AssemblyBoard

I find it interesting that when natural disasters strike, there are those who proclaim, "This was God's judgement!" It seems to happen every time something terrible happens: 9/11, the tsunami, and now Hurricane Katrina.

Why is this? A friend of mine once described it as people reaching into a bag and pulling out God for every explanation. She called it "The God Grab Bag" and I found it a fitting moniker.

I wonder if God appreciates us blaming Him for every bad thing that happens on earth, esp. natural disasters. As humans we search for meaning to meaningless tragedy. But sometimes I think we do ourselves a disfavor if we attribute every natural disaster to "God's judgement." The most recent thing I heard was that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans just two days before "Decadence Day" a supposedly gay pride celebration. I have no idea if this is true or not, it's pure hearsay. But I use it as an example of how quickly some try to dismiss genuine tragedy.

Isn't there a verse somewhere that says God allows the rain to fall on the evil and the good?

Would this suggest that God allows it, but He doesn't CAUSE it?

Here in California we have people who build their mansions on unstable hillsides, propped up on improbably crazy stilts, on cliffs hanging out over the ocean, or below sea level. It defies common sense!

When people reach into the God Grab Bag they come out with the same verses each time: wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, pestilence etc. Sometimes I wonder: are things REALLY getting worse or do we just think they are because we have endless TV coverage?

I've been hearing about the end times since I was a nursing baby, in fact, I've lived through several End of the World predictions (anyone remember the 1988 scare? How about the Y2K bug that was supposed to bring death and destruction and usher in the Great Tribulation?)

Does anyone really KNOW if things are getting worse? Personally, I think living in 2005 is a heck of a lot better than living in any other time. Anyone care for a return to serfdom or slavery?

Elizabeth

A though-provoking query Elizabeth and I am not sure that I have a good answer.
A few fundamental principles are very helpful in thinking about these things.

1. The cause of all sorrow and death is sin.

It is truly a amazing how many professing Christians do not recognize or even accept this simple  fact.

Unquestionably in the life of the child of God He is able to make even sorrow and death work for the good of His own.
This in no way militates against the fundamental truth that these things come to us as a result of our fallen condition.

Unlike Tom Maddux, I do not accept that "natural disasters" are part of the natural order of things. It is my personal belief that such things in their own way reflect the need for restoration of all things, including the physical creation. God promises to create a new heaven and a new earth not refurbish the present ones, which are decaying.

As to causation, we are also told that there is an intelligent being of great power who is in every way hostile to mankind. The Bible identifies him as Satan.
We know that he is not only able to entice humans to perform evil deeds (such as Judas) we also know that he has power to effect incredible changes in the physical realm as well. The book of Job makes that abundantly clear.
Obviously no one can say with certainty when a disaster like Katrina happens, exactly why it happened.
We can say with certainly though, that it happened in accordance with God's permissive will and His ultimate purpose.
It is quite telling though, that as Christians. we are now apparently put off by the very notion that God can and does excercise his prerogative to execute judgment in space-time, and that by a variety of means.
I have not trouble at all with the idea as a Christian that I should consider whether misfortune in my life could indicate God's correction.
In fact that is ususally the first thing I consider.
I went to San Francisco with my wife a few years ago and the entire time I was there I was praying that if God planned on doing any thing that would He please wait until we left.
Your point about people putting themselves in high-risk situations is well taken though.
This tragedy is a remakable example of incredible neglect and malfeasance on the part of authorities who have known for decades that something like this could happen, yet were apparently entirely un-prepared to deal with it.
I think it is just the beginning... :'(
Verne

p.s did anybody see the interivew of the guy in Slidell with the ICF house? I knew we were onto something great!
I want a franchise!!

Missed it-- please enlighten...

al

When I became a Christian in the 1970's, Bible prophecy was hot.  I read "The Late Great Planet Earth" and much by Salem Kirban who suggested that Kissenger was the antichrist.  Mr. Kirban did much like the "Left Behind" series in that he fictionalized his view of the last times.  The difference was that in the 1970's, Mr. Kirban was a lousy writer but many Christians really, really believed that we would disappear in the rapture.  Today, the LaHay books are better written but deep down, most folks consider them fiction.

I remember in 1989 trying to convince a Chinese Christian bookstore owner why she shouldn't carry the book "88 reasons that Jesus will return in 1988."

Today, when I come to the book of Revelation, I don't look at it as "gee, lets see what God is going to do in the future" or "let's compare these wild images with the news".    I look it as a book written in a time of intense persecution by someone named John who wrote in what is called an  apocalyptic genre.  (This genre of colorful imagry and black-and-white good-and-evil ultimate battles does not exist today but was well accepted when Revelation was written.  People knew how to interprete an apocalypse just like we know how to interprete a Stephen King novel in our day - the reader would know what is literal and what is figurative.)  The purpose was to encourage fellow believers who had the very legitimate belief that their movement was about to be snuffed out by the powerful empires that existed in that day.

The great harlot, for instance, would easily have been identified in that day as referring to Rome and the antichrist as the emperor who ordered the general persecution of the church.  Much of the symbolism would have been recognized by those living in that time.  The goal was to get them to keep going and being faithful, not to answer questions about events two thousand years later.

Does that mean that Revelation has no relevance to the end times?  No, I cannot say that.  But, I think reading the book with the first and primary intent brings encouragement and saves folks from the end time speculations that has gone on repeatedly since I became a believer thirty years ago (as well as long before that).

Elizabeth

People will always make clever biblical pronouncements. Most cannot be verified for their accuracy and most I believe are dead wrong. We had men in the Assembly quoting verses with absolute certainty but were they right. I don't think so because look at all the misery that resulted.

In John 9 the blind man. The Lord tests the disciples and says who sinned that he was born blind. The answer for many is varied but of course it is someone's sin. Possibly but not necessarily and the Lord says no one's sin was to blame but it was an opportunity to display God's glory.

In Luke 13:1-6 Jesus says we don't have the right to say people are getting their just desserts but rather as in verse 3-5 which reminds me of Katrina in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

3. "I tell you no! (They are not worse sinners) (my comments) But unless you repent you too will perish.
4. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them-do you  think they were more guilty than others living in Jerusalem? (Fill in your home town)
5. I tell you, no! (Stop looking at others I tell you Jesus says. We are quick to point away because it takes the focus off us) But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

We must rightly divide the Word of God. That is very humbling and should not be taken lightly. God is showing mercy not licence to all of us who have not suffered these disasters personally but it is not a time for us to be smug but a time to pray that we will be found worthy and also help people in need.

God have mercy on all the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Hugh

Very insightful verses Hugh. It is a great reminder of how unreliable it is to juge based only on appearances.
I do not think however the Lord in these examples was abrogating the prinicple of sowing and reaping, which I believe to be an immutable prinicple of the kingdom.  We are all, alas, children of Adam and share his heritage. I think of the hundreds of crack-addicted and FAS babies born intho this world daily, who have their parents to thank for the untold misry they will  have to endure in this life
What a great reminder to not be smug or rejoice in the calamity of others.
None of us are truly deserving of God's mercy. Great post!
Verne

Verne

Yes we will reap what you sow. I agree. I know from your comments that you realize what I meant.

Some are quick to use a broad brush in a general situation. Like "All cabbies are bad drivers." "Really! How do you know have you taken any cabs lately?" "Well... no... but... everybody knows that." I would need to walk in those filthy shoes in New Orleans to really know what people were going through before I could make a peep about their lives. I know God is merciful to me every day and I need to give in kind. The Lord came not to seek the righteous but sinners that they might be saved.

Where there is repentance from sin we have a Saviour. Where there is unrepentance we have an Eternal Judge.

Lord bless
Hugh

I’m a little befuddled by Verne’s comments. Praying for God to spare the city of San Francisco while he is there? It made me chuckle! Good thing Verne wasn’t in San Francisco (or the state of California, for that matter) during the huge earthquakes of 1906 and 1989 or he might have assumed he was caught in the midst of God’s judgement! Worse, he might have thought God allowed the earthquakes to happen as a rod of correction in his life!  ;D

IMO, Dave & Hugh are more on target in their view of Scriptural judgement. Context, while not the SOLE consideration in interpretation of Scripture, shouldn’t be underrated (i.e. Dave’s excellent explanation regarding the book of Revelation & Hugh’s point about the blind man of John 9). All kinds of Scripture twisting have resulted from taking verses and whole passages out of context.

Even well-trained meterologists have difficulty predicting weather patterns accurately. And after years of seeing my family and other Assembly folks stockpile massive quantities of "end times food supplies" (all of which rotted or became contaminated) I just don't fall for the hype anymore.

We just don't know. We can speculate, sure. We can draw up scenarios. We can hypothesize and write  best-selling books (the LaHaye books being the most recent, and most lucrative, I might add---as soon as I realized it was a THIRTEEN book series I had to question their motives!!). But none of us really knows.

I find it much more helpful to live with what is than with what might possibly happen.

And when disaster strikes, instead of coming up with reasons why it happened, I just try to help: Samaritan's Purse is a good choice and their online donation process is really easy.

E.

That was my intention.
My comment however was only partly tongue in cheek.
Of all the adduced reasons why disaster could strike that area, I was simply pointing out that God's judgment for sin was one such legitimate possibility.
It happened in Sodom. Why not San Francisco?
Verne

Great conversation people.

The last two sentences says it all.

All with the Left Behind Series, it is a fictional version of the End Times, with Biblical References , all though the story is fiction, they tried to work around scriptures.

Revelations is a wonderful book, easy to understand if you dont analyze it to death.

It is the debate over pre tribulation, during tribulation or post tribulation with the question of when the rapture is going to occur.
All the signs of the end times that the Bible has warned us about.

I think the about debate is not important, what is important is to be ready for when Jesus comes back. My prayer is that Jesus will be back to take me home pre tribulation, and sometimes I will even pray hurry up. But my timing is not God's timing. I am still on earth because God has something else for me to learn, apply and grow.

In our human discussions, I will say when I get to heaven I will have a list of questions, "like a bone to pick with you God" , but I am sure once I end the kingdom of God, it will be God who has a bone to pick with me and I will have some explaining to do for certain situations.

I have read the first two books in the Left Behind Series, I read the first book in about a couple of days, then I lost interested, the whole series is in our church library.

Talk to you later.  Great topic.

Lenore

Your comment got me thinking about something - and that is whether I am the only one who thinks that God is angry over the number of unborn lives being destroyed daily with governmental sanction in this country.
I suspect I may at least be in the minority in my view on this.
The fact that we apparently no longer have any expectation of God's judgment, is a profound illustration of how grossly distorted our view of God has become, even as believers.
The fear of the Lord,is the beginning of wisdom...
Verne

You may be in the minority, but you aren't the only one.

moonflower

Bless you, my chile... :)
Verne

p.s btw folks, I am not saying that those with a different persective on this are necessarily wrong.
What I am saying is that when we criticise those who contend that a calamitous event is evidence of God's judgment and then in the same breath turn around and ourselves declare that it is not, how is that different from what is being criticized?
None of know what is in God's mind unless he tells us. He has told us quite a bit about how He views, and equally more importantly, what He does about sin.

Whoa. How did the abortion issue land here? That was random.

I guess I just don't believe that a natural disaster which disproportionately afflicts the weakest and poorest of society (ie Hurricane Katrina) should be reflexively attributed to God's wrath. Especially if we follow this reasoning to its logical end: helpless old women drowning in flooded nursing homes in New Orleans is somehow connected to America's abortion practices?   ???

Call me crazy....

I don't know Elizabeth; it's hard for me to think of anyone weaker or poorer than the unborn.
The disaster which afflicts them may not be natural, but the disproportionate consequences causes all others to pale in comparison don't you think?
I raise this issue to provide some food for thought with regard to the principle of sowing and reaping - no man ( or woman) is an island.
I understand the nursing home reference evokes sympathy and rightly so. It does however fail to take into consideration the sobering fact that no one is innocent.
Every single breath that you and I draw is remarkable testimony to the matchless patience and long-suffering of God, who permits the continued existence of a world that denies Him and creatures that defy Him... daily...the surprise is that any of us are still here...
Verne

May I recommmend that you listen to Dr David Jeremiah's messages on the book of Revelation?
To in any way diminish the frightful warnings in this book regarding the horrors that are to come upon a Christ-rejecting world would be tragic. Mitigating what God has clearly stated is to come upon this earth by reducing it to mere imagery and figures of speech means that we as Christinas have ceased to be light and salt to a dying world.
A world over-run by hordes of demonic beings and in which the pain and siuffering is so horrendous that men will desperately, but vainly try to take their own lives is no laughing matter.
Make no mistake about it Dave, the book of Revelation describes real events, affecting real people, with real players, and taking place in space- time. To suggest anything else is to make God a liar.
Verne

While I agree with your every word above, Verne, I didn't take Dave's thoughts to be to the contrary.  I admit that seeming to compare John's warning to a Stephen King novel is a weak analogy, but I'm sure Dave will do better when he's perfect ;).

I understand Dave to be deploring the fanatic interpreting of prophecy in which scriptural images are compared to present-day scenarios, which has plagued the church since its inception.  I have neither cable or satellite TV, but can tune in at least one or two stations at any hour which are carrying one of these modern-day oracles who will tell me exactly who the beast is, what his mark looks like, and what I ought to do about it (which usually involves my generous check, money order or a credit card #).  Jesus said, "Take heed that no man deceive you," (Mt.24:4; cf context, Mt.24:3-51, especially note v.36).

There is no question but that the world in which we live is headed for collosal destruction, involving suffering on a scale that has never been fantasized by mankind.  God is in charge of the timetable, and the sands of time are sinking.  There awaits for men and women either inheritance of glory or of judgment, and anyone who thinks otherwise is asleep and dreaming.

---

As to the question of the butchery of the unborn, I cannot see it as a wholly separate discussion than that of natural disaster, although the two topics may seem to be distant from one another.  The common denominator as I see it is the sovereignty of God, Who works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph.1:11).  Some people get tired of hearing such things, but we are privileged to view everything through the lens of Rom.8:28(-39).  The choice to do so or not is ours to make-- I highly recommend it.  For those who find such a decision difficult, there is the open resource of prayer...

al

I disagree with both of these comments. Revelation is a prophetic book, and does indeed indicate to us what God intends to do in the future.
The Christian is a fool who does not understand the times in which he is living. I absolutely compare the news to what is written in God's Word, take for example the appearance of strange and exotic new dieseases foretold by the "pestillences" of Matthew 24.




This is as much as saying that the Book of Revelation has less relevance for today's readers than it did for those around at the time it was originally written, a remarkable thing to say about a book whose vast majority of foretold events are yet future.

"Does not exist today"??!! Dave cannot be serious.


 
I view the nature and purpose of Scripture completely differently I am afraid.


Revelation is a prophetic book Dave. I am really quite surprised by comments like this


This is exactly the point. Your assumption that the first and primary intent was to speak to issues and circustance already past is only an assumption, and in my view not warranted by the book's self stated outline.
John was told to write the things which he had seen, AND the things which are, AND the things which are to come.
I get a little frustrated when I hear Christians making comments about Scripture like this because I get the sense that they have not taken the time to read the material they are making confident pronouncements about. No offense Dave.
Al I hope this more detailed response clarifies my thinking are reasons for my previous observations.
Verne

See, this is the kind of tone I was hoping to avoid when I began this thread. I am interested in discussion, not in subtle (or sometimes obvious) personal jabs at the state of posters' Christian walks. I have a feeling this is why there are not more people posting on the BB because they are afraid if they voice an opinion, they will be shut down, called fools and barraged with adamant insistence that they are wrong and others are right.

It took me a long time to work up the courage to post on this BB. But I'm just not interested in being party to religious one-upmanship, ie. who can quote the most verses, who can use the longest and most intimidating words, who is best able to show off their debating prowess.

I have questions and I'm seeking answers. But I won't be helped if topics devolve into name-calling, gloomy prognostications about the "reprobate state Christians today" or the he-said, she-said stuff.

Frankly, I've had enough of that in my lifetime. And maybe I was hoping (perhaps naively) that I might find a place of genuine examination of issues without the heavy-handed Bible-verse quoting of my childhood. That's why I tried to inject a bit of humor, to try and keep things light. That went over like a lead balloon. :-\

Here's the thing: Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes I'm wrong. And that's OK. Because to me there is something more important than being right or wrong: it's called being kind.

Kindness matters. Without kindness you can be as right as right can be and still be absolutely wrong.

I, for one, cannot flourish in a place lacking kindness.

E.

Verne, I'm with you 100% on this one. I think it's a given we can all agree to dis-agree at times. But it is quite evident we are living in the FigTree Generation. And Dave can probibly handle you taking off the kid gloves. Peter and John used words like blind and the Lord referred to people sleeping and told them to WATCH. Course alot of people despise prophesy and prefer to slumber in delusion. I think it's very kind of you to sound the alarm.  God Bless Summer.

Probably I am known to some, if not most, on this board as one who wears rose-colored glasses, because I choose to look for the best in my brethren rather than seize every opportunity to demonstrate my own prowess at the expense of others.  That has not always been the tack I chose to take, but I have learned and am still learning that it is the right choice for me.  Others disagree, believing that severity is in order, regardless of the minority of the degree of differing opinions.  I cannot fault them for following their convictions.  I sometimes disagree with their choices, but I elect to address these disagreements privately, so as to not confuse the earnest seekers who read here by appearing to force someone to defend his or her posts.

Elizabeth, please bear with me as I separate some of your remarks from their original context in order to address them specifically:


I applaud your choice of words.  Although you may not have intended to, you said "I won't be helped," rather than saying you can't be helped, and your statement is truer than you may realize.  The truth is that we may run from adversity, but we cannot hide.  It will find us, wherever we flee to.  I have been offered ample reason to leave this board behind on several occasions, but I have no reason to regret not doing so.  Christ Himself is our example of learning obedience through suffering (Heb.5:8 ), so that we may learn to obey Him (v.9).  Please, let no one misread me: I do not claim to be a martyr-- only a would-be follower of the Lamb of God.

My point to you, Elizabeth, is that we may choose whether or not to be helped, wherever we are, and whatever others may choose to do.  We, and they, will answer only to the Lord for our choices.  It is not the social atmosphere in which we find ourselves that will determine our fate, but how we respond to it.



Here I will suggest that "places" neither can possess nor lack such qualities as love and kindness.  It is the people who occupy those places that determine what its apparent character will consist of.  That is us.  On this board, we are the people of this place.  If all the kind people go away from here to seek their own (see ICor.13:5), there will be no one left but the unkind, who will have been abandoned and left without an example.  That they may deserve no better is not anyone's call to make but Christ's.  God forbid that any of us should ever be left to receive what we deserve!

As for the rest of your post, I agree with your assessment and counsel.  But it can be no more than counsel.  You may lead a saint to the Bread of Life, but you cannot make him/her eat.  He gives to those who ask of Him, but if they do not ask of Him, all our efforts to correct them are in vain.  And if we depart, who then will urge them to ask of Him?  The teacher may teach, the preacher may preach, the counsellor may counsel, but only the Holy Spirit can touch the heart and effect change therein.

---

Verne, yes, thanks.  I see that I overlooked what were some obviously dubious reflections on Dave's part.  As I have tried to explain to Elizabeth, above, I think it is our initial duty in such cases is to state what is right, which I believe was your intent.  I'm grateful that you read more deeply into his post than I had.  As most veteran posters know, what is written, and particularly the way it is received by the reader, is often not the expression that was intended.  With that in mind, we owe all posters who come short of blasphemy the benefit of the doubt.

Let's instruct the more correct view of the matter, and withhold suggestions of the spiritual state of the poster until his/her response is known.  Much hangs in the balance as we reflect upon doctrine (Tit.2:1), but equal weight must be accorded to our treatment of one another (1Jn.3:14-18).

God bless us all,
al

Hi Elizabeth:

It is your last line "I, for one , cannot flourish in a place lacking kindness".

Amen , sister, Amen.

Our church had a dear pastor who keep saying from the pulpit.
It is also quoted in Rick Warren 40 DAYS OF PURPOSE Book.

PEOPLE DONT CARE WHAT YOU KNOW
UNTIL THEY KNOW THAT YOU CARE

He also said, because he came and saw a church come out of the ashes of a recent split.

WE MAY NOT BE A PERFECT CHURCH, BUT WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD CHURCH.

Meaning, we may not be perfect, but we have the structure to be of service.

If I may conjecture here, if I am wrong please say so.
I believe what you are saying.

YOU BETTER HAVE THE WALK TO BACK UP YOUR TALK, in regards of your Christianity.

Nice talking to you.

Lenore

Well Elizabeth, it hasn't taken you long to figure out the dynamics of this board. You hit the nail on the head. Pretty soon someone may "warn" you.   ::)
LOL

If it appears as if I were referring to Dave as a fool, I sincerely apologise.
The proposition was hypothetical and not aimed at any particular person.
Clearly I have no idea what Dave's spiritual state is and my comments were not intended to suggest that I do.
I can merely respond to assertions he makes and the opinons he expresses.


The exhange with you on the BB has by an large been genial Elizabeth.
Some topics do get a bitg lively and we have all learned to be a bit thick-skinned.
You are new so your sensitivity is understandable.
Few posters here are loathe to call it the way they see it.
Feel free to do the same.
Mercy4Me's caveat is ludicrous.
Folk on this BB are free to voice strong opinons as long as they are not abusive.
Of the hundreds registered few have been "warned" and only three accounts I know of have been deleted.
I see Mercy4Me's assembly training still stands her in good stead...
Verne

I hopped on the board with some malformed ideas and my post implied many misleading ideas.  I would much rather have Verne's straight-forward debate than the mocking and games of others I have experienced.

Verne, you are right - Revelation is indeed a prophetic book.  I am trying to work through some various things I have heard and read and these thoughts still need more perculating.  I'll try and post more when I have opportunity.

Lord bless brother,

-Dave

I realise that my sometimes sharp rhetorical tone notwithstanding, or perhaps because of it,   :) not every may recognize that I love you as a brother in Christ, my friend. I know that you know...'nuff said
Verne.

Verne,

Elizabeth makes a very valid point about kindness when responding on the BB. I know personally I post so rarely because I say to myself, "Do I really want to be misunderstood or skwered by Verne or Tom today?" So I tend to stick with blogs where "Be ye kind one to another" prevails.

Since we are being "thick skinned" here's a couple of examples. "Mercy4Me's caveat is ludicrous." That comes of much better if you say, "I don't agree with Mercy4Me's caveat at the end there." Or when you say, "I see Mercy4Me's assembly training still stands her in good stead..." I don't know Mercy4Me, but it is hard to see how that statement was not meant to smart. It comes off as the salt in the very wound some people come here to work through. And in its context many of us are left wondering, "What the bleep does that mean?"

Another example on another thread is when you asked, "What does the Bible teach about the Christian doctrine of justification?" This is a tactic some of us are wary of. It seemed obvious you had a certain way of looking at justification and you were waiting to teach us what it was as soon as we tried to explain it and messed up according to you prerecorded idea of it. Some times teachers can do this to good effect in a classroom, but it is hard to pull off in any other setting without being a tad condescending and looking very pleased with one's self. Moonflower got the right answer though and you replied, "I was gonna say that..." So I was wondering why you just didn't say it to begin with because it felt to me like a trap.

If we all took a little more time when posting we could reedit for kindness. The natural comes first and then the spiritual, eh?

Points well taken Jem. I know my style often comes off as abrasive and my intention is not to appear condescending but to try and stir lively debate. I wil try to choose my words more carefully, even if it is my intention to have my comment "smart" just a little. We could all benefit from a little "smarting" every now and then...(as I am doing now. :) ) Thanks for the suggestions and examples.
Verne

Jem, Elizabeth, Mercy4Me,

I hope others will have the courage to speak out on this as you three have. It is encouraging that this subject has resurfaced in several different ways recently.   You give others courage to speak out.  Remember that people did not speak up when they were being controlled through strong personalities and took big hits for their unwillingness to be vulnerable publicly.  The strong control the less certain and less confident when the timid will not speak out.  Many of us have learned that keeping quiet when there is harshness and abuse is not a good path to take.

It is clear now that there is a pervading cold, rude, and pushy "style" of strong posters who control all others to an extent.  This must be questioned since, after all, it has been proven in recent years - the strongest intellects are not always "right."  ::) In fact, intellectuals can be some of the most irrational and love-lacking among Christians. 

The verse about "accusing and excusing" comes to mind...both are of the same mind depending on whose intellectual abilities or opinions are being scrutinized - yours or mine.   ;)

An abrasive "style" ??  Don't we tend to understate our own shortcomings and overstate those of others?  George did this.  With him the sins of others was put under the microscope and conversely his shortcomings (understated) were just chalked up as the innate passions of the Greeks.  Exactly the same brand of justifications if you ask me. 

George would have handled that false prophet, Dave Sable, in much the same way he was handled on this board for sharing his own "opinion" of how Revelation could be viewed.  He was essentially slapped for differing in opinion; he was ridiculed publicly for thinking outside the box - right or wrong. 

Ok, let's say False Prophet, Dave was dead wrong.  Is debate stimulated when someone hits you over the head and shames you for even saying or even thinking such a God-awful thought to begin with.  And then to post it.  Well!!!  Unthinkable.  "YOU SHOULD HAVE STUDIED IT TIRELESSLY BEFORE YOU POSTED SUCH A THING."  This is typical of Verne's and Tom's tyrannical "style."

Stimulating "de" bate or bait "ing" for the next meal" ?? 


I like that.  It may require more than a little extra time, however.  It may mean learning "love" in the exchange of ideas.  Stimulating debate wasn't Christ's priority when He walked this sad earth.  He came to prove His love through sacrifice - did He not?  He came loving and helping, not debating and skillfully turning phrases.  What do you think? 

frank

Well done Frank and Jem:

I beleive that Elizabeth was trying to get new posters and opinions started here.  Some of us who are only 2 1/2 years post-assembly still like hashing things through to rediscover our beliefs.  Other like Verne, have had many more years to solidfy their beliefs.  Their responses are far to black and white for me.  I cannot stand black and white at this point.

So please post on and try to ignore the insults and "thus sayeth the Lords" so the rest of us can have a dialog as well.

Me

"Are you talkin' to me?!!" (Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver)

What I think is that you can expect a barrage of "proof" texts that show Jesus did engage in debate, name-calling, shaming others, outrage and violence.  It's happened here before.  Nonetheless, I appreciate the purpose of your post and agree that the courage of a few will inspire others to speak up and speak out.

Many of us have spent years under the tyranny of men (and a few of us have been those men) who decided what they wanted to say, then went to the Scriptures for authoritative "backup."  They (we) preached a false gospel of "this-is-how-it's-gonna-be-or-else."  It is, as Jem points out, the natural way presiding over the spiritual:

It seems that those of us with strongly assertive, aggressive, and/or competetive natures want to continue as we have always done, using Scripture as an excuse to do so.  So do those who are naturally inclined to be meek, submissive, sensitive, etc. seize upon the gentler side of Bible accounts to justify the tendencies we have always had.

Neither is correct.  In Christ we are given a new "nature," that of the Man from heaven.  The passing away of the old, and the becoming of the new can be as excruciating (and seem as strange and undesireable) as the pangs of natural childbirth and natural growing pains.  It does not have to be so, but more often than not it is the rule.  We have spent a lifetime learning to behave naturally, i.e. to control and utilize our earthly natures; dare we expect to not have to learn spiritual concepts, attitudes and behavior?

Even when we have learned to pray to God in and about every situation of life, we discover that our prayers are largely "me"-centered.  If they are not directly about self, they reflect the desires of the self.

When Jesus taught those who asked Him the manner in which to pray (Matt.6:9-13), there was nothing at all of self in His words.  The primary intent of His (our) prayer was/is to glorify, honor and please God.  The requests He taught should be made are all to be stated in the plural: "Give us... forgive us... lead us... deliver us..."in light of which Peter reminds us to resist the devil, "knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." (1Pet.5:9)  Peter goes on to say (v.10), "But the God of all grace, who has called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you."  And Paul addresses that concept by saying, "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Rom.8:18).

It doesn't come easily (because it doesn't come naturally), but we must learn to put God before self because that is the order of things:  God, who always was, created us, and redeemed us for His own pleasure-- His is the priority and the preeminence.  And we must learn that even God's gracious redemption of us is not just about me, the individual, but about us, His Body and the Bride He is perfecting for His Son.  We must learn to view our brethren not according to their natural features, but as God sees them: beloved, precious in His sight, and we must learn to lay down our lives for them.


What I have said is not what I have learned, but what I am learning.  This board has been and is an excellent classroom for such...

All emphases within Scripture quotations are my own.

Such words as "reckon", "self", "nature", etc. may strike a sour note to some.  Please consider that these are legitimate English translations of valid Scriptural expressions.  It is their extreme misapplication, the false teachings about them that have made them seem distasteful to us.  Let us pray for each other, for the cleansing of our minds and memories, and that we may be taught by the Holy Spirit to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

Because of His grace,
al

P.S. to just me:  All of us, from every background and at every stage of growth, will have to learn to love (accept, tolerate, etc.) each other.  We're going to be living together for a very long time!  :)  :) :)

Thank you, frank. You hit the nail on the head. Will it make a difference? Not likely.

Mercy, Frank, Jem, Elizabeth,

Good form!!

The ones who wish to intimidate will use verses from the bible where Jesus called people hypocrites or where he turned over tables to validate verbal and physical abuse on their part.

The fact is, those things were a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

As Frank says, the Lord’s purpose was love. Throw in John 3:16 here or John 13:34-35. Of course there are many more.

The love of Christ is not displayed where there is mocking and ridicule and condescension. I far prefer a doctrinal infant with the humility of Christ over intellectual arrogance any day. Only my opinion though.

I am not much of a poster on this board but I can certainly say Amen to your sentiments. It is that spirit that I enjoy reading.

Lord bless you.

And who might these be??

Most definitely an opinion not held by most, I would venture to say.

JEM,
you make so many valid points. I wish more people like you would post on here so that the tenor would change. Verne's point about Mercy4Me's assembly training was out of line. I wish judgmental remarks like that would have no place here. Hopefully things will change. Anyway, you obviously have a lot to offer this board. I hope you keep posting.

Moonflower,

Unless you have taken a poll or something you may be only speaking for yourself and the half dozen dominant posters.

Frank shares his opinion. You are free to share yours but you certainly aren’t speaking for me when you say his opinion is “not held by most”.

there are lots of methods being employed on this board which are just SO familiar, I just can't remember where I've seen them before!  ;) that was a joke, you are permitted to chuckle!

so far, the methods I've observed in this one topic alone are:
1. The Jesus Excuse: "Jesus used harsh words (blind, fool, etc.), so why can't I?" Well, for starters, we are not Jesus. And secondly, lots of things have been done in the name of Jesus, not all of them worth imitating (Crusades, anyone?)
2. The Fake Apology: " IF I offended you, I'm sorry..." Real apologies accept blame unconditionally.
3. The Barrage of Verses: Underlined, from-the-Greek, emphasis added, etc. If you have to use verses to back up every single point, then chances are people will suspect you having an agendized viewpoint.
4. Spiritual Lingo-Jingo: whenever I hear (or read) certain emotionally loaded words & phrases, I have an immediate knee-jerk reaction (I'm working on that!). But honestly, can we try and refrain from such overly dramatic-spiritual-lingo-jingo as "follower of the Lamb" "sands of time are sinking" "classroom of heaven" etc etc? These words have been so overused (and abused) that they have completely lost their meaning.After reading them I feel like we're going to burst into a collective chorus of "Come Thou Almighty King!"  (Again, that was a joke and you are allowed to chuckle!!) ;D

Granted, I've only been "out" for 2.5 years, so I haven't achieved objectivity yet. We all want a dialogue, but is it possible here?

In other words, you can take people out of the assembly but can you take the assembly out of people?

Post on...

How long does one have to be “out” in order to obtain objectivity? How much purifying does it take to be able to recognize rudeness?

Maybe we need a seminar to teach us the difference between right and wrong. (that was tongue in cheek, probably not funny though)

As an "old timer" I don't really want to interrupt this great conversation, except to say there's a new article on ga.com, based on material from Wellspring that addresses these issues. It might be helpful, or at least be something to chew on.

What tone and jabs are you referring to E.??  How do you know that Verne had an unkind attitude??

Maybe you can show us how it is done "correctly" by your example, and be the one of the voices on this BB that transforms it into a place of healthy discussion ???

2r

frank, yes mercy was "nice" to you while he condemned the BB.

Most of the rest, who commented recently on this thread, have displayed a judgemental attitude while claiming that they were being nice and kind.

Just this week we (myself and a family member) discussed this very topic.  The upfront individual openly states his judgement giving the other the opportunity to clarify.  The socially "nice" person judges and keeps his opinion to himself, thus creating an environment for misunderstanding and frustration.  Both are guilty of judging, but one is hypocritical.

2r

SHE

Onee of many articles about "Southern Decadance" you can find on sites on the net

When people who have never spent Labor Day weekend in New Orleans ask me what Southern Decadence is, I usually take the easy way out and tell them that it's sort of like a gayer version of Mardi Gras, although Mardi Gras is pretty gay itself and Southern Decadence isn't really like any other celebration in New Orleans, or anywhere else. So maybe it's easier to explain what Southern Decadence isn't.
It's not a party to celebrate a particular holiday, like Halloween or New Year's Eve (or even Mardi Gras), although it has taken place every Labor Day weekend in New Orleans for nearly 35 years. It's not an event for the whole family. And it's definitely not for the easily shocked or faint of liver: if you're thinking of seeing out the summer in a starched polo shirt while sipping gin and tonics on an immaculately manicured lawn somewhere, don't come to New Orleans. (Or at least stay Uptown.)
First Decadence played out in 1972
According to various online histories of the event, the first Southern Decadence celebration took place in 1972 when a group of omnisexual downtown New Orleans residents - including several women and at least one Yankee - decided to hold an impromptu cocktail party and costume parade to break the late summer monotony and honor a friend who was leaving town. From such inauspicious beginnings, Southern Decadence has become one of the largest gay events in the country (the third largest, by most accounts, after Gay Pride in New York and San Francisco), with over 120,000 revelers converging on the French Quarter last year.
Since usual standards of decorum in New Orleans (at least on this side of Canal Street) are never very high to begin with, especially where alcohol is involved (and what kind of celebration in New Orleans
doesn't involve alcohol?), you can expect things to get pretty wild
over Decadence weekend. First-time visitors to New Orleans are almost invariably surprised by two of our most notable civic institutions: 24 hour bars and permissive open container laws, which not only means that you'll never hear the words "last call", but that you'll be able to take the party (and your drinks) with you wherever you choose to wander.
No tickets necessary to enjoy the party
Unlike most gay and lesbian party weekends, Southern Decadence doesn't revolve around one single ticketed party, although multiday passes are sold by the two main gay dance bars (the Bourbon Pub and Oz) which flank either side of Bourbon Street and Saint Ann. If the weekend has a signature event, though, it's the Southern Decadence parade which begins at the Golden Lantern on Royal Street on Sunday afternoon and winds its way through the French Quarter on the whim of whoever happens to be the Grand Marshal that year. Since the Grand Marshals tend to be eminent figures from the city's bar and nightlife scenes, you can expect the parade to hit most of the main watering holes in the Lower Quarter before dispersing just as informally as it began. Even if you choose not to pack your favorite wig and pair of seven-inch showgirl pumps and be on display yourself (and you are highly encouraged to do so), the costumes worn by the Grand Marshall and his (or her) retinue are not to be missed.
Leave your prudish friends and family at home
Parades and non-stop parties aside, Southern Decadence may be most famous (or infamous) for the displays of naked flesh which characterize the event - which is only fitting, since New Orleans in early September is generally the closest thing you'll ever experience to walking around in a steambath outside of a health spa. While police have started to crack down on public lewdness and pressure from a local crackpot conservative religious organization has caused the five-day festival to become a little more sedate than it was in years past, the atmosphere of Southern Decadence has stayed true to its name and public displays of sexuality are pretty much everywhere you look. Like I said, you might want to leave your more prudish friends and family at home. However, if you're open-minded enough to plan on joining the crowds this year, it's not too late to find a place to stay; New Orleans is built around the hospitality industry, and there are usually plenty of accommodations available over Labor Day weekend in and near the French Quarter to suit every taste and budget. Don't just limit yourself to looking for places to stay in the French Quarter; there are plenty of lodgings available in the Central Business District and Faubourg Marigny, and you'll appreciate having somewhere quiet yet nearby to retire to when you need a break from the crowds.
After all, the party in New Orleans never really stops - during Southern Decadence weekend or any time of year. August 31 - September 5, 2005.

Chuck Miller

And the same would hold true,then, for any opinion. We don't need to take polls to voice an opinion.

My opinion references more than just the posters/visitors of this BB.

You underestimate the sophistication of your fellow BB posters my friend. This is not going to happen and for obvious reasons.


Certainly a greatly sanitized reportage of that annual event Chuck. I suspect most of the posters on this thread know little or nothing about this (witness the hand-wringing and lamenting over anyone daring to talk about
God judging people  :)). I understand the delicacy fully. I guess such things are not to be even named among believers. Informative and relevant post. My...but you are subtle... :)


Verne

Thank you, Marty, for your post and compliment. Like you, I prefer " a doctrinal infant with the humility of Christ over intellectual arrogance." In fact, I believe that intellectual arrogance is completely non-conducive to the child-like faith that the Lord craves from us. In many ways, children love people unconditionally until they are "taught" to hate others, so I do believe that abounding love is an essential element of child-like faith. Another aspect of child-like faith is the ability to be taught, entreated, disciplined, etc, without the pride that comes when an adult corrects another adult.  Whereas feelings of resentment and pride arise when an adult corrects another adult, a child expects it from an adult and thus takes correction far more humbly. Perhaps that is one reason that children learn faster than adults?

I would ask Verne to consider this when he has been entreated by multiple people rather than launching himself into defense mode.

Best,
Frank

Frank, this is starting to taste like warmed over oatmeal.
If there is a topic to discuss, then demonstrate to us what you actually mean.

Verne probably suffers from ADD and needs a dose of ritalin or something to calm him down. ???
Frank, if you read all of Verne's recent posts you might recollect that he explained that his intent was not to jab at Dave.

How did you guys survive the assembly??  What a bunch of touchy sensitive individuals.  And talk about using verses and biblical principles to support your argument. :o

BTW strong language is reserved for hypocrisy, regardless of who is guilty, and regardless if it reminds us of our assembly days.

2r

I don't care to argue these points, 2ram.  Are you sure you are not 2ram and Verne?  You sound the same, but please forgive if my guess is wrong.  It feels a little funny to dialog with someone who is both people.   ??? 

Frank

I copied a couple of interesting emails sent to the website of the infamous event:

From: "itsme again" <your_mamma57@yahoo.com>
To: <info@ambushmag.com>
Subject: Hurricanes
Date: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:16 PM

"Wow! First Frances in 2004 in Tampa killed your Pride party (and hurt your advertising coffers) and now Katrina wipes out your other one>>> I hate to see what God does for "Strike-Three"
Please dont schedule a Southern Decadence party in my town.
(Rancho Cucamonga Ca)
Thank you.
--Dave
Proverbs 3:5&6"

From: "Allison Hamff" <allisonlh@ev1.net>
To: <info@southerndecadence.com>
Subject: Rescheduling
Date: Sunday, September 04, 2005 4:31 PM

"When does your filthy group of freaks plan to reschedule the decadence
festival in another city so that it can then be destroyed as well? I'm sure
any upcoming cities that you are considering would appreciate knowing."


Interesting, eh?

Compare the mayor of N.O. to the new mayor we have in the next-door town who is involved in a legal battle trying to prevent a local restaurant from reverting back to its striptease show.

Moonflower

Isn't it remarkable how all of us can non-judgmentally say for certain what the attitudes of all the others really are?!!  Our "love" enables us to pick out and name the hypocrites whose "love" isn't real (we can tell, because their "love" has picked out and named us, and that couldn't be right :o ::)).

If the use of Scripture is ruled out, by what is any of us to know the truth?  If our dialogue is to contain only personal observation and opinion, we will soon devolve into universalists, believing that one way to "god" is as good as the next, and that many gods are valid.

None of us needs consider either Scripture or the familiar words and phrases of our pasts need to be mandatory reading-- if we don't like them, we can simply ignore them.  But should we suggest that they be withheld from everyone simply because of our personal tastes, feelings or prejudices?  Is an individual's "readiness" to hear to be the guide by which others may speak, and if so, how is the speaker to know the state of the hearer?  Such guidelines may be better suited to two-party conversations than to public discussion among people of widely-varied viewpoints...

Warmed-again oatmeal can seem like a banquet to those who are truly hungry.  Should we deny them that nourishment because we feel full?

What most of us are saying is, "Make it comfortable for me, then it will be right for everyone," because deep in our hearts each of us knows that no one understands better than I do, and nobody knows the trouble I've seen.

Tolerance, acceptance and respect are necessities of life, but for the Christian (whatever his/her stage of spiritual development) there must be lines that are not to be crossed.  How are they to be determined if not by God's Word?  Not the Bible as administered by men alone, but taught to each of us by the Holy Spirit.  And how are we to come by such teaching unless we ask God for it?

Dare we admit to ourselves that a public forum such as this board cannot be perfect; will never be comfortable for everyone?  We may create that illusion by driving away all who disagree with us, but that will not make it true (as assy veterans probably remember).  True humility is the only solution to personal peace, and we do not have it within us to develop personal humility or peace, except as we grow up into Christ (it is our faith that is to be childlike, not our behavior).

If we cannot (read: will not; refuse to) tolerate the use of underscoring, bold print, certain language, we may fare better in a monastery or a nunnery (I'm sure there are several who would love to see me take a vow of silence ;) ;D).

It would be absurd for me to say, "Let's get real," or "Get over yourself and get on with your life," because that is exactly what every poster on this board is doing-- each in our own way!

One of the greatest wonders of life is that we are each exclusively individual in our physical, mental and emotional composition, and yet we can share a common redemption and faith in Jesus Christ.  This is not merely experiential, but it is reality, whether we sense the experience of it or not.

By the way, the Bible doesn't ask us, "Are you rejoicing, Brother/Sister?"  It simply tells us to rejoice in the Lord always (because we can![/b]).  The Bible's purpose isn't to put us on the spot, but to show us our deliverance from "the spot" in Christ.

---

Thanks, Chuck, for returning us momentarily to the original point of this thread; Verne, for your acknowledgement of same; Moonflower for your addenda.

God bless all here (sing whatever you choose, or not... ;)),
al

P.S.-- Believe it or not, I have edited this post over a dozen times for the sake of universal acceptability, but it will not be universally accepted...  That's OK! :) :) :)

A word of advice my friend. There are some folk who come on the BB not to engage in serious discussion and exchange of ideas. The come here beause they have a chip of some sort on their shoulder and want to take to task someone whose style, not what is actuallly stated, they find offensive.
They then use their assembly-acquired courage and discernment to start lecturing  others about how to speak.
Watch out when they start making public statements about "entreaty by many people" , i.e mob action.
No material contribution to any ongoing discussion, just taking pot-shots at other folks.
Some of these hapless folk find the notion that others may disagree with their point of view so strange that the have no recourse but to accuse such opposing opinions as coming from the same person, namely me. ( a quite revealing accusation frankly which confirms something I suspected)
Al don't wast your time. There are losts of really interesting things to tallk about.   :)
Verne

Things are different now, but when I had to dialogue with teens it was the same kind of thing.  We would get so far off track on the point being discussed because I was a hypocrite and I had raised my voice and I had etc. etc. etc.  My kids do not do that any more because they have matured and we can actually talk and communicate with each other.

It is no wonder that the assembly continued for as long as it did.  With the Franks and the Martys and just mes etc. afraid to voice their opinion unless they can clear the decks of any 'conflicting' voice, it never did happen.  In my experience, the only effective approach to help people out of assembly bondage has been the straightforward upfront one.  Those who avoid discussion with an opposing point of view run the risk of not growing up and of creating a mini-cult of their own.  I've seen it happen in families where a number of the family member rise up to 'protect' one family member and ignore the voice of another member just because they have a bone to pick with that one.

BTW Frank, for your benefit, and any other's as well, I specifically stated on my profile that I am a female, so as not to be mistaken for any of the male posters.

2r

Is it not interesting that one of the things that Scriptures teaches about love, is that increasing iniquity results in its diminishment? 
Some if the most unholy peole are the first to start bleating about "hate" when opposed.
The word love has become totally perverted in the vernacular of so many and is now equated with indulgence.
"unloving", "unkind" - nice weapons in the argument for allowing folks to remain sleeping in a burning house...it makes one literally sick...
Verne

Jem disagreed with my approach and told me so directly.
While I did not appreciate the reference to my good friend Tom Maddux as a "tyrant",  I responded to her politely and even agreed with her and clarifed what I had stated. Her criticism was by an large mature and reasonable.
Dave Sable, a man I respect did not take offense. Had what he said been said by others I would have probably ignored it, and ususally do. My clarification and apology should have been the end of it, especially after Dave's post, except of course for those with an agenda. But you get my drift.



That was a cheap shot from a guilty conscience...and "she" can quote me...next thing you know you will be referred to as a "groupie" for your viewpoint  :)
Verne

Hello Everyone

WWJD What would Jesus do. The Bible is the only authoritative book on that so we need to check what we believe and say with that.

HOWEVER it is obvious to me that the filters I have and the filters you have cause me to see even the Word of God in different ways. Some filters are protective some are defensive some are just our way of avoiding the truth.

When someone is ready for strong meat they will eat it. Otherwise we only choke them with it.

The most important thing I strive for in my posts is to mark the obstacles to enjoying Christ that I encountered. To encourage where possible those who want to turn to Jesus and to point people to Him when they are content in their sin because only the Holy Spirit is able to convince them of sin.

All this discussion of love is interesting. Rom 13 paraphrase says Love does not harm others.

Blessings
Hugh

Al:

There is nothing wrong with sharing Bible verses (of course not), and using little fortune cookie sounding phrases in a discussion, if we are going to talk about right/wrong.  Doesn't it bog down the conversation though?   People are tired of jargon.  Why not BE that verse you want to preach?  Be kind.  Be loving.  Be faithful.  ETC.  People are tired of being taught "the Bible."  

God is Good.  In sharing a perspective of goodness and being good is good enough.  It is not necessary to always say, "God is Good and Holy and Perfect and Mighty"...and then almost break into song.  That is an assembly meeting, is it not?  Besides, there are threads for "doctrine" where you expect heavier stuff.

Children just talk about stuff.  Personally, I would like to talk about things like regular people do.  If I want to write a book, then I might want to put a bunch of verses in there and say "Praise God" and things like that.

1 Cor 13 "Love believes all things."  It doesn't say that "Love says and preaches all things."  Demonstration is more powerful than verses.


frank

I get your drift re. your clarification and apology to Dave.

However, when I read that you do not appreciate -ve comments about TomM, I was reminded of Jeff L's supporting Dave G, even in the face of DG's abusive behavior, just because DG was the local LLB and George's son at that.

I suspect that there is some validity to those who claim that the BB has become a mini-cult of its own.  People are unable to see what's staring them in the face because of loyalties and friendships and supporting the LPs.  From lurking and from reading, it is my opinion that Tom is arrogant.

I looked up the meaning of "groupie" on http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=groupie
1.  A fan, especially a young woman, who follows a rock group around on tours.
2.  An enthusiastic supporter or follower: a ballet groupie; a fashion groupie.

And to end this post, here is a quote off the BB:
 "A pack of jackasses led by a lion will easily defeat a pack of lions led by a jackass."  General George Washington

2r

I've been here before.  I can understand why this sort of thing can get out of hand, and I know a good deal about the Assembly, and know quite a few ex-members.

I'm not sure this will do any good, but let me try:

(sound of playground whistle heard)

Children!  Stop it!  Go stand in the corner, and I don't want another word!

"Frank," is trying to encourage you all to behave as if you have a child-like faith.  If that were the case, you would act like reasonable adults.  I think some of you are taking her advice, but are merely acting like children, missing the "faith" implication.

Let me say, if your ambition is to completely discredit and embarass yourselves, you're doing a bang up job. 

Here's a view of the asylum using the security cameras:

In one part of the room are a bunch of scared, confused people, who want to feel better, but who ignore the doctor and listen instead to other inmates who pretend to be doctors.

One of these would-be doctors thinks he's a theologian.  Another thinks he's a spiritual warrior.  Yet another thinks he's a kind, wise, old grandfather.  They really think that, but in reality they're all crazy.

Every now and then a psychologist comes in to check on people.  She identifies certain behaviors and the inmates ignore her or take whatever she says and apply it to everyone else.

In another part of the room, sits a man who has scratched all the hair off of his face and eyebrows.  However, when he speaks he sounds reasonable and together.  He's polite and softspoken, as he says insightful and reasonable things...yet he too is in the asylum, the same as the others.

Then there is one woman, sitting alone, who copies articles out of magazines, and then copies the copies, and then goes around making everyone read what she has written.

If a new worker comes in and trys to help, the inmates swarm around and grope, pet, poke, threaten and irritate the poor worker. 

This is the online equivalent of a horror movie!

You people need to seriously consider abandoning this whole charade.  There are many good reasons for doing so:

1.)You never discuss anything that actually matters much
2.)Whatever help this forum once provided---and it was useful at one time---has dried up completely.
3.)It makes you all look like fools.  I'd be quite embarrassed to be posting here under my real name.  Seriously, it would greatly hamper my work. 
5.)It's good for people who have had horrendous trouble with dysfunctional relationships to distance themselves from the people they once clung to.  (Like alcoholics not conversing about drinking with other alchoholics.  It's healthy and right to have relationships that aren't based on a mutual past that was abusive and wrong.)
6.)A normal person will soon go crazy if they get locked into a nuthouse!  None of you are imprisoned here, please think about walking outside and getting some sunlight, fresh air, and better food!

Lest any of you say,  "I have plenty of good relationships!  This is just one aspect of my life!"  I beg to differ with regard to the regular posters!

It is obvious that this forum is a very important, even central aspect of your lives, especially in the emotional sense. 

Think about it.  Consider it.  Put away childish things.  Stop all this now.

I would ask that several of you NOT pray about it.  There is no telling how confused you could become if you began to pray and read the bible to think your way out of this.

lurker---oh, yes.  I'm not going to be a regular poster.  The last thing I would want to do is encourage anyone to become dependent on this forum, and I certainly don't want anyone new showing up.

Yes, Parent, but the battle for Middle Earth has just begun! Can't I stay for just a little while longer?

Please, oh, please.

Little Child

Hello, Lurker! You sound oddly like a former poster we used to know named Brent. If he knew you were on board, I'm sure he'd be back here in two snaps of a gnats wing, 'cuz you two would have so much in common. I want to disagree with you, though. I've said this before, on the BP thread, but it was ignored, as usual  ;). Why not let the new generation of post-Assemblyites take over this board for awhile? I mean, top posters, like Brent, Verne, Al, Tom have logged literally days--24 hour days--on here. People who've been out of the Ass'y for more than 2.5 years have had a chance to sort things out, and we have a life, for cryin' out loud. We don't need to hang around here. But folks like Elizabeth do. They need the chance to talk among themselves without us know-it-alls. They're asking for that chance. Can't we give it to them?

Thank you lurker.  You are right on with this.

There is only one thing I want to know, in your BigPicture which one am I ;)?

2r

Well, you're wrong about who I am.  I'm not Brent, although I know him and admire him.  I'm not related to him either.  He knows I'm "back," and I doubt he'll be back here.  He thinks that it's not a good idea for people to get wrapped up in this forum, and I agree with him.  He was able to quit, for his own good.
 

I think we are in agreement on one thing:  I think it is a good idea for all the people you listed above to step back and let a new generation of posters take over.  In fact, I like you idea so much, I'll consider myself to be part of the older generation of posters and will make this my last post.

I don't suppose you will directly ask Verne, Tom, Al to step back?  I would like to point out that they post a good deal more often than I ever did.

Since you lumped me in to the know-it-all category, along with yourself, how about if we both agree to not make a single post for six months?  What if Al, Tom and Verne agreed to the same?  Wouldn't that help the new generation take over?

The next key I hit is the delete account key:

lurker

I miss lurker already. A nice dose of common sense.

I would be happy to ask Verne, Al and Tom directly. How about it, guys?

Oh my gosh, thank YOU Margaret! I've been freaking out today (and last night) because my "please be nice" post started...what? I'm still trying to figure that out! But now we have people blowing whistles and comparing us to mental patients? That was funny, actually. Thanks, lurker.

Yes, yes, yes. I'm just asking for a chance! And I don't even mind if the "old timers" chime in here and there. I have nothing against Al, Verne, Tom or whoever else. Seriously, I'm cool with you guys. See, I don't take myself too seriously and I don't take you too seriously either. But I want to hear other people, too.

Here are my ideas:

Be nice.

Let others talk.

Be respectful.

That goes for me, too!  ;D

now the hard part: is that possible here?

Isn't Elizabeth nice, I ask?  She's so very nice.  I fear she will be dissappointed though so I feel compelled to speak up here.

Since lurker has deleted his account I want to say something on his behalf, consistent I believe, with the spirit of what he was saying in his last post.

You are being a very nice person, Elizabeth, when you offer the "old posters" a continued spot on this board.  In the spirit of sharing though you sort of undo or change the terms that lurker and Margaret are trying to negotiate FOR YOU and others. 

This may feel a little awkward right now, but there is something very important to be gained here FOR YOU and for other younger posters who want to have dialog without being led, guided, monitored, corrected, etc. by the "old Posters."


It has been well established over at least a couple years that the hard part you speak of is not possible given the same posters are involved.  I like being nice too, but sometimes you can be too nice and be taken advantage of by controlling people.  History speaks too loudly on this one. 

Something has been placed on the table that I would like to be so bold as to re-submit without further conditions.    

Thank you, Frank, for assisting this negotiation. I, for one, hereby sign on to the six-month agreement. I have one caveat, however. I had intended, at the end of the ongoing six-week time-off intiated by the BP, to post regarding the concerns I have about the said BP. What I may do instead is start a blog to record my observations. I would like to just come over here and post the URL for the blog, if and when I do it. I have suggested to another of the LP's that they also start a blog. (It's really easy.)

This means, Frank, that I will have to let go of my parental urge to offer answers and guidance  :P, and my rescuer urge to jump in and protect  ::), and leave the health and safety of the board to folks like you  :) :), and maybe you guys won't have all the right answers  ;).  It's hard, it's really hard, but I think I can do it.  ;D

Margaret

Rats, does this mean I can't ask Verne to show me where I called Tom Maddux a "Tyrant?" (If you put it in quote marks the implication is that you're quoting).

I like Tom. Ain't nobody been skwered in the assembly quite like Tom was skwered, but he does have a tendency to get a little hermanutical on small portions of people's posts. Sorry Tom, no tyrannical accusation intended.

Even though I'm a 2.5er I think I'll take Lurker's advice and check out of the Hotel California.

No. I think it would be real interesting to ask Verne to show you that. He won't be able to though because it isn't there. No surprise there.
Checking out.

Hey Jem:
I'm going to see The Eagles this Saturday!  (speaking of Hotel California)  It will be my first "worldy" concert in maybe 25 years.  Should be fun.  I don't know if you're supposed to byob or what.  What is correct concert ettiquet?  I'm so out of touch.  What a nerd.

Hey don't leave.  It's just getting fun around here.

From one nut to another
me

Jem,

I will claim having used that nasty little word in reference to a couple fellows who I feel exercise way too much control.  I did not call someone a "tyrant" however.   I referred to a tyrannical "style"....(see above).  I used the word to describe a "style" or method of how some people control other people.  I did not call someone a name as in "You are a stinking tyrant."


Misrepresentation of the usage of the word, no quote, wrong poster, but besides that Verne was absolutely correct in his defensive allegation toward you, Jem.  Sorry you were blamed for something I did/said or didn't say.  ???  That's why direct quotes are a very good idea.
 
Frank

With all the talk of "being nice", this looks like a jab at Verne.  I've read it over and over and can't see it any other way, so enlighten me if there is another way to look at it.

I do believe that Jem referred to being skewered by Tom.

2r

(in bold for easy reading)

!! Well, I'll be............a vine on a lattice!! Someone has identified a jab at Verne!!
This has got to be a first.

Moonflower

(in bold for easy reading)


Scruffy talks of being nice on board and then.... she takes a jab at Verne.  Something wrong with this picture.

This is silly really.
got to go.
2r

Most definitely.
amen.
Moonflower

Enough already. JEM never called Tom a "tyrant". Verne made it seem like she did. End of story. Good grief, people.

This thread is very funny. It seems reverse psychology is being used here to
try to get people to leave the board so the "nice" people are the ones re-
maining. It's a good method, very entertaining, and a good laugh also. And I
always enjoy a good laugh. ;D

--Joe

It is kind of funny, isn't it?  It's funny in the sense that "nice" people can be so strong for their cause of "freedom" from tyranny.  It's also funny to watch people function out of character.  Yep, there's some funny stuff here, I will agree, Joe.

Freedom isn't free.

Frank

DIdn't mean to ruffle your fur there, Scruffy.
You would have made a good leader in the good ole assembly days.  That tone, and that ability to know people's true motives.  My!!

2r

Hi Tom,

FEMA guidelines, New Orleans rebuilding....this is nice chitchat, but I think there is a topic with much more urgency and relevance that you should speak to.  Have you been reading the posts lately?

Let me catch you up if you haven't read.  Many have expressed that they would like to see the older posters "old timers" take a break and let the new posters have a turn at it.  You were one that was specifically mentioned. 

If you have read - dead silence is your response?  Are you making a statement by not making a statement?  Do you feel that this is just another case where the leadership is being bugged/harrassed by the peons? or what  ???

You sure sound nice enough in this post, no complaint there, but it's that kangaroo sitting at the kitchen table that several would like to talk about.  Margaret directed a very good question toward you.  Can you please answer? 

Frank

This comment is not only uncivil, it is disorderly and betrays a lack of common courtesy.
Tom Maddux is not just an "old time" poster. He is a duly appointed board moderator.
Margaret's request of me was a fair one. Her request of Tom was entirely inappropriate. He is right to ignore it...and you.
Verne

Oh no, my secret's out. I'm a former furry, psychic, bossy, head "saint".
NOT ;D

FEAR AND INTIMIDATION - a link from ga.com - http://www.howcultswork.com/

Cult leadership is feared. To disagree with leadership is the same as disagreeing with God. The cult leaders will claim to have direct authority from God to control almost all aspects of your life. If the cult is not a religious group then questioning the leaders or program will still be seen as a sign of rebellion and stupidity.

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

Frank,

I have deleted most of your post. 

The part I have left is just to show a sample of the ridiculous charges you have made.  To charge Verne with "cult control" is absurd.

You seem to have come here with no other purpose than to stir up trouble.

Stop it.  Now.

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

Folks,

I think this would be a good time to re-post some thoughts I posted a few weeks ago.

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


When Brian asked me to be a moderator he did not spell out any purpose, rules, or prohibitions for the board.  He just told me he trusted my judgement. He did not guarantee that he would always agree with me.   Since then he has intervened once, and that only to comment on my decision to delete a post by Dave Mauldin.  He did not overrule me.

Now, having a moderator at all implies that there are standards which should be observed.  So, we have had, (I believe) three moderators who have never agreed upon any standards for the board.

My own ideas are related to the purpose of the board.

It seems to me that the purpose of the board was/is/should be something like:

1. To inform people about the George Geftakys and his assemblies, including the teachings, practices, and inherent dangers.

2. To help people escape from those assemblies or to avoid becoming involved.

3. To help people recover from their involvement.  This can be accomplished by:

a. Answering questions and sharing experiences.

b. Discussing the subjects that arise as people re-establish their lives on a healthier basis.  This would include just about anything.  Religious beliefs are basic to most human behaviors, so we must explore how those beliefs apply to church polity, money, marriage and child raising, doctrinal teachings...even poker (I suppose). 

c. To provide a place of cyber-fellowship for those who have been in the assemblies or even other cultic groups.  (No, I don't think Dave M. should be excluded.  I just think he should behave himself.)

In light of the above, I don't think the board should be a place for attacking individuals for personal reasons. Strong disagreement is one thing.  Vituperation is another.

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

These guidlines provide a wide range for all sorts of sharing of personal viewpoints of agreement or disagreement.

To turn the board into a forum for personal mud-slinging, however, is to divert it from any healthy purpose.

It would be appreciated if posters would try to stay within these parameters.

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

With due respect to your position here, I did not get a response from you in reference to my post below.

 Re: Constitution Studying
« Reply #49 on: September 09, 2005, 09:34:36 pm »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Tom, I'm not seeing them [my last 5 posts] anywhere, not even on this thread itself, [in spite of the fact that you said they were still on this thread.]

Your request was stated exactly like this " Unless your thread generates some interest on the BB, I would suggest that you bring it to a close."

Now to me, it is a suggestion to consider, that if my thread doesn't generate interest in the near future, that I should bring it to a close. So, with respect to your suggestion, I posted my last 5 posts and another post to inform my captive audience that there would be no more to follow, but you deleted them.

You were not threatening to delete my posts, as you, or another moderator, had threatened Lenore with shortening, but never followed thru.

It may be of some interest to you, and this is probably the factor that got your religious fur up, that the motive for my postings was not to mock Lenore, although the comparison between a few of my posts and her method of posting was very similar. These similarities did make me chuckle and encouraged me to continue posting the longer posts in the way that I did.

Lenore's posts seem to be of value to you because of a few responses to them, BUT Lenore responded with interest to MY posts. Now, wouldn't that say something to you? Maybe MY posts are valuable to her. Maybe SHE would like to read them.

Do you really think that the average person, even if they were interested in reading the constitution, would admit that they enjoyed it? 

There have been many complaints about Lenore's method of posting and you did nothing about that situation. Many people beseeched her, to no avail. You did nothing.

Please give me the consideration of replacing the last 5 posts of mine that you deleted.
Regardless of what "acting like a troll" means in BB lingo, I find that offensive, especially since you don't refer to Lenore in the same way. Oh, I forgot, she has gotten more responses to her player piano paper rolls than I have.   
 
« Last Edit: September 09, 2005, 10:07:25 pm by hopon » 
 
May I add that Mauldin began many, many threads that most here ignored. Between him and Lenore, there have been times where the last 10 posts have belonged to only them. I have never reached that point.

Is it bothering you that I am posting anonymously?

To be frank (pun not intended), I thought that " Miss frankie" was referring to you when they posted the cult control information link, not Verne.

Here's the deal Ms. Frankie. I had every intention of taking an extended break as Margaret suggested. I really need it and so does the BB.  :)
I am confident that Tom will keep a watchful eye on the detritus.
I will stop posting...if you do the same.
By the way, I can see right through you so returning with an alias will do you no good.
Your aroma is too easy to detect. How about it?
Verne

p.s. I know I am mixing metaphors; perhaps I should have said that I can smell right through you huh?  ;D

p.p.s Do you guys have any idea how all those negative points are inflating my ego? Keep 'em coming for it confirms my impact on you...will we get a special category for a positive/negative 1000 point combination?
May  I suggest  IMPACT POSTER EXTRAORDINARIE? Not even Brent comes close!  ;D  ;D  ;D

 ;)   ;D

Hi again Tom,

The problem is not with your parameters and guidelines, but in the way you moderate the BB within those parameters and guidelines.

For example:
You allow tenderhearted to post multiple and long boring posts but tell hopon that she cannot.  Possibly you and MarkC still view tenderhearted as being a weak sister.
You also allowed David M to start 106 threads, about double of the next most thread starter, but "fight" with skeptic when skeptic was successful in doing what you could(did??) not.
You say that, "Religious beliefs are basic to most human behaviors, so we must explore how those beliefs apply to...", but renege on that commitment when it is tenderhearted's POV that would need correcting, but not when it is Ruth or frank or hopon.

Yes, moderating a BB is a difficult task, but the added fact that you are unable to be on board and follow the discussions, makes your task doubly difficult, added to the fact that you are not entreatable.

I wish you all the best.
2r

Hello folks,

Ever hear of "Deja Vu?" 

I have done some laughing as I have read my fanmail for the past few days.  You see, I recognized an old game being played that took me back to the 70's and 80's.

I will explain.

I taught elementary school for about 20 years.  During that time I was called on to participate in this game many times. 

The name of the game, at that level, is called "Manipulating teacher".

It works like this....lets say that Mary wants to "get" Billy for some reason that seems important to Mary.  The problem is that Mary is not allowed to "get" Billy.   But Teacher is!

So, Mary goes to work to manipulate Teacher into doing what she wants.  Usually this is not very easy to do. 

BUT, there is one strategy that usually works.

Mary observes Billy until she sees Billy do something that she expects Teacher to correct.  If Teacher fails to disicipline Billy to Mary's satisfaction, She then utters the following Words of Power, before which parents and teachers rarely fail to quail.

"THAT'S NOT FAIR", When Howard did X you did Y, and now you didn't punish Billy the same."

When it dawned on my that exactly the same tactic was being used on me here, I was both surprised and amused.

My imagination?  Well.....


and...


Sure looks like the same game to me.   ::)

However, when I was "Teacher" I never allowed the "Mary's" of my classrooms win at this game and I don't intend to be manipulated by their older sisters either.

The answer to the manipulative child (or adult) is to point out that their behavior and "Billy's" is different in detail and circumstance.

Disrupting the board with huge posts as a method of "getting" someone or manipulating someone is not nice.

Neither are ugly personal attacks when you don't get your way.

Perhaps you two should listen to your "better angels."

Thomas Maddux

Most posters including you Tom, assumed that I had posted the posts in mockery of Lenore. I think you may have given me credit now on that one. But now you are deducing and assuming that I was hoping for a "spanking" for Lenore. You are assuming that I in some way may have manipulated someone else to pressure Master Tom? Not on your life.

My reasons for posting had nothing to do with Lenore. But of course you are a teacher and teachers don't have to be entreated by students for any reason. After all, teachers are in charge and teachers are always right, right?

Teachers need to keep up that wall of perfection and authority or students may begin to think and all hell will break loose!

In Master Maddux's class Lenore needs to be coddled because she is substandard in some way and rules that apply to the rest of us don't apply to her.  Maybe we should start a Special Ed thread?

Anyway back to the real issue.

You had NOT asked me to stop posting as you incorrectly stated in a previous post and I will copy again what you did say. In fact, because you fail to be entreated, I will post the entire PM:

Hopon,

I think you have made your point about repeated long posts about whatever. 

Your thread does not seem to have generated much interest, however.

In the case of Lenore, the long post champion, there are some who actually read them and say they enjoy some of it.

Unless your thread generates some interest on the BB, I would suggest that you bring it to a close.

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

Now to me, this is not a request to immediately stop posting.
I posted only 4 more times and within minutes you had DELETED them.

Master Tom, that is like a slap in the face  or an immediate "F" written on my paper without you having even read it AND you assuming  that you knew my motives for writing the paper!

You bring up a past analogy? Let me bring one up too.

Master Tom, I have been in classes such as yours and found them to be extremely boring. You lack vision and entreatability. You pigeon-hole students and interact with them accordingly. There is only one way of thinking and that is yours. Students with brains are sleeping or staring out the window but they are the incorrigible ones of course.  ;) Hopefully the only class you ever taught was ENGLISH GRAMMAR.
I have not attacked you personally. You have attacked me.

By deleting my posts in the way that you did, you have slapped me in the face. By refering to my way of posting as "acting like a Troll" you have held me up above any other longer winded poster and insulted me and made me a teacher's example of "this is what happens to.........."
Perhaps you don't have one?
P.S. I'm beginning to believe that miss frankie has a valid point regarding control. There doesn't seem to be any other logical way to look at it.

You can't control a student who has a mask on. 

AND:

There are other ways of attempting to change the tenor of a Bulletin Board besides tacking up a student's picture and making marks on it with Magic Marker. Ah....the sweet smell of power.......
Speaking of manipulations...........
 

yeah, when i heard about NO, one of my thoughts was along these lines. some fanatics will sieze on this and point at the french quarter (which is still standing) as the sinful source of god's judgement. but what about all the small towns that got hit much harder by the hurricane along 50 miles of coastline in mississippi? were they more sinful than the french quarter, since they were demolished and it is still standing? religious fervor often makes ignoring facts fun and easy.

brian

Similarly, unbelievers have drawn the same kinds of conclusions to "God's judgment" throughout history, Brian, as you have here.  I am not saying that "the facts" do point to the judgment of sin in the Hurricane K. example, but "the facts" (evidence) has betrayed things that are known through faith and spiritual enlightenment alone throughout all time....according to God's word.  Right? or Wrong?

Did Pharaoh receive judgment from God becuse of his resistance to God's commands to free His people and move in fear to comply or did he just see horrific situations that related to climate, infestations, etc.? 

The natural mind wants to dismiss that God is alive and active and that there are consequences to wickedness whereas the mind of the spirit, supported by the scriptures, believes that God does judge wickedness...that God is working.

God's laws are in place.  When decadence flourishes, the Word tells us that according to God's laws, nature will providentially strike out against it according to the councils of God. I believe that there is a heavenly heirarchy and administration that rules over the earth and yes, I believe there are consequences that come into play at times, especially when the Holy Spirit among God's people is grieved.  Otherwise, the whole earth is under protection and grace.  I believe there is war in the heavens and that the demonic and powers of darkness are doing all they can do to influence darkness and the advancement of wickesness among the wicked.  They were doing a pretty good job of it in NO as I understand it.

With regard to selective judgment, it is inconceivable that a Hurricane would pick and choose certain towns and certain houses like a giant hand -  since it doesn't have a mind...therefore the innocent are effected along with the wicked.  Noah was told to "get out" and so were the NO people.  Even still, it is quite possible that those who were innocently misplaced or hurt could be in a better state after the Hurricane since God can cause all things to work for good for those who love Him and trust in Him.   

Unbelievers have little understanding of God and God's ways because they only believe what they see and what they understand with natural mind through logic and analysis just as you have in your analysis.  I'm not trying to shame anyone, but I think you have spoken with such authority and Sinicismthat it sounds like a mock of a "christian" point of view.  I only answer with equal authoritative knowledge through faith and spiritual knowledge of the scriptures.

frank

p.s.  Somehow I get the impression that you probably aren't very interested in conversing on this subject, Brian, but that you are just throwing the ball back out so the kids will start playing again.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  I hope I am.  What makes me think this?  You do not post on this board unless there's a problem.  I took the bait anyway, because I am interested in showing how faith in God relates to the topic.  Without faith it is impossible to please God.

If I'm wrong and you are genuinely interested in this discussion, even if you are in strong disagreement with my perspective, I am more than willing to have a discussion.

 

I agree with you, nfrankie, and whether it's bait or not, it needs to be said. I'm glad you responded.

The verse that comes to my mind in all this is Romans 8:22 (those offended, please excuse me)

  "For we know that the WHOLE CREATION groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. verse 23: And not only THEY, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the ................redemption of our body."

Creation recognizes God (take the calls to creatures and creation to worship God, in the Psalms) and His direction.

It seems creation is also affected by sin.  We were not created for sin and neither was the planet and its forces.

I'd like to add one more thing, showing the humility of a Christian Lutheran pastor whose school I worked at at one time. When we were discussing a similar type of situation, the specifics of which I forgot, his comment was, "Maybe God is telling everyone, 'Come back. Come back to me'. "

I believe this is true for today.

hoppingoff

this we agree on.


right in your personal case, wrong when generalized to everyone. your faith adds a lot of interpretation to the facts, and draws conclusions that could never be drawn from the facts alone. i think we agree on this as well.

most of what you say here is a complicated attempt to interpret a great human tragedy in a way that fits with your worldview. it works for you, but i am not motivated to go through all those interpretive gymnastics because i am not defending the same worldview you are.

if i had to summarize the "christian" perspective from most of the christians i have talked to, it is along the lines of "the tremendous human suffering taking place in our country is breaking my heart - here is how i am planning to help." that is practical faith, and it is a noble response.

brian

i used to do this a lot. whenever something "bad" happened, i would feel compelled to give an 'answer for the hope within me' instead of offering a helping hand. trouble was, my pontifications were equal to saying "be warmed and filled" and then shutting the door in their face.

but DO something to help and your faith speaks for itself in a language universally understood.

as i see it, when i stand before God He's not going to ask me to share my three-point outline on why bad things happen to good people. probably I'm going to be ashamed at how little I actually DID to help.

btw, good to see you back here brian. thanks for stepping back into the "asylum."   ;)

Brian,

Would the "worldview" you are speaking of be Capitalized?  In other words, do you follow the perspective of the "Worldview" religion ?  Just curious.  Your perspective does sound sort of "universal?"

This is the one I'm referring to:  http://www.world-view.org/

---

Is it necessarily either/or? 


...the widow's mite was considered a good gift and was received without condemnation.

Having said this, Elizabeth, I think that the general Christian community tends toward the opposite of what you and I were taught in the Assembly.  It is taught to give of material goods and help in churches.  To "give the answer of hope" is not stressed much at all.  It is my experience that many church folks consequently are afraid or ashamed ?? to witness of "their hope in Christ." 

I think it's both, but it is good, as a believer, to put a Name to the face of giving....if the giving is being done out of the life of Christ within. I don't care for the "bible thumping" style of giving an answer.  I like to give a very quiet, humble, simple word of hope and leave it at that unless someone indicates they are hungry for another bite.

frank

"Well Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Bonapartes. But I warn
you, if you don't tell me that this means war, if you still try to define the infamies and horrors
perpetrated by that anti-christ--I really believe he is the anti-christ--I will have nothing more to
do with you and you are no longer my friend, no longer my faithful slave, as you call yourself!
But how do you do? I see I have frightened you--sit down and tell me all the news".

-----I have always felt a deep inner need to post the whole book of "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy,
and know that all of you will enjoy my doing so. The above is just the first paragraph of a book with over
200 chapters, and thousands of paragraphs. But I intend to post them all---whether you like it or
not. I just like posting--pages and pages and pages of posts including many trivial things---but I
know you will all stay glued like a fly to flypaper to all of it. It doesn't matter that the book is in the
library and you could go read it yourself there---I want to post it here--and I will,  whether you like
it or not.

Tomorrow, paragraph two of the first chapter of "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy, and several more,
depending on how much time I have. I know you'll want to spend the hours reading these valuable posts. I know they will take up a lot of room, but it will all be well worth it, believe me.

--Joe

BAD poster! *slapslapslap*

your friendly neighborhood moderator,

brian

Frank,

I rather suspect that Brian is not into Tibetan Buddhism, which is what the group you linked teaches.

Everyone has a worldview, either implicit or explicit.  It involves our ideas of what is real, true, right or wrong, and how the world/universe works.

Your ideas on the NO hurricane/flood and evil reflect your worldview.  When I read your post I thought of something that happened in my adult Sunday school class a few years back.

Seems the missions chairlady was gleefully reporting how the big Buddhist festival they were having on Taiwan had been rained out by record level rainfall.   She drew the same conclusions you did.

A couple of weeks earlier a tornado had hit a Baptist church on Sunday morning in (I think) Tennessee.  A bunch of Baptists were killed, including some infants and toddlers.  It had been in the news so everyone knew what had happened.

I asked her if the Baptists had sinned and that's why God sent the tornado.  Needless to say that idea did not fit well into the view of things she had espoused a few minutes earlier.   

In case you don't know, tornados can be pretty specific as to what they hit.  They frequently "hop" and only touch down for brief periods.  Surely a universe creating God could have made it hop over the church building and miss the Baptists, you would think.

So how do you know that it was the evil in NO that brought the hurricane?  Especially since the worst part of the hurricane missed NO entirely. 

Perhaps God was trying to kill someone who had criticized George Geftakys and lived near Biloxi, Miss.  NO might have been one of the unfortunate cities who were just too near.

In addition, how does your purported "law" work in light of Jonah 4:11.

Thomas Maddux

you're asking if i am a tibetan buddhist? nope. :)
i was using worldview in the way tom talks about - the spectacles you peer at the universe through, the way you believe everything fits together.

Joe,   You wish to post the  entire book "War and Peace?

Could this be an answered prayer?  ...For my mailman...He has suffered two hernias trying to bring me the book in braille.   On second thought...our moderator is a slapper!

--Tony"

I would have thought that Brian, an unbeliever in Christ, could have answered the question, Tom.  I specifically asked Brian.  Brian is not only not a Christian, I believe he is a Universalist...and that is what that particular website and it's associated 'religion' is based upon.  They accept ALL FAITHS and Brian's perspective in his post as well as his reference to "worldview" came across to me as the view of a "Universalist."

Many who have left the Faith have apostated and many of these become Universalists.  They have pulled out of following Christ and yet don't reject Christians as they don't reject Buddhists, etc.  Apostates of the Faith are more cynical toward Christians than any other religion because Christians are narrow and uncompromising as to the Christ they follow (or should be, Tom..."narrow is the path"). 
 

Elizabeth sounded as if she were almost saying the same thing as Brian.  If you do good, that is Christ.   ???  That Truth is expressed in Good.  It may be, but the Truth of the scriptures are still the inspired Word of God....according to MY VIEW. 

Can you (Tom) and you (Brian) give us all some straight, concise answers, respectively, each not speaking for the other on these points I've raised?....please.





I don't believe the scriptures teach this AT ALL.  If you believe they do, please show where?

Christians have a view that is God's view according to the Word of God through adoption of God's view.  There is a tremendous learning curve.  I don't believe that mature Christians have their own view of anything with the exception of a favorite color or choice of ice cream, for example.  It is God's view of all things with regard to the world that we follow and seek.  "His thoughts are higher than our thoughts, His ways than our ways."  "The Wisdom that is from above...." just to share a couple references.  Only God's perspective is sane ultimately. 

A mature believer actually lears how to negate and replace his own personal understanding of things and turns to God in faith in the Spirit and OUT OF God's presence understands what God understands.  This has to be renewed and expanded daily.  Revelation is like manna.  We have to come back for new every day.  We can never just take off on our own and think outside of God's mind and revelation on things.  It's His thoughts that become ours....not so with unbelievers.

frank

Just FYI:  Worldview is a philosophical concept, not a theological one.  Asking where the Bible teaches it is like asking where the Bible teaches about scientific models or musical scales or exercise programs or surgical procedures.  All of these items exists and are readily acknowledged as concepts to facilitate communication within the various disciplines even though the Bible doesn't explicitly mention them.

a bb is not a phone conversation - its more like a 500-way conversation, so you can't fault someone for chiming in and taking the conversation somewhere you didn't want it to go. but this can be frustrating for the narrow and uncompromising ;)


dave made the same point i was about to. i would add to it this link for maximum clarity:

http://www.answers.com/worldview&r=67

its just a word representing something we all have, not a religion.


actually, i have observed that when some believers isolate themselves long enough into social homogenousity (inventing words is fun!), over time they can begin to believe that their thoughts and opinions are god's thoughts and opinions. the arrogance is enormous and dangerous, and asserting that this is the case is never very convincing to the majority of the population (including other christians) but i remember what it felt like to believe that. it felt fantastic. man, look at me - i know god's will! i am unstoppable! woohoo! but i've never seen anyone claim that who could demonstrate anything very spectacular or supernatural in their lives, and the believers i've met who did seem to have some real wisdom never made these kinds of claims.

FrankRuthSondra,

You said the following:

This is great!  For decades some of the greatest minds in the world have been puzzling over how General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can exist in the same universe.  Einstein, Weinberg, Hawking, Gell-Mann and many others.

Since mature believers "understand what God understands", would you be so kind as to PM me the solution to this knotty problem?  I promise that when I win the Nobel Prize I will share the award money with you 50/50. 

Of course, I understand that you might not be able to do this.  That would then raise two possibilities: 1. You do not fit your own definition of a mature believer.  2. You are simply wrong.

"The scriptures show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."  Isaac Newton

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I would just add that I remember reading : "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the Heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Is. 55:8, 9).

From this it seems that we cannot understand what God understands, or for that matter, even come close to understanding what he thinks or understands.

The Bible does say however "Trust in the Lord with all of your heart, and lean not to your own understanding. In all of your ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy path(Prov. 3:5,6).

In matters of faith we are not to lean on our own understanding. But that is precisely because we can
never understand what God understands, and must rely on the fact that He knows what He's doing, even
when we do not.

--Joe

 
Well, you see, Universalism has been made into a religion.  Accepting all religions is now a religion called, "Worldview."  Whether you have formally attended that church or not doesn't really matter much if you accept all religions and reject none as false, Brian.

Which ones do you approve of, agree with, disagree with.  This is sort of a Christian board.  I think the many Christians who post here would be interested in knowing if you are a Christian...what you think of other religions such as Buddhism and some other similar religions.  Can you answer a direct question with a direct answer?  I would really like to know. 


Yes, and conversely, some who are overly exposed to the world can be similarly dilusionary and believe they are their own god.  I'll put my bet on those who are at least trying to hear God and believe that He is alive and loves them....even if they do have it a little mixed up.  God is faithful to hang in there with us until we get more light.  Who said we had to do it right the first time, anyway?

 

I believe that we have a majority in this country of people of faith in God, Christians, who believe that they know God and that God leads them in their thought life as they choose to incline themselves toward God's thoughts and ways as revealed in the scriptures.  Hope your keeping up, Tom.  Simple Christianity really. 

frank

It is fantastic.  I, like you, believed with childlike faith and became disheartened and took off to live in the world.  But I came back to Him and now I know that HE IS FANTASTIC...FOR REAL!!!  It is not about grandstanding for me.  I don't feel great about being so good and that type of thing.  It's about finding life in Him...real companionship and joy with Him in the depth of my soul.  I relate well to the lady at the well who was so thirsty for a drink of God Himself.  I know what it means that He is my bread from heaven.

Sure, you can find pride in every walk of life.  Man knows a little something.  Man starts getting the idea that he can take personal credit for the little he does know.  This is true in every walk of life - if you get my drift.   :)

Actually, the christians I know who really know God aren't afraid to speak up and share wonderful things that God has revealed to them.  Closet Christians who won't talk ??  How do you know what they know.  The Lord thought speaking and revealing God's secrets was a good idea during His tenure on earth and surely He would know.  Scriptures teach to "proclaim" the Word and that Word is a living Word.  I think it goes way beyond bible verses.

frank

The Word never says we will not be taught by God.  It specifically states that He will teach us.  Mysteries are revealed by revelation.  I'm so sorry for those who have never received revelation from God.  That doesn't mean there isn't any.  That just means that some are still in the dark. 

All light and understanding of the things of God and of His workings is from God.  There is no intelligence apart from God.  But the Wisdom and Knowledge that God reveals is of a spiritual nature and is "spiritually discerned."  The natural (non-spiritual) cannot know His secrets according to scripture.  "If that light that is in you be darkened, how great is that darkness." 

This is the darkness of an Apostate. (not speaking of you Joe.) One who has known God and turns to become his enemy and ridicules other believers because of their faith...this is an Apostate, for any who are confused on this matter.

frank

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.."(2 Pet. 1:20). It goes on to state that holy men were moved by the Holy Spirit and spoke. The Holy Bible is a completed book due to these "revelations" given to holy men of God.

Frank--you state you feel sorry for men who have never had a "revelation". I believe I understand what you are saying, but must also state there is a danger when we believe we have received some special revelation that gives us greater wisdom or understanding than others have. This will lead to an elitist attitude where you feel that somehow you are on a higher plane than your "average" Christians are. George suffered from this delusion. George believed he understood what God understood, and thought like God thought. Thus he felt he was somehow enlightened, while others were drowning in darkness, and he led his followers to believe the same thing. That is very dangerous, and is what ultimately gives birth to a cult.

--Joe

Joe,

Actually, Frank/Ruth/Sondra's ideas on revelation are almost identical to another poster's beliefs on obtaining understanding of the scriptures by mysticism.  If you will recall I kept asking him to share something that he had received in this way on the board.

It never happened.

So Frank/Ruth/Sondra's claim to have received revelation directly from God is easily put to the test.

Frank/Ruth/Sondra....

Enlighten us.  What has been revealed to to you? 

Couldn't you at least let a few crumbs fall from the table?

Thomas Maddux

It's quite simple, Tom. Just take a bite from the apple.  ;)

Joe,

I can appreciate the concern regarding private interpretation of prophesy, but revelation is not interpretation of prophesy that I know.  Revelation is a revealing of Christ to the heart.  It is also a revealing of Truths and Doctrine that gives new understanding to the individual.  It is what happens every time you read something from the scripture and find new peace and joy because you have understood the Lord just a little bit better.

The first time I saw the Lord while studying the scriptures (a revelation) I saw Him with my spirit.  I knew that it was the Lord that I was seeing and He became more real to me personally.  We cannot know the Lord corporately, to my knowledge.  He saves and communes with souls as individuals, right?  There are less mature believers who have had less revelation than myself and there are many older with more.

What people call revelations where they see things with their physical eyes, I know nothing about. 

God is Spirit and so the natural man must see through his spiritual eyes. The Lord said to Peter, flesh and blood has not revealed this (that He was the Son of God).  When we see Him as exalted, Son of God....when we believe He is the Son...it is spiritual revelation.  Wouldn't you agree?

Having said this, I think that you would agree that as Christians grow in understanding, as they go through years of various trials, etc. they grow in revelation of the scriptures.  God means an awful lot more to me today than 10 years ago.  Suffering opens deep things that were not perceivable before.

God reveals or gives understanding of His will, His ways, His heart, His love, His character, etc.  I study and seek such revelation.  It is not something mystical.  It is as common for true believers as walking by faith.

frank

What a remarkable thing. To see a supposedly mature Christian take the position that there is nothing that the Spirit of God can reveal to a child of God from the Scriptures. Tom my friend, I truly feel sorry for you. George's perversion of truth and unfatihful  example has done more damage to you than you realise. Still on break so will talk about this later.



Remember the time you pooh-poohed the person on the board who stated that Satan can affect our thinking and challenged anyone to show a verse of Scripture that teaches this?
I was quite taken back by your apparent ignorance of the record concerning Judas and pointed out that verse of Scripture to you.
Remember the time you challenged my notion that all death is caused by sin by claimaing that predation existed prior to the fall and animals killed for food and I pointed out the passage in Isaiah 11?
You never responded to any of these points. I get the impression you never admit to being in error so far as your cosmology is concerned Tom. Why would I want to talk to you about anything the Lord has revealed to me, when you clearly do not accept what is plainly written in Scripture?
Verne

What does "I saw him in the spirit" mean?

Are you saying that revelation (God's revealing) is a result of understanding the meaning of a particular Scripture that you are studying (kind of an ah-ha moment when we suddenly figure something out)?  Or are you using the word "revelation" in the sense of God speaking to you directly above and beyond the meaning that anyone could understand by simply reading the text?  Or does God reveal impressions to you  by bypassing the intellect completly and revealing impressions directly to your spirit?  Wouldn't the latter two be considered mystical?

I'm not trying to pick a fight.  I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

-Dave

Yes.  When we gain an understanding spiritually of a spiritual concept that helps us to know God or His character, etc. better, we have had something revealed to us....revelation.



No.


No.  But there is a mind of the spirit that is separate from the natural mind, as I see it.  But no, there can be no revelation apart from the intellect as in some sort of experience I suppose you are suggesting. 


I think the second and third types are mystical, although revelation of mysteries sometimes don't seem to have much to do with reasoning - rather more of an enlightenment or a dawning.  Still, how can we process understanding without our intellect.


There would be no reason to think you were. 

I have been studying something related to this.  What happens to our understanding when we no longer have a physical brain....after this life?  Any idea, Dave?

p.s.  A friend just reminded me of another important aspect of revelation is the revelation of our human depravity.  He spoke on Is 6:1 last Sunday and spoke on "And I saw the Lord..." In addition, he (Isaih) saw his depravity.  These were things he (Isaiah) didn't see before as he did then.  Very good point.

I realized I missed this point.  The spirit of man is as a window, the scriptures teach.  God is Spirit and we see Him through that window of our spirit, but it is through understanding of Truth by faith.

Example:  I hear that God is faithful.  I have a lot of bills and rough financial trials right now, lets say.  I am burdened and speak with God regarding my problem.  He brings to mind that He is trustworthy and that even though I may not know how He will meet my needs - I receive revelation by faith that He will meet it through seeing His faithfulness and hearing His reassurance.  I might even hear Him say, "Peace, be still" or something like that.  Just an example and probably not a very good one just off the top of my head. 

I saw Him in the spirit, because my natural man wouldn't come up with a solution like this.  My natural man only knows how to fret and scheme.

 

Thanks for your answers.


I am sure there will still be an "us" when we leave this body and are given our new bodies.  I don't really know how this all works.  The whole area of what constitutes consciousness is one area that scientists have not been able to figure out.  It is something that can still be held in mystery and wonder.

Sure, Tom.  One thing that God has revealed to me just through your post is that you cannot teach someone something who is always the teacher.  There is no learning capacity.  I receive revelation every day almost.  Some of the best revelation I receive is what I have revealed to me through the proud and arrogant who don't believe they have anything new to have revealed to them by the Lord.  It never ceases to amaze me and always makes me fear mySELF.  It's all been said and done in their minds.  The lack of expectation to hear from God, the living God is BORING, BORING, BORING.  Please, if I knew I would have to live like that, just take me now, Lord.  

No need?  People who don't know their great need and depravity, as my friend shared, aren't desperate to see the Lord and therefore, they are cold and shut up in their own intellects....they keep learning, but never arriving at the truth. 

Are you going to say that I have judged you?  I have.  Based upon your own words in this post (and others) I have a couple things revealed to me.  No revelation of one's need.  No revelation of one's Savior is possible.  No revelation of the Savior "for MY SOUL" - no salvation.  Painful but true.

There are a lot of people who know a lot more than I do and you are one of them, but I am concerned that you might not know the Lord.  Could that be possible?  It is for you to search your heart.  I read your post where you said you wanted to serve the Lord for the rest of your days...that that would be a joy for you.  But is that service about what you can do through your intellect and education or is the thought of serving the Lord about seeing Him and learning through fresh revelation so that you can have a freshly revealed, living Word to share, Tom?  Will you have fresh revelation so that you may be a part of the great orchestration of God in the lives of the hurting and give them a word in season. 

How's that for a crumb?  :o

frank  

Verne,

In our former discussion I maintained that truth was communicated through the scriptures by word meaning, grammatical construction, and sound principles of interpretation.  The natural man, (which means the unregenerate man, not the spiritually immature man) does not receive God's truth.  It doesn't mean he cannot understand it. he rejects it.

You kept saying that truth is revealed directly.  I challenged you to give an example of such truth...and you failed to do so.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

From what I have read, the brain cannot account for the mind.  They interact, but are not merely two aspects of the same entity.

Thomas Maddux

Sondra,

You said,

So you do not only get revelation through the word of God, but even through my posts.  Interesting.  I was not aware that my words were inspired.  But if Sondra says so.....


You have reached such a state of advanced spirituality that merely disagreeing with you renders us "proud and arrogant".  Must be nice.


So mere Christianity isn't good enough for you?  Believing and obeying God is boring?  I think most folks would disagree with you.


CONTINUED

PART II


 
Spoken like a true daughter of George and Betty, as you have described yourself.  This is the same stuff we used to hear from him when he took off on what he called "dead fundamentalism".  What he never told anyone was that he had flunked out of a Ph.D program in philosophy. His thesis was rejected so he turned to Deeper Life mysticism and spent the next 40 years railing at the academic community he had wanted to join, but lacked what it took to do so.

All his messages were "fresh baked in the kitchen of heaven".  This actually seems to mean something like "plagarized from other folk's books".  But, since he was delusional, he probably believed what he said.

Sondra, what your posts say to me is that you suffer from some of the same problems your mentor did.


Actually, not too hot.  I was talking about something actually revealed.  You seem to be confusing
"revealed" with "understood".  You have done nothing but to repeat the sort of Deeper Life nonsense that you can buy at your local Christian bookstore.

This "crumb" is nothing but warmed up leftovers mixed in with a portion of self-justification, and a dash of delusion.

Thomas

No one ever denies this Tom. Clearly anyone can read and understand the statement:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

That statement comunicates "truth", that is to say, facts.

The fallacy of your argument lies in your contention that word meaning, grammatical contruction, and sound principles of interpreation are the sole means by which the Scriptures communicate truth, and that the only truth that the Scripture communucates is in the form of statements of fact.
There are many passages of Scripture which contained truth that went beyond the merely grammatical, such as the many prophetic passages referring to Jesus Christ. It was only after their fulfillment that the full significance became clear. The same is true of passages yet to be fullfilled in my opinion.

Two people can read the same passage of Scripture, be in possession of the same information, yet make radically different decision based on what they read.
Your position completely fails to recognize the part the Spirit of God plays in communicating truth to a person.

 
What do you mean by "understand"? Again if you are referring to the perception of factual statements, that is self evident if a person can read. Hear what the Scriptures say about this:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Assume the "things of the Spirit of God" are truth as revealed in His written word Tom. Please get out your Greek lexicon and explain to me the grammatical significance of the word "know" in this passage of Scripture.


What I keep saying is that there is truth that cannot be acquired soley by "word meaning, grammatical construction, and sound principles of interpretation".  I never cease to be astonished that anyone who actually reads and believes  what Scripture says about itself could take that position.

Acts 8:26-36

1. Why did Philip go down the Jerusalem/Gaza road?
2. Why did Philip chase down the Ethiopian?
3. How did Philip overtake a chariot?
4. In the scripture the Ethiopian was reading where does it refer to Jesus?
5. Where did Philip get the idea he could/should preach Jesus from Isaiah?
6. Why did the Ethiopian request to be baptized?



Something must have been revealed to someone by someone at some time.

Can't really see your argument here Tom. Reveletion of truth is a foundation of the Christian faith. "Once I was blind but now I see."

To intellectualize what God does spiritually causes the skeptism you show.

We can go back to the age old question, How do you know God exists? Prove it!

These things require regeneration of the heart and in doing so opens the door for God to reveal truth and to give understanding of it.

btw, please don't call people names just because you don't agree with them. You probably don't agree with me here either but just to set the record straight before hand, I am not George, I am not a clone of George, I am not a prospective LB, etc. I am a sinner saved by grace. Lets identify with one another on that level.

Yeah, So much for the new rules of this board.    :(

fob

Marty,

Thanks so much for your post. One would hope that Tom would be thirsting for revelation to himself rather than thirsting for the revelation that other people have received. Tom's posturing for academic superority is going to amount to very little simply because a good knowledge of what other people think about God isn't going to help him much in his own spiritual life or his capacity to help others spiritually. Tom has been reprimanded for this on several occasions (e.g. pompous, prideful, smarmy) but has proved himself unentreatable on this point.  Perhaps as a leading brother, he was held in awe as unquestionable by the masses - and unfortunately he still maintains that mindset!

frank

Throughout the Bible, many have indeed received extra-Biblical, direct revelations from God.  David sought God’s direction through the priestly stones.  God told Abraham some things rather directly.   Apostles were directed by a dream to go to Macedonia and directed different ways not to go other places.  God told a prayer meeting to separate Paul and Barnabus for the work.

I don’t know how some of these things happened.  Did they hear an audible voice?  Did thoughts just leap into their brains?  Did an overbearing Greek with curly hair stand up and make a glorious announcement?  I don’t know.

So, people received revelation.  But, what does that mean to us today?  Is it typical today?  Should we expect it?  Seek it?  And how do we know that we have got it?  These are the issues we wrestle with.

In the Old Testament, one who claimed to be a prophet and wasn’t was then stoned.  People had to be sure that they had the voice of God before they opened their mouth.  Today, anyone who claims to have a word from God is generally accepted as having one.  Because of this misuse (and certainly because of what I saw in the Assembly) I have developed a healthy skepticism (hopefully not cynicism) in this regard.

For example, I have had the following experience many times:
1.   I start in a new prayer group and the group is given direction on how to pray.
2.   Someone suggests:  We don’t have to be bound by the direction we are given.  After all, we want to be led by the Spirit in what we do so we should all feel free to pray and do as the Spirit leads and directs us.  Everyone concurs.
3.   After a few meetings, the person who brought up about being led by the Spirit says something like, “I just feel led to say that we ought to pray this way” or “I think when we worship, it should be a celebration and we should stand up and lift our hands to the Lord”, etc.
4.   I’m not trying to be mean but in most cases the “I feel led by the Spirit to pray for this” means “I happened to think of something and I would like to open my mouth and say it”.  (They often develop an interesting theology when they see every thing they don’t like as “Satanic strongholds”.  I once had someone pray against the “Satanic stronghold” of something I prayed because she didn’t agree with the way I prayed.  Being “led by the Spirit” often leads to interesting ideas.)

(continued next post)

(continued from last post)

In other words, I have found that the person who is most into “being led by the Spirit” is often the one who subtly wants to abandoned the stated authority and take over the group themselves and persuade others of his or her ideas.  They may not be good at discussion or debating or mediating differences but putting God on their side gives them a distinct advantage.  Fortunately, unlike the Assembly, it usually doesn’t amount to that much control.

So I don’t think the issue is so much “does God lead us outside of the Bible text or doesn’t he?”  I think the issue is that when one does claim to have a revelation from God or a subjective directive, we should not be so quick to affirm it.  Rather, we should test the spirit to see if it is from God or if it is just a means that someone found in the church to get attention.

I have a friend named Rick Samuel who did campus ministry with me at Orange Coast College in 1978.  He is sympathetic to the Charismatic movement and believes the Spirit is dynamic and active.  If he were to come to me and say that God had directly spoke to him, I would probably give him greater heed because I have known him for years as one who is very thoughtful, through and careful about his words.  He would just say, “God revealed this to me” off the cuff.

On the other hand, when someone comes along with lots of God-talk using flowery spiritual claims that sound awesome but convey little cognitive meaning, I am prone to withhold judgment and my skepticism runs very high.  I have learned how spiritual talking people operate.  I have learned in the Assembly that uncritically believing someone’s revelation can do much damage.

-Dave

Tom's response will in all likelihood be that these sort of things may have happened in Biblical times, but they do not today. It is really incredible to hear someone who is saved reduce the power of God's written word to "word meaning, grammatical construction, and sound principles of interpretation."
There is not a person saved by the grace of God and reading this BB, that does not know and understand the truth of Hebrews 4:12, and that by pesonal experience.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Tom, assume that I am a total ignoramus but truly interested in being correctly instructed.
Please explain what Hebrews 4: 12 is teaching in terms of your paradigm of  "word meaning, grammatical construction, and sound principles of interpretation."
My question is sincere, and I will await you exegesis.
I know your Master's is in Apologetics and not Homiletics. I trust that some training in the latter was a part of your academic preparation.
I would like an explanation of how the Word of God is quick.
I would like an explanation of how the word of God is powerful.
I would like an explanantion of what it means that it divides asunder soul and spirit.and joints and marrow.
I would like an explanation of how by "word meaning, grammatical construction and sound principles of interpretation" it achieves the effect of discerning thoughts and itents of the heart.
Please help me understand your position on this.
Verne

"My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me."

Was Jesus speaking about four legged wooly creatures or was he speaking of Christians.

Was He saying that people would hear Him only while He was in human flesh or was He saying that His people would hear Him forever?

Was He speaking of followers as only those living during His earthly ministry or was He speaking for Christians today?

It is really inconceivable to think the church's teaching on this has been wrong throughout the ages. That Tom has some new revealtion that refutes this.

Dave, what I am hearing you say is that you believe God does reveal, does direct, does lead, does speak to His people.

Your issue seems to be with those that have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. Of course there are those in the church. You seem to have the litmus test in place for identifying who is led by God and who follows their own lusts. That test would be history.

A complete stranger making proclamations of Gods direction would require caution. On the other hand another who has set an example to the Lords people of godliness is more readily accepted.

Can anyone say that Billy Graham’s ministry of over 50 years was not led and directed by God? I don’t think so. Yet would Billy say he never made any mistakes? Perhaps did something that in retrospect he would have done differently if given another chance. Probably. Yet in the whole scheme of things God leads, God reveals, God speaks. Bill will tell you that.

Actually, I'm not sure that I go along with the idea that this passage is teaching that Christians through the ages will receive information from God that only we will recognize.  Or, putting it another way, I don't think this is a proof text that says God will direct the decisions of our lives by directly telling us things.

I think John is dealing with the issue at hand in the context of the story - there were those who recognized Jesus as the Son of God and there were those who did not and were resistant against him.  Many "believed and had life through his name" (John's stated purpose for writing the gospel).  Others did not.  His sheep recognized and believed.  Those who were not his sheep didn't.

Christians being directed by God in their Christian walk may be argued from other passages.  I just don't think that is the thrust of this passage.

I guess I look at the Word of God as being eternal, as Peter speaks. “The promise is to you and your children and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord God will call.” Acts 2:39.

When He calls how do we hear?

Heb 5:14, “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

Where does this discernment come from and how are our senses affected?

When people give personal testimonies the skeptic asks how do you know that was from God? How do you know it wasn’t random thoughts or just coincidence?

I don’t have theological arguments to answer these things but the Scripture does tell us that something takes place. That God communicates to His people, individually.

When I heard and responded to the gospel was that from God or not? When I found my life partner was that luck? When my children individually over time each received the gift of salvation was that a fluke?

I think we intellectually limit God and what he does through our limited intellect. That doesn’t mean He is not doing what He says He does. It means we don’t see it or understand it.

Phil 2:12, “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

God is doing things. He is directing His people, individually, who are available to respond.

I think we are on two wavelenghts here.  You are talking about what God is able to do.  I was talking about what can be supported by the context of the passage you cited in John.   I think the passage in John ("my sheep hear my voice") is speaking specifically about recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, not about God directing his people who walk with him.  You should base your arguments about God communicating to Christians on other passages in the Bible that deal with this topic directly.

i want to underscore the comments about not identifying opposing spiritual perspectives or personalities as being assembly or george-like. even if you really think the other person is that way, in the end it really doen't help the discussion at all. its true that long ago sondra(frank) identified herself as a spiritual daughter of george and betty, making the point that what they taught her wasn't all bad. but i still think that bringing it up in the middle of a discussion like this lowers the level of the discussion to a "you are more assembly than me and thus wrong" level, which is really unhelpful, not to mention hurtful.

a few of you also tend to get quite passionate (ok, angry!) when discussing your spiritual views vs other people's. lets face it, no two people have the exact same interpretation of each passage of the bible, or the exact same conception of god, even two christians. so if you want to discuss your various views here and see where they are similar and different, compare notes so to speak, and maybe even sharpen up your personal position by arguing it through with someone, fine. but if you post on here thinking everyone has to be convinced you are right you are going to be terribly disappointed and frustrated, and the negativity will be contagious. so as we discuss volatile topics like this, lets keep it in perspective - which some of you do fantastically, and its very much appreciated.

Marty,

You said,
An angel appeared to him and told him to.  That is not the sort of thing we are talking about here.
Same as above
It says he ran.   :o  Ever been around horses/donkeys?  They can only run for a while, and then must be walked or rested.

Now that is a good question.  Fact is, any there was a lively debate going on among various groups of Jewish scholars at the time about the Messiah.  Philip has adopted the correct interpretation of the passage.
Same as number 4.
He was an envoy to Herod's court at Jerusalem.  Everyone in Jerusalem knew about the new "sect" of Jews that claimed Jesus was alive.  Baptism predates Christianity, btw, John the Baptist for example.

Good questions, but a careful reading of the passage answers most of them.

Thomas Maddux

Thanks for the reminder.

Will do.

Thomas Maddux

Marty---

I think where the problem lies is when we reverse things. We are not saved by an "experience"
or a "revelation" and then led to read the Word of God. The opposite is true---we hear or read
the Word of God, and by faith we are saved. An experience may result(an outpouring of tears and
emotion), and sometimes not(some people are saved and "experience" very little--they know by the Word of God that they are saved).

When people begin to believe they are being led by God through their "experiences" or "revelations" instead of by the Word of God they have drifted into error. It's like trying to drive across country without a map, and using intuition to get you to Delaware. I believe God does communicate to his children supernaturally. He is, after all, "The God of all comfort", and if we cannot sense that comfort at times, it would mean nothing. But faith in the Word of God comes first, and we trust it whether we "feel" anything or not.

I saw a show about the shooter of an abortion doctor, and the man stated that the night before he shot the doctor he was on the beach with his family. He said he prayed to God about what he was about to do and had the greatest sense of peace and joy--and that he "knew" God wanted him to do what he was about to do.  Think of that!!!  If he had simply read the Word of God he would have known that what he was about to do was absolutely wrong---but he was allowing "revelations" and "feelings" to rule him---and he ultimately did a horrible thing. He shot a doctor to death in the name of Christ.

I know that is a rather drastic example---but it does show what can happen if one allows themselves to think they are thinking what God is thinking, or that God is speaking to them directly even though it is contrary to the Word of God.

--Joe

Marty, Verne, Dave, Sondra, and folks in general,

I will be attempting to get my DSL set up today.  If I disappear for a while, you will know that I am having connection problems.

This is a good discussion.  Keep it up!   :)

Verne, I will try to answer you when I return.  Soon I hope.  One thing I would suggest...read the Hebrews passage and read "Bible" instead of Word of God and see what you think.

Blessings to all,

Thomas Maddux
Chastened Moderator

Ok, I hope you are all sitting down for this one....safe assumption I guess.  :D

I think a lot of the skepticism that former assembly people have is FROM George.  Yes, people feel betrayed in many ways from George's deception and that in itself causes skepticism, but also George himself was such a skeptic and taught people to be very skeptical.

He taught people NOT TO TRUST in themselves, and with the right meaning attached to it -  that would have been good. But I believe many, including myself, took that to mean to question everything you think and listen to God (with George as God's instructor).  So this implanted an undue amount of skepticism in childlike hearts.

His criticism of other believers, other Christian denominations, Charismatic, etc. insured exclusivity.  He would get very threatened if someone even asked questions about another faith. 

I have found extreme skepticism in my own heart and I think part of it is out of my own nature, but I believe I have also traced part of it to the Assembly. 

Discernment is grown out of disappointments and failure of things we have placed our trust in. Failure to understand and getting hurt grows our understanding eventually, but first we tend to hunker down in fear for a time and suspect everything and everyone. Admitting an overly skeptical heart and mind (once burned, twice shy), over a long period I learned to discern the views of others (as well as my own) with still a measure of guard, but gaining understanding on it.   

frank (continued post)

So, discerning the spirits is good, but I am convinced that being overly skeptical is not from God.  God does speak to the hearts of men and women saying...I will guide you with Mine eye upon you...saying "go to the left, go to the right...  No mistake that God's people can hear Him if they can get quiet enough (spiritually speaking).  From my experience, I am usually being so noisy with my own nervous thoughts and imagination.  The sea of emotions are restless and even in that we need to hear God say, "Peace, Be still."  And I often say to myself, "Be still, my soul."

Fear is noisy.  Guilt and dread and unbelief are noisy.  Worry, intimidation, feelings of inferiority are noisy, etc.

Now revelation, IMO, is more than hearing God's voice and being guided from by God through the Word and through the spirit. 

Revelation is "seeing" in the spirit....spiritual "sight."  Spots and grime have to be cleaned off the window for light to come in through it.  He is that light and He dwells in unapproachable light.  I think His light/Truth simply comes in when we make sure the window of our spirit is unobscured.  The window is two way and then we can see Him.

What is the dirt on the window?  False assumptions, pride, distraction, unbelief  (including skepticism) and probably many more such things.

When we get the impediments to faith in His character cleared up, we can see God.  God is love. God or Love shines into our souls like light.  The tremendous joy and infusion of life then that we feel is from a fresh view of God (Love).  We may call it a visit with God, a fellowship, but how could we call it that if we didn't see Him in the spiritual sense?

frank

Frank---

You're probably saying one thing where I am hearing another, but I must say it sounds
suspiciously like what my sister used to say. She followed a Guru and sat for hours med-
itating, clearing her mind of negativity so she could spiritually "see" God through the third
eye(the spiritual vision). She would try to rid her mind of all skepticism and negativity, and
literally let her mind "clear", and she stated to me that she would "see" God in the spiritual
sense and fall into a state of "bliss".

When you say that revelation is "more than hearing God's voice and being guided from by
God through the Word and through his spirit" that sounds mystical and strange. My sister
thought she was being led by, and was seeing God,  through the spirit, but she was following
a cultic Guru of Hindu persuasion. Her "bliss" may indeed have been very real to her, but she
was not in contact with the True God at all.

You are probably saying something entirely different, and if so, forgive the inference that you are
teaching Hindu philosophy. I just wanted to mention the resemblance your teaching of revelation
has to what my sister used to believe.

--Joe

I didn't say "bliss" and I don't have a guru, Joe,  :).  I never find myself in a state of "bliss" - but by yielding to the Holy Spirit and not allowing my mind and emotions to run away - I walk in peace and can "see" the Lord with the eyes of the spirit.  It's the same as keeping one's eyes on the Lord, but I used to just throw that little phrase out there and didn't do it....and I sank into the troubled waters like Peter.

On Edit-

Another scripture that one might use for this concept is the one about "casting down the imaginations....etc."  There has to be a way of "not fearing" for example if God commands us not to fear.  I beleive we are called to control our own minds and thoughts.  Otherwise, it's a field day.  Once we have coraled our doubts, fears, etc. we can "see" better.

frank

While waiting for Tom, I have been doing a search of the Scripture for the words "truth" and "understanding". The Bible is after all, is its own best commentary.
While the above statement by Tom Maddux has clear application when one is speaking of a work that has merely literary qualities, can the Bible be designated as such a work? That is, a book possessing only literary qualities. Can truth that is spiritual, be communicated by a grasp of word meaning, grammatical construction and employing sound principles of interpretation?
What do I mean by truth that is spiritual?
By that I simply mean an understanding that the things which are seen,were not made by things that are visiible. There are counltess numbers of "Bible experts" who are masters of word meaning, grammatical construction and sound principles of interpretation (and are teaching others) but not in possession of spiritual truth. How can that be?

Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Psalm 119:18

Most of us would not assume here that the Psalmist is blind and asking God for sight.
Most of us would not assume that he cannot read and is requesting assistance in that regard.
Who after reading this verse, believes that the Psalmist is asking God  to help him with "word meaning, grammatical contsruction, and sound principles of interpretation?

Of course the larger philosophical question that Tom and I are tackling here is this:

Is truth that is rejected, truth that is truly understood?


But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 2 Cor 3:14

Would more itense training in word meaning, grammatical contruction and sound prinicples of interpretation help the above folk to grasp the truth of what they were reading?

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Cor 4:3-4

How about the above folk? Would the answer for them to apprehend the "truth of the gospel" be a crash course in word meaning, grammatical contruction and sound principles of interpretation?

As Pilate said, what is truth?  :)

My generation (baby boomers) really promotes cynicism.  I think this is unhealthy as it is the tendency to mock and think the worst of everything.  (It is interesting to note the acceptance of satire shows today - Simpsons, Family Guy, etc - in comparison to thirty years ago when the main one was pioneering All In the Family).  In fact, I work hard to try and weed cynicism out of my life and hold to a positive outlook when it is merited.

Skepticism is not wrong providing it does not degenerate into cynicism.  In fact, I think folks would do well with a healthy dose of skepticism especially in this day when those who claims a subjective experience with God is so readily received.

I don't believe that I became skeptical of things because George is skeptical (in fact, I don't think he was skeptical - I think he just didn't like other ministries encroching upon his movement).  In fact my skepticism was born for quite the opposite reasons.

When I joined the Assembly, I was wide open.  I was told to enter in, push forward, cross over and I jumped in with all my feet.  I wanted to be a royal overcomer and that meant being faithful to the meetings, saying amen, signing up for early morning prayer tower, doing chapter summary at work, confronting slackers.  I believed that we were following God's pattern of worship, that we were the New Testament church, that we were more spiritual than the local denominational church, that seminars was where God gave special insight through his servant George.  I believed that all people should get saved and join the Assembly and those who didn't had issues.  I believed that my family was unsaved and worldly and that choosing the Assembly over them pleased God.  I believed that in my quiet time I should read the Bible until a verse stood out and my heart was impressed and that is what means that God was speaking to me.  I believed that we should do away with commentaries and systematic theologies and read our Bible upon our knees and we would have more insight and wisdom that those who devoted their careers to careful Bible scholarship.  After all, that is what George did.

(continued)

(continued from last post)

Over time, I realized that my belief system had flaws.  I realized that I had let things in that seemed right but were wrong.  Unwittingly, I had followed Debbie Boone's song, "it can't be wrong when it feels so right" and now look where it got me.

One of the things that I learned in my years after the Assembly is that I need to be a more thoughtful Christian.  I need to have a wider breadth of understanding (so I read church history.  If I read Christian books, it is only if the book broadens my horizens, not simply affirms what I already believe).  I have been around the church long enough to see fads come and go so I don't get worked up when someone comes in and says, "the problem with the church is this and if we do this the problem will be solved".  Or if someone says, "God is teaching me that we need to worship this way", I balance that with the fact that the church got along for 2000 years just fine worshiping in other ways.  if someone says, "God said to me," I don't confront them but I don't necessarily assume that it was really God who bent down from heaven and whispered in this person's ear.  I take their statement and evaluate it for what its worth.

The thing to watch is that being critical (or better yet discerning) about folk's ideas, revelations, and subjective experiences must not degenerate into cynicism;  otherwise, you have a nasty problem the other way.

Verne,

You said,

"countless numbers of Bible experts"?  Criticizing hypothetical people does nothing to establish your point.


Notice what he is praying for:
1. That HIS eyes my be opened...
2. That HE may behold wonderful things.....
3. That he may behold wonderful things OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES.

The man is praying for clarity of thought and insight.  Nothing here about truth being communicated by mystical means. 
BTW "mystical" is not meant to be insulting.  It is the correct word for informatiion communicated directly from God, bypassing the senses of the recipient.

Thomas Maddux

Verne,


An interesting question.  I think Romans 1:18-20 addresses this pretty well.

"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who SUPPRESS the truth by their wickedness."

Its hard to suppress something you don't know.

"Since what my be known about God IS PLAIN TO THEM, because GOD has made it plain to them..."

Its hard to say they don't understand what God has made plain.  In addition, we are told that He has made it plain through the creation of the natural universe.  In other words, God holds men responsible to acknowledge his existence and at least some of his attributes, because of information available to all men everywhere through their natural senses!

Also notice Rom. 1:21.  It says that the darkness of mind and heart RESULTS from the rejection of the truth that men already understand.

Not the other way around.  The order is a. revelation b. perception c. understanding d. moral choice-rejection e. darkness. (shudder)

In light of this, 2 Cor 4:3-4 is talking about people who have rejected the truth contained in their own scriptures for centuries.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Let me clarify and you are right that it was too broad a statement.
What I meant was that there are seminary professors and Biblical scholars who are not born again - I know several. How's that for clarity?


A few questions Tom. How is clarity of thought to be achieved?
By a better understanding of word meaning?
By a better grasp of the grammatical construction of the text?
By the sound applicaton of principles of interpretation?

Here's the point - the Psalmist does not need God in order to do the above effectively...certainly not to do so in accordance with established academic protocol regarding such things. Anyone properly trained could do it could they not? Why does he need to ask God to do what he or anyone else could by mere application of protocol?
Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by insight? Is that not a bit mystical?   :)
Verne

Excellent response Tom and thanks for taking the time.
Your point perfectly illustrates what is driving the nature of the current debate, namely, whether we can distinguish clearly between general and special revelation, and whether God today continues to employ both.
While the Bible is correctly considered special revelation, there are clearly things stated that can be known generally - Christ died for sins. That can be generally known.

However, to know Christ as Savior - that is special revelation.
No one can arrive at that truth by  just a correct apprehension  of "word meaning, grammatical construction, and sound principles of interpretation."
I may read a passage in the book of Job where he has made a covenant with his eyes regarding looking at a maid, and derive the literal message of the passage with little effort.
Then again I may read that passage and have the Spirit of God speak to me in such a way that I find myself empowered in a new way to deal with the lust of the eyes...
The Word of God is powerful...!


Here is what I think is a big hint with regard to your reference to the senses.
General revelation is to the senses, what Special revelation is to the spirit.
In other words, you would have great difficulty describing to me what "spiritual senses" are.
Now I am really starting to get mystical... :)
Verne

  Good stuff, Maynard. 

You mean like, profound eh??  8)

2r

Hello,

Laslo Merriwether here. I've driven this 2001 Green Toyota Corolla over from
"Assembly Free" to this thread since it is one of the most active at this point
in time. I apologize to the owner. I was very hungry and ate the Whopper that
was on the passenger seat. No one has claimed the car so far. There are two
sets of identification in the glove compartment, so it's possible that the person
is an anonymous poster. Please claim the car if it's yours.

Thank you.

P.S.  Moonflower--the car has 51,482 miles on it.

Verne,


You've got this one wrong.  General revelation comes through the creation of the world and man.  Special revelation came through the inspiration of the scriptures and the incarnation of the Word.  Check any systematic theology.

Special revelation is apprehended through the senses as well:

1. I John 1:1,  "That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we have SEEN...LOOKED AT...TOUCHED..."

2. 2 Peter 1:16, "...but we were EYEWITNESSES of his majesty."

3. John 20:31, "...but these are WRITTEN that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

It is true that Peter was shown this fact by the Father.  But we can just open the book and read it!  With our eyes and mind!  The presence of saving grace makes it possible for us to believe it.  But anyone who can read English, (in this case) can read and understand what this particular portion of special revelation is saying.

It is true that I would have difficulty describing to you what "spiritual senses" are.  I am not aware that special revelation gives such a description.  Are you?
Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

You're right.

I'm not going to bother praying anymore.  No words, nothing concrete, no senses, sounds like mysticism to me.

Thanks for the encouragement professor Maddux

Verne,

I am with you on this.

Using the verses Tom quoted, there were many that heard and saw and touched and were eyewitnesses that did not recognize Him as their Savior.

I studied the gospels as part of my curriculum in High School.  I knew the Life of Christ, his journeys, miracles and sayings, like the back of my hand, but I did not know Him as my Savior until 8 years after graduation.

It was like the light come on when I eventually heard the gospel message.  It is not just a matter of academics.

"Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly"  Yes there is a need to know God's Word, to be kept by it, to love and obey.

Marcia

Not to me.  I see prayer as a demonstration of our dependence upon God.  As we ask, we take our rightful place before Him and depend upon Him to do what we are unable to do for ourselves.  Further, Jesus promises a kind of cause-and-effect relationship between asking and receiving though in my experience it generally happens in unpredictable ways.  I'm not sure how your statement relates to Tom's point.

I think Marcia's point is actually the same as Tom's (italics mine).

Marcia,

If you will re-read my post, you will see that I did not make the claim that it was just a matter of academics.  I specifically said that grace must enable our faculty of faith.  But there must be something to believe.  How did you get the information? 

Did it come through hearing with your ears or seeing with your eyes?  Was it innate, something you were born with?  Or did you receive the information
by some non-sensible means?

I don't know of any other alternatives.  Do you?  If so, say so.

All I am addressing here is the means by which revelation is communicated to us. If you, or anyone else, can show where the scriptures teach a direct, non-mediated, ie, mystical revelation at the personal level, please do so.

It is far wiser that we should believe what is actually true, rather than hoping truth will conform itself to what we want it to be.  If I am wrong, I am wrong.  However, rather than simply being annoyed with the messenger, it would be far more effecient to show that we actually do/i] receive mystical, personal revelation. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I was looking in the phone book the other day and found this person named Jesus Hosanna. I looked at the name and it drew me into the page. I thought I should call Him but didn't know what to say. I showed it to my friend who is always so inspiring to me and he said "Ask and you shall receive. Just call this guy Jesus up and tell him you would like to meet and go for coffee. He is the same person I talked to and inspired me to be how I am today. Like you I was just going through the phone book and WOW a light came on. I called Bell about it and they said they were not aware that this guy was using their book to influence me and others and said if he is a nuisance we will remove his listing."

Tongue and cheek. I believe that Faith which enables us to respond to God is a gift of God and we all are given sufficient Faith to respond. When we read or hear the Word the gift of Faith gives us hope to believe that what we are reading or hearing is different from reading just any old book but these are indeed the Words of God. This is how God reveals to us and is revelation. The revelation of John at Patmos was founded on an existing relationship with the Lord. The sheep hear and know the voice of God and if you don't know Him then it is a crap shoot. Who knows maybe that warm feeling is the meal I had or some chemical reaction in my system or an emotional high from music or something else I enjoy. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. The Words of text are not it but reading what God says He is able to use the thoughts and expressions printed on paper or computer screens by His Holy Spirit to bring something to life. He is afterall not like us but is in fact God Almighty so while we can't understand it that does not negate it.

Hugh.

I hear a question.  When does the the Word that is pulled off the page become Life in the soul?

He IS the Word...the Word of Life.  To the extent that the Word reveals WHO HE IS, it is full of Life and Nourishment - through faith (believing what is read/heard).  To the extent that the revelation of WHO HE IS is seen and received due to desperate need, Life is born in the soul. 

As the dry ground needs water to come alive, so the ground of the soul needs to drink.  The realization or revelation of one's own human depravity and need is therefore always ground zero for God.  No need, no filling.  Only empty vessels can be filled.  Only THAT GROUND can receive the Life of God - and that based upon revelation or the revealing of WHO HE IS.  Hand and glove.  Marriage.

Reading, Writing, Arithmetic is the vehicle that instructs the brain and allows man to take written truths off the page - through the senses.  The human senses can only use correspondences of what the cognition (brain) takes in to arrive at what is being described.  God is like a _______________.  We say, Oh, yes, I "see" AND I RECEIVE WHAT I SEE INTO MY SPIRIT.  Voila! Conversion of Matter (human cognition) into Life.... the conversion of cognition into living revelation. 

We know nothing apart from relationship to something else.  The building blocks of human knowledge of nature and concepts bring us to the possibility of revelation of God since we cannot understand God who is Spirit except through correspondances. 

Still, without a sense of depravity and need, the information is simply that and will be passed up as non-sense or as non-essential.   

frank

I wish you'd left the car where you found it. Who knows how many will try to claim it now? In fact, it may even be destroyed by all those trying to evacuate an unpleasant situation. There was one bullet-ridden window when I pulled over. How many more are there now????

I suspected that it was mine from the first I saw your ad.  Someone spray painted it and turned the lights on when I stopped to get a better look at War & Peace. People will do anything in a desparate situation, even to the point of eating plastic fake hamburgers from Walmart's toy department.

What is really telling, is that I have the registration papers in my purse, so if you found some in the GC........hm.........I don't want to destroy anyone's reputation, so I'll address the issue in this way:  Were the initials on the papers in the glove box FS.J.? 

And to keep things even more discreet, I'll need to ask another question. How many of the hubcaps were spinners?

You pride yourself on being a logician.
While your argument may show that some special revelation comes via sensible means, a point I already conceded, it does nothing to establish that all do...indeed it cannot for it would contradict many examples in the Scripture...Pharoah and Nebuhadnezzar could tell you stories...






For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.
In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;
Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, Job 33 14-16


 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: Joel 2:28

Tom you never cease to surprise me.
You also once contended that Satan does not influence the thoughts and actions  of men, and challenged the BB to provide Scriptural evidence to the contrary, which was promptly done.
You have yet to admit your error in that regard.
You are clearly also mistaken here my friend.
What say ye?


Verne

I know you are not saying that these points you list apply to any of the Scriptural passages I previously cited.


I would have been greatly impressed to hear you say:

Verne you were right. The Scriptural passages you supplied clearly showed that my statements and position contending no basis for God's comunicating to men by other than sensible means were in error.

O. K Tom. You win. I loose.
I think I have done about as much as I can, or care to...
Verne

p.s. here is the rest of the passage in Job regarding the reason why God sometimes employs this method.
I was going to share a few real life interesting instances that I knew about since you had asked, but I think it best to  let it lie...

...That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.
 He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword...

The Apostate George Geftakys presented himself as having apostolic authority, was enabled to excercise authority and control, sometimes ruthlessly, over others, while living a life of extreme defilement and sin, and that for literally decades.
He was aided and abetted in this terrible fraud by men, leaders and elders of the flock, who claimed to be men of God.
Now clearly there were many things done in the assemblies that did not comport with the plain teaching of Scripture. One example is the designation "leading brothers". Spiritual leadership in the church is committed to the deacons and the elders.
I believe many of these "leading brothers" were sincere and able men. So far as I know there were none of them incapable of reading what is plainly written in the Word of God.
So with regard to what is generally available to any reader of the instructions plainly written in the Word of God, they stand in a place of disobedience for failing to follow God's instructions as leaders of His flock.
The trouble these men will face in God's presence in my view, has less to do with what is generally available to in the written Word, and moire to do with what I contend is God's determination to get His message across by any means necessary!

.If you ingore His general revelation, He will see to it that you get special revelation.

There will eventually be an angel flying in the midst of heaven, declaring the everlasting gospel to those on the earth.

If you ignore His prophets and servants, He Himself will come to realay the message as He did in Son..

If you fail to understand this fundamental principle, you will completly miss the meaning of the following verses:

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel  Romans 2: 13-16

Are we to assume, that for all those years that Geftakys was engaged in his blasphemous conduct, surrounded by all those holy workers and leading  brothers, and bringing such unspeakable shame and disgrace to the name of Christ by his secret sins, that God was silent?
Are we to assume, that they, having clearly failed to heed the instructions in God's written word, had no other warnings from Him in the form of providence, or conscience?
The Christian is in serious trouble who is not sensitive to the leading of the Spirit of God, and I am not talikng about getiing out a concordance and checking to see what the Bible says about a topic.

It is the failure to ultimately,  be led by God's Spirit, that led to the tragedy of the assemblies!

In the matters of life and death, "word meanings, grammatical construction, and correct principles of interpretatoin" will avail you little; hearing the voice of the Shepherd will keep you from much sorrow.

The most critical thing that the child of God can learn, is to recognize the voice of his Heavenly Father, whether in the written Word, in the providence of life, or in the stirrings of the conscience.
To mainatain and teach others that God does not use all of these means to guide His own, is to misrepresent Him and to mislead his flock.
O.K. Now I am done. God bless and keep you all.
Verne

This is exactly the problem.

Marcia

Verne,


Earlier in our discussion I suggested that you consult any  systematic theology available concerning the definitions of the two terms you have used above.
General revelation is God's revelation of himself through the creation, including the consciences of men.
Special revelation is God's revelation of himself through the inspired scriptures and all aspects of the life of Jesus Christ.  It also includes many things no longer available to us, such as the prophecies of New Testament prophets, the oral teaching of Jesus, and more.

One can access general revelation by looking up at the stars or walking in the woods.  One can access special revelation by opening the Blble.

What you are advocating is something else.  My term for it is mystical revelation.  Many christians believe that if they have an insight into the meaning of a passage of scripture, they are receiving direct, non-mediated communication from God.  They also frequently believe that the thoughts that occur to them are sometimes the voice of God...or the Devil.

As I have said, I have serious doubts about this.  My doubts grew out of my observations of the confused teachings and practices associated with these ideas in my early years as a Christian.  I noticed that the messages people purportedly received from God were always rehashes of ideas clearly taught in the scriptures.  They were also frequently confused as to what the passages they would paraphrase actually taught.
I also noticed that no one followed the directions that were sometimes contained in the "prophecies."

Recently, I visited the home of some folks who were assembly "true believers" until their satellite assembly dissolved. When I asked the wife why she had stayed even after George had been exposed for what he was.  Her answer, "I asked the Lord what I should do, and he gave me a word, telling me that I should stay."  

If I were to accept that her "word" was a valid communication from God, as she believes, I would have to believe that God wanted folks to stay and suffer abuse.  I don't.  This sister believes much as you do.  So, she stayed until the bitter end.

Seems to me that this actual, real-life situation shows that some of the ideas in your last post are not well founded.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Here are the points I gleened from this thread:

1.  There is a continum of belief among Christians on balancing the objective and subjective in the Christian life.  Subjective means that God leads us by communicating directly with our mind through some sort of inner "speaking".  Objective means that we walk by propositional truths that anyone can read in the Bible.  All Christians agree that both have been used by God.  The disagreement is to what extent God typically uses each method with a Christian.  Some believe the subjective leading of God is to be expected as a daily occurance.  Others believe that subjective leadings are less frequent and should not be responded to without careful thought.

2.  Propositional truths of the Bible can be understood by all (I have heart atheists describe the gospel) but it takes the supernatural power of God to believe and apply these truths.

3.  Tom made a very strong point by suggesting that opening oneself up too far to the subjective side of things has historically made one unable to distinguish if he or she is responding to God or some sort of demonic deceiption because one has removed himself from objective criteria.  Take the point for what its worth.

4.  Frank was understandably offended and called Tom an idiot.  Now that we have all cooled down, lets cut the blame assessment and get back on topic.

5.  Margaret's suggestion of "six weeks off" I'm sure is well intended.  However, I don't think it is realistic.  A bullitin board is an open board for anyone to drop in at any time.  To enforce various rules or create a different type of community, you need a different medium than we have here.  Telling people you don't happen to like that they should take six weeks off so you can continue to post what you want seems a bit disengenuous to me.  Personally, when I get fed up with the board, I leave.  After all, I can only control my behavior.  I can't control others.

Thanks, but I'm not confusing terms.  Here is the quote that caused all the problems:

"Deceiving spirits encourage shortcuts, bypass the mind and seek to create a dependency upon esoteric knowledge, (knowledge that can only be understood by a few elite people), Spirit guides can give you the knowledge you seek by bypassing your mind.  You won't even have to think.  Just go by what you hear in your head. Sounds good doesn't it?  That's how a medium works!  New Age channelers are making big money with their esoteric knowledge.  Some will even profess to be Christians. Satan gives them enough truth to hook a gullible public."

It does highlight the problem of abandoning objective reason and depending solely on subjectivly receiving messages.   Several Christians I have observed who say "God spoke to me on a daily basis" is often "going by what they hear in their head".  They resist study of theology because God lays the answers upon their heart.  The point is comparing how similar the subjective process of "God spoke to me" is to the subjective process of mediums and new age channelers who also get direct knowledge through subjective means.

Perhaps you are right that the information that is impressed upon a believer's heart is different.  Perhaps they can go with whatever is in their head and assume it is from God just because they are Chrisitians.  While no one on the board denies that God may speak directly to individuals, I think the disagreement is that we take different place on the continum between objectivity and subjectivity and we feel uneasy when others are too far down the lane one way or the other. 

(Tom's word)

Seems to me like Tom wants to make the human intellect the measure of all things spiritual.

Matt Sciaini

Matt,

I "dressed up" your post to set off the quote from my post.  I did not change any of the text in the post.

Verne and I have been debating, on and off, for nearly a year is the subject of just how spiritual truth is communicated, especially through the scriptures.  In our assembly background, we absorbed a way of looking at the scriptures that makes some assumptions that I have come to doubt.

Remember Chapter Summary...1. What does it say?  The text is read.  2. What does it mean to me?  The text is not interpreted.  Rather, one was supposed to "listen" to the Spirit or one's heart or whatever, and decide what the text was "saying" to you personally at that particular time.
3. Then, what am I going to do...you know the rest.

Scripture, in this view, scripture is merely a sort of "stimulus" or "vehicle" that the Holy Spirit uses to teach you directly, communicating to your inner consciousness in some manner to instruct you personally.  The guy in the next chair could be being taught something entirely different from the same text.

Both the text and the reader, in this view, are inspired. The problem is, everyone does not seem equally inspired, remember?  Someone pops up with a "meaning" that is the opposite of what it says and gets corrected in the meeting.

In seminaries the view is different. The rule is "one meaning, many applications."  Scripture is viewed as inspired, but not the reader.  The reader's spiritual condition makes a difference.  Regenerate or not, mature/immature, knows original languages or not, background information about the situation being addressed...all these come into play. 

The idea is that a biblical author, under the inspiration of the HS, sat down and wrote specific words to address a specific situation.  Knowing what that situation was helps the reader arrive at the intended meaning of the author.  The reader then prayerfully applies the meaning to whatever situation is necessary.

It takes skill to do this.  That's why people study in seminaries.  It does not confer infallibility on the reader.  If you stop to think about it, the "mystical" method we used in the assembly actually should produce an infallible understanding...and we know how that worked in practice. 

I don't think this makes the human intellect the measure of all things spiritual.  But it does mean that disciplined study is necessary to get a real grip on the Bible.  If God just teaches directly...why study?  God knows, and through the HS just tells you.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom my good friend, do you have any idea how ridiculous your erecting and demolishing straw men makes you look?
There is not a single person who has suggested that diligent study of the Scriptures is not important.
You threw out the challenge for someone to demonstrate to you any Biblical example of  God's communicating truth to a human by non sensible means, or that could not be obtained by the usual cognitive process.
Your adducing an example of a person claiming God told her to remain in what is clearly a cultic environment is hardly instructive or persuasive. How one validates that this has happened has never been the question and your pretending that anyone who disagrees with you is stuck in the malaise of wrong assembly teaching and practice cheapens the discussion.
Have the intellectual honesty to admit when you make a mistake. What you are doing is destroying your credibility my friend.
Verne

Since leaving the assembly we have been accountable to a couple in our church for our "strange ways of thinking." In trying to make help them understand where we are coming from we suggested they read this site and assembly reflections. They thought the reflections site was very useful, but they said of this bb, and this thread inparticular, "You might want to permanently log off that bb. Those people are rude to each other. Are you sure they are the ones that left?"
They said more, but it was basically Lurkers asylum post reworded. Quite amusing.

I was cleaning up some old books of my mothers the other day. I came a cross a book originally published in the 1950’s and then republished later by the Billy Graham association. I don’t know the name of the book because it was irrelevant at the time. As I flipped through it I came across a bible study section that had 3 points to studying. What does it say, what does it mean, what am I going to do about it.

Chapter summary was not invented by George. It has been a tool for studying the Word of God for decades. Because George used it many disqualify it as being a viable means of study. The other argument is anecdotal. That is, I know a person who did such and such therefore that proves God does not speak to His people. How God communicates to His people is not dependent upon us, it depends on Him. How he will do what He wants to do.



Because the seminary Tom attended teaches one meaning, many applications does that mean it is correct. Is there only one meaning to scripture passages? If that were so then it is possible to know everything about God by diligent study, as Tom says.

The problem with that is it limits understanding and knowing God to nothing more than human intellect. Is God not more than that? Eph 2:7, “ That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” The Bible tells us it will take more than diligent study to unfold all the treasures in Christ. It will take revelation from God throughout the ages to come.  Perhaps He might show us a glimpse of some of it while on this earth. Something transcending human intellect. Maybe.

Yes, that's it.

Let's pretend that he doesn't do this all the time.  And let's pretend that he didn't say he was "convinced," that I was under occult influence.

Let's pretend that he has credibility.

f

Great points Marty. Goes to show that there are some things that you won't learn just by attending seminary.
But then again, you drew those conclusions by a literal reading of that passage in Ephesians did you not?
Hmmnnnn.... :)
Verne

p.s for someone who would consider himself to be at the core a spiritual being, the flaws in Tom's epistimological model are truly startling. Not even the most inveterate mechanistic thinker would deny the truth for example, of "genetic memory", philosophical models of epistimology notwithstanding... :)

I never seen no writin like that in no Louis L’Amour book I ever read. I don’t think those are even real words.

Marty,


Many years ago, back in the 70's, I read the book "Daws".  It is the biography of Dawson Trotman, founder of the Navigators.  He also established the follow-up program for the Billy Graham ministry. He and Graham were close friends.  Graham helped the Navigators to raise money to buy the Glen Eyre, the Navigator center in Colorado.  Later he preached Trotman's funeral.

It describes Trotman's involvement with students at UCLA in the 1930's.  There is a church just north of the campus called the University Bible Church.  The pastor, Milo Jamison, had been using the Chapter summary method with a student group for some time.  Trotman picked it up and used it in his own bible studies.

Once GG was sitting in my study, and I opened the book to that page and handed it to him.  He said, "I had no idea."  However, since at a different time he told me that he had attended Dawson Trotman's bible studies in Pasadena, I suspect that his statement really meant, "I had no idea I would get caught."

Now, chapter summary is a useful method for familiarizing people with what the Bible says.  It gets people into the Bible, and a chapter summary study can fit into a lunch hour.  So, I wouldn't discard it.

But lets say someone gives this meaning based on the words, "Jesus wept."  "This means that I should care more about people."  No one will argue with that, at least not at a Bible study.  But the meaning of the phrase is that the man called Jesus that scripture describes felt grief and wept.  What this person has done is to make a personal application.  One meaning, many applications.

Blessings

Thomas Maddux

Do forgive.
Epistimology is that branch of philosophy that investigates the nature and the orgin of knowledge.
Remarkably, while Tom does admit ( since his systematic theology confirms it, not because God has instructed him in any way apparently) special revelation is one such source of knowldge, he has made the incredible logical leap to the conclusion that special revelation is now complete and no longer likely, if not outright impossible! That is to say, that we either know it all already, or we have the means to do so!. As I said, remarkable!
Verne

p.s all of the sins I most despise in myself, I did not just read somewhere and go "Yep. that's me!"
Some of these things I have been reading about for decades...some of you get my drift...we rarely change, or even desire to, unless God really shows us what we are truly like...this is not just theology folks, this is practical Christianity... :)

Marty,


A question for you.  If God were to reveal something to you that transcended human intellect, what would you know it with?  You certainly wouldn't be able to comprehend it with your intellect, since it transcends the intellect's limits.

So you would know it with......what?

Also, you have entered this discussion, as far as I can tell, recently, you may not be aware of something that has gone on.  

It is one thing to claim that people are taught of God in ways that transcend the intellect.  It is quite another to demonstrate the actual possession of such knowledge.  I have repeatedly requested that the advocates of this idea share something with us that cannot be learned from reading and analyzing the scriptures.

To date, no one has even tried.

Would you like to do so?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

What faculties did the rich man use to behold Lazarus after his death Tom?
After-all he had no body now did he? You just never give up do you?   :)
Verne

p.s don't get me wrong for I am not suggeting I have a good answer to this. I am simply pointing out that absent bodily mediation, cognition was apparently present.

Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 


 Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 


 Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 

Being born again, and knowing it, transcends the intellect.  It makes no sense at all, in fact, but it is true.

Here's another:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Also, there are the verses and ideas that Verne has shared, which you didn't notice.

Faith isn't something the intellect can grasp.  It transcends the intellect, and is given to us.  You can read and analyze the scriptures as much as the Pharisees did and still not have faith.   It's the difference between life and death. 

How do you know any of this is true?  By faith.  You aren't going to convince anyone by analysis.

Your challenge has been met, several times.  Your logic violates the law of contradiction.  Your assertion that evil spirits are able to speak in a mystical fashion, while God won't is interesting, especially since you argued in the past that Satan can't influence the minds of men.

Is this going to be deleted?

f

Verne,

The problem is that you, as far as I can ascertain within the limits of my human intellect  ;), are not dead yet.  As far as I can discern, neither am I.  So, we our current mode of existence is not the same as the folks you are talking about.

Theologians have a term called, "non-local presence" to describe the behavior of spirit beings.  Location as we know it describes the relationships of our bodies to other things.  But "where" is an angel?  They seem to be able to manifest themselves within the space/time universe we experience at specific localities.  But where were they before they showed up at Abraham's tent?   We can say heaven, but that is not a place we can reach just by building a suitable vehicle.  So, disembodied beings, such as the rich man, seem to have capacities that we do not.l

So, though you raise an interesting question, it does not really apply to the type of knowledge we are discussing.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

 2 Cor 12:2-4, “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

Marty,


A worthy shot, and no doubt about it.

However, allthough it comes much closer than some others, I think it still misses the mark. 

1. It is the mode of transport that is the unusual factor here.

2. If Paul, (most folks think this passage is autobiographic), was out of the body, and "heard" unspeakable words, then he was certainly getting some type of communications we don't.  However, the fact is that we don't.  This hardly describes what happens when we read our bibles.
Well, at least not to me.  Even in Paul's case he has to go back 14 years to recount an event such as this.

BTW, I believe confusing God's miraculous interventions into his creation with normal Christian experience is the source of many erroneous ideas.  The question is not what can God do, but what does God normally do.

3. Whatever Paul's state there, something he did not fully understand himself, he was told things in words.  Words are the tools of thought.  We think in words, and we understand and formulate the words we speak in our minds or intellects.  Paul says it is not lawful to tell us what he heard, but if he did he would use "words not lawful to utter."

So, I don't think this passage supports the idea that we receive supra-intellectual knowledge from God.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

First of all, there is the gift of tongues, and prophecy, and knowledge, not to mention miracles.  All of that goes beyond intellect, does it not?

Then there is this:

Mark 13:11

But when they shall lead [you], and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Here we see clearly that not only in the "olden" days, but even up to the last days, God will supernaturally communicate with his people.

No one has suggested that this is the norm, or that it occurs on a daily basis.  It may occur more for some people than others, and it's not our business to judge the frequency, merely the fruit.  Even then, we should be careful about judging, don't you think?

Tom, you have decided to frame everyone who doesn't agree with you, and lump them all into one big straw man, then knock it down.  The fact is, you are getting multiple answers to your query and challenge.

Can you see it?

f

 
 

Being born again, and knowing it, transcends the intellect.  It makes no sense at all, in fact, but it is true.


f

I don't think being born-again transcends the intellect--it transforms the intellect. Through the gift of
faith(by God's grace) we are able to see a verse and "understand" that it applies to US, and is not just
a dead reference. We read John 5:24 and "understand" that we have passed from death into life. This
brings us great joy. That faith transforms the heart and the mind and gives us the capacity to understand
the Scriptures are alive and very real.

I find it interesting that when people are challenged to "prove" their experiences, they have to quote
Scripture in order to  attempt to do so. The writer of Proverbs interestingly enough, does not plead
and cry out for greater revelations or experiences, but for greater understanding and wisdom. The psalmist also cries out for greater understanding and wisdom, not for experiences. You may call this greater understanding "special revelation" if you will, but God is "no respecter of persons", and has us use ordinary
means to gain more understanding(such as reading  the Word and praying,  and accessing the gained knowledge of many Christians who have gone before us) by the same means he has given each person
who believes. To get into a realm of "special revelation" is where the charlatan faith healers go, attempting
to lure and rip-off people based on some "special" gift that they have above others.

They love to say "This is not me friends, this is God", but the inference is there that they have some special
gift, some special knowledge, some special revelation above what God gives "normal" Christians. I read a book
that I believed had "changed my life" due to a "special feeling" I gained from it. Interestingly enough, it was
called "The Normal Christian Life" by Watchman Nee. This "normal" life he spoke of was a "transcendent life" built on special revelation from God that one could attain by emptying themselves of themselves and totally
serving God. I, like many others, felt I had "put all on the altar", and felt amazing!! But soon I began to realize
that I hadn't put everything on the altar(for as the Scriptures say, we are all sinners and to say differently is
to be a liar), and that this amazing "transcendence" was all based on feelings, not really on faith. "Faith is the substance of things HOPED FOR, the evidence of things NOT SEEN". There is no promise that if we have enough faith we will "SEE" the things NOT SEEN in this verse. It gives us the understanding that those things are truly there and we WILL see them one day in Heaven.



"Thou hast magnified THY WORD above ALL THY NAME"

Thanks, Joe

Excellent verse which I had intended to share but decided not to bother. Tom's reaction to Scripture that contradicts his arguments is to ignore them or to change the subject, to say nothing of building elaborate straw-men which he then demolishes with great relish.   :)
This verse in particular powerfully refutes much of what he has been contending, but I again fully expect that he will ignore it...
Verne
p.s Oh I know, he will strenuously contend that the Lord was speaking to the apostles and not to the rest of the church.
Much of what Tom is saying I presume to be out of ignorance. He obviously has not done much talking to missionaries on the front lines. He would probably dismiss the story of the pastor awakened in the middle of the night and prompted to flee with his family scant hours before fanatic muslims burned his church to the ground in Indonesia.
What trobules me the most about Tom's comments  is the implication that a person who has walked with the Lord for as long as he has, can testify to never having seen God intervene in a miraculous way in his own life, either in giving special direction in the form of providing information that he never could have gotten on his own, or soverignly intervening to change some course of action he had decided upon. Could this be possible??!!

Ok Jo, here’s the question. How do you explain what you just said so someone can understand it with mere intellect?

When Jesus said, “You must be born again.” Nicodemus replies, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb?” Here was a theologian, one who studied the scriptures yet could not intellectually understand that concept.

Indeed, understanding comes from a transformed intellect that goes from natural to spiritual. God communicates on a spiritual level.

Heb 5:14, “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” There is an exercising of the senses that takes place that makes one more in tune with what God is saying and doing. How does one know the will of God for your life? Some are floundering about giving all kinds of religious talk while others are vessels of honor meet for the Master’s use. They can discern what is from God and what is not. Do they have chapter and verse to authenticate it? Not necessarily. But their senses are in tune with God. The bible says so.

I may not be able to intellectually explain it but my limitation does not make it not so. The agnostic will always want proof that God does such and such. The man/woman of faith knows Whom they have believed and are persuaded…

Marty I am afraid Tom has pulled a fast one on you my friend.
Have you noticed how  his focus has now shifted completely from the source of knowledge to its mode of perception? Boy this guy is good!
The reason this all started is because of Tom's strident insistence that God does not communicate directly with men and that all special revelation is received via sesible means. Stay on target!
If Paul ws out of the body, he certainly could not "hear" in the normal sense.
Verne

Verne---

The Holy Spirit never works contrary or opposed to the Word of God. He uses the Word
of God to speak to us. As Tom has asked you to give examples of your "special revelation"
you use Scripture to try to back your point--the same Scripture he is asserting is learned
intellectually. By the way, I truly am not saying this to "side" with Tom, but to give you
my own opinion of Mark 13:11 shown below.

Remember right after Jesus was baptized with the Holy Spirit, how he was immediately
led into the Wilderness and tempted by the Devil? He had been annointed by the Holy
Spirit, and was filled with the Spirit and put to the test, just like the people in Mark 13:11
are. But what does Jesus do in response to each of the Devil's temptings? Does he use
new "revelation",  or use the very Word of God he himself has memorized intellectually by
studying the Word of God? Why not use "special revelation" to combat the devil? Because the
Lord is giving us an example of how to battle, and to live daily by reading and using the Word
of God.

The Holy Spirit "gives" Jesus "words" to speak in his hour of temptation and what are they? Verses
from the Old Testament--and I believe this is what mark 13:11 is referring to--The Holy Spirit will
strenthen in time of temptation, and even martyrdom, by bringing Bible verses to mind--by using
our common intellect and memory to convey his message of encouragement. God doesn't give
each of us a "special" road map to use---he gives all of us the same map to use(The Bible), and it's
up to us whether we want to get to know that map or not.

--Joe

Who we are does not essentially change at death Tom. That is self evident.
The point is that this man is still capable of receiving and processing information without sensible means.
The exception proves the rule! Another red herring!  :)


Verne

This is true.

This seems to be more of a political debate than a spiritual discussion.

When a republican and democrat are debating, the argument a republican takes to validate his position is the very reason why a democrat won’t accept it. The same is true in reverse. Two opposing perspectives and ideologies. They can’t be reconciled.

With Christians, particularly ones of similar back ground, it should be a discussion that when one brings something new to the table that it is respectfully considered.

“Oh, I never saw that before. I will think on that some more.”

“That’s a good point, but have you considered this?” “No I haven’t. Let me get back to you.”

Its not like this is pentecostals and plymouth brethren debating tongues and slain in the spirit. We are talking of a fundamental teaching in the church that God reveals to His people things consistent with the scriptures in a manner that can not be intellectually explained.

This discussion seems to have Tom’s back up against the wall, his two little paws up, his claws protruding, and will fight to the bitter end. Then there are his die hard supporters who refuse to see something different even though they don’t have a clue what Tom is talking about.

Gotta end it.

Lash me with a wet noodle if I ever suggest anything otherwise.
Unless you are prepared to contend that we presently understand all that the Word signifies and its every applicaton, I fail to see your point Joe.
Tom's request that I provide him with examples is irrelevant and nothing but a red herring.
What matters is what the Scriptures actually say about the topic at hand - how does God communicate truth...?


When I say special revelation, I mean it  in more than the systematic theology sense Joe.
If I find a verse of Scripture that applies to a real space-time situation, one in which I have not necessarily dealt before, I consider that "special". Happens all the time my friend. The Word uniquely becomes flesh in each of us...


There is much "revealed in the NT that you would  be  hard pressed to glean from the old without benefit of special or "new" revelation Joe. Although it always was the case, I would not have realised that Hagar corresponded to Mt. Sinai in the OT until Paul told me so in the NT. I think I understand that you are saying that the Word of God does not change and I agree with that. I am just saying that it is infinite! I do not necessarily agree that God does not give each of us a special "road map" . I think the Spirit of God applies the Word to each believer according to need. Good points!

Hyuk! Hyuk!
Verne

Amazing. In another post a few of us were labeled as "cultic", now were labeled
as "Die-hard supporters of Tom" because of expressing an idea that was "similar"
to his. How has this board drifted to such an elitist attitude? That is far more cultic.

My post was my opinion. I do not fully understand what Tom is saying, but I think I
understand part of it, and I also understand part of what Verne and others are trying
to say also. But why is everyone trying to force one person to admit they are wrong,
when they are expressing their own opinion and what they believe? And how am I
"refusing to see something different even though they don't have a clue what Tom is
talking about?". You know, that sentence doesn't even make any logical sense. That's
like saying "Did you walk to work or bring your lunch?" If I don't understand what Tom
is saying, how can I be refusing to see something different? It's like saying "You don't
understand Arminianism, so why are you refusing to accept Calvinism?" It's an illogical
statement. Yet the illogical statement even got a laugh!!!

I give up. man--I wish I could find a thread that wasn't dedicated to attacking this one
person on the Bulletin Board. Maybe the only way to avoid it is to create my own thread
and talk to myself once again. Oh well, back to "Assembly Free", where's there's a lot of
nonsense to be heard....uh...no I won't say it. ;D

--Joe

Tom is certainly being taken to task for being obdurate, but I do not think he is being attacked.
On prior occasions when I thougth that was happening, my response was far different.
The only question in my mind is whether Tom has the capability to recognize when he has erred on a particular point, and is big enough to admit it.
Verne

i agree with joe, brazenly. agreeing with someone is not cultish. even if someone agrees with someone else several times, it doesn't mean that one of them has an unhealthy control over the other. take off the cult-colored sunglasses folks. this is just a bb discussion.

i also wanted to remind some of you that discussions on bbs, any bb, do not result in someone rolling over and saying "you're right, i was wrong". if you expect to pin someone down, anyone, you will be a disappointed, frustrated, angry poster. generally people will toss out their opinions in contrast or complement to yours, and thats about it. getting emotional about that will only lead to angry posting. don't post angry! think about the other guy's points, make your points, and let it go at that. cool?

in this particular case, as in pretty much every other discussion, i don't see people on either side making much effort to praise the opposing sides well-made points. thats just how it goes. if you need more than that from someone who is arguing with you, you shouldn't be on a bb. what i enjoy about a bb discussion is not always agreement, but the new information and perspective i get from those who disagree with me.

Hi Joe:
Sorry if my chuckle at Marty's jab offended. I think it good to not take ourselves too seriously.
You did make some good points in your last post and I want to reiterate that.
I have a sincere question for you that might help me understand where you are on this.

 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: Romans 8:16

According to your understanding of Tom's position, which of the cognitive faculties do you think can be replaced by our spirit in the above verse?
This question is sincere and take your time thinking abou it.
Verne

p.s. Here is my take on the foregoing folks: If someone says that God "spoke" to them, I have no Scriptural warrant for dismissing them as a "mystic".  I may choose to believe or disbelieve a particular claim based on all the available information, but to try and build a system of theology on the premise that God communicates only via sensible means is presumptuous in the extreme and contrary to what is plainly taught in Scripture. Simple no? 

Joe, you need thicker skin than that. You aren’t the focal point of this discussion.

The point is many have very clearly shown Tom that God communicates with His people at times in super natural unexplainable ways. There are examples in scripture that indicate that as well as testimonies of godly men and women missionaries and other servants throughout the centuries. Read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and you will see amazing testimonies of God’s supernatural intervention in the direst situations.

This has demonstrated again Tom’s attitude of superiority that he can not be instructed or corrected. His condescension toward bb posters has been brought up by many. He can not humble himself to admit wrong nor can he find the strength of character to make right things that he has said that are clearly over the line.

You may be Tom’s friend but I will tell you, a true friend will entreat his brother rather than defend to the end. I don’t want to draw comparisons but isn’t that what happened in the assembly.

This is where you are wrong and why this discussion continues needlessly.  You are painting a picture that
1.  Tom believes that God does not communicate supernaturally with his people.
2.  People have given Tom many examples where God had communicated supernaturally with this people
3.  Tom refuses to believe these examples.
4.  Therefore Tom is acting arrogantly and refusing to face the facts.
5.  Anyone who supports Tom in this is denying the facts as well and therefore is cultic.

However, when I read just a few of Tom's recent posts:

---

BTW, I believe confusing God's miraculous interventions into his creation with normal Christian experience is the source of many erroneous ideas.  The question is not what can God do, but what does God normally do.

---

What you are advocating is something else.  My term for it is mystical revelation.  Many christians believe that if they have an insight into the meaning of a passage of scripture, they are receiving direct, non-mediated communication from God.  They also frequently believe that the thoughts that occur to them are sometimes the voice of God...or the Devil.  As I have said, I have serious doubts about this.

---

I do not for a minute deny the possibility of God speaking to a person.  But just because a thought occurrs to me I do not ascribe it to God, (or Satan).  I have my plausibility filter set to a high level.  I will accept that sort of thing after I apply several tests, such as:
1. The general maturity of the person.
2. The type of personality he/she evidences.
3. What I know of the spiritual stature of the individual.
4. The reputation of the person among other Christians who I know or whose reputation leads me to give weight to their views.
5. How the person's statements accord with the teachings of properly interpreted scripture.
In addition to these things, I do not believe that direct communication from God either was or is God's normal way of dealing with his people.

---

Your theory above is patently false.  I am not operating under the assumption that God never speaks directly to people or that God cannot make a verse leap out from the page and impress an unrelated idea upon our heart.  By Tom's quote above, I don't think Tom operates under this assumption either (though you don't seem to give him credit for the things he says that contradicts your theory).  Or, putting it plainly, Tom is saying that he believes that God may indeed speak to people.  This possibility has been abused in the Christian community (where folks say God is speaking to them and they are not).  While God has indeed spoken to people, he does not believe that it is a typical every-day experience.  Therefore, he feels that Christians should be very careful and throughtful when someone says "God spoke to me".  See how this is different than the mold you are putting him in where you claim that he believes God never speak directly to people?

The question has always been:  what is the normal Christian experience?  Should we expect God to speak to us every day in our quiet time and as we are driving down the road? (Frank/Verne's leaning)  Or does God more often lead us through direct understanding of the text and providential circumstances where we ask God for wisdom and seek to make good decisions?  (Dave/Tom's leaning). 

You will find that in the Christianity, there are opinions that are all over the map on this one.  You have Charismatics/Penticostles on one end and Presbyterians/Fundamentalists on the other.  And you have varying degrees in between. 

Just because we disagree on the issue means just that - we have a disagreement.  It doesn't mean that one side is arrogant or the other side is Assemblish.  It doesn't mean that if you support one view you're cultish.  This is why we have different churches and why Charismatics don't tend to meet in the same place as Presbyterians.  Because it is a hot issue that has gone way back (even the Pietists were formed because they didn't feel the Calvinists went far enough in direct heart-interaction with God).

You wrote:
"Joe, you need thicker skin than that. You aren’t the focal point of this discussion."

   He was definitely called a follower of Tom and cultic just for chiming in with fair points and questions.

"The point is many have very clearly shown Tom that God communicates with His people at times in super natural unexplainable ways. There are examples in
scripture that indicate that as well as testimonies of godly men and women missionaries and other servants throughout the centuries. Read Foxe’s Book of
Martyrs and you will see amazing testimonies of God’s supernatural intervention in the direst situations."

   Has Tom clearly stated that he doesn't believe in God speaking in these ways?  I may have missed him saying that God cannot or will not speak to His own in any way outside of the written Word  through the Holy Spirit.   What I have gathered is that he doesn't see it as the norm.   This has also been a multi-faceted discussion with an abundance of strawmen so forgive me if I am having trouble piecing it all together.  <grin>


"This has demonstrated again Tom’s attitude of superiority that he can not be instructed or corrected. His condescension toward bb posters has been brought
up by many. He can not humble himself to admit wrong nor can he find the strength of character to make right things that he has said that are clearly over
the line."

   I think that a debate can go on without so much personal mud slinging going on.   It makes it harder for some of us to really follow the points being made...  When I have more time, I'd like to go back over Tom's posts to see where he is "clearly over the line."  Like Brian said, it's not uncommon for people to ignore or not comment on another's points in a BBS discussion/debate, and that is unfortunate.

You wrote:
"You may be Tom’s friend but I will tell you, a true friend will entreat his brother rather than defend to the end. I don’t want to draw comparisons but
isn’t that what happened in the assembly."


   So, you are entreating a fellow Christian in love by showing him that he is still acting in an Assembly-like fassion?   Very Noble <shrug>

on: September 19, 2005, 09:29:28 am
Marty said:
"This type of thing is what i have witnessed from you on a regular basis. You repeatedly have referred to others as George or have had some reference to
how ones opinion is linked to assemblyism..."

   I trustthat you won't make this a regular occurrence.


".... You have mocked, ridiculed, called people names, talked down to people..."

  Personally, I think that the tone was a little mocking and condescending.   FWIW, I agree that Tom has come across the way you describe in some instances...but you have to at least give him credit for sort of thick skin! =)


Thankful,

Tony

Actually Verne you are correct.  We remain "us" after we die.

However, our mode of existence in not at all analogous to our current bodily life.  We will not have eyes, ears, or brain.  How will we know things, how will we communicate?

This area of theology is known as the "intermediate state".  The scriptures tell us very little about this.  I once heard a theologian say, "We die, we will be resurrected.  What goes on in between is mostly conjecture."

It is certainly not something we understand well enough to base any beliefs about out current mode of existence on.  We do not at all understand how they are related, if at all.

Oh yes, you have a tendency to accuse me of dishonesty by saying my arguments are "red herrings" or "straw men" etc.  At least do me the courtesy of explaining why you think so.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog

Verne,


Actually, I would not do so.  It is our spirit that the text names.

The regenerate child of God has the witness of the Spirit within himself that he is a child of God. THAT is what it says.

It does NOT say the Spirit witnesses that the child of God should take vitamins, buy a Honda, or attend another church.

It also doesn't say that as I read my Bible I will be getting a stream of information directly from God apart from the information contained in the text.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

All true, but hardly germane Tom. The only relevant point is that in that state, we clearly see that communication, and that by non-sensible means, is occuring!
Death, in the strictest sense, means separation.
In the departed state, whatever "hearing" faculty that exists, has simply been separated from the physical body and existed prior to death. I hope I am not getting too technical here but I think you know these things.
This is the sole point of my adducing these examples, nothing more.
If communication by non-sensible means is occurring (by whatever means, whether we understand it or not), it is evident that communication by non-sensible means is possible!


You are a very good thinker Tom. I am astonished that the simple point made above should have been arrived at by so laborious a method. While there is much that we do not understand about Scripture and could not logically explain, your premise regarding God's ability to communicate truth by non-sensible means has clearly been in error from the get-go.
The Scripture repeatedly shows this taking place whether in the living or departed state so it must be possible.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live...   Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, John 5: 25,28

There has never been any argument that there is an awful lot of baloney that goes on in the name of God supposedly speaking. In that we agree. On the other hand, whatever our cosmology, it has to be constrained by the plain teaching of Scripture.
I, for example, firmly believe that all things physical, are a metaphor for things spiritual.
The physical world is designed and intended to teach us spiritual truth.
Before you accuse me of being mystical let me give you a simple example. In the folllowing verse,do you think the Lord is referring to an impaired physical cognitive process in those that don't get it?
Poor eye-sight?
Dyslexia?
ADHD?

 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Even allowing for literary figures of speech, I believe the Lord is saying someting profound here, and that is "truth",( not always the same as information), must be communicated by more than just a physical cognitive process. I am not saying it always necessarily excludes it for I do not believe that, but that in and of itself, such a process is insufficient.
Verne

This is one instance in which a brief word study would be helpful. Why don't we compare notes on what we think the original text is saying by the expression "beareth witness"?
This will take anything we say about the passage out of the realm of conjecture. You first. :)
Verne

Math 3:16-17 Read this everyone and tell me what was happening. Did God speak apart from Scripture and was the voice only heard by believers?

Hugh

I think I will let Joe handle this one... :)
Verne

 p.s Who was it that said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?
Much of the confusion and misinformation we are seeing disseminated comes from a failure of some of us to read ALL of our Bibles. There is no substitute. I have seen some incredible statements from some folk who really should have known better and which suggests to me a scary lack of familiarity with some the Scriptures' most basic claims.

Matt. 3:16,17 was not part of the Bible when it was spoken from the heavens. Scripture was
actually being created at that point in time. "This is my beloved Son in whom I am we pleased"
may have been heard by all at that time. But that sentence is now a permanent part of a "com-
pleted" Bible. So maybe I'm not understanding the point you are making Hugh.

--Joe

Joe, Hugh is doing a bit of fine pitching here and he is probably referring to Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. The record is a bit ambiguous as in Acts 9 it states that those with him heard the voice that spoke to him but saw no one.

 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Acts 9:7


On his recounting the event in Acts 22 he states that no one else heard the voice that spoke to him.

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Acts 22:9

I hope this helps a little...
Verne

p.s I figured he was being a bit subtle so that's why I wanted to let you handle it... :)

Verne---

I'm not sure I understand where Hugh was going. I thought he was making the point
that God does speak to people apart from the Word of God. I thnik that was true before
the Bible was complete. But now that there is a "complete" Word of God, God needs say
no more than he has already said. "It is finished".


--Joe

One of the prevalent problems with communication on this board is the attitude that some have regarding the "diversion" of topics.  The problem, IMO, is twofold:

1. Any reasonable conversation will meander to some degree.  Reasonable people allow for this, especially in cases where open commentary has been invited and strict topical parameters have not been established.
Note: I readily admit there have been times when I might have done better to start a new thread than to comment (as I did) on a side-issue on an existing thread.  That leads directly to what I believe is the second part of the problem:

2. There needs to be a charitable attitude toward those who "err" in this regard.  For one to presume to be the authority on what is and is not germane to a thread, and to belittle those who fail to "live up to" such a one's standards, may be the mark of a supremely arrogant egoist (or, the same might be done by someone who means well but just doesn't know better).

The above observation, in turn, leads to my commentary on the following quote:
 


"That" is far from all one can do:

But I say to you, "Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you..."

...knowing that the trying of your patience works out patience

But rejoice, inasmuch as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings...  If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you...  Yet if anyone suffer as a Christian, let him not be  ashamed; but let him glorify God in that name.  For it is time for judgment to begin at the house of God...  Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.

The simple truth is that God is Sovereign over everything, so that this unreasonable person who has, wittingly or unwittingly, caused us such great tribulation and turmoil by "diverting" the topic or (far worse) by not capitulating to our demands to see things as we see them, did not surprise God or catch Him off-guard at all.  God is satisfied in working all things according to His will and His good pleasure, so He does not require us to punish the delinquent.  Rather, He requires us to bless them, do good to them and pray for them, and to count our suffering (if it is, indeed, for His sake) all joy, i.e. to rejoice in it, knowing that He is using the experience to work patience into us, thus perfecting us for His own pleasure.

---

The above may be construed by some as diversionary from the original point of this thread, but it simply consists of responses to comments that were made on this thread and went uncriticized as themselves being diversionary.

al

I'll state very quickly, though it is actually quite funny, that Marty actually caused the
"diversion" by making a snide comment about "die-hard followers of Tom". I responded--
unless I am not "allowed" to respond to a snide comment--but I don't think the rules
of the BB state that. Then, Marty says I need "thicker skin" and Meeko chimes in with
"How did the subject get diverted again?" Simple---Meeko, ask Marty. ;D

But back to the subject at hand:

Hugh---

I truly am curious where you were going with the Matt. 3:16,17 reference. Can you explain
further why you asked the question you did? I'd really like to know and await your response.

--Joe



 

Verne,


As one of my professors once said, "The intermediate state is a fruitful field for unbiblical speculation". 

That the spirits of deceased Christians hear with a faculty that existed prior to death is no more than an assumption.  This assumption rests upon another, that God communicates with the dead in Christ in the same manner he does with the living.

You have made a truth claim.  How do you know it is true?

Thomas Maddux

Verne,

Verne, you have been at this so long that you have forgotten what I originally said.  Our discussion arose in the context of information being transmitted by mystical means as we read our bibles.  (I am using the word according to the meaning given in Webster's, and do not mean it in a demeaning or pejorative way.)

I have never maintained that God can not nor has not communicated to people directly at times.  If you think I have, please find the post and quote it.

What I said is that God's word contains God's message to us, and that we can access that information by reading our Bibles.

You responed by claiming that God communicates the message of scripture through mystical (meaning not mediated by the words and grammatical construction of the text) means.

Argue against my position if you wish, but please argue against my position, not someone else's.

Thomas Maddux

The written Word of God indeed is our hedge against error Joe, but the written Word is all about the living Christ with whom believers have a relationship.
Do you talk to the Lord Jesus about the mundane occurrences of life?
Or do you quote Scripture to Him all day?  :)
Do you expect His every instruction or means of guidance and direction in your life will be only by pointing you to a Scripture? What about the way He uses providence to discipline us, for example?
The letter kills, the Sprit gives life.
Verne

Have I?
Here, again, is your original challenge Tom:


As you will recall, I provided several Scriptural examples which you ignored.
Your use of the term "mystical" is clearly emotive.
Let me restate the core question in case you have forgotten it.

Can, and does God communicate truth via other than cognitive means?

For the purposes of our discussion, cognitive versus non-cognitive is far more precise than the ambiguous and suggestive "mystical", your dictionary reference notwithstanding.

I would remind you that cognition simply refers to acquisition of knowledge via the reasoning, intuitive and perceptive processes, of which your "word meanings, grammatical contruction, and correct principles of interpretation" provide examples.
I am done with this. I clearly made some unwarranted assumptions about you Tom. My mistake.
Verne

Joe and Verne

You got it Joe.

No one knows when God will speak so they might have cause to say "Wait since Malachi no one has heard God." at the time when these words were spoken. So if God speaks now directly to someone why do we question it. If Jesus chose to speak to you would you say that isn't from God?

Secondly someone I think but I can't find it now said that God talks to believers and not unbelievers. Hence my question about the words were spoken and heard by who? I believe everyone present heard them as well. God chooses who He wants to hear I believe even Pharoh heard God didn't He? But Pharoh was not a believer.

The reason I am saying this is to say I don't believe anyone can depart from the known Scripture for understanding of whether this truly is from God but He can speak directly and choses who to speak to and even uses donkeys if He wants to give the message.

I think we go too far one way or the other and lose sight of God's ability to work outside OUR BOX. To say He doesn't speak to people directly anymore or saying I don't read Scripture because I always hear a voice both are too extreme in my view. But He still chooses the method and the person or persons He is addressing I believe.

Hope this clarifies it. I enjoyed getting people to think about it though and hope that exercise helps people as well.

Hugh

Thanks Hugh. Terse and to the point. I for one, choose to let God speak exactly as he so chooses...as if He cared what I thought... :)
Verne

Verne,


I see what you mean Verne.  The phrase, does sound like I am saying that God never communicates truth directly.  

Mea Culpa

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Here's another place where you asked the same thing Tom.  I hope this helps you remember.

You have been given numerous examples in scripture that contradict your position.  If you are wrong, you are wrong, as you say.

f

What does Mea Culpa mean?

AM I DREAMING??!!!! ALL IS FORGIVEN THOMAS. We are not as far apart as one might suppose... :)
Verne

mea culpa=latin phrase meaning acknowledgment of error or guilt

Hugh---

Thank you for your explanation. I think you are absolutely right that God can speak any
time he wants to. I believe he can do miracles and heal just as he did in the past. You
do bring up an interesting point I had never considered before though. After Malachi
uttered his last words, the Old Testament was complete. That was the complete Word
of God up to that point in time. God literally stopped talking through prophets etc, until
the time of Christ when God again began speaking to man. People probably asked "Why
has God ceased from speaking to us?"(just as you mentioned Hugh). Could it be because
God had spoken all he was going to speak until his Son appeared? In a sense saying "I've
said all I'm going to say, and all you need to hear in my completed Old Testament"?(Though
the Old Testament in the Hebrew faith has the books in a different order).

When Jesus appeared, God began to speak again. And he spoke until the New Testament was
completed, saying all he was going to say until that day when everything in the completed Bible
is fulfilled. So, at the present time he is silent, with his Word being his revealed will and direction for all of us. I may have misinterpreted what Tom has been saying, but I think the brunt of it is this: Can
God talk directly to man? Could he give someone special revelation? Sure he could!! God can do whatever he wants to do or chooses to do!! He could lift a man to the third heaven and give him
amazing visions, etc.--of course he could. But how does God "normally" work today? How does God "normally" teach and instruct us? If he supernaturally spoke to each of us there would be no
need for preachers or teachers, for exhortation or rebuke, etc. "Could" God supernaturally heal? Of course he can--he's God. But how does God "normally" heal? Through all of the doctors and medicine
he has given us. God could provide beams of light for us to read by if he wished, but he has preferred
to allow a light bulb to be invented to do that. "Most" of the time God uses natural and normal means
to instruct and guide us---it's just a fact.

He uses the Bible, circumstances, people, events to warn us, direct us, lead us and guide us. It's like that old story about the guy on top of the house swept away by the river. A boat comes by, but he cries out "No, God will save me!!"  Then a helicopter comes by, and he cries out "No, God will save me!!"  He winds up dying and going to heaven, and God asks him "Why wouldn't you let me help you?"

I know most of this is all simplistic, and I don't mean to be preaching---just wanted to share my opinion
on the matter. Verne---thanks for you input also. And Tom, if I am way off base with what you are saying,
perhaps you could clarify.

--Joe

Meeko---

This is in response to your post below, and is not a "diversion" away from the
subject. I just have a question for you: Do you really believe the Holy Spirit is
the one leading you to call Tom an "unbeliever", and to make the charge he
has "insulted the Holy Spirit"? That's a pretty serious charge. I mean this as
a serious question.

--Joe

Meeko---

Sorry to butt in again, and I'll make this quick. Your post below is filled with your
deep feelings, and I don't take that away from you. But I have to say "Thank God
for the theologians" that truly know, and correctly divide the Word of truth. There
have been many, many people who have truly believed that God is talking to them,
and that they are having a "two-way conversation" with God.

Many of these people were deeply sincere, but sincerely wrong, and drifted into heresy
because of their beliefs. It took Theologians with their "dead theology" to point out these
people to other believers. Many Christian cults have begun when someone really believes
they have "cleaned house" and are having direct contact with the Lord. It's great to feel
that God and yourself are on completely personal terms, and you are thinking like him, but
many have thought the same way and drifted into terrible error.

That's why I asked you the question I did below, which so far has not been answered(unless you
are posting right now as I am posting). So, I'll ask it again. Do you really believe that you are being
led by the Holy Spirit to call Tom an "unbeliever", and to say he has "insulted the Holy Spirit"? I
am truly curious as to what your answer would be.

****addition*** I see your latest post and have to say you didn't answer the question. I'm not defending Tom--Tom can defend himself. I am not "forming a team" or "standing behind someone
else". I am boldly asking you a direct question on my own. I don't think you can answer in the affirmative, because if you were in the Spirit you would not accuse another person of being an "unbeliever" and having "insulted the Holy Spirit" who has often displayed their faith in God on
this BB. You see yourself as being so spiritual that you can say or refer or accuse anyone of anything
based on your "discernment". Tom is not a believer based on your "discernment". Funny--I "discerned"
a long time ago that Tom is a genuine believer, and he has posted often about his faith in Christ---search the archives--search the threads, before making an accusation that is so off base.

--Joe

This is a precious truth that the sad experience of the assemblies has destroyed in the lives of many of God's precious flock- we have forgotten Who dwells within... :'(
Verne

Meeko:

This is not about taking sides, so....

I think you have gone over the top in calling Tom an unbeliever.  Just because you don't like or you disagree with what he is saying is no reason to say that he is not a Christian. 

Matt Sciaini

Meeko,

I don't agree with everything Tom says. I also don't like how Tom says some things. But you know what? There are times when Tom does say some pretty darn insightful things. And as he demonstrated earlier this afternoon, when he is wrong, he says "mea culpa." His "sorry" may be in Latin, :) but it was good enough for Verne, why isn't it good enough for you?

Joe was right. It is inappropriate to accuse someone of being an unbeliever. Period. First of all, no matter what your reasons, you will never be able to prove this empirically or spiritually; only God knows Tom's spiritual state. To accuse him of being an unbeliever in this public forum is simply vulgar and makes your intentions on this board suspect. Thirdly, most of us have no reason to doubt Tom is a believer, in fact we probably all consider Tom a very firm believer.

I am quite aware that because I have said this, you will now find some way to try and discredit me. Go ahead, call me an unbeliever. Make personal attacks. Say I'm like George. Say I'm acting like a Geftakys. That don't scare me none, I've been dealing with that since birth, honey.

And Frankly, Meeko, your Ruthless pursuit of Al & Verne and whoever else you may disagree with is just plain annoying. Sondrock it off, already!

And since we had a "rain guage" on you, these following quotes from one of your posts were quite a surprise, franko/meeko/affirming/Ruth/etc:




I don't believe that in all your BB posts that you have ever directly mentioned Christ. You have described much of your spiritual life, but I don't recall you mentioning Christ.

I could have made the same judgement of you that you have made of Tom, in that because you have posted so much on this BB (and deleted the same) and haven't mentioned Christ, that you were bypassing the Truth of the gospel and were marching to your own gospel, however spiritual it may be.

In the above quote, you have said that after all his postings, Tom hasn't talked about his walk with God and hasn't talked about the Lord. You could make a judgement, but to make the judgement call that Tom doesn't know the Lord, because he doesn't talk about the Lord or his walk with God on a public BB, is far-fetched in my opinion.

Have you heard the one about the "Body of Christ?"  Goes like this:  This guy named Paul says to a bunch of Christians, "Now you are the body of Christ, and members in particular..."

No, wait-- I always get this turned around-- before he says that, Paul says, "For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ."  Then he goes into a big illustration of how it works so that no member of the body is self-sufficient, and all the members need each other in order to make up the whole body.  He even goes as far as to say, "...those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
And those members of the body, which we think of as being less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our unattractive parts have more abundant attractiveness."

Aw, I'm not telling this very well...  Most of you have probably already heard it anyway, and some folks probably wouldn't get it no matter how well it was told...

The gist of it is:  Don't feel like the Lone Ranger, 'cause you aren't.

al

Interesting!

meeko, for the record, I disagree with you re. your accusation that Tom is an unbeliever.  I am impressed with how many have voiced their disagreement in defense of Tom, but allowed Tom to suggest that frank was demon possessed and a medium.  Maybe everyone's afraid of Tom and/or still giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Marcia

P.S.
On another note, meeko so e.g. if the Bible says that I should gather with other Christians because it is healthy for spiritual growth, how would you feel that the Spirit is leading you?

Marcia

Guess what, folks?

Meeko has left the building.  Still registered but showing "0" posts.  Too hot in the kitchen, or did God say "Burn your bridges?"

---

I don't see that so many have defended Tom as have simply objected to his having been treated in a Christ-dishonoring way.  A number of posters have treated Tom worse than they were accusing him of treating others, and Tom has not lashed back at them.  The one or two who may have had legitimate gripes about how Tom addressed them have become poster-kids for martyrdom.

Anybody want to talk about something else for awhile?

Hey Elizabeth,

Since you assumed that Meeko is Sondra:

How about not addressing women twice your age as "honey"? It's not cute, and it's pretty low class.

That's cute that you used the double negative in "dont' scare me none" - I suppose that's a jab at her rural, midwestern roots. Too bad we can't all be Californians like you, huh? Ever had to shovel snow? Ever had to swat a mosquito? Wait, probably using words you've never heard of....just another hip Californian who has never had to do any kind of physical labor in her life.

Here's another thought: The bb was not designed to entertain Elizabeth Geftakys Henderson. You are old enough now to accept that people are not going to see things the way you do. The fact is, I have enjoyed Meeko's, 2Rams, Verne's, Marty's, Frank's, and others contributions and have learned a lot from their insights. I don't want any of them to "knock it off" because Queen Elizabeth is "annoyed" especially when she has the ability to skim over posts from posters she doesn't like.

Lastly, Tom, Verne, and others have all accused people of not being believers - and even worse - of being tools of Satan. So, I'm sure they don't agree with you that it's a "vulgar" thing to do. Oops, bet you forgot about that one, honey!

Gabriel

Gabe,

Since you mentioned my name I will comment.
The tone of your post is brutal.  Who am I to talk eh??  Well you did say you liked my contribution....

Please cool it!

Marcia
(not the moderator)

Yes, of course, Miss Marcia ;)

For you, anything!

I like the comparison between your tone and Elizabeth's/mine. Elizabeth is actually right around my age...and I guess we show our age in our intemperate outbursts. Hopefully one day we will be as calm and restrained as you!

Still love you much,
Gabriel

Hello Folks,

There are many things to talk about besides my spiritual condition and who we happen to like/dislike. Why don't we lay those subjects aside and focus on more interesting things.  But first a couple of specifics.

1. Sondra, if you wish to continue your participation on the BB, stop your personal attacks.  I have allowed you plenty of time to express your views on my spiritual condition.  You have done so quite well.  The supply is now adequate.  Please desist from your personal attacks on me and on the other posters.

2. Gabe, the tone of your post to Elizabeth was aggressive and insulting.  Don't.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

Al, on your posts it says, "Ancora Imparo".  Does that mean, "My anchor is impaired?"

could this kind of sneering, insulting, argumentative tone possibly be matt, who has been openly banned here for such behavior in the past? your ip shows you were also posting under the frank account, which would appear to be an account a few people were sharing. given matt's close association with sondra in the past, its a leap i am willing to risk. i am sick of these stupid games. your ip is banned and the frank account is banned. whoever else was using the frank account can sign up under whatever fake name they feel the need to, as long as they keep their posting civil. you guys only embarass yourselves playing these kinds of childish games in front of everyone.

i'm not gonna waste my time scrutinizing every account to see if more than one person is using it. but if you decide to share your account information with others in order to play these kinds of games, that will become clear pretty quickly and you should expect to lose it.

This guy is sharp!
On a general note, deception of any kind on the part of folk professing to know Christ is to me somewhat troubling.( I have this thing about transparency... :) )
I loathe it in District Superintendants, in my kids, in my own heart...
What Brian has described does not seem to be the actions of someone primarily concerned with protecting their own privacy,(for whatever reason) but in manipulating and deceiving others.  This is not good, not good at all.
If you are going to jump into the mix and expect your views to be taken seriously and responded to, why not identify yourself? The notion of posting under an alias if you have something you think important enough to voice I find strange indeed.
I like to know whom I am dealing with.
Still, VerneCarty (from the very beginning...   :))

We had quite the discussion about God's plan with Hurricane Katrina. Now Hurricane Rita could be stronger and will hit possibly in Galveston and Houston. These are Bible believing areas who have opened their hearts, homes and wallets to help the victims of Katrina. Why (if indeed God is judging them) would He do it to these nice people?

Discussion anyone?

Hugh

May I suggest that we might better understand these things if we begin to think about the course of events in this country from a National, as opposed to a regional perspective? The destiny and fate of Nations is God's business. In His agenda, there is no such thing as "natural disaster" for He is in absolute control of space-time. The question one has to ask is what is God's purpose in all this? I for one am not sure I have an answer to that question, but that He has a purpose is not in question...
Verne

Verne

I have been doing quite a lot of thinking about these things and believe personally God does judge cities take Ninevah's and Jonah's reluctant intervention which stopped it for example. However I don't think that is the whole picture either. National or regional I see your point and I haven't read enough from Biblical sources to make a clear statement about that but I believe it is more common sense many times.

Example: Someone said they have little or no warning in California of an earthquake. I agree on a specific event that is true but look at any Insurance Risk sheet and you see there are areas of greater and lesser risk of flooding, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados. The pattern is there. If you locate there the insurance for certain perils is higher than other regions. So common sense tells me unless the Lord wants you to live there or you can't get a job anywhere else "Why would you go there knowing the risks are greater." So the people of California you are warned there will be big disasterous earthquakes and wildfires don't be surprised. Florida and the Gulf Coast States there will be Hurricanes some very devasting. Midwest States you will have powerful Tornados they are imminent. New England you will have heavy snow and ice storms. These patterns are observable and people either don't know or ignore the warnings. Is God to blame for our burying our collective heads in the sand when someone says it is coming now is it God's fault we moved there in the path of these storms or whatever? I don't think so we are given a brain and legs to move away from it.

A drunk hits your car and you are killed you can't plan for that. But sometimes we blame God for things we have been warned about but choose to ignore the warning. It is convenient to blame others even God for our bad choices sometimes.

Hugh

I was thinking the same thing. These two hurricanes will have quite an impact on the entire country.

Absolutely Hugh. Your points exactly illustrate why I think it is difficult to make confident pronouncements about exactly why particular events occur.
I also strongly agree with you about the need for Christians to use the brain God gave them when it comes to assessing the risk of decisions they make. I do not believe the Bible teaches fatalism.
Having said that, the Chrisitian also knows by faith, when he has made the best decsion he felt possible for him, based on his then understanding of what God's will was, (and that is saying quite a mouthful) and is still overtaken by misfortune, that he may fully expect that God intends to make the circumstance work for good.
This does not equate with license to flaunt God's instructions and expect "it will all work out in the end".
My heart is breaking over recently hearing about a brother whose wife has just filed for divorce because of a persistent sin problem in his life. There are situations in which the causal relationships are very clear.
Good food for thought with regard to our own National destiny...
Verne

p.s so far as the National vs Regional question goes, Gods seems to take a completely different tack with Nations when there arises official sanction for ungodliness. He seems willing to delay a nation's judgment in response to godly leadership, and to hasten it when the opposite is the case...I have a theory about the state of the family in America today but the men on the BB (and some of the women!) will probably hand me my head if I go there... :)

Latin is good!

Veni, Domine Iesu!

Verne

Verne

Yes I agree an example is when the Ephesians and others who found out Paul was going to die in Rome tried to change Paul's mind about going. Paul said basically I know what the Lord's will is for me and I am prepared to die in Rome to fullfil God's plan for MY life. He knew it was God's will and he knew it was a specific call and not something for everyone. If we deny the Spirit's leading we are no better than the world BUT if we don't include common sense in the equation we are dilluded or worse irresponsible. We must weigh the consequences of our actions and if we have God's clear leading for OUR life for that specific situation then WE must act on that. As said before that includes checking it with what is already found in the Word for that specific type of situation for context where possible.

Hugh

i took the liberty of tossing this post into a new topic "Global Warming and Hurricane Development", just to keep things tidy.

Amen!
I think many would agree that one of the most onerous things about the assemblies was the way people were inculcated with the idea that they could not possibly know the will of God for their own lives without mediation by the leadership.
It was stark testimony to our spiritual infancy that so many of us allowed this vile mantra to prevail over our decision making process - where to live, where to work, and gasp!....who to marry!
In this way they magaged to convince many that plain stupidity was godliness.
I  have concluded that the thing that most disntiguished how folk fared after their assembly stint had to do with whether or not they learned to tell any would-be self-procliamed spiritual guru to take his unsolicited advice and shove it!
It is still one of the very best indicators of whether you dealing with disturbed and cultish people in my humlble opnion i.e., the level of control mania...
Verne

Verne, why would anyone "hand you your head" when you've already shown that you have no clue what to do with it?!!  I'm kidding, of course!   But you can't just toss out such an inviting straight-line & expect me to ignore it. ;D ;D ;D

Actually, your theories usually prove to be quite invigorating, and the state of the American family unit is fertile ground-- say on, Friend!!!

al

You're showing symptoms of your age, Perfessor!  As you can see, below, you asked me the same question last year.  I answered it then, so you can look it up on that thread or you can google it.  If I were to answer it again, I would only be enabling your dependency (or so I have  been told on this bb). ;D ;D ;D


al ;)

Al,

I remember asking the question previously.  However, I didn't remember the answer, still don't.

Thomas Maddux

I think I can venture this much and still keep my noggin   :) :

So far as I am concerned, anything that goes wrong in my family is my responsibility.

Note I did not say my fault.

Some folk who strongly disagree with my thesis do so I believe because of a failure to distinguish the two.
Verne

I may win a doorprize for bringing up the one-millionth mention of the assembly on this board, but wasn't it commonly inferred there that the two were practically synonymous in many/most/all cases?  Many people, with or without assy backgrounds, are so terrified of being nailed for being at fault that the thought of responsibility petrifies & immobilizes them.

There is therefore now no condemnation (fault) to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (conduct themselves responsibly before God).

al

I am curious about something. While we were having the lively discussion about how God sometimes reveals things to His own by what appears to be non-cognitive means, Tom challenged me to give him such an example. I at the time declined to do so as I thought it would just be a distraction from discussion of the principle involved.
I know for certain that I am not the only one (or missionaries I have spoken with) who have had God do unusual things in their lives.
Would anyone like to share such an instance? I know this would qualify as anecdotal, but I was genuinely astonished that anyone who had known the Lord for any lenth of time, would not have numerous examples of such an experience.
I previously mentioned on the BB the time I felt the Lord really disturbed me with a sense of unease about my children's well being while I was at work and I went to the school to discover that my youngest Christina had been sent home  alone on the bus to an empty house!
That was derfinitely the Lord!
I am very interested in hearing about instances in which you may have felt God's particular leading...what had God "revealed" to  you? :)
Verne
p.s. I am sure Tom will also enjoy hearing about it... :)

We were travelling down a narrow dirt road over rolling hills in a remote area. It was getting late so I was clipping right along in our pickup. The sensation in the tummy going over those knolls thrilled the kids. Then my wife told me to slow down.

My driving has been a topic of sometimes animated discussion. That’s another story. My wife knows better than to comment on my driving so when she said that, I tersely replied, “What did you say?” while slowing down and pulling over to my side of the road while cresting the hill. Just then another pickup driving much faster than I flew past me right down the middle of the road. I could have sworn our mirrors touched. I hadn’t seen the vehicle at all as it was hidden by the hill.

Once past and we all settled down my wife told me she hadn’t said anything. I questioned her on that and she adamantly denied saying anything though there was a very loud and clear audible voice that told me to slow down.

That happened about 15 years ago. When this discussion came on the bb she immediately and for the first time since then brought up that situation.

Did God speak to me or was it just too much ear wax causing a ringing that seemed to be words? I like to think it was the “still small voice” that was a bit louder than I expected.

I think He did...
Verne

Verne---

I do believe God  works in his children's lives. And I do not doubt the experience you
had with your child on the bus and the uneasy feeling you had. But, I would add this---
sometimes we can call things "of the Lord" that may be pure coincidence too. Let
me give an example: I am thinking of a Christian brother I have not spoken to in three
years when all of a sudden the phone rings and it's him on the other end of the line. Now,
i'm not doubting that this could be the Lord at work. But, I have also been at work where
I work in sales, and I'll think, "We haven't had an order from Morrison Industries for over a
year, I should call them". Moments later,  Morrison Industries is on the line wanting to place
an order. I have had this happen several times---was this the Lord, or just pure coincidence?
I mean, would God be behind Morrison Industries calling in to buy some electrical tape, and
giving me a premonition they were going to call? In the first instance I might it "of God" because
it pertains to Christian matters, but in the second instance I would say "what a coincidence, I
was just thinking of that company". Both instances may just be coincidence, but I put more weight
behind the one than the other, because it pertains far more to "me".

I believe the Lord can speak to us by repeatedly sending a Bible verse to mind. The same verse
seems to keep on showing up at every turn. I believe this can come from the Lord. However, I
have also had things happen where, let's say the word "buffalo" comes up over and over again.
I turn on the Discovery channel and they are talking about buffalo, I turn on the radio and something
about buffalo is being mentioned, and then one of my kids mentions they are doing a report on buffalo
for school. Was this the Lord? Or a case of synchronicity in life? Those strange pieces of coincidence
that seem to happen? How can we be sure?

I truly believe the Lord can speak to us, but I also think there are times when we can be mislead by thinking the Lord is giving direction when he really isn't. For example:  "A teenager asks himself "Should I attend Rice University?" Right then, on the television a man says "Minute Rice, always fluffy, always good". The kid's mother walks into the room a moment later and says "Dinner's ready son, come on, were having Rice Pilaf".  If the kid's a religious fanatic he might say "This must be of God--I'm going to Rice University!!!"  This sounds way out there, but there are many people that put things together as "being of the Lord" when a series of coincidences fall into place and they "verify" it as being from God immediately.

I prayed heavily the morning I went to Pierce College, asking God to lead me to a group of Christians, and that day saw a sign saying "Bible Study" with a Christian fish symbol. I immediately took it as a "sign" that God had answered my prayers and opened a door for me. So strong was my "impression" that God had led me to that sign announcing the study, that I didn't pay attention to what the group actually represented, and I wound up in the Assembly.

I really don't mean to be skeptical, because I truly believe God can do miracles. But I think we need to be careful not to fall into thinking we are being led by God to do something, or make some decision based on a series of "coincidences" or some "inner feeling" we have. I have noticed that the most strking answers to my prayers are the answers that have taken quite a while to be answered. I look back after a year or so and see how God has answered my prayers, but in his own wise and knowing way, and that he has done it in a manner I could never have believed possible. I always look for an "immediate" answer, according to how I think the Lord should answer my prayers, but the Lord is long-suffering and patient, and filled with the greatest lovingkindness, and knows just how to answer the prayers he has led us to pray(these after all are the prayers the Lord truly WILL answer, because the Holy Spirit himself has led us to ask for what is best for us).

But I do also believe that the Lord uses angels, and does speak at times in a very unique manner. I was working on a machine once that cuts tape. It had an air chuck that would cause four metal sections to expand and then contract against a metal plate to keep a large roll on the lathe. Unknowingly, I had actually engaged the chuck, but for a reason to this day I do not understand, it did not do what it was supposed to do. I, thinking it was not engaged, had both of my hands in the area where it usually slams against the plate. Something caused me to draw back quickly(a sense of fear out of nowhere) and a split second later all four sections slammed against the plate loudly. I literally could have lost all of
my fingers. I stood shaking, and thanking God tremendously. So, though I do have skepticism about some matters, there are also things I believe God truly did in a miraculous way to protect and lead me.

Thanks,Joe

I hear ya Joe. I think we have to be quite cautious about invoking God's name when we make decisions...particular if we are trying to make decisions for other people!
I wonder for us Christians, if there is really any such thing as "coincidence" though...
I think when a person has walked with the Lord for some time, he learns to be very sensitive to what God is doing, so what others may see as coincidence, may well be clear indication for that individual. I think this is where our personal relationship with the Lord takes on real significance.
Clearly He may not "speak" to all of us in the same way, but I think we can each learn how to heed Him when He does...
You may think that I am wierd, but I find myself audibly thanking the Lord for "reminding" me as I am in the car getting ready to leave for Gibson City that I forgot to take the check-book to pay my partners for the last job we did. I have had to make a return trip in the past because of having forgotten it!
Neurons not firing with the same precision as in younger days... :)

I am sure most of us have had the opportunity to share our testimony with someone in the past. In doing so rarely has the individual come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. There are many defenses for refusing to accept, such as, ‘that works for you but I have my own faith’ or ‘what about the other religions, are they all going to hell’?

Because I say something it does not make it so. The same is true if someone is a skeptic; it does not make it untrue. It is God who knows all things. Rom 3:3-4 “…Let God be true but every man a liar...”

One thing about being a Christian, I love hearing people’s testimony. How God has worked in their life. Sometimes you get pretty wild stories such as ones GG used to tell. You roll your eyes or give a ‘whatever’ in your heart.

Then there are some where you know it was undeniably the Lord at work. Can’t prove it but that don’t make it not so. There is a discernment that God gives.

Elizabeth:
If you can you can get hold of Tony Evans' message today, "Making Spiritual Sense of Natural Disaster",  I think you will get some real insight into the issue you raised on this thread...
Verne

Just one more thought while there is a break in the action. Then I will let those who wish respond.

In sales, the nature of my work requires me to do ‘cold calls’ occasionally. That’s where you show up unannounced. Before I go in I pray that the Lord would under take for my meeting. Sometimes the guy is too busy to see me, sometimes he says I was just thinking about you, and sometimes his isn’t in.

Is God in any of this or am I just wasting my time praying and seeking His direction and wisdom? When I make a sale is it just luck and when I don’t is it just common sense that would tell me to find another line of work?

When the scripture says ‘in everything give thanks’, what exactly am I to give thanks for? I would say there are the obvious things such as my salvation. But could this be referring to the days events as well?

If God is not involved in my daily moment by moment life then what am I to be thankful for? A God who is not there? Sometimes I am thankful when certain individuals don’t show up at meetings and parties and stuff. But I kind of rest on the fact that the Lord Jesus says, “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.” Is that not talking about daily life and His involvement in it? I have come to not only trust that He is there but to humbly expect it.

Marty---

I'm in sales also, and have to say there are many "unsaved" salesmen who make a really
good living. Did they get the sales through "luck"(seeing they did not pray before they
went in to make the cold call)? There is nothing wrong for sure with asking God to help
you when you make the call, but I believe it is your own salesmanship(and knowledge
of the product) that will eventually get the sale, not because you prayed for it.

God has given certain gifts. Imagine if you stopped before you prepared dinner and said
"Oh Lord, I put this meal into your hands. Help me with the preparation thereof, and please
help me not to burn the rice". If the meal turns out well do you say "It was the Lord who
heard my requests", or was it that you followed the recipe instructions? Emeril seems to
make some awfully good dishes without praying first. We want to thank God for his provision--
but do we need to thank him for a successful preparation of the same meal?

When I get a sale I'm thankful. But I'm thankful God has given me the "ability" to sell (knowledge, intelligence, preparation, presentation, etc.) rather than that God got me the sale itself. "In everything give thanks" can be warped out of measure if we interpret it incorrectly. "Thank you Lord that the cap came off the toothpaste as it was supposed to Lord. Now, please help me do the up-down motion correctly, and Lord, please help me to brush the required amount of time. Thank you Lord for your help. Oh, and now Lord, help the Listerine to kill the germs that cause bad breath, and to keep back the plague of gingivitis."  Upon the next visit to the dentist he says "you have no cavities". Do we say "Praise God, he has prevented me from getting cavities. Thank you Lord!!!!"  Of course not. You followed natural law, and by using the required means
kept your teeth in good condition. Thank the Lord for the teeth he has given, not for keeping them in good condition for you.

I know I am being very sarcastic---but I have literally seen people who come very close to doing what I have just mentioned. To them "Giving thanks in all things" is near to what I mentioned above.

--Joe

Fair enough, Joe.

So then, what is God's involvment in our daily lives if in fact there is any?


Addition:

My wife and I were visiting a family when one of their little children fell and whacked his head on the coffee table. Mom and dad quickly got down and exorcised the table. That was spooky.

I am not talking about that kind of stuff. I am talking about practical involvement and interaction by God with His people on an individual and daily basis. Does it happen?

Marty---

God definitely is involved in our daily lives. And I do believe he can supernaturally
intervene for sure. I was just making the point that some people take it to extremes
and begin to think that God thinks like they think. They think they are talking to God
when they are really talking to themselves.

Take again the example of a sale. If you made the presentation, and didn't get the
sale, does one think "God must not have wanted me to get that sale"? Or, do we
allow for the possibility that we just did a poor sales job? Conversely, if we do get the
sale do we think "God wanted me to get that sale"(especially if you prayed first before
making the call), or do we allow for the fact that we made a really good presentation,
and took the time to really get to know the product we are selling? We should thank
God for the "abilities" he has given us that resulted in the sale, and not just for the sale
itself.

A good example of this interaction that God has with us daily is like the doting father chasing
his child learning to pedal a bicycle. He's right there, to help, or to soothe you when you fall,
but he's letting you pedal the bike--he's letting you make the mistakes, and take your tumbles.
He helps you get up, and brushes you off, but he gets you pedaling again.  Where the error
comes in is when someone thinks that God is going to pedal the bicycle for them, or never let
go of it and allow them to learn. Someone like that prays to God about literally "everything" including
brushing their teeth.  That's the point I was trying to make.

--Joe

I like how you put that Joe.

Howdy folks,

An interesting discussion.  I am going to return to the issues 2ram raised in another post.  But first, I want to say a couple of things about the ideas you are tossing around.

1. Theologians talk about "meticulous omniscient providence."  By this they mean that God knows and in some way causes everything that happens.

2. Theologians also talk about divine justice and human responsibility.  A few seem to beleive that these things are just illusions, but that vast majority, including Reformed, do not.  Man seems to have the capacity for independent choice.

1 and 2 seem incompatable and contradictory.  It is difficult for us to understand how they go together.  When theologians try to do this they seem to end up either denying one or the other.  I am of the opinion that this is one of the things that God was talking about when he described his thoughts as higher than our thoughts.  He knows, we lack the capacity to understand.

3. Regarding Verne's story, I do not doubt its truthfulness.  Do these experiences come from God?  I incline towards the belief that they do.  However, since people from all religions and even atheists report this kind of thing happening to them, I suspect that they are an aspect of God's common grace which he gives to all men.  Think of all the times you were in a dangerous situation and ended up avoiding a bad outcome.  Think of all the wonderful things that happened to you that you didn't cause.

4. What 2ram and I were discussing was GG's mysticism and its implications on his understanding of the Bible.  I don't think 3 directly relates to this.

More later,

Thomas Maddux

I am a great believer in God directing our path and at times putting situations together to enable us to carry out His plans for our lives and for the lives of others.  I have included many such instances in my autobiography that I have written for my children and for my grandchildren.  I will relate one such instance that occurred in 1990 when my son-in-law, Chuck Vanasse and I were living in Lawrence, Kansas.

I wasn't exactly prepared for Chuck's question, "What would you think about going to Eastern Europe to do some street evangelizing?"

It was 1990 and the wall had just come down in Eastern Europe and these countries were opening their doors to visitors from the West. But at this point I hadn't even considered traveling there to evangelize. But there was no doubt that Chuck had. Being the proverbial skeptic, I started asking the questions--What about the language barrier? We had already experienced that problem in Costa Rica and that would be child's play in comparison with the Slavic languages of Eastern Europe. To what country would we go? Where would we stay? Living in a hotel or motel, if we could find one, would be costly.
The "What about...." questions began to dampen my initial enthusiasm, but not Chuck's. He reminded me that our good friend Joe Bucha, with Campus Crusade, had made several trips into Eastern Europe during the two years prior to the wall coming down. We decided to contact Joe to get some information about his trips, which hitherto he had not been at liberty to discuss because of the danger of jeopardizing the lives of Christians there.
We prayed about where to go with neither of us feeling any definite leading from the Lord, For some unknown reason, I kept thinking of Hungary and shared my thoughts with Chuck. He admitted that he had no clear leading.
You can imagine our initial enthusiasm as we queried Joe about his trips and he surprisingly suggested Hungary as our destination. It turned out that it was there that he had spent the past two summers and was familiar with the country and the culture.
It became even more exciting as Joe continued to relate how, on his last visit there, Janos, a young medical student had gotten saved when Joe's group was evangelizing on the beach of Lake Balaton in Hungary. At Joe's behest, Janos had decided to take a one-semester sabbatical, visit the U.S. and spend some time in Lawrence. He was due to arrive in a couple of weeks.
Chuck and I could hardly contain our enthusiasm anticipating Janos' arrival. But we were hardly prepared for what the Lord was going to provide.
Janos arrived and we were pleasantly surprised that his English was quite good. When we related our plan to him, we asked if he knew of a family with whom we could stay and where we might find someone who had the time and inclination to accompany us and translate for us. It seemed as if he had already anticipated our needs and said. "You would be very welcome to stay at our home in Kecskemet and I would be happy to go out with you as your translator." When we insisted that we pay for room and board and compensate him for his assistance, he was somewhat reluctant, but finally agreed. We knew from what Joe had told us that life was very difficult there and we knew the money would be a God-sent to them.
Inasmuch as it was September and winter was coming on, we needed to formulate our plans and move quickly lest we be confronted with cold weather when we began our outdoor evangelizing. Also, we had to avail ourselves of Janos' services while he was still on sabbatical. We decided to go in November even though Joe thought we might run into some cold weather.
Once again, we saw the Lord directing circumstances to make our path smooth.

(Continued on following post)