Why Leaders Are Responsible

[Mark Kisla]

I watched a video taped message from Charles Stanley. The message was televized this past Sunday (19th). Stanley's message was on the topic of God is a God of Grace. One snippit from his message paraphrased by me:

The Lord Jesus came full of grace and truth. ... Let us draw near to the throne of grace...
The Lord Jesus rebuked the leaders (woe to you scribe and Pharisee..), but He showed grace to the sinner, the women at the well, the women caught in adultery, blind Bartimaeus, etc. etc. etc.

Interesting.

Marcia

Charles Stanleys Ministry has been a blessing to me.
Mark

[kwelsh]

PS. Scott isn't it funny how bad they wanted us to feel for being normal teenagers.

Hey, Kevin,

Wanna know what's really funny? My "gang bang" counselling at the hands of GG and company centered around . . . my crush on Melanie! Don't beat me up. ;D

Scott

In that case you should call and thank George and the boys right now...you didn't know what you were getting into with my sister~!!ha!ha!(if you forward this post to her I will beat you up)

[Scott McCumber]

PS. Scott isn't it funny how bad they wanted us to feel for being normal teenagers.

Hey, Kevin,

Wanna know what's really funny? My "gang bang" counselling at the hands of GG and company centered around . . . my crush on Melanie! Don't beat me up.

Scott

In that case you should call and thank George and the boys right now...you didn't know what you were getting into with my sister~!!ha!ha!(if you forward this post to her I will beat you up)

Funny. Has she read anything on the site or the board?

Back on topic: I never perceived the same attitude from the leaders in the Tuscola "teen group".

But by the time I came back from summer school I was working pretty hard on reflecting back a lot of that contempt. I wasn't invited to a lot of the Midwest teen outings. Something about an attitude problem! Can you imagine?

There were some adults in Fullerton who treated me well: Charlie and Cheryl Mathers, Perry, Joe Bush . . . hmm. Well I guess that's it but at least it's something, huh?

Scott

[M2]

Bob no question that each person will have to answer to God for their part played in the assembly drama

Thank-you Verne for your reply. My point all along has been each one will stand before God to give account. The depth of their involvement or knowledge of sin will be revealed then. I believe it prudent on the part of all believers at this juncture to be very careful about accusing ones of wrong doing simply because they were a leading brother in some obscure gathering. If God reveals something to an indivdual heart and they repent, praise God.

How is this revelation going to come? With regards to the leaders the Lord Jesus publicly declared it without disclaimers. I.e. He did not say, "except for Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea".

The sincerity of that repentance is not for us to judge either.

Our judgement comes from the bible. Do you agree that 2Cor7 is a good passage to use when evaluating sincerity of repentance?

2Cor 7:11 For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.

They may come on this bb to announce it. They may do it indivdually in their locale. God does not have a 4 step program for repentance. The bible simply says show fruits worthy of repentance.

I agree that they do not have to publicize their repentance on this BB (though it would be nice if they did), and that there isn't a 4 step program for repentance. I am still curious as to what are the LBs to show as fruits worthy of repentance.

Personally, I believe that there is a reason that God expects us to 'voice' our repentance when we first get saved (A B Confess with your mouth...) and then making a public declaration via baptism, spreading the good news etc. Hence, I would conclude that showing fruits of repentance involves a public proclamation. In some locales I have not seen this demonstrated. It is possible that the leaders have not fully seen the degree of their involvement in promoting the Geftakys system.

And then when one considers that many of these LBs travelled on itinerant ministry 'publicly' declaring their support of the system via counselling and preaching, then should there not be a corresponding zeal to publicly declare that they were wrong when they promoted such-and-such teaching.

God will determine the value of that fruit. Observing a sinful behavior and proclaiming that behavior as wrong is a responsibility of every believer but more importantly the leaders. We do not however condemn individuals or judge their hearts or motives. God will take care of that.

God has already told us in his word how to determine the value of that fruit. He has taken care of it.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[M2]

One characteristic I noticed that might be of some interest. LBs/LBWs get others to feel sorry for them. eg I know of one LBW who managed to convince a good number of people to feel sorry for her because her family (ie parents, brothers, sisters) were not in town and she was alone with the assembly and her husband and children. Many people rallied to comfort and encourage her because of her dilemna. I was inclined to do so myself until it occurred to me that my own family was not in town either, but no one was feeling sorry for me (not that I wanted them to). This is only a smoke-screen (correct expression??) and a distraction from the real issue. I know of LBs who have succumbed to this as well. To tell you the truth, I do actually feel sorry for these individuals, but I cannot allow my sorrow to distract me from the real issue at hand. LBs LBWs workers and all assemblyites who promoted Geftakysism (including myself) are responsible to repent.

Marcia

[editor]

This is the last line of the article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, on GA.com.  http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/Narcissism.htm

Thinking of George in terms of NPD and the implications for us may be a helpful way of putting a perspective on our experience.  It is a way of identifying issues so we can see an approach to dealing with them, now that we have been set free from the narcissist's orbit.

Here is some food for thought:

"IF" George indeed suffers from NPD, we must wrestle with two issues, and several implications for each issue.

1.) Did God use George to "raise up" The Assembly, in spite of the fact that His "servant," had NPD?

2.) Was George's "work," merely that; the result of an NPD's intense desire to be admired, etc.?

The second possibility seems easiest to grapple with.  It wasn't God's work, I was deceived/duped, and God kept me in spite of the terrible situation I was in.  Leave the "ministry," and get on with life, somewhat wiser as a result.  The implications for adopting view two are many, but chief among them, in my eyes, is the sense of responsibility for getting others out of a totally fraudulent system, masquerading as a Christian ministry.  There are others as well.

The first possibility is the one that presents the most problems.  Let's suppose that God used George to start the Assembly.  It was founded and nourished on George's teaching and practice, right down to the food we ate, and in many cases the people we married.  Children were trained the Geftakys way, careers were suspended, education was directed, reputations were built and destroyed, all on the whim of one man,  God's man.

George taught us that unless we were free from self, we were not useful for God's work.  George taught that God could use a man who had experienced "real brokenness," and that most people were soulish, being led about by their knowledge of Good and Evil, not the will of God.

George taught that unconfessed sin rendered a person non-operational with regard to ministy, and that the inheritance was based on our faithfulness to yield to God, and reckon "Self," dead.

In order for God's work to be done God's way, there must be "Heavenly Vision."  The ability to see was granted to clean vessels, meet for The Master's purposes.  According to George, if we were diligent to yield to God, being transformed in the inward man,  then we could be put in a position to be used "of Him."

Okay,  let's suppose that God did use George.  

George was none of the things he taught.  His character in no way reflected the kind of person that he taught "The Lord's Servant," must be.  George had plenty of unconfessed sin, more than a little "self-life," a good deal of the outward man showing at inappropriate times, not to mention the fact that he was obviously not "broken."

The above facts,  (they are facts, regardless of the views a person may have regarding the Assembly) present some very difficult and mutually contradictory issues.  If we adopt number one, above, and conclude that God used George to start a ministry, then we must come to grips with the following:

God's servant doesn't have to practice what he preaches. "Truth in the inward parts," applies to the rank and file, but not to the leader/prophet.  This is unbiblical.  If we adopt this idea, than any heretic has as much right to declare his cult "God's work," as anyone else.

God's servant taught false things. A work of God does not require Geftakys/Keswick/Nee/Brethren style theology.  George is clear evidence that God can and does use anyone.  Sin doesn't stop Him, He can use an adulterer and a hypocrite to raise up a glorious testimony to Himself.  What George taught about self, sin, the soul and the cross is superfluous.  It might be of some help to some, but clearly George didn't need it in order to be chosen as God's servant.  God's servant directed God's work in a way that was wrong, yet it is still God's work, even though it was built on a foundation of erroneous teaching.  This seems to be where most of the current Assembly folk reside, whether they have thought of it in this way or not.  George's books are thrown into the trash,  George's character and sin have been exposed,  yet his teachings and practice live on in a modified form.  This implies that God's chosen servant can be a false teacher.

God used George, and much of what George taught is true, in spite of the fact that George was flawed. Okay, let's adopt this viewpoint.  Again, George and his leading brothers taught all about the "inward man."  Many of these people point at the website and BB and say, "It's not Christ-like!  Jesus is not bitter, etc."  So, George wasn't Christlike, yet God used him to raise up a ministry?  Again, if what George taught was true, than how could God have used him?  He was disqualified before the Assembly ever started?  God used a man steeped in "self," to teach people to reckon self dead.  A liar and an adulterer was used to communicate precious truth, in spite of the fact that his message declared that no such thing could take place, and that sinful behavior quenches the spirit.

Perhaps George repented, God got the Assembly started through George, then George sinned, then he repented, etc.  Again, this possibility is mutually contradictory given what George taught.

There are many other twists and turn here, and other possibilities as well.  All I am trying to do is to get people to think about the consequences that their ideas have.  If doctrine and character are really that confusing, and God breaks His own rules in a capricious manner, how can we know anything at all?  

Perhaps a righteous man, who is pastoring a great church, who really is a godly man, ISN"T doing God's work?  How are we to know, and does it really matter?  Is it all just a bunch of BS?

(I know it isn't.  I am clear on where I stand on this.  I print this so that others can go through the process themselves, if they haven't already.)

Brent

[Oscar]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent,

I went through the process years ago.  I concluded two things:

1. God's ways are mysterious.  The categories you have proposed don't exhaust all possibilities.  Isa. 55:8-9.

2. God uses all sorts of men to work his will in history.  He called a pagan Persian king, (Cyrus), "my servant".  Then there is the sad story of Solomon.

I have a problem with the idea of an evil "system".  It seems to me that there really is no such thing.  It isn't as if there is some entity that can be tested on the good/evil scale.

The assemblies existed in time.  All the existence that they ever had was a product of what was in our heads.  We believed in certain ideas and acted upon them.  That produced meetings, outreaches, brother's houses and so on.  

Now, did we change at all during our time in the One True Church?  I know I did, and I believe we all did.  I also know that GG changed.  The man I knew when I left in 1989 was very different from the man I met in 1969.

Once I was going away for a weekend in Santa Barbara. In my later assembly years I used SB for an R&R getaway spot.

George asked me to drive by a little Assembly of God church and see if a certain brother was still the pastor.  That is where he fellowshipped when he was first saved.  

He was a memeber of the college age group.  They did the Pentecostal thing there.  George used to march around the hall singing victory songs and praising God.  That, my dear Watson, is called a "Victory March" in Pentecostal circles.

Now, was that the same man that we now see exposed as a false teacher and adulterer?  Well, yes and no.  The young GG praising God had some hangups and potential problems, but he seems to have made the wrong choices as the years went by.  He, just like all of us, reaped what he sowed.

This, again, is why I don't see the assembly as a scam from the first, an evil conspiracy by GG and BG to make money and have fun abusing the flock.  Some on these boards seem to see it that way, but I don't.

I see the assembly as a tragedy.  It was started by imperfect men for a variety of motives, some of them very praisworthy. It grew and developed for 32 years.  It became a sort of Frankenstein's Monster.  This happened because of George Geftakys, AND everyone who supported and followed him.  As he deteriorated, and as we acceded to his increasingly wrongheaded demands, the corporate expression of our ideas and acts, the Assembly, became darker and darker.

The real problem was that the assembly grew more and more distant from the true headship of Christ, which works in our hearts and minds.  It grew darker along with the increasing delusions of the one we followed, frequently silencing the voice of conscience in order to avoid suffering.

We let GG be our head, dethroning Christ.  Yes, he was a deciever, a pretty good one at that.  But we were all willing to be decieved.  For whatever reason, we became followers of this man.

Did you read the story of Steve and Margaret's leaving.  What happened to Steve was that GG finally touched an area that he wouldn't compromise.  If you think about it, that is what happened to all of us that left before the fall.

That my friends, was the work of the Good Shepherd.  He took us out in His good time.  In His good time, he will recover all his sheep.

It is a praise to God's mercy and grace that he is recovering us and refurbishing us to serve Him.  The glory is all His.

God bless all undercomers,

Thomas Maddux
Windbag- in- Chief  
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[M2]

This is the last line of the article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, on GA.com.  http://geftakysassembly.com/Articles/TeachingPractice/Narcissism.htm

Thinking of George in terms of NPD and the implications for us may be a helpful way of putting a perspective on our experience.  It is a way of identifying issues so we can see an approach to dealing with them, now that we have been set free from the narcissist's orbit.

Here is some food for thought:

"IF" George indeed suffers from NPD, we must wrestle with two issues, and several implications for each issue.

1.) Did God use George to "raise up" The Assembly, in spite of the fact that His "servant," had NPD?

2.) Was George's "work," merely that; the result of an NPD's intense desire to be admired, etc.?

The second possibility seems easiest to grapple with.  It wasn't God's work, I was deceived/duped, and God kept me in spite of the terrible situation I was in.  Leave the "ministry," and get on with life, somewhat wiser as a result.  The implications for adopting view two are many, but chief among them, in my eyes, is the sense of responsibility for getting others out of a totally fraudulent system, masquerading as a Christian ministry.  There are others as well.

The first possibility is the one that presents the most problems.  Let's suppose that God used George to start the Assembly.  It was founded and nourished on George's teaching and practice, right down to the food we ate, and in many cases the people we married.  Children were trained the Geftakys way, careers were suspended, education was directed, reputations were built and destroyed, all on the whim of one man,  God's man.

George taught us that unless we were free from self, we were not useful for God's work.  George taught that God could use a man who had experienced "real brokenness," and that most people were soulish, being led about by their knowledge of Good and Evil, not the will of God.

George taught that unconfessed sin rendered a person non-operational with regard to ministy, and that the inheritance was based on our faithfulness to yield to God, and reckon "Self," dead.

In order for God's work to be done God's way, there must be "Heavenly Vision."  The ability to see was granted to clean vessels, meet for The Master's purposes.  According to George, if we were diligent to yield to God, being transformed in the inward man,  then we could be put in a position to be used "of Him."

Okay,  let's suppose that God did use George.  

George was none of the things he taught.  His character in no way reflected the kind of person that he taught "The Lord's Servant," must be.  George had plenty of unconfessed sin, more than a little "self-life," a good deal of the outward man showing at inappropriate times, not to mention the fact that he was obviously not "broken."

The above facts,  (they are facts, regardless of the views a person may have regarding the Assembly) present some very difficult and mutually contradictory issues.  If we adopt number one, above, and conclude that God used George to start a ministry, then we must come to grips with the following:

God's servant doesn't have to practice what he preaches. "Truth in the inward parts," applies to the rank and file, but not to the leader/prophet.  This is unbiblical.  If we adopt this idea, than any heretic has as much right to declare his cult "God's work," as anyone else.

God's servant taught false things. A work of God does not require Geftakys/Keswick/Nee/Brethren style theology.  George is clear evidence that God can and does use anyone.  Sin doesn't stop Him, He can use an adulterer and a hypocrite to raise up a glorious testimony to Himself.  What George taught about self, sin, the soul and the cross is superfluous.  It might be of some help to some, but clearly George didn't need it in order to be chosen as God's servant.  God's servant directed God's work in a way that was wrong, yet it is still God's work, even though it was built on a foundation of erroneous teaching.  This seems to be where most of the current Assembly folk reside, whether they have thought of it in this way or not.  George's books are thrown into the trash,  George's character and sin have been exposed,  yet his teachings and practice live on in a modified form.  This implies that God's chosen servant can be a false teacher.

God used George, and much of what George taught is true, in spite of the fact that George was flawed. Okay, let's adopt this viewpoint.  Again, George and his leading brothers taught all about the "inward man."  Many of these people point at the website and BB and say, "It's not Christ-like!  Jesus is not bitter, etc."  So, George wasn't Christlike, yet God used him to raise up a ministry?  Again, if what George taught was true, than how could God have used him?  He was disqualified before the Assembly ever started?  God used a man steeped in "self," to teach people to reckon self dead.  A liar and an adulterer was used to communicate precious truth, in spite of the fact that his message declared that no such thing could take place, and that sinful behavior quenches the spirit.

Perhaps George repented, God got the Assembly started through George, then George sinned, then he repented, etc.  Again, this possibility is mutually contradictory given what George taught.

There are many other twists and turn here, and other possibilities as well.  All I am trying to do is to get people to think about the consequences that their ideas have.  If doctrine and character are really that confusing, and God breaks His own rules in a capricious manner, how can we know anything at all?  

Perhaps a righteous man, who is pastoring a great church, who really is a godly man, ISN"T doing God's work?  How are we to know, and does it really matter?  Is it all just a bunch of BS?

(I know it isn't.  I am clear on where I stand on this.  I print this so that others can go through the process themselves, if they haven't already.)

Brent

Much food for thought.

My convictions at the time of my departure and even now is that the Geftakys assembly system is a false religious system, where Christ is not the head. Wherever Geftakysservants laboured the testimonies were tainted by Geftakysism. I now include Africa, China, and Europe to those assemblies on the American continent as being tainted by GG's influence.

Verne, I agree that the fruit is not evident until later, hence the inability to see GG as a false teacher right from the start.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[vernecarty]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent,

I went through the process years ago.  I concluded two things:

1. God's ways are mysterious.  The categories you have proposed don't exhaust all possibilities.  Isa. 55:8-9.

2. God uses all sorts of men to work his will in history.  He called a pagan Persian king, (Cyrus), "my servant".  Then there is the sad story of Solomon.

I have a problem with the idea of an evil "system".  It seems to me that there really is no such thing.  It isn't as if there is some entity that can be tested on the good/evil scale.

The assemblies existed in time.  All the existence that they ever had was a product of what was in our heads.  We believed in certain ideas and acted upon them.  That produced meetings, outreaches, brother's houses and so on.  

Now, did we change at all during our time in the One True Church?  I know I did, and I believe we all did.  I also know that GG changed.  The man I knew when I left in 1989 was very different from the man I met in 1969.

Once I was going away for a weekend in Santa Barbara. In my later assembly years I used SB for an R&R getaway spot.

George asked me to drive by a little Assembly of God church and see if a certain brother was still the pastor.  That is where he fellowshipped when he was first saved.  

He was a memeber of the college age group.  They did the Pentecostal thing there.  George used to march around the hall singing victory songs and praising God.  That, my dear Watson, is called a "Victory March" in Pentecostal circles.

Now, was that the same man that we now see exposed as a false teacher and adulterer?  Well, yes and no.  The young GG praising God had some hangups and potential problems, but he seems to have made the wrong choices as the years went by.  He, just like all of us, reaped what he sowed.

This, again, is why I don't see the assembly as a scam from the first, an evil conspiracy by GG and BG to make money and have fun abusing the flock.  Some on these boards seem to see it that way, but I don't.

I see the assembly as a tragedy.  It was started by imperfect men for a variety of motives, some of them very praisworthy. It grew and developed for 32 years.  It became a sort of Frankenstein's Monster.  This happened because of George Geftakys, AND everyone who supported and followed him.  As he deteriorated, and as we acceded to his increasingly wrongheaded demands, the corporate expression of our ideas and acts, the Assembly, became darker and darker.

The real problem was that the assembly grew more and more distant from the true headship of Christ, which works in our hearts and minds.  It grew darker along with the increasing delusions of the one we followed, frequently silencing the voice of conscience in order to avoid suffering.

We let GG be our head, dethroning Christ.  Yes, he was a deciever, a pretty good one at that.  But we were all willing to be decieved.  For whatever reason, we became followers of this man.

Did you read the story of Steve and Margaret's leaving.  What happened to Steve was that GG finally touched an area that he wouldn't compromise.  If you think about it, that is what happened to all of us that left before the fall.

That my friends, was the work of the Good Shepherd.  He took us out in His good time.  In His good time, he will recover all his sheep.

It is a praise to God's mercy and grace that he is recovering us and refurbishing us to serve Him.  The glory is all His.

God bless all undercomers,

Thomas Maddux
Windbag- in- Chief  
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom I find your perspective most thought provoking. It would seem to me that the ultimate production of fruit constrains us to strict determination of the kind of tree (unless of course some spiritual grafting took place... ). Is it possible that inherent in your conclusions is the assumption, seeming Godly deportment notwithstanding, that you were able to perceive even early on, GG's true nature, fig or thorn?
Remember the Lord cautioned us that it was only by their fruit, we would know them...Oh for eyes to really see!
I do appreciate your insight Tom
Verne

[editor]

Thanks for the reply Tom.  I agree, my two possibilities are not the only two, but they are two that must be reckoned with.

Obviously, knowing what you know now, you would not get involved with the Assembly, were it to begin today.  

Is this because you don't want to get into God's work, or because you see that God's work and The Assembly are not synonymous?   (I know the answer.  However, I think it helps people to think about this)

Brent

[Oscar]

Verne,

You said:
"Tom I find your perspective most thought provoking. It would seem to me that the ultimate production of fruit constrains us to strict determination of the kind of tree (unless of course some spiritual grafting took place... ). Is it possible that inherent in your conclusions is the assumption, seeming Godly deportment notwithstanding, that you were able to perceive even early on, GG's true nature, fig or thorn?
Remember the Lord cautioned us that it was only by their fruit, we would know them...Oh for eyes to really see!
I do appreciate your insight Tom"
Verne


Verne it seems to me that you are misapplying a verse here.

It speaks of false prophets and bad fruit in Matt 7:15-20.

One of the things it says is that "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce good fruit". Verse 18.

The contrast here is between saved and unsaved men, not between wise and foolish, or spiritual vs carnal Christians.

One problem is verse 18.  GG has produced some good fruit!  Through his ministry, many people confessed Christ and were saved.  To me, that is good fruit.  He also produced some rotten fruit. That doesn't fit verse 18 at all because it speaks of an either/or situation.

So, I think the verse is being misapplied.

I also want to return to this "evil system" idea.  The problem here is that "systems", in the way you are using the word, do not have objective existence.

It is sort of like a country.  A country has some land, some laws, and a bunch of people who believe in the ideas and laws and constitute the "country".  

But, where is the country.  Can I touch it?  Can I travel to where it is?  Can I put some of it in a bag and take it home?

No.  The reason is that the "country" actually exists in the minds of the people.  If everyone in the USA changed their minds tomorrow and decided that they were the Kingdom of Slobovia, thats what they would be. "America" would cease to exist.

Countries are actually CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTS that exist in people's minds, but do not have real, objective existence. The United States of America is our name for the construct we citizens share.  

The "Geftakys System" was the same thing. Our name for that construct was the "Assembly".  However, it only had existence in the minds of its members.  When the "fall" came, a lot of people changed their minds, that is, they reorganized their conceptual constructs by introducing new information...and the "Geftakys System" dissolved.

How can something that does not really exist be evil?  Or, for that matter, good?   How can God judge something that has no being?

Now, all of us were at one time participants in the assembly system.  We acted on the basis of a conceptual construct that included the leadership of GG, and many of his teachings and practices.  We were the medium through which the concepts were expressed in the physical world.  

The "word" of GG "became flesh" by entering our minds as ideas, and then we acted on them. So, when God supposedly "judged" the Geftakys system, does that include all of us?  Are you under God's judgement Verne?

I rather doubt it.  We learned a lot of hogwash from GG, but we also learned some good things.   We bore some rotten fruit, but also some good fruit.

A few weeks ago, Caryl and I rejoiced to fellowship with a brother and his wife in our home who had left the assembly.
I led that man to Christ after an outreach of the GG "system" back in 1976.  He is rejoicing in Christ today.

I'm glad I preached the gospel to that 18 year old kid back then.  I don't repent a bit.  Why....it was good fruit.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Windbag-in-Chief

[vernecarty]

Verne it seems to me that you are misapplying a verse here.

It speaks of false prophets and bad fruit in Matt 7:15-20.

I rather doubt it.  We learned a lot of hogwash from GG, but we also learned some good things.   We bore some rotten fruit, but also some good fruit.

I'm glad I preached the gospel to that 18 year old kid back then.  I don't repent a bit.  Why....it was good fruit.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Windbag-in-Chief

Tom that is my point exactly! In Matthew seven the Lord invokes the analogy in specific reference to false prophets; It has always been my contention that George perfectly fits that clearly defined Scriptural category. People saved by the proclmation of the Word of God by those around George does not in my view accrue to his credit. He was wicked man:

One problem is verse 18.  GG has produced some good fruit!  Through his ministry, many people confessed Christ and were saved.  To me, that is good fruit.  He also produced some rotten fruit. That doesn't fit verse 18 at all because it speaks of an either/or situation.

I understand whay you are saying here, so much of our lives even in spite our best intention seems to be a mixed bag. Nonetheless, your contention that George produced both good and evil fruit seems to contradict what Scripture clearly says.
I do not in any way mean to imply Christians do not make mistakes or do wrong things. I believe the idea of fruit here has to do with what is ultimately produced. If we apply Occam's razor after conceding that George has indeed produced rotten fruit, we must conclude that he is a corrupt tree and that nothing he produced was good, regardless of appearances! ( Of course my assumption is that George Geftakys is exactly the kind of person Matthew 7 is describing) As I consider your life today Tom. I have no basis for making such a conclusion about you, regardless of your past errors. George Geftakys however, is a mature tree indeed, don't you think?


 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.   Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit
Matthew 7"15-17

I also want to return to this "evil system" idea.  The problem here is that "systems", in the way you are using the word, do not have objective existence.

On the contrary Tom, Scripture clearly teaches that all evil in this world is indeed systemic, engineered and perpetrated by malevolent intelligences bent on defying God's will and purpose. Ephesians 6 and many other verses make that abundalnly clear I believe.

God Bless,
Verne

[M2]

Tom et al

I am just thinking out loud here and figuring this out with you.

Mat 23:23 ¶ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

This indicates to me that the leaders did some things 'right' but other things they neglected to do. Nevertheless the Lord Jesus rebuked them for their 'false religious system' and had nothing to do with it.
The gospel was accurately preached by saints who went out on outreach or at work. The assemblyites were/are Christians involved in a false religious system....

Lord bless,
Marcia

[Oscar]

Verne it seems to me that you are misapplying a verse here.

It speaks of false prophets and bad fruit in Matt 7:15-20.

I rather doubt it.  We learned a lot of hogwash from GG, but we also learned some good things.   We bore some rotten fruit, but also some good fruit.

I'm glad I preached the gospel to that 18 year old kid back then.  I don't repent a bit.  Why....it was good fruit.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Windbag-in-Chief

Tom that is my point exactly! In Matthew seven the Lord invokes the analogy in specific reference to false prophets; It has always been my contention that George perfectly fits that clearly defined Scriptural category. People saved by the proclmation of the Word of God by those around George does not in my view accrue to his credit. He was wicked man:

 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.   Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit
Matthew 7"15-17

I also want to return to this "evil system" idea.  The problem here is that "systems", in the way you are using the word, do not have objective existence.

On the contrary Tom, Scripture clearly teaches that all evil in this world is indeed systemic, engineered and perpetrated by malevolent intelligences bent on defying God's will and purpose. Ephesians 6 and many other verses make that abundalnly clear I believe.

God Bless,
Verne

Verne,

In reading your post, it dawned on me that you believe that GG was/is a "prophet".    Do you mean that GG was equivalent to the false prophets of OT times?  

 If so, I don't agree.  I know that GG claimed that the Holy Spirit was giving him illumination concerning the meaning of the scriptures.  Being a lousy expositor of the Bible and being a false prophet are not the same thing at all.

By such a definition of "prophet", one would have to believe that every preacher of the word who ever says anything about the Bible that is incorrect is a false prophet.  That, I suspect, includes just about all of them.

If you stop to think about it, just about all the brothers who fellowshipped in the GG assemblies got up on occassion and taught some erroneous ideas.  Are we ALL false prophets?

In the OT, a prophet gave out pronouncements that began "Thus says the Lord".   As messed up as GG was, I never heard him do that, or advocate it.   In fact, he ridiculed the idea of NT saints doing that.   At least during my tenure.

It seems to me that you need to define the term "false prophet" as you are using it.  

Regarding Matthew 7:15-17, what do you think "fruit" means.  If it means to sin, then I suspect that Verne and Tom are corrupt trees.  

Regarding evil being "systemic", I guess I need to ask you to define "system" and "systemic" as you are using them.  What is this system, and where is it to be found?

God bless,

Thomas Maddux.

[Oscar]

Tom et al

I am just thinking out loud here and figuring this out with you.

Mat 23:23 ¶ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

This indicates to me that the leaders did some things 'right' but other things they neglected to do. Nevertheless the Lord Jesus rebuked them for their 'false religious system' and had nothing to do with it.
The gospel was accurately preached by saints who went out on outreach or at work. The assemblyites were/are Christians involved in a false religious system....

Lord bless,
Marcia

Marcia,

By "false religious system", do you mean their ideas?

If that is what you mean, Jesus interacted with the teachings, (ideas expressed in words), of the Pharisees many, many times.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux