AssemblyBoard

This is pretty serious, Steve.

Can you please be far more specific?  I certainly would appreciate having this error exposed if it is me you are talking about.  (I don't think it is me, but I assume the regular poster you refer to would also appreciate your input.)

Brent

Stephen----

I agree with Brent. If I am the one you are referring to regarding errors, I would like to know so that I can learn from it, and be corrected by it. Perhaps you could be more specific concerning the errors you are referring to.

I do appreciate your post below. In the first paragraph of your post you mention the Word of God and Creation and I was reminded of Hugh Ross, who states that the Bible and Science are fully reconcilable. They are both perfect--and God is fully shown to exist by both Science and the Bible. "The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse".(Rom 1:20).

Thanks for your posts Stephen.

--Joe

I do? I did not know that!
Is this the same as the knowable and the inscrutable?
I may have to change my epistimological pardigm... :)


 
I agree.

Some things are obvious - Christ died for sins

Some things take a bit of digging - Seeing the Pentateuch in the Book of Psalms.

Some things are unkowable (apart from special revelation), or until prophecy becomes fulfilled- Who is the Antichrist.


When I see how some men in places of spiritual responsibility behave, I consider this a distinct possibility
It is diificult to understand how an unbeliever could rise to prominence in a gathering of Christian men and women but it can and does happen.


Imposters and legalism. Are these the errors?
Who might the poster be that requires more carefulness pray tell.
I for one think greater carefulness is always in order when it come to spiritual matters.   :)





I must say that I disagree. Christ-likeness is the entire reason for our redemption.
The danger comes in letting others, as oppposed to God's Word, define exactly what that is. One of my very favorite passages in the Bible is 2 Corinthians 3:18

 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.  

Verne

The response to your request is in the Wounded Pilgrims thread where the
three relevant posts were made 2 or 3 days ago.  I was working from memory and falsely described what was said as being all in one post.  I'm sorry that I wasn't able to respond to those posts in a timely manner.

In response to Verne, I must say that the "Christ-like" teaching is very deceptive.  From seeing the adverse effects that it has on churches, it is evident that there is something wrong with it.

I am  going to jump to a conclusion and assume that the false representatives of "Christ-likeness" that come to your mind are people like David Koresh, Jim Jones, even George Geftakys?
I take it that the adverse effects you refer to are those resulting form the cult of personality infecting so many gatherings of God's people today right?

Why should we let them set the standard?

I don't know about the rest of you folk on the BB, but I have met some men and women over the years in whom the familial resemblance of the Lord Jesus was strong indeed.

If you do not understand that it is the godly example of saints in whose life God has worked to conform to the image of His dear Son, that is indeed one the most wonderful benefits of being in fellowship then you have missed the boat in my view.

This is exactly what made the assemblies in many respects such a perversion.

What went on there was anti-thetical to that of which we speak!

How many of you are prepared to forever let your assembly experience determine your standards and circumscribe your expectations?

I can still remeber seeing J Vernon McGee in the last year of his life preaching the gospel message in Champaign at Strattford Park Bible Chapel.
At 86 his face was radiant!
I distinctly remember thinking

"I want to end like him!"

It is the responsibility of those of us who name the Name of Christ to so exemplify his grace and beauty, that the familial resemblance to our Savior is evident to all.
That I should have to make this case at all is quite telling is it not?
Verne

p.s Why don't a few of us define what we mean by Christ-likeness? I would like the privelege of beginning.
A Christ-like quality?  HUMILITY

Do we look for this quality in spiritual leaders?
Does anybody think Geftakys and his hirelings were humble men? What thinkest ye?

In this regard I know myself to be most unlike my redeemer. May His transfroming work prevail...

There is nothing wrong with the term "burden of the Lord" either, yet God told his people through Jeremiah that he didn't want them using the term because its meaning in the popular vernacular of the time had become distorted.

You used the term and Al immediately associated it with a specific form of teaching which is faulty.  Confusion is caused by using a term that many people identify as meaning something different from what you mean by the term.  That is my point.  All you need to do is alter the wording only a little bit so that it doesn't automatically associate in people's minds with the faulty teaching.

Also it is wrong headed to focus on appearances rather than heart realities.  The term "Christ-like" suggests appearances.  Our focus shouldn't be on what we look like, but rather what God wants to make of us, no matter what that might look like.  What do we care what people think of us, as long as we're abiding in him.  Focus on appearances is what hypocrisy is all about!

Steve my good friend, you are really confusing me here.
I have never conceded that Al or anyone else on this BB speaks for Verne Carty.
Are we to make no judgments about the state of someone's inner life based on what we observe?
I would argue that it was exactly the failure to take note of the conduct of assembly leadership that was our deepest failure.
Let us take your position to an extreme.
Here is a pastor who is frequently drunk. Who has several illegitmate children.
Who is known to beat his wife etc. etc. Using your reasoning, a case could be made for keeping this man in ministry. After all, it is wrong to focus on mere appearances right? Although a man may  display all sorts of the most vile and vulgar behaviour, we really ought not to concern ourselves with such appearances
I know it sounds totally ridiculous.

Guess what? That has indeed been done!

Your apparent belief that there is any real dichotomy between the condition of a man's heart and his outward conduct is gravely mistaken. That is never true for anyone with any spiritual discernment and that is the truth...

We had better pay close attention to appearances if we know what's good for us in my opinon. Our inattention in the assemblies was the undoing of too many of us.

Verne

Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.  Hebrews 13:7

p.s. I trust that you in no way (although you used that expression) concluded that when I talk about Christ-likeness that I am talking about what people "look like" ??!!

 
 O.K... I finally got you Steve. I went back and took a closer look at that above quote Al posted.

Here is my question:

WHAT ON EARTH DOES WHAT AL POSTED HAVE TO DO WITH CHRIST-LIKENESS??

Particularly in the context of people who have suffered abuse at the hands of unfaithful men. If Al is in any way suggesting that this is acceptable and defensible ( which I doubt he is) he has a serious problem.
It seems to be he is simply saying that all who would live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution; and that is certainly true!
I would never have guessed considering the way I post and the things I say that anyone would have mistaken me for a masochist!  :)
Verne

Al,

You know how it is.    We're late!  

BTW, what was the date of your wedding?  I had some pretty heavy things going in 1967, and I was out of state for a while.

I don't remember anything about your wedding...so you are probably correct about my not attending.

As to why...now you've got me wondering about it.

Thomas Maddux

Hi folks,

Caryl and I just returned from a weekend in San Diego.  We honeymooned there 40 years ago, and we have returned in January for most of the years since then.  We had a good time of rest, fellowship, and recreation.

I have just read through the messages posted in the past few days.  Too many to respond to one by one.  But, a few comments.

1. Steve F. thinks that I am "extreme" in my view on guidance.   Maybe I am...but extreme only has meaning in a frame of reference.  Otherwise it is merely a way of saying, "I don't like what you said."  

I am curious about what "extreme" means in this case.  BTW, what would "moderate" look like?

2. Brent has boldly declared that he believes the Holy Spirit can speak directly to men.  I guess he is "exreme" too.  I say that because I believe exactly the same thing.

I believe that If God so chose, he could send the angels to flap their wings in the clouds and form them into letters to send us messages.  For that matter, he could simply create "alphabet clouds".  

The real question is not "Could God do this?", but rather, DOES God do this? or at least do it so often that I should be looking or listening for it.  In addition, how will I know when I have had this experience?

3. A burden from the Lord?  How do I recognize a burden from the Lord?  Many seem to think that if Jeremiah or someone had a burden from the Lord, what they feel or have felt is the same thing.  How does one tell?

I have been asking these questions for years.  I have asked them of many people, of many different theological inclinations.   No one has ever had any kind of a clear answer for me.  

Many have claimed these experiences.  A few years back a lady confidently told me..."God told me to buy all new furniture."   I asked her how she knew that.  "Oh, I'm sure God told me that."

End of discussion.  I cannot prove that God indeed DID NOT tell her to buy all new furniture.  :o   Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced.

The reason is that when I read in the Bible of God speaking...he seems to have more important things than interior decorating on his mind!

IMHO, on the subject of Divine Guidance there is a whole lot of heat, and very little light.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

Oh yeah, I remember!  Back in those days you were always late.  When we used to make the pilgrimage to Fullerton once or twice a week you were never on time, usually arriving only minutes before the Hartmans :-[

Anyhow, wonder no more-- I was just yanking your chain ;D

Cathy & I were married in November, only a month or two after meeting you & Caryl (you later told me that you didn't attend because we scarcely knew each other).  I giddily invited everyone I had ever met-- might have even sent out a few invitations to "Occupant." ::)

Everything's cool, Bro-- you can return the toaster ;).  Besides, they make electric ones now...

al

We did pay close attention to appearances.  However, lacking the needed spiritual discernment, we concluded that all churches have problems, but, since we were superior to other churches, where else could we go.

One of the leaders here in Ottawa often preached from Hebrews 13:7 to convince us from the Scriptures that we ought to obey the leaders, fallible or not, because we should trust God for the leaders.


NONE of us are Verne.  We are all getting on with our lives, but some/all/none ??? have not arrived at the point that you believe we should be at.

Al, Stephen makes a good point re. usage of terminology, don't you think?



Recently I wrote a pastor about a message on gossip I had heard, that triggered in me that reaction to concealment.  If the leaders' behavior is above reproach, then I would not have anything to gossip about eh?? ;)


Amen to this!

Marcia

When Steve objects to equating Christ-likeness with a willingness (I think) to uquestioningly accept abuse at the hands of the unholy and acquiesce silently to ungodly conduct I think he does have a point.
I have noticed with great interest how the radical homosexual left has very effectively muzzled so many Christians by their frequent invocation of the diatribe of "hate" and "homophobia". They have been so effective in the employment of this tactic, that you now have so-called Christians actually supporting and defending homosexual marriages.
They are desperately afraid of being accused of being "hateful" or "intolerant".
It is therefore no surprise to see some people masqueradfing as Christians( clearly not born again) using the exact same technique to try and stifle criticsim of unholy behaviour.
The reason it is no surprise is that firstly all these folk are energized by the same unholy source, and secondly that it has so often been quite effective.

Remember the mantra in the assemblies:

"Don't speak against the Lord's servant"?

We even had a would-be wiccan on the BB sometime back, who in the midst of the melt-down of George's unholy empire was assuring us that he was "The Lord's servant."

Where do you see that in the Bible?

Fortunately  for Peter (and you and me), Paul was not about to indulge his godless bigoted hypocrisy.
It was a remarkably effective tool for cowing countless numbers of folk into timid silence, whose consciences should have impelled them to loudly condemn some of the things that were going on.
It is kind of amusing that some of the detritus of assembly days still presume to think that this kind of silliness would influence anyone in this post-assembly era.
While God tells us to love our enemies (and this has absolutely nothing to do with how we feel about them), I continue to be amazed at how gullible so many Christians are. The Bible teaches us that we know we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren.
When someone comes around, permeating the atmosphere with the most noxious spiritual stench imaginable, and there is a natural revulsion of the heart and mind to what is being promulgated, why is that so many of us, otherwise reasonably intlligent folk, concede that these people are brethren?? Satan is no fool.
In this respect I completely agree with Steve's objections and wanted to make that point clear.
God is not only a God of love. HE IS HOLY!
Verne
p.s I do have a bit of a problem with the wholesale discarding of terms just because others have mis-applied and abused them. I am not about to give up the word Christ-likeness. I am always prepared to define exatly what I mean by my own use of it.

As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness Psalm 17:15

Why don't we let the Word of God define our terms?

I remember when we first moved to North Carolina some friends fell into trouble and we suggested they come out and live with us and get a new start.  It was nice having them for a few months, but in retrospect, it probably would have been better for them to resolve the problem on their own instead of jumping on the first thing that came along.

When they arrived the first day, I asked the wife how she is doing.  She said hesitantly, “Well, were just seeking the Lord to know His will.”

I thought, isn’t that something you should have done BEFORE you came out?  What I figured out later was that she didn’t have a good feeling about moving to North Carolina – it was a bit premature and they were rebounding from a bad situation – but her excited husband overruled.  She was expressing her unease and feelings of insecurity about the decision using “God talk”.

Because the wife really didn’t want to come out, she would subconsciously do things to make sure things wouldn’t work.  I remember her being at a church fellowship with us and she would situate herself by herself at a table with a mean “don’t talk to me” look on her face.  Afterwards, she would complain about how unfriendly everyone was and say, “Maybe all Southerners are unfriendly and are prejudice against outsiders.”

Over time, they found that it was difficult to get work with any promise in the area and there was much that they didn’t like – low wage job, the prospect of winter, acclimating to a different culture, living with the Sables isn’t as easy as they thought, long distance from major city etc.

Finally, they decided to leave.  The wife came to me and said that she had been reading in the Bible and God has spoken to her.

“God said to Moses, gooooooooo”, she said emphasizing the word “go”.

I didn’t quite get it.  “So?” I asked.

“God said to Moses, gooooooooo”, she emphasized until I figured out that she was saying that God was telling them to go, too.  Whatever the passage might mean to Moses in a literal, historic sense, God was lifting the verse out and applying it to their heart as a way of saying, “move to Oregon.”

Their circumstances can be interpreted in two ways, take your pick:

Interpretation 1:  Our friends hit a difficult situation.  When Dave offered them some help, they jumped on it, not really thinking it through.  When they arrived, they realized that the area does not have a favorable job market.  In rethinking the situation and considering their future, they moved near some friends in Oregon that had a more diverse job market.  As a result, they both got good jobs and were eventually able to buy a house.

Interpretation 2:  The devil brought persecution into their lives.  God used the circumstances to make them “pilgrims and strangers” going forth depending completely upon God.  “Just trust me”, God was saying to them.  After three months of the Lord’s purging, God spoke to them through a passage of Scripture saying, “Go and I will take care of all your needs.”  They stepped out in faith and moved to Oregon where God supplied their every need and blessed them.

I think much of the subjective “God talk” is based on how someone wants to interpret their circumstances.  In a house church, we attend, we worship as the “the Spirit leads” which means there is no formal ending time and we stop when finish the song sheet, get tired and want to eat.  I sometimes am “led” to lead out in a song which could mean that God put a song on my heart or it could mean that someone’s prayer reminded me of a song I happen to like and wanted to sing.  (In the Assembly, I used to struggle over whether my prayer or song was “of God” or not – of course, getting corrected in worship was one of the highest humiliations)

Most subjective “God talk” I found is in reference to things that don’t matter much (who cares if I lead out in a song or not?) or things that people are probably going to do anyway if we reason it out (“God told me to take this lower paying job to be closer to home.”)   If your physician were to tell you that God spoke to him that you should stop taking your blood pressure medicine and turn off your pacemaker, you probably would get a second opinion.

Subjective "God talk" only becomes a problem is when we begin to bind other people - expecially the weak - with it ("No, you can't pursue an advanced degree because God says you are a child of Zion to build his mountain of testimony and thus he needs you at the meetings of the week") or if it makes us completely unable to think though a circumstance objectively ("I know my boss is abusing me, but God says he want me be here.")

It would be silly to say that God never speaks to people.  However, God can also instantly heal and he can cause someone to break out in a foreign language he doesn’t know in order to preach the gospel to another people group.  It just has been my observation that these things have been more the exception than the rule.

So what I understand some people are saying is that God can intervene in our lives supernaturally, but he does it so rarely that we shouldn't particularly look for it, expect it, or believe for it. And that would seem that our relationship with God and Christ is not really "a personal relationship with Jesus" in that He doesn't really communicate and/or help us on a daily basis similar to the way our closest friends and family do.

We can interpret prayer and its answers very much like Dave's interpretation #1 and #2. We can pray "Give us this day our daily bread," but that is really just God talk because we go to our jobs anyway and so God doesn't really answer that He just wants us to pray it occasionally to remind us to get out the door and go to the job.

Am I getting this?

God really let me down today. I got up and sought his "leading" as to what I should wear today. Well, I got to work and looked in the mirror. I had on brown shoes, black pants and a brown belt, and in the name of all that's holy how did I wind up putting on a Disney T-shirt??  Just kidding of course.

Jem---I think God is as close as ever, and is always watching us and taking care of us. But, just as children rely on their parents for literally "everything" when they are small, but then gradually learn more and more to use their "own" minds, I think the same applies to us. We always rely on God, but there are many decisions that we can make on our own, by using the very brains that God has given us. I don't need to get up and ask "Oh Lord, should I wear the blue shirt or the white shirt today?" The Assembly mentality(and many other legalistic churches) is that we ask God for basically everything, and make no decisions on our own.

It basically boils down to choosing a mentality that God is responsible for every aspect of our lives and we need to "ask" before we do anything, and basically "wait". Or, to realize that God has told us his will "The Lord has shown thee oh man what is good. And what does the Lord require of thee? But to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God"(Micah 6:8), and use the minds he has given us to decide the best way to live in accordance with his will. we don't need to ask God where we should live---we should do the will of God above wherever we "choose" to live.

--Joe

Words of wisdom.
I think this is the long and short of it.
For those living a life led by and filled with the Spirit of God as evidenced by holiness I think any and everything is possible as regards God's supernatural working.
I hear these kinds of stories from missionaries all the time.
Paul and I heard some in Kenya and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt their veracity.
We do sadly live in a terribly mechanistic age and some of us have lost our wonder at the Creator God we serve...



This probably is indeed the disposition and experience of most American believers. It is certainly not true for many Christians in other parts of the world. That this is true of us in some sense may speak to our own spiritual poverty, our material abundance notwithstanding.
We also are very ignorant in this country for the most part, about what God is doing and has done elsewhere.


Boy does this cut close to home. It exposes us for the religious people were are deep down inside. TOUCHE'!!




Verne

Very interesting discussion.
Why would God would encourage us in His word to pray about everything if it were just a meaningless exercise?  He answers prayer.
And yes, He gave us minds so we would use them.  Too often the assembly
'live by faith' teaching really meant seek counsel from leaders and act on it it.
As I listened to the late Reggie White's testimony recently, I was glad no one ever told him he couldn't play pro football on Sunday because Sunday was supposed to be All Day for the Lord.
As I read about William Wilberforce I was thankful his Christian friends encouraged him to stay in politics after his conversion, because he was instrumental in passing laws to abolish slavery in Great Britain.
(Assemblyites said Don't play sports on Sunday, and Politics is all compromise and no place for Christians.)
I believe God speaks to us through His Holy Spirit.  In fact, I remember what He said to me the morning after I heard of Geo.'s ex-comm.  It was from Matthew 7.  He clearly said, Corrupt trees produce corrupt fruit.  Beware of false prophets....

Becky

Verne, I think you are definately right-on about this.  I have heard stories of Africa and South America - where I think the Christian "center" is moving to in the years ahead.  At Amsterdam 2000, I met believers who had nothing but God Himself and found God came through in real, not in just interpretive ways.  As we are so "mechanized", as you put it, and self-sufficient (if I lose my lunch, I can hop in my car, swing by the ATM and run over to Chick-Fil-e and buy another) I think we see less demonstative workings of God, so we fill the void with "God talk".

I don't think anyone is saying that prayer is a meaningless exercise.  If nothing else, it is a demonstration that we need God (Luke 18).  In my story example, I think God did answer my friend's prayers in that God directed their lives and brought them to a place where they could provide for their families in spite of having made bad decisions.  Prayer answered.  I just think some of the "God talk" they used to describe the process was simply unnecessary ornamentation.

Maybe God bent down and spoke that into your head.  Or, you maybe you read the passage before and you suddenly made the mental connection that it fit the circumstances. ;)

Joe, Joe, Joe,

If we hear the I-ask-God-what-color-shirt(or shoes)-to-wear-today example one time many will go screaming from the board. Been used. We get it. I don't think anyone on this thread does that.

It is the same with the kid/parent thing. But let me fling out a verse that I need to tell Tom upfront that I know I am taking totally out of context. "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." Isaiah 54:5

I know, I know, this verse is referring to messiah in the kingdom age and the promise is to Zion. I realize we Christians, contextually, have no encouragment we can pull from this verse, objectively, other than Israel will be saved in the end and have a rather close relationship with God. We can only rejoice with our Jewish brethren on this one.

I also know that thousands of benighted born-agains have subjectively taken this as the level of intimacy they are to have with God once they have been redeemed. Poor souls just don't understand the context.

Just thought I'd let y'all know that so we didn't have to cover that territory again.

So Joe, getting past the kid/parent paradigm let us move on to the husband/wife paradigm. If I have a personal relationship with Jesus would we not converse? He being the eternal Logos and all. I don't ask my husband what color shirt I should wear in the morning, but I certainly chat him up if I'm going to switch jobs or put one of the kids up for adoption. It is not a matter so much of getting his yea or nay on every detail as being on the same page with him, abiding in him (or with him as the metaphor goes).

The Lord implanted this thought in my head after I read the Wiesers post: "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit..." Billy Graham thinks he can talk to God, so did Mother Teresa and Ellizabeth Elliot come to think of it. I think I'll hang with those folks on this one.

 Don't you just love the "Minister of Defence"?  :)
Reggie was truly a man's man! Can't wait to see him in glory


That's interesting. I never spent to so much time on my knees as during those fateful months and my plaintive cry was:

Why??!!

The passage from which I believe the Lord spoke to me about what was going on was 2 Peter 2; also about false prophets.
I do not believe I have ever had such a powerful impact on my being from the Word of God.
Of course Becky. there are some who would conclude that we are just a bit deluded since we are clearly taking those passages "out of context"  huh?  :)


String me up with the rest of 'em  :)

Verne

Jem---

I wasn't directing the "clothing" stupid joke at you--simply playing around tongue in cheek about the way some Christians are. I am in no way saying we should not converse with the Lord. What I was trying to say is this basically: we are to be as little children, but not in the sense that we ask about everything ad nauseum. I'm sure you have ridden with a little child in the car who asks so many questions it begins to get irritating. They are prone to ask "Mommy, what should I wear?" Mommy, what are we going to eat?" "Are we there yet?" etc. etc.--cute at the time--but it sure would begin to get tiring if this kid continued to do this at age 15.

I was simply saying that the Lord is always there--at the beginning we ask about everything because we are "babes"--but in time we learn that God has given us our own minds to use, and we can make the decisions we thought we couldn't make before. This doesn't "lessen" the conversation with Jesus--it simply "changes" the type of conversation we have. Little "kids" whine a lot--so do babes in Christ(in many ways I still am a babe in Christ). In the beginning we walk far more with our feelings than by faith. God teaches us to walk by faith by removing some of the feelings sometimes so we rely on his Word more. We enter the "husband/wife" theme you were referring to.

So, again, Jem, sorry you are tired of the lame humor--I just like to have fun with things sometimes.  I thought the "just kidding of course" at the end of the paragraph made that abundantly clear-maybe not. I seriously doubt people are going to go "screaming from the board" due to a few lame jokes or stories. I thank the Lord that he himself has a great sense of humor. But if you'd like I will refrain from jokes, puns, etc. when responding to any of your posts. But I do seriously believe God does communicate with us, and we with Him. And I do truly believe he can use many different means to do so. But I believe He truly wants us to learn to walk by faith, and rely far more on his Word than on our subjective feelings.

God bless,  Joe

Joe,

It was not the humor I objected to. Obviously I was rather tongue-in-cheek myself. It was more how many times the joke has been made on this thread.

It's like those kids in your example in the back seat--and I know kids in the back seat--the 5th grader tells a joke so 3rd grader tells it again with a slight variation. Then the 1st grader gives it a whirl and doesn't understand why everyone is not laughing because it worked for the 5th grader.

I do enjoy the humor.

Jem---

That's a very good point. Enough's enough--I get it, I get it. ;D  You're right-- I have had my own kids say "tell that joke again" and then again, and again. Point well taken. :)

Thanks, Joe

Okay, Folks... Confession time:

I really used to ask the Lord stuff like which shirt to wear.  In fact, I desperately wanted to have an ultra-subjective relationship with God.  I won't go into all the reasons I now suspect I had that desire, but I will tell you that I am extremely glad that He never allowed me to think that I had succeeded.  Learning to really know Him through His Word far surpasses anything I might have attained to through my "sensing" Him.

It didn't take me too long to get beyond the shirt thing, though.  You see, I'm colorblind.  So if I'd ask what color shirt to wear and a voice in my head answered, "The puce one," I would look at my half dozen shirts (all various shades of grey to my eyes) and still be just as mystified as before.  Dared I ask again, "which one is the puce one?" and risk hearing back, "I'm tired of this game, let's play something else?" :o

We can give thanks always in all situations, so I am learning to go gratefully to my closet, silently thanking the Lord that I have so many nice grey shirts from which to choose. ;)

But, honestly, we have no reason to think that our Lord doesn't care what we buy or wear or drive or where we live, and there's certainly no scriptural reason to not ask for His guidance and blessing on our deciding such matters.  He surely knows all about these things from eternity past.  The problems come not from asking rightly (not my will but thine be done), but from our attempting to qualify HOW God will/must answer us.  Signs and wonders, still small voices, and miracles are not and have never been parlor tricks.  God will not perform to entertain us.

Whatever we do we are to do heartily, as doing it unto Him.  So our confidence is that He cares, He will take care of us, and He is in no way obligated to answer us in any tangible way.  If we do somehow "sense" what proves to be His will in a matter, let us both be endlessly grateful and thankful, and let us not allow the incident to become a precedent for future occasions.  His way with us is as reliable as His Word, but where His Word is non-specific (should I drive or fly, etc.), His conduct must never be presumed to be scripted, but always (as we view it) improvisational.

Blessings,
al

P.S.-- I'm really only partially colorblind.  I see most colors, but I can't always tell them apart.  Kinda tough to describe to you normal folk... :)

One problem of a discussion like this on a BB is that the argument is often countered by portraying the other posters as saying something more extreme than they are saying.

No one is saying that we don't talk to God.
No one is saying that we don't pray.
No one is saying that God doesn't answer prayer.
No one is saying that we don't have subjective experiences from time to time.
No one is saying that these subjective experiences are not useful from time to time as long as we don't abandon objective means to test the experience.
No one is saying that you can't read the Bible devotionally provided that you keep yourself on an even keel by objective, historical, contextual understanding of the doctrines the Bible is teaching.

I just think that the Evangelical subculture has swung in an imbalanced way towards subjective "God talk" without really thinking about it.   I have observed that we often interprete things with this spiritual "God talk" (God led me, God spoke to me, God is leading me) when around Christians and use other means when we are around those at work (This is a good investment, I need to take time off for my health, I want to move to be close to my parents).

I share these thoughts (and ones in my previous posts) not because I think I am smarter than everyone or have thought it through myself.  To be honest, I am not very good at thinking things through throughly.  It is only because of the many, many, many times I would cry to God to "hear his voice" and to "speak to me".  I would try to find that subjective voice within me.  I would try to clear my heart of all possible sin and listen.

Nothing.  

It didn't get me out of the Assembly.  It helped me make some personal decisions without my brain engaged that to this day I regret.  I would never hear this subjective leading.  An angel never appeared at the food of my bed.  Sure, I might be "led" to offer a song, but I was never "led" to find a solution to my depression.

Over the years, I stopped trying to find this inner voice.  I would pray earnestly, make the wisest decisions I possibly could and then interprete providential circumstances as God's answer to prayer.

For example, I cry to the Lord to help my wayward son.  I do whatever my puny brain can think of to be a good father and keep communications open with him.  And I interprete it as an answer to prayer when the kid who introduced my son to drugs moved away or my son comes to me and tells me that he wants to stop smoking.

This is the only way that I figured out to walk with the Lord without compartmentalizing my "God talk" and "subjective spiritual interpretations" to one side of my life and my "objective reason" and fact-based language to another.

Remember the knee-jerk "Praise the Lord" of us former assemblyites?
It was always a bit of a challenge not to lapse into that thoughtless phraseology after I recently left George-town but one day it hit me -

You are taking the Lord's Name in vain!

Cured me permanently... :)

Verne

I often pray at night that God would grant me another day.  I don't know if this type of prayer is necessary.  Is it possible that God may not give me another day to live?

I think about accident victims, and how people say that "God called them home".  Does that imply that God caused the accident, resulting in their death?  I'm really confused...

Eulaha:
Your time on this earth is determined by God Himself. The only person the Bible records as being able to change that was King Hezekiah.
He prayed that God would extend his life and God granted him an additonal fifteen years. Interestingly enough, the case could be made that he was better off without that additional time.
God has determined and knows the exact day of your departure (unless you choose to shorten your life by suicide or dishonoring your parents). If you are living according to His will, your life is absolutely untouchable until He says so.
The key to living effectively in my humble opinion is to realise that our time here is limited, and that our highest aim should be to fulfill all of God's purpose for our existence in the time that He has given!

You are absolutely right to pray about each and every day - it is a precious gift...

So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom. Psalm 90:12

p.s. Although God does not cause every accident, the fact that it occurred means it will somehow serve His purpose...if not, He would have prevented it...

Jem,

You wrote:

As Dave's post implied, you don't seem to be "getting it".

What you have written above does not and never has represented what I believe.  I don't think it represents what Joe or Dave believe either.  

In a debate, (which this is not), what you have done is called a "Straw Man" fallacy.  You misrepresent the other guy's position in such a way as to make it easy to attack.

Why do you feel it is necessary to do this?

Here is a better strategy....just point out where the Bible actually teaches the type of mysticism that you seem to advocate.


This is a popular phrase that Christians use to illustrate the fact that Christianity is not merely a list of religious rules and regulations.  As far as that goes I think it is legitimate.   We do have a "personal" relationship with Jesus.  He is our High Priest, our Good Shepherd, our Savior, and many other things.  

The way we know the parameters of the relationship is through God's word.  This brings us back to the question of "where does the Bible teach the type of mysticism you advocate?"

Is this it?

Jem,  if you wish to believe that the proper way to read your Bible is to pluck verses out of context and assign them whatever meaning you wish to....well, have fun.

George Geftakys certainly had a lot of fun doing this!  That is the problem with it.  If context isn't important, the Bible means whatever we decide it means.   Ever hear of post-modernism?    That is exactly what they say.


Hmmm.  Tom Maddux thinks HE can talk to God.  Does that mean everything I think is automatically correct?  ::)

BTW, your post reminded me of an old joke.  It is a method for getting away with being late to work.

When you come in late, and the boss asks you "why?", you don't answer at first.  You just look down and remain silent for several seconds.  When he asks again, you mutter,

"The voices told me to stay home and clean all the guns."  :)

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

As Jem said earlier, she realizes the problem is always with our reception, never God's transmission.
Think of Genesis 24.  The servant on a mission from Abraham to find a bride for Isaac.  How many sincere believers have made all kinds of life decisons based on verses pulled completely out of context in just this one chapter?
Some work out well, some don't.  Peter Jenkins, who wrote Walk Across America got married based on his wife's interpretation of the "Will you go with this man?", same chapter.
I found one for myself way back when we moved into a training home. 'I being in the way the Lord led me to the house of my master's brethren', or something like that.  This had absolutely nothing to do with me or our situation, but my magic 8 ball approach to devotional reading, taught to me in the ga. proselytizing/anchors discipleship course, set me up for it.
So Dave, I actually agree with you.  Yes, God speaks.  Sometimes we get it, sometimes we don't.  In a deception shrouded environment like the assembly it was real easy to get it wrong.  And context is vital.
Working on better reception,

Becky

P.S.  I rarely have time to post, but I try to read when I can.  
I appreciate the fact that the bb is still here, confounding that Code of Silence with ongoing conversation.  God bless you all.

     ...One of the all-time best and most encouraging posts I can recall.  Thanks, Verne.  And thanks, Eulaha, for posing the question...

al


p.s.-- For my dollar's worth, both the question and the answer were "guided by God." ;)

One of the surest signs that the life of God dwells in a soul is its entreatability.
One of the surest signs that a person is a religious hypocrite, devoid of the life of God is their unentreatability.
It has been quite instructive to observe the history and relationships of the BB with a view to this point.
I wonder if any of the men around George ever wondered about this.
I wanted to post this immediately after your response Joe but decided to wait a bit.
What a striking difference to some folk who are so spiritually thick, as to make the moronic and godless public statement that they do not deserve to go to hell because of their choice!
I appreciate your good example my friend.

 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated,  James 3:17

Verne

So, using the old St. Peter at the gate line, are you saying that the following wouldn't fly?

St. Peter: Why should I let you into heaven?
Brent:Because I chose to ask Jesus to be my Savior.

To set the record straight, the only reason anyone gets "into heaven," is God's Grace.  Certainly, without it, even a really good person like me wouldn't make it, because years ago I sinned several times....

Grace is not a potential force that needs to be set in motion by the human will.

I even have bible verses, like John 1, that say this.

False gospel:

We are saved by grace, through faith, and that of ourselves, it is the choice of every one who believes.

Brent

That's going to be quite an interesting encounter don't you think?


Oh but you forget my friend, you only know this because you understand what sin is!

 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.
Proverbs 30:20




It's  elementary my good man...unless of course you are still dead in your sin.
Will wonders never cease...!  :)
Verne
p.s talk about building a house on a foundation of rot...I am now starting to better understand a few things....

Verne---

Thanks for the post. We were speaking about something similar at my HPA meeting the other night. HPA, or Humble People Anonymous, is a group that was formed to help humble people deal with their humbleness. The main problem with the group so far is that no one seems to keep themselves anonymous, wanting to share how their humility problem is greater than the rest. I have the same problem because I am one of the humblest people I know. No one else in the group wants to admit that though.

We have a problem with the chairs too--everyone keeps sawing down the legs so they can sit a bit lower than the person sitting next to them. But besides the chairs and loss of anonymity we are making great strides to solving our "problem".  ;D  Thanks again for the post.

--Joe

You are welcome!
Your most humble (and worthless too) servant  ;D
Verne

Brent,

You wrote:

All Calvinist and Arminian theologians are agreed on this point.  Their differences arise over the question of election, or to say it in different words, how grace is obtained.

Another way to describe the two "camps" is to say that the point of contention is over whether or not men have free will.
Calvinists say no, Arminians say yes.

But neither of them claim that men's free choices "switch on" God's grace.

Thomas Maddux

Not quite Tom.  Classic Reformed Theology does not precisely say that man has not  free will. Rather it speaks to the manner of the excercise of such freedom as he has.
It is manifest that all men are free to excercise the will in the pursuit of evil,  and with the single exception of Christ, indeed have. It is manifest that some men, though unregenerate are free to excercise the will in doing good.
Reformed Theology is very specific in the way it constrains the excercise of man's will viz. its unability to excercise saving faith in Christ apart from the agency and initiative of God Himself. There is a distinction between that and saying that man has absolutely no free will- clearly a false premise.
Verne

Lets say I live in a maximum security prison.  Let's say that I really, really want to get out and go snow skiiing.  It's my will to go skiing.  

However, I am not free.  I can do pushups, sing, etc., but I am not free to do my will.

That's how I view man's will.  We are not able to do many things, especially deeds of righteousness, because we the will is present, but we have trouble performing it for various reasons.

With God, it's different.  Everything He wills, is done.  No exceptions.

Volition and "the will" are not the same things in my book.  All humans have volition, but not all are free.

Tom, I agree with you that Arminians don't teach the light switch thing.  However, much of the word of faith, prosperity gospel stuff borders on it.   I also run into plenty of deeper life folks who are quite confused on it,  what with the way of the cross and so forth.

Brent

Verne,

All of the major reformers, Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli denied that man had free will.  In this they were following Augustine of Hippo.

Augustine taught that Adam was free to sin, or not to sin.  Since he chose to sin and fell, he lost the ability to choose not to sin. He could choose which sins to commit, but he couldn't stop sinning.  This became the lot of all his descendents.  So, although choices about which sin could be made, man's will was bound to evil...ie, not really free.

C, and Z did not clearly spell out all their thoughts on the will, but Luther taught the absolute control of God over everything...spelled it out in his book, "The Bondage of the Will."  I read it waaaaaayy back in the sixties and don't remember many details, but I do remember that he taught that we don't have a free will.

After C and Z were gone, Calvin's disciple Beza and his followers developed Reformed theology much farther.  They developed what is known as "Supralapsarianism" or "Double Predestination".  God, they said, predestined some to salvation and some to damnation even before the creation of the world and the fall of Adam.  (In other words, men were condemned to hell prior to even existing, much less sinning.)   Once again, they could exercise some choice in how to live in sin, but could not stop.  That isn't really free will.

Arminius taught that man's will was naturally bound to evil as well, but that since Christ died for the sins of the whole world his grace was available to all men, freeing the will from its irrevocable bondage to evil and enabling men to believe in Christ for salvation.

Now who was right is another issue...but when Reformed theologians speak of free will, they only mean uncoerced.  Sort of like the will is poisoned and can only make evil choices.  Men can decide which lane to drive in on the road to hell.

However, they don't all believe that man's will is free in any sense at all.  Jonathan Edwards taught that there was simply no such thing as free will.  Not even for God!   :o  And there many theistic determinists among Reformed thinkers, R. C. Sproul for example.

Thomas Maddux

I think in order to be fair to the sense of what these men taught, one has to understand how the term free will was actually defined.
Does it mean men have no choices?
It clearly does not. All men make many choices daily.
It is therefore clear that Luther's concept of the bondage of the will (which you will recall was in response to Erasmus' treatise on the matter) is limited and specific in its significance.
None of the reformers contend that it is impossible for unregenerate men to make right choices. Clearly unregenerate men do.
There is a remarkable scene in Schindler's List, where Liam Neeson convinces the sadistic and murderous German commander that forgiving a transgression is a greater display of power than killing someone for it. We then see several occasions on which this cold-blooded killer pronounces forgiveness, in circumstances where he previously would have killed without a second thought. That scene was incredible.
So when we speak of freedom or bondage of the will, I think we have to be clear about freedom and bondage with respect to what!?

With regard to the use of my time for example, I can will to be at the communion service at my church every Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. This is a sphere in which I am permitted to excercise the right of choice freely.
To be present, or not to be is entirely my own choice.
I am not free, even as a born-again believer, to will that I never fall prey to carnal affections. It is indeed that recognitiion of the limitation of my own freedom in that sphere, that causes me to understand the Biblical necessity of being filled with the Spirit (literally to continue to be filled!). The indisputable truth of Paul's contentions in Romans 7 regarding the specific sphere of the bondage of our will, that is a willing that eventuates in actual performance of that which is willed, will be affirmed by every Christian who has made a committment to live a holy and devout life before God.
When I hear people talking about their own spiritual perfection and completeness, I know for certain they are unregenerate, and don't the first thing about holiness, which is dependence, not its opposite.
Brent is quite right that for the question of the will's freedom to be properly considered and discussed, the sphere of any such freedom has to be defined.
Verne
p.s I have read both Erasmus and Luther's arguments many times and I always come away with a sense of awe of both of these men....
p.p.s I like to think of the excercise of God's will in terms of His ability to determine outcome.
I remember how astonished I was the first time I understood that you could formulate an equation to perfectly describe any line - provided you were permitted an unlimited number of varaiables!
This is one way to think about God's omnipotence - He is the God of infinite variables!
He can turn every single choice of every single human to the accomplishment of His own purpose...and does!!!

Not that this is an important part of the conversation, but regarding the scene in Schindler's List, Ralph Fiennes as the cruel Nazi was going to execute a jewish boy because of the way he was brushing his horse(or something to that effect). Liam Neeson convinces Fiennes that it is a greater power to be able to pardon someone. So Fiennes puts his hand above the boy and says "I pardon you. I pardon you" and lets the boy leave. But by the time the kid gets to the field leading to the barracks Fiennes cannot control himself and picks up a rifle and shoots the boy in the yard. So, even though Fiennes had a "choice", his very character of cruelty overruled it, and he quickly returned to the person he was at heart.

--Joe

Verne,


Careful my brother!   You are rapidly heading for the shoals of Arminianism!   ;D

It was this very idea that caused the Calvinists to accuse Arminius of being a Jesuit sympathizer.   :o

Thomas Maddux

You have unocoverd my Achilles heel I am afraid... :)
The one thing that makes me a little nervous about some of my Calvinist friends is the inference  that could be drawn by some that He is he author of evil (as you well know). I like to distinguish His purposing the existence of evil and His being its Author. The former  does not necessarily imply the latter. In fact I contend that it does not and cannot...how's that?


Great point. He did mangage to avoid murdering the love interest, despite her obvious  contempt for him.
I think the point you make so illustrates the fallen nature.
The one difference being that in the unregenerate, even the desire to do right is lacking.


Verne  

"Let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgement, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight saith the Lord". (Jer. 9:24)

"He has told you O man what is good, and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, love kindness(KJV "love mercy"), and to walk humbly with your God"(Micah 6:8).

It's interesting to compare these two verses--God towards us, and us towards God and others. On God's list of what "he delights in" he puts "lovingkindness" first and on our list it's a close second. God's will for us is not a list of do's and don'ts, but a "walk" which will cause us to delight in the very things he takes delight in most of all. God loves to show kindness and mercy towards us--as we "understand and know him" we delight in showing lovingkindness to others also. I take great comfort in the fact that the number one thing God delights in doing is showing lovingkindess to us.

--Joe

Verne,

Some Calvinists just follow Huldrich Zwingli and say, "God causes everything, including evil.  Get over it."

Most Calvinists strive manfully to avoid this rather unpleasant bullet.  The two most common ways are Voluntarism and the idea of sin as a result of the fallen nature.

Voluntarism just says God can do whatever he wishes to, and since he is God, its OK.  God, by definition, cannot sin, so even if he does something that he calls evil if humans do it, its not evil for him.  This idea is held by many Calvinists, but most non-Calvinists find it hard to swallow.  The reason is that if God is the ultimate cause of all the evil in the world...it leaves little for the Devil to do.  Plus phrases like "blessed are the merciful" or "God is love" lose much of their meaning.

The sin from fallen human nature idea is probably the "go to" answer for most Calvininists.  At least in my experience.  But it has problems too.  God ends up being ultimately responsible for evil in this one too.

Everything God created was "good".  He created no evil.  Neither Lucifer nor Adam had a fallen, sinful nature.  So if your nature determines your acts, they could not sin.  The only other actor on the stage was God, so he must have caused their sin and fall.   Either way God seems to be the ultimate cause of all evil.

This is one reason Arminians believe in "free will" in the way they do.  Their view allows for spriritual and human evil to originate in the free choices of Lucifer and Adam, rather than in God's decrees.
To Calvinists, this seems to diminish God's sovereignty.

Arminianism has its problems too.  IMHO we either do not have enough information or enough ability to understand these things.  Therefore I usually don't describe myself with either term.

However, I have had so many enounters with Calvinists that are just plain nasty in their contemptuous treatment of anyone who dares to disagree with them, that I sometimes pull their tails a little.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

In the above, you said:  ...we either do not have enough information or enough ability to understand these things.  Therefore I usually don't describe myself with either term.

The "I just call myself a Christian" idea is fairly common, in my experience, but is usually the expression of those who simply haven't studied the arguments deeply enough to have formed an opinion.

This board is exceptional in that respect:  other obviously intelligent, studious individuals, confessedly devoted to the worship and service of Christ, have similarly stated that there is insufficient information from which to draw conclusions.  Perhaps slightly fewer haved owned that they (we all) may lack the capacity for such knowledge.

Speculation, theorization, and "what if..." scenarios can be fun, challenging, and sometimes personally productive.  It is when they begin to lay demands upon others, based on hair-splitting uncertainties, that they become dangerous and oppressive.  The culprit is usually human pride (not minimizing extra-human spiritual influence).

We need sound doctrine regarding the essentials of our faith.  It is when we become so caught up in and attached to our favorite less-than-essential considerations that our egos begin to upstage our true spirituality.  Sadly, as doctrines go, there is often far more of "sound" than of soundness...

al

Ah...very good Tom. Perceptive. ;D

Wish I could have been there to witness someone with enough guts to pull the tails.  ;D Amusing.... ;D

Former CRC (Calvinist born & raised)

Al,

You said:

The problem arises from not realizing what a thelogical system actually is.  Theological systems are attempts by scholars to organize the information the Bible gives us into understandable categories.  They all contain things that are held with a high degree of certainty, and things that are less certain.

Since they are human attempts to understand what God has said, they suffer from "ability deficit".  That,however, doesn't mean that we know nothing.  It just means that we know more about some things, less about others.  

For example, we know that Christ died for our sins.  Although there are different ideas about how this applies to us, such as the satisfaction theory or the forensic theory, all Christians agree on the basic facts.  But when it comes to church government or ordinances...many conflicting ideas.

Predestination is probably the most confusing issue of all.  What most folks don't realize is that Calvinism and Arminianism are actually attempts to use philosophy to organize revelation.  People take conclusions that, at best, are probably true, and make them "what the Bible teaches".

The Calvinists have a pretty sad history regarding this.  Verne has condemned the leading brothers of the assemblies in very strong terms.  But if you think about it, the wrongs were mostly in the emotional realm.  The money, of course, was a problem as well.

But the Calvinist leaders who attended the Synod of Dort, which was pretty much a trial of the followers of Arminius, went much further.  They destroyed the livelihood of any who disagreed with them.  Many were banished from the Netherlands, at a time when to leave your country meant you could fall into the hands of the Inquistion.  Many were thrown in jail, and some were executed!   :o  The famous legal theorist, Hugo Grotius, was imprisoned for what he believed about predestination!

Now, if browbeating people is proof positive that one is a wicked man....what about these guys?  They went WAY beyond browbeating.

There is a movement among Calvinists called Theonomy.  They want to bring all of society under their understanding of the law, enforced by the government.   Some folks just never learn.

My take is that human behavior is complicated, and that each case is different.  But persecuting one's Christian bretheren is just plain wrong.  Ideas have consequences.
Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I must say that I am surprised at the prevalence of this line of reasoning by some theologians. While I think there are some dificulties understanding the existence of evil, the problem is complicated unnecessarily by thinkers' failing to distinguish sinlessness (Adam's original state) or even perfection (Lucifers original state), from immutability, an attribute belonging to God alone...




Do you really believe this Tom?
After all that I have heard, it seems to me a far stronger case can be made that the problems were primarily spiritaul!

The words of condemnation do not begin to equal the personal anguish...for opportunities lost... and lives broken...
Verne

Verne:  

What do you mean you know for certain that people talking about their "spiritual perfection and completeness" are unregenerate?  Do you mean that these people are saying they are spiritually perfect and complete?  Or do you mean that they are talking about the process that God is working in their lives toward spiritual perfection and completeness?

Your certainty of someone's spiritual state on that level is amazing.

Please clarify.

Matt

PS -- I have to agree with Tom--at least in my case;  most of the stuff regarding the Assembly leadership was "emotional", so it seems--how to separate the soulish from the spiritual, though,  is God's work.

"Perfection" and "completeness" seem to me a state and not a process Matt. Choose whatever interpretaion you prefer it, makes no difference.
People who are saved, even the most devout ones I know, do not deny that they are sinners.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8  


If someone claims to be sinless, I will immediately conclude that they are not saved Matt. You should too.


If by emotional you mean that they failed to take a stand because of fear or some such thing as opposed to ignorance or disobedience, then I am indeed completely mistaken in my indictment of them based on the conviction that they were accountable as leaders. Those of you who want to make that case on behalf of these men, be my guest.
It is interesting that Adam's explanation for hiding was that he was "afraid". The real question is why???


And therefore nobody challenged George Geftakys.
There you have it folks. What more can I say?

Verne

p.s. Matt I don't want to appear cynical. Don't you understand then when we talk about spiritual leadership the standard of judgment we have to apply is far different?
If God does not give them the wisdom to effectively discern between that which is spiritual and that which is not, how can He ( or we for that matter) expect them  to function effectively as shepherds??!!!
Sometimes I wonder  just how much we have learned from what happened in the assemblies... ???

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

I do not believe it is  possible for the unregenerate soul to desire to do right.
You may argue that from man's standard of righteousness but nof from God's.
Like the ruined physical creation, apart from the moving of the Spirit of God, all is spiritual darkness.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Making a distinction between "desire" and "motive" simply shows how little we truly understand what sin is.
This is why Scripture tells us that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Phairsees, we will not enter the kingdom.
Why?
Even doing the "right" thing with wrong motive merits the condemnation of  Jehovah!

God looks at the heart. Who can change his own heart?

The regenerated soul differs from the one still in darkness in that once the light has come, he can now desire to do good.
But how to do so, he finds not within himself (Romans 7)
These things are elementary tenets of the faith folks.
Verne

I frequently get reminded not to jump to conclusions when I respond to BB queries. By way of explanation, I have understood Tom and Matt to imply that the failure of the leading brethren was one of the affections (emotions) and not of the intellect or the will.
I therefore concluded that the failure, according to them, could not then be attributed to either ignorance or to disobedience which would obviously be the sphere of operation of the intellect and will respectively. Sorry if I was a bit obscure.
Verne

Ahem! Look here, who do you think you are telling me I can't choose to do right?

I chose to pick up these filthy rags, and both God and I say they are righteous!

Of course, we (God and I)disagree about one thing.  He says they are merely man's righteousness, but I say they are good enough, and that He shouldn't be so judgemental.  I chose the right thing and that's worth something!

The verse in Romans that says, "There is none righteous, no not one," doesn't really mean what it says.  What it means is that there are plenty of righteous, if they CHOOSE to be righteous.  You must choose to seek after God, then you are righteous!

(Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "There is none who seeks after God, not even one.)  Ignore anyone who tells you something like this.


Also, it doesn't ever say, "They have all turned aside."  That would mean that everyone turned aside!  How could that be?  

Let's face it, man is free to choose righteousness, and those who seek God become righteous, because they didn't turn aside.

If the above paragraph contradicts a certain chapter in Romans, I suggest that we develop a complicated system of theology to  explain away the "easy" interpretation of these verses.

I like my free will, and I don't desire that anyone take it from me.

Brent

Oh, yeah.

One other thing I forgot to mention below.

When the Bible says that we were His enemies, it doesn't mean that we were somehow in a position of enmity with God.  

If that were so, how could we have chosen to be saved?

He loves me, because I first loved Him.  (paraphrased, but you know what I mean)

I was never guided by God.  In fact, I guided Him to me when I decided to seek after Him.  His presence instantly appeared when I said the sinner's prayer.

The problem with reformed theology is that it gives way to much credit to God for my salvation.  Sure, He should get alot, but when you get right down to it, I made the choice.

Brent

Verne, re. leaders, IMO most were fresh ground when they became leaders, and were trained by George.  Some were already saved.  Some spoke out because they had some spiritual discernment, but they ended up leaving the system or were pushed out.  Others were deceived.

Those who remain, "choose"  ??? to do so??

Marcia

Oh the love that sought me
Oh the blood that bought me
Oh the grace that brought me to the fold
Wondrous grace that brought me to the fold...
Verne

I trust God will have mercy on me for all my sins when I stand in His presence.
Don't anyone misunderstand my intent.
Marcia the point you are making is sobering indeed. Those who left or were tossed out will bear scathing witness.
To deny a  failing of both intellect and will (as well as affections) in those who remained with a man like George Geftakys is to make, in my view a mockery of Him with whom we have to do...
We cannot excuse what happend.
We should not excuse what happened.
Verne

Interesting hymn.

I don't think that person understood choice.  Perhaps the only thing he knew was Grace.  Oh well.  Live and learn.

Brent

Gimme that old time religion... :)
Verne

Brent,

I have long considered myself certifiably nuts,
but I can't hold a candle to you! ;D

Try not to sprain your tongue,
cramming it into your cheek that way! ;)

al

I sometimes get the impression that others think I   talk about former assembly leadership the way I do because I get some kind of satisfaction from their failure.
What possible difference could my opinion make at this point?
To them or anyone else?
The only value in any discussion or analysis of what happened is inocculation of each of us against a repeat of that tragedy.
We really ought to keep that goal in mind.
It is therefore critical that we be quite clear in our minds about what happened and why it did.



True, but it should not have mattered and it is not an excuse.
I have also done some incredibly stupid things in my own youth.
We do not remain children.
If you accept the mantle of spiritual leadership, then you ought to act like it.
If you don't, you have no business being in that position.
God will absolutely hold us accountable, trained by the likes of George Geftakys or not.


 
For the ones who do not know Jesus Christ, I am not even talking to them for that is none of my business.
The fact that some did speak up and paid the price proves my point. Had more of them acted with integrity, that situation would not have degenerated to the condition we saw at the end.


 
True, but again not an excuse. Biblical teaching on deception is that it takes place only after a person, saint and sinner alike, has deliberately rejected revealed truth.
This is fundamental.
Deception  by its very   nature and definition, is substitution!

No, they were hand-cuffed to the meeting places.
What kind of question is this?

OF COURSE THEY CHOSE TO REMAIN! SOME STILL ARE!(choosing)

Verne

Interestingly from my point of view is that this discussion, which has veered off into Calvinism/Arminianism, is one of the things that got me into the Assembly.

In my 19 year old, super-intelligent mind, George made perfect sense and ended the age old debate about these things.  Justification was NOT predestined, but Sanctification in Christ was, according to George.

In other words, God never chose who would be saved, but chose that of those who were saved, many would be sanctified in Christ.....those who went the way of the cross.  

Using this lens, I could dodge my way around different scriptures, and assign the context in such a way that I had no trouble fully comprehending how Reformed and Arminian people just lacked vision, which was why they were stuck in systematic theology of one kind or another.

I was so glad I wasn't stuck, and understood what this was all about!

Anyhow, today I have come to the conclusion that both sides have valid arguments, and that somehow both are correct, to the extent that neither camp knows it all.

As Tom has pointed out, there is much agreement between the two.

Brent

Brent,

From what I read in your posts, you seem to be under the impression that Arminians believe that man can choose to save himself.   That is not what the dispute was/is about.  The Arminians disagreed with the Calvinists over the issue of how God elects.

The Calvinist view is called monergism.   God does everything, including controlling your mind in such a way as to make you think..."I want to be saved."  

The Arminian view is called synergism.  They believe that man is fallen, condemned, completely alienated from God.  

They reason that since God loves the world, and sent his Son to die for the sins of all men, grace is extended to all men.  Grace, they believe, gives men sufficient light and freedom from bondage to enable the mind to understand the need for forgiveness and to see that Christ is the savior.  

They believe that grace enables sinners to will to receive Christ.  They also believe that men can resist grace and reject Christ, which becomes the basis for their condemnation and judgement.  Calvinists, of course, reason that grace is irresistable.

Arminians start their reasoning in God's revealed character, his love and justice.  Calvinists begin with God's sovereignty, his power and freedom.

Both systems, in my mind, meet the criteria of plausibility.  Both, however, have problems as well.

One of the real problems that I have with Calvinism is that if they are correct, much of what we percieve of as our life histories is nothing but an illusion.  We thought we were thinking, learning, deciding...but it was really God all along.

To me, this falls below the plausibility level because I don't think it matches with the Biblical worldview.

More later.  

Thomas Maddux

Verne:

I guess I should have understood more clearly what you were saying about those speaking of spiritual perfection...that they already claim to be spiritually complete, perfect.   I don't think that I have personally encountered anyone I knew in the assembly that actually SAID that they had reached spiritual perfection.  Of course, a number ACTED as if they had, however much they might have said to the contrary.  

And by the way,  you are right about wondering how much some of us really have learned from our experience in the assembly.  If the website and various saints had not pushed the issue, the system would probably still be extant and many of us would still be there.  

I don't know if I've learned much of anything except to have a healthy distrust of ANY organized Christian group, even of those with which I'm involved, and to go with "gut" feelings AS WELL AS what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears, checking it with the Word.

Matt

Few people will actually explicitly admit their view of themselves as sinless Matt. They are too smart for that. All you have to do is listen to them though. They will try to convince you that they have a method of arrival at spiritual maturity the rest of us lack. Little  need for confession and or repentance on their part is a dead giveaway. The rest of us mortals understand the daily walk, with much failure, mis-steps and the need to continually be filled with the Spirit. We know better than to trust our own holiness. It does not exist apart from the Saviour.


No question about that. Brent's as well as others relentless pursuit of truth is what turned the tide. This impetus should rightly have come from God's men on the inside.
It is a painful reality that it did not.


Good for you my friend.
God helping me, I will never do anything in a position of spiritual trust for which I would later be ashamed. What happened in the assemblies has had a profound impact on me personally.
I am ruthless, almost to the point of being reactionary, with any appearance of impropriety by anyone involved in the ministry of the gospel.
There is far too much at stake.
 There is nothing more heart-breaking than seeing men who should be displaying the matchless grace and dignity of the Lord Jesus Christ, absolutely abrogating that high calling by conduct that brings shame and discredit to His name.
Again, I am not talking about some saint with a besetting weakness, I am talking about leaders. We need to be faithful...at all costs!


Have you been reading "Broca's  Brain"??!!  :)

I agree that what you say is implied  by Calvinist theology (unmitigated determinism) is not a Biblical world view.

God's review of each life would be an excercise in futility.
I am not convinced that such a view is necessitated by what most Calvinists believe. I still think the model that permits God to determine  outcome (that is to accomplish His ultimate purpose) is one that does no violence to man's decision making degrees of freedom.
Verne

Verne,

You wrote:

Let me clarify the point you were responding to when you wrote the above.  First, I do not deny in any way that many, many wrongs were committed by leaders in the George Geftakys assemblies.  I know, I committed some myself, and have had to ask forgiveness from some folks.

When the website started, I wrote an article  I entitled, "Loyalty", which I believe is still posted.  In that article I stated what I believe enabled much of the abuse that went on in that system.  

George Geftakys convinced people that he had a special calling from God, and that loyalty to him was loyalty to God.
This gave tremendous authority to the mystical interpretations of the Bible that he made himself or had inherited from the Plymouth Bretheren.

One of the main pillars of delusion that held up the Geftakys empire was the idea of "God's government".  If God was telling you what to do through his officially designated and annointed servants...you had to do it or defy God!!  :o

If one's conscience was uneasy...well, you just aren't spritual enough to see things as clearly as George, so you'd better deny it and obey "God".

That this was wrongheaded and produced all sorts of evil consequences is undeniable.  But once one had accepted George's premises...his conclusions seemed to follow.  

In my own case, it was only by going back to research and rethink the foundational ideas that allowed me to break my own mental bonds and escape.  

But even though much evil came of these false beliefs, and many souls were damaged for over 30 years, no one, to my knowledge, was physically assaulted by any of the leaders.  Even though it was difficult to leave psychologically and emotionally, it was only a matter of walking away if you wished to do it.  I know.  I did.

(David G's family situation, deplorable as it was, was not a typical example, and was not openly approved)

Second, what the Calvinists did to the Remonstrants, (Arminius' followers), was far worse than what happened to anyone in the assembly.  Ultimately the worst the assembly  could do was to throw you out.  (Which, odd as it may seem, was actually doing you a favor.)

After the Synod of Dort all of the Arminian pastors and professors were deprived of their livlihood, most were banished from Holland, ie, their beliefs made them outcasts from society, losing hearth, home and country.  Worse, many were imprisoned in the unhealthy brutal prisons of the 17th century.  Some were executed.

So, my point was this...if the evil acts of GG's subordinate leaders are proof of their utter spiritual corruption and renders them worthy of the degree of excoriation you regularly heap upon them...what about those Calvinist leaders who did even worse?

My overall point is this: The truth of why men do what they do is far more complex than you make it.  Life history, personality, doctrinal assumptions, pride, ambition, fear of criticism, sincere belief that one is doing God's will, the social milieu in which one lives, and more...all play their part.  

I think both GG and his sub-leaders and the leaders in Holland were both wrong.  On some issues, they were both right as well.  That is the problem we all face.  We are both good and evil at the same time.   The same man said, "Oh wretched man that I am", and "There is now no condemnation."

One long ago discredited leader who had been noted for his ability to teach and preach said to me shortly after GG fell, "When I preached, I preached for the Lord."  I believed him, because I can say the same thing.

So, my take on it is to let God do the judging.  Yes, wrong actions should be condemned, but I'll let Him who knows the hearts, try the hearts.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Excellent post Tom. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to share your perspective and insight. I have to say that I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Part of my own personal struggle for understanding in all this is driven by a profound desire and determination by the grace of God to never do anything knowingly that would cause harm to the flock of God. I am learning a few things from your perspective. Thanks again.
Verne

p.s. I trust it is not your implication that religious extremism was the exclusive domain of Calvinists for that would be neither fair nor accurate. Some of the things that were done in that era in the name of religious zeal would be unthinkable to most people of faith today. Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?  :)

Yes and no.

I am not confused about what Calvinists and Arminians believe, although I definitely do not consider myself to be well versed or skilled on this topic.

What I mainly refer to in my posts is the Galatian heresy, the proponents of which are almost exclusively Arminian.

They teach that their choices (works) result in greater holiness.  It is up to them to do the right thing, and only then can God's sanctifying grace take effect.

It seems to me that the really intense deeper life proponents fall into this category, and many ex-assembly people are confused on this issue.

Your insights into all of this are most welcome and instructional.

Brent

How long?  ;D


Verne

Verne,

You wrote:

My point was that when a Christian does something wrong, it does not mean that he is utterly corrupt.  

It seems that when Christians find themselves in a position of power, the temptation to abuse it is frequently yielded to.

This really becomes a problem when the church is allied to the state, as in Catholic countries of the past, or in Lutheran, Anglican, and Calvinist countries of the past.

In the assembly the only tools of enforcement were emotional and psychological.   In church/state situations the law enforcement officials are called in to settle doctrinal and behavioral issues!   Then when corrupt officials are involved, evil is compounded.

I am not aware of any "low church" groups, Baptists, Methodists, Brethren, etc., that were involved in church/state alliances of this type.

But what of those brethren who are involved.  Calvin himself was involved in burning one man alive on charges of heresy.  But most would say that he was a godly man in spite of this.  He was acting on a false belief that this was the right thing to do.

Many of the actions of the leaders of the GG assemblies were wrong.  They frequently believed they were doing the right thing.  They were wrong.  Seriously, sadly, harmfully wrong.  Sometimes they were just being mean, fearful, selfish, or whatever.

But much of what was done was done in the belief that they were actually serving God.   :'(

For those of us who were involved in the assemblies, our experience should always serve as a check upon any tendency to want to control other people.  ESPECIALLY for their own "good".

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I hear ya Tom. I still get the creeps when I read what happened to Saavedra.
In a strange kind of way though, I would almost rather be physically abused, than to suffer the kind of spiritual and emotional rape that took place in the assemblies.
In some respects the latter seem far worse for instinct would prompt one to run to escape from the former - the latter is so much more insidious....
I would also distinguish between a godly man whom I believe was sincerely mistaken (like the president of the C & MA  :)) and George Geftakys, whom I believe to have been diabolical. How much culpability those who served with him deserve may well be open to question for you have made that case well. Regarding Geftakys himself, I believe the jury has spoken...
Verne

What did the president of C&MA do/say?

I have been following this with interest and give my 2 cents worth. I am not a great theologian but I have come to know that God is leading me. It is not the way that I would choose but it is His way. It is a walk of faith. I trust Him and He takes me by the hand wherever He likes. I was quite troubled when I left the Assembly I thought now what do I do? I did nothing but pray and wait on Him. Then He led me.

God's leading us to Himself. It is not a theology or a feeling it is God. When I am positive about life and His creation and others and want the best for them that is God's leading because God is love. When I want to read about Him that is God's leading because God is the Truth. When others see the joy in my life and ask me what I have that is because of God's leading because God is the Life. Perfect love casts out fear and it is attractive. I believe as I reach out to God it is Him drawing me to Himself.

Devotions, prayers, singing, praising that is what happens it has got to come out in response to His first working on me.

The Assembly is not full of joy in serving Jesus but rather it is full of those who seek relief that I didn't get talked to and relief I got that message prepared, and relief that I did what was expected of me.

Your health, your job, and everything in life is His goodness to you. We should not squander it on a system that talks of God but shows no fruit of inner joy and peace. God leads those who are seeking to follow "Him". It is the little ones GG used to say and that is true. They will inherit the Kingdom not by Stewardships, not by money to Fullerton but by God's Holy Spirit and that grace, love and joy of the Father and the Son.

God's leading you out of the Assembly where you can choose to follow Him. In the control of the Assembly it was not possible to know if we really served Him because it was only approval or disapproval of the leaders that we took to be God's leading. That is why it is so hard for many to know that God is leading them. They don't know that God wants them to be joyful and not dour and has called us to a life that is good and others will want to have this too.

If you are looking for God's leading it is not by searching for that knowledge that God led me, but by looking to find Him that He finds and leads you. It is not by doing more but by letting go of everything and letting Him just take it and replace your life with His.

God says if you are seeking with all your heart He will be found. He will be found not some method or religion or some person but Him. He will be found.

Hugh

Are you sure you want to know?  :)
It's quite complicated and Dr. Nanfelt is a great man.
In his position it is entirely possible I would have done the same thing.
It did cost their great commission fund a ton of dough so they may subsequently have thought better of it. We will see...
Verne
p.s. If you are really interested I'll PM you the letter I got from him.
It seems as if I have deleted the post on the goings-on at Champaign Alliance Church where I used to attend...a few former assembly members (acquaintances of the individual involved) took great umbrage at the elders of the church doing what they are supposed to, and my talking about it in particular. It was somewhat amusing.
BTW, did sombody reinstitute the code of silence??!!  :)

How do you "know" that God has led you?  Maybe, you've already answered this and I missed it.


I think that it is possible to be confused with what it means to find God, hence people get commited to all sorts of groups even cult-like ones.

God bless,
Marcia

Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.

Great post Hugh!
This is why I like the "quiet time" :)



 I agree with Marcia.
There is a confusion that is consequent to unholy living and disobedience to revealed truth, There is a confusion that is simply borne of ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches. It is not always easy to distinguish them. Take the following verse for example:

 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Who is the active agent in this verse, i.e the subject of every verb?

What category would you put a person in, who despite claming to be spiritually enlightened, would be so obtuse as to rob God of any of his prerogatives stated in the above verse? I despise false teachers...
Anyone attempting to teach you that your justification before God is in any way divorced from your ultimate glorification is a messenger of the abyss and promulgating doctrines of devils. It is the kind of God-dishonoing and soul- enslaving tripe that came out of the murky depths of the seared conscience of George Geftakys. Y'all be careful hear?


S*I*G*H*.

Why bother folks?
Those of you who think you are somehow doing me a favor by asking me to refute spiritual idiocy let me share with you the verse God gave me:


Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

Verne

I mostly know God's leading after the fact.

If I seek to know Him and to draw closer to Him on my own without having someone else there to filter or encourage or impose their view then I am open to God and He leads me. Often it is imperceptible. While it is happening I usually don't recognize it at the time. I just believe that because I am seeking Him he will guide me.

It is when I see the Godly fruit (in hindsight) like repentance, positive attitudes towards myself and others, a desire to read  about Him or pray to Him apart from guilt or prodding by others. There are many other fruits of the Spirit but they are not achieved by seeking to "do them" to please Him or others who may be watching.

The fruit which is proof of God's leading only happens as a result of seeking Him. I could not manufacture these results they are from God. He knows and I certainly know it is not my doing but His working in me. I believe as I reach out to God it is Him drawing me to Himself. It is not I but Christ this is proof of His leading.

Direct instruction in the Word is also God's leading but I suspect that is not what you are asking about.

So I don't have a two way direct link like some claim to have. I just see the results when I sincerely want to please Him and am open to anything He wants.

When people get led astray and fall into Cults it is probably because someone tells them they know a sure fire way or a shortcut to God's will. We are not to trust people who claim to have an exclusive way to God. The bible says seek and you will find etc. I don't trust others to lead me to God anymore. I seek Him myself. I listen to others experience but it is not like before when I figured the leaders know best.

Hugh

Right on the money.
So do others. Just look at the life.

By their fruits you shall know them.
It is hard to convince anyone (or yourself for that matter) that you are being led by God if you have lived the life of a liar, an adulterer and a fraud.

Verne
p.s. I would only add dear brother that the fruit comes more as a result of abiding... what an encouraging and edifying post!

Responding to one thing I think you are saying, I would agree and say it like this:

I may not know (or be able to know) that God is leading me, but I can (and often do) know that I have been led.

David Jeremiah said it like this:  Understanding God's will is like reading the Hebrew Bible.  It makes sense when you read it backwards.

Often our Christian attempt to forsee or "divine" the future by seeking God's subjective leading or silver-bullet verse (shall I take this job?  Shall I move here?  Shall I marry this person?) comes up short.  But, having committed ourself to God in integrety and made the move (or not) and having taken ownership for our decision, we can often look back and see that God's hand was in it all along.

Remember that, in the garden of Eden, the situation was that God had created man in God's own image, and that Adam and Eve were yet sinless.  The serpent came along and offered a way to improve on what God had made them.

It would seem that likewise in the second creation the devil is still at it offering improvement through self-righteous hypocrisy.

II Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


You're misrepresenting the case by saying that all those things were known.  In fact the focus on appearances prevented the discovery of the truth because critics were silenced for the fault of marring appearances!


The verse that you quote seems like a poor choice for defending your use of the term "Christ-likeness" because it seems to suggest self-righteousness, in other words that you are satisfied with how much you are like Christ.

This subjective self-centered way of interpreting things is an aberation of our time and has its origin in psychology.  Atheism requires such an interpretation since the possibility that God might really exist has been excluded, so those who seek God must really be seeking something subjective within themselves.

David wasn't looking for something within himself.  He was looking for the Lord.

There is a sense in which we see the Lord's face in his righteous acts.  David had just prayed for the Lord to keep him from the wicked in Psalm 17:8-9.  He was going to be satisfied with seeing in the answer to his prayer the evidence of the Lord's presence with him.

Psalm 9:16
The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion.  Selah.

Why don't you simply accept the verse for what it says instead of trying to project your own notion of what others think it is saying.
The verse says that we behold, and the Spirit of God transforms. How you get self-righteous hypocrisy out of anything that verse says I cannot fathom.
I would suggest that you spend time thinking about the difference between sinlessness and holiness. If you do not understand the difference, you will make no distinction between the first and the last Adam Stephen. Comparing Adam to the new man in Christ is a serious error.



Am I?
Did you read the same accounts of assembly history that I have Stephen?
There is a former leading brother on this BB who has publicly acknowledged that very early on they knew George Geftakys to be a liar.
There has been testimony by numerous witnessess that David's abuse of Judy was reported to George and the leadership decades before the collapse.
There have been numerous witnesses who confirmed the man's smoking and drinking vices which he engaged in for many years. Don't tell me that people did not know for that does not comport with the facts. It may be true that the rank and file did not have these details but the men in leadership knew.
George actually used his traveling companion, a man in leadership responsibility to pass
inappropriate letters to a young single sister and when an accusation of inordinate affection was levied at this man, despite the evidence available to this individual he kept quiet, supposedly deciding the extent of his responsibility was to advise the the brothers in Fullerton and let them handle it.
Do you doubt for one instant that what prompted these men to action was not so much that they had hitherto unknown facts about this man at their disposal but that the facts had become public!

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HOLINESS IN MEN OF GOD??!!

The weight of the evidence demolishes that lame excuse my friend. Completely.
I am afraid there is no misrepresentation on this score. The fact that you or I may not have known what was going on is entirely irrelevnant for we were not charged with oversight.
If those in leadership did not know, that is an even greater indictment.

There is nothing subjective about the work of the Spirit of God in the life of the believer.
That work is to make us like Christ.
It is not self-centered to examine ourselves, to see whether we be in the faith.
Nothing prompts me to want to change more than a realisation of how unlike Christ, in the flesh, I really am. This is not some kind of personality  or beauty contest. It is about seeing the pupose for which the Son of God gave His life accomplished in these earthly tabernacles
Holiness of life is objectively visible. You cannot be holy unless the Spirit of God makes you thus so subjectivity had nothing to do with it. Holiness cannot be counterfeited.

Verne