open God's Word...




Tha ASV, Young and Darby all, unfortunately,  use "recompense" in Colossians 3:24

My take on rewards, good healthy friendships are rewarding.  Life experiences teach that to us.  Do I love the Lord because it will be rewarding, or do I love the Lord and that love relationship is/will be rewarding?

Marcia

 Marcia:

   Thank you so much for the above statement!  You have a great gift for making difficult things easy to understand.

  There is nothing so rewarding as knowing that Our Lord Jesus is our very own dear friend and loves us very much!  This friend gave us everything (including his promise to never leave nor forsake us).

  Talk about a "reward"----- His true friendship for my simple trust in Him!!

                                              God Bless,  Mark C.

  Hi Chuck!

   I know that a lot of water has flowed under the BB bridge since you posted this, but I felt that I should respond to at least a part of it, since it was re. something I said.

   Re. "inadvertent":  Some of my best and most insightful comments are of this nature, but regardless of my clever rhetorical style they seem to pass without much notice. ;) ;)

  Seriously though, I think the lack of response was because folks understood what I was getting at with my use of "in Christ, etc." when used in a true biblical sense vs. what I experienced in the group.

  It is a very hard sell to come on the BB and use phrases from the bible that were especially twisted by GG (as your above quote also gives witness to) and to apparently take the position that GG teaching was correct, only applied incorrectly by Assembly members.

  Nobody that I am aware of here has protested against the clear biblical teaching that God wants us to live righteous and godly lives--- the bible most clearly and emphatically enjoins just that!

 The question is:  what positive and practical relevance for the faith of former Assembly members can this discussion have?

1.) Most former members are very suspect of those with a strong theological axe to grind.  Especially one that reminds them of the clanging of their former chains!

     I think Clarence's response demonstrates this pretty well.  His take on some of the talk here was likened to "bros. laying a word on us from the Lord."

   Some have come on the BB with a very strong view that is not open to moderation and treated those that disagree with them by assigning deep character flaws, bad motives, or stupidity to these who dare to do so.  When they can't get others to take their side they just decide to shake the dust from their feet and leave.

  Most view dogmatic styled biblical "experts" that have posted here as those that have a personal fringe biblical agenda, and really could care less about the individuals that they are addressing.

 Not that I am saying that this is true of you, but by defending aspects of GG teaching in the same manner that they were originally delivered to us your ideas will be reacted against vs. actually heard with the above suspicion.

2.) An agenda to "set us straight". The problem is the former member, not the Assembly:

  Former members have an issue with those that wish to force feed their views.  Authoritarism was the hallmark of Assembly "government" and has formed a very strong emotional reaction in some.

   Your orginal contributions to this thread encouraged us to "put away bitterness, etc." putting the emphasis of forgiveness on us, vs. any kind of call to accountability to present/former leaders.

   For decades these past GG followers have been told that even if their leaders were wrong the members, not the leaders, were the responsible party.  These members were to grovel at the feet of even clearly abusive actions by leaders, or else they would fall under the judgment of God!

  Surely you can understand why your views are not popular, or are strongly reacted against.  It is my view that God puts the onus on the abuser, and takes the side of the "little one" who has been offended.  

   To build faith in those whose well intentions were twisted, in "the name of God", is a very noble calling that I believe is close to the heart of God.  God's "agenda" is to bring a strong confident trust to his wounded child, wherein there now may dwell a lot of cynicsim, confusion, and doubt.

    Just winning theoretical biblical arguments (I'm not saying that theology is not important) without considering who I am talking to and what good my talk does is worse than being a "clanging symbol".  If we really care about true Christian conduct we will put the greatest weight on showing mercy and love, along with our desire to defend the truth.

                                              God Bless,  Mark C.

    

Hello Chuck,

The reason people do not comment on Marks writing is because they do not read it. It is a confusing and self contradictory work to say the least. Hence the response to his stuff is very simple like, “thanks for sharing that Mark.”. That’s why he can slip in these theological errors. No one reads it so no one questions him.


Marty

Marty,

I honestly don't know whether or not I agree with your assessment of Mark's writing, because your reference to his "stuff" is so broad.  Could you specify what some of his "theological errors" are.  Sorry to seem so dumb, but I'm just not certain what you're at odds with...

Thanks,
al

P.s.-- I do read Mark's posts, but I usually respond (whether pro- or con-) to him by e-mail rather than posting...