sondra discussion

[al Hartman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

al

[Sondra Jamison]

I had been saved shortly before, but had never attended a church. I really didn't know very
much about "church" at all. I had read the Bible all the way through just once, and was not
"grounded" in the faith. Much of my walk was pure emotion(if I "felt" the presence of God
and his sweetness all was well, but if there was no "feeling" God was near I was immediately
depressed).

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

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

When I attended the first Bible study, George was teaching. I was amazed at
the teaching at that time---such things as a part of the tabernacle representing Christ in some
way intrigued me tremendously. Unfortunately, I began to interpret the whole Bible(especially
the Old Testament of course) this way.

Instead of reading the Bible for what it REALLY said, I began to want to interpret every part of it in
the same way George did. A "sword" couldn't be just a sword, it had to stand for "The Word of God",
because the word of God is "as a two-edged sword."

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

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

But what all of this did was to lead to a puffed up sense of knowledge, rather than really
being built up and grounded in the Word of God. I began to read each chapter looking for "what
stood for what" in the "spiritual sense"--the literal meaning wasn't important to me any more.

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

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

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

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

Sondra

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

[Sondra Jamison]

I could understand your sensitivity.  However, I would have to observe more to make a judgement.  Knowing Calvary Chapels, I doubt that he was trying to control to the same extent that control occurred in the Assembly.  In other words, I would guess that you could be at that church and respectfully disagree with the pastor's prayer (and even discuss it with him) and remain in good standing in fellowship.  Verbally disagreeing with George was not an option.  I don't know this for sure, of course, but that is my hunch based upon my experience with CC folks since 1976.
 
I think the pastor's prayer is indicitive of the discussion that went on and on about how we receive information from God.  That thought fell upon the pastor's heart, he took it as the voice of God and he prayed it.  In many circles, this is seen as being "led of the Spirit" and "hearing the voice of God" though it seems to me that the pastor's natural desire to motivate got wrapped up in the mix.  These type of concerns is why I (and I would guess Tom though I haven't discussed this with him) argue for more restraint, discernment, and objectivity in attributing a thought as coming from the very mouth of God.
 

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

[Oscar]

Sondra,

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

He says,

"In my case, I was extremely embarrassed because I had gone to a good Bible college, and all my friends knew me as a person who was very well-grounded in the Scriptures.  I had even served for three years in local church ministry!  But I was deceived when a man with seemingly good credentials and recommendations tricked me into setting aside questions regarding the Bible's teaching.  

     "Oh -- that's just theology!" he would say.  "Your problem is that your head is so full of doctrine and theology that it keeps you from getting to know God!"  This person came into my life just after I had suffered a depressing career reversal, and so I was vulnerable.  ... And there was just enough truth in what this man said to enhance his deception: sometimes people can get their heads so full of arcane, irrelevant theological concerns that it obstructs their relationship with God, and I already knew this to be true.  

     But if a person comes along and says this to you, he (or she) is basically making an accusation against you.  The accusation may be valid, but it must be proven.  Jesus insisted upon this when He said, "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault..." (Matthew 18:15, NASB).  Spiritual abusers are very good at "discerning" things about people and then "confronting" them about supposed "spiritual problems" they are having -- but they are extremely poor at showing their victims their supposed "sins."  

     And since when are our spiritual problems solved by distracting ourselves from the actual teachings (or doctrines, or theology) of the Bible?  If a so-called pastor, counselor, or other type of leader, displays a refusal to deal clearly and responsibly with the text of Scripture, and then they turn around and blame some shortcoming on your part for why they are refusing to do this, then you are most certainly dealing with a spiritual abuser."

Thomas Maddux

[Sondra Jamison]

Sondra,

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

He says,
Thomas Maddux

     And since when are our spiritual problems solved by distracting ourselves from the actual teachings (or doctrines, or theology) of the Bible?  If a so-called pastor, counselor, or other type of leader, displays a refusal to deal clearly and responsibly with the text of Scripture, and then they turn around and blame some shortcoming on your part for why they are refusing to do this, then you are most certainly dealing with a spiritual abuser."

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

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

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

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

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

Sondra

[al Hartman]

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

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

What I believe he is telling us is that these three questions are the ones we should be asking the Lord and trusting His Holy Spirit to answer for us.  Personally, I have found it very reassuring to ask the Lord's guidance in reading and studying His Word, and to see things in it that I haven't seen before, then afterward to discover that others before me have seen the same truths.  I don't believe we need commentators to tell us what to believe, but neither do we need to fear them.  We do need the Holy Spirit to tell us from the Bible whether the commentators have it right or not.  If we are not asking and trusting Him to do this, we may be drifting off-center (with or without referring to the teachings of scholarly men).
Correct me if my memory fails, Sondra, but as I recall two or three years ago you were posting here that we were too taken up with the Bible...  If that is so, maybe sharing what you have learned since that time will help us to understand where you are coming from now...

al

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

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

[moonflower2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sondra Jamison]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sondra

[Sondra Jamison]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sondra

[moonflower2]

George was an academic.  It was intimidating when he taught meanings of scriptures because he quoted the big guys and brought profound teachings from other authorities he had read while in seminary. 

Geftacky seems to have changed some since you left. Since the time you left, he was plagairizing, not giving credit to others for anything that he mentioned.

His library was extensive.  He was not representing that we should just trust him for the meaning of scriptures.  He quoted guys and invited all to look it up.

He was no longer telling his victims to look anything up for themselves. He did not suggest that anyone look up what he was suggesting; he, only, had spiritual insight to these "deep" truths.

 But I woke up and began to smell the heavenly coffee and believe me when I tell you that George didn't like the questions I asked. 

 Tom, yours and Joe's and Dave's responses toward me is much like George's and Simon's toward Mary, sorry to say.   

You again are comparing Tom's, Joe's and Dave's responses to the Great One's responses to you.
First of all, that is not a fair comparison. 

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

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

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

Why don't you refrain from doing that?

[Sondra Jamison]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sondra Jamison]

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

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

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


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

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

My sheep hear....

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

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

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

Sondra

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

[al Hartman]

Sondra, following my having said,

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

...you said:

Don't you think it would be better to quote me than to make such a ridiculous characterization, Al?  Please quote context as well.  Much appreciated.

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

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

 

I do remember being cross examined by you like a drill instructor.  I thought I had stumbled into a teen bible quiz, but no one really seemed to have a grip on the scriptures past questions a door keeper should ask someone who wanted to partake of the Lord's supper.  Who do you say Jesus Christ is and what do you say He came to do?   That's what I remember.
 

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

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

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

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

al

[Sondra Jamison]

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

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

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

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

Why don't you refrain from doing that?

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

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

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

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

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

Sondra

[Sondra Jamison]

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

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

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

   

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

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

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

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

al

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

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

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

Sondra