a very long thread

[delila]

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

[al Hartman]

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

I find this comment deeply troubling Chuck, Tom Maddux is one of the gentlest and most restrained of Christian men I know. I am really saddened by this.
Verne

Verne,

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

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

al

[BenJapheth]

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

I find this comment deeply troubling Chuck, Tom Maddux is one of the gentlest and most restrained of Christian men I know. I am really saddened by this.
Verne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best...Chuck

[delila]

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

I find this comment deeply troubling Chuck, Tom Maddux is one of the gentlest and most restrained of Christian men I know. I am really saddened by this.
Verne

Verne,

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

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

al

O.K Al. It must be clear to everyone who has read my posts that the thing that sets me off is ignoramuses making excuses for unfaithful shepherds.
What exactly did you do that provoked a man like Tom Maddux into such paroxysm of passion?
Verne
p.s. You were lucky. He knows a thing or two about physical combat.  

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

[al Hartman]

O.K Al...
     What exactly did you do that provoked a man like Tom Maddux into such paroxysm of passion?
Verne

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

p.s. You were lucky. He knows a thing or two about physical combat.  

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

al

[Oscar]

Heresy...1 Titus 3:9-11

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

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

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

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



Chuck Vanasse

Chuck,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another thing Chuck.  

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

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

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

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[BenJapheth]

It's Called A Heretic !!!  ... A Heretic... It's Called A Heretic !!! ...A Heretic... [/color]

[/u][/b]

Chuck,

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

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

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

Correct

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

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

Just how much contention is allowable, and how much is too much?

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

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

I ask this because all strong minded people have disagreements with their brethren from time to time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another thing Chuck - You have admonished us to be concerned about the "Testimony to Jesus".  You have also told us that you are of Plymouth Brethren persuasion.  Fine with me.  Enjoy.  But one must remember that their ideas have led to their being known as a center of inter-necene warfare and divisiveness.  In the days of H.A. Ironside, there were 19 mutually excommunicating "True Testimonies" to Jesus in the London area alone!!!!!       It would seem to me that your definition of heresy could be one of the reasons for this.

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

Proof of the pudding y'know.

 

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

It's Called A Heretic !!![/color]

[/u][/b]

Appreciate your thoughts.  Hope this helps...

All the best, Chuck

[Joe Sperling]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Joe

[sfortescue]

Verne,

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

[Joe Sperling]

Verne---

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

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

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

--Joe

[BenJapheth]

Verne---

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

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

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

--Joe

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

Chuck.

[Joe Sperling]

Verne---

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

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

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

God bless you Verne,  Joe

[sfortescue]

Verne,

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

As one famous person said:

What is truth?
 

Did Pilate honor the truth-teller?

One man's truth, is another man's slander.
 

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

[BenJapheth]

No problem Joe. I gather the John Malone era on the BB ended shortly before I joined. The evidence you cite is not something I am privy to. Some people surmised that the person posting as BrassWall was John Malone and I do not know that. Either way, what I saw was some really nasty and contentious exchanges between BrassWall and Mr. Chuck Vanasse, the vitriol of which I have not seen on the BB for quite some time -  obviously an on-going personal feud. BrassWall also said some very uncharitable things about Tom Maddux who did not respond in kind or accuse him of heresy. I have learned a thing or two from Tom in this regard. I agree we are all entitled to our own opinion on this. Thanks for the explanation.
Verne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bless you all, Chuck