deeper life and scriptural interpretation

[Oscar]

Verne,

agree here, and can understand why a person with little knowledge could get involved.
What I cannot understand is how a person could remain.
What I cannot understand is how anyone who actually read and believed their Bibles over many years and observed the manner of life of George Geftakys could remain in a position of responsibility under a man like this.
I seriously question if this is attributable to a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures. There are rank unbelievers around whom Geftakys would not have lasted a minute acting the way he did. Something else was very wrong with us Tom.
Verne
p.s. I am still working through this myself folks. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that in the matter of George Geftakys and his ilk, the bedrock prinicple is that you do not begin with concepts (Tom's view), but you  begin with conduct...may God truly give us wisdom in all this...

When you say, "something else was very wrong with us" I think you hit upon a key issue.  It is quite true that many people took one look at GG and hit the road.  I have always maintained that our remaining in the assemblies had much to do with our own issues.  I think I can identify a few.

1. Once a sister who had left said to me, "Every man in the assembly is on a father search."  I think this is one key.  How many of the men around GG, especially, were close to their fathers?  Most were not.  Their fathers either were not around due to divorce, or had some issue that had alienated their sons.  I can think of several of the Fullerton brothers who fall into this category.

2. Fear of life and a desire to avoid adulthood.  Life can be scary.  We frequently have to make choices only partly knowing what will happen as a result.  Remember when you were about to get married?  "Am I sure about this"  "Am I doing the right thing?"  I think most people go through this.  Should I buy this car, seek this career, buy/sell a house, move or stay in this town?  On and on.  Healthy minded adults do this all the time.  But they know there are risks.

In the assembly you had the illusory "safety" of knowing exactly what God's will for you was.     For me, taking up the reins of my own life was one of the more difficult tasks I had to face.  Every decision involves some form of risk, and I don't like to take risks.  In others the degree of this factor would be different...but most folks try to avoid risk if they can.

3. Young people want to serve a great cause.  That's one reason they enlist in all sorts of causes, political, environmental, social, and religious in such numbers.  What could be a greater cause than the restoration and advancing of the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ?  To me, it was thrilling to be involved in such a cause.  Of course, it turned out differently, but we didn't see that at the time.  Hindsight is far clearer than foresight.

4. The need to belong, to be a member of a group that validates and affirms you is a basic human need.  If you were "faithful" and "diligent" in the assembly, you got this.  If you wavered, you lost it...and wanted to get it back.

I am sure there were other reasons...but what I am saying here is that we did not want to see or believe that GG was whacko, and that his work was severly flawed.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Sondra Jamison]

 

Verne,
 
When you say, "something else was very wrong with us" I think you hit upon a key issue.  It is quite true that many people took one look at GG and hit the road.  I have always maintained that our remaining in the assemblies had much to do with our own issues.  I think I can identify a few.
 
1. Once a sister who had left said to me..... 2. Fear of life and a desire to avoid adulthood.............3. Young people want to serve a great cause.......... 4. The need to belong..........

 

I imagine the points Tom has listed as his take on why people joined the Assembly could be used to describe why young people make any of the decisions they do when considering their future - at least from a psychological point of view.  So what? 
 
I believe that many of us were drawn into the Assembly who heard God call them through His Word.  The Word of God is powerful.  When I went to a Bible Study in a house in Oak Park, Illinois -  outside of conventional, traditional clergy/laity style setting - I took hope that I might truly find a Christian life that would sustain me.
 
I do not believe the Assembly was a cult, but I do believe there was an element of control that was unhealthy....as well as other error that I won't belabor to make my point on this subject.  The "cult" books teach that in cults approximately 80% of what is taught from the scriptures is true/accurate.  To a young believer, that would be enough truth to influence a decision.  Can God be divided into parts?  No.  So if God is seen through the written Word, God is seen and hearts are drawn.  I think it is wholly ineffective to make the Assembly to be ALL BAD as many tend to do on this board.  Those who walked with the Lord going into the Assembly, walked with the Lord IN the Assembly and walked OUT of the Assembly....with the Lord. 
 
I believe the Word of God drew the hearts of individuals and they saw people who took God's Word seriously and people who truly upheld godliness in their lives.  It was obvious to me that there was something that was working.  There was an authority, an accountability, a compassion.  People didn't just dangle and move in and out as they pleased. 
 
For me, I saw people who actually studied their Bibles and talked about the Lord in a real way.  They knew Him.  He was their best friend.  I heard people my age explain who the Lord was and what He wanted for our lives.  It was the revelation of God through the Word as I studied it with others in Chapter Summary that carried my heart away.
 
George and Betty were sort of awesome characters to me.  I couldn't relate to them and didn't care to know them really.  But I loved "the saints" in Oak Park and they showed their love for the Lord through their behavior and words and willingness to serve.

.................

Yes, people are injured from the lack of mature "fathers" of the faith to lead and counsel with, but I see it as a "Joseph in Egypt" experience that God can use well in our lives.  God did not apologize to Joseph for his brothers' betrayal that bought Joseph's path to the throne.  Things were very wrong in Joseph's life for a long period of time, but he walked with God THROUGH IT ALL.  The issue was Joseph's spiritual grooming for the throne the whole time. God was with him. Apparently Joseph needed the tough road.  Benjamin didn't.
 
It is clear that George was/is wrong and whether he plotted to take advantage or not - he was not walking in the Spirit of the Lord, our only safe place.  He either never had an anointing or had an anointing and lost it as Saul.  And whether men around him were negligent or not, what does that matter to the man (woman) who knows God brought him/her through? 

The Bible says that only those who are spiritual can help others who have been taken in a fault.  Without that type of help, all that is discussed is simply academics.  Spiritual discernment exposed George and spiritual discernment heals broken hearts.

........................ 

Sondra

Personal attacks removed by moderator...TM

 

[Joe Sperling]

I do have to say, though I was involved many years ago, that I have come to realize a few
of the reasons why I joined and stayed back then. I was about 19 years old and actually
very confused about life. I really believe that the opportunity to let others make my de-
cisions for me actually took a burden off of my shoulders(though it added other burdens
eventually). I didn't have to make decisions about where to live, etc.--I was in a "brother's
house" and much of my life's decisions were made for me.

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). 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." 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 "spriritual sense"--the literal meaning wasn't important to me any more.

It was after beginning to read other books by people like C.H. Spurgeon and Johnathan Edwards(and many others) that I began to realize that George was truly way off base in his teaching. But his teaching had been one very strong reason for remaining--especially the fear it generated. The thought of "losing the Inheritance" was terrifying to me. So, on the one hand there was a sense
of comfort in the thought of not having to make many of my own decisions, but also a deep fear of
perhaps "losing out" holding me in also. I didn't want to grow up, and I also didn't want to lose out.

I believe this kind of fits a pattern in many cults and aberrant Christian groups. Something about the teaching intrigues and seems so "blessed" or on a "higher level" when you first hear it. Many people drawn to cults have low self-esteem and want a sense of direction, and want to be taken care of.
But there is always a fear which keeps them in also. There is always the "threat" of what lies in the outside world. As one would hear often "you are outside the covering when you are out in the world brother"(or something to that effect).

This is just my experience though of course, but I really feel that many fell into the same type of
influence in the past. I am so thankful for the book "How to read the Bible for all it's worth", and for the writings of many of the Puritan authors, and for the sermons of C.H. Spurgeon. These helped to truly free me from the "Assembly interpretation" of Scripture, which is very hard to "cast off" in many ways, because it was so deeply ingrained in so many of us. I thought I would just share since we were on this subject.

--Joe

[Oscar]

Folks,

Here is a link to a good article on how to read and understand the Bible.  The author runs Rest Ministries and himself came out of a spiritually abusive "shepherding" group.

http://www.geocities.com/restministries/3questns.html

Thomas Maddux

[Sondra Jamison]

Folks,

Here is a link to a good article on how to read and understand the Bible.  The author runs Rest Ministries and himself came out of a spiritually abusive "shepherding" group.

http://www.geocities.com/restministries/3questns.html

Thomas Maddux

A quote from the above website:

     But what about people who just want to know the basics of how to interpret the Bible for themselves?  Is Biblical interpretation really so difficult that we have to go out and buy a bunch of books on the subject? 

     Yes and no.  The Bible is a large collection of ancient literature which Christians hold to be inspired by God.  Nevertheless, because it was written in ancient times, some level of study and scholarship is required to understand it.  Fortunately for us, most of the really hard work has been done for us.  People who have taken the trouble to learn the original languages of the Bible have provided us with several reliable translations of it.  Others who have studied the history and culture of Bible times have also written books to shed light on the Bible. 

     But most people don't have the time, energy, or even the money to build a library of books about Biblical interpretation.  What are they to do if they want to understand the Bible?

I didn't have to read very far into the author's advice to know that he believe's as the Catholic's used to that the Bible is a book for the scholars and that common people cannot understand it.  I beg to differ.  I don't buy that one has to be led by scholars to find correct interpretation of the Bible.

How is a serious reader of the Word suppose to go any further with this Mr. Henzel's thesis on this subject?

Mark 12:38  And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,

John 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 

Heb 8:10-11  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:  11  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (KJV)


I Jn 2:27-29  But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.  28  And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.  29  If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.  (KJV)


John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Eph 4:14-15  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  15  But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:  (KJV)

These scriptures teach that we should fear the scribes...the self-appointed 'authorities' who have formal Bible education.  Bible authorities who do not teach that God can teach the individual through His Spirit...that the believer needs to have the Word regurgitated for him...beware!!!

It is clear that God is willing to teach His people without a methodology.  This was the problem people are having now.  They depended on 'educated' bible scholars to teach them.  I have found that God opened the scriptures to me if I was willing to leave the conventional ideas that the churches taught.  They base so much on getting people to come into their doors, become good paying members, etc.  Yes, young believers need to be "churched" so to speak, but God is able to teach anyone who is sincerely searching for His revelation....i.e. the revelation of Himself.

Sondra

[Joe Sperling]

Sondra----

The author in the link isn't saying as the Catholic's used to that one may not understand
the Bible. He states that scholars who know the original Greek have made it far easier for
us to understand the true context of the Scriptures. Apparently you didn't read to the
point where he asks the three fairly simple questions one should ask when reading a passage
of Scripture:

1)What was the original author actually saying to HIS audience? What is the "original" message?
What does it mean in context to the age he was living in when he wrote the message?
This is the "Grammatical Historical Interpretation".

2.What is the author saying to ALL Believers? One verse may be taken out of context so it is
important to "compare Scripture with scripture" to make sure we are receiving the correct in-
terpretation.
These are the "theological ramifications of the text".

3. What is the God saying to US through the text?  You must ask the first two questions first,
before asking the third. If we jump to the third before asking the first two we are prone to
interpret for ourselves what the scripture is actually saying.  This is the "personal application of the
text".

For all of you who do go to the hyperlink, please read the section "What often happens instead.."
It is amazing how the author defines a person who has jumped directly to application without asking
the first two questions, and their attititude to the person who is trying to be careful and follow the
right steps when interpreting Scripture. I won't go into details, but I think if you read the section you will see an amazing similarity to the very person who is "discarding" this article as worthless. Apparently they are far more spiritual than to need a methodical interpretation of a text of Scripture in order to truly and accurately understand it.

--Joe

[Elizabeth H]

Folks,

Here is a link to a good article on how to read and understand the Bible.  The author runs Rest Ministries and himself came out of a spiritually abusive "shepherding" group.

http://www.geocities.com/restministries/3questns.html

Thomas Maddux

Tom,
Thanks for the article. I truly enjoyed it. I found it helpful, reasonable and practical.
Gratefully,
E.

[Oscar]

Folks,

Here is a link that gives shows the kind of teaching on authority that Keswick/Deeper Life/Higher Life thinking can lead you to.  It is a review of Watchman Nee's book "Spiritual Authority".  Nee's ideas are derived from the beliefs he held about man, revelation, and being taught of God.

His views on absolute obedience to authority were virtually identical to GG's.  GG spent years in contact with this movement's teachings, and I suspect that this is where his own teachings on  the subject came from.

It might be a little upsetting for some to read this.  So be warned. 

The author was involved in a cult that promoted these ideas.

http://www.dtl.org/cults/review/authority.htm

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

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

There are a number of weaknesses in your argument if it is your intention to argue, which seems to be the case, that the only significance, or even the most important, is to be derived from Scripture contextually.
As I have argued in the past, this clearly cannot apply to Scripture that is prophetic.
When David wrote that they pierced his hands and feet in Psalm 22, not only was there contextual significance to what he wrote, there was also prophetic significance.
We cannot be certain how much of this is true of the NT.
I am not arguing that the person who used those verses in applicaton to her own circumstance is right.
What I am saying is that the argument you employ to establish that she is wrong is weak at best.

The fact of the matter is Tom, for you, me or anyone else to employ academic argeuemts to tell any Christian how God may or may not speak to them, from the Scripture or otherwise, is the height of presumption, and frankly flies in the face of countless examples given in the Scriptural record! Remember Balaam?

You do not know how God may choose to speak to someone! Please do not pretend that you do.

Let me give you anther example.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Your line of reasoning would have us beileve that no non-Jewish believer has a right to adduce John 8:32 to contend that God's truth has set him free.
After all, that verse clearly says that Jesus made this remark to Jews who believed on him.
One would immediately reply that that is a ridiculous argument. Of course the truth sets everyone (who receives it!) free.
The point of course is one has to compare Scripture with Scripture and that this principle is clealry taught in other places.
To argue that the Spirit of God does not bring to mind that which has been spoken to believers and to use that verse in the way that you did to make the point, is to ignore a fundamental principle of God's way of dealing with his children, in order to try an make a case to support what I think is an incomplete at best, and very flawed at worst, view of the nature of the Holy Scripture Tom.
What is truly surprising about your point of view is that I dare say most believers  would not think twice about a personal application of that verse you so confidently dismiss; not because fo some erudite lexical analysis, but because this is a routine occurence of a walk of faith!
Verne

[bystander]

There are a number of weaknesses in your argument if it is your intention to argue, which seems to be the case, that the only significance, or even the most important, is to be derived from Scripture contextually.
As I have argued in the past, this clearly cannot apply to Scripture that is prophetic.
When David wrote that they pierced his hands and feet in Psalm 22, not only was there contextual significance to what he wrote, there was also prophetic significance.
We cannot be certain how much of this is true of the NT.
I am not arguing that the person who used those verses in applicaton to her own circumstance is right.
What I am saying is that the argument you employ to establish that she is wrong is weak at best.
Let me give you anther example.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Your line of reasoning would have us beileve that no non-Jewish believer has a right to adduce John 8:32 to contend that God's truth has set him free.
After all, that verse clearly says that Jesus made this remark to Jews who believed on him.
One would immediately reply that that is a ridiculous argument. Of course the truth sets everyone (who receives it!) free.
The point of course is one has to compare Scripture with Scripture and that this principle is clealry taught in other places.
To argue that the Spirit of God does not bring to mind that which has been spoken to believers and to use that verse in the way that you did to make the point, is to ignore a fundamental principle of God's way of dealing with his children, in order to try an make a case to support what I think is an incomplete at best, and very flawed at worst, view of the nature of the Holy Scripture Tom.
What is truly surprising about your point of view is that I dare say most believers  would not think twice about a personal application of that verse you so confidently dismiss; not because fo some erudite lexical analysis, but because this is a routine occurence of a walk of faith!
Verne

You make a very good point here:

I am reminded that we are all priests, according to the New Testament.  What this means is that each of us has access into God's presence, and we need no intermediary.  God would not grant us this amazing state if we must all be scholars and possess commentaries and lexicons.  Many people function well as priests who are illiterate.

While Deeper Life theology is problematic if taken to it's logical end, what Tom seems to be espousing also is not without risk.  While Sondra may be somewhat presumptuous at times with regard to hearing God speak, Tom's ideas if misapplied, would lead people to believe that they are dependent upon a learned man to interpret the scriptures for them.  After all, how many poor babes in Christ have read the Bible and gotten excited over a verse that is assigned several different meanings by several different scholars?   What we are seeing here, if I am not mistaken, is a reaction to extreme ideas on both sides, rather than a clear exposition of the scripture.

....must not strive, able to teach, that's what is so important.

[Oscar]

Verne,

There are a number of weaknesses in your argument if it is your intention to argue, which seems to be the case, that the only significance, or even the most important, is to be derived from Scripture contextually.
As I have argued in the past, this clearly cannot apply to Scripture that is prophetic.
When David wrote that they pierced his hands and feet in Psalm 22, not only was there contextual significance to what he wrote, there was also prophetic significance.
We cannot be certain how much of this is true of the NT.
I am not arguing that the person who used those verses in applicaton to her own circumstance is right.
What I am saying is that the argument you employ to establish that she is wrong is weak at best.
Let me give you anther example.

Scripture informs us that the writers of prophecy frequently did not know the full significance of what they were writing.  (I Peter I:10-12)

So the question is, "How do we know what it meant?"  The answer is that further revelation was given at a later time through further inspired scripture.  In other words, we read the meaning in a part of the Bible that was writtin, under the inspiration of the HS, at a later time. 

This is a far cry from reading a text and receiving a mystical communication directly from God as to what it means!

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Your line of reasoning would have us beileve that no non-Jewish believer has a right to adduce John 8:32 to contend that God's truth has set him free.
After all, that verse clearly says that Jesus made this remark to Jews who believed on him.
One would immediately reply that that is a ridiculous argument. Of course the truth sets everyone (who receives it!) free.
The point of course is one has to compare Scripture with Scripture and that this principle is clealry taught in other places.

Yes, that is the point.  The principle is clearly taught in other places in the Bible. We read the Bible after the gospel was sent to the Gentiles, and understand this from other texts, such as Romans 6:22.  But, once again, one does not need a mystical communication from God to understand this.  You just have to read the Bible. 

Can you demonstrate that the Jews who heard him understood this to mean the Gentiles as well?  In light of Acts 10:27-28 Peter did not seem to understand the Lord's words to mean that.  What you are doing here is to import understandings from other passages to see the broader application of the passage.  Comparing scripture with scripture.  Nothing wrong with that.

But the question that arises from the Deeper Life teaching that we receive a running commentary on the Bible as we read it, if only we are spiritual enough to "hear" it is contrary to this.  Why would anyone actually need to compare scriptures if God himself is explaining the meaning of every verse to the reader?

To argue that the Spirit of God does not bring to mind that which has been spoken to believers and to use that verse in the way that you did to make the point, is to ignore a fundamental principle of God's way of dealing with his children, in order to try an make a case to support what I think is an incomplete at best, and very flawed at worst, view of the nature of the Holy Scripture Tom.

Actually Verne, what I am doing is respecting the text!  I am treating the text as inspired of God, and therefore the words,grammar, and context are important, since they are the vehicles of meaning. 

Notice what you said,

To argue that the Spirit of God does not bring to mind that which has been spoken to believers

.

The text says, 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.    "You" here, is the apostles.  The church has understood this verse to be a guarantee that the apostles would be specially empowered of God to transmit what Jesus said in their presence to the disciples. 

What did you, or anyone else born after his last appearance on earth, ever hear Jesus actually say in their presence?  Nothing I know of.  To take this verse and make it some general principle applicable to all Christians is to read your own meaning into a text that cannot contain it. The practice is known as eisogesis, as you know.

What is truly surprising about your point of view is that I dare say most believers  would not think twice about a personal application of that verse you so confidently dismiss; not because fo some erudite lexical analysis, but because this is a routine occurence of a walk of faith!
Verne

You are correct about people not thinking twice.  It was our failure to "not think twice" that allowed these errors into our minds to start with.  All it took to get us, and many others as well, into the GG assembly was to have someone who was good at pushing Deeper Life mysticicm to explain the Bible.  Make no mistake about it, Verne, GG almost nothing GG taught was in any way different from the most radical of the Deeper Life teachers.  Anyone who cares to can read it in Watchman Nee's books.

Do not confuse popular with true.  Deeper Life teaching arose as the evangelical church responded to the development of psychology by Freud, Jung, Adler and others.  It is NOT what Christains have believed and taught for 2000 years.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
 

[Oscar]

Standerby,

I am reminded that we are all priests, according to the New Testament.  What this means is that each of us has access into God's presence, and we need no intermediary.  God would not grant us this amazing state if we must all be scholars and possess commentaries and lexicons.  Many people function well as priests who are illiterate.

While Deeper Life theology is problematic if taken to it's logical end, what Tom seems to be espousing also is not without risk.  While Sondra may be somewhat presumptuous at times with regard to hearing God speak, Tom's ideas if misapplied, would lead people to believe that they are dependent upon a learned man to interpret the scriptures for them.  After all, how many poor babes in Christ have read the Bible and gotten excited over a verse that is assigned several different meanings by several different scholars?   What we are seeing here, if I am not mistaken, is a reaction to extreme ideas on both sides, rather than a clear exposition of the scripture.

....must not strive, able to teach, that's what is so important.

1. You are correct that a person does not need to be literate to walk with God.  Access into God's presence is secured by the person and work of Christ.  I am sure there are many things of practical value that could be shared by a godly, but illiterate, saint.  But would you want to appoint such a person to be a teacher in the Church?  I think not.

2. "Getting excited" over a verse and understanding the verse are not the same thing.  Joe got pretty excited over the verse that he thought was telling him not to get married.  But was that a good understanding of the verse?  I think not.

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Verne,

I wonder what contextual constraints you would put on the following verse Tom?

And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

I would be delighted to hear your theories on the source of the voice in this verse...be very careful for the passage is prophetic...

Verne

The verse you cite is Isaiah 30:21.  The context is a series of "Woes" that God has pronounced upon the faithless, idolatrous, immoral people of Judah.  After telling them all the terrible jugements that are about to come upon them, he assures them that He has not completely rejected them and will one day, "bind up the bruises of his people and heal the wounds He inflicted, (V26). 

He addresses his message to the "people of Zion who live in Jerusalem", (V19) and tells them that when they finally quit resorting to idol worship and call on Jehovah, he will hear their cries.  He goes on to tell them that although he will not lift his judgement upon their sins, he will make it clear who His true servants are, (instead of the false prophets of the idol cults).  The true teachers of His ways will be hidden no more, (V20).  It will be clear to them who they should listen to.

And they will receive instruction from these teachers! (probably prophets) Whever they turn right or left, the teachers will say, "This is the way to go, go this way."  Turning to the right or left is a freqeuntly used OT metaphor for straying from  God's covenant, btw.

They will hear a voice with their ears.  That is, they will hear and understand words in grammatically correct sentences.

Then they will get rid of their idols, (V22), and God will send the natural and agricultural blessings promised in the Deuteronomic Covenant, (V23-24).

True, the verse is prophetic.  The fulfillment was yet in the future at the time of writing.  But the prophecy is about "Zion and those who live in Jerusalem".  Not about Tom and Verne.

In sum, the verse has nothing to do with what we are discussing.  You have taken a text completly out of context Verne.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

"And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left."

This could be a prophetic reference to the speaker coming from a police car when one
makes an illegal turn.(whoop!! whoop!! "Pull over!!") Although it does not mention anything about flashing lights though.

Sorry--couldn't resist.

Seriously though, I think it could refer to the Holy Spirit using our memories to recall
scripture when we turn aside. We are tempted to be angry at someone, and the verse
"turn the other cheek" might come to mind, and causes us to think twice about what
we are about to do.

--Joe

[bystander]

Standerby,

1. You are correct that a person does not need to be literate to walk with God.  Access into God's presence is secured by the person and work of Christ.  I am sure there are many things of practical value that could be shared by a godly, but illiterate, saint.  But would you want to appoint such a person to be a teacher in the Church?  I think not.

2. "Getting excited" over a verse and understanding the verse are not the same thing.  Joe got pretty excited over the verse that he thought was telling him not to get married.  But was that a good understanding of the verse?  I think not.

Thomas Maddux

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?