AssemblyBoard

Both Tom & Joe have explained my own tenure in the assembly better than I could have.  I would only add to Tom's thoughts that as a worker/lb I continued to believe that, inasmuch as "the Lord's servant" had chosen me for these positions, his viewpoint must surely outweigh mine whenever I perceived apparent inconsistencies.  If I raised a question about gg's words to any other workers or lbs they always seemed to see & uphold his POV (I'm sure anyone familiar with the man can imagine what happened if I questioned George himself), so I always ended up thinking it was my own view that was at fault.  This is not stated as an excuse, but merely as an attempted explanation of my thoughts and actions at that time.

---

It is Sondra's post that I most want to comment on, as it addresses the issue of whether God would either cause or allow someone to walk into the assembly and settle there for a number of years without "leading" them out to safety.  Several points apply...

First, whoever God has received to Himself, He will never leave nor forsake, so no one was ever "led" into the assembly to be dumped & left there.  You may contend over whether God "caused' or "allowed" Joseph's kidnapping, but it was clearly His plan as stated in Scripture.  Therefore his, and our, ultimate "safety" was never at risk.

Second, there is a difference between a Christian's being tempted by God, which never happens (Jas.1:13-14), and God's allowing us, even "leading" us, to experience temptation.  If God didn't sometimes do the latter, Jesus would not have specifically instructed His disciples to pray daily to not be led by God into temptation but to be delivered from evil (Mt.6:13).  The prayer is not that God will never let us see temptation, but that He will help us to follow Him and not turn aside toward/into the temptation.

Finally there is Romans 8:28, just one of many references that instruct us that God is the sole & sovereign Ruler over all things in heaven and earth to His church.  Nothing has happened or can ever happen to any of us that is not a part of His plan.  To explain the "why" of a specific occurrance is a needless quest when one accepts this greater truth.  Yes, it goes against our natural inclination, but that is a part of the point: His ways are greater than our ways, above and beyond our understanding; He is the Potter, and we the clay.

---

As to the "cult" issue, it is my understanding that, doctrinally, the assembly system would qualify more as a "sect," being considerably eccentric in secondary teachings, but sound in the fundamentals of Christianity, i.e. the Three-in-One Godhead, the divinity and humanity of Christ (being God in the flesh of man), the virgin birth, the atonement of Christ for sinners, the resurrection and ascension of Christ, the resurrection of the redeemed...

My understanding of the term "cult" as applied to the assembly is in the sociological sense, referring to a subculture constructed by and under the control of a demanding hierarchy which centers upon one individual who purports to be gifted and special, apart from and above all others.  Someone please correct this if I have it wrong...

al

Becoming grounded in the Word doesn't necessarily mean that someone has control over
their emotions, does it?  "Feeling God's presence" is part and parcel of the new Christian
experience - just as children can change emotionally very quickly, but as they mature, they
gain control.  We have to learn that the Truth is the Truth no matter how I feel about it. 
Truth doesn't change because I feel it or because I don't feel it.  ***

I don't see that this determines method of revelation of the written Word, but maybe I am
missing something from your point above.



The spiritual "Sword" was more of a sword than an iron sword could ever be.  Barely a comparison, but there is one that God has made in the Word.  A sword is truly a sword, but it was the first Sword more truly and perfectly as the living Word of God i.e. a Spiritual Sword and the iron one is simply a material, corresponding replica and it's use is one created after the Real Sword.

He said, He came bearing a sword.  Well, did He?  That is, did He carry a weapon or did He even advise the use of a weapon/sword?  No.  He manifested the Sword in His life which had a dual purpose (two-edged)....


I suspect that one can get proud about almost any type of revelation whether or not it aggrandizes man's purpose on earth unrealistically.  Having knowledge doesn't necessarily mean one has to become inflated.  True revelation, as a friend reminded me, starts out revealing man's (my own) depravity.  Seeing the Lord becomes simple after first seeing my need and true natural state. 

Head knowledge, collecting of information about God, however, is a big source of pride (self-exhilaration) AND depression (self-pity).  Another two-edged sword.  ;) 

"With all wisdom, get understanding."  God advises us to get understanding....which is knowledge of spiritual truths as it is in Christ.  That makes it a living Truth. 

Truth that is True is not inflating.  It is humbling.  Wouldn't you agree?

Sondra

***  Talk to a menopausal woman to verify this fact.  (Watch your back). Better yet, talk to her husband.   :-X

Dave,
 
The first part of your post - ok, I buy.  You conditioned your judgment of "that church" upon what you knew from experience of CC's.   But then you made a big leap from that point to making the "assumption" that the controlling pastor felt, thought, implied that he heard a message from God telling him to say what he said and pray the way he prayed.  There is a big difference in stating that so and so is sin and saying that God told me it is sin by divine inspiration and that was not reported in the original post.
 
God didn't tell me this, but I would gather that, FROM MY OWN MIND AND THINKING, you are trying to make a case for not taking "hearing God"
too seriously....thus sowing seeds of unbelief and doubt in the reader's minds.  This disturbs me a lot.  And yes, there has been a lot of misrepresentation of God, but perhaps you are misrepresenting Him in your extreme caution even now ??
 
Hebrews cautions equally to heed unbelief and ties it directly into a penalty of not entering into His rest.  He shamed the children of Is. in the wilderness for not hearing God because of unbelief.  God, the Holy Spirit criticizes the unbelief of the children of Israel and instructs that we cannot enter into that rest that remains if we will not believe Him.  Hardened hearts is brought out as a reason for unbelief.
 
A woman who has been beaten, abused, and forsaken by her husband....will she likely believe that all men are liars and abusers for a period?  It is very difficult to persuade those who have been hurt that they need to learn to trust again....but it is not impossible.  Perhaps you need more persuasion as well.  You have been sitting at that crossroads long enough perhaps.
 
But until one is re-persuaded, they make most of their choices out of unhealthy fear and pain.  I hope you will try to see how damaging it is to build fear and unbelief in the hearts of people who need to learn to hear and trust God again with discernment.  The scriptures are clear on this that there will always be those who represent that they are speaking for God but who are not. 
 
The scriptures are also clear that God is present and that we can have the Holy Spirit without measure.
 
Trying to measure God, the Holy Spirit, is the best way I know to actually be deceived because measuring and analyzing is from the natural mind leads to deception.  The natural mind must be subordinated to the spirit/heart.  The heart can discern whereas the natural mind misses the Truth as it is in the living Christ within.
 
Have wisdom and GET "spiritual" understanding, but that getting does not entail learning to doubt and fear to hear God.  We should fear that man will bring us under his control, but our protection is in walking in the Spirit MORE AND NOT LESS.
 
Sondra
   

Sondra,

I do not know if you read the whole article.  The final paragraphs reveal that the author has alread tried your method and found it lacking.

He says,

Thomas Maddux

Yes, I did read quite a lot of the stuff on the website you suggested.  I find it interesting that I am usually the one sharing scriptures and pointing to real theology....scriptures.  It would seem that you and Joe are the ones who are trying to avoid S C R I P T U R E S....regardless of which method of interpretation is used.

Neither of you addressed any of the SCRIPTURES I shared to make my points.  I did not avoid SCRIPTURES to prove my "feelings" and I did not quote someone else to prove my "theological argument."  And excuse me if the SCRIPTURES teach that the Holy Spirit can teach us directly....God's mouth to the believer's ear.  I didn't say that someone should let ME interpret the scriptures for them.  Yes, I share my views with confidence, but I believe that the "intellectualism" that kept people in bondage to legalistic doctrine has to be exposed for what it is.  The Spirit of God is jealous of any who want to sell their wares to His people.  He is truly up to the task.

On Edit:  I am truly begiinning to see through Verne's glasses here and starting to feel his frustration.  Why do people feel an aversion to discussing the actual scriptures  ???  People who are trying to justify natural reasoning approach to scripture interpretation seem disinterested in opening the Book.  Wonder why that is?  Is it intimidating that the scriptures themselves speak of the Teacher, the Holy Spirit instead of some guys with a bunch of letters behind their names? 

George was an academic.  It was intimidating when he taught meanings of scriptures because he quoted the big guys and brought profound teachings from other authorities he had read while in seminary.  His library was extensive.  He was not representing that we should just trust him for the meaning of scriptures.  He quoted guys and invited all to look it up.

Marcia M. got it right when she said that the reason for deception was that people weren't confident in that they could hear the Spirit of God themselves.  That was my case for quite awhile.  But I woke up and began to smell the heavenly coffee and believe me when I tell you that George didn't like the questions I asked.  Tom, yours and Joe's and Dave's responses toward me is much like George's and Simon's toward Mary, sorry to say. ::)    

Sondra

Thanks, Tom, for access to an excellent article, and thanks, others, for your comments.

Sondra, I think you are reading into (or out of) the discussion what is the key factor:  The author said of his three proposed questions, "This is the way we are supposed to read the Bible, and true spiritual leaders will show you how to do it, and help you do it effectively."

What I believe he is telling us is that these three questions are the ones we should be asking the Lord and trusting His Holy Spirit to answer for us.  Personally, I have found it very reassuring to ask the Lord's guidance in reading and studying His Word, and to see things in it that I haven't seen before, then afterward to discover that others before me have seen the same truths.  I don't believe we need commentators to tell us what to believe, but neither do we need to fear them.  We do need the Holy Spirit to tell us from the Bible whether the commentators have it right or not.  If we are not asking and trusting Him to do this, we may be drifting off-center (with or without referring to the teachings of scholarly men).

---

Correct me if my memory fails, Sondra, but as I recall two or three years ago you were posting here that we were too taken up with the Bible...  If that is so, maybe sharing what you have learned since that time will help us to understand where you are coming from now...

al

PS-- Many years ago I used to go weekly to Los Angeles' skid row district with a team of Bible college students to witness at one of the street missions.  Once, as I began to greet a man he withdrew his hand so that I could not shake it and said, "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended into heaven..."  He continued to quote Scripture, with an intense look in his eyes.

Often the men on the street would complete the verses I would begin to quote to them, even when so drunk they couldn't walk straight.  Many of them knew the Bible better than I did at that time.  We see in the gospel that even the devil quotes Scripture.  Unless we seek and receive the Lord's own teaching us (by grace, through faith), it makes no difference whether we learn the Bible from scholars, from crackpots, or on our own.  It will be of no use to us, we will not understand it, and will misinterpret it, unless we look to and are taught by God, as verses that Sondra quoted point out.

George must have changed quite a bit then, after you left SJ, because later on he was plagiarizing, constantly throwing out scriptures, and coming to his own conclusions based on the bread that was "baked" that morning.  

George didn't like most questions that questioned what he taught, whether the questioning was a result of one's personal study of the scriptures, as was Tom's during his assembly romp, or from formal study, as in Tom's situation now.

The difference was that the great geftacky already knew what most churches and seminaries believed and taught. Someone sharing what they themselves gleaned personally from the scriptures would of course catch him off guard, as it did with most in leadership, and it would need tweaking and changing because it really couldn't have been from the Lord.

The difference here is that these BB brothers are not threatened by you, nor are they trying to control you as was the lying leader of the grumbling gullible.

First of all the author of the article did not put the emphasis on "being led by the Spirit of God" as you make it sound that he did.

Secondly, there is no "getting it right" "correct" interpretation of scripture.  The revelation is the Lord.  If we cannot see the Lord in the revelation and in the revelator, we are missing the most important message that God wants to send through the scriptures.  He IS THE WORD.  "Right or Wrong" revelation?  

I have read my share of commentaries and good ones, but they only help the mind unless the Lord is revealed to the heart based upon specific needs.  Nothing is quickened otherwise.  There are some wonderful scholars who I dearly love to read, but still, the theologians who use intellectual interpretation of the scriptures are like the Scribes who analyized the teaching of the Lord and argued the Law with the Savior.  It's dead theology.  IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF RIGHT OR WRONG.  THE LITMUS TEST IS, AM I RECEIVING LIFE OR AM I TOUCHING DEATH ?  Intellectual theology is often full of the latter.  I want to see the Lord or I stay home.


Don't you think it would be better to quote me than to make such a ridiculous characterization, Al?  Please quote context as well.  Much appreciated.  I do remember being cross examined by you like a drill instructor.  I thought I had stumbled into a teen bible quiz, but no one really seemed to have a grip on the scriptures past questions a door keeper should ask someone who wanted to partake of the Lord's supper.  Who do you say Jesus Christ is and what do you say He came to do?  That's what I remember.   



Excuse me, but I believe it does make a difference who is teaching, their life, their relationship with the Lord and that they are full of the Holy Spirit...you notice I didn't say full of theological information.  Men and women who are full of the Holy Spirit are able to interpret the Word according to the Spirit.  They may not be able to answer every question, they might even do something unheard of and say, I don't know, but what they know is full of the Lord and the Love of God for His people. I think it makes a big difference who is presenting the Word of God.

Sondra

I don't like to participate in such sneering dialog even if it does seem to be justified and directed toward your known enemy, but I want to respond to your views, Moony.

Ok, I will go with you that GG changed since I was on board, but I suspect he did what he did in terms of plagiarizing or not all along.  The students got older and began to check a few things.  The point is that it was not theology that messed up his ministry.  It was morals.  Otherwise, who knows how many people would be sitting in a meeting listening to George this very minute.

Tom was not even involved in George's exposure.  Why talk about what Tom knows or doesn't know theologically speaking.  George grew more and more upset with me because I asked him about his teachings thinking that George was teaching on an academic level and on a spiritual level for more advanced.  What I came to learn was that I was hearing God teach me and giving me spiritual insights that had nothing to do with what George was teaching.  Like little Samuel, God was giving me revelation through the scriptures that George was sharing.  It was the Matrix....a life within a life.

God led me away from George's ministry through revelation of the Lord within.  It was His presence that distracted me from George's "Assembly" teachings, etc.  Everything that had to do with the Lord - I saw as a kingdom within my heart.  I lived inwardly against George's cautioning.  He began to label me as a "mystic" and a whole lot more, but I won't bore you with the details. :P

Maybe I missed your point.  I do sometimes, you know.   :)  Sometimes your stuff zings right past my ears.  ???

Sondra

Geftacky seems to have changed some since you left. Since the time you left, he was plagairizing, not giving credit to others for anything that he mentioned.He was no longer telling his victims to look anything up for themselves. He did not suggest that anyone look up what he was suggesting; he, only, had spiritual insight to these "deep" truths.
You again are comparing Tom's, Joe's and Dave's responses to the Great One's responses to you.
First of all, that is not a fair comparison. 

1)These brothers are not threatened by your questions as the Great One was.
2)These brothers are not interested in controlling you as was the Great One. 

(The Great One would have argued with anyone, regardless if it was something they had learned in seminary or something they had learned by themselves by reading the scriptures. You would have been disagreeing with him, which was not an option if you wanted to survive.)

Second, it was suggested previously that we refrain from those conversation stopper comparisons.

Why don't you refrain from doing that?

Your post was better to wake up to than a jelly donut and hot cup of coffee, Marcia.  Excellent post.  You really know how to put things.

Why do I persist?  The Lord persisted in the same vein.  He had men accuse Him of speaking of mysteries and veering from their Laws.  The Jews had everything squared away, measured, outlined as to how Rabbi's were to teach.  But this Teacher spoke of spiritual concepts that were foreign to them.  Persistence is important because the legalists are hurtful.  Those who intellectualize the gospel enliven the letter (doctrine) but kill the spirit of the Law.

The Lord came manifesting the Spirit of the Law and He got killed for His trouble.  The letter will always attempt to kill the Spirit in every setting - inwardly - an inner battle between natural and spiritual and outwardly - a battle between the legalists and the Spiritual approach to the Word and all  issues for that matter.  One leads to death and one to life.  This is a Law that the Lord revealed through many parables.  And the epistles bring out the same principle thorugh the apostles' teachings.  We can mention the "apostles' doctrine" on this website without being labeled a Georgian, can't we?   

Doctrine is good.  But after giving the Law (Doctrine), the Lord came to manifest and demonstrate implementation of that very Doctrine and explained a lot of the OT law - making it come alive to all longing hearts, the egghead (Scribes and Pharisees) notwithstanding. 

The Spirit of God trumps the Doctrine and subordinates it.  Doctrine can be wrongly received and represented by Man because of the darkness in the heart of the lawful receiver.  Christ perfectly received the Doctrine and perfectly represented it from an inward Source, the Root, His heavenly Father.  ENMITY BETWEEN THE TWO IS GIVEN BIRTH - but God set it up that way so that those who would pay the price to move into Spiritual views as the Lord did, would manifest His Truth from within their hearts instead of their heads. 

God risked the possibility of some who would abuse the idea of the subordination of Doctrine in order to fill Man with His Life and Power.  For example, George taught an intellectual gospel and tried to get people to 'act joyful' so as not "to allow the Charismatics to have anything on us" - however he said it.  Neither fake joy or the Charismatic emotional joy is the Joy of the Lord in the Spirit of God.  The Spirit of God is His Presence which manifest from the inside outward and is not something as superficial as smiling and emotions.  When the Spirit is manifests in a life, as the sun rises in the east, it's a dawning from within and then it lights up the whole life - thus manifesting Joy, Peace, etc.

(I added a couple points and ran over the limit - continued in next post)

Why persist?  The Truth always prevails and eventually wins the day.  The Truth, as manifested in Christ, doesn't necessarily convert the Scribes, but it does humiliate them.  This is not my goal.  My goal is to speak the Truth in the face of lies.  Are these men lying?  Not in the sense of what they honestly believe to be true - no. 

According to the scriptures the Lie is that which is against the Truth as it is in Christ.  And Christ came to bring life and vitality and inward animation through His Spirit.  That is what makes those who deny the Spirit of God the preeminence in all revelation and interpretation of the Word....a Lie.

The Lord used strong language to speak of Truth/Lie.


John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it......47  He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.  (KJV)

It always comes back to this issue among those who hold to the Law....vs. 47  He that is of God heareth God's words....ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

My sheep hear....

The "Law"yers of His day condemned Him for His reliance on His Father which was a new authority and a spiritual One.  It was an unwritten source...a mystical one, so to speak.  How could He come into the midst of the scholars of the Word and speak of "spiritual" concepts that were not understandable through natural reasoning (yet His words gave life).  Those who cling to other authorities and who cannot speak of the Word through spiritual revelation are dead in themselves....in their Own.  "...When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own..."

Yes, bring out the labels, but I would like to hear someone actually address the Bible verses and teachings.  If your doctrine is legitimate and my views are illegitimate, you should be able to refute mine IN YOUR OWN WORDS instead of throwing mud pies i.e. labels.  Do you have anything besides criticism, skepticism, and fun little websites that can make your case?   Let's see what you are full of.  If you are full of the Holy Spirit surely you can speak of the Scriptures to make your points instead of ....when I was in the Assembly they were mean to me....wah, wah...and she is a deeper life, blah, blah, blah....

Back to Verne's point.  Can we not use the Word of God to make our case for what we believe?  Who is a believer?  How do we know someone is saved?

Sondra

p.s.  Oh yes, someone mentioned "fearing Doctrine."  The only fear I have of Doctrine is when it is in the hands of people who negate the Spirit of God to interpret that Doctrine.  Doctrine, according to Paul, could not keep man from sin and error.  He said, ....but I find a new law working in my members.....the law of the Spirit.  Walk in the Spirit, be full of the Holy Spirit and you will not wish to satisfy the lusts of the flesh...once one drinks from that well, he/she doesn't want the old stuff i.e. natural perspective, natural motivations, natural loves, etc.

Sondra, following my having said,...you said:


First, I did not make a characterization, ridiculous or ortherwise-- I asked a question.  A question is not a statement, nor was mine intended to imply one.  Have you twisted my words to avoid answering?

Second, to answer your question (as is done in polite conversation), it would not be better for me to quote you than to ask you an honest question because of the time it would take.  I'm not trying to gather evidence to build a case against you.  In fact, I believe that my post favored your position to a large degree.  To my thinking, if I ask you a question, you will either answer it or you will not.  That's as far as the matter need go.

 

I do recall asking you those two questions because I felt the tenor of your posts raised a question as to your spiritual orientation and intent.  To the best of my knowledge, they both remain unanswered.  It is very rare that a true believer will object to those questions, much less feel insulted by them or refuse to answer them, even repeatedly.

But my memory isn't what it once was, and it never was all that great.  Perhaps you did answer, and I missed it or have forgot.

Sondra, would you please tell the board in your own words whether Jesus Christ the Son of God and Messiah is your Redeemer and your Lord, and would you share with us, calling Him by Name, please, what He has done in your life?

If you will not, then perhaps you would tell us who you are and what you have come on this board to do.

al

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  The whole topic of "method of interpretation" has been centered by Tom and others around - "Sondra's method of interpretation is cultic like the Assembly."  Haven't you been reading, Moony?  I am not name calling.  I really do believe that Tom, et al, are representing the same type of intellectual superiority that George did.  I was in trouble with him and I have been harrassed by the same type of teachers of Doctrine on this board.  I am not alone btw.  Many have left for the same reason.  This well has no water because men are using their own intellectual sources to explain the Word.

The people are God's people.  This board is God's and just because Tom is the Moderator, make no mistake, God is here as long as living light (spiritual perspective) is being shared.

These guys have been VERY abusive in the name of negating George.  I intend to show that their 'religion' is false.  Of course, if I get kicked off, I'll bet God just raises up another Truth Teller.  I don't care if it is ME.  From reading Brian's last post, I would have to believe that he is a little weary also of Tom's deleting, smothering, hushing of contradicting views to his extreme fundamentalism.

IMO, You are betting on the wrong horse, Moony.  Mud slinging and labeling doesn't get God's favor.  Let them make their case.  We are both trying to make a case about why things went wrong in the Assembly for so many.  I believe the same thing goes wrong in a lot of churches because of men (cheifly) who follow the letter of the law through intellectual approach to the interpretation of the Word.  So, I think we are on topic. 

Now if we can just get some dialog instead of "she is demon possessed" - I think that would be good. 

Sondra

Sorry, Al.  You are being lazy.  I have written enough about who I say the Lord Jesus is.  Read my book.  www.soaringwiththeeagles.com 

I don't know what planet you have been on, because I have heard my share of people come up with their little three line recitations of who they say Christ is and what He came to do - of which some are among the most phony, full of boloney, deceived people one would ever want to encounter.  No, you will not draw me into your web of "cat and mouse"  unless I get to be "cat."   ;) 

I don't think I will be answering anymore of your posts, Al because, unlike Tom and a few others, you hide behind spiritual jargon.  You are a little like Dave in that you live at the crossroads.  I would rather have someone cold or hot.... 

Sondra

I cannot promise I will have the time to run after every rabbit, (I know many are disappointed to hear this)  :( but I felt I would give answer to Tom's suggestion that Nee was off base.  Someone who posts site after site in general criticism should, IMO, show he is up to the task of arguing his points in his own words.  Otherwise, it would seem that he is seated with the kings he is quoting.  How do we know whether under his robe, he is truly a king also or just another common servant of the world?  "Mice can be found in cookie jars, but that doesn't make them a cookie." (father Ten Boom)  Not saying either way, but quoting other's from other websites should be supportive of main arguments made by the person posting and not THE ARGUMENT.  Throwing out buzzwords like "deeper life" and then throwing up a website is cheap and almost worthless. 

I didn't read all, but I respect Nee's views VERY MUCH.  What others have done with his writings, the author has no control over.

A quote from the website re. Watchman Nee's views...


What a tremendous blessing to read!  I doubt he wrote his book intending that every word would be scrutinized with a microscope.  Given his general teaching though, I think we could perhaps assume that he was not condoning that believer's should follow other men who are not "spiritual" and even then, should not follow if in conflict with what the Holy Spirit is leading from within their own hearts, a strict, undisciplined Conscience notwithstanding.

Within keeping with the perspective I was hearing from WN's writings from the same website, I would have to add some clarification to the sentence below. 


I don't believe I have taken too much liberty with the paragraph.  I think WN would be (is) proud of me.   8)

The spin that Knapp puts on each quote is one from a person who has been burned by an overly controlling church leader.  Some of the words Nee uses would automatically flag someone who has heard those words against their own Conscience and understanding.

Sincere people abuse people in the Name of the Lord all the time.  So many churches I've been in use the literal meanings of scriptures to beat the sheep.

Nee is mainly speaking to "anointed servants of God" who do need to understand that they have a higher obligation and commitment to God if they wish to serve Him.  The scriptures teach the same.  And there does need to be a healthy submission to spiritual leadership, but again, these are "buzz words" for someone who has had non-spiritual authority exerted over them through the use of spiritual sounding jargon.  Should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater though?  Nee was a very godly man.  I didn't take the time to read all, but I read enough in this article and have read him many years ago - to know that what he wrote was claimed by many unscrupulous 'spiritual' leaders.

The author shares no scriptures to make his/her points.  Dead giveaway. 

Frankly, even if he/she had, the scriptures can be misrepresented too if interpreted through natural reasoning especially when one has been abused by those who have misinterpreted those very Truths in their history.

Sondra

p.s.  Subjectivity is emotions and not to be confused with spiritual discernment, hearing God in the Spirit, ...inward leading, etc.

Sondra----

Perhaps I am confused as to what the total disagreement is on the board. All I can do is
mention my experience of being led to read the Bible far more "carefully", and make sure
that what I think I am understanding is really the Truth.

I have old Seminar notes that are filled with so many Scripture references it is amazing. We used
to flip back and forth to so many references that I am amazed anyone could keep on track with
what message was being given. I mean, George would back up what he was saying with Scrip-
ture---this is obvious. Every statement he made he would have a Bible reference for!! I am men-
tioning the Assembly as reference, because I was there, and received the teaching.

The problem was that everyone "accepted" what he was saying as the truth. We accepted his
definition and application of the Scripture without really searching out if what he was saying was
true or not. This is the whole point I have been trying to make--not that God cannot speak to
people individually--I know he does.

But when I look back at those Seminar notes I think "How could I have heard all of that Scripture,
and the message, and not realized just how "off base" much of it was?" I believe it was because I
did not ask the questions that we should all ask. I accepted George's interpretation for the "most
part"(I say this because there were a few of his interpretations I could never accept). You have said
that when you read something and the Word isn't mentioned it's a "dead giveaway". But, the Seminars were absolutely FULL of scripture references, and yet much of it was twisted to define George's own interpretation.

After leaving the Assembly I began to see that reading the Scriptures takes much "care" and
"study". I can pull out a verse and give you my own interpretation on it quite easily, and maybe
even believe God has "given" me this interpretation. But does it square with the rest of the Bible?
Does it make sense historically? Does other scripture overule the conclusion I have come to? I
could preach platitudes based on my own interpretation, and they might sound quite holy, but
they might also be so off base that they have no foundation in Scripture.

If I am misunderstanding you, I apologize. But this is really the whole point that I am trying to
make. I just get tired of hearing people preach, or write about how "annointed" they are, and how
much more mature they are than the "dead" theologians, etc.  I have been in a place where a
man was considered God's "annointed servant", taught the Bible continually--but continually taught
the wrong thing. On the contrary, I think the maturity came in when I realized the Bible was of no
"personal interpretation", and  a systematic study was required to gain a wise perspective on what
the Lord was really teaching. "Study to show yourself approved onto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth(2 Tim. 2:15).  If we are to "study" to show ourselves approved, and there is a way of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth", then one can imagine there must be several ways of "Wrongly dividing the Word of truth"----a systematic and methodical study is very important.

--Joe

Thanks for you polite response and for speaking up without labeling me, Joe.  Yes, precisely.  You have hit the nail on the head when you said, “George’s interpretation.”  George’s interpretation was one of reasoning or intellectual approach to the scriptures although he did have some background of study of “spiritual” interpretation of the scriptures.  He called his views “spiritual” – but, in fact, he preached an exterior kingdom….the Assembly.  He connected the OT with the NT by using Acts or the Apostles Doctrine to birth the Assemblies. When you speak of finding "Truth" - if you use the same old tapes, no matter how much comparing of scripture with scripture you do, you will hear the same recording.  The formula has got to be changed to that of inward kingdom maxims in order to get new revelation of the Lord....within YOU.   


This is where we have to get off the road and 4 wheel for awhile.  If it were that easy, any person with a good mind could be a profound man of God.  But it isn’t easy if it is truly spiritual.  What you have attained that is real and perfect has been earned through suffering what has been wrong.  You have been taught a lot of what is “right” also, but you have had to suffer in order to be spiritually enlightened.  One who is quickened, brought alive by the Spirit of God (resurrected) has only been  brought alive because he has been slain.  Heb 11.  Those who have been killed/martyred have experienced death through their undying commitment to the Lord’s cross. 

One who brings his scars with him to the Word can spiritually discern.  One who comes to the Word with an approach to get something of a following, something to sound profound, etc. will surely not be in a heart position to discern spiritually.

Yes, the scriptures should be checked and compared with scriptures, but you did that in the Assembly, didn’t you?  I did, but until I realized that my whole view was based upon an outward kingdom/church/assembly in a corporate expression, instead of understanding that the whole Bible should be applied to one soul FIRST – I was falsely interpreting the scriptures.

Hearing the Word instruct about the inner kingdom is the only safe way to interpret scripture.  The Lord taught “Kingdom” teachings more than anything else.  He also taught through parables regarding households a lot.  These are teachings that teach each individual about their soul.



Yes, I was in the same place, Joe, and I fully understand what you are saying, but the literal interpretation of the scriptures is not the safe haven you seem to think it is.  It was reasoning that sounded so reasonable and could be faked apparently when all evidence has it that George had some other bread he was baking in someone else’s kitchen.   ;)  The Lord is anointed and those who follow Him in the spirit share His anointing.  The closer we get the more of His oil gets all over us.  No big deal for spiritual believers, but I do it as a great adventure to be close to the Lord.


George used the same method you speak of here although he put down those who used this method.  Gg put everyone down who didn’t go with his “assembly” vision.  He put down the authors to me that he quoted in open meetings…but I was thankful that he had quoted them because they led me out of the desert to the river of life.  Sickness worked FOR ME that time.  I took the time to read stuff and became so blessed that I stopped going to the meetings.

Having said all of this, youth/discipleship has it’s own baggage that I am afraid isn’t very pretty – even if you have the best, spiritually centered, godly teacher.  We come to the Lord as natural “hayseeds” and the only option to understand scripture is through feeling and reasoning.  We must be directed into a spiritual perspective through the Holy Spirit.  And that’s where I’m afraid it gets very dicey.  But God is the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls and will see us through if we are not stubborn.  I have scuffed my knees a lot to the point I'm down to stubs, but I learned a couple things.  Wouldn’t trade the bad for the good for a million bucks...maybe 2 ??   :D 

Intellectual knowledge puffs up, but the spirit gives life. 


Sondra

[quote author=Joe Sperling link=topic=1026.msg27360#msg27360 date=1128455600
Perhaps I am confused as to what the total disagreement is on the board. All I can do is
mention my experience of being led to read the Bible far more "carefully", and make sure
that what I think I am understanding is really the Truth.............

.............."Study to show yourself approved onto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth(2 Tim. 2:15).  If we are to "study" to show ourselves approved, and there is a way of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth", then one can imagine there must be several ways of "Wrongly dividing the Word of truth"----a systematic and methodical study is very important.

--Joe

There are several things to keep in mind, IMNSHO:

1.)Theology, in general, is not like math or even physics.  In both of those intellectual pursuits, at the higher levels, there is debate and disagreement among experts.  However, even the experts who find themselves on the opposite sides of the Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity debate agree that the other is capable of teaching physics.

For some reason, theologians tend to be a little more condemning of those from the other camp.  Please do not take the preceeding statement to be a broad stroke, and mistakenly suggest that I apply it to all theologians, everywhere.  I do no such thing, and recognize that the majority of theologians tend to show respect and a gracious demeanor towards those who disagree with them.  However, in spite of this fact, there are a greater number of warring factions amongst theologians than there are in the science world.

For example, most Reformed pastors accept Baptists and others of the Arminian persuasion as brethren.  There are a few, here and there, however, who accuse the latter of spreading lies and attacking the finished work of Christ.  Of course, there are also Arminians who lash out at Calvinists with equal zeal and hatred.  My personal opinion is that I don't know all the answers, and I would rather live in harmony with other believers than alienate them on issues such as these.

So, back to Joe's quote, there are those who systematically interpret the Bible...and come up with different ideas than others who do the same.

Those who are influenced and blessed by the Keswick/Deeper Life/Nee/Austin-Sparks/Guyon type of ideas are also brethren.  They have done their share of condemning and cutting down others, and have also been the targets of that treatment from time to time.  There is nothing new here, it's pretty much business as usual in the Christian world.

So, posting a link arguing that Watchman Nee's ideas are "disturbing," can easily be countered with another link claiming that graduates from a certain seminary are the most dangerous people to have in the church, because they bring the spirit of this age, and man's wisdom to the pulpit, thereby tainting the gospel of God's Power with the lie of the Devil!  A fine row can then break out with winners on both sides, at least in their own estimation.

2.)Many people come to view themselves as experts after having graduated from the school of hard knocks.  I see this often when I meet people who, upon getting their second divorce, decide to get a MFCC degree and use their wisdom the help help people who many times have fewer failed marriages than they have themselves!  In spite of the fact that these people are two or three time losers at marriage, they really believe they can help others.  I think success is a necessary item on a resume.

3.)Many people need to belong to a group, or camp, for various reasons, not all of them bad.

Is it possible....or should I say, can we consider that perhaps some of the above applies here on this forum?

Could it be that Sondra and Tom both have valid opinions, while neither is absolutely correct?  Furthermore, do any of us have a worthless degree from the school of hard knocks?  In other words, do we have a false perception of ourselves and our mastery of the Bible?  

Lastly, do we seek to divide, isolate and polarize, or do we, as much as possible, try to live at peace with all men?

I submit that each of us reads the words we wish to see, and hears what we like to hear, and that it is simply a miracle if God ever gets a simple understanding of something of His Grace through our thick, proud skulls.

IMNSHO, insinuating that Sondra is possessed, and that her mystical bent is horrible is right on par with suggesting Tom is an unbeliever.  I suspect that neither accusation is true.  I also recognize that it is nothing more that the usual squabbling one can find amongst the various factions withing the Evangelical world.  

I suspect I'm not alone in saying, "Now, what was the point of all this on this thread?"

Is this a spiritual concept?
Not presently.
Stop the non-equivalent comparisons, please.
You have been very abusive in your language describing many on this BB. I agree with Marcia, WHY DO YOU PERSIST?
I appreciate his deletions of you personally bashing BB members. Your bashings are the equivalent of Shin's "**** **", which was deleted by Tom.

WHY DO YOU PERSIST IN PUTTING PEOPLE DOWN?

You come off as an abrasive person, putting herself in the position of being the "saviour" of this BB.

Bystander---

Thanks and very well stated. I hereby withdraw from this discussion, and admit
to the fact that I could be very wrong in some of my arguments.(Notice
I didn't say "all" :D)  You are totally correct in that Arminians are my brethren,
even if they're wrong ;D Thanks for the reminder that though we may be
polarized in opposite directions(regarding certain subjects), we are still all children of the same King.

God bless,  Joe

Joe,

I am not entirely sure about your post.  Are you simply saying,  "well stated, I agree," or is there a slight dig here?  I apologize if I am reading more into it than I should, but the emoticons and the two confusing statements make we wonder if perhaps I came off the wrong way in my post?

I don't want to belabor it, so you can use the private message feature if you like,

Mark

No one can ever write enough about who the Lord Jesus is.  Not anyone.  Not ever.



Webs are what spiders do.  I have no web, no game to play.  I am not a spider, a cat, a mouse, a wolf or whatever else you can come up with.  I am not practicing laziness, but practicality in asking you to answer simple, honest questions on this board where you post volumes of opinions and accusations.  I have not stated my opinion of you or accused you of anything.  I don't even want to debate you on anything.  I'm just asking you to be open and honest.


"Spiritual jargon?"  Would that be when I quote Scripture and/or speak of spiritual principles, unlike when you do the same and call it truth?

 
You pay me a high compliment.  Dave Sable is someone we could all learn a lot from if we are willing.

 

I asked you to tell the board who you are...  The above quote suggests that you may think you are God.  Personally, I don't think that's what you are saying.  But it does raise the question (again), Who do you think you are?  And who do you expect the readers here to think you are?  And why is it so important to you to bring people down who offer no threat to you?

Please feel free to answer honestly...

al

Hey, BS --

I don't know, is that what the Lord was doing and the reason for all His trouble?  He was a troublemaker wasn't He?  I think natural fights against spiritual and vice versa.  That's what the scriptures teach...remember them ?  No one else seems to want to talk turkey.   :-X

I've taken beatings for months and actually years re. my "deeper life" views.  I have been run out of town from the beginning being labeled "Witness Lee" by Mark C, Tom, and Margaret.  I have been labeled "Mystic" and many other things.  

I am not angry at all, but I am here trying to discuss the authority on the subject, the Word of God.  It would seem that few, if any, want to get into the specific teachings.  Enough mud has been slung at me over the now....years.... and I just felt led to talk. 

Plus, Verne suggested that I should feel that I could register in my own name and post without fear of what others have to say.  I am sure he doesn't agree with everything I have posted, but I am sure that he does believe that the Holy Spirit opens the Word to the individual heart and that there are things seen of the Lord that are truly unutterable.  As with prayer, we do need the intercession of the Holy Spirit.

Moony, please use quotes if you are going to accuse me of name-calling.  Btw, what is "savior" of this bb if it isn't name calling?  Dear, you have done more than your share of name calling and ridiculing to sound so pious.  :-*

Sondra

Hello Sondra,

Please understand that I do not reject or judge you for your Deeper Life views.  Whether I agree or not is not the issue, as I believe we can discuss these and other ideas in a respectful, gracious manner.  I look forward to doing so.

So, let's talk turkey.  Jesus did divide people, and will yet divide them.  You are right about that.  He was certainly a troublemaker for some; again, I agree with you there.

However, wouldn't you also agree that He didn't pit John against Peter, or Bartholemew against Thomas?  I see that latter as being a problem here, and I'm not accusing anyone in particlar.  I am merely suggesting we all judge ourselves and our own motives.

The Word of God is able to do this, is it not?  In fact, I argue that the practical application of "revealing thoughts and intent of the heart, joints and marrow," is somewhat mystical.

Regardless of whether we use the inductive method of bible study or not, we need the Holy Spirit.  I certainly hope no one is advocating something else, whether directly or by suggestion.

We are saved by Grace, through faith.  Jesus is the Son of God, God incarnate, The Eternal Logos, The Alpha and Omega, Friend of sinners, Faithful and True.  I think we both agree on that? If so, you aren't going to get any judgement or mud from me.

bystander

Al, why do you persist in according Sondra special status and demanding that she answer you or else??  I really do not understand yours and Moonie's hostility towards her.

Marcia

Bystander---

No--I wasn't taking a dig at you at all. Sometimes we get so into our own side
of an argument that we forget there are two sides, with both being valid. Your
post reminded me that I'm never going to "win" the argument, and I've stated
what I believe already. Sondra is entitled to believe what she does without my
taking a "jab" at her about it. Perhaps if both sides could keep that in mind it
would be a far more civil board. Because as you stated, we truly all are children
of God--we can disagree, but should still be kind to one another, as the Bible
says "As God's dear children". I've decided just to listen to the conversation here
for a while rather than contribute.

Thanks, Joe

No special status intended-- I'd ask the same of anyone who posted as she does.  You seem to find hostility in my posts where none is meant to be.  Do you see any in Sondra's?

al

thanks Joe!

So nicely said. Thank you, bystander. A real dose of common sense and equanimity.

I would also add that perhaps the church needs both perspectives. We need the scholary, academic approach that Tom offers and we also need the deeper life reality that Sondra is fond of. Balance and moderation in both would be necessary.

Since we all agree on the basics, can we get back to discussing issues?

E.

I took the liberty of moving this post to the thread where I have been posting most of my views on the "revelation" topic.  It is misplaced under "headcoverings" but this is where we are -- and "wizawaz" wants her thread back - understandable.  That's what we used to call Elizabeth Geftakys.

I moved my post to this location, Bystander.


Yes and No.  Yes, He pitted someone against the disciples who were often still natural in their perspectives...Himself Who of course, had a spiritual perspective and placed a priority on pure motives of the heart that replaced hyprocrisy, spirituality replacing legalism, Truth instead of the Lie.  I don't think He was angry at His disciples, but I do believe He reprioritized their lives in a short period of time, thus converting them eventually to Apostles who would be responsible to carry a very heavy load.....

Sometimes believers are our worst enemies when they call names, label other believers (which has been happening to me for about 3 years now).  And I am simply coming onto the scene in my own name to give my views of why I believe George and others who interpret the scriptures intellectually instead of through the power of the Holy Spirit and His revelation - really, have caused a lot of pain in the lives of believers.  Tom has been misrepresenting for too long that GG was a "mystic" blah, blah, blah.  George and I had numerous discussion regarding "the Lord speaking to the individual believer" and he never wanted to give much to the individual without linking it to God's government.  In both cases, George's and Tom's, and for different reasons and beleifs, they negated the indwelling of God and the autonomy of the believer.

When I spoke with George about my views, it was very, very difficult.  I have known of the conflict within Christiandom for many years and frankly, I they sit back like George did and like Tom is now, smugly not answering questions and being accountable.  He cannot answer himself, rather he quotes others.  What is with that?

He goes into his little cave and here I am out here being blamed for being devisive.  He's secure, just as GG was.  He always looked good because he would never answer anyone's questions.  He never answered mine and saw me as despensible I'm sure.  I still love George and I will not allow myself to hate, but one thing I do hate....I hate intellectualization of Doctrine that God intended to be about a living God and a living Word within the believer. 

   

Tom is not saved as far as I can tell.  He never mentions the Lord.  He will not confess Him as His personal God and Savior.  I've been at this too long to believe that a believer can post as much as Tom has and never mention his Lord and Savior....if he actually knows Him.  Bible scholars who aren't even saved are not hard to find. 

I'm not trying to call names or humiliate anyone, least of all Tom, but when he arrogantly came after people who were discussing "revelation" from an indwelling God - the red flag reallly went up.  When he mocked people for believing they could hear God's voice - enough.  "Mea Culpa" got him off the hook, but he had already ravaged faith and planted seeds of doubt in hearts.  Besides, MC meanst nothing because he came back a couple days later and essentially said the very same things regarding those who receive spiritual revelation from a living God within.


Except there are some signs as to whether someone is saved beyond the display of open sin and carnality or it's absence.  One who knows the Lord speaks of the Lord and believes in His indwelling of the believer.  Tom has no hint of belief that God is a living force and life within the believer that I can tell and I've been reading him for about 3 years now. 

He has ridden shotgun over this site so as to sanatize it from anyone who would speak of the "kingdom of God that is within."  He posts broad brushed insults about "mystics" but won't give answers that are scriptural to prove his position.  It is much more difficult to prove a spiritual leading or anything spiritual for that matter, but he hides.


There you have it, a confession of the Savior. 

Folks,

A post of mine from January 27, 2003.

Now, this post did not receive the reply..."Oh, your right, sorry." 

However, at least it was not replied to on the basis that the person being addressed by my post had an understanding of the scriptures beyond the words and grammatical construction of the text.  The viewpoint being advanced by Sondra is that she is so inspired that the scriptures mean whatever she says they mean.  If not, then all one has is the inspired words and grammar.

It has been a long time, but back in the 60's and 70's I read extensively in Deeper Life teaching.  Nee, Murray, Guyon, H. W. Smith, Grubb, Hession, Chambers, F. B. Meyer, Sparks, Fromke, and others.  I do not recall that any of them, other than Nee and Penn-Lewis, went as far as Sondra in their claims of personal enlightenment.  The rest seemed to stop at the same place GG did, which was the claim to understand the true teaching of the passage, which was accessible through the text itself if the person was in communion with God through the Holy Spirit.

The idea was that one could take a careless attitude towards the Bible and just hold doctrinal positions as intellectual concepts.  The deeper life teachers were welcomed in Evangelical churches because they mostly just said that serious Christians could meet the Lord through the word, if they were truly willing to hear God's voice in the words and take it seriously.

Nee seems to have gone beyond this.  The problem with this view arises when you have multiple people claiming to be the final arbiter of all truth.  So, he adopted the idea of absolute submission to "spiritual" authority, to control what went on.  If, in GG's words, "It's better felt than telt,"  who gets to do the felt part? 

I do not recall that GG utilized this method to try to control what people believed the Bible taught.  He employed it to control what was taught in the assemblies.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux


 
 

This paragraph proves nothing.  I don't believe I have an exclusive interpretation of the Word of God or any one scripture.  I do believe that God can reveal His meaning to people though and He reveals it directly to the heart if it is true revelation of WHO HE IS.  Many can receive the same revelation.  Now, if He has something to say exclusively to me about my husband, something I need to do to help him, encourage him, pray for him, I don't expect He will tell someone else, would you?


Tom,

I appreciate that you have answered.  You do sound very irritated to have to be bothered with such silly questions.  Perhaps it is not arrogance, but it sure comes across as arrogance.  I hear an attitude in your post that you think you are so knowledgeable on this that you shouldn't even be questioned again on it once you have spoken.

Regarding the quote above, by not giving the reader the opportunity to read the post, (mine) that you are responding to in the quote -you are essentially quoting out of context.  It doesn't make much sense and is hard to follow without the context.  Would you mind?

You fault me for not saying, "Oh you are right, sorry" when I believe you are wrong.  I do not remember why I didn't respond, but I probably slithered off into a corner after being attackedfor having a differing opinion.  I am very glad you quoted you.  It sounds pretty arrogant really.  You sound very angry and intolerant of any view besides your own....consistent with the arrogance that I and many others have experienced.

   I doubt that anyone would agree with you that I have been careless or casual about the scriptures....that you can have it any old way you want it.   ???   That's false.  In fact, I think the insurance policy is to check with the Lord within the heart to see if these things that my mind concludes are so....are so.  There are several spiritual checks and balances that need to be consulted - beyond the intellectual one.  The mind and emotions can play tricks, but they who wait upon the Lord....  God is a God who speaks...He will come and He will not tarry.  I received answers ALL THE TIME in many different ways.d

The autonomy of the believer with God is sacred.  Otherwise, Bozo's will be telling others what they should or shouldn't be doing because they have superior knowledge.  The individual believer must check the scriptures, but also must ask God and receive His answer.  Otherwise, a scripture that condones killing someone (extreme example) could be taken literally or that Paul suggested that it is better to not marry and stay single...a believer finds himself single his whole life because the Apostle said it was best.  Believer's MUST ask God and rely on other methods than reasoning and analysis to know what God's will is.  This interaction is important and really so very basic that I can't believe I'm going over this so many times and still receiving an argument FROM BELIEVERS.   ::)  Speaking of "deeper life"- there is nothing deep about this.  This is basic Christianity.

To continue....To hold up judgement until speaking with God, gives Him the opportunity to speak into the situation.  He can give the believer a "check" in his spirit and one who has learned to discern the movement of God in his/her heart can know, "hold up" and reconsider.  God can send a friend.  God can send an angel.  God can send a thousand dollars.  God can send a meal.  God can send a gun...no, just kidding.  God can communicate in so many different way, but mainly, I believe He wants to teach the believer to hear His voice and take direction from Him.  What is so difficult about this concept when the scriptures are full of this basic viewpoint.

Question.  What do you believe "spiritual" concepts are if they are not what I have shared I believe they are?  Now, please, I'm not asking you what you believe they are not - rather what they are....if you would be so kind.

Sondra

Can't quote any of your previous name-calling and personal put-downs and criticsms of BB members here. You deleted all your "ruth", "affirming", and "meeko" posts, remember?

"Tom is not saved as far as I can tell.  He never mentions the Lord.  He will not confess Him as His personal God and Savior.  I've been at this too long to believe that a believer can post as much as Tom has and never mention his Lord and Savior....if he actually knows Him.  Bible scholars who aren't even saved are not hard to find."---from post below.

Well, I was going to stay silent on the "cults" thread, but find I cannot here. The statement made
by Sondra is indeed true. Tom is not a believer. Yes, Tom is not a believer, and I'm Norman Rockwell. Yes, It's true, I never died. And I'm just finishing up on one of my family oriented drawings, you know the kind with the happy kids on sleds at Christmas, or a family around the Thanksgiving table. This newest one is much like those others.

This one has a group of people gathered around a dinner setting, with a big lovable sheep dog with his paws perched over the edge of the table. I call the painting "Tom is not saved". Tom is seated at the end of the table, and most of the people seated are glaring at him, and the kids are throwing food in his direction. Even the big lovable sheep dog with a Santa hat on his fluffy head is growling at him. And it's because he's not saved. This is going to be a masterpiece, or my name isn't Norman Rockwell.

--Norman

Defending someone you love and care about is natural.  It sure feels good when you are on the receiving end of that, but I think I am seeing a strong pattern among former Assembly folks that is very unhealthy.  It has perhaps something to do with the dynamics that CS Lewis lays out in his work, "The Inner Ring."

Tom protects Joe.  Joe protects Tom.  Both in the past have negated the facts, IMO.

Joe, you are really a nice guy, but you know what they say about nice guys?  They finish last.  Old adage, but so true.  Some people were too polite and wanted peace at any price and others didn't care and were authorized through their own pride or self worth and confidence to take the helm and the dynamics that are set up between the two are classic.  They get in their little slot and the rest is history.

Tom can answer for himself, Joe.  George was shielded and now it would appear that you have forgotten an important lesson.  Let Tom answer.  If he is saved, born into the Spirit of God...Tom is a very well spoken man - he can answer.  If he won't answer and thinks that he is above answering, he may have a different problem.

Having a lot of Bible  knowledge does not a born again Christian make.  Being quickened in the Spirit, brought alive from the dead is the evidence of one who is saved.  I realize I am asking hard questions, but Tom has come out as an authority on the Word among believers.  Why shouldn't he also be expected to have the humility to speak of his own personal experience with the Lord - if there is one.  Almost everyone else has. 

"My sheep hear my voice...."  Tom has said that he doesn't hear the Lord's voice...not that the growth of those ears is an easy task....  Anyone who hears God's direction, His comforting words, His loving and caring encouragements, His admonishments,....I pity them because I know what it takes to grow those ears and to get that faculty of HEARING GOD.  But Tom has adamently disagreed that a child of God can hear God's spontaneous leading.  To fight so vehemently against the idea that God can simply lead His people by His Spirit without having a Bible verse/passage in hand - there is something seriously wrong.

I am not using Tom's disagreement WITH ME as fuel to "get him."  Quite on the contrary.  But the more we discussed "Revelation" and the more Tom smugly put down almost everything surrounding the subject of "hearing God" - fair cautions notwithstanding - I became aware that it was more than mere concern that someone would mistake hearing God and make some bad choices.

No, from all that I have read, Tom is not willing to speak of his own personal relationship with God or the absence of such.  The Word clearly teaches that He will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of Him.  I'm not trying to make Tom fear that God will reject him, rather, to show that to share one's personal faith is a "norm" per God's testimony on it. It should be no big deal for a believer.

Besides, I am only calling Tom on his very words.  One's words justifies them or condemns them.  (Don't have time to look up the scripture).

I am happy to give account of my salvation and have written hundreds of articles articulating it.  I am not asking him if he is "on center" in terms of the Godhead, etc.  I am asking about the discrepancy in all/most of what Tom has been demonstrating by his anger and rejection of clear Bible teaching of the "indwelling of God in the believer"....the God of the human heart.....  Where is Tom's God?  Is He in him?  If He is in him, is He dead, asleep, or is He awake and rejoicing with Tom?  These aren't easy questions to answer, but they need to be answered by one who is so against this teaching. 

My question to you Joe.....What makes former Assy folks defend their Leaders in the face of conflicting facts?

Sondra

http://www.geocities.com/bigcslewisfan/

Sondra----

Your post is really ridiculous here. I am not defending an Assembly Leader. I am responding
to a statement which is utter hogwash. You have several times now taken the stand that
Tom is not saved. I don't care who the person is, whether Tom, Brent, Al, Marcia, Dave Sable,
Mark Campbell, etc. etc.--I would make the same post regarding them also.

I just find it amazing that you feel you can say things such as that, and feel somehow you
have been "led" to state it. Something makes you think you have the spiritual authority
to say whatever you feel like saying. What audacity. Imagine walking up to a person who
has professed faith and saying "You know, you don't mention the Lord much, I don't think
you are a believer. Now, because I have questioned your faith in the Lord, PROVE to me
you believe".  The person doesn't have to prove ANYTHING to you---many people have private
personal walks with the Lord, and show their faith by what they DO, rather than by what they
say. I posted the ridiculous Norman Rockwell thing as a tongue in cheek response to something
even more ridiculous. I think the whole subject of questioning someone's salvation or starting a
new thread to continue on that note is actually quite humorous.

--Joe

The facts, Joe.  The facts. 

Sondra

What facts? Unless you think because you have stated something it is now a fact. The
only "facts" you are stating are your own perceptions or ideas about Tom and others.

There was a thread called something like "Why leaders are responsible..."  Tom has put himself up as a leader and a Bible Scholar...thus making him accountable for what he teaches God's people.  This is a fact.

Your response to my questions TO TOM is a classic response of one who is motivated to participate in a "leader/follower" heirarchical order...assuming your role and performing your duties within you "inner ring." 

Please do me a little favor and read or re-read this article, Joe.  I'm sorry if my questions offend your sensibilities, but Tom opened the can of worms and now I am only sorting through them.

http://www.geocities.com/bigcslewisfan/

Sondra

Sondra---

I'm afraid I don't understand. You are saying someone is not saved based on some criteria
of "facts". But the only "facts" I see are the statements you are making based on some
"discernment" you have made about Tom not mentioning his relationship with the Lord.

I'm afraid it is actually you who has opened the "can of worms" by making statements based
on your own feelings. So now I am part of an "inner ring" for making a humorous post in res-
ponse to a ridiculous statement? ;D  That's very funny--nice touch!

--Joe

How does Tom's salvation, or not, weigh in to the discussion Sondra?  This is almost like Al's questioning your salvation?

Marcia

Ok.  I get it.  It's cat and mouse again.  Tom openly stated that he doesn't believe this and that and so forth....openly stated his unbelief.  What are we to go on if not his confession of unbelief?

Al has hassled me as much privately as he has publicly.  I have written volumes that he could read, but Al wants to have someone take him seriously as a "spiritual leader" ?? and at the same time he himself labels himself as "Weird."  I cannot do that and I won't be forced to enter into his little game of "christian jargon." 

I would be happy to answer ANY questions anyone has who simply wants to know if I am saved, etc. 

But, I will state it again....Tom has stated the contrary.  Hasn't he taken the role as leader among this group of what Brian calls "conservative christians?"  Are leaders responsible?

Truly, there is so much sidetracking on this board that one really cannot discuss a subject for all the whining and crying and defensiveness. 

Sondra

p.s.  I need to be out for awhile.

btw.  the least IS THE GREATEST in the kingdom.  The "little ones" are the great ones in the kingdom.  They are not the innocent, they are the redeemed and those who have been reduced over time....for the record.   :)

Now that hurricane smeeko, which never developed into a mature hurricane with her screeching, defensiveness and personal attacks, accusations and allegations, and push for self-aggrandization has been reduced to a tropical blip, which is neither hot nor cold, on the radar screen, we will resume with our regularly scheduled programming. Lassie will be coming around to check for any casualties.

i took the liberty of moving a bunch of posts that were unrelated to the various topics they were dropped in, yet shared a common theme. the deeper life debate has, as usual, become more a clash of personality than perspective. sondra, you have a tendancy to be emotional and judgmental in your responses. this leads to personal attacks against people you disagree with on a regular basis. for this reason i am giving you a 5 day break from posting, to let things calm down. i am asking that others refrain from commenting on sondra, since she is not here to defend herself. discussions about the way we discuss the way we discuss things create an infinitely boring loop anyway.

thanks,

brian