AssemblyBoard

I just wanted to quickly share something concerning the new BB "soaring with the eagles". Yesterday, in some sarcastic humor, I posted. Because this post called into question something the administrator there posted(it was basically an attack against Verne and a praising of Matt)  my account was immediately deleted.

This morning I visited the BB there and saw a thread by Matt which once again attacks and mocks and sarcastically addresses Verne. I then read an E-mail from the Administator which said that she will not allow any posts which support Verne in any way. Yet--she will allow any type of sarcastic attack against him. This is extremely hypocritical, and mirrors the Assembly to a tee. WE can attack and debase and insult whomever we like, but no rebuttals will be allowed.

I have asked the administrator there to permanently delete me---I have no desire to be part of a BB which is a microcosm of the old Assembly system. I thought I would share this because I have been posting for a long time and have never been "deleted" from either of the other two BB's---and I have said some very sarcastic things, and some things I've thought I probably should have been deleted for. But any BB that will allow someone to all out attack someone(like Verne) without allowing any rebuttal or defense is as hypocritical as they get.

God bless,  Joe

I agree.  That board is a waste of time.  They tried to waste our time on this BB, and it workded for awhile.  Now they hope to distract us by luring us to their BB.  19 years in that miasma of 'vision' was enough for me.

jack

You guys didn't read the user agreement for their BB.

It said that courtesy and moderation would be the tone, and that rudeness and personal attacks would not be tolerated.

Joe wasn't moderate.

Joe is deleted.

Matt is moderate, has never attacked anyone personally, and is always courteous.

I don't undertand what the problem is.  

Again,  I am using the COS defintions of moderate, and courteous.

Brent

right   :)

just to make sure you are not losing anyone by your very dry sarcasm here: you are highlighting the obvious double-standard being employed by the eaglepeople by playing devil's advocate, no? its hard to hang these people any more effectively than they hang themselves. sometimes i find myself just wanting to quote themselves to themselves, word-for-word, because it just dosen't seem possible that anything more incriminating could be pointed out to them *baffled* but then i realize that i don't need to give them any more rope, they are already hanging themselves with maximum efficiency.

brian

If the sarcasm seems unusually dry, it is not by design.  As a matter of fact, I am quite serious in what I said above.

What might be confusing you is your preconceived notions of what words mean.  When I use the words "Moderate" and "Courteous" I am using the definitions of these words that are in fitting with the Code of Silence,  which they are employing.

If you understand "moderate" to mean that which agrees with a certain point of view,  and "courteous" to mean personal attacks on those who are not moderate, than you have it.

If it is funny,  it's only because it really is funny.  Not because I am being sarcastic.

In the immortal words of John Candy:  "Sometimes the coolest video is outdoors."

Brent

Where is this "Soaring with Eagles" board?!??!?

mithrandir

www.soaringwiththeeagles.com (http://www.soaringwiththeeagles.com)

Please note:

I am not responsible for the content on that website, other than my own posts.

Brent

Dear Verne

You are right, perhaps.  But just chill out!  Cool your jets man!  I see it as humorous.

While I understand how it feels to you, having them put your name all over their website, etc.  please keep in mind that not only is it funny,  it makes you look good.

In all seriousness, I think we should just drop it, pray for them, and go about our business.

Matt,  you are forgiven.   :)

Verne-----my suggestion is to view the thing in a similar manner to the cable TV show,  "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge."

While at first, it feels weird to see these people smashing into walls,  tweaking their spines and such,  when you come to grip with the fact that they are doing it by choice,  it is actually enjoyable to watch them crash into stuff and injure themselves.  Same thing with the Seagulls.  Just let 'em go;  who knows?  Perhaps we might even learn something,  or even find out we need to make some changes.  They may have something good to say.

Brent

I just saw the "Soaring with Eagles" site.  Man, are those people in the clouds, or what?  The only way I know of to achieve that depth of altered consciousness is through use of some of the substances I used to see people smoking when I was in the Army!  If they don't want to believe that the Geftakys assemblies were actively harmful, maybe they should look George up (and his henchmen) and ask to be put back under their control again.

One thing that bb reminds me of.  You all remember the scene in "The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis where the dwarfs are physically in Heaven, yet in the hell of their minds they continue to stubbornly believe that they are in a smelly old stable.

mithrandir

From the looks of it, Sondra has a particular agenda. I have stayed off that BB because of my past experience with Sondra. We often ended up going round in circles in our communication. Too bad she deleted that latest post by Daerter (aka ??). It was so well thought out. Daerter, I hope you saved a copy. SWTE is definitely not an open forum.

Marcia

I know I said I would stay off this topic,  perhaps I am weak...

Sondra is quite an Admin!  She has deleted 3 of the last 5 posts by people other than herself!  All of them were nice.

Daerter's post was deleted, because again, he was not courteous and moderate.

Courteous means personal attacks on those who disagree with me,

Moderate means that which agrees with a certain point of view.

You can't say anything over there unless it is courteous and moderate.

This really is the last thing I'll say about this thread.

Brent

I can barely express how absurd the Seagulls site is. I could bang out a long post on the flawed logic expressed there.

Or maybe spend some time discussing the strange and unhealthy relationship between Sondra and her champion.

How about the arbitrary censorship that would do any Cold War socialist proud?

Shoot, I could write a thesis on the emotional and spritual health of a woman who claims she has benefited from George and Betty's "faithfulness".

But why? I agree with Brent. They are so over the top and blatantly flawed that they are a joke.

Please let them write ALL of their thoughts and post them for the world to see. They only hurt themselves. But don't be dragged down into their twisted reality.

Verne, by definition anyone who is castigated on their board must be doing something right! ;D Wear it like a badge of honor and continue your more important work on this forum. I don't think anyone here needs to be convinced those people are whacked (yes, that is the proper medical term ;)).

Just one man's opinion.

Scott McCumber

Sondra and Matt may end up conversing with each other on that BB. :)

Marcia

OK.  Help me out here.  How many BB are out there?

I know about assemblyboard/Brian Tucker.  This was the original board.

I know about the Geftakys Lodge hosted by John Malone.  No thanks for me, but if you want to, that's OK.

I knew about rest for the weary, but can't seem to find it anymore.  Is it still around?

Now it seems that there are 10 people starting "Soaring with eagles".  I guess I could ask why, but it doesn't matter.  It seems to be starting off with problems anyway.

Is this all the denominations so far?

Could you imagine "moderate" John Malone on Soaring with the Eagles. Shudder. ;D

Dave---

Check out the new "snoring with the beagles" site---
everyone is welcome there doggone it.

I think John J. Malone,  Sr. would be an amazing addition to Sondra's BB.  In fact,  John would kick her @##s!   Matt, would cry if he had John on his case!

However, I like John too much to encourage him to go on there.

Brent

To Matt and Sondra---

I noticed the extensive Post regarding E-mails sent out "after the fact" when I was "deleted" from your BB for sarcasm. There was a bit of confusion as I took Sondra's E-mail to say that if I attempted to get a new account that would also be deleted. The fact remains, that I, along with a few others, have had accounts or posts deleted which expressed sarcasm, or a point of view not consistent with your BB's "mold".

But this is OK. It is your bulletin Board, and you can do as you well please with it. My apologies to you if my sarcasm was perceived as an "attack" on yourselves. I simply found a lot of humor in the posts there, and as is my way, I respond with humor or sarcasm.

I will refrain from speaking about your BB or the people there from now on. I pray that the Lord open your eyes, but truly, pray that the Lord bless you and make your BB a place that truly honors him.

Take care,   Joe

If you would like to read it, I have a copy on one of my systems that I can dig up for you.

Kind Regards,
Niaga Daerter

-
Wait a minute, who is Niaga Daerter?  Now if you could read things "backwards" on that other site you might see something:

R
ER
TER
RTER
ERTER
AERTER
DAERTER
 DAERTER
A DAETRER
GA DAERTER
AGA DAERTER
IAGA DAERTER
NIAGA DAERTER
 NIAGA DAERTE
  NIAGA DAERT
   NIAGA DAER
    NIAGA DAE
     NIAGA DA
      NIAGA D
       NIAGA
        NIAGA
         NIAG
          NIA
           NI
            N

Could it be just "Retread Again"? :)

I wouldn't call her too "worked up", at least not to the Matt level.  I am including below what I had posted that Sondra must of thought was too disagreeable.  I also sent Sondra a reply (for her/Matt) to see if it was okay to post on her bb.  But she thought that she did not want her bb going in the direction I was heading.  She was extremely polite in her responses and not abusive in the least (much different from someone else who made their position painfully obvious on the bb).  Hmm, I was just pondering what is more dangerous, i soft quiet voice like Sondra's or a loud voice spouting obviously obnoxious messages such as someone else who you know, hmm?  Anyway, it looked like there was nothing that I could say to make her agree with me, and I think that she most likely felt the same concerning me.  She did not want me to be disagreeable on her bb so I agreed to leave.  Again, she was very polite in her messages to me, and did not ban me from her site, but left it up to me to remove my account.  Here is a quote from one of my messages to Sondra that sums up my feelings regarding Matt:


As it turned out, I did not end up sending any private message to Matt.  I just don't think that it is a worthwhile exercise to argue with Matt any longer.  I know you tried to warn me Verne, but I just had to see it for myself to understand what you were talking about.

Here is what I had originally posted that Sondra must of thought was too disagreeable.  Please note that there may be minor differences in this to the content that Sondra censored as I remember making a few edits after posting (grammar, spelling, etc.).

OOPS. The system says "Your message is too long. Please go back and shorten it, then resubmit.".  I will continue with the original message broken into pieces in my next posts.  Hey Brian, can you allow us to post longer messages? (Sondra's bb allows longer messages)

My censored post from "Soaring with the Eagles" - Part 1 of 2


I'm sorry, but I do sincerely differ with your agreement with Matt's Rebuttals of Verne's thoughts on racism, and although I have been exposed to a fair amount of ugliness in this thread,  I am not sure what ugly point of view you are referring to.

Matt, please forgive me if I take some of your remarks out of context (or if I at least in your opinion I do).  I will attempt to temper my words, but something does need to be said regarding your attacks and lies concerning Verne Carty.  Matt, please examine your actions with an open mind.

Matt asks Verne:


White slave owners also accepted black slaves into their service.  I assume that this fact could not be used to show that the slave owners were not racists, after all their plantations were multiracial.  Your remark would seem to have the purpose of offending rather than reconciling. Could you possibly be trying to provoke our dear bother Verne?  Let's try to be constructive in this forum.  Would you like to take the first step Matt?  It is okay to be direct and open, but please do it with honesty and not with what may appear to be hatred.  Remember your title on the bb is "Dragon Slayer", not "Carty Slayer".

When Verne says:


You reply with:


Different people may like to classify the races differently, but regardless of this, "white" is a color not a race, and "Mexican" is  nationality not a race.  There is a good chance that what you call a Mexican and what you call a white both would have a good portion of Caucasoid genetic material.  Now depending on your definition of the word "racist", I would agree that not all of the body was "racist", but I also truly believe that an important part of the leadership in Fullerton was "racist".  I am also of the opinion that this racism (in Fullerton) was more directed at one specific race than at other races.  I don't think Verne is the one who is making (as you put it)  "an outrageous assumption", if you were not a perpetrator or a victim of the racism then it only makes sense that you would not be as aware of it unless you were looking for it.  I assume that most were not perpetrators, so I would tend to agree with Verne on why it is understandable that Verne's white brethren may not be as aware of the racism as he was.  I also would think that some did pay attention, but chose to look the other way and ignore it.

Ah, now I see you definition of racism:


I would have to disagree with this idea of racism.  I don't think that you have to say one race is superior than another to be a racist.  Viewing and treating different races differently would be enough (equal but different notion).  Of course racists may have a different view of this.  For example if you hosted a dinner and served the white skinned guests chateau briand, and the black skinned guests fried chicken, not because the white skinned guests were superior, but because you thought that all of the black skinned guests would like the fried chicken better because they were black, and you were only trying to please them and everyone else at the table, I would still consider this offensive racist behavior.  This would be true even if those receiving the fried chicken did like it better.

Also, remember your opinion of what is superior may differ with others.  Remember, leadership in Fullerton did not state that marriage should be within each specific race, but rather that some races could inter-marry while others shouldn't.  Sounds like they may have had a superiority problem after all.  That said, I don't believe discrimination based on race is always wrong for example if an actor with white skin got the part in a movie to play the character of Adolf Hitler over an actor with black skin because of the color of their skin was a superior representation of Hitler's skin, I would say that this was based on a racial discrimination, but I would not consider it offensive.  I would not call the person who made this decision a racist.  However, I do believe that there are those in the assembly leadership who could be justly called racists.

My censored post from "Soaring with the Eagles" - Part 2 of 2



Again I would have to agree with Verne.  Dan Notti is a sinner like all of us and is easily capable of spouting profoundly ignorant bilge, regardless if he is precious in God's sight or not.  And Tim Geftakys is also fully capable of having moronic musings.  I don't think that Verne said that these men were not precious in God's sight.  And I can't see where he called them ignorant, moronic or "contemptible bilge" (these things describe the ideas that they produced).  Yes he did call Dan pitiful and pathetic, but  "pathetic" means to be capable of arousing pity, sympathetic sadness and compassion.  Now I assume that in Verne's case he may have had a contemptible form of pity.  But don't even you have pity for this man?  I don't think that Verne's comments say that Tim and Dan are not precious in God's sight.  You surely must realize that despite all these things we can still be precious in God's site.


Matt, what do you have against Verne?  Please examine your heart.  You are coming off as being outright hateful. Verne didn't state that he condoned a physical attack on his brother.  He said that he exercised restraint against his instinct to cause physical harm.  This is quite the opposite of what you implied.  (Sondra: are you sure that you really "agree with his rebuttals of verne's thoughts"?)  Here is what Verne actually said:


I think that I am reading the exact same words that you are, but something must be changing the meanings of the words between what is on the page and your understanding.  Could it be that you have preconceived notions regarding Verne?  I have an idea what may be forming such notions, but I will not express this here.

It looks like I just might have a different opinion than you on who is or is not Godly.


Matt, Verne does not blame everything on his life on racism.  But just because you can't say that all of the evil in the world is all the fault of racism, does not mean that you can just simply excuse it.


Think about your post, Matt.  Others can already see how you treat others.

And when you feel that you "must help out Verne", remember to do it from love.

Here is a song that I was listening to today.  It has a message that we all could do well to pay attention to  (yes this includes me, you, and even Verne):

Replace It With Your Love

Where there's hate give me love
And where's there pride make me be humble
And where there's pain don't let me feel resentment
Deep inside I want You to make it right

So replace it with Your love in my heart
Replace it with Your love in my heart
Just take out all the hatred and cleanse every part
And replace it with Your love in my heart

When I'm tired lift me up
And when I'm weak, Lord don't let me falter
But if I fall don't let me harden to bitterness
Inside I want you to take it out

So replace it with Your love in my heart
Replace it with Your love in my heart
Just take out all the hatred and cleanse every part
And replace it with Your love in my heart

Lord, I'm just a man who wants to be like You
Living in Your perfect love in everything I do
So now I'm yielding, I'm giving all to you
To take out every wrong I feel inside

And replace it with Your love in my heart
Replace it with Your love in my heart
Just take out all the hatred and cleanse every part
And replace it with Your love in my heart

- Words and music by David Meece (from the album 'Count the Cost')

In a message to me she said that she did not want me to come to her bb "to fight or to be disagreeable".  I assume she must have censored my post, since my message disagreed with Matt's. It's her board and her purpose for it, who am I to argue. I do like "Honest and open exchange", so I am more than happy to not participate in her board.  I think that she has been very honest and open on what she wants her board to be, so let's just let it be.  For now, I can't see how arguing with them can do either them or me any good.  It has been a painfully frustrating but eye opening experience thus far.

For completeness, here is the reply that I referred to in my earlier message (the one I sent to Sondra for approval to post on her bb - she declined).  I will split this one into two pieces as well, as Sondra's bb allows for longer posts then this one (hmm, I wonder why).

My Rejected Response - Part 1 of 2

Sondra,

I am making my reply to you in a PM to see if it meets with your approval rather than first posting it on the public board.  It was my impression that the "Bitterness and Offense" topic had more bitterness and offense added to it by Matt, rather than as stated on the bb "give opportunity to discover God’s remedies to bitterness and offenses".  Despite what any of our views and opinions are of Verne Carty we should not be the perpetrators of lies against him.

Lets take a look at my post piece by piece.  I will include the portions which seem to have provoked a reaction from you and Matt.  I said:


Before I list the lies again, let me first clear something up.  You stated that I called Matt a liar:


And Matt stated that I said that he was a liar:


Now, just as in my post how I explained with example how I would not necessarily call someone a racist because they made a decision based on racial discrimination, it is also true that I would not "call" someone I liar because they say lies (i.e. statements that are not true).  This is why I had chosen not to "call" Matt a Liar, but rather comment on the details and lies of his post.  But this small but significant fact was lost when you deleted the content of my post and left behind your false statement that I called him a liar.  This leads to your readers getting a false impression of me.  BTW, I am quite capable of graciously accepting an apology.

Now on to the lies that Matt denies making.  I thought that I stated them clearly before.  But of course you deleted that post, so here it goes again.  Matt said:


Matt actually said that Verne condoned a physical attack on his brother, when in fact Verne said in the "below" message:


Notice that Verne didn't state that he condoned a physical attack on his brother.  He said that he exercised restraint against his instinct to cause physical harm.  This is quite the opposite of what Matt implied. I made this fact clear in my post that you censored.  But now that you removed the content of my post this little fact is lost, and Matt now freely states that he has never said a falsehood on any bb, when in fact this statement along with others in his reply are just more falsehoods used in Matt's path of seeming hatred.  Despite any preconceived notion of how bad or wrong Verne may be, this is no excuse to twist the truth to condemn him.  When I see someone acting like Matt with impunity, it deeply hurts my heart.  I thought that your bb was going to be a place where this type of thing wasn't supposed to happen, yet Matt's posts remain, and my post is censored.  Promoting lies and censoring truth is not the direction that we should be headed here.

My Rejected Response - Part 2 of 2

Well now lets take a look at something else that Matt said:


Now to be fair to Verne (which we should be no matter how much you disagree with him) I stated in my message that Verne didn't call these men "ignorant", "moronic" or "contemptible bilge". He said that Dan Notti spouted profoundly ignorant bilge, and Tim Geftakys had moronic musings.  This is quite a different thing than to actually "be" contemptible bilge.  Any implication otherwise is wrong (again despite what we think about Verne, and what we think his real feelings may be).  Remember, Dan Notti is a sinner like all of us and is easily capable of spouting profoundly ignorant bilge, regardless if he is precious in God's sight or not.  And Tim Geftakys is also fully capable of having moronic musings.  Despite all these things we can still be precious in God's site.  I don't think that Verne said that these men were not precious in God's sight.

Now looking at Matt's reply I see that he also has an issue with my example of why accepting blacks into fellowship to form a multiracial assembly is not proof that racism didn't exist (The "I can't be a racist, some of my best friends are black defense").  So that I don't misinterpret or twist Matt's words, here is his original statement:


And as a response I said:


Now the point here is that being multiracial is not proof that racism doesn't exists.  I never said that I was comparing black slavery to the assembly situation.  I only gave a clear example designed for easy understanding by Matt that the "fact" of a  multiracial environment was not enough to prove innocence of racism.  Yet Matt is permitted to post the following on your bb:


I find these statements offensive beyond words.  The only thing that makes this worse is that you removed my original post, that would have allowed people to see what I actually posted.  I am sorry, but I need to ask this question, and would appreciate a thoughtful answer:  With this type of behavior, why does Matt continue to be allowed to have an account on your bb and post his hateful, hurtful messages, yet I get censored?  A thoughtful answer is more important than a quick answer.

I also found Matt's statements on racism offensive.  I addressed this in my post that you censored, since to the best of my knowledge, Matt hasn't yet objected to my views on the bb, I won't bring this up again in this message.

When Matt says "Verne, I feel I must help you out - again", and then continues on in the way he does, it appears at least to me that he is simply trying to mock Verne, not help him.  This is wrong, and supporting this type of behavior is wrong.  As Christians it is a very worthwhile exercise for us to all look deep down in our hearts and examine our true motives.  You say that you would be surprised if I don't delete my account, well I am still undecided (surprise).  It may just well depend on my opinion of the admin of this here bb (I am still forming my opinion on her).  So what will it be, can I post my response to you and Matt on the bb?  I haven't sent a personal reply to Matt yet, as I anxiously await your response.

I leave you with a couple of verses from Psalm 139 that were going through my head when I woke up this morning (actually read the whole Psalm, it is quite beautiful!)

"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." - Psalm 139 Verses 23-24

All:

I posted on the "Soaring with the Eagles"  board and had the privilege of being e-mailed by Matt Peeling telling me he had to remove my post.  Too bad I can't recover it now...just wanted to show it to others to be sure I wasn't being offensive.  He accused me of continuing and defending "Verne's hatred of God's people" and that, when I asked me if he was saved (because I have heard from another that he wasn't) he assured me that he was and was indicated that he had reason to question my salvation.  Is this guy hypersensitive or playing a big game and why? ???

Matt Sciaini

It looks like Matt is still at it over at that other site:


As a quick reminder here is what Matt said:


And here is part of what I said (see earlier message for complete context - I have added red highlighting here to my statements that define my view that Matt seems to think is unconventional):


I am sorry Matt, but I would not call this as you put it "an unconventional view on racism".  You do not  have to say one race is superior than another to be a racist.  If someone feels that this is unconventional and feels that this isn't racism, then I dare say that they just may be a racist.  I don't know about your dictionary, but all mine give multiple definitions or examples of racism such as "discrimination or prejudice based on race".  Just because you don't meet one of the definitions of racism, does not mean that you are not a racist.  For example I read in the dictionary that "murder" means "to kill brutally" as well as other meanings such as "to kill another human unlawfully", now if someone kills another human unlawfully but not brutally, they are still guilty of committing murder. Well, yet once again communicating with Matt is producing extreme frustration for me. Could we possibly have a racist over on the SWTE site?  It could definitely explain some of the nasty attacks coming from there.  Anyone else out there think my view on racism is unconventional?


Hey Verne, did you realize that you hide behind the color of your skin.  Strange, I have never known you to be one to hide Verne.


Hey Verne, did you know that you think "that being black gives one license to hate God's people"? And Matt, just in case you don't realize it, Verne's being black does not give you license to hate him.

I have read racist drivel, but I don't think that Verne is the one spouting the racist drivel here.

I have to wonder why I even bother to look over at SWTE.  Now where is my blood pressure medication.  Oh when will I ever learn?

For the record:

This BB is not a house.  I have never intended it to be my house, or God's house.  I have never deleted anyone's speech here, with the exception of a long, very long humor thread.  I deleted that on January 18th, 2003, because the LB's in SLO found it offensive, and we were beginning a new relationship based on good will in Christ.  I do not regret deleting that thread, although several have expressed disatisfaction in my doing so.  (there might have been some anonymous posters that were deleted, but I don't think so.  Perhaps my critics can dig this up and correct me.)

I am not trying to raise up disciples,  and Verne certainly has not raised any for himself,  whether they are of the legalist or antinomian variety.

This is Brian Tucker's BB.  He alone bans and deletes.  I don't.  The only reason I am admin again has to do with a certain unpleasant situation a while back known as St. Louis Sister.

If I was trying to use this forum, or the website in order to meet some personal, emotional need, I would not have turned it over to Steve Irons.  In fact, the needs that I have, (my family mainly) were hindered by the website!  Quite the opposite of my "house."

I would like to point out a few minor differences between me and George, mainly for the benefit of 2 or 3 people who claim that I am like him.

1.) I admit my mistakes, in writing.
2.) I don't silence others who gainsay me
3.) I report all my income and pay as little tax as possible under the current laws.
4.) Instead of trying to get people to follow me, I am trying to get them to go to other churches, different churches.
5.) I have written my own thoughts, and have not plagiarized a single thought.  Contrarily,  I give credit where credit is due to my sources.
6.) I have never been unfaithful to my wife, and turned from my immoral ways before I was married.
7.) I have not repeatedly lied

Here are some similarities:

1.) I have been to Greece, Israel, Spain, Turkey, and other places.
2.) I am prideful and arrogant.
3.) I have read many of the same books that George has read
4.) I have gone to meetings where he was the main speaker
5.) We both had a significant financial interest in "the work."

You get the picture.  I know I said I wouldn't say more on this thread, and wouldn't have done this, unless Verne "snake" Carty had posted this nonsense.   ;)

I enjoy reading what everyone has to say about Jonathan and Fletcher Lynn,  but please leave me out of it.  Okay?

jBrent

I have been unable to look into the "seagull" site until today.  I guess the graphics overload Ole Betsy's RAM or something.

Today I had a few minutes at school, and the library computers are the manygigsdsl kind.

Sooo I took a look.

I looked like three people pretending they have something to say.

I suggest that the "seagulls" be accorded the same treatment the John D. Malone SEEEENIOR received.  

Why bother with arguing with the members of Operation Obtuse?

Thomas Maddux

Matt Peeling called me to apologize for his post on SWTE. I had emailed him about it this morning and someone posted something in my defense.

Got to go.
Lord bless,
Marcia

Much of what has been posted on SWTE bb has been the analysis and judgement of the hearts of individuals participating in this forum. This bb has provided a public place of discussion of the false doctrine and abusive practices of the cult founded by George Geftakys.
While I can appreciate the desire that all individuals be treated with respect, I can't understand why the main focus on SWTE is on the free speech of those hurt by the false teachings and abusive practices of the assembly.
Is it because they believe in the false doctrine of George Geftakys and his appointed Leading Brothers promoted ?  No time is spent addressing and correcting GGs false teachings.

I would like to make one long-distance comment to Sondra and Bob Smith and any-one-else-who-ventures-there. I have stayed out of the discussion on SWTE for the most part, because of what I have previously posted.

Please do not start speculating re. my family's assembly involvement. You have no idea what is really happening, and if you succeed in opening this can of worms it will backfire and end up exposing the Ottawa assembly in a negative way. This is not supposed to be the objective of SWTE. It reminds me of what Clinton did when he was being exposed for his sin; he created a diversion by bombing Iraq.

That's all for now,
Marcia

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Verne

 the   Satire With Terminal Elitism    website just seems to be leading to a dead end

matt gave us the answer to this months ago:


(emphasis added)


the occasional sondra post i have perused has been saturated with classic assembly doctrine, often even using the exact same vocabulary in a most heartfelt manner. how many years ago did she leave? 8? i find many of her ideas extremely chilling in their implications. doctrine that expects you to lop off parts of your essential personality in order to be higher and better can send those vulnarable to it for a serious mind trip. i would spend more time dissecting it if anyone were really listening to her, but as we can see by the number of posts:

Affirming  63
Matt  29
admin  7
alabaster1  3
Kimberley Tobin  2
Neisy Gomez  1
Narnian  1
Pickle 0
Bob Smith 0
Paydirt 0

noone is interested in discussing these things with them. note affirming and admin are both sondra, bringing her total to 70. i have been known to talk to myself on occasion, but this is out of control. you would think matt and her could have responded to the seven (7) other posts with perhaps slightly less than 99  :o replies! and (really) long meandering replies, too... my .02 is to not let them get under your skin, rather let them slowly fade back into the fog from whence they came.

brian

They define "PATHETIC". Their pitiful condition is evident to all but themsleves, a remarkable portrait of spiritual deception at its most virulent...
Does anybody doubt the Biblical teaching that some vessels are created to honor and some to dishonor? Behold and wonder...!
Verne

Reading SWTE is like listening to a Joan Baez album. ( I want to hug a tree)
I would rather read the untainted Word of God and have dialogue with a purpose on this bb.

The fact that the shameful apostasy of her mentors has in no way caused her to re-evaluate what she learned under their tutelage speaks volumes about the depth of her own deception-  a pity. She apparently learned nothing from the disgrace of George and Betty  Geftakys. There is no question in my mind that something is really wrong there...really wrong...I frankly do not care to know the details but the signs are undeniable.
Verne

It's good for getting that "assembly fix" on those days when we sooo miss hearing it the 'assembly way'. Just love that dizzy feeling.

Marcia

Hey Brian!
Can we charge those guys over at SWTE for postin' (more like stealin'!  ;D)stuff off our BB? If they are going to use the insightful commentary of our BB members to try to drive traffic on their own site don't you think we ought to make a little profit?  ;D
Hyuk! Huyk!
Verne

Just for the record:
Samuel Ochenjele and I have been dear friends for many years. We spent several days together in Champaign the second year he came to the U.S and  a deep and fast bond of fellowship and friendship developed between us. I have been told by several people that Samuel would ask about me every year he came to the U.S after I left and little did he know the pain of my own loss of our friendship and fellowship in Christ. When I saw Samuel for the first time in so many years a few weeks ago, the joy of our re-union is difficult to describe. He had asked Wayne to arrange our meeting. Despite his association with George, my own time and conversations with him then, and several subsequent phone calls while he was traveling confirm what I remembered about him, and that is that he is a man of integrity who loves Jesus Christ and His flock.
The comments on SWTE regarding my relationship with Samuel are vulgar, presumptuous and contemptible. They are a stunning example of the spiritual corruption of the perception and understanding of the person who made them. None of my initial comments about this man were tempered by my love for and friendship with him. Does this pathetic creature think that she is even in the same league with a man of Samuel's dignity, stature and integrity? I would be careful if I were you madam Jezebel. Your sick obsession with trying to make me look bad at any cost is leading you into some very treacherous waters indeed...and you don't swim too well...
Verne

Which tree do you think she has been gorging on....Hmnnnn?  ;D


Another blast from the past...

....Blah! Blah! Blah!...but you get the message... ;D


I couldn't resist this one  ;D

Stop! Your kindness is killing me!  ;D  ;D  ;D
Madam, I deeply regret having to inform you that your problem is far more serious than just having been around the block a couple(?) of times (your words not mine...)
Verne

..this is really too easy...
btw in my "rude" e-mail I called her a vessel of wrath...I guess I really shouldn't have done that now should I...? Oh Well, too late to take it back now!
Funny, the only other person I gave that designation to is you-know-who...turns out it was indeed prophetic...there she is in the full flower of her glory on SWTE...Lord help us!... :)

Trippin' is what she does best! don't you think?  8)
Verne
Hey! I never said TIPPING! ... :o

Yeah, I know it explains a lot but I never said that now did I...huh?

Bugs: ahhhh(crunch, crunch, crunch) What's Up Doc? Hey, has you guys been to dat utter bulletin boyd?

Daffy:  It'th dithpicable!!!

Foghorn Leghorn: Ah say, Ah say, I say Boy!! Don't you be sayin' nothin' until you read the articles...

Porky: I...I d. d. did. and they're incompre..., incompre...
incompre... uh,,I didn't get them.

Elmer Fudd: When you go in you have to be vewy, vewy quiet. And be vewy, vewy caweful what you say therwe. Or you might nevew, nevew be able to go therwe again.

Sylvester: Sufferin succotash!!! Who cares about Bulletin Boards anyways?? I'm hungry!!!

Tweety: Hey putty tat!! I do. I wike to go and wead da articles der. But I get sooooo sweepy(yawn).

Yoesmite Sam: Shut up you no good bushwackin' barracudas!! You know I can't read!!!

Bugs: Uh, Ok Doc..I was just askin',  dat's all. What a maroon.

Yosemite: What was that, you jabberin' furball???

Bugs: Uh... Nothin' Doc.

I know I said I wouldn't say anything about the "Eagles," but when I saw the post on David and Judy, I had to say something.

Anyone who has any questions about this should read Rachel's story on the main geftakysassembly.com website.  Then they should view the restraining order.  Then they should speak to Rachel and Judy.  

Then, after having done that, they should read what Sondra and Matt wrote over there.  Having done so, they should draw their own conclusions.

If any of you thinks you can engage the eagles without being "courteous" I think you are mistaken.  I am greatly angered by what I read there and can only conclude that it is an attempt to attract attention.  I suggest that the utmost discretion be exercised before visiting that forum.  

If you disagree, they will delete you, so don't bother trying to respond.  They are far too moderate to allow that.

Brent

Yep! Yep! Yep! 'Dem are some reeaaaal looney tunes!
Verne

A word of advice.  The proper response to these two is not anger, nor indignation for that only serves to confirm their delusions of relevance. The proper response to these two in my humble opinion is........

  ;D WITHERING RIDICULE! ;D  ;D

Not too many instances in which I advocate this as a meaningful dialectical strategem but in this case? Have at it...you owe it yourselves! Just think of it as make-up for lost opportunity while you were actually in the assemblies! This is a skill you might certainly be called upon to exercise again sometime in the future (what a frightful thought huh?)
Now, where were we...?   Ah yes...I do believe we were discussing looney tunes? ;D
Verne

The more you sweat in practice...
The less you bleed in battle!

Get it?

my conclusion exactly. and just when i thought i could not despise them any more profoundly...

brian

Well! Well! Well! I guess the High Priestess of Pablum does occasionally read her Bible - she knows who Jezebel is! Very good! We are making progress.
Now, as to your erudite observations regarding God's judgment, let me dispel some of that fog evidently shrouding your cranium:
What's your hurry?
You of all people should understand the immutability of God's clear pronouncement:

Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

and

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Oh I know you think you have the power to change times and laws but you are quite mistaken. I know how you enjoy lifting bits and pieces of God's Word to justify your perverted perspective but why don't we just wait a little bit longer hmmmn? Did you read the entire story you so glibly referenced? Peter warned us about scoffers just like you!  :)

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.  2 Peter 3:3

I would direct you to the sage observations of even a pagan like Leo Tolstoy:

The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine!

I fear you are not nearly so instructed as you fancy yourself my dear dilettante...your spiritual dyslexia is starting to really sohw... :)
Verne

Man you guys don't know the half of it...it's going to get much better...please stand by... ;D




It is a safe bet that most people reading here are at least passingly familiar with the David and Judy saga. I certainly would not recommend any one's polluting their minds with that interminable tripe they have written about the matter...it will just piss you off... ;D

Verne

Could that be hallucinogenic virola bark Matt?  Maybe that could explain the "trippin'". ;D  So how high do you have to be to soar with the eagles? ;D


But in all seriousness, I am not sure what they are trying to do over there.  But I do know that there does not appear to be any reasoning with them.  They appear to have their own idea of reality, and arguing with them only seems to aggravate the situation.  When someone is not rational it is difficult to argue with them.  At least not without having a great deal of frustration.  I don't think many are fooled by them, so it probably is best to just let them be.  Perhaps they are fooled by themselves, I don't know.  Perhaps they are not even really thinking about how ridiculous their words are before they share with us how things are in their world, I don't know.  Does it matter?  I have read a lot of ridiculous statements on their bb, but I just don't feel like arguing with them anymore.

Maybe they are beginning to get to me.  I recently had a dream about Matt.  He was in the body of Wayne Knight (Newman from Seinfeld).  He was chasing us while throwing darts, and with every dart he threw he gave a little giggle.  The darts didn't hurt that much, but he just wouldn't give up.  So even though he was pretty harmless I guess, he was still most annoying.

I really can't explain those soaring folks.

HMMM... where do I step in? It seems that this dance has been going on for quite some time... I'll start by introducing myself. My name is Sarah Hoffee, daughter of Elaine Hoffee and niece of Sondra Jamison. Both of which I am proud to be related to. I am now 26 years old (almost 27!) and remember some of your names from when I was a child. I have some very fond memories of the people I met due to the construction of the assembly. I have heard about what has happened in the assembly. Only today did I venture on to this board and read this topic. I was hesitant about coming on here because frankly it does not seem like a board of believers but a war zone. I didn't come here to make some haughty claims as to what God has done in my life. To share the struggles He has brought me through, the supernatural miracles He has performed on my behalf, or what we are currently working on together. Why?--- Because no one here cares. But I will share one thing. I have spent the last 5 years of my life with a ministry that is credible and well known. Straight on with doctrine, strong in faith, reaching the lost and involved in many worldwide ministries. And as effective as all of that was... when it was all stripped down --love--- was missing. Now you can accuse my aunt of being a "tree hugger" and you can scoff at "spirit man" and you can hiss and moan and spout out the largest words in your vocabulary aimed to make someone feel small. But, I know through personal conversations with her that she has loved and continues to have sincere love for you guys. My aunt is loving, she devotes her life to Christ and has spoken in divine wisdom to many- to their benefit. No one here would know that. And maybe nobody here should. Maybe she is the only one posting on her site... I have posted a couple times Alabaster1. For those of you who are interested. I've always known that the only one you could ever trust was God. But, it is sad when you are just waiting for the "christians" to come out and "greet" you. I really don't know what to expect in response to this post. Some, I am guessing based on past post will have the tendency to jump out and attack- though maybe they will be quiet. Either way I'm sure I will be grouped in with the "soaring with the beagles" as someone so creatively stated. But that's okay. In fact I would prefer to be counted with the fewer than the greater. especially when the fewer believe that God is a "mystical", creative, Creator Who  is constantly working with us to develop His resemblance within us. I know I am not addressing a lot of the triffling issues I've seen here and I will not. And in the tradition of scripture quoting..."Set me as a seal upon thine heart,as a seal upon thine arm:for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned." S.O.S- And because people here so freely state what they find as offensive--"this entire topic has been offensive." How can I say that? because the Spirit of God in me squinched at too many of the things that have been written- like having to sit in a room where there was constant screeching on a chalkboard .But, We endured and my eyes have seen again- that love here (for the most part) is absent.Yes- I am like my aunt and write on and on. But, isn't it amazing when people can write things of Quality in Quantity  :) I most likely will not make another post on this board seeing as how I never enjoyed jousting with the name callers, while the rest of the kids had a good time. (I guess it just depends on what you consider fun?) Scary - some of you seem to find this so enjoyable.- sarah

Miles and Miles!  Ask the Byrds... 8)
Verne

Welcome Sarah!
I have a little seven-year old who looks very much as I remember you. (I still have a photo of you somewhere sitting in my brand new Subaru RX7 3-Dr Coupe). It is indeed a pity that you have stepped into what is indeed a veritable war zone. The recent events in the course of assembly matters show these to be issues of life and death albeit sometimes obscured by strident language and high emotions. As much as you love your Aunt, I must tell you that she is wrong on every position she has taken in regard to the assemblies, what they taught, and what they stood for, your fond memories notwithstanding. Her understanding of the nature of the gospel is also sadly,  seriously flawed. You must also understand that your Aunt sometimes plays rough and so do we. I would hope that before you jump to any conclusions you would fully consider the proper context in which the exchages you have been witnessing have been taking place. I appreciate your courage in posting and you will get nothing but the utmost of respect and courtesy from me, regardless of your viewpoint. You have my word on that young lady... :)
Verne

p.s. How is your little brother?

Physically Matt is about as unlike Wayne Knight as I could imagine.  Matt probably weighs 130 tops.  :)

Well, in my dream he was "in" the body of Wayne Knight, and I guess at 130, he could easily fit "in the body of Wayne Knight".  This was a seriously weird dream.  I kept on running across a very narrow long lake and up mountains on either side, and this nasty giggle kept on following.  It only took me a matter of seconds to run across the lake and up the mountains, so this dream is not really grounded in reality, but perhaps gives some indication of my feelings about Matt.  To me the other bb just seems like an annoyance that only gets worse if you pay any attention to it.  It's like scratching an itch, it may end up doing more harm than good (but I really really want to scratch). At this point I don't think that it is doing Matt, Sondra or anyone over here any good.

I will probably end up being sorry, but I feel a need to scratch an itch again.


I don't know why you are thinking that, perhaps thinking is not your strong suit. :)  Hey, I can throw darts too.  But that didn't help much, I guess. And for some reason I had pictured you as looking like Freddie Prinze Jr.: :)
(http://www.assemblyboard.com/YaBBImages/avatars/freddie_prinze_jr.jpg)
Perhaps you saw me as the Red Creature:
(http://www.assemblyboard.com/YaBBImages/avatars/redcreature.gif)
Well, at least the Matt in my dream didn't speak except for a giggle. Another dart, but still not helping, hmm.  Now as to why you were in my dream, perhaps there is some characteristic about you that is more extreme than I have seen elsewhere.  Actually, I think part of it is that I have been trying to restrain from posting comments on some of the more recent stuff that has been posted over at the eagles sites, and there has been some stuff said that has been really bothering me.  So maybe you are beginning to get under my skin.  I'll try not to scratch at it again.  But just to let you know, it really really itches.

There is nothing wrong with being 130 pounds (or even 145).  Certainly nothing to be offended over.  Many out there can only wish they were 130 again (notice Retread raising his hand).  However some may take offense to being called ugly, fat, loud, chubby or weird.  Some of us are just so sensitive. :)

p.s. Wayne Knight isn't that ugly, he just has a lot of "character" to his appearance.

I was considering registering on SWTE as MGov. Do you think they'll know it's me? 8)
Maybe Jane Doe, or James Smith or Aicram (a la Daerter) might work. I'll have to check in with Sondra first to find out how I'm feeling; she seems to know me better than I know myself. :)

No, I do not know who Bob Smith is. Will someone please enlighten me?

Marcia

Niaga Daerter,

What a weird name.  Maybe the weirdness of the name is the reason for the weird dream.  After all, someone who throws darts could be called a darter.  I suppose there is a slight resemblance between again-Niaga and Wayne Knight.  Do you remember having any weird dreams way back when you first started posting with the name retread?

There are many mysteries about how the brain works.  Nerves are optimized for processing statistical information.  This makes it difficult for them to cope with rare and single occurance type of events.  I believe that during sleep, such rare events are reprocessed into a sequence of patterns with variations that are used to produce a statistical type of signal that the nerves can use to adjust their programming.

Either that or maybe I should just stop eating Pizza before going to bed. :)

Narnian,

You don't have to defend me. It's OK. This BB plays a very important role, it helps Sondra from being idle. Who knows what else she'd be up to, otherwise.

Do you think that if I posted "BLACK" that she'd reply to my post with "WHITE" and vice-versa?

Sondra, my husband remains in the assembly to spy for me so that I can post current information on the Ottawa assembly.

Marcia

Verne-  It has been a while. I'm glad to hear your daughter is cute. (looks like I did- cute, same thing)haha. Though I don't know why an old picture of me should be in your brand new Subaru (sorry I forgot the style) coupe ??!? But, I've never really been a picture person. Although my brand new digital camera the Fuji FinePix 2650 has made picture taking more enjoyable for me. Gotta love how there is no development time involved... Hmm. development time- thats an interesting subject. If I understood your last post properly- then GG development time is over. ---Though he is still living ----- God has exhausted all efforts and will now leave him to be consumed by his own sinful desires until he dies and burns in hell. ?  And I thought I was impatient in seeing what I wanted. Suggestion to God..." Don't throw away the negative, if You want quicker results- go digital, or if the object of interest does not appear as desired try in different setting with different lighting.. oh but what would I know." But I think I strayed from the topic you weren't saying that God is still interested in GG, you were saying He is finished with him. ... Hopefully your daughter is photogenic.

Anna Charis is seven and the light of my life along with her sister Christina who is four. Both very photogenic indeed!  :)



I think it was after a seminar and I must have been assigned to give you a ride home or something of the sort. I will have to see if I can dig that one out sometime
 
 
I am enamored with all things digital. I have a 3.2 megapixel Casio QV3000EX and take 'em by the thousands! I also have a Canon powershot of silmilar quality. We will have to compare archives someday.



Not sure about his destiny. I have spent a lot of time trying to understand what God's Word says about men like him. I do respond to entreaties to pray for him but my own sense if I understand Scripture correctly is that the prognosis in not favorable.



It depends on what God's purpose is concerning George -whether he is intended to be a vessel of glory, or a vessel of wrath. If the latter, any entreaties on his behalf are futile. He is already judged. But enough with the heavy stuff. I will see if I can dig up that pix. Great to talk to you after all these years. Be sure to say hi to Chubby and Linda Todd.
Verne

"We feel led to close our sight soon."

The latest from "Seagulls". Of course most of us are convinced that this was already the case...that is to say, their "sight" (watch out for that "third eye" ) has been closed since inception... :)

Why is it that supposedly savvy cybernauts cannot distinguish between the words "site" and "sight"? For somebody in real estate, one would have imagined the mantra - location, location , location!, as in S-I-T-E  would have triggered some scant recognition (am I being too subtle here...? Naaaahhhh!)  ;D
Go figure. Anybody sorry to see 'em go?...didn't think so... O.K., back to ignoring 'em.
Verne

Verne,

Maybe she meant to say sights, like the sights down a gun barrel. If that is the case, then 'close our sights' could mean zoom in OR it could mean closing down. Time will tell what it really is.

Marcia :)

Uh Oh...! Where's the Kevlar?  ;D
Should we go ducking for cover?  ;D
Verne

For sure Verne, you of all the people should. She's definitely had her 'sights' on you since the beginning.

Marcia

YIKES!!....IN-COMING....!!!!  ;D
Verne

P.S. But semi-seriously, what does it tell you about the desperate wickedness of the human heart that after all that God has shown us about who George Geftakys was and the destructive perversion of what he taught, that someone would erect a public forum to defend this apostate and attempt to continue promulgation of his damnable heresies? We batttle not against flesh and blood folks...believe it...your spiritual life depends on it...
Verne

YIKES!!  SHE'S NOW A MARRIAGE COUNSELLOR??!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!  ???  ???   ???
Verne

Very well stated Andrea!  Since Sondra feels led to close her site soon, hopefully this problem will go away soon.  I must admit that I still take a peek there every once in a while, but it has only ever brought frustration for me, and no good has come from it.  The only things I post about recently (other than the nonsense on the stats thread - which I greatly enjoy by the way) seem to be regarding what happens over at the soaring site.  On to better things I say!

     Those who have been around here awhile may recall that some months ago i extended myself to the fullest on behalf of those who now call themselves "eagles."  That was when they were still posting on this BB.  It was not that i believed as they do, but that i thought that the extending of the hand of fellowship could open their eyes and eventually win them over.    i stood against those who posted harshly against them, ultimately to my own detriment.
     How very wrong i was.
     i received two personal invitations to come & post on the new "eagles" BB when it began.    i responded with personal emails, which were never answered.  Then i visited the new BB and read what was there.    i never posted there & i only returned a couple of times to follow up on something i had read here.
     i was deeply saddened by the eagles' doings, as was Andrea:  they behave as little children, piping a tune then complaining that no one will dance to it.  It still grieves me to see someone render lip service to Christ then behave in a manner dishonoring to him.
i cannot imagine what it does to the heart of God.
     i'm not sure it was right of Joe to name this thread "...Seagulls."  Seagulls may be scavengers, but the comparison still seems almost demeaning to them.

al

One of the things the presence of the Spirit of God in our lives should do for us is give us discerment. One of the most painful things for me to observe is what happens to God's people who lack it. Oh that God would give us eyes to see beyond the merely apparent....wise as serpents, harmless as doves...
Verne

Al----

The title actually got changed along the way by someone. I had suggested before it should be called "Snoring with the beagles". On a daily basis I get to work a little early and then visit SWTE, RFTW and then this BB. I visit SWTE out of curiosity mostly, and "because it's there" I suppose. I don't stay very long(but I'll check back on occasion through the day as I do with the other BB's too) because it's usually the same thing---posts put up as replies to a few people here for something they have said, or articles dealing with the "problems" most of us"apparently" have over here dealing with bitterness and anger, etc. I'm not sure if that BB could exist if there weren't  this one---because everything written on it has to do with this one, or the people here. But I know I will continue to visit and read the stuff there---I'm a glutton for punishment I guess :D.  take care Al, and it's good to see you posting once again :)

--Joe

One of the most fascinating things about the way God compares sin to the disease of leprosy, is the manner of acquisition of injuries. There is no one who is not surprised to learn that the terrible disfigurement of the leper in the form of deformed and eroded limbs and appendages, has little to do with the disease itself, but are rather the result of the desensitization caused by the disease's presence. It is truly a fascinating thing to observe a spiritual leper. The notion of a seared conscience is exactly the imagery evoked by the plight of the poor leper. I am so glad I met the Great Physician! Aren't you?  :)
Verne

Joe,
     What do you have against beagles?  They're loud, not terribly bright, & good to stay upwind of, but still they are loyal & faithful little beasts.  
     Think along the lines of "Spying With the Smeagols" or "Roaring With Our  Beaks Full."  Now don't those bring endless apt comparisons to mind?
     A few years ago, both Marvel and DC comics introduced to their readers the "crossover" concept, by which various superheroes appeared in each other's stories.  This had the dual effect of introducing readers to various characters they had heretofore not known, and bringing extra income to the publishers.
     While the crossovers between the Smeagols & this BB are not without some entertainment value, they appear to be spiritually unprofitable and their several characters are not new, nor are they superheroes.  
     Let's get together.  You drive.  i'll spring for lunch... ;)

al

Isaiah 29
20   For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
21   That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
22   Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.
23   But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.
24   They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

Sondra:

I forgive you for your unfounded accusations towards me regarding a cover-up that you were led to believe existed.  Thank you for asking.

Yes, I am a "public" figure in our small little world, and I expect and deserve criticism.  However, the edifying, faithful criticism that can turn a person from folly must be based in truth.

I believe you acted based on what you thought was true, when you said the things you said, and called me out on false charges.  As it turns out, it wasn't true at all,  and I forgive you for it.

The reason I reacted so strongly was not at all because I had something to hide.  That has never been my style.  It had to do with a genuine fear of having my name associated with the financial dealings of the Geftakys Assembly, especially in such a manner as to imply that I mishandled funds.  I don't want to be standing anywhere near George right now, when it comes to this subject.

If you ever do find out some dirt on me, please let me know about it, and I'll publicly apologize for it.

Like this:

I was foolish to threaten to sue you.  It was the wrong response and was indeed a "soulish" action, brought on by anger.  I was angry, and I sinned.  I am not going to go back and edit what I said about this, otherwise people won't get to see how I can put my foot in my mouth, and then take it back out with the help of my wife.

Please do not re-insert your suggestions on how much money I may have mishandled in order to follow my example.  It could hurt me, or cost me some valuable time.

I have never maintained that I am without sin, and still don't.  

Brent

Your apology will read a lot differently when you take the word "if" out and own your confession.  It is what the Lord requires when we confess our sins to Him and to one another.  Yes,  you have offended,  you have misspoken, and you have discouraged.  I do forgive you.

Suzie

Your apology will read a lot differently when you take the word "if" out and own your confession.  It is what the Lord requires when we confess our sins to Him and to one another.  Yes,  you have offended,  you have misspoken, and you have discouraged.  I do forgive you.

Suzie
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________


Sondra,

     Suzie is right.  i had to learn the same lesson right here on this BB under similar circumstances:  "IF" sounds very gracious when we hear ourselves say it-- it lulls the conscience into a false sense of having rendered a confession when in reality we have only hinted at the possibility that we might have erred.
     "IF" lobs the ball back into the other parties' court, placing the onus of responsibility back upon them-- "Sure, i'll confess.  Right after you name my sins for me."  This action places those to whom we owe apology into the awkward position of having to appear to be our accusers, demanding our apology (when we should be volunteering it unconditionally), while allowing us to feel wronged, slighted, innocent.
     As you so aptly point out, "All of us are sinners and bear guilt."  Those of us who are "iffy" about the nature of our sin and guilt are often the ones in greatest need of repentance.  i was.

al

Anger is indeed an interesting animal.  Anger can be brought about by sin, and can lead to further sin, but neither of these things are necessary.  Paul says "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath".  Or in the words of Charles and Mary Lamb:

Anger in its time and place
May assume a kind of grace.
It must have some reason in it,
And not last beyond a minute.

If to further lengths it go,
It does into malice grow.
`Tis the difference that we see
`Twixt the serpent and the bee.

If the latter you provoke,
It inflicts a hasty stroke,
Puts you to some little pain,
But it never stings again.

Close in tufted bush or brake
Lurks the poison-swelled snake
Nursing up his cherished wrath;
In the purloins of his path,

In the cold, or in the warm,
Mean him good, or mean him harm,
Wheresoever fate may bring you,
The vile snake will always sting you.

And speaking of snake attitudes and bee attitudes (er, beatitudes that is), the Lord gives us a much better example of how to respond to those who mistreat us:

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." - Matthew 5:11

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" - Matthew 5:44

Too often we have a knee jerk reaction and can be quick to anger, while taking to long to lose the anger (the other way around is much better).

"This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;" - James 1:19

I wouldn't worry too much about anger as long as you are like the bee and not the snake.  Although sometimes it is hard to be as the bee when one is surrounded by snakes.

And, I see that you are a man that is willing to accept help from his wife, Brent.  Not only are you blessed to have such a wife as Suzie, but she is blessed to have such a husband as you.

     I may stand alone in this opinion, but I have long thought that a voluntary, unsolicited statement of "No comment" is, in and of itself, a comment.  ...but what do I know?  
     Anyway, in this case, I have no idea how to interpret the comment I suppose Marcia to have made, so the only purpose of my post is to provoke further thought...

al

     Today I received a PM suggesting that someone on the Soaring With the Eagles (swte) board indicated the possibility that I have some regular communication with members of that board.

     My most recent exchanges of emails with two of the regulars there were as follows:  They each EM'd me to politely request to be removed from my address book.  That was the first time I had heard from either of them in months.  I complied with their requests, notifying them each that I had done so.  Shortly following that, one of them EM'd me to criticize a recent post of mine on this BB, to which I responded, to which he again responded.  Then the other one EM'd me to criticize my response to the first one.
     My last responses to both of these have gone unanswered, for which I am grateful.  There is also a third party at swte with whom I once corresponded, months ago.  I care very much for the spiritual welfare of all three of these, and I pray for them.  But my correspondence with them has reached an end.
     I have not visited swte in months, so I cannot comment on its present state.  The reason I stopped reading there is that I perceived the board's format as being dishonestly conducted and spiteful in nature.  Christ was not central, was not being honored.  Openness was not only discouraged, but was denied.  I don't recall that I ever posted there.  My opinions are now outdated, but I have no desire to revisit.  What goes on there doesn't concern me, and I haven't time for idle curiosity.
     I am not criticizing any who do visit or post there, nor suggesting that anyone stop doing so.  I am only stating my own position because someone over there has apparently indicated a current link with me which does not exist.
     I will still read EMs from anyone, but I will not reply to messages that show me no hope of commonality.  My response to such is to pray, not react.  I have reacted to provocation in the past.  It has borne no fruit.
     If this post does not answer questions you may have, or raises questions, please address them to me here or by PM or EM as you see fit.  There is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed...

God bless,
al

     Since my last post (above) I have received the following in an email:


     It is odd that someone would address remarks to me and to someone else about me on a board that she should know I have not visited in months.  I still have not gone there and don't intend to, but since someone has drawn to my attention the above comments, I will respond here.  This seems appropriate, since the swte'ers apparently come here for material to discuss on their forum.
 
     I have defied Brent, even accusing him of deliberately practicing "insanity" against the Lord's people.  The posts are still there for anyone to see.  His response was harsh, severe, but honest and open.  I was never blackballed.  I have never asked Brent or Brian why, but I suspect it was because I was open and honest on my end.  Even in PMs & EMs to Brent, I entreated him from my point of view and made known that none of my communications were secret; that he could share or publish anything I had written.
     Those who walk in the Light need have no fear of the darkness.  I seldom PM, but I have no fear of anyone finding out what I have written.  Such secrecy is for children and for those who live by their wits and not by faith in the Son of God.
     There are discretion and confidentiality, but those warrant an entirely different discussion than this.
     It is true that such words as friendship and love mean different things to different people.  That is precisely why we need to discern from His Word what they mean to God, and convert our hearts and minds to accept His definitions.

     The second quote is the more troubling.  Brent has admitted that he enjoys debate.  And it's true that he can be "dogged" at it.  I called him on a comment that I thought was uncharitable ("condescending" is not an unreasonable term for that one remark), and we moved on.  On the whole, I consider His posts to be blunt, but again, condescending is how he may come across to some.  How one interprets another's words is often dictated by one's own self image and sense of security or lack thereof.
     Some of the main posters on this BB exude self confidence.  I have always been in a natural awe of such persons.  But I have learned & am learning to fear God more than these.  What possible worth could there be to projecting before men an illusion of being right if God is displeased?  No, I don't think Brent and I feel threatened by each other, but even if we should feel so, we are not likely to be governed by such feelings.  Faith in Christ puts the lie to the fear of men.
     Sondra is the second "eagle" to mention my backbone recently.  Backbone at swte seems to define doing battle with Brent, or Verne, or Tom M., or Mark C., or whoever is making declaratory statements about the vast gulf between the gospel of Christ and the assembly.  What I have been using more of lately is not backbone, but a renewed faith in the goodness and strength and completeness of the Lord Jesus Christ.
     As for crumbling in humility, humility is characteristic of Jesus and I'm happy if His humility can be seen in me.  But Jesus never crumbled, so if that's what you see me doing, it's me falling short.  It would explain why I keep having to sweep the floor aroung my computer chair... :D
     Pecking order?  There's only one to be concerned with:  God first, my neighbor second, me last.  All that about the first being last & the last first is God's call, not ours.

Sondra and associates,

     I don't mind your talking about me on your BB, but if you have something to say to me, please use email so I don't have to get it secondhand.  I say this because I stopped visiting swte after realizing that there was nothing there for me.  These quotes I was sent do nothing to change my mind about that.  I will read what you email me.  But I probably won't reply.  I wish you all that the Lord holds in store for you, and hope that you may enjoy it.

al Hartman


     

 


     Fascinating:  I am the only one posting on this thread, and the only responses are coming to me secondhand from that other BB...
     Here's the latest:


     I have posted this just so all on this BB can see the devious mentality behind that board.  The whole purpose of the post quoted above appears to be to draw me into dialogue.  The person who sent it to me asked to not be named or talked about on this BB (or anywhere else), but invited me to feel free to badmouth their BB.  I had to receive the message through a second party because its author, although having access to my email address, elected to address me again on the board I never read.

     My previous two posts on this thread were in the interest of the common good to readers both here and there, but the game is already afoot to twist my words and intentions for the sake of quarreling.  I will not be drawn into pointless bickering.  I was once a very good arguer, but I finally realized that even when I won, I won nothing.  The victories were empty.  Nothing good or lasting or even honorable was achieved.  So I gave it up.
     This is my final post addressing swte or anyone associated with it.  God considered them worthy of the sacrifice of His Son.  If they have a problem with my conduct, they may take it up with Him.

al Hartman

Verne, Is your comment based on a Calvinistic mindset?

Al, I will say it again, I am happy for your emergence from the fog of Geftakysism. Obviously, it will take some time to come-clean of the assembly influence, but you have made the most important step in your decision to emerge. The righteous are bold as a lion.

At this time I would also like to make this comment about Sondra. When I received a private email to join SWTE, I refused to do so because of my past experience with Sondra. In my annonymous days, I used to PM and EM (yes, she knew my identity) Sondra. We would discuss a topic, and then we'd circle around and be back at where we had started. After a while I decided that it would not be profitable to continue my communication with her and emphatically told her that I would not be siding with her or anybody on the BB, because I was looking for the truth of the matter re. the assembly. This all happened while I was still MGov. Sondra's spirituality is akin to GG's and I saw no point in debating with her. Also, she has a particular bent against Verne, and it would appear, Brent as well. Though I still disagree with Verne and Brent on some issues, I do not have a bent against them because of those disagreements. For the most part however, I agree with Brent and Verne and others. I see no point in 'fighting' and prefer to have a 'no comment' attitude to what is posted on her BB. At one point I warned them to leave my family out of it because I knew that my husband was considering 'exitting' the assembly. So all of their comments on how does my husband feel, are now clearly answered. ....

That's all for now,
Lord bless,
Marcia

Al---

Unlike you, I had been a regular visitor at Soaring With The Egos for quite a while. Curiosity drew me there, because you were always "guaranteed" to see a post regarding what someone posted on this BB.

Even the articles were written in such a way(most of the time) as to comment about this BB or the  people on it through some "spiritual lesson".  I have made the commmitment not to visit there any more, and so far :D have kept the commitment. I'm a person of habit, so I would daily visit all 3 BB's and read new posts each morning. It's hard to break some "habits" even if it means not clicking on a simple website. But I sincerely think I will be much better off for it.

Thanks for your comments Al, and your honesty.

--Joe

                                            NO COMMENT

           ;)al :D

Verne,

Perhaps I totally misread your post, but your explanation seems either contradictory or rather......condescending?  Since your conclusion reached is basically centered on the thought that we are unable to infallibly know another Man's "heart", and as it was in reference to "universal salvation" - it is rather brash to make any statements regarding said salvation to be exclusive to a certain set of people out of the whole ("salvation" being used to describe the availability of such; not the application).  

Basically, what train of logic will hold the first contention; yet allow parameters for the second?  It just seems to be wrong or inappropriate to me.

--
lucas

You don't.

S

The referred to qoute has nothing to do with the "application" of salvation, only the availablity. I believe you misread mine as your responses have everything to do with a topic I specifically excluded in my statement?

Regardless, if your intent was to exemplify the inability of Man to judge if another is "saved", I completely misunderstood your original statement  ;)

--
lucas

This thought would be condusive to restricting Man's free choice, would it not?  Actually, before I assume, is salvation automatically applied to every Man (no action whatsoever on Man's part, All Man go to heaven)?  If not, this becomes an availabilty and not an inherent trait.
--
lucas

God's initial purpose was to give Man Free Will; adding this qualification seems to indicate that you believe every Man will be saved, regardless of actions in their life?  Anything else would be counter-intuitive to your presented argument.



So we keep qualifying until everyone is appeased of his or her place in this scenario?  If all men will not be saved, how can you say that God's purpose was "to save" AND say that God will achieve his purpose?  It is for this reason that the distinction is made.



(i should note, it is not quite fair to the discussion to edit your old posts to fix your statements to support new points ;)  Any following comments where made on the faith of those statements; what you stated and not necessarily what you were thinking
--
lucas

I would prefer not to begin discussing why we were given free will and the auspices of God, as it is irrelevant to the initial purpose of my presence on this thread.  I will say, however, that in my view, Christ's purpose was not to control neither our actions nor our final outcome, merely provide an alternative to certain "death".  If you believe we ultimately have no choice, that souls are either destined for heaven or hell, I would shake my head at your despondent view but would accept it  ;)

So where do the differences between heaven and hell become manifested within a Man's life?  


I did not mean to call you a "cheater" or anything of the sort  ::)(nor do I neccesarily care about "winning") - rather, I feel it would be more clear to the people following through this read to add clarity in the resulting posts, rather than infusing it haphazardly throughout.  It is simply the nature of the medium upon which we are conveying our ideas.


I would like you to be expressively clear here. What do you appraise to be God's purposes for Man?  How far does Man's "free will" extend?  Does it have an impact upon each one's final destination (heaven/hell)?

--
lucas

The Lord Jesus Christ clearly told us what His purpose was in John 6:37-39:

 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."  

His purpose was clearly to save all those whom the Father has given Him, and this is exactly what He will do.


We have a choice. The problem is that since the fall, human beings make the wrong choice, apart from the grace of God. Fortunately, God also has a choice, and rather than letting the entire human race perish, He chose to save some. Those whom He has chosen will come to Christ (see John 6:37) and be saved by Him. Those whom He has not chosen will make their own choices and suffer the consequences.

H,

Please look for my reply to this post over on the "Salvation is a Gift" thread.

Tom

2Peter 3:9  "For God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance".

Some might say the "any" and "all" referred to is just those that Jesus died for in a limited atonement. But can those who he died for in a limited atonement perish?  Are these not the elect, forever predestined to be saved and go to heaven? But it says that God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Does this not argue for the fact that Jesus died for ALL men, and God has no desire that they perish, but wants them to come to repentance?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes on him should not perish, but have everlasting life".-------

"But ye are not of the world...."(referring to those who have accepted him).  "Therefore the world hateth you..."      Yet--it says "God so loved the world"---does this not argue for an atonement that is not limited? God loves the world and is not willing that any in it persih, but that ALL might come to repentance. Of course, we realize that many will ultimately reject him--but can we legitimately say that the Lord did not die for them, but only for the elect?
I don't believe so--but it's just my opinion.

--Joe

This argument was brought to you by "ALL" laundry detergent. The laundry soap that works for all, not just a few".

Angels are indeed treated separately, as well as any other given beast of creation.  I have not argued that God had not a purpose in his creation, but simply that Jesus’ "work" extends to all Man universally.  Perhaps I may even more clearly define this to be "all which have knowledge of good and evil"?
 
Regardless, my primary reason for this thought (universal work in terms of Man) comes from the resulting implications of anything contrary - ie, it would not be a perfect work.

I would argue that this is different from the present day.  Granted, God is outside of time so He must remain constant to Man, but I feel the introduction of Jesus initiated a "period of grace".  Grace extending to all Man; connecting the previous thought.

If it is your belief, let it stand for what it is.  While I might disagree with your conclusions, I am one to always respect a well-thought out position.  Basically, I am not here to change anyone's opinions, but simply to thoroughly explore this topic.  You need not fear any judgment of your person from me  ;)

Frankly, I am quite thankful for your responses and the time you put into them.
--
lucas

I appreciate the fact that we can discuss differing view points in a 'civil' manner on this BB.  Since I am not perfect yet, my point of view is subject to change; though it has not on this topic.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Joe,
I discussed 2 Peter 3:9 in a post on February 28, 2003, 10:23:55 am  on the "Discuss Doctrine / The Bible / Re:For whom did the Lord Jesus Christ die? (And why is it important?)" thread. In case you missed it, here it is again:

The next verse that Tom mentioned (in his post of January 25, 2003, 02:35:07 am) was II Peter 3:9. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." The main question that has to be answered in dealing with this verse is "who does the "any" and "all" refer to?" Most of you will probably immediately jump to the conclusion that it "obviously" refers to "any human being" and "all human beings." But does that interpretation really fit the immediate context of the passage, as well as the larger context of the rest of the Bible? First of all, Peter is writing this letter "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Pet. 1:1). In other words, he is talking to believers. If we look at the verse itself, Peter says that God is "longsuffering to us-ward". He is talking about God's longsuffering (patience) towards "us" (believers, the elect), not the entire human race. So it seems to me that the "any" and "all" of the following phrase are referring back to "us" (believers, the elect). God is not willing that any of us (believers, the elect) should perish, but that all of us (believers, the elect) should come to repentance. This seems to me to fit the immediate context of the passage much better than "any human being" and "all human beings." It also fits much better with the rest of the Bible. The "any human being" and "all human beings" interpretation would seem to be contradicted by such verses as Exodus 4:21; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; and 14:4, 8, all of which talk about the Lord hardening Pharaoh's heart;  Joshua 11:20 ("For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord had commanded Moses." NKJV); I Samuel 2:25, which says that the sons of Eli "did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them" (NKJV); Romans 9:18 ("Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." NKJV); and II Thessalonians 2:11-12 ("And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."), among other passages. If God really didn't want "any human being" to perish, but wanted "all human beings" to come to repentance, why did He harden the hearts of Pharaoh and others, why did He want to kill the sons of Eli, why will He send "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"?

May the Lord reveal the truth to His people! (Matt. 11:25-26)

H  

H----

I hear your argument, and you make a good case, but there are instances in the Bible that seem to refute what you are saying. When God judged Sodom and Gomorrah, none would listen, and the angels literally had to drag Lot out of the city. Did God himself harden these people so that they would not hear his voice? Then we have Nineveh, a foul sinful city that God sent Noah to upbraid and warn. That city repented. Did God cause all of the people to repent? And wasn't God displeased with Noah, because he was upset that the people HAD repented?
And God stated that even the very cattle there were important to him and he did not want them lost.

Of course, I cannot "prove" there is not a limited atonement--but there is something about that teaching that does not fit the God of the Bible. When we are saved we have a yearning in us to see people come to Christ. we wish we could change everyone, and make everyone come to accept Christ. The thought of someone being lost and going to hell pains us.  Now, according to this teaching God has "chosen" some to go to heaven, and is "allowing" others hearts to become hardened so that they are ultimately lost. According to this teaching Jesus came to earth and died only for those who are the "elect" and whom he knows Will come to him.

Yet--in the Bible we see that the preaching of the Word in one instance is ignored, and in another is completely listened to and the whole city repents. Was everyone in that city "elected" by God to repent at the preaching of Noah?? And in the other instance, was everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah "allowed" to come to a place where they would not hear?

I cannot believe in a God who has created people knowing that they will not receive him, and whose ultimate end is the lake of Fire. The God I see in the Bible has an ultimate end of all-inclusiveness(if one will receive it), and came to die for all--that all might have a chance to receive him.

--Joe

Hey Joe:

I'm sure you meant "Jonah", not "Noah".  We all know Noah built the ark ;D!  Jonah was sent to Ninevah...........but you knew that!  ;)

Limited atonement, unlimited atonement..........ehhhhhhh...........I'm saved, I'm praying for those I love to be saved and I leave it in God's hands.  So like us assembly minded folk to want to "prove our thesis".  

I am content now to be at peace with my God and man and strive to "love my neighbor as myself."  Hopefully, in the process, my life (more than "preaching") is a witness to some who will "choose" for Christ.

My opinion too. Except I believe that it was Jonah and not Noah. ;)

Lord bless,
Marcia

Marcia---

LOL.  You're right--it WAS Jonah. Noah was that guy who got swallowed by the whale, right? ;D

--Joe

No, Joe, remember Noah was played by Charlton Heston in that movie!?

Jonah was a bullfrog. Remember the song?

 ;) ;D

S

Yeah, but that's not as funny! ;)

Joy to the world! All the boys and girls! Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea! Joy to you and me!

S :D

Verne----

I should re-phrase what I said below. I said "I can't believe in a God who...."  That makes it sound like I would reject God because of a concept. If the Bible indeed teaches a limited atonement, I must rest assured that God is just and fair, and that my own understanding is limited. God is perfect, and his ways past finding out. Whatever God does, he does perfectly. I rest in the fact that one day all of it will make perfect sense, and we will wonder at the infinte wisdom of God.

--Joe

Joe,

Think about what you are saying here.  Of course God has created people whose ultimate end is the Lake of Fire.  Doesn't it say this in the Bible?

He knew this before there was a beginning, IF we believe He is eternal.

He purposed this from the beginning, IF we believe He is Omnipotent

He knew who would believe and who would reject,  IF we believe He is Omniscient

I know that you don't mean to say that God wanted to save everyone, but wasn't able to.

Somehow, in a way that we can't grasp, God chose the elect, and the elect responded to the gospel.  In like manner, God didn't choose those destined for wrath, and they rejected Him.

I have come to the conclusion, that for now, when I read the verses that teach unconditional election, I am going to agree that they teach this.  Conversely, when I come to the parts that teach "Whosoever will," I am going to rejoice in the fact that anyone who calls upon the Name of The Lord will be saved.

Is there any other option?  I have never met a Calvinist who looks at his friend and says,  "You know, you probably weren't chosen, so live life to the fullest.  You are destined to go to hell."   They just don't say this.

Brent

Brent---

Thanks. See the post just below yours--I must have been typing it just as you posted.

--joe

Ah,  yes.

I knew you didn't mean to say that.  A few months ago, when we were studying Romans 9 in our home group,  one of the people present said,

"If God has destined some people to go to Hell, I want no part of Him!"  This dear, sweet Christian woman has family members who are involved in a cult.  The thought that she may not live to see her brother get out is something she cannot bear.

As the discussion progressed,  I made the point,  "So, is their salvation up to your diligence to pray?"  She gave a non-commital answer, except to re-inforce that they sure weren't pre-destined to go to Hell.

I followed up with, "So, if it is up to you to pray, how are you going to deal with it if they don't get out?  Will you hold yourself responsible?"

To me, while I don't agree with all 5-points,  I am greatly comforted in the fact that God chose me.  I know, without a doubt that I would not have chosen Him.  I love Him, because He first loved me.

Think of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus.  Remember, Christ died for His enemies.....He had no friends.

Brent

Joe,
thanks for posting this, I was a bit worried about you after your previous post.  As you said, God is just and fair and perfect, His ways are past finding out, and His wisdom is infinite. We need to do as the Lord Jesus Christ did and thank the Father that He has "hidden these things from the sophisticated and cunning, and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight." (Mat. 11:25-26, MKJV).
H
 

I saw a half dozen seagulls picking over a couple of Del Taco bags in a parking lot yesterday.  Actually they mostly fought over them.  A couple of crows got some that they carelessly left.

     Amen and Hallelujah!  Thank you Brent for this magnificent encouragement.
     For the benefit of any who have recently joined this bulletin board in progress, and for any who are still puzzling out their assembly experience, I add this:  Paul says in Gal.1:15-16 that although God called him in his adulthood to be a vessel of Christ for the preaching of the gospel, God had set him apart for that purpose "from my mother's womb."  In other words, Saul's persecution of the church and participation in the murders of Christians, which took place between God's setting him apart and God's calling him, while foreknown by God was no deterrent to His plan.
     This is not only thrilling in its own right, but exceedingly good news for us who have been lost upon errant pathways.  God knew us and chose us before we had been formed (cf Jer.1:5), He has seen us in our most secret times (cf Jn.1:48) and patiently awaited our turning to Him.
     There are many schools of thought on why God led, caused, or allowed our sojourn in the wilderness, but what matters is that He chose us before then and He calls to us now!  Come unto Me...

al Hartman

Let me get rather metaphysical/philosophical here ::):

I believe that the whole purpose of free will is to allow us to freely choose to live with God in Heaven (ie, to live in the presence of the Beatific Vision). Once this choice is finally and certainly made, the task of the will is done and completed. Thus final choice being made (for humans, death being the end of merit - we cannot choose after death, since Judgment determines our ultimate destination), the will is complete and, if it should continue to exist, it does so like a spent light bulb or spent fuse. Once the ultimate choice is made, it cannot be unmade.

I would hold that angels, as purely rational creatures unencumbered by materiality, the ravages of original sin (concupiscence, among others), the darkening of the intellect/weakening of the will which original sin brings to all men and women as their common lot.........are able to make that ultimate choice in a single moment and without the years of reflection and vacillation that we require (given to us more out of God's mercy than His justice, I would think). In other words, angels have such a keen grasp of things as they truly are that they can make the ultimate decision for God in a spilt second and in the first moment of their being.

Thusly, I would argue that there is no atonement for angels and that they should not exist in this subset....of course, I *do* make several assumptions.... ;)

Availability has nothing to do Acceptance.......... :o

Granted, I will concede that the only direct proof of its existence would be its utilization.  However, this argument seems to be inherently flawed given the nature of the Work - ie, it could not possibly maintain its "quality" if it becomes limited by conditionals added upon the sheer constitution of Choice.  Such is the nature of the Universe and all things in it?

aww, the fun is just beginning  8)

I am not fully sure of your question.....God only discriminates based on differences from Himself; always has and always will.  Do you mean how His relations to Man have changed?  

Just an FYI, I moved out of Ron's house so I am no longer living with Mark.  I am currently living on campus with Dave Haan  ::)

This is not a fair question to ask, without conditions  :P

Of course God chooses, but His judgments ultimately remain the same.....

--
lucas

*wince* technically, you are correct.....but Faith does not exist in a vacuum. Thusly, the absolute disposition of this statement is fraudulent.  :o

--
lucas

I understand the inferences to your statement, but feel that Faith is too loaded a word to describe your intent.  If you find it to mean, simply, "Confident belief in God", than I would heartedly agree with you.  I would just say this instead of using a Faith full of irrelevant connotations that might confuse, such as "the body of dogma of a religion" or "a set of principles or beliefs".  

*This* is why the disposition of your statement is fraudulent.
*This* is the cause of my wince  ::)

--
lucas

umm, what else would we be talking about?  I think I just didn't make the meaning of my comment clear enough.  I was being critical of the conclusions which may be pulled from your statement, not criticizing its content.  I mean, how else can a statement have a disposition?  :)

--
lucas

Following the ultimate choice (detailed several posts below)

--
lucas

Verne,

You frequently write things like, "God sovereignly chose" or "God's sovereign will".

What is the difference between God's "sovereign" choice or will, and His regular choice or will?

Thomas Maddux

     Good catch, Tom.  But I think Verne's point is clearly to emphasize that God's will is sovereign and,therefore, not to be merely considered as weighing against the will of man, but to be respected and honored; loved and feared.

al

As you argued before, it is impossible to prove unless there is an utilization.  I have a confident belief in God, because He has *said*......not because of the content of what He has said.

I believe the point you are trying to make, mixes 2 very different dimensional analyses.  Of course, God does indeed know where each Man is going to go (ultimately speaking), but His knowledge of this does not in the least override Man's ability of Choice.  We as Man are constrained by 4 dimensions, whereas God is outside all of these.  

Anyway, I said that judgement is procured once that final decision has been made.....this is not in the least a linear relationship, at least not in reference to God.  Eternally, the judgement has been made, but we still must live our lives by choice.


This is not at all what I have said, please read more closely? Or show me where I have said it?  Do not mix our perspective as Man with God's perspective.....

--
lucas

So......where were we going with this converstation anyway?  ;)

--
lucas

Marcia,

  I recently found a VERY OLD message from you asking for my forgiveness. Since I couldn't find an email address for you, I am responding this way. And I'm sorry it's taken me so long. I haven't checked this board in a very long time. I just wanted to say that I'm not aware of the message you referred to, but I understand how confusing--and volatile--thoughts and feelings can be when you're trying to sort through this stuff. I have no hard feelings.

Take care,  ;)
Heather

With this comment, it seems to me that someone simply does not understand the necessity for the potential of Man to fall and the true magnificence of Salvation  ;)

--
lucas

If you can have an absolutely perfect choice, you must also have one that is slightly less perfect....and one slightly less perfect than that.....and finally one that is not perfect *at all*.  If this was not true, than there could be no "absolute perfect" in the first place.

Therefore, there must be absolute freedom of choice if there exists the ability to choose at all.

--
lucas

err, opps :)

That last part was an incomplete reference to a previous statement of your's from earlier in this thread.  Replace "choice" and "choose" with "will" in that last part ;)   Tis what I get for trusting my memory of what is said ::)

References:


I suppose I will also address that One's "will" has no affect upon the "will" of another without another medium being transversed, same with "choice" to an extent ::)
--
lucas

Someone used my initials to register on SWTE.  It is not me.  The only other individual I can think of with my initials is Mark Miller, but I do not know if it is him.

Marcia

I have been blessed with a few alcoholics in my family.  Through the years I have learned a few things about co-exisiting with their madness.

When they are using, I avoid conversation on anything meaningful, still to hi bye and take care of yourself and then get busy with something else.

The Soaring site is using.  They're all on drugs, so to speak.  These drugs prohibit reason.  Why do you hang out there?  They don't want your truth, Marcia, they want to mock you from their drunken stupor.  

So listen, honey, take care of yourself.  I love my uncle, but I never try to hold a discussion with him when he's pasted.  These people are pasted.  Do you think you're helping them?  Do you think you're helping yourself?  I think not.

Love,

Delila

I don't know about Matt Peeling, but Sondra Quinlan is Local Church.  They get into their altered state by "pray reading" Bible verses.  I've been in their meetings, it's a trip - cognitive reasoning is totally suspended.  They do this in their personal devotions as well, so they're on a constant bender.

Margaret---

Really? She's in the Local Church? Wow. I went to one of their meetings once and it was one of the strangest things I ever experienced. The teachings of the Local Church are completely off-base. I remember also, when I went to the meeting at the time they sang a song that used the tune of a Budweiser commercial.
But instead of Budweiser it was replaced with Lord Jesus:

"When you say Lord, you've said a lot of things nobody else can say....  When you say Lord Je-sus, you've said it all".  Forgive me for repeating it--but I remember it because I thought it was so strange that they would sing a tune like that in a meeting.  It gives me chills just remembering it.

--Joe

Joe,

Once when I was on the CSUN campus they were having an "outreach".  They believe, or believed, that if someone says, "Lord Jesus" that the Holy Spirit rushes into them and they are saved.

Didn't Calvin teach that?  ;)

Anyway, they had set up two rows of chairs along a walkway.  The chairs narrowed down to leave just enough room for one person to get through at a time.  They were all grouped at the narrow end of the "funnel".  

As people passed through they would all urge him/her to say, "Oh Lord Jesus".  If someone gave in and said it...they jumped up and down and shouted "Praise the Lord"...then they would launch into the Budwieser song you mentioned.

Absolutely Whacko.

Thomas Maddux

Well, how's that for a hunch on a thrity second glimpse into a dark tunnel?  Yikes.  This Bud's for you! And thanks for filling me in, eh?

So, why do (sober) right minded individuals go to that site again?

Delila

I once stopped off at Living Springs bookstore at their Local Church center (their "Fullerton") on Ball Road in Anaheim.  Among the many Witness Lee and Watchman Nee materials they had, they had a songbook for kids.  One song, was sung to the tune of Jesus Loves me, This I Know, but it went like this:

God is processed, this I know
For The Bible tells me so

The rest of the words escape me, but it went on to tell how God was processed from the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit.  I don't think it got into God being mingled with the church.  Maybe that was described in their version of The Old Rugged Cross.  :-\ Seriously, the children's song was pretty blatant.

This, by the way, is why groups like CRI never took a hard stand against the Assembly.  Compared to groups like the Local Church that are WAY over the line, we looked pretty normal.

Margaret,

How do you know that Sondra Quinlan is Local Church?  

I just received an e-mail in which she angrily denies this.

Thomas Maddux

I don't remember where I heard it, Tom.  But I do remember thinking in regard to Sondra's posts on her original website that it made sense.  Her language was quite along the lines of Witness Lee - "stepping over into the spirit man", etc.  I would be very happy to be learn that she is not a follower of Witness Lee, and retract my statement.

Hmmmn, processed eh?  Like cheese.  Interesting.
drj

Delila,

When a Local Church member spoke of God being "processed" they were referring to a peculiar form of modalism that they were accused of teaching.

There is a legitimate teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  

They, if I recall correctly, taught that God manifested Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  ie, one God manifesting Himself in three "modes".  

Witness Lee added an idea he had about the Spirit of God "mingling" with the human spirit...which at the time caused me to think that he believed in God as a "Quaternity"  Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Church.

If that's true, it was heresy, plain and simple.  

But, I am trying to recall information and thoughts from the 60's and 70's.  A little fuzzy there folks.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Local Church of Witness Lee quotes:

"This is Wonderful!  The One is really two!  He is the Son as well as the Father! . . .This word [John 14:8-9] indicates clearly that the Son is the Father.  Yet some twist this word saying the Son is not the Father, but the representative of the Father.  This is twisting.  If you read the context without any twisting, you can realize the Son was the Father there."
The Clear Scriptural Revelation Concerning the Triune God by Witness Lee

"After death and resurrection He became the Spirit breathed into the disciples (John 20:22) . . . The Son became the Spirit for us to drink in as the water of life (7:37-39; 4:10, 14) . . . In the heavens, where man cannot see, God is the Father; when He is expressed among men, He is the Son; and when He comes into men, He is the Spirit."
Concerning the Triune God - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit by Witness Lee

The Father as the inexhaustible source of everything is embodied in the Son . . . In the place where no man can approach Him (1 Timothy 6:16), God is the Father.  When He comes forth to manifest Himself, He is the Son . . . We know the Lord is the Son and that He is also called the Father . . . Now we read that He is the Spirit.  So we must be clear that Christ the Lord is the Spirit, too . . . As the source, God is the Father.  As the expression, He is the Son.  As the transmission, He is the Spirit.  The Father is the source, the Son is the expression, and the Spirit is the transmission, the communion.  This is the triune God . . . "
Combined quotes from The Economy of God and The All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ by Witness Lee

"The Son who prays is the Father who listens . . ."
Concerning the Triune God by Witness Lee

"The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit."
Concerning the Triune God by Witness Lee

"The Lord will then permeate our body and His glory will saturate our whole being.  This transfiguration is the ultimate consummation of His mingling with our being to the uttermost"
The Economy of God by Witness Lee

"Then we will be fully mingled with God, and this total mingling is God's habitation . . . The New Jerusalem is the total mingling of God with man for His habitation."
The Stream, 14, No 3 (August 1976) by Witness Lee

"The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Spirit, and the Spirit is now in the Body.  They are now four in one:  the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body."
The Practical Expression of the Church by Witness Lee

"Then the day will come when the Triune God and the resurrected man will be one expression . . ."
The Economy of God by Witness Lee

"Eventually, God will become us."
Life-Study in Genesis, Message Ten by Witness Lee

And you thought our seminars were out there! :-\  I could go on.  In fact, if you knew what I wasn't giving you, you wouldn't let me out the door.  :P

Dave----

Thanks for the quotes. I knew and remembered that they were "off-base"--but man, this is heresy pure and simple. I used to have a book called "The Mindbenders" that had a chapter concerning Witness Lee and the Local Church. In fact, I think it may have been the first book to expose them.

--Joe

That was one of the first books though I think it went out of print for reasons I will explain below.  Latter books included The God Men by Duddy and (the best source other than The Economy of God itself which they started limiting who has access to) was The New Cults by Dr. Walter Martin (actually, the Passentinos, but Dr. M got his name on the cover).

While many similarities to the Assembly were uncanny, there were some differences.  For example, they took the verse "And they had all things common" to extent to their paychecks in their brothers/sisters houses.  As a result, they had lots of $$$ to sue watchdog groups that tried to publish against them.   So, The Mindbenders went down simply because the the group (out of Berkerly, but I forgot their name) didn't have the resources to defend themselves.  The Local Church often put full page ads in University newspapers and the L.A. Times to defend themselves (and give the "we're just normal, thinking, persecuted Christians" slant) when controversy would arise.

Then there's pray-reading - that's a whole other story . . . :'(

You've got it Tom.

Lee taught modalism, a "processed" God.  He also taught that "The" church----his to be precise---because it is a partaker of the Divine Nature, processed into Christ Himself.

There is One Body, and Christ is the Head, therefore we are His Body.....therefore we are the Christ, now processed into the Church.

Brent

I might also add, due to the title of the thread, and the manner in which we got onto the Local Church, that Sondra vehemently denies ever being a part of Witness Lee's group.

True, her ideas are remarkably similiar to his, her emphasis on the tri-partite nature of man, and the "process" of going from natural to spiritual, her mystical tendencies, etc.   All of that is identical to much of what Lee taught, but it can be found in Watchman Nee's books as well.

Unfortunatley,  as many of us have become aware, there are huge problems with these ideas, not the least of which is the oft realized potential for schism and heresy.

In all fairness, Sondra denies having anything to do with the Local Church.

Brent

1) any group claiming to have a monopoly on God, limits God and therefore should be regarded with great skepticism
2) And yes, Sondra, I too deny having anything to do with the Local Assemblies (associated wt GG) but I was still influenced by the great gg and his teachings and his cronies and his books and his 'traditions' and his thoughts.  But yes, I deny having anything to do with him.  Anything.

drj

Dave:

I believe the name of the Berkeley group that first exposed Witness Lee's group is called Spiritual Counterfeits Project, or SCP for short.

Matt

Yep, SCP is the one.

I got Mark Campbell's,  Dave Sable's, and Steve Iron's articles from them years ago, when I was starting to figure things out.  They are a great organization.

Brent

We wondered how you got them!  I wonder how they got them.

Even if Sondra is not Witness Lee, her spirituality is akin to that of a Lee disciple.  Most of her non-AB posters are too cowardly to post on her BB, and are the silent majority.  She receives a lot of support via emails from which she then quotes on her BB.  Please, I am not encouraging others to visit her BB, but just wanted to throw in my 2 cents here.  I wonder why her silent majority allow her and Matt to face the foe (sarcasm intended) while they hang out behind the scenes.  Isn't there a verse that says that men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil ??

Marcia

Hi folks,

I came into Plymouth Brethrenism through the back door back in the 1960's.  I had a summer job with Safeco Insurance, and through a fellow employee I met a bunch of people who had recently left the Witness Lee group.

However, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.  So, they had imbibed a lot from Lee, and from the guy whose reputation he was using...Watchman Nee.

I read all that W. Nee stuff.  Deeper life teaching pure and simple, much of which Nee got from the Exclusive Brethren and from T. Austin Sparks, who shared many of their ideas.

One of his books was a three volume set called, "The Spiritual Man".  I read it all, and for years it affected my thinking.  

In fact, it is part of the reason I had such a hard time leaving the assembly.  "What if I am just being soulish?"

Finally there came a day of liberation...I decided to trust God instead of trying to spiritually psychoanalize myself.

W. Nee went into the trash along with a bunch of other deeper life stuff.   I don't miss it at all.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Geez, this is *such* an unfair extenuation to make.  I can't believe you feel justified in saying this.  

:o

Regardless of whether or not you agree with what she believes, you can either focus her ideology or attack her.  Why would you possibly choose the latter?  Surely it is not your intention to consider yourself "better"?  Think about your priorities in respect to God......

--
lucas

Tom-----

Though I haven't thrown all my Watchman Nee books away, I never read them any more. Several times I thought I had finally "seen the light" after reading Watchman Nee. One Book "The Normal Christian Life" influenced me greatly, but I began to feel more and more that I must not be "blessed" as others who really knew the "deeper life", because I just couldn't seem to "get it". I kept waiting for "experiences" to happen to me.

I would try to surrender my life in some "one time lay it all on the altar" manner, only to realize very shortly thereafter, that it didn't "take", so I'd wait until some emotional high hit before I'd give a try again. Needless to say, none of my "lay it all on the line" offerings ever "took" and I was more miserable than ever. So, I have never taken up Watchman Nee's books again. As for Witless Knee, I have never read any of his works.

--Joe

Joe,

I believe you are describing a very common experience.  One year, when I was single, I took a week off work and drove to Arizona.  I got this motel without a television and spent the time reading "The Normal Christian Life" to try to enter into this life that was being described.  It never attained.

I always would feel my heart lifted when I would read again that I have been "crucified with Christ" and am therefore free from sin from sin ("that's the key!  I got it, right? Just reckon on the facts."), but then a little later I would be instructed to go the way of the cross and "crucify myself" though I could never figure out how to nail down the 2nd hand.  It always seemed to me a continuous flipping between these two ideas and I never felt as if I really got it to work.

Over the years, I have concluded that holiness is probably simpler than we were trying to make it.  Paul's instruction seems to be, "You're a Christian now, so act like one."  Practical experience indicates that holiness is something we work at and make progress in, but will not fully attain in this life.   I think the difference between believers and unbelievers is that, for the Christian, the Holy Spirit puts within us the desire to be holy while many unbelievers fail to see the point (or those who do see the point sees virtue as an end in itself and not a gift of God's grace).  For addictive, life-dominating issues, counseling and help from others is generally in order.

-Dave

Joe,

Your experience is quite common.  The Great Spiritual Authority writes a book showing you the way.  You try to implement his method...but it doesn't seem to work.

That is because Christ is the savior, and being a GOOD shepherd, he hasn't kept the information we need to follow him as a special secret for special people.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

A question that's been kinda nagging at me.  Why is it that the Good Shepherd, who has the power to do so, just wipe out all of the wolves in the world so that not a single sheep gets ravaged?  
For that matter, Jesus said that the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep.  Were the wolves more powerful than him?  Obviously not, so....?

We can choose... All of us as sheep have gone astray.

Arthur,

The question of "why would a good God allow evil?" is a whole area of theology, called Theodicy.

A part of the answer is virtue.  God desires virtuous sheep.  Unless non-virtuous behavior is possible...all the virtues are meaningless.

A good Systematic Theology book would have a discussion of this area.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

How bout this - "evil is simply a lack of good".  Therefore, since a creation can never be equal to the creator, there must be less good and hense a lack (given that there is not as much good as can be obtained).   If there is the possibility to lack a little, there must also be the possibilty to lack everything and possess no good.

 ;D

--
lucas

God has a choice too.  And not only does he have a choice but he can actually do something about it.  As a father, I would never want any bad thing to happen to my child.  I especially wouldn't want him to fall into the hands of someone like George G.  So what gives?  And, not everyone has a choice.  Did the kids in the assembly choose their parents?

Thomas I think I see what you're saying.  Without darkness, there is no contrast for light, to show how bright, pure and virtuous the light is.  There would be no shades, no degrees and no reference point.  If that's the case, then what will it be like when this old heaven and earth have passed away?  Will evil and darkness still be in existence so that we may have a point of reference by which we know how great God's light and love is?

But really this seems all so philosophical.  The average Joe who's been burned by evil men probably isn't interested in exploring the oddysey of theodicy.  Interesting that the common people heard Jesus glady.  If anything, I think it's the love and kindness of Jesus and the truth and clarity with which he spoke that won them over, even if they couldn't make sense of the purpose of the universe.

Speaking of Jesus, really I think it is the fact that not only would God allow evil to exist in the world, but that he would then come into it as a man and live among us and then die on the cross for our sins--that's the most mind-boggling things of them all.  Well, one thing I know is that I can't say he doesn't understand.  And I can't say that he's vindictive or cruel.  I guess all I can say is that I don't understand why he set the world up the way he does, but I know that he loves me.  And I guess that's all that really matters.  God demonstrated his love for us plain as day.

But I just wonder sometimes why evil people live and breath and prosper and do all sorts of cruel things to innocent people.  Lately a picture has been running in my head of little Kate climbing up into her father's lap and giving him a hug and a kiss, and I just feel very sad for her.  Why should any little girl ever have to have a father like that?  I remember that she was very stubborn, even for a two year-old, but in time Jeff's slaps on the face and other cruel punishments broke her and though she seemed sweet on the outside, it was like she wasn't really there.  <shakes head>  

I worked for the probation department and district attorney's office for a while and I've learned that there are some real sickos out there.  (Check out the TV series Law and Order: SVU).  What about all the little boys and girls out there that have sexual predators for fathers?  Think of it.  Where do they find the security that a little child needs?  Who is their example for decency and humanity?  Where do they find love and acceptance?  It's all been taken away from them.  It's not their choice.  Man I wish the people responsible for that would all be shot, it so angers me.  

Arthur

I have commented about Sondra's spirituality before, but she has never reacted as violently as she has this time.  To be fair I did add a comment about her silent majority, which possibly contributed to her violent reaction.  She has quoted some posts of mine where I quoted from emails.  The difference is that most of my quotes are not from individuals who read/post on this BB.  They are from private communication between friends who do not want to invest the time on any forum.  They sometimes read the GA website when I direct them to particular articles posted there.  They are not my support structure that keeps me posting on this forum.

To answer Lucas' question,  I called her silent majority cowards because some of them have sent me and other friends rude and brash emails.  Also like Bob Smith, they have made bold accusations behind the cover of a pseudonym and are not willing to own their words.  This is all behind-the scene activity and therefore, cowardly.  My first non-annonymous post on this BB identified me as to who I was before, so I take responsiblity for everything I have said even while annonymous.  Annonymity may be necessary for some, but some are doing so because they are unstable and unwilling to face the truth of the matter, or they have a particular agenda.

Lord bless,
Marcia

The way you react to them, placing judgment upon their person's *BEFORE* knowing who they are, is not exactly conducive toward their decision of identity revelation.

In this same light, how can you possibly know their agenda's? You don’t know who they are or what they are about  ;)

These are types of assumptions that hinder progress....IMO

--
lucas

Note - Marcia, I am truly not trying to badger *you* in this.  Simply, I am pointing out misconceptions that are routinely presented.  While opinions of Sondra and Matt may be well substantiated, be careful of how far you can fairly label these "unknown people".  

Verne,

In my reply to Arthur, I only said that a part of the answer is virtue.

There is obviously more to the issue than that.  However, niether can all evil be ascribed to the wrath of God.

One example is natural evil.  People drowned by hurricanes, buildings fall on them in earthquakes and so on.  No guilt needed, and it happens to Christians as well as non-Christians.

Once I was listening to a missions chairwoman  report on how God had shown his displeasure by raining out some Buddhist parade in Taiwan.  It so happened that a few days earlier a twister had hit a Baptist church during the morning service and had killed many of them.

I refrained from asking her if that proved that God hates Baptists.
(But I thunk it)  ;)

BTW, Lucas' comment about evil having no ontological existence but being simply the absence of good comes from Augustine of Hippo.

I don't know if he got it from Plato or not.

The problem of evil is a BIG issue, and it is best dealt with by dividing it up into its separate parts, such as moral evil, natural evil, generational evil. inadvertant evil, and bollweavel.

Christian theologians and  philosophers do not have a complete answer to the problem, but they have done much good work.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I was quoting the idea expressed in Plato's Republic.  I find it quite the convienent basis to use in this consideration.

Basically, how do you prove to me something is evil?  Is it through contradiction with something that is "good"?

--
lucas

Plato also wrote The Phaedrus which discusses rhetoric and male lovers among other things.  Let's see, how was it "As wolves love lambs so lovers love their loves." Oops, that's the toned-down American version.  I believe the original states, "As wolves love lambs so lovers love their lads".
Would you say that's good, Lucas?


God, our creator and the great king over all the earth, states what is good and what is evil in his word.  Believe it or not.

Arthur

I would say, that's Plato for you.  I would also note that it was this specific idea of Plato's which I have quoted, and not Plato himself (ie, I did not quote him for any "authority" purposes, only for what I feel was a "good idea" of his).


Ahh yes, so God knows.  But how does Man know?  Is there "good" (good being the assumption that God is completely comprised of "good") in "sin" (sin being all that is contrary to God)?  Is there "sin" in "good"?  

As much as I dislike binary comparisons, the absence of one can seemingly be an appropriate indicator of the other.  It is hard to prove otherwise.

As a side note, God is the greatest of the great.  If He is of one "type", how would He best define a differing "type"?  Would He not compare to Himself as there is nothing greater?  

--
lucas

How does man know?  Man partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Our eyes are opened.  

I don't know what you mean by "good in sin" or "sin in good".  The Bible isn't so philisophical as people often are and try to make it out to be.  The Bible frames it's lessons in the stories of people's lives and brings it down to human terms.  For example,  "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Is there any question about what is right and what is wrong in that statement?  We know what adultery is, and we know that God says not to do it.  If we do it, we sin.  Obviously.

I think the following passage best addresses the issue at hand:

"13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."  James 1

What is sin?  A person making the choice to persue his lust for evil.  
What is good?  That which comes from God.

Conclusion.  Evil is in the world.  Man is sinful in that he knows good and evil yet chooses evil because he wants and prefers it to good. Good is in the world and comes from God alone.

I don't want to leave it there, of course we know that God, in his goodness, has given us a Redeemer.   Sin is no longer the master of the redeemed, regenerated man, who now can and wishes to choose good rather than evil.

Arthur

Verne,

To find a boll weavel, just locate an abandoned cotton field in east Texas or Mississippi.  They are little bugs that eat the cotton out of the pod, (boll), before it is ready to open.

In Luke 13:1-5, Jesus encountered the idea that evil things happen to people as a retribution for their sins.

His reply was "I tell you, no".  

What he said was something like, "All you guys are just as bad".  It would follow that if natural evil were a punishment for evil acts, something of that nature should happen to everyone.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Verne,

You wrote,

"While it may appear that some kinds of evil have a quality of fortuitousness to them, I think there may be another way  of looking at this. I have a bit of a problem with the concept of "natural evil" because I think all unforunate events that affect "innocent" people, even "naturally" ocurring ones - hurricanes, earthquakes, are ultimately attributable to the creation's fallen condition, which in turn is attributable to sin. "

Most evangelicals believe that "creation is fallen".  This is nowhere specifically taught in scripture!

The book of Genesis describes the fall in very specific terms.

The "curse is described, but in very specific terms.  
for the serpent, it is, travel on your belly, eat dust, get your head bruised.

For Eve, more babies, subordination to Adam.

For Adam, "cursed is the ground", hard work, return to dust.
Nothing there about water, air, stars, animals, or anything else.

This hardly constitutes a curse on the entire universe!

Now, I know the argument that most folks make for a universal effect of the curse is based on their reading of Romans 8:18-25.  But if you will notice...the curse is not mentioned in this passage at all!  The passage deals with creation.  (Something God said is "very good")

People just read their pre-concieved notion into the passage, which talks about creation.  The word translated "corruption" in the NASV is phthora and simply means "decay".  It is rendered, "perishable" in I Cor 15:42, speaking of what happens to dead bodies.

It simply means the decay principle that we see all through the universe.  Depending on the context, we refer to it as "entropy" or "the second law of thermodynamics".  But it is easy to infer from Genesis' description of creation that entropy was a characteristic of the universe before the fall.

Examples:
1. The whole earth was covered with water.  No entropy, no chemical bonds, no H20.
2. Light existed before the fall.  No entropy, no photons can be produced.
3. Adam and Eve ate.  Entropy is a factor in the digestion process.
4. Adam and Eve breathed.  No entropy, they would have suffocated by the carbon dioxide produced in their own bodies and breathed out.  It would not have mixed with the surrounding oxygen due to pressure/temperature differentials.

An on and on.

So, I think the "universal fall" of nature needs a little rethinking.  This obviously enters into the discussion of evil, but I would argue that it is a dead end.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

The problem with discussing this idea of Plato's is that it is infinitely simplistic and can therefore be adapted to *any* circumstance.  In example, I can just as easily say that "our eyes opening" means that we have experienced *something* that is not completely "good".   Ie, a lower level of "goodness", the lack of which can be described as "evil".   ;)  I can argue this point all day, simply because it has very few limiting constraints.  Obviously, we would not get anywhere doing this, so I won't.

However, the problem with Plato's thought actually resides in its ambiguity.  It relies on a determination as to the exact Nature of God, an assumption we as Man have no grounds to properly make.  

Evil is in the world by conclusion of Man's ability to choose "less" amounts of "good".   Did God create Evil?  Something that is inherently contrary to His exact Nature?  Can a Creation be greater than the Creator?  ;D


Sin no longer presents an insurmountable obstacle between Man and God, true.  But let me ask you this, does Man truly understand Good and Evil?  


I must say, I dislike Socrates  immensely :-X

--
lucas

I beg to differ.  I suppose you therefore claim that Man has full knowledge of Good?  This is what you you are leading to by saying the Bible agrees with him  ;)  

I mean, if Man does not know *everything* how can we even talk about being able to distinguish Good from Evil?  

Due to this "end behavior" (ie, there is always something greater regarding the topic of God that Man simply does not know), I hold Socrates to be redundant and irrelevant. :)

--
lucas

Verne,

You said

"My you are full of surprises Tom. Just when I think I have made my point as clear as mud you throw another curve ball!
This does call for some thought.
Although I will admit my view of the creation does subscribe to the notion that something was lost with regard to Adam's God-given authority over creation when he sinned (I don't believe the curse was localised as you suggest), there is also a larger cosmoligcal viewpoint that suggests a pre-Adamic cataclysm ( which resulted in darkness on the face of the deep), and that what we know as the seven day creation record was really a work of restoration  by God.
This has of course, as you correctly point out, significant entropic implications but I do not think needs to be invoked to argue that creation is indeed in a state of decline. There is a phenomenal space-time decay argument in Hebrews that envisions the Lord rolling up the heavens like an old garment. I do not expect the new earth to witness destructive hurricanes, earthquakes and sunamis. Great food for thought!"

When you say, "I do not believe the curse was localized as you suggest" you raise the following question:

What reason do you have to believe it was universal?

Regarding the "pre-adamic cataclysm" where the earth becomes "formless and void" KJV.

This is called the gap theory.  It has serious problems.  It is based on the "tohu wabohu" phrase in Genesis 1:2.  The word "haya" before it is usually translated "was".  Some folks in the 19th century decided that it meant "became".  I am not aware of any modern Hebrew scholar that accepts this.

The entire theory is based on this, a mistranslation of one word.  All the rest, about the pre-adamic creation, the people whose spirits supposedly became the demons, and the big monsters that supplied the dinosaur fossils...is nothing more than speculation.
(at best)


Not much of a basis for a view of reality.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Curve Ball Specialist

I occasionally go on yhe SWTE site out of curiosity, only to leave feeling attacked on the "forgiveness" thread. ::) But today something caught my attention.  It was on the "Wipe the dust" or something like that thread.  Affirming wrote,"I do not believe that God knows how we are going to choose......."

 I was taught God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. This seems like a scary statement to me.  Anyone want to weigh in?

Suzie

P.s.  I know a well respected geologist professor  who is a godly man and he ascribes to the gap theory . When he explains it, it makes a lot of sense especially in explaining scientific things.

I might not be 'connected' this weekend, hence I will cotribute my .02 on this now.

Suzie I agree with you that God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, hence our free will to choose does not limit His knowledge of how we are going to choose.

Re. gap theory ascribed by a well respected godly geologist professor.  I assume he ascribes to it mainly because of carbon dating with the verse that Verne referred to to support his belief. Is it possible that the flood contibuted to what would appear to be premature aging?

Lord bless,
Marcia

First off, I never argued that "total knowledge" of good was required for "any good" to exist.  I simply stated that for "complete good" to exist, "total knowledge" must be had.   The point I was attempting to make was that Man has an inherent limit to the amount of knowledge we are able to know "about" what is good.  Therefore, there must be a point where we can no longer "know" good but instead become tainted by "lack of good" (evil).  This is a moot point, however, as I was assuming you were referring to a different holding of Socrates’.

As for your point concerning Socrates, there is a vital flaw to this thought.   In Socrates' view, can God do wrong?    I would hold that knowledge dictates action - if a Man has knowledge regarding the consequences of an action, that Man would not do that action if the repercussions were ultimately detrimental.  If a Man were to "know" right and still do wrong, I would claim that that Man truly did not "know" right in the first place.

Indeed, ignorance is *not* an option in respect to God and sin, as the knowledge and guidance is freely available.

Anyway, my mind is rather muddled at this late hour (awake for 31 hours and going!  ;D), so hopefully what I am attempting to get at makes sense.    More than likely, I will revise this (to make it more clear) when I get a chance tommorow  ;)

--
lucas

Perhaps the lack of sleep is to be blamed for this belief you posted.  (I sure hope so!)

Do you really believe that "Man would not do that action if the repercussions were ultimately detrimental"????  Without even looking to any other example than my own life, this is poppycock!  (But I still love you Lucas!)  ;)   While I knew that having sex outside of wedlock could produce an unwanted pregnancy and the "repercussions" would be OBVIOUSLY detrimental, I did it anyway.  While I knew that doing drugs could have detrimental "repercussions", I did them anyway (and became addicted in the process, one of those "detrimental repercussions" I knew could happen!)  


You said, "If a Man were to 'know' right and still do wrong, I would claim that that Man truly did not 'know' right in the first place."   To take my example to it's logical conclusion with this statement, I did not really "know" right in the first place.  WRONG!  I ABSOLUTELY knew doing drugs was wrong.  I ABSOLUTELY knew having sex outside of marriage was wrong and there could be dire consequences for both actions (and there were.)  

I think you need to re-think your thesis.  What do you think?

Suzie,

There is a theological movement today called "process theology" in which it is taught that God doesn't know the future, or at least some of the future.  It has to do with trying to deal with the difficult issue of God's benevolence and the existence of evil.

The way some of them talk, it becomes a denial of the Biblical God.

Others use this idea in a more qualified sense.  One idea is that God doesn't know what people will do, because if they haven't done it yet...there isn't anything for God to know.   :o

I don't buy it.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Suzie,

Regarding the geology professor.  

Where does he teach?  

The gap theory allows a person to be a six day creationist without being a six day creationist.  What I suspect is that he knows very well that there is no way to reconcile the geological evidence with a six or ten thousand year old earth...so the gap theory works as an "out".

But, IMHO, not a very good one.

Thomas Maddux

Verne,

1. Satan's fall predates Adam's.  OK

2. Milton as an argument.  Huh?   :-\

3. On the cleansing of the "heavenly places".  You are confusing the celestial heavens with the spiritual realm.  Christ is seated in the "heavenly places" (Eph. 1:20) and we are seated with him, (Eph 2:6).  But this is a name for the spiritual realm, Heaven" not for the universe.  Satan has been there (in the heavenlies), after his fall, (Job 1:6), but it seems to me that he has been cast out.  This might yet be a future even.  Not sure.

Anyway, you can't establish a universal effect of the fall on the physical universe by pointing to sin in the heavenlies.  They are two different things.  Genesis 1:1 is referring to the creation of the universe, not the heavenlies.

Otherwise, all we would need to visit God would be a suitable vehicle.

4. The verses you quote about the Canaanites defiling the land are exactly that.  The land was defiled by the Canaanites thousands of years after Adam.  Not the same thing.

5. Regarding the argument against "localization of death".

a. Death obviously existed in the earth before Adam fell. 1. There are species with life cycles less than 24 hours, 2. plants die when they are eaten and digested. 3. Even if you think Genesis1: 29-30 means that all animals and birds were vegetarians, as some do, (not I), you must answer the question, "What did sharks eat?"
Not to mention baracudas, killer whales, pike, octopi, starfish and on and on.

There was death on the earth before Adam fell.  

b. Romans 5:12 clearly says that "death through sin" entered the world through Adam.  It also clearly says that it spread to all men. It is "in Adam that all die" as far as this death goes. (I Cor. 15:21).  It doesn't say that it spread to all penguins.  Penguins can't sin.
Nor can frogs, apples, flies, hippopotomi, or, according to him, GG.

No help there for a universal effect of the fall.

c. As to the effect of sin spreading on your trip to Mars.  There aren't any people on Mars.  It would spread in you...and in any of your offspring wherever you might be.  They are all born, "in Adam".

It is man who bears this death, not the universe.

6. On the formless and void issue.  I am not disagreeing with the fact that it was formless and void.  The problem is with the translation of the word "was".  Some have translated it "became".  That is the problem, not "tohu wabohu".

7. There is a big difference in creating "in vain" and creating formless and void.  If you try to do something "in vain" it means without the desired effect, not the condition of the results.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Change up pitcher

Hi Verne,

1. Regarding your idea that physical creation mirrors the spiritual world.  Remember you are arguing that the universe is fallen.  Heaven is fallen?  The dwelling place of God is full of evil?

You need to give an argument for your position to establish at least a level of plausibility before you use it to draw conclusions from.

2. Regarding the tilling of the ground.  Having to work the ground was a condition that existed before the fall, in the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:5, 15).  The ground had to be cultivated before the fall.  Man just had to work harder after he fell.  In part, this was to keep him out of trouble.  

I didn't say the ground wasn't cursed.  I said the universe wasn't cursed.  

3. Regarding your question, "What will lions eat in the New Jerusalem.
a. I see no reason the believe that there will be any lions in the NJ.
b. The NJ comes down into a new creation.  The old will have been destroyed.  It will apparently be located between the earth and the sky in the new creation.  There will be no sea.  Therefore no water cycle.  It will not be lit by the sun.  We don't even know if there will be a sun.  
The physics of the new creation are going to be different.  Cities in the shape of a cube, suspended in the air, can't exist in this universe, unless God were to change the rules, but then it wouldn't really be this universe.
An astronomer friend told me that any physical object over 100 K's in diameter will crush down to a spherical shape because of gravity. This has been seen in asteroids and moons.  The odd shaped ones are all smaller.

Anyway, under our current laws of physics, a city that is a cube that measures 1500 miles on a side can't exist.  Ergo, different physics.

4. Regarding the "cessation of time".  I am not sure what you are asking me.  Do mean Rev. 10:5-6 where the KJV says, "time shall be no more"?  In the NASV it is rendered "there will be delay no longer".

However, when this universe is destroyed, its time must necessarily be destroyed as well, since it is part of this creation.  That doesn't rule out a new timeline in a new creation though.  Any state of being where things happen sequentially will necessarily have time.
According to Rev. 21:22 there will be a river.  A river is the result of a series of events at the atomic level, so there has to be time.

5. Regarding Isa 45:18.  This reminds me of a time in the 70's when I was pitching to a very athletic 6th grade boy one afternoon.  (I used to run a softball league with another teacher at my school).

I pitched my (not very) fast ball and the kid hit it right back at my face.  I instinctively threw up my glove hand in front of my face, and the ball went right into the glove.  He never knew it was a complete accident.   ;D

Anyway, you are forgetting that the creation was a process.  Not a "poof" and there it is.  Check out Genesis 2:1-2.

" Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. (This harks back to 1:1) By the seventh day God completed his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done."

and 2:4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.  This, again, is a reference to Gen. 1:1, the original creation.

Just one creation so far.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
gunshy pitcher

Humm, I think I know what I was trying to say....but I truly do not see the value as to *why* I would bother saying it  :-\

Basically, I think I was referring to the fact (using your example) that the action to have the pre-marital sex would never have been done if the persons involved *knew* a pregnancy would result.    There is an important difference between "knowledge something *could* happen" and "knowledge that something *will* happen".  

Can a Man *know* Right if the outcomes of the action were not known prior to the action being done?   This is the basis of my holding that *complete* knowledge of what is Right will inherently lead to "correct" decisions.  Why would a Man do something contrary to the best possible outcome?  Connecting it to Socrates, I would still hold that Knowledge is all that is needed (because actions are derived from this).

At least, this is the only reasonable thing I can imagine myself attempting to state based on what I wrote.... ???

--
lucas

Hi Lucas,

It's why we can't bypass the need for a new nature; one that we can't create for or by ourselves by such means as "education".  
Calvin called it Total Depravity.

Moonflower2

I still maintain that they cannot possibly and fully know what they are doing, thereby lacking "complete knowledge", as they perform actions inherently detrimental to themselves.    Surely this is magnified by the common grace of God?  Why else would God bother influencing us as to what is Right and what is Wrong?    I find your use of this verse to be rather out of context, exemplifying a phrase of the scripture rather than a truth of the scripture.  

As for Calvin, I never said that Man was able to ever reach "total knowledge".  Therefore, Man is completely unable to contribute to the act of salvation.  In this facet, I agree with Calvin.

--
lucas

Ahh yes, but we have suddenly switched between my original contention that Knowledge of what is good (Plato) is enough to determine action, to a direct Christian application where we are inherently tainted by Sin.

 Basically, here is what I have put forth:  If a Man were to know everything about everything, that Man would only do Good.  

Therefore, Plato is correct and Socrates is stupid  ;)

Do you agree with this?  :P
--
lucas

Lucas,

Are you asking if Plato is correct and Socrates is stupid? Or are you asking if Man would only do Good if he had "perfect knowledge"?

S

I was curious which one would be answered actually  ;)  A freudian consideration if you will.  

But more seriously, whether or not Man would do Good if Man knew everything.

--
lucas

If knowledge does not change nature, why would a Man ever turn to God? What would be the point of a Living God?  Why would Man need God at all?  It is by the grace of God we are given a pathway in which to circumvent our nature (ie, we are able to commune with God where before we were not)

Other than that, I would like to directly challenge your ending claims. God is perfect and nothing is God but God, albeit there exist imitators (enter Lucifer).  Therefore, Lucifer is not perfect.  Your declaration brings him to the level of God.....

I would also disagree with your synopsis of Adam.  My specific reasons for this are rather untraditional ones that may cause severe confusion if I state, so I won’t at this point (unless you really want me too :)).  Basically, what would possibly lead you to this conclusion?  You're the one who pointed out that ignorance is not a defense...


As for supporting my argument that complete knowledge leads to perfect action - example, God.

--
lucas

Ezekiel 28:2-5,12,15,17
Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: with thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: by thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: ...  Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. ...  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. ...  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

There is a saying: Knowledge is power.

There is another saying: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Of course, the latter saying doesn't apply to God, meaning of course the real God.  The saying may well apply to any other arbitrary hypothetical being that is merely defined as having perfect knowledge.

The idea that perfect knowledge leads to perfect action needs to be qualified by defining what perfect is.  Suppose that two people have perfect knowledge.  Each wants what is best for himself: to rule everything to his own advantage.  Each has his own definition of what perfect is.

I learned something interesting from writing a computer program that completely analyzes all possible moves in the game tic-tac-toe.  If the computer decided its moves based only on whether it wins or loses, it seemed to make inferior moves.  Something was missing from the decision making process even though the computer was acting based on perfect knowledge.  I tried experimenting with different position evaluation formulas and found that the best results came from assigning arbitrary preferences to the final board positions.

An example from chess is easier to explain.  If you define a preference for ending the game sooner, then the computer will throw away pieces in order to end the game sooner, under the condition that it will still win.  The advantage of the arbitrary preference rule is that the computer will then prefer preserving resources in order to be in a better position to accomplish the arbitrary preference.

Wanting what is best for oneself, in a created being's own prideful perspective, is not perfection by God's standard.
The passage you quoted seems to indicate that Lucifer was perfect, however that was until inquity was found in his heart.  The moment he wanted to take a place higher than what was given to him by God (ref. Isa 14:13-14 "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God") was the moment he ceased to be perfect, for pride is imperfection.

True perfection must include humility and love.  These are both characteristics which God possesses. He is meek and lowly in heart.  God is love.

Arthur

I do believe that is related to the Greek word which best explains the creation, and that is kiss.  Keep is simple...I'm sure you know the rest ;)

Verne,

The NASV, which is usually considered to be a better translation, renders Romans 8:23 as:
"And not only this, but also we ourselves..."

Remember that in verse 19 you have "the creation".
In verse 20 you have "the creation" and "it".
In verse 21, "the creation itself".  It will be "...set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

So, I think "they" is "this", meaning the creation.

Say, you aren't one of those KJV only folks are you?  :o

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Romans 8:19-23  (translated from Russian)
For (the) creature with hope awaits (the) revelation of (the) sons of God, -- because (the) creature was subjected to vanity not willingly, but according to (the) will of (the one) having subjected ((it)), -- in hope, that even (the) creature itself will be freed from slavery to corruption into (the) liberty of (the) glory of (the) sons of God.  For (we) know, that (the) whole creature jointly groans and is tormented until now; and not only it, but also we ourselves, having rudiment of (the) Spirit, even we in ourselves groan, awaiting adoption, (the) redemption of our body.


Unlike Spanish, Russian normally requires the subject.  The absence of the explicit "we" signifies common knowledge rather than what specific people know.  The missing articles are simply because there are no articles in Russian.

There are parentheses in the text, here written doubled: "((it))".  I don't know what the parentheses mean, perhaps the same thing as the italics?  Another word "it" is in italics, which has the same significance as in the KJV, that the word was inserted by the translator and is not in the original.  The word "it" is feminine so that it agrees with the word creature.  Also, as in the KJV, the word creature is archaic and can also mean creation.

Since, in general, the wording in the Russian is often different from most other translations, it is evident that it was mostly an independent translation done without reference to the other translations.  There are some errors in it, a few rather serious.  Even though this translation was done in the middle of the 19th century, archaic words were used intentionally, perhaps with the intent of a more literal translation, since the archaic words had connotations more consistent with the archaic language of the original manuscripts of the Bible.  The archaic words combined with archaic gramatical constructions mean that it is difficult for most Russians to understand, like the KJV is here.

Verne, I've been seeing you raise the stakes, but the only thing is I don't get your statement.  God is not arbitrary. Allah may be, but that's not who I believe in.
If you mean "divine plan" then it would be of course the greatest story ever told.  Is that what are you're getting at?

"Thou hast magnified  thy Word above all  thy Name"
Ps. 138:2.  His Word wouldn't happen to be what you are talking about, would it?

--Joe

How about the glorification of the Son, Jesus Christ?

Verne,

I figured that was where you were headed.

Does that mean that God does an eternal end zone dance?
 ;)

Thomas Maddux

     Back around the start of this year I decided I probably would not post any more on this thread.  It was difficult to restrain myself during the recent "pitchers' battle," but I stuck it out.
     Now, however, my hand is forced:  What, pray tell, is this strange "doctrine of the eternal endzone?" and who on earth is "Spike?"

al

I know this is off-topic now, but it's about this thread.  I've been informed that Sondra vigorously asserts she's not of the Local Church.  I'm glad to hear it.  It was wrong of me to make a statement I hadn't personally researched, especially when it carried the implication of heresy (a factor I wasn't thinking of).  I'm sorry, everyone.  

The bulletin board context of my comment was a discussion about the lack of success in trying to communicate logically with those on swte.  The concept of the "spirit man" was introduced by Witness Lee, as I understand it - a derivation from Watchman Nee's "Spiritual Man".  Perhaps Sondra gets it via another source, but it's nevertheless the kind of mysticism that's not very subject to the rules of logical discourse.  

First, let me say that for anyone to use a pseudonym, instead of their real name, engenders suspicion, at least on my part,  as to their purpose for doing so.  As has been shown , it allows the user to insult and berate others while hiding behind a mask of anonymity.  What other purpose it could serve, I fail to see.  Of course, it could be used to give the user a favorable report by speaking of his or her self in the third person.

It has been strongly suggested that “Brass Wall” is really John Malone.  In light of so much information to which BW is privy concerning John, I admit that I would have to concur with the probablility of that supposition.  John’s and/or  BW’s failure to deny the allegation seems to reinforce the contention.  However, inasmuch as BW chooses to conceal his/her true identity,  I will defer my speculation,  and will simply afford little or no credibility to his/her postings.  Regarding the accolades that John receives from his friend, BW, let each of us who read them decide whether or not they are merited.  

All of that aside,  the real purpose of my post is to admonish both Brass Wall and Chuck Vanasse to consider the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and take the following actions.  

1.  Desist from any further postings of derogatory statements about one another (or anyone else).

“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.”     Ephesians 4:29                                                                                        

2.  Seek to be reconciled in accordance with Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5:23-24.

 "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”

3.  Do not refuse to abide by Jesus’ instruction on the basis of each one asserting that the other is not a “brother-in-Christ.”  Jesus alone knows our hearts, and to err on the side of  emotional speculation is much more dangerous that erring on the side of cautious consideration.  

4.  Give prayerful consideration to the damage your actions cause to the testimony of Jesus Christ to unbelievers as well as to believers.  Nothing is of more paramount importance than this.

5.  Remember Jesus commands us to love one another.  Disregard your personal doubts about the possibility of being reconciled to the other, and rely on the grace of our precious Savior to bring about reconciliation between the two of you.  It will edify and bring glory to Him.

If you chose to disregard this admonition, then I would suggest that each of you take a sabbatical from teaching  in your gatherings and spend time meditating upon obedience to Christ and His enabling grace and mercy.  

To Chuck,  I would entreat you to remember Ecclesiastes 10:12  “Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious.”
.
To Brass Wall, it is my admonition to drop the charade and reveal your identity or discontinue posting.  

To John Malone, I suggest you entreat Brass Wall to reveal his/her identity

To Brian I would suggest that you refrain from allowing pseudonymous postings unless it would be under extreme circumstances (I.e. “Kristin‘s” confession).  

 I will gladly listen to and consider any rebuttals or comments concerning these exhortations.

Chuck Miller

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer. Psalm 19:14

Chuck,

Brian Tucker deleted "BrassWall" after he refused to stop calling people nasty names on the board.

I suspect that I stirred up BW after I posted something about one of his old friends.  At least, that is when he appeared on this bb.

If, as everyone suspects, BW is John Malone, his ire is understandable.  He probably values his friends very much, since the law of supply and demand indicates that they would be highly valued.   ;)

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Thanks for the note, Chuck.

Chuck Vanasse

 

Regarding my recent post,  I received an e-mail from my son-in-law, Chuck Vanasse.   Here is an excerpt from it:


“I caution you strongly Chuck for not following Christ’s instruction – Reject him.  Reject him, Reject him – We have no other choice. He’s warped and sinning. You’ve played footsie with Malone for too long – Shame on you.  You do the church no favors by encouraging the saints to play with a snake. I believe your note was well intentioned, but it actually confused the issue.  Did you know John was kicked off the Board?  You practically invited him back…How naïve!  “Come on back in the hut little snakey…cute snakey.” Kind of embarrassed about the analogy, but this is exactly how it appears to everyone.  You saw Tom’s response to you – most people are laughing up their sleeve.  Again, you put WAY too big a premium on church government process.  “If only people followed the properly functioning new testament pattern, everything would work out.” I think that’s a bunch of hooey. Read Paul’s instruction to Titus about Heretics.”


Would those of you who are “laughing up your sleeve” at my admonition to BW and Chuck Vanasse, please write and tell me why you disagree.  As I said, "I will be glad to consider any rebuttals or comments concerning these exhortations."
I could be wrong, but have no reason to change my mind without hearing your scriptural reasoning.   You can write to me privately at chuckmiller888@yahoo.com or you can post on the BB.  

Chuck

Chuck, my note to you was written in private.  If I had wanted to it to be published, I would have done so.  Are you desiring to contend?  

The scriptural reasoning for John Malone is Titus 3:10,11.  This reasoning applies to any who fulfill the qualities of heretic. Titus 3:9 would be helpful as well since the disputes of a heretic usually arise upon his stridency to make a particular point over the scriptures. I believe John Malone does fulfill the qualities of a heretic.  

Chuck, you engage the man at your and the larger Christian community's peril.  Would you prayerfully consider Titus 3:9-11 and what it means, brother?  

But avoid foolish disputes, genelogies, contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self condemned.

And, if you would like to dialogue let's do that in private face-to-face since we live only a mile from one another and we will see each other today for Mother's day.  I think going public like this is foolish...It doesn't edify.  It tears down.

To reiterate - the treatment of heresy is distinct...consider that.  Lest anyone enable another George Geftakys to take root - in this case a very powerful Omaha man - John Malone.  It has been noted that John Malone has a national ministry over the radio.  Better that he is exposed early by a few people who know him well and be rejected among God's people - than for the world at large to suffer needlessly cause we lacked the courage to reject the man as well as to warn others and expose him as is necessary.

Many people in various churches and ministries in Southern California knew about George over 30 years ago and said nothing.  Your family suffered the devastating repercussions of those vital omissions - Never again, Chuck.  Never again.

I love you, bro - As a friend and a Son-in-Law, let's take heed.

Let's not upset our wives by toiling on this stuff on their special day - Happy Mother's Day to Mary Ann!!!

Mary Ann gave me one of the the most wonderful woman on the planet!  She's a Super Mom!

P.S. See you later today for dinner, Chuck...Look forward to fellowshipping on this and other matters.

Chuck Vanasse

Chuck & Chuck,

     Frankly, I'm surprised that one of you would post the contents of a personal e-mail from the other, and equally dismayed that the other would respond with a post.

     Are you trying to [1.] discredit your brother by publicly humiliating him, [2.] justify yourself by rallying public support, or [3.] both?  (If there is something behind door #4, it escapes me, so why am I and everyone else being exposed to your differences?)

     If you are in the right, God will justify your position, and if you care about your brother, prayer and personal (private) counsel are the route to take (at least at the start), regardless of how he treats you.

     Make peace, or feud if you must, but don't pollute the uninvolved with your personal issues.  You don't even have to overcome-- Jesus Christ has done that for you.  Will you accept it?

Enjoy all you have in common, together, in Him,
al Hartman

Heresy is a serious charge.  I don’t make it lightly.

Al, Chuck Miller and I should resolve issues concerning our personal relationship in private.  I am not pleased that my private correspondence with him would be published.  I am not pleased, but neither am I offended.

The issue that he and I are discussing is heresy– What is it?  And, how should it be dealt with - The subject is germane to this community.  Is it not?  I would think so...Especially to this community.

I have no problem that this should be a public discourse.  

Heresy is not a Matthew 5 issue where it involves personal reconciliation with another individual as has been indicated; nor is it a Matthew 18 issue where the subject involves a prescribed order for correction and church discipline.  If I’m missing something, I’m open to clarification – my views are constantly being revised.

From Titus 3 it appears that heresy involves a controversialist; a person who thrusts or imposes his private viewpoints upon a believing community. He is a disputer.  Most people walk away from arguments. Heretics thrust themselves in the middle of arguments.  They contend for their viewpoint as supreme. They desire attention and seek that others conform to their viewpoints on non-essentials. There are different kinds of heretics some are nasty and others are just persistent…But, all heretics feel compelled that others hold to their view of the truth.

Heresy and Titus 3 involves a standard for resolving issues surrounding a public disputer – a public disruptor (a public disputer and a public disruptor are really the same thing).  Since there seems to be some confusion on this matter it’s an appropriate discussion for this forum, especially since the audience here has been victimized for many years by its own infamous heretic.  If the appropriate actions had been taken over three decades ago against a certain heretic many lives could have been immeasurably ennobled.  

Our refrain should be - NEVER AGAIN!

Since many of us here have spent substantive portions of our formative Christian years deep in the capacious sphere of a heretic, if we look hard (or not even too hard), we can see some of these latent heretical qualities in ourselves, tugging at our soul, at least I know I can – Several of us on this bulletin board NEED TO BE CAREFUL.  The knowledge that there are violent consequences for not dealing with these heretical and disputatious impulses is a gracious restraint from our good shepherd in resisting these sordid leanings of the flesh.

The Word says we are to “reject” a heretic after a couple of warnings.

Indeed, His rod and His staff they comfort me.

Thank you Vern and Al for the comments as well as for the reminders.

Chuck Vanasse

I chose to respond to Chuck M privately, through e-mail.  But I would like to contribute here that I agree with Chuck V in that I believe this issue to be ABSOLUTELY germaine to this BB community.

NEVER AGAIN will I subject myself to a person (man OR woman) who treats me in the vain that John Malone or "Brass Wall" has done.  I endured 15 years of that in the assembly, I WILL NOT tolerate it in my life, ever again.  That does not make me non-christian, not abiding by the scriptures, you fill in the blank.  It makes me wise.  We were taught in the assembly to take all kinds of that behavior and I am cured of ever again allowing it in my sphere.  It is toxic and it does not make me an unbeliever.  

Chuck,

It seems to me, based on my experience with him and my observation of the manner in which he interacts withs others on this BB, that John Malone is not a spiritual man.  In describing him I would use adjectives like belligerent, aggressive, domineering, rude, and other similar terms.  

He is, in my opinion, not a man to take seriously.

However, you are calling him a heretic.  You seem to be defining "heresy" as having to do with the manner in which a person promotes his ideas.  It seems to me that heresy has more to do with the content of the message rather than the delivery of the content.

Are you saying that John Malone denies essential truth of the Christian faith?  That is a serious charge, and I think that you should substantiate your charge if you are going to make it.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

     Tom has got the issue in the crosshairs:  It is the nature of heresy that is germane to this community, and the naming of anyone whose beliefs fit the profile.
     Heresy is defined as being divisive in the sense of being schismatic; that is, denying some fundamental of Christian faith, e.g., the Godhood of Christ, His resurrection, or the efficacy of His sacrifice for our redemption, in such a way as to pull away a portion of God's people from belief in some essential of the faith, and thus from the rest of the body of Christ.

     I'm in agreement with anyone who will impose the "never again" motto on not being dictated to by an overbearing blowhard who leads by force & intimidation.  But that in itself only makes one unspiritual, as Tom points out.  A lousy shepherd is not necessarily a heretic.

     Anyone want to be more specific about what constitutes heresy or what makes someone a heretic?  Give it a go.  Got questions about someone's specific words or deeds possibly being heretical?  If that someone is posting here, then the questions are appropriate...

     But if you have an issue with my method of delivery, I'd consider it a favor to us all if you'd give me a personal heads-up & an opportunity to clean up my act before making it a public issue.  There are a lot of weighty issues coming up here every day that can be overwhelming, without getting into how each of us dots his "i"s or crosses her "t"s.

     Personally, I really appreciate everyone's contributions to this discussion.  We really are marching to Zion together... not in precision lockstep, but all in the same direction, toward the same Goal! :D

al

Tom, you are correct we disagree on the definition of heresy.  

Titus 3:9-11 describes a heretic.  The heretic is the person who is factious, divisive and causes splits among God's people.  He is a disputer. The heretic takes non-essential truths and compels people to take sides - with him or against him.  This is the classical definition of heresy. If you go over to Malone's site you'll see he is taking a very "heretical view" of the Steve and Margaret Iron's view of Calvinism.  I am not a five point Calvinist, however, certain people will break fellowship upon such a difference - this is the classic definition of heresy – John Malone is such a one. He would wish to impose his views on others. This is heresy to divide over non-essential doctrines.  This is how new denominations get started via schismatic and heretical dividers.

Indeed, it is both the content and the manner of a man that determines heresy.  Also, if you go back to BW/Malone's content on this site you'll find he takes positions that forces one to be with him or against him.  The points aren't essential doctrines - they’re merely nuances, and they should not be elevated by one person to the point of deference and macro-assimilation by the Christian community.  When one does this they have departed from the true faith.  They are creating their own following.  That is why, I suspect, dividers, the factious, heretics are to be rejected.  Forget the word “heretic”…Rejecting is the serious part.  

As we see from Titus 3 delivery and content are to be taken seriously.  Why?  Cause manner and delivery are sometimes more needful for the hearers than the actual content.  Which one of us wouldn't want to fellowship more with a gracious person with whom we have minor disagreements on non-essentials than to listen to harsh know-it-alls with whom we generally agree, but is a braggart, rude and insists on dominating those around him.  I would guess that of the most recent 100 people that have posted on the ABB board concerning details of the church, church government, the kingdom, etc...I'm perhaps more in agreement with John Malone than anyone here.  

Jesus had the greatest issue with the most biblical – Torah observant Jews.  His issue was not so much content, but more the manner and delivery - just read Matthew 23.  In fact, he said do what the Pharisees tell you….But, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.

When we are speaking of spiritual things, the delivery is a substantive part of the content...If it's missing - LOVE  -and if it's missing purposeful charitable motives - it's a fraud and a freak – It’s not Christianity.  How could it be without Christ? It’s not that God was so RIGHT that he sent his sent His only begotten Son into the world, but that He so LOVED the world that he sent His only begotten Son.  Being right about "the four points" of the gospel, doesn’t mean we can beat each other up...And, if the content is correct and love is lacking it's even more dangerous.  I don't think George was a heretic because of his content - Christians believe those things - Plymouth Brethren are believers.  I am a reader of Lang, Govette, Chitwood, Pember, Groves, et. al....And, enjoy it.  I believe in many of the kingdom teachings that you all were exposed to. It's what we do with our beliefs that matter.  We have to love people into Jesus.  The gospel is a wind of love blowing through the flute of the knowledge of Christ – who He is and what He did.  The knowledge without the wind is nothing...except to use our glorious flute as a stick to poke others in the eye.

The reason heretics are known for bad doctrine is because good doctrine normally makes for good behavior and humility – cause love is on the advance of the mouth and the actions.  Doctrine are teachings of Jesus, and Jesus greatest teachings were all around loving your neighbor as yourself - That's the defining doctrine of doctrines - Love.   Zeal for "truth" without love produces heresy.

Being mean, accusatory, intolerant, belligerent, domineering, rude...All these betray the greatest doctrinal compromise.

Let's put it this way - Malone is factious and a divider - biblical words - This is serious.  We are to reject a man like this; as described in Titus 3.  To reject a man is serious.  A person that does these things is warped and sinning - that's serious.  The word says we can know that they are sinning for sure - That's serious.  

Second, John Malone is a man to take seriously. He has a ministry that one could argue touches more people than George Geftakys ever did at its height.  We under-estimate him and others like him at our own peril.  That’s another reason I’m writing all this; as an outsider looking in (merely married to an ex-assembly person),  there seems to be a deficit of understanding in who is dangerous among folks who have grown up in the assembly.  You don’t like George, okay – But, it’s not like you still don’t like domineering, rude people – You seem to bear with them nicely.  You kind of like people that slap other folks.  That’s subjective and just my impression – I may be totally wrong, but that’s how I see it. I’m certain there were many who didn’t take Geftakys seriously decades ago.   Wouldn’t it have been marvelous if they had and the evil could have been nipped in the bud?

One more point, Malone states that he has thousands of regular listeners around the country. If so, that’s serious. Why?  Cause a lot of people take him seriously.  

Our testimony rises or falls on our behavior which is both our manner and the content of our words and deeds.

What’s at stake is the testimony of Christ – Very serious.

Finally, Titus 3 is clear.  It is not an option.  We are to reject men that fulfill those qualities – call it bad bunny, divisive, factious or heretic….We are to reject them.  That’s serious.  I advise you to take men like this seriously.

All the best, Chuck

Heresy...1 Titus 3:9-11

Middle English heresie, from Old French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, a choosing, faction, from haireisthai, to choose, middle voice of hairein, to take.

Easton's Bible Dictionary...In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1).

Titus 3...King James
9   But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10   A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
11   Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Titus 3...Darby Translation
9   But foolish questions, and genealogies, and strifes, and contentions about the law, shun; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10   An heretical man after a first and second admonition have done with,
11   knowing that such a one is perverted, and sins, being self-condemned.



Chuck Vanasse

Al,

I'm guilty as charged.  Sorry about that.  I didn't spend enough time thinking about the ramifications of my action.  I had rationalized it as a response in kind, when in reality it was a response unkind, a shameful thing to do.  Fortunately, I was able to delete it before anyone quoted it, but shamefully I didn't recognize my mistake until someone gave me a negative point.

Words are like fireworks.  They don't always go off the way you would expect.  Some earlier words that were merely intended to lighten a post that seemed too heavy were unexpectedly picked up by BW.  I'm sorry that that caused you grief as well.

Chuck, so if Joe is a five pointer and won't fellowship with Arminians he is a heretic.  But if Sam is a five pointer and will fellowship with Arminians, he is not a heretic.   Somehow that just doesn't seem to work very well.  At least not to me.


So If Bill is a modalist or an arian that wants to be nice to you and fellowship with you he isn't a heretic?  


Actually Chuck, this isn't true.  These guys were demanding that people obey the "tradition of the elders", a system of interpretation that had been superimposed on the Torah.


What could possibly have led you to such a conclusion?   :o
Chuck, you think folks on this board "liked" JM?  Just because some of us chose not to answer him in kind....that's not "liking" him.

Frankly Chuck, that's heretical!   ;)


You believe him?  On his website an article he posted said that about 25 adults attend his church.  That's a couple shy of "thousands."

Tom, Malone has a national radio ministry - that's where the thousands come from.
Tom you say, "Chuck, so if Joe is a five pointer and won't fellowship with Arminians he is a heretic.  But if Sam is a five pointer and will fellowship with Arminians, he is not a heretic.   Somehow that just doesn't seem to work very well.  At least not to me."

Yep, that's what I'm saying.  Heretics will argue than divide over non-essentials.  Tom, I'm not trying to say something that "will work for you."  I'm trying to understand the scriptures and apply them accordingly.  If I'm wrong I am open to correction; thus far, I am unpersuaded.

Tom you say about the Torah observant in Jesus day, "Chuck, this isn't true. These guys were demanding that people obey the "tradition of the elders", a system of interpretation that had been superimposed on the Torah."


Correct and not correct they applied much if not most of the Torah in their lives; Jesus did have issues of them "adding" to the Word, yes - However, his major issue with them was the way they lived their lives (Matt 23), that's my point.  I think we're talking past each other here, we may be in agreement here.  

You say, "What could possibly have led you to such a conclusion?  
Chuck, you think folks on this board "liked" JM?  Just because some of us chose not to answer him in kind....that's not "liking" him."

I stand by that impression, I said, "You seem to bear with them nicely.  You kind of like people that slap other folks.  That’s subjective and just my impression."  

It's not a conclusion - It is merely an opinion - An opinion that I'd love to change! This impression has not been formed by the latest Malone interaction.  In fact, as moderator your behavior argued against this impression in many respects.  Also, Malone was speaking violently against the innocent, I on the other hand moved violently against the tearing wolf in our midst.  Therefore, it was not "in kind"...I abhor playing the pugilist.  However, it is something I will do when I see the sheep under attack...the innocent in duress.

Actually, if I responded in kind, you also did - "You rejected him" as you should have and threw him off the board.  The pressing of the nose produces blood.  Violence produces violence.  Tragic.

Appreciate your note.  

Chuck Vanasse

The news on John from his website:

John is the primary voice in a church of about 40 that meets in a building that appears to be someone's garage.  You can see this at
www.millardcommunitychurch.com (http://www.millardcommunitychurch.com)  The practices and bold stands of this church (as well as its apparent lack of growth) feels hauntingly familiar to me.

He has a daily radio program on three AM stations in Kansas City, Omaha and Indianapolis.   When I clicked on the "Galatians overview" I was met with Quartet-type music that I would expect only appeals to an older set though I could be wrong.  It's one thing to say that you are preaching to thousands over the radio.  It's another to actually know that people are listening to you.  Those of us in non-profit ministries tend to have ways of tracking this sort of thing so we know we are not wasting our money.  Here is his radio setup:  http://www.biblestudy.net/ (http://www.biblestudy.net/)

The most interesting item I found is a four year old profile that was done on John in the Omaha World.   I'll let you form your own opinion on how much his positives were fluffed and how much of his negatives smoothed over.  Nevertheless, it has a nice action photo in case you don't know what he looks like.  I didn't.
http://www.millardcommunitychurch.com/Pages/News/OWH_John_Malone.htm (http://www.millardcommunitychurch.com/Pages/News/OWH_John_Malone.htm)

Verne,
I don't know if I'd go so far as to write/say that.
d

Verne,

     I have misread, but I believe Chuck was addressing this comment to the BB in general, using "you" in the plural sense.

     As to your observation regarding Tom, this is the work of the Holy Spirit in evidence.  Many years ago, Tom was so angry with me that he wanted to physically strike me (I don't say he would have, but he expressed his desire to).  I told him I would never fight a man wearing glasses, whereupon he took his glasses off.  But I was wearing sunglasses, which I left on as I rephrased, "I would never fight a man. . .  wearing glasses!"  Then we both broke into gales of laughter!   ;D ;D ;D  True story!

al

Verne, let me untrouble you a bit...This comment was written in the second person plural - I was referring to certain parties within this BB community.  I tried to make that clear - Inasmuch as Tom is a moderator this does have a pinch for him as well - just like Rumsfeld may be a great Defense Secretary, some ugly things happened in an Iraqi prison on his watch.  

Indeed, I and many others were delighted when Tom jumped in and put Malone off the board.

I might, however, apply the expression to you, Verne.  You seem to like to argue - even relish it (that's how you've impressed me), you've certainly had to apologize many times for "lack of restraint," have you not?  It's a real turn-off for me when you're like that. You've got a great mind and can be very charming - Why be like this?

Let me be specific - I think you were very heavy-handed with Pat Matthews not too long ago, for example.  You could have expressed the same message in a winsome way.  Instead you probably reinforced negative feelings and simply created a lot of resentment.  I haven't seen Pat back since that exchange.  It appeared to me visceral, gratuitous and ugly.  Am I missing something on this point?  I am one of hundreds of frequent guests to this site, when we see this it's so discouraging...It drives us away.  That's kind of why I was underground for nine months, myself.

Also, sometimes when you respond like you do above, you appear to be sucking up and in this case to Tom.  Let Tom take care of himself, Verne. Resist the desire to jump in with your own two cents.  It doesn't build or enlighten.

Also, I wouldn't let "impressions" trouble you unless it hits a nerve and the Holy Spirit is urging you to address it.  

Finally, I am troubled by these kinds of exchanges, as well.  I wish it weren't my observation that this board has, at times, a certain enabling atmosphere for bullies.  A small fly makes the perfumers oil stink and a little foolishness is weightier than much wisdom.

One or two bullies can spoil a whole playground...

I'd love to see something different.  If I'm totally wrong I look forward to seeing that evidenced in the future.  I'd certainly rejoice in such an environment.

All the best...Chuck

I DO hope you're joking.  This is a little much.
d

     I honestly don't remember what it was about.  Tom & I butted heads (figuratively) often in those pre-assembly days.  Most likely he was right & I was stubborn, but it could have been the other way around.  All I recall is how a great laugh dissipated the anger...


     I wasn't lucky, Verne, I was clever.  Even though Tom & I share the same background of intense training in survival & the martial arts provided by our respective stints in the U.S.Air Force ( ;D), I knew he could have stomped a mudhole in me even on one of my better days, and he was angry! :o  But at least I learned a lesson from it:  I now never take off my sunglasses! 8)

al

Chuck,

The problem I have with your ideas on heresy is that you make heresy a subjective judgement.

For example, if a man denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, he has contradicted the clear teaching of scripture and is teaching heresy.

But, if I guy is orthodox in doctrine but acts like a jerk, you call him a heretic.  By that standard, a man could be seen as a brother with a problem in one church, and a heretic in another!

Just how much contention is allowable, and how much is too much?
I ask this because all strong minded people have disagreements with their brethren from time to time.

That is why I asked you to explain what John Malone's doctrinal errors are.  So for you haven't done that.

Concerning the verse in Titus 3, we need to remember that when we read the epistles, we are reading someone else's mail.  

The letter is addressed to Titus, who Paul had sent to deal with issues in Crete.  We can infer from 3:9 that there were disputes about the law and genealogies.  It could be that the Judaisers were in Crete causing the same kind of problems that they had in Galatia.  

The reference to genealogies might mean that someone was claiming authority on the basis of a relationship to Jesus.  We know that James the Lord's brother was the "head elder" of the church at Jerusalem by the time of the Acts 15 conference, and another brother's epistle, Jude, is included in the NT canon.  So geneology had some importance to first century Christians.

But we don't, and can't, know for sure what these folks were doing.  What you are doing is taking a verse in which Paul was dealing with a particular situation, and using it to state a universal principle.

However, to do so intelligently we need to know exactly what the parameters are.

My refusal to deal with John Malone is on the basis of Galatians 5:16-26 and Ephesians 4:25-32.  His carnal conduct is open for all to see.

But, to date, I don't know that he is a heretic.

Another thing Chuck.  

You have admonished us to be concerned about the "Testimony to Jesus".  You have also told us that you are of Plymouth Brethren persuasion.  Fine with me.  Enjoy.

But one must remember that their ideas have led to their being known as a center of inter-necene warfare and divisiveness.  In the days of H.A. Ironside, there were 19 mutually excommunicating "True Testimonies" to Jesus in the London area alone!!!!!    :o

It would seem to me that your definition of heresy could be one of the reasons for this.  Proof of the pudding y'know.   ::)

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[/u][/b]


Tom , the description in Titus 3:9-11 is robust and quite lucid – Yes, it is subjective, spiritually subjective like the qualifications of an elder or like most other instructions on needful actions in the new testament – We don't have to freelance the interpretation, however. .. As long as the definition is clear, the Spirit can lead His people, correct?  Subjectiveness can't be "an out" in following Paul's instruction...Otherwise, we could refuse to apply much, if not most, of scripture.



Correct


Yes, that’s right – The only difference is not merely a jerk, but a factious, divisive jerk – Don’t get caught up with the word heresy - it never appears in the bible in most translations and when it does it is in Titus 3…The point is the heretical person sows descent among God’s people - destroys testimony.  That’s the focus.  And, we are to reject such people.  The person who creates factions in the church, the person who divides the church...It's more than a jerk - It's called a Heretic.


Titus is the standard…Verse 3:9 is key and when they don’t take heed to warnings (v10) - Two warnings to be precise.

But avoid foolish disputes, genelogies, contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self condemned.



Absolutely!  Like you and I right now…But, we’re not name calling and compelling people to take sides, are we? Nor, will we divide on the issue.


Being a factious, divisive man…That’s the doctrinal error.  Betrays the doctrine of love and of unity.



Hey, it's not somebody else's mail - It's mine and yours as well!  The whole bible is for us and profitable for teaching,  reproof, correction and training in righteousness.


Doesn’t appear that way to me, Tom…It appears you are making this too big an academic exercise. I dare say it's a stretch for most readers to believe this was just for a particular event or situation.  It appears that God has preserved an instruction by Paul to an individual to reject divisive, argumentative men.  That's all.  It's as straight forward as anything else in the bible...In fact, Paul seems determined to eliminate any ambiguity.


Sorry, that’s not persuasive - I'm not buying…Seems to fly in the face of the plain meaning.


Yes, it’s a principle.  We should build principles on scripture.  You are correct, Tom - Saying it's universal sounds like I'm extending it in places I shouldn't - I don't think I'm doing that, but I'm listening.  If some of you assembly people had followed this principle in the assembly a lot of pain could have been prevented since George would have been rejected out of hand by believers early on.  George was guilty of factiousness – He violated the doctrine of unity and love.  Two huge doctrines.  Jesus says in John 17 that the world would know He sent us, as the Father sent Him, when we are One.  The heretic defies Jesus deepest yearnings for the body.  He destroys testimony; which is the purpose of the Church on earth.


I think the scriptures are specific enough for the reader - they're the parameters, right?


You are right.  Scripture agrees with scripture...We come out at the same place.


I read Titus and I think the message is quite compelling. I believe he is a heretic…Joe Sperling and Kimberly Tobin are on record for the same conclusion. Nor, do I think I was given special revelation.  

Indeed, I do appreciate you rejecting the divisive man –You followed Titus 3:9-11 well, even though you may argue that you didn’t do it because of the Titus 3:9-11 instruction.  Common sense and scripture ran absolutely parallel on this point…As it usually does. I commend you.  What you did on this board, you'd end up doing in the church as well - Rejecting him - Cause It's Called A Heretic.  Wisdom is vindicated by her children.



I totally agree with you about the Plymouth Brethren!  Probably per capita the Brethren have more heretics than any group on the planet.   Also, I am not a PB.  I meet in a home church and like many Plymouth Brethren writers – that’s it.

 

It  certainly was with Malone...And, that's what Paul is saying in Titus 3:9-11, cause...

[/u][/b]

Appreciate your thoughts.  Hope this helps...

All the best, Chuck

I know there is probably a precise definition of a heretic, but I do see John Malone as one. I follow Chuck Vanesse's definition in that sense. Though not specifically calling him a "heretic", 3 John 9-11 mentions a fellow named Diotrephes, a member of the church who "loves to have the preeminence", who "does not receive the brethren" even putting people out of the church who don't agree with him.

John, after mentioning this fellow says "Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good". So, I see this person as a "heretic" not necessarily by what he specifically teaches, but by who he is at heart. He clearly leads away from Jesus' teaching on love, causes divisions, and puts himself in a special place of importance. This is exactly what George did, and it is exactly what John Malone does when he visits the BB---his is the "only" interpretation, and he likes to speak about himself, and his suffering, and his accomplishments. He draws people away onto "himself"---not necessarily by being Biblically off-base at it's core teachings---but by "loving to have the preeminence", and putting himself in a place of special importance.

George saw himself as an "apostle", speaking of a dream he had where he saw a book called "The Acts of his Apostles" and inferring he himself was most likely in the book. John Malone continually refers to himself as being called "alone" to suffer for righteousness sake. Calling himself "Brass Walls", a suffering prophet of God, telling the truth while the majority turn away from him.

I personally believe that this does indeed define a heretic. We call Cults "heresies" because they stray from Orthodoxy when it comes to the core teachings of Christianity(Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, The Trinity, The Resurrection, Justification by faith,etc.). But I believe that there are many "heretics" that seem to teach what the Bible teaches. They usually have "one thing" which doesn't seem to fit, but in general we would say "No--they're not a heretic, because they teach all of the Orthodox teachings of Christianity". But they are heretics in the sense that they seek for people to put their faith in "them" because they are uniquely called of God--more so than your average Christian who follows the relaxed code of the "majority".

George was a heretic in this sense. Most of George's teachings were very Orthodox. But when it came to the Assembly he was the preeminent one, and you did not dare question his authority or his "take" on things. He had us all living on a higher plane, expressing pity for the majority of Christians living in lesser light in the "worldly" churches all around us. He was a heretic. not mainly by what he taught, but by who he was, and the power he had over all of us. I think Chuck is correct in that a "heretic" doesn't necessarily have to teach that Jesus is not the son of God to be a heretic, he can teach things that lead away from "brotherly love" or "charity" and that leads to "putting the brethren out of the church" (i.e." all these other churches are so worldly--they don't follow God's pattern") just like Diotrephes did.

Diotrephes isn't singled out for what he taught, but how he treated the brethren(all christians) and caused divisions because of his tremendous ego. I think he represents a "heretic" to a tee.

--Joe

Verne,

With all these rules to the contrary, how do we honor the truth-teller?

Verne---

I'm sorry---I have to disagree with you on this one. The man has his own website(see Dave's post below), and has posted where and when he preaches on the radio.

Benny Hinn may not be here to defend himself either--does that mean I cannot discuss him or what he teaches either? The main discussion is what a heretic is, and whether someone like John Malone (or as I have now added, Benny Hinn) is a heretic or not. He need not be here to defend himself--I think we all know pretty well what he would post.

If I stated "Verne is a heretic" without a basis for doing so, and you had no way to respond to it, that would be wrong. But we have a basis for doing so with Mr. Malone. We can turn on the radio and hear his spoutings, or visit his website, or read his posts(until he gets himself banned) right here.  So I happen to disagree with you on this one Verne.

--Joe

Joe, excellent points...I doubt Diotrephes was there to defend himself, either.  I certainly know he's not around today to deal with the record.

Chuck.

Verne---

I have already posted the "evidence". When someone acts like a Diotrophes, insulting other Christians,putting them out of the church, and seeking preeminence, in my mind that is a "heretical" person. I already stated my reasons for believing this. I have said that they are "heretical" not necessarily for teaching Unorthodox things, but for being unorthodox in their dealings with other Christians, and what their "interpretation" of living the Christian life is. His posts have been evidence enough for me, and I have stated thus.

Anyone on the BB knows that I don't make it a habit of talking about other people that can't defend themselves. The discussion of what a heretic is was brought up, and whether this gentleman is one. I believe he is and stated why I believe this. You don't have to accept it, but I don't believe not talking about it is walking on "higher ground" in this case.

But, I really don't seek to get into a "boxing match" :D over this whole issue, so I'll let the chips fall where they may, and leave it at that.

God bless you Verne,  Joe

Did Pilate honor the truth-teller?


Good answer, but rumors that someone is being hurt need investigation.

I had no personal feud with John Malone...Nor, do I now.  Vitriol is "bitterly abusive feeling or expression."  It is difficult to pull an attack dog off an innocent without looking abusive to the dog.  I feel no vitriol, nor did I feel bitterness or vitriol with John Malone.  No feud, no ill will.  I pray for John Malone – humbled, broken John Malone could be an incredible man for God and perhaps some day he may be - Wouldn't that be terrific! …I’m acting toward John the way I would want everyone to act toward me if I were as mean and divisive as he.  And, in my flesh I can be! ...Short of killing me, I'd want God to target his big guns on me.  You saw me employing the golden rule with John Malone in the best way I knew how. I'll be the first to admit my skills have a lot to be desired. You did see with Malone how I'd want someone to oppose me if I were such a horse's-neck.  Indeed, with the merciful, God is merciful; but with the brutish God shows himself astute.

I had no feud or vitriol with Mike Zach when I broke the “code of silence” on that infamous history during the first week of February of 2003; concerning that history of divisiveness and heresy enablement.  Mike repented.  Praise God!  Mike is now a humbled brother attending a church in Omaha Nebraska.  I’ve seen him at two weddings.  He’s a broken man…On his way to God’s godliness.

I had no ill will or feud with the SLO leadership or with Brent when I stood in-between the parties and held each side accountable for specific hurtful words and deeds, that eventful Saturday and Sunday of January 18th and 19th, 2003 - What some have called FREEDOM DAY.  Both sides repented – It was beautiful, simply sublime...Some of you may recall I cried like a baby...I remember Danny Edwards saying "Chuck, I'm happy too, but I couldn't just cry like that."  Well, I did - It was a time for tears of joy!

Verne, I have no personal issue with you when I say that "you impress me as a bully" – no vitriol.  Words can do with the heart what a dull knife in Iraq did to an innocent Nicholas Berg's neck.  Hey, you need to be very careful.  I know God is using more than Malone’s rejection from this site to deal with him.  He’s got both business and health challenges – God surely disciplines.  We must fear.  I don’t know about you folks, but God scares me.  I’m trembling now as I type this.

I am not really a writer…I’m more of a face-to-face guy.  I do appreciate folks like Al encouraging me in a positive winsome way to watch the way I say things.  I do want to be winsome.  In my history with Mike Zach I went so far as to call him a “sock-puppet” of George…I repented of that to the community as well as to Mike Zach - that repentance was posted very prominently on the Assembly Site for over a year.  During the following year anytime someone searched my name on Google or any other prominent search engine that was the very first thing that came up – And, in my business that matters…God is wonderful!  It was so humbling…I thank Him for it.  What a wonderful God we have!!!

Indeed, it is difficult to pull an attack dog off an innocent without looking like your being abusive to the dog.  We are to reject the heretic.  If we can’t pull the dog off its victim – We are to shoot the dog.  Reject the heretic, folks. Shoot the dog… Don’t be complicit in abuse.

Don’t ever, ever allow yourselves to enable another Heretic!  

Bless you all, Chuck