The God Grab Bag

[Joe Sperling]

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

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

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

--Joe

[vernecarty]

I give up. man--I wish I could find a thread that wasn't dedicated to attacking this one
person on the Bulletin Board. --Joe

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

[brian]

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

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

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

[vernecarty]

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

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

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

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

[Marty]

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

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

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

--Joe

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

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

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

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

[outdeep]

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

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

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

However, when I read just a few of Tom's recent posts:
BTW, I believe confusing God's miraculous interventions into his creation with normal Christian experience is the source of many erroneous ideas.  The question is not what can God do, but what does God normally do.
What you are advocating is something else.  My term for it is mystical revelation.  Many christians believe that if they have an insight into the meaning of a passage of scripture, they are receiving direct, non-mediated communication from God.  They also frequently believe that the thoughts that occur to them are sometimes the voice of God...or the Devil.  As I have said, I have serious doubts about this.
I do not for a minute deny the possibility of God speaking to a person.  But just because a thought occurrs to me I do not ascribe it to God, (or Satan).  I have my plausibility filter set to a high level.  I will accept that sort of thing after I apply several tests, such as:
1. The general maturity of the person.
2. The type of personality he/she evidences.
3. What I know of the spiritual stature of the individual.
4. The reputation of the person among other Christians who I know or whose reputation leads me to give weight to their views.
5. How the person's statements accord with the teachings of properly interpreted scripture.
In addition to these things, I do not believe that direct communication from God either was or is God's normal way of dealing with his people.
Your theory above is patently false.  I am not operating under the assumption that God never speaks directly to people or that God cannot make a verse leap out from the page and impress an unrelated idea upon our heart.  By Tom's quote above, I don't think Tom operates under this assumption either (though you don't seem to give him credit for the things he says that contradicts your theory).  Or, putting it plainly, Tom is saying that he believes that God may indeed speak to people.  This possibility has been abused in the Christian community (where folks say God is speaking to them and they are not).  While God has indeed spoken to people, he does not believe that it is a typical every-day experience.  Therefore, he feels that Christians should be very careful and throughtful when someone says "God spoke to me".  See how this is different than the mold you are putting him in where you claim that he believes God never speak directly to people?

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

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

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

[Tony]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Thankful,

Tony

[Oscar]

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


Verne

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog

[Oscar]

Verne,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog

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

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

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

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

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

[vernecarty]

Verne,

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

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

[Recovering Saint]

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

Hugh

[vernecarty]

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

Hugh

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

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

[Joe Sperling]

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

--Joe

[vernecarty]

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

--Joe

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

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


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

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

I hope this helps a little...
Verne

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