So WHO Is Decieved???

[Luke Robinson]

Mr. Carty, don't worry, I'm not taking it personal.  I was a little oblivious out here in the midwest.  But who knows, maybe I could be next on the list.

"Good evening, Mr. Carty.  Your mission should you choose to accept it, is to disable all the posts that that infernal Mr. Robinson writes.  This is mission impossible.  This message will self-destruct in 3 seconds."

Good luck.  

Luke

[Mark C.]

Hi All!
  Brent:  I'm glad that you have not retired from posting as your contribution is very helpful !  Thanks for being here.
   It does seem the topic re. Christians, evil, and how to think and deal with it has become a bit convoluted here.  I think what muddies the waters is not looking at actual behavior as we make judgments.  
   Theological speculation that suggests, but for the grace of God, all could have fallen into GG's sin is hypothetical in nature, and therefore not very helpful in a practical discussion.  Though the Bible lays out the universal principle that all have sinned, it is only my personal practical application of that principle that brings me to salvation.
   It is the same in the Christian life.  It is possible, in a theoretical sense, that every Christian could sin any sin at any moment, but I am presently faced with my own personal temptations and weakness.
  By bringing the discussion of evil to what actually happened, and not what could possibly happen we obtain moral clarity and are able to judge.  When we make a judgment of the facts and are then told, "you could do the same thing; lighten-up!"  It is an attempt to obfuscate the issue and to justify the sin with the defense that,"everyone could do it."
   If I ever started a Christian ministry and: Committed adultery, attacked those who tried to entreat me, committed some more adultery, taught a false gospel that hurt Christians, committed some more adultery, abusively and cruelly controlled the lives of those in my church, committed some more adultery, told lies about those who left/ or tried to entreat me, committed some more adultery, allowed my son to abuse my daughter in law and family, committed some more adultery------- !!!!  Well, I guess you get the idea!
   In the real practical world God commands us to declare such behavior "evil" and to call the offender to admit to and repent of these deeds.  There is no Biblical provision that states we must overlook these things in the spirit of forgiveness, because forgiveness only can come if there has been true repentance!
   Theoretical disscussions re. the human potential for evil are akin to arguing how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.
                           God bless,  Mark
   
   

[editor]

Christianity is a committment.  A committment of giving yourself to the Lord everyday and asking him to help you abstain from sin.  

Nonsense!

Christianity is NOT a committment. Your quote above is an example of a false premise, learned from a false teacher.

IF Christianity was a "committment," then the person who is most committed would win.  They would no longer be able to say, "Not of works, lest any man should boast."  They would say, "Christianity is a committment, and I am enjoying the rewards that I earned from keeping my committments."

Committment=work.  

Work does not equal Grace

Gal 5:1  Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.  2  Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.  3  And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.  4  You have become estranged from Christ, you who [attempt] [to] be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.  5  For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.  6  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

If Christianity is a committment, what are you committed to?  Nothing is more holy and righteous than God's law.  Is that what we should be committed to?  

No, you wouldn't do that, because you have an idea that it is wrong.  Instead, you committed yourself to the "things of the Lord," or "The House of God,"  or "The work of The Lord."  These things are even less worthy of your committment than the law.  Why not go all the way and commit yourself to keeping the law?  "Oh, no," you say, "I am committed to Jesus!  I trump you there!"

The new covenant is based on the performance and committment of The Son of God.  He was committed, and He performed, and fulfilled God's perfect standard of holiness.  He is well pleasing to The Father.

Our righteousness, works, and committments are but filthy rags.  We are accepted in The Beloved, because of Him.  Our committment plays no part whatsoever in our salvation.  Otherwise, grace would be works, and we would have reason to boast.  If you say that YOU are committed to Him, you are saying that God is pleased with YOUR committment, and your ability to keep your committments, and your determination, perseverance, seriousness, etc.  Codswollup!

Christianity is not about what YOU do Luke, or about who YOU are.  It is about what Jesus has done, and who He is.  The way to please God is not to "give yourself to the Lord everyday,"  it is to believe.  Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness.  This is the work of God, that you believe...    Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household...

The idea that you begin with faith, and continue with committment is called the Galatian Heresy.  It is the very thing that the apostle warned the foolish Galatians about.  He said it was a false gospel, taught by false apostles.  He didn't say anything nice about these false apostles.  He didn't compare them to the christians in Galatia, he didn't tell the foolish Galatians:

"We are all capable of sinning just like these false Apostles.  Don't be so quick to judge them, all of us are capable of heresy, if we don't committ ourselves to the Lord everyday."

NONSENSE!   Do you you hear me Luke?  This is nonsense!

Paul said he wished the false Apostles would mutilate themselves.  They were NOT on equal footing with the deceived saints.

Christianity is about a person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  Grace is about the same person, Jesus Christ, The Son of God.  

Grace is not something we earn by our committments, or yielding, or carefulness, it is the character of God.  Did you hear that Luke?  Grace is  the character of God, exemplified in Jesus Christ.

He is committed, because there is no way we ever could be.  To add to His salvation, by claiming that Christianity is a committment, is a subtle, yet dangerous error.

The scary thing to me is that you have no idea whatsoever what you are saying.  In fact, you say,  "It's about reading the Word."  To equate false teaching with "what the Word teaches," is exactly what the JW's do.  

Gal 1:6  I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,  7  which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.  8  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.  9  As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Luke, you may not be defending George himself, which is good, but you are defending the false doctrine that you learned in his house.  You are defending your incorrect ideas and assumptions about critical doctrines in the Bible.  This is NOT good, and it will result in nothing but trouble, all the more compounded because you are standing against people who are trying to reason with you.

Now, you also make a statement to the effect that I think I am right, and people who disagree with me are wrong.  Well, I'll leave it the others who read this to correct me if I am wrong.  However, your statement is correct in this regard:  I do believe YOU are wrong Luke.  I believe you are quite wrong, even dead wrong.  I also think I am right, mainly because I used to believe the things that you said in your last post.  I was even more proud and blind than you.  I learned of my errors in the school of hard knocks.  Which college are you enrolling in?  Do you want hard knocks, bits and bridles, or do you want the gentle wisdom that is from above?

Luke, if you don't snap out of it, you will repeat the Geftakys error in the future.

Brent

[editor]

And just because you have been saved, that you have died to sin, does not mean that you can't be enticed with it.  It is up to you, to stay away from those things which do and ask God to help you.  Just because the chains of sin have been thrown off, doesn't not mean you can't still hear them rattle.

Here's another example of a false idea learned from a false teacher: "It is up to you, to stay away from those things which do...."

Here is a true/false question:

Jesus said,  "It is finished, now the rest is up to you." True or false?


Here is a short answer question:

In order to be a better Christian, I must______

How would you answer these questions?  Luke, answer these questions and then look back on your last post, which I quote, and see if anything you wrote contradicts how you answered those two simple questions above.

BTW,  when you do "see it," we will all be overjoyed.  In spite of the rough treatment you get from me, I do enjoy your posts and contribution.  In fact, one of the main reasons I log on is to see what you are up to next.  However, I really do want to see you delivered from the errors that plagued me.

Brent

[Mark C.]

Brent,
  I think your understanding of the Gospel in the last post not only needs no correction it deserves praise for it's clarity.
   I don't mean to pile on Luke, but Brent has just made a huge amount of sense in his argument with you.  Please consider carefully what he is trying to tell you.
  There is a considerable difference in what GG taught, re. salvation and the Christian life, vs. what evangelical Christians believe.  GG made the new birth experience almost meaningless, as initial salvation only offered the possibility of the actual experience of new life.  In GG's concept Marilyn Manson (your example) could accept Christ and go right out basically unchanged.
   This was true, according to GG, because as a regenerated sinner nothing happens until you actualize your faith; in other words start to "daily yield", "read the Word," etc.  Though we are commanded to do many things as Christians these are not the buttons that release the life of Christ in us.
   Our salvation is total and complete, and from this wonderful new life "springs up" the desire to please Him.  If we choose the GG cart-before-the-horse method we end up shutting off the flow of God's Spirit in our lives.
    Those who believe in God's perfect salvation, and who trust in their eternal security there, do not end up living lives like GG.  It is an interesting fact that GG, who taught the insignificance of the new birth, ended up living a life like, well---  GG!
   As Verne said, "think carefully about these things."
                                 God Bless,  Mark

[editor]

Dear Luke,

Suzie Tr0ckman here.  I am posting under Brent's name, as I don't think I'm registered.  Here goes...........

When I read your posts,  I see a subtle bondage.  I see it because just Three days ago God in His tender mercy, showed me an area of my life that I was in complete bondage.  It was serious because it was about the character of His Son, and the cross.  

I thought I had it all figured out.  My understanding was that I had to confess my sins every day, because if I didn't, and I happened to die, I would have to stand before God in my sin.  This may sound incredible to you, but as a life-long Catholic, who spent 17 years in the Assembly, starting at age 19, it is not so hard to comprehend.

Anyhow, I had recurring nightmares about dieing before I could confess my sins that day!

I was delivered at our home group last Wednesday night.  Instead of fighting against what God was showing me, I realized that it was an issue He was touching, and that I needed to receive it from Him.

I know that you are not struggling with the same issue, but I can sympathize with you regarding your bondage to your ideas.  I am the same way.

I hope this helps, Luke.

Suzie

[Arlene]

Luke,
Why have you launched such a negative campain?
Have you been wronged, attacked, slandered.....?
I'm also curious.
Arlene

[Luke Robinson]

Four hours and ten posts later...

Dear Brent,
Maybe the word isn't committment, maybe it is dependence or belief in the Lord.  I was trying to say a commitment to the Lord, but maybe it didn't come out the right way.  No matter.  

I have been the last thorn in your side.  Ciao.  I guess you will have no more reason to come to this bulletin board.

By the way, answer to question #1: False
#2: Believe God that He will lead me, etc.

Verne,

Please take your nice articulate jabs somewhere else.  Better yet, leave them here.  Everyone seems to like them.

Mark,

I agree with you...mostly.  Keep posting.  They need it here.

Suzie,

Thanks for the post.  You help lighten things up a little.

Pat,

Who says I am defending my life in the assembly?  It is not that anymore.  I am defending what I believe is the difference between works and salvation. (And what others do, too.  They just don't bother saying anything.)

Arlene,

I have been wronged many times on this website.  
I have been libeled, not slandered, but who knows?  If I think long enough I might be able to conjure up some past memory where I was.
I have been attacked, personally on this website.

Folks, you try too hard to figure me out.  Let's all stop trying to be psychologists and detectives.  

Few agree with me and refuse to say anything.  Many disagree and openly say much.  It's a circus.

Sorry, Brent, if I do not sing your praises like everyone else.  I will say this.  God used you in a powerful way to bring light to the darkness going on.  Thanks.  We disagree on many things.  Don't worry.  If I am wrong, God will show me whether through simplicity or hard knocks.  And if you're wrong, then he will do the same.  

I am very happy that I have gotten to write here.  It has been a lot of fun and I have learned a lot whether I acknowledge that or not.

I am leaving.  Sorry, if you're disappointed.  I am no longer needed here.  And I guess, once I'm gone, everything will be pretty dead since EVERYONE AGREES!!

I do have e-mail if you would like to write.  But this is it.  My last post.  I will pray for all of you here.  Please pray for me.

A Brother in Christ,

Luke Robinson

[Mark C.]

Hi Luke !
  Sorry to see you go.  You do liven things up here a bit; also I think it would be good for you to think through your understanding of the Christian life.  I would also like to know the things that I have said that don't fall into the "mostly" agreed upon issues.
   Clarity of thought is very important for a healthy and blessed Christian life and the BB offers a wonderful opportunity to work on our thinking.
   As Suzie shared, she thought she understood living by grace only to discover she needed to look at her views differently.  We constantly are in need of "attitude adjustment", as we easily regress into our old habitual emotional reactions to life.
   This is the weakness that we must struggle against (you did speak of struggling against the tendency to sin) which includes the lazy acceptance of one's desire to not understand the Gospel.  Paul called the Galatians, "Dear Idiots" (Phillips transl.), because they were not thoughtful re. their understanding of the simple gospel message and allowed themselves to be fooled.  They were"bewitched" by manipulative men, who brought in subtle erroneous teaching.
   In trying to help a particular present Assembly member I marvelled at the reluctance that they had to thinking through the issue.  They did not agree with me and believed GG's teaching was great.  When trying to discuss the details they didn't want to get into it, and they were unable to present any arguments to defend their position.
   This shows a dangerous cult like mind-set toward preservation of a emotional state that is gained in the group over the call to be Noble Bereans who think through what's taught and examine it critically.
   If my posts' have been helpful to others that is great, but if that is the case, what have they done for you?  Let's not give up the dialogue just as it's getting close to the point .
   If you are wary of getting piled on via the BB you are most welcome to e-mail me and we can continue our conversation there.             God Bless,  Mark

[al Hartman]

     The last page and a half of this thread looks like a plate of spaghetti:  everything is heaped up and twisted together in a mass of strands that intersect and intertwine, but form nothing but utter chaos.
     There are some good statements, some not-so-good statements, contradictory statements, misunderstood statements, and redundant statements which purport to oppose each other.

     i will not pretend to believe that i can bring a clarification of this mess, but i will make an attempt at some reconciliation:

     First, a simple word about timing.  Ecclesiastes 3 explains that there is a season for everything and a time for every purpose under heaven and that, although man is exercised in the labors of these seasons and times, it is God alone who brings each to its fruition.
     There is a proper order to the progress of spiritual truth:
1.) We hear it.>> 2.) We see it.>> 3.) We learn it.>> 4.) We know it.>> 5.) We teach it.  These are pretty self explanatory-- no need to expound upon them.  What is important to remember always is that spiritual truth is the gift of God, and that only he can impart it and/or harvest from it.
     There is a very human tendency to become propriatary with spiritual truth, regarding it as our personal domain, and to skip over necessary progression in the disposition of it.  Sometimes a revelation may be so exciting to us that we don't want to have to wait until we've learned all about it before telling it to others.  This may be because we genuinely look forward to others' sharing in the vision, or just as likely that we seek the adulation of others for having brought it to them.
     In remembering that all spiritual understanding comes from, is given by, and is solely for the purposes of God, we must handle it with care and prayer.  We must determine what he is saying to us, what its meaning is for us specifically, and what he wants us to do with that knowledge.  THEN we can begin to share it with others, always keeping in mind that the fact of our saying it in no way assures anyone's receiving of it.  
     We must simply be faithful to him, trusting him for all the rest.  Timing!

     Second, a word about "Christianity":  the word never appears in the bible.  The word "Christian" appears three times:  Acts 11:16, in reference to disciples (i.e., the works, or discipline, of believers);  Acts 26:28, where the reference is to faith in Christ, based on the testimony of a believer;  and 1Peter 4:16, referring to suffering because of believing in/serving Christ.
     Why don't these references translate into scripural mention of "Christianity?"  Because the term "Christian" has to do with the beliefs and conduct of individuals, even when referring to them in the plural.  There is no organized fraternity, no social club, no political party of "Christians."
     So arguments about the definition of Christianity are moot.  There is no standard-to-meet-or-else-you-get-the- boot.  Being a Christian is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and it is conducted one-on-one between a saint and the Lord.
     "Christianity" has no scriptural definition.  But it is a word that is defined and interpreted in many different and conflictiong ways in the world, and would be just as well left alone by the saints.  There are better ways to describe the body of Christians.

     Finally, i sincerely hope that, having stated your case(s), you who are arguing like lawyers in a John Grisham novel will be able to rest and let God do his work.  If you pray half as hard as you debate, the outcome should be assured.
     For my own purposes, i will presume that those who have misquoted Luke and misrepresented his points did so because they misunderstood what he was trying to say, rather than deliberately and maliciously.  Misunderstanding comes easily to those whose minds have been made up and closed preceeding discussion.
     i find no malice among the deliberators here.  But there is an adamance that i think is born not of love, but of fear.  Some who suffered under, and because of, George seem to lump anything that even remotely reminds them of his errors into a "dangerous" category, without attempting an objective analysis.  This conduct is damaging to the doers as well as those to whom they do it.
     For example, i believe that the "commitment" spoken of in II Timothy 1:12 is what Luke was referring to in his post.  His words were interpreted by others to indicate belief in a salvation by works.  A little less fear and a little more openness, please.

for the love of God,
al Hartman




     

[Mark C.]

Hi AL and Others,
  I was up early this AM and saw your post here AL and would like to make a lengthy reply, but I need to get going (everyone is spared my lengthy reply ).
  There is some history in this conversation between Luke and others that possibly you may not be aware of.
   Also, we can confuse things even more, in conversation, if we "spiritualize" the talk by suggesting truth is somewhat esoteric.  What I mean is by saying objectivity is in the eye of the beholder and/or knowledge of the Gospel is the special venue of an Individual and his Lord we are making the conversation more fuzzy, rather than clearer.
   We are often fuzzy in our thinking, and the BB is a great opportunity to have that thinking checked by others.  This arena is not some kind of University level think tank, but more like a back yard neighborly chat.  We can make mistakes and accept correction without fear of reprisals.
   Our present knowledge of what can happen to those who have been brought up in Assembly teaching does indeed bring us to conclude that there is teaching that can be dangerous.  The Apostle Paul got very worked up over certain phrases and actions that at first glance seem trivial.  He went to great lengths to expose and correct these teachings.
    I would like to say more, but got to get to work!
         PRAY FOR OUR PRES. AND TROOPS
                                     God Bless,  Mark

[al Hartman]

quote from Verne Carty's last post:

   "What exactly is meant by the 'progress' of spiritual truth?
   "Al you seem to be implying that the truth of God is somehow constrained by our ability to comprehend it. Would you for example argue that the Divine imprimatur of clear sanctions in Scripture is somehow lessened because the order you outlined has not been followed? I believe the bible teaches that the apprehension of spiritual truth is not a function of proper didactic or pedagogic methodology but rather a matter of revelation. I do not want to be argumentative but I do not think your choice of words have been as clarifying as your stated intention. Please help me to understand your meaning..."
..........................................................................................

Verne and All,

     Please receive this in this spirirt in which it is offered:  It is not my desire to bicker and split hairs, but to promote the exercise of love and fellowship among brethren of like precious faith.

     That said, Verne has illustrated all that is wrong about the attacks upon this thread, which, although it was admittedly begun in anger (for which apology has been rendered), was nonetheless a cry for understanding.
     Verne has disregarded all the points of my rather lengthy post except for a portion of one point which he appears to feel is vulnerable to disassembly.  This has been characteristic of the reactions to Luke's posts:  if an apt rebuttal doesn't leap to mind, work your way around the post and attack the the poster.  THIS kind of conduct, as much as anything i have witnessed on this BB, is typical of the GG assemblies' leadership:  If you can't refute the speech, discredit the speaker.  It is unworthy behavior for the Lord's people.

     Despite the seriousness and importance of the matters of this thread, i had to laugh, Verne, at your use of the phrase "a function of proper didactic or pedagogic methodology," followed in the next sentence by your telling me that you, "do not think [my] choice of words have been as clarifying as [my] stated intention."  
     Not being a heavy-hitter, i avoid such terminology as didactic and pedagogic because they are not a part of my everyday vocabulary.  It's not that i am afraid of such-- my dictionary is always at hand.  i just think it's a weighty burden to lay upon the average reader, to risk the need for reference volumes in order to follow relatively simple points.
     (For those concerned, "didactic" has to do with teaching, or conveying information, particularly as regarding morals;  "pedagogic" refers to education or teaching).

     To answer Verne's inquiry (although i don't think he or anyone else really has a problem understanding what i said):  Of course, nothing constrains the truth of God.  But what CAN be constrained is our implementation of that truth.  (Unless you believe that being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit means that one instantaneously has complete and total understanding equal to God's).
     What we have instantaneously gained is ACCESS to all of God's wisdom and knowledge:  it IS ours!  But we have to LEARN how to grasp it and apply it in a lifelong ongoing process.  THAT is what i meant by "the progress of spiritual truth."  The promise is that He will lead us into all truth.  The truth IS ours, but we WILL spend the rest of our lives learning what that means in practice.
     So, yes Verne, the apprehension of spiritual truth IS as you suggest, a matter of revelation, and you and i apprehend it as God reveals it to us individually.  Otherwise, we would all know all things perfectly already, and have no need of those teachers with which God has gifted the church.
...................................................................................

     Now, regarding Luke's entreaties:  If you rock-headed brothers (forgive me if i take that for granite!) will at least TRY to set aside your foregone prejudices, PLEASE re-read his words with the intent to understand what he is actually trying to say, and why he is saying it.
     i promise you, you are not so perfect in your understanding that you are incapable of misinterpreting a brother's words and intentions.
     Put aside your preconceptions regarding terminology and verbage, and seek to understand the heart.  One's words may seem to sound like another's, but the intended meaning may be entirely different.  Comparing ourselves among ourselves is not wise.
     As Joe Sperling has pointed out, the BB denies us the benfits of interpreting facial expression and body language.  (As does the bible.  So, as with the bible, here also we must depend upon the Spirit of God to show us the truth).
     Those who insist upon hard and fast rules of language return themselves to the bondage of the law.  The Word of God is immutable.  Our abilitiy to express ourselves is not.
     i have been amazed at the similarities i have seen in what Luke states and the statements of those who oppose him.  But no one seems to realize them.

     Listen.     Hear.     Speak the truth in love.

for the love of God,
al Hartman

[al Hartman]

in his last post, Verne said:

   "Do forgive if you find my insistence on precision in our use of language burdensome."

i respond:

     It is not your use of precise language that is burdensome, but your unwillingness to try to reach beyond it to understand those who may not share that precision.  You insist that everyone must attain to your superior standard.  Please don't insist that your standard is the Word of God-- i am referring to individuals' ability to express themselves, not questioning the authority of the Word.
................................................................................
Verne said:


   "You may crticise my choice of words, but you certainly cannot argue that they lacked clarity."

i respond:

     i have no intention of arguing, but just because what you say is clear TO YOU does not assure that anyone else will find it so.
.................................................................................
Verne said:
 
   "I do not believe the message we preach should be altered  or otherwise tempered to accomodate the capacity of the hearer - we proclaim God's Word, the Spirit of God edifies..."

i respond:

     Does this mean that you would use the same language and terminology in conversation with a group of postgraduate students as you would with a roomful of second graders?  Would you address a gathering of the American Medical Association in the same manner as with penitentiary inmates?  Members of the state bar and residents of a homeless shelter?
     i hope not.  We preach the Word, yes, but we must meet people where they are, not demand that they climb to our lofty heights before they are worthy to hear from us.
..................................................................................

Verne said:

   "p.s. No need to apologise Al. True and honest debate in no way requires ad hominem <[means an attack upon another's character --al]> attacks and challenges to your viewpoint ought not to be viewed thusly..."

i respond:

     i apologize often on this BB-- when i think i have reason to do so.  In this case, i wasn't aware that i had apologized.
i didn't think i had anything to apologize for, so any apology that you perceived was unintentional-- please accept my apology for that!
     Your replies to me are not a challenge to my viewpoint, but rather an ignoring and circumventing of nearly everything i said in order to get around to saying your piece without having to respond to mine.
..................................................................................

To Mark,

     When you last posted, i was in the process of writing mine (which immediately follows yours), so i hadn't read yours when i posted.  You said:
   "There is some history in this conversation between Luke and others that possibly you may not be aware of."

     Mark, i am aware of this, and it has been brought up before.  While it may be unintended, there is an implication that whoever has not suffered side-by-side with these writers cannot comprehend what they are writing about.  The same concept is presented in some of your other writings (e.g., Wounded Pilgrim) and those of others on the BB.
     It seems the direct opposite of Verne's We-preach-the-same-thing-in-the-same-way-to-everybody-and-the-Holy-Spirit-will-show-them-what-it-means.
     The unstated (thus far) suggestion seems to be that everything would run much smoother if i and others who see things differently than the inner circle would just be content to read without commenting or raising questions.
     i think i know you well enough to know that that is not what you're saying.  But i want you to know that's how it comes across.
     Those of us whose assembly experiences were different still have a history to overcome and issues to resolve, and shouldn't be relegated to second-class citizenship on the BB or anywhere else just because we are different.

you also said:
   "Our present knowledge of what can happen to those who have been brought up in Assembly teaching does indeed bring us to conclude that there is teaching that can be dangerous.  The Apostle Paul got very worked up over certain phrases and actions that at first glance seem trivial.  He went to great lengths to expose and correct these teachings."

     OK, Mark, i recognize the existence of dangerous teachings.  If you are telling me that Luke has been heard, tried, and found guilty of embracing heresy or otherwise dangerous doctrines, i think that i and many others on the BB who are not as well versed in this "history" as you, need to know some details.  
     Because the way it reads from where i sit, some brothers are so afraid that luke MIGHT be dangerous, that they aren't even listening to what he says before they tell him he's wrong and needs to get right.
   
     We all need to be reminded that this is a PUBLIC forum, and the ramifications of posts are far reaching.  On such serious matters as these, it is not enough that just the posters are familiar with the details.  If you want to communicate on that level, there is email.  But if you're going to post in public, be responsible to make it clear for everyone.  I speak to all-- not just to Mark.

for the love of God,
al Hartman



       

[Mark C.]

Dear Al !
  The history I refer to, in this discussion re. our good friend Luke, goes back to the beginning of this thread, which he started.  I mentioned this in my response to you because your argument seemed to lack this context.  I was not suggesting that only a "private inner circle" of know-it-all's could comment, or that only certain posters possessed the history in which to answer.
  I've often said that I'm just a Christian truck driver and those who read my opinions should understand that I am not a Church leader/worker, psychologist, counsellor, scholar, Bible teacher, etc.  If my post's come across as sounding presumptious, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but that is not my intention.
   I contribute here in a response to what our Good Shepherd has worked into my heart.  I care about these dear souls very much.  It is from that care and concern that I can not stand by and allow teaching and thinking, that I believe to be destructive to God's people, to be posted without challenge.
   Noble Bereans will not be personally insulted by such challenges as it invites contemplation and research into the Grace of God in truth.  If Luke, or anyone, has disagreement, then let's have a discussion; iron sharpens iron, and as a matter of fact, his original post sent me to the Bible to research the meaning of the word, "evil".  I learned quite a bit and discovered my original assumptions re. the word were incorrect. (His post challenged me!)
  My comments re. the Assembly are general in nature and are not meant to mean that all individuals experienced it the same as I did, or that I am an elite interpreter of Assembly experience.
  I think one needs to see the Assembly as a system, because I believe the Bible teaches us to analyze individual church doctrine/practice in this way (spirit of truth and of error).  In so speaking it will obviously appear to be an unfair assessment to each and every individual who was in the Assembly, if we judge them by GG's teaching and practices alone.
  I have spoken with those who were in the Assembly almost 30 years who are totally unaware of what GG was teaching, or of it's ramifications.  One wonders why they were there at all?  They have no clear opinions at all re. the nature of the Gospel or of the Christian life!  They tell me they saw how cruelly some were treated, and that they knew that it was wrong, but they made no effort to protest this behavior!  It seems they attended only for some private experience with "The Lord" that gave them a sense of being safe, or helped them deal with certain bad habits they wrestled with ("It was good for me").  Since these individuals could not be coaxed out of their own private experience to examine teaching and practices right before them, they were able to happily endure for decades in a place that ravished other lives!  (much more to say on this, but later.)
   The Bible says we are to earnestly contend for The Faith once delivered to the Saints.  The Faith is a body of truth that can be learned and wherein is found "The Way, The Truth, and The Life.  The Faith is the means wherby we hear the Good Shepherd's voice and follow Him.  To not hear that Voice clearly is to be in danger of being consumed by wolves/false shepherds who will ravage unsuspecting souls.
  Those who do not think through carefully and clearly their assumptions (especially after being in a group whose teaching was controlled by one man who had the character of a wolf) are in a very dangerous position indeed!  I will not sit idly by while His little one's are given to the wolves!
If I go too far in my zeal to make sure the Gospel is clearly understood it is far better that I do so than to sit on my hands and watch.(I'm not suggesting any poster here is a wolf, but we have all been heavily influenced by one for years.)
   I have dedicated my life to helping Wounded Pilgrims recover their faith and to go on to healthy and prosperous lives in Christ.  A true understanding of the Gospel is absolutely essential for this to happen.  There is no other path to this knowledge other than through our thinking.  It is false spirituality to think that this knowledge comes through some kind of "spiritualizing" process through our emotions.  In this false spirituality words all have different meanings and/or no meaning at all; in this mindset all that is important is my attitude or feelings re. the Lord.  Christianity becomes a private experience only; which is different from everyone else's experience; who's to judge?
   Personal experience and emotion are very important, but must spring from the safe fountain of living water found in the Gospel.  If there is argument re. what the Gospel is then maybe I should start another post and we can talk about it, for understanding the Gospel will cause us to grow in grace and in the Knowledge of Lord Jesus Christ.
  Thank you for enduring this lengthy reply.
                           God Bless,  Mark
     

[al Hartman]

Verne,

     Please don't give up.  i am grateful for many excellent posts from you that i have read on other threads.
     You and i seem to have reached an impasse on this thread.  For whatever reasons, we are speaking to each other in unknown (to each other) tongues.  If you, Mark and Brent are trying to show me the error of my ways, i'm just not getting it.  Please pray for me.

     i apologize to all readers here if i have brought to you confusion or misunderstanding.  My intentions were to bring clarity and understanding, but the general consensus seems to be that i have done otherwise.

     i will continue as before on the BB, except that i will not post further on this thread.  If anyone has questions or answers for me, please email me, either at my aol address or in a BB private message.  Both are available by clicking on my profile.  i welcome your comments, regardless of their nature.  i have a lot to learn, and mean to be open to any resource by which the Lord may teach me.

     Lest there be any misunderstanding:  While i am disappointed at my apparent inability to get my point across to certain posters, and to discover validity in their words to me, i hold them in high regard as brothers in Christ.  i love them and care sincerely about them.

Pray for me, as i do for you,
al Hartman