sondra discussion

[Sondra Jamison]

I took the liberty of moving this post to the thread where I have been posting most of my views on the "revelation" topic.  It is misplaced under "headcoverings" but this is where we are -- and "wizawaz" wants her thread back - understandable.  That's what we used to call Elizabeth Geftakys.

Hello Sondra,

Please understand that I do not reject or judge you for your Deeper Life views.  Whether I agree or not is not the issue, as I believe we can discuss these and other ideas in a respectful, gracious manner.  I look forward to doing so.

So, let's talk turkey.  Jesus did divide people, and will yet divide them.  You are right about that.  He was certainly a troublemaker for some; again, I agree with you there.

However, wouldn't you also agree that He didn't pit John against Peter, or Bartholemew against Thomas?  I see that latter as being a problem here, and I'm not accusing anyone in particlar.  I am merely suggesting we all judge ourselves and our own motives.

The Word of God is able to do this, is it not?  In fact, I argue that the practical application of "revealing thoughts and intent of the heart, joints and marrow," is somewhat mystical.

Regardless of whether we use the inductive method of bible study or not, we need the Holy Spirit.  I certainly hope no one is advocating something else, whether directly or by suggestion.

We are saved by Grace, through faith.  Jesus is the Son of God, God incarnate, The Eternal Logos, The Alpha and Omega, Friend of sinners, Faithful and True.  I think we both agree on that? If so, you aren't going to get any judgement or mud from me.

bystander

[Sondra Jamison]

I moved my post to this location, Bystander.

Hello Sondra,

Please understand that I do not reject or judge you for your Deeper Life views.  Whether I agree or not is not the issue, as I believe we can discuss these and other ideas in a respectful, gracious manner.  I look forward to doing so.

So, let's talk turkey.  Jesus did divide people, and will yet divide them.  You are right about that.  He was certainly a troublemaker for some; again, I agree with you there.

However, wouldn't you also agree that He didn't pit John against Peter, or Bartholemew against Thomas? 

Yes and No.  Yes, He pitted someone against the disciples who were often still natural in their perspectives...Himself Who of course, had a spiritual perspective and placed a priority on pure motives of the heart that replaced hyprocrisy, spirituality replacing legalism, Truth instead of the Lie.  I don't think He was angry at His disciples, but I do believe He reprioritized their lives in a short period of time, thus converting them eventually to Apostles who would be responsible to carry a very heavy load.....

Sometimes believers are our worst enemies when they call names, label other believers (which has been happening to me for about 3 years now).  And I am simply coming onto the scene in my own name to give my views of why I believe George and others who interpret the scriptures intellectually instead of through the power of the Holy Spirit and His revelation - really, have caused a lot of pain in the lives of believers.  Tom has been misrepresenting for too long that GG was a "mystic" blah, blah, blah.  George and I had numerous discussion regarding "the Lord speaking to the individual believer" and he never wanted to give much to the individual without linking it to God's government.  In both cases, George's and Tom's, and for different reasons and beleifs, they negated the indwelling of God and the autonomy of the believer.

When I spoke with George about my views, it was very, very difficult.  I have known of the conflict within Christiandom for many years and frankly, I they sit back like George did and like Tom is now, smugly not answering questions and being accountable.  He cannot answer himself, rather he quotes others.  What is with that?

He goes into his little cave and here I am out here being blamed for being devisive.  He's secure, just as GG was.  He always looked good because he would never answer anyone's questions.  He never answered mine and saw me as despensible I'm sure.  I still love George and I will not allow myself to hate, but one thing I do hate....I hate intellectualization of Doctrine that God intended to be about a living God and a living Word within the believer. 

I see that latter as being a problem here, and I'm not accusing anyone in particlar.  I am merely suggesting we all judge ourselves and our own motives

   

Tom is not saved as far as I can tell.  He never mentions the Lord.  He will not confess Him as His personal God and Savior.  I've been at this too long to believe that a believer can post as much as Tom has and never mention his Lord and Savior....if he actually knows Him.  Bible scholars who aren't even saved are not hard to find. 

I'm not trying to call names or humiliate anyone, least of all Tom, but when he arrogantly came after people who were discussing "revelation" from an indwelling God - the red flag reallly went up.  When he mocked people for believing they could hear God's voice - enough.  "Mea Culpa" got him off the hook, but he had already ravaged faith and planted seeds of doubt in hearts.  Besides, MC meanst nothing because he came back a couple days later and essentially said the very same things regarding those who receive spiritual revelation from a living God within.

The Word of God is able to do this, is it not?  In fact, I argue that the practical application of "revealing thoughts and intent of the heart, joints and marrow," is somewhat mystical.

Except there are some signs as to whether someone is saved beyond the display of open sin and carnality or it's absence.  One who knows the Lord speaks of the Lord and believes in His indwelling of the believer.  Tom has no hint of belief that God is a living force and life within the believer that I can tell and I've been reading him for about 3 years now. 

He has ridden shotgun over this site so as to sanatize it from anyone who would speak of the "kingdom of God that is within."  He posts broad brushed insults about "mystics" but won't give answers that are scriptural to prove his position.  It is much more difficult to prove a spiritual leading or anything spiritual for that matter, but he hides.

....
We are saved by Grace, through faith.  Jesus is the Son of God, God incarnate, The Eternal Logos, The Alpha and Omega, Friend of sinners, Faithful and True.  I think we both agree on that? If so, you aren't going to get any judgement or mud from me.

There you have it, a confession of the Savior. 

[Oscar]

Folks,

A post of mine from January 27, 2003.

John 1335,

You have just given us an example of what I am talking about.


"2. John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (Outside help? I need inside help! - aka Holy Spirit)"

Here is a passage from the Gospel of John where the Lord Jesus is talking to the APOSTLES.  He is promising them that the Holy Spirit will enable them to remember and understand His words spoken when He was WITH THEM. (all that I said to you).

Now you lift the passage out of its context, apply it to yourself instead of the to the people it was addressed to, and ignore the fact that none of us ever heard the words that are to be "brought to rememberence".

You consider this understanding the Word of God?  This is exactly the kind of thing that we saw and heard in the assemblies.  This is nonsense multiplied. 


3. Eph 3:10-11 "...in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus" - (Purpose of the church...hmmm)

Again, a standard Plymouth Brethren interpretation of the passage.  Right off the pages of the Brethren writers where George G. learned it, and taught it to your leaders, who taught it to you. 

The manifold wisdom of God of which Paul speaks is found in verses 4-6.
A truth that was never revealed before has now been revealed through the apostles and prophets.  God's purpose is not just for Israel, but God in his wisdom has purposed to include the Gentiles in the body of Christ.  And this is to be made known to rulers and authorities in the heavenly places NOW through the church.

NOW my dear brothers was 2000 years ago!  Yes, this union of Jew and Gentile in Christ is ongoing until our day, and it is seen in the CHURCH.  That means the Church which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.   NOT JUST YOUR LITTLE ASSEMBLIES!

Here again, George Geftakys speaks through your mouths.  His ideas are guiding your thoughts.  No I don't mean some mystical influence, I just mean that you have been taught to think this way, and you don't have a broader knowledge base to compare these ideas with.


"4. Luke 12:32 Do not be afraid little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. - (silly little flocks)"

Again, ONLY YOU are the little flock.  The Good Shepherd doesn't really care about ALL his flock.  Only the special ones, the true testimony, the community of light and life ........ This is so  sad.

This is why you folks so desparately need outside help! 

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Now, this post did not receive the reply..."Oh, your right, sorry." 

However, at least it was not replied to on the basis that the person being addressed by my post had an understanding of the scriptures beyond the words and grammatical construction of the text.  The viewpoint being advanced by Sondra is that she is so inspired that the scriptures mean whatever she says they mean.  If not, then all one has is the inspired words and grammar.

It has been a long time, but back in the 60's and 70's I read extensively in Deeper Life teaching.  Nee, Murray, Guyon, H. W. Smith, Grubb, Hession, Chambers, F. B. Meyer, Sparks, Fromke, and others.  I do not recall that any of them, other than Nee and Penn-Lewis, went as far as Sondra in their claims of personal enlightenment.  The rest seemed to stop at the same place GG did, which was the claim to understand the true teaching of the passage, which was accessible through the text itself if the person was in communion with God through the Holy Spirit.

The idea was that one could take a careless attitude towards the Bible and just hold doctrinal positions as intellectual concepts.  The deeper life teachers were welcomed in Evangelical churches because they mostly just said that serious Christians could meet the Lord through the word, if they were truly willing to hear God's voice in the words and take it seriously.

Nee seems to have gone beyond this.  The problem with this view arises when you have multiple people claiming to be the final arbiter of all truth.  So, he adopted the idea of absolute submission to "spiritual" authority, to control what went on.  If, in GG's words, "It's better felt than telt,"  who gets to do the felt part? 

I do not recall that GG utilized this method to try to control what people believed the Bible taught.  He employed it to control what was taught in the assemblies.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux


 
 

[Sondra Jamison]

Folks,

A post of mine from January 27, 2003.
Now, this post did not receive the reply..."Oh, your right, sorry." 

It has been a long time, but back in the 60's and 70's I read extensively in Deeper Life teaching.  Nee, Murray, Guyon, H. W. Smith, Grubb, Hession, Chambers, F. B. Meyer, Sparks, Fromke, and others.  I do not recall that any of them, other than Nee and Penn-Lewis, went as far as Sondra in their claims of personal enlightenment.  The rest seemed to stop at the same place GG did, which was the claim to understand the true teaching of the passage, which was accessible through the text itself if the person was in communion with God through the Holy Spirit.

This paragraph proves nothing.  I don't believe I have an exclusive interpretation of the Word of God or any one scripture.  I do believe that God can reveal His meaning to people though and He reveals it directly to the heart if it is true revelation of WHO HE IS.  Many can receive the same revelation.  Now, if He has something to say exclusively to me about my husband, something I need to do to help him, encourage him, pray for him, I don't expect He will tell someone else, would you?

The idea was that one could take a careless attitude towards the Bible and just hold doctrinal positions as intellectual concepts.  The deeper life teachers were welcomed in Evangelical churches because they mostly just said that serious Christians could meet the Lord through the word, if they were truly willing to hear God's voice in the words and take it seriously.

Nee seems to have gone beyond this.  The problem with this view arises when you have multiple people claiming to be the final arbiter of all truth.  So, he adopted the idea of absolute submission to "spiritual" authority, to control what went on.  If, in GG's words, "It's better felt than telt,"  who gets to do the felt part? 

I do not recall that GG utilized this method to try to control what people believed the Bible taught.  He employed it to control what was taught in the assemblies.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux 

Tom,

I appreciate that you have answered.  You do sound very irritated to have to be bothered with such silly questions.  Perhaps it is not arrogance, but it sure comes across as arrogance.  I hear an attitude in your post that you think you are so knowledgeable on this that you shouldn't even be questioned again on it once you have spoken.

Regarding the quote above, by not giving the reader the opportunity to read the post, (mine) that you are responding to in the quote -you are essentially quoting out of context.  It doesn't make much sense and is hard to follow without the context.  Would you mind?

You fault me for not saying, "Oh you are right, sorry" when I believe you are wrong.  I do not remember why I didn't respond, but I probably slithered off into a corner after being attackedfor having a differing opinion.  I am very glad you quoted you.  It sounds pretty arrogant really.  You sound very angry and intolerant of any view besides your own....consistent with the arrogance that I and many others have experienced.

The idea was that one could take a careless attitude towards the Bible and just hold doctrinal positions as intellectual concepts. 

   I doubt that anyone would agree with you that I have been careless or casual about the scriptures....that you can have it any old way you want it.      That's false.  In fact, I think the insurance policy is to check with the Lord within the heart to see if these things that my mind concludes are so....are so.  There are several spiritual checks and balances that need to be consulted - beyond the intellectual one.  The mind and emotions can play tricks, but they who wait upon the Lord....  God is a God who speaks...He will come and He will not tarry.  I received answers ALL THE TIME in many different ways.d

The autonomy of the believer with God is sacred.  Otherwise, Bozo's will be telling others what they should or shouldn't be doing because they have superior knowledge.  The individual believer must check the scriptures, but also must ask God and receive His answer.  Otherwise, a scripture that condones killing someone (extreme example) could be taken literally or that Paul suggested that it is better to not marry and stay single...a believer finds himself single his whole life because the Apostle said it was best.  Believer's MUST ask God and rely on other methods than reasoning and analysis to know what God's will is.  This interaction is important and really so very basic that I can't believe I'm going over this so many times and still receiving an argument FROM BELIEVERS.     Speaking of "deeper life"- there is nothing deep about this.  This is basic Christianity.

To continue....To hold up judgement until speaking with God, gives Him the opportunity to speak into the situation.  He can give the believer a "check" in his spirit and one who has learned to discern the movement of God in his/her heart can know, "hold up" and reconsider.  God can send a friend.  God can send an angel.  God can send a thousand dollars.  God can send a meal.  God can send a gun...no, just kidding.  God can communicate in so many different way, but mainly, I believe He wants to teach the believer to hear His voice and take direction from Him.  What is so difficult about this concept when the scriptures are full of this basic viewpoint.

Question.  What do you believe "spiritual" concepts are if they are not what I have shared I believe they are?  Now, please, I'm not asking you what you believe they are not - rather what they are....if you would be so kind.

Sondra

[moonflower2]

Moony, please use quotes if you are going to accuse me of name-calling.  

Can't quote any of your previous name-calling and personal put-downs and criticsms of BB members here. You deleted all your "ruth", "affirming", and "meeko" posts, remember?

[Joe Sperling]

"Tom is not saved as far as I can tell.  He never mentions the Lord.  He will not confess Him as His personal God and Savior.  I've been at this too long to believe that a believer can post as much as Tom has and never mention his Lord and Savior....if he actually knows Him.  Bible scholars who aren't even saved are not hard to find."---from post below.

Well, I was going to stay silent on the "cults" thread, but find I cannot here. The statement made
by Sondra is indeed true. Tom is not a believer. Yes, Tom is not a believer, and I'm Norman Rockwell. Yes, It's true, I never died. And I'm just finishing up on one of my family oriented drawings, you know the kind with the happy kids on sleds at Christmas, or a family around the Thanksgiving table. This newest one is much like those others.

This one has a group of people gathered around a dinner setting, with a big lovable sheep dog with his paws perched over the edge of the table. I call the painting "Tom is not saved". Tom is seated at the end of the table, and most of the people seated are glaring at him, and the kids are throwing food in his direction. Even the big lovable sheep dog with a Santa hat on his fluffy head is growling at him. And it's because he's not saved. This is going to be a masterpiece, or my name isn't Norman Rockwell.

--Norman

[Sondra Jamison]

"Tom is not saved as far as I can tell.  He never mentions the Lord.  He will not confess Him as His personal God and Savior.  I've been at this too long to believe that a believer can post as much as Tom has and never mention his Lord and Savior....if he actually knows Him.  Bible scholars who aren't even saved are not hard to find."---from post below.

Well, I was going to stay silent on the "cults" thread, but find I cannot here. The statement made
by Sondra is indeed true. Tom is not a believer. Yes, Tom is not a believer, and I'm Norman Rockwell. Yes, It's true, I never died. And I'm just finishing up on one of my family oriented drawings, you know the kind with the happy kids on sleds at Christmas, or a family around the Thanksgiving table. This newest one is much like those others.

This one has a group of people gathered around a dinner setting, with a big lovable sheep dog with his paws perched over the edge of the table. I call the painting "Tom is not saved". Tom is seated at the end of the table, and most of the people seated are glaring at him, and the kids are throwing food in his direction. Even the big lovable sheep dog with a Santa hat on his fluffy head is growling at him. And it's because he's not saved. This is going to be a masterpiece, or my name isn't Norman Rockwell.

--Norman

Defending someone you love and care about is natural.  It sure feels good when you are on the receiving end of that, but I think I am seeing a strong pattern among former Assembly folks that is very unhealthy.  It has perhaps something to do with the dynamics that CS Lewis lays out in his work, "The Inner Ring."

Tom protects Joe.  Joe protects Tom.  Both in the past have negated the facts, IMO.

Joe, you are really a nice guy, but you know what they say about nice guys?  They finish last.  Old adage, but so true.  Some people were too polite and wanted peace at any price and others didn't care and were authorized through their own pride or self worth and confidence to take the helm and the dynamics that are set up between the two are classic.  They get in their little slot and the rest is history.

Tom can answer for himself, Joe.  George was shielded and now it would appear that you have forgotten an important lesson.  Let Tom answer.  If he is saved, born into the Spirit of God...Tom is a very well spoken man - he can answer.  If he won't answer and thinks that he is above answering, he may have a different problem.

Having a lot of Bible  knowledge does not a born again Christian make.  Being quickened in the Spirit, brought alive from the dead is the evidence of one who is saved.  I realize I am asking hard questions, but Tom has come out as an authority on the Word among believers.  Why shouldn't he also be expected to have the humility to speak of his own personal experience with the Lord - if there is one.  Almost everyone else has. 

"My sheep hear my voice...."  Tom has said that he doesn't hear the Lord's voice...not that the growth of those ears is an easy task....  Anyone who hears God's direction, His comforting words, His loving and caring encouragements, His admonishments,....I pity them because I know what it takes to grow those ears and to get that faculty of HEARING GOD.  But Tom has adamently disagreed that a child of God can hear God's spontaneous leading.  To fight so vehemently against the idea that God can simply lead His people by His Spirit without having a Bible verse/passage in hand - there is something seriously wrong.

I am not using Tom's disagreement WITH ME as fuel to "get him."  Quite on the contrary.  But the more we discussed "Revelation" and the more Tom smugly put down almost everything surrounding the subject of "hearing God" - fair cautions notwithstanding - I became aware that it was more than mere concern that someone would mistake hearing God and make some bad choices.

No, from all that I have read, Tom is not willing to speak of his own personal relationship with God or the absence of such.  The Word clearly teaches that He will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of Him.  I'm not trying to make Tom fear that God will reject him, rather, to show that to share one's personal faith is a "norm" per God's testimony on it. It should be no big deal for a believer.

Besides, I am only calling Tom on his very words.  One's words justifies them or condemns them.  (Don't have time to look up the scripture).

I am happy to give account of my salvation and have written hundreds of articles articulating it.  I am not asking him if he is "on center" in terms of the Godhead, etc.  I am asking about the discrepancy in all/most of what Tom has been demonstrating by his anger and rejection of clear Bible teaching of the "indwelling of God in the believer"....the God of the human heart.....  Where is Tom's God?  Is He in him?  If He is in him, is He dead, asleep, or is He awake and rejoicing with Tom?  These aren't easy questions to answer, but they need to be answered by one who is so against this teaching. 

My question to you Joe.....What makes former Assy folks defend their Leaders in the face of conflicting facts?

Sondra

http://www.geocities.com/bigcslewisfan/

[Joe Sperling]

Sondra----

Your post is really ridiculous here. I am not defending an Assembly Leader. I am responding
to a statement which is utter hogwash. You have several times now taken the stand that
Tom is not saved. I don't care who the person is, whether Tom, Brent, Al, Marcia, Dave Sable,
Mark Campbell, etc. etc.--I would make the same post regarding them also.

I just find it amazing that you feel you can say things such as that, and feel somehow you
have been "led" to state it. Something makes you think you have the spiritual authority
to say whatever you feel like saying. What audacity. Imagine walking up to a person who
has professed faith and saying "You know, you don't mention the Lord much, I don't think
you are a believer. Now, because I have questioned your faith in the Lord, PROVE to me
you believe".  The person doesn't have to prove ANYTHING to you---many people have private
personal walks with the Lord, and show their faith by what they DO, rather than by what they
say. I posted the ridiculous Norman Rockwell thing as a tongue in cheek response to something
even more ridiculous. I think the whole subject of questioning someone's salvation or starting a
new thread to continue on that note is actually quite humorous.

--Joe

[Sondra Jamison]

Sondra----

Your post is really ridiculous here. I am not defending an Assembly Leader. I am responding
to a statement which is utter hogwash. You have several times now taken the stand that
Tom is not saved. I don't care who the person is, whether Tom, Brent, Al, Marcia, Dave Sable,
Mark Campbell, etc. etc.--I would make the same post regarding them also.

I just find it amazing that you feel you can say things such as that, and feel somehow you
have been "led" to state it. Something makes you think you have the spiritual authority
to say whatever you feel like saying. What audacity. Imagine walking up to a person who
has professed faith and saying "You know, you don't mention the Lord much, I don't think
you are a believer. Now, because I have questioned your faith in the Lord, PROVE to me
you believe".  The person doesn't have to prove ANYTHING to you---many people have private
personal walks with the Lord, and show their faith by what they DO, rather than by what they
say. I posted the ridiculous Norman Rockwell thing as a tongue in cheek response to something
even more ridiculous. I think the whole subject of questioning someone's salvation or starting a
new thread to continue on that note is actually quite humorous.

--Joe

The facts, Joe.  The facts. 

Sondra

[Joe Sperling]

What facts? Unless you think because you have stated something it is now a fact. The
only "facts" you are stating are your own perceptions or ideas about Tom and others.

[Sondra Jamison]

What facts? Unless you think because you have stated something it is now a fact. The
only "facts" you are stating are your own perceptions or ideas about Tom and others.

There was a thread called something like "Why leaders are responsible..."  Tom has put himself up as a leader and a Bible Scholar...thus making him accountable for what he teaches God's people.  This is a fact.

Your response to my questions TO TOM is a classic response of one who is motivated to participate in a "leader/follower" heirarchical order...assuming your role and performing your duties within you "inner ring." 

Please do me a little favor and read or re-read this article, Joe.  I'm sorry if my questions offend your sensibilities, but Tom opened the can of worms and now I am only sorting through them.

http://www.geocities.com/bigcslewisfan/

Sondra

[Joe Sperling]

Sondra---

I'm afraid I don't understand. You are saying someone is not saved based on some criteria
of "facts". But the only "facts" I see are the statements you are making based on some
"discernment" you have made about Tom not mentioning his relationship with the Lord.

I'm afraid it is actually you who has opened the "can of worms" by making statements based
on your own feelings. So now I am part of an "inner ring" for making a humorous post in res-
ponse to a ridiculous statement?   That's very funny--nice touch!

--Joe

[2ram]

How does Tom's salvation, or not, weigh in to the discussion Sondra?  This is almost like Al's questioning your salvation?

Marcia

[Sondra Jamison]

How does Tom's salvation, or not, weigh in to the discussion Sondra?  This is almost like Al's questioning your salvation?

Marcia

Ok.  I get it.  It's cat and mouse again.  Tom openly stated that he doesn't believe this and that and so forth....openly stated his unbelief.  What are we to go on if not his confession of unbelief?

Al has hassled me as much privately as he has publicly.  I have written volumes that he could read, but Al wants to have someone take him seriously as a "spiritual leader" ?? and at the same time he himself labels himself as "Weird."  I cannot do that and I won't be forced to enter into his little game of "christian jargon." 

I would be happy to answer ANY questions anyone has who simply wants to know if I am saved, etc. 

But, I will state it again....Tom has stated the contrary.  Hasn't he taken the role as leader among this group of what Brian calls "conservative christians?"  Are leaders responsible?

Truly, there is so much sidetracking on this board that one really cannot discuss a subject for all the whining and crying and defensiveness. 

Sondra

p.s.  I need to be out for awhile.

btw.  the least IS THE GREATEST in the kingdom.  The "little ones" are the great ones in the kingdom.  They are not the innocent, they are the redeemed and those who have been reduced over time....for the record.   

[moonflower2]

Truly, there is so much sidetracking on this board that one really cannot discuss a subject for all the whining and crying and defensiveness. 

Sondra
p.s.  I need to be out for awhile.

Now that hurricane smeeko, which never developed into a mature hurricane with her screeching, defensiveness and personal attacks, accusations and allegations, and push for self-aggrandization has been reduced to a tropical blip, which is neither hot nor cold, on the radar screen, we will resume with our regularly scheduled programming. Lassie will be coming around to check for any casualties.