deeper life and scriptural interpretation

[Oscar]

Standerby,

Thomas,

I'm glad we agree that things of practical spiritual value can be communicated by a godly, illiterate saint.  And, no, I would not appoint such a person as teacher in the Church!

I didn't think we were talking about teachers, but normal everyday christians.  At any rate, how is a person to know, upon getting excited about a passage, if they are taking it out of context?  Should they consult a learned man?

Let me tell you, if that is your answer, I would be quite busy.  Far too busy to do anything but talk.  I gather that you are hoping to enter the ministry in some capacity.  If I am making a correct assumption, do you intend to instruct those under your guidance to not take encouragement or guidance from the Word without getting instruction from a person with credentials, who knows the correct context, etc.?

While I don't think you would do such a thing, perhaps one of the reasons several people are having difficulty with your line of thinking is because you aren't making it clear.  How about clearing it up?

The basic point of this discussion is the way in which God communicates his truth to his people.  My position is that God has spoken into the time/space unvierse we live in through inspired men, some of whom were inspired to write their message down.  They wrote in the languages and literary forms of their societies.

The message of God, I believe, is conveyed through the inspired writings.  The original documents were inspired, but the Christian reader must use the context, words, and grammar to ascertain the meaning.  Some things are plain and simple.  Others are not, (2 Peter 3:16).

The other folks advocate what seems to me a theory of "double inspiration."  In other words, the text is inspired, but to properly understand it the reader must also be under some type of illumination or inspiration as well.  None of these folks have denied that the Bible means what it says, but they seem to be saying that there is another "higher" meaning that one gets directly from God through the HS.

(If I am misrepresenting anyone here, tell us what you believe.)

Many leaders of abusive and cultic churches have used this popular belief to dominate and decieve thier followers.  This happened to most of us.  The teaching opens the door to domination by men who get people to believe that they are so close to God that only they know the "true" teaching of the Bible.  Men like Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and George Geftakys all believed, taught, and practiced this.

The results are disastrous.

If Joe Christian has a Bible and can read it, he will profit greatly. Much of the Bible's teaching is conveyed through historical narrative and stories, an ancient and effective teaching method.  But simply reading the scriptures devotionally does not provide the depth of understanding that can be gained by people who devote themselves to the scriptural studies.  That is why we have pastor/teachers in the Church.  BTW, people bring questions to their pastors all the time.  In our modern times, there exists a hugh amount of helpful literature and media resources that can help people to better understand their Bibles.

But to my mind, just reading and then believing whatever you think about the passage is a message from God is dangerous.

If you mean by "entering the ministry in some capacity" becoming a staff member of a church, that is not my goal.  I currently teach an on-line course in World Religions and Science through the Reasons To Believe Institute.  I hope to do more work in the science/religion/philosophy field with two goals in mind: a. To encourage and strengthen Chrisitans. b. To remove obstacles to belief from the path of interested non-Christians.  As to the career thing, been there, done that.

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Yes indeed my dear Tom. The point that you seem to have completely forgotten (or your fear of men like George has caused you to reject)  is that the narrative and stories find their correspondence in spiritual realities, and in fact exist for the purpose of instructing us about the latter.
I just don't  have the time now I am afraid. Too bad there is no one posting who could pursue this wtih you.

Verne

Verne,

One should never appeal to an ad hominem ( my "fear" of men like George) unless one is in possession of facts to support such an accusation.

What I actually fear is trying to live out my Christian life on the basis of erroneous beliefs.  What I fear even more is the danger of infecting others with such beliefs.  Therefore I do much thinking and research before I adopt a controversial doctrinal position.  I do not claim infallibility for my views, but I do argue forcefully for them.  If I am wrong, I want to be convinced of it.

But I want to be convinced, not merely "pooh poohed" or ridiculed.  What I see in such tactics is the inability to argue for a contrary position.  I am not, btw, saying this is what you have done.

What you have done is to avoid clearly stating what you are arguing for.  It is one thing to make a vague reference to "spiritual realities".  We both already believe in such things.  It is quite another, however, to take a passage of scripture and do the following:

1. Explain what can be understood from the passage by the normal means of genre, context, vocabulary, grammar and comparing other passages of scripture. (public information)

2. Explain what additional understanding you have of the passage that cannot be ascertained by these means.  Information that is "taught", "brought to mind", "remembered" or any other method of mystical communication from God. (private information)

3. Explain how one knows that this information is factual and reliable.


Since I am not claiming that I have "type 2" information, I don't need to support its reality.  Since you DO claim to have such information, you do.

Another poster who makes strong claims to such knowledge supports the claims by references to Deeper Life terms such as "touching life/death", "spiritual discernment" and so on.  But to bring such claims out of the realm of merely private information, one needs to state how one knows this sort of thing is true.

We all make this sort of distinction in our thinking.  If someone tells us they are Jesus or Napoleon, we figure them for delusional.  If someone tells us that they have seen a flying saucer, we evaluate it differently.  If they are generally credible people, we figure that they have had some sort of experience.  They have seen something.  At that point, we can quite legitimately ask, "how do you know it was a flying saucer and not merely a UFO that can be explained in several different ways?"

If they tell you they rode in it, they are most likely delusional.
Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[brian]

i would be interested in hearing if deeper life proponents would be horrified or encouraged to hear that bush agreed with them:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1256504.cms

it does seem to me that in this particular discussion, the dividing point is more along the lines of personality than belief system. some people tend to trust what their reason is telling them over their emotions - call them thinkers. other tend to act on their emotions more readily than their logical analysis - call them feelers. this tendancy is not related to intelligence or depth of faith, it is completely on a personality level. and those who seem to be most clearly in the 'feelers' category defend the validaty of their spiritual experiences fiercely, while those who are very much 'thinkers' just as fiercely guard against a dangerous level of subjectivity. the different approaches have different strengths and weaknesses that they both warn the other about, and yet your actual beliefs are so similar as to be identical. for instance, tom has repeatedly agreed that god can speak to a person directly and even separately from the bible, with the qualification that this is not god's usual form of communication and we would do well to be highly suspect of any such claims. from what i have read, verne agrees that this is not god's usual form of communication. and you both have repeatedly stated that you have to compare scripture with scripture to get a proper understanding, and as a check against emotionally satisfying but erroneous conclusions.

but i think the reason this discussion keeps going around and around is because you just have different personalities and thus different approaches to the christian life. and you are never going to change someone else's personality without destructively coersive methods. both types of personality are needed to provide balanced perspective.

i just had to interject something for whatever its worth, because its just too painful to watch you guys keep almost agreeing but not quite and consequently rehashing the same arguments over and over. 

[Joe Sperling]

"Mozart's music is terrible".

"Actually, I think his music is quite good".

"No it isn't, it's terrible. In fact, let me give you the facts. Mozart was a composer,
and that's a fact. But I've listened to his symphonies and they're terrible, that's
also a fact."

"I beg to differ. Actually, I graduated from USC with a degree in music, and I learned
that Mozart was a musical genius, having an ability to compose symphonies at the age
of 4."

"I could care less whether you have a degree in music--that doesn't make you any more
intelligent than I am when it comes to music. I've "listened" to the "music", I don't have to
read the actual symphony or know how to read music to determine who is a bad composer.
Mozart sucks and that's a fact".

"No--Mozart was a composer--that IS a fact. But whether Mozart's music is good or not is a
matter of opinion. But whether you like his music or not, the fact is, he was an excellent
composer, and those knowledgeable in music generally agree with that. Knowing how to
read music, and being knowledgeable in that area will generally support the fact that he was
a great composer."

"You just don't get it do you? I've "listened" to his music, and I can state without a doubt that
he is one horrible composer. Why can't you just accept the facts? Some people just don't want
to accept the truth."

[Oscar]

i would be interested in hearing if deeper life proponents would be horrified or encouraged to hear that bush agreed with them:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1256504.cms

it does seem to me that in this particular discussion, the dividing point is more along the lines of personality than belief system. some people tend to trust what their reason is telling them over their emotions - call them thinkers. other tend to act on their emotions more readily than their logical analysis - call them feelers. this tendancy is not related to intelligence or depth of faith, it is completely on a personality level. and those who seem to be most clearly in the 'feelers' category defend the validaty of their spiritual experiences fiercely, while those who are very much 'thinkers' just as fiercely guard against a dangerous level of subjectivity. the different approaches have different strengths and weaknesses that they both warn the other about, and yet your actual beliefs are so similar as to be identical. for instance, tom has repeatedly agreed that god can speak to a person directly and even separately from the bible, with the qualification that this is not god's usual form of communication and we would do well to be highly suspect of any such claims. from what i have read, verne agrees that this is not god's usual form of communication. and you both have repeatedly stated that you have to compare scripture with scripture to get a proper understanding, and as a check against emotionally satisfying but erroneous conclusions.

but i think the reason this discussion keeps going around and around is because you just have different personalities and thus different approaches to the christian life. and you are never going to change someone else's personality without destructively coersive methods. both types of personality are needed to provide balanced perspective.

i just had to interject something for whatever its worth, because its just too painful to watch you guys keep almost agreeing but not quite and consequently rehashing the same arguments over and over. 

Brian,

1. The White house has repeatedly denied that this is true.  It is, quite literally, heresay. 

However, this is the exact sort of thing one hears among evangelical Christians.  It scares the daylights out of secular people that someone who controls hydrogen bombs might get the idea that God had told him to nuke someone.   

What they don't understand is that the vast majority of people who say this sort of thing don't actually live their daily lives on this basis.  They do look within for "peace" or whatever before they make decisions, but they also go through the same decision making process that everyone else does.  Information, counsel, evaluation of possible consequences etc.   They use the "peace" idea to quiet their fears and self doubts as they make up their minds.

There are, however, some funny or sad stories about folks who just "hear it" and then do it.

2. You are quite correct in your ideas about thinkers and feelers.  I think of it as a continuum between total feeler and total thinker.  Most people are somewhere between these two extremes.  I know a dear brother who becomes passionate to the point of tears during every conversation, about whatever is being discussed!  I have long been of the opinion that people tend to "feel led" to do what they either like or believe, deep down, that they should do.  They usually don't feel led the other way unless it involves addictions or fleshly desires.

However, when people make the type of assertions to mystical knowledge that are being discussed here, there are underlying assumptions about reality that are being brought into play, frequently without the person realizing it.

The type of mysticism advocated by Nee, Lee, and GG is based on a very flawed model of Biblical psychology.  It is at that level that I oppose it.  The tyrannical system of church government we experienced in the assemblies flows directly out of this model.  Watchman Nee even taught against these practices in his earlier years.  But in the 1940's ended up following his own logic and becoming what he had taught against earlier in his life.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[2ram]

.....
i just had to interject something for whatever its worth, because its just too painful to watch you guys keep almost agreeing but not quite and consequently rehashing the same arguments over and over. 

Yes, I believe that most people are feeling this way about this discussion.

One should never appeal to an ad hominem ( my "fear" of men like George) unless one is in possession of facts to support such an accusation.

What I actually fear is trying to live out my Christian life on the basis of erroneous beliefs.  What I fear even more is the danger of infecting others with such beliefs.  Therefore I do much thinking and research before I adopt a controversial doctrinal position.  I do not claim infallibility for my views, but I do argue forcefully for them.  If I am wrong, I want to be convinced of it.

But I want to be convinced, not merely "pooh poohed" or ridiculed.  What I see in such tactics is the inability to argue for a contrary position.  I am not, btw, saying this is what you have done.

What you have done is to avoid clearly stating what you are arguing for.  It is one thing to make a vague reference to "spiritual realities".  We both already believe in such things.  It is quite another, however, to take a passage of scripture and do the following: .....

Tom,

To some of us readers, it does look like the way that Verne said it, "your fear of men like George has caused you to reject.." so it is up to you to clarify.

However, since we are not cookie cutter BB posters here, in that we may not follow your guidelines to the tee, it is also up to you to "listen" before you respond.

Of course you could just dismiss my comments as pooh poohing, and then you don't really have to listen to anything I say.

The only person who has taken a simple discussion to deeper meanings is you Tom.  I do believe that the discussion started on the topic of Christians being led by the Holy Spirit.

Marcia

[bystander]

1. Explain what can be understood from the passage by the normal means of genre, context, vocabulary, grammar and comparing other passages of scripture. (public information)

2. Explain what additional understanding you have of the passage that cannot be ascertained by these means.  Information that is "taught", "brought to mind", "remembered" or any other method of mystical communication from God. (private information)

3. Explain how one knows that this information is factual and reliable.

If I am not mistaken, Verne has done exactly what you ask above, several times.

Let's look at this from another angle.  We are admonished to walk by faith, and not by sight.  We are told that Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence for things not seen. 

Keeping this in mind, Historical Jesus is a fact.  There really was a Roman emipire, Pontius Pilate really did exist, Jerusalem was there, Galilee, all of it is factual. 

How do we get the spiritual meaning from all of this?  How do we know that Jesus really did die and rise again?  Furthermore, if He did, how do we know that he wasn't merely, nearly dead, and was revived?  As if that wasn't enough, how do we know that all of this occured as a sacrifice for sin, and a way to justify and sanctify people? 

Yes, there are many proofs we could look at, the plethora of Old Testament prophecies fulfilled is certainly a good place to start.  However, in the final analysis, don't we need to believe?  Doesn't it require faith?  I think for many Christains, when they get inspired o prompted by the Holy Spirit, while reading the Bible, they can't prove to anyone why God spoke to them from a passage, but by faith, they know it to be the case and act accordingly. 

Tom has done a good job pointing out how this can go horribly wrong, but I believe there are many, many more instances of it going right.  A righteous man falls seven times, but always gets up, brushes himself off, and keeps moving.  That is how I understand the proverb, and how I apply it to my life.  I'm going to take bold action, by faith.  I don't know if I'm right, but I'm going to take the risk, and if I fall, I'm going to get up, figure out what went wrong, and continue running the race.

[Oscar]

Verne,

Neither Tom nor I will by our arguments change each other's perspective, and indeed that may be entirely un-necessary.
I do not respond to some of Tom's comments to in any way attempt to change how or what he thinks.
Clearly, Tom can speak only out of his own personal experience with the Lord Jesus.
What I find tremendously sad, is the way he ridicules what others share with him about the intimacy of their walk with Christ (whether or not he experiences it), and then repeatedly attempts to use a very limited paradigm regarding the purpose and power of Scripture to tell others how God may speak to them or work in their lives.
It is one thing for him to talk about what God has or has not done in his case.
It is quite another, to dismiss what I am confident countlesss saints of God experience in their walk with Him daily, and to attempt to make the case that it is somehow unScriptural or even unusual.

1. Since when is honest disagreement ridicule?  Do you ridicule all people who read the NASV and NIV?  Do you ridicule the majority of evangelical christians who do not accept the limited atonement teaching?  Or do you just disagree with us?


2. For me, at least, the important question here is not "what countless saints experience in their daily walk with Him."  It is "does this teaching accord with the faith once delivered to the saints?"  There is no doubt that mystical interpretation of the Bible is popular and widespread.  But the list of all things that are popular and the list of all things that are true are not identical.  Many things have had a period of popularity that were eventually seen as untrue or wrong.

3. It seems to me that those who claim to be constantly led of God through subjective experiences should be giving glowing testimonies about how God "led" them out of the assembly long before they experienced abuse or heard of the scandals. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Bystander,

If I am not mistaken, Verne has done exactly what you ask above, several times.

Let's look at this from another angle.  We are admonished to walk by faith, and not by sight.  We are told that Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence for things not seen. 

Keeping this in mind, Historical Jesus is a fact.  There really was a Roman emipire, Pontius Pilate really did exist, Jerusalem was there, Galilee, all of it is factual. 

How do we get the spiritual meaning from all of this?  How do we know that Jesus really did die and rise again?  Furthermore, if He did, how do we know that he wasn't merely, nearly dead, and was revived?  As if that wasn't enough, how do we know that all of this occured as a sacrifice for sin, and a way to justify and sanctify people? 

Yes, there are many proofs we could look at, the plethora of Old Testament prophecies fulfilled is certainly a good place to start.  However, in the final analysis, don't we need to believe?  Doesn't it require faith?  I think for many Christains, when they get inspired o prompted by the Holy Spirit, while reading the Bible, they can't prove to anyone why God spoke to them from a passage, but by faith, they know it to be the case and act accordingly. 

1. You are mistaken.  Verne has shared several verses which allude to God's work in the believer in various ways, but none which show that their is a running commentary on the Bible by the HS as we read.

Look at his last example.  He alluded to the conviction of sin by the HS.  However, the verses where this is taught (Jn. 16: 5-11) show that while it is a ministry of the HS, it is a minstry to the entire world, not just believers.  In the believer the conviction takes place through the instructed conscience, in unbelievers through their natural sense of right and wrong (Rom 2:15).  But in both cases it is the activation into consciousness of the information that is already there.

2. I am going on a short trip to the Grand Canyon with my wife, but I would like very much to discuss the nature of faith.  When I return I will try to post something worth reading on the subject.  In the meantime let me say one thing.

It is true that through faith we give substance to spiritual truth by expressing it in our lives.  However, things are not true because we believe them.  We are to believe them because they are true.  Faith is the minds response to being convinced on the bases of evidence. (John 20:30-31)

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Folks,

Margaret Irons has posted a good article on the difference between deeper life teaching and real life practice in the life of one if this form of mysticism's major proponents; Watchman Nee.

The article is by a university professor who has written three books about Nee.  In his first one, "Understanding Watchman Nee" he points out that Nee eventually became the same kind of tyrant that GG was.  The teaching he held seems to lead to that.  In this article he points out that Nee also ended up getting involved with sisters.

Here is the link: (Oops, I just realized they don't wish to be linked to over there, so I deleted the link.)  You can find it on the front page of Assembly Reflections.
Thomas Maddux

[Margaret]

We're fine with links from here!  The link to this article is http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/Perspectives/WatchmanNee.htm.

[outdeep]

In the early 1980’s while living in a brother’s house, I took a week vacation to go to Arizona. My purpose was to find a quiet room and study The Normal Christian Life which is exactly what I did.

Much of it did make sense (his popular books such as The Normal Christian Life, Sit Walk Stand and Love Not the World have a bit less of the mystical overtone than those printed with really bad covers from Living Streams or attic presses such as The Balanced Christian Life or The Spiritual Man).

I wanted to get my arms around Romans 6.  I wanted to figure out why I just wasn’t grasping it.  Why it kept slipping away.  In studying The Normal Christian Life, I had the same experiences as other books about Romans 6.  There were things that were explained very clearly.  I would think that I had begun to grasp the truths and were able to apply them in my life.  I would believe I finally had it.  Then…they would seem to slip away and I would fall back into old patterns.

There were times in my life subsequent to the Assembly that I honestly had to ask the question, “Why doesn’t the gospel work?”  I never stopped believing in God.  I never stopped believing I am a sinner.  I never stopped believing that Jesus died to save me from the penalty of sin.  It was the part about Jesus delivering from the power of sin that I just wasn’t seeing. 

I know me.  I know the things I have done AFTER I had become a Christian and committed my life to the lordship of Jesus Christ.  I’ve seen the nasty divorces in churches of folks who led worship or led Sunday school.  I know from experience that Christians struggle with really bad stuff.  Doesn’t the gospel work?

Here are some conclusions I came to since that time:

1.   We are not perfected until we get to heaven and receive our new bodies.
2.   Romans 6 is true.  Our position in Christ is that we are indeed dead to sin and alive onto God.  Our salvation made us something we weren’t before – new creations in Christ.  Paul’s exhortation us to live as if this is true.
3.   We have three enemies.  The world (the deceptive thinking of our culture), the flesh (the programmed habits and thought patterns in our being) and the devil (external spiritual influences that work against Christ).  These things distort our vision and thinking making us have difficulty in seeing and feeling the truths of #2.
4.   #3 is why we need a genuinely caring Christian community so we can strengthen one another.

I admit a small amount of relief that Watchman Nee apparently had the same struggles with his own teaching as I did.

[vernecarty]

  I would think that I had begun to grasp the truths and were able to apply them in my life.  I would believe I finally had it.  Then…they would seem to slip away and I would fall back into old patterns.

There were times in my life subsequent to the Assembly that I honestly had to ask the question, “Why doesn’t the gospel work?”  I never stopped believing in God.  I never stopped believing I am a sinner.  I never stopped believing that Jesus died to save me from the penalty of sin.  It was the part about Jesus delivering from the power of sin that I just wasn’t seeing. 

Probably every Christian reading your comment will nod his head in ageement with your observation Dave for it is a universal experience.
Paul relates the exact same experience in Romans seven as you will recall.
The question of how God empowers the will in the redeemed is one of the most profound of the Christian experience in my opinion for this is the key.
Before regeneration we were a slave to our passions.
After generation we find that we are enabled to choose for God.
Where we go wrong is in thinking that simply willing to choose for God is sufficient to accomplish that end and so even for the believer, God has to teach us our utter inability, even as believers, to please Him just because we will it.
In my humble opinion this is the key to holiness, namely, a recognition that apart from the ongoing gracious work of God in our lives, even as Christians, we do not mature as Christians.

The heir as long as he is a child, differs not from a servant...

Identifying the devil, the world, and the flesh as the arena in which the power of gospel plays out is right on the money.
The prescription for victory in each of these arenas is specific... uniquely suited to its accomplishment...
Verne

[Mark C.]

Hi Dave and Verne!

  Thanks for your honesty, Dave, in bringing up your struggle re. Rom. 6.  Good to hear from you again Verne, and yes, I was nodding my head in agreement with Dave's experience.

  Verne:  I think your explanation was very insightful; especially re. how though our wills are free they still can't produce sanctification in our lives apart from dependence on God's active participation in our lives.  Rom. 7 and 8 seem to be trying to tell us this and go a long way toward opening up the meaning of Rom. 6 for me.

   Another part of this whole mess that GG's "higher life" message produced in my life was confusion as to exactly what God had "rendered inoperative" in our present day Christian life (as regards sin).  GG (and all the other holier than thou teachers) believed that the bible taught death to the very root of sin in ones life--- victory being described in pure thoughts and motives, as well as behavior.

  Rom. 6 deals with our behavior, not the lure of temptations we might feel in our body to yield to that sin.  The same ol' human malfunctions exist in us as before our salvation (whatever those weaknesses and tendencies might be) as after new birth.

  To attempt to purge our hearts clean via spiritual disciplines of all vestiges of our fallen humanity is not only futile it is counterproductive.  The bible says, "For he purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9) and Peter relates this to the reception of the Gospel of the grace of God, not the GG method of "reckoning" faith.

  It is the dishonesty of men like GG, who claim they've attained to some great holiness, that keeps them from noticing the elephant in their own room!  If we were to give truth serum to all these "Overcomer" teachers we might be able to rid the world of a great deception!

                                                            God Bless,  Mark C.

[vernecarty]

Hi Dave and Verne!

  Thanks for your honesty, Dave, in bringing up your struggle re. Rom. 6.  Good to hear from you again Verne, and yes, I was nodding my head in agreement with Dave's experience.

  Verne:  I think your explanation was very insightful; especially re. how though our wills are free they still can't produce sanctification in our lives apart from dependence on God's active participation in our lives.  Rom. 7 and 8 seem to be trying to tell us this and go a long way toward opening up the meaning of Rom. 6 for me.

 

I have learned that victory over personal sin has to have a meaningful context. If we are so occupied with our sin to the point of exclusion of a proper understanding of why God calls us to holiness I think we are missing something.
The quckest way to really grasp the enormity of the problem is for the child of God to resolve to put his hand to the plough.
He swiftly recognizes that not only is personal sin destructive of his own life and that of others, it ultimately robs one of spiritual power and renders the Christian alltogether incapable of accomplishing the work God has assigned him.
When viewed from this perspective, it becomes a matter not so much about feeling  badly about our particular failings, but rather how willing am I to allow God's purpose in my life to be extinguished by my choices? The stakes are very high indeed...

It is the dishonesty of men like GG, who claim they've attained to some great holiness, that keeps them from noticing the elephant in their own room!  If we were to give truth serum to all these "Overcomer" teachers we might be able to rid the world of a great deception!

I think it is possible that men like Geftakys in their final state may be totally unaware of their condition. Scripture says Samson shook himself as before but did not know that thte Spirit of God had departed.
There must have been many an occasion when he stood in the pulpit to preach and been convicted of his transgression - every servant of Jesus
Christ knows this- but ignored the caution of the Holy Spirit and the plain teaching of God's Word regarding the standard for teachers.
His conduct at the end was terrible testiomony to God's judgment as it betrayed a kind of spiritual insanity.
This is why fellowship with other believers is so critical for what we may fail to see in our own lives, faithful brethren well might...

Verne