Disappointing--final posts from longtime users

[Sebastian Andrew]

.... supposed to be for healing.  Mission impossible.  (Don't try to tell me that with God all things are possible.  That fact doesn't mean that God does everything. There's plenty of stuff He doesn't do.)

.... are hundreds of people who have been permanently scarred by George Geftakys and his doctrines.

Brent Tr0ckman

 Why wd. anything else need to be said? Good job.
We are all aware of the Scripture that with God all things are possible. As assembly members, and as participators in this website, we've also learned that with men almost anything is possible. Truth is to equip us to act, not to paralyze us into some kind of que serra, serra attitude, in which God is supposed to do for us what we shd. be doing ourselves-like discerning and opposing evil. Someone got fed up and did something about it! Sounds pretty human to me. After all, we ARE human. All of us.

[brian]

a good link for all of us on occasion:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

matt,

since i can safely assume you did actually read what tom wrote, below is one example among many that leads me to believe you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand, and that the only reason you post here is because you enjoy inciting argument (as opposed to discussion). evidence for that can be found under the 10 most recent posts link most of the time. if you wanted to understand, your understanding would have grown by now, and we would be having discussions, not pointlessly rehashed arguments. you are not alone in this, of course, but you are the most extreme example i'm aware of at this point. you have gotten to the point where you toss out eyewitness testimony because you simply don't want to believe it. your deliberate blindness dosen't bother me personally, but you are ruining what could be good discussions with it, and i'd like you to take it elsewhere. i'm not banning your account or kicking you off as an admin - i am saying as a fellow member of this bb community that you have soundly and repeatedly lost the same arguments over and over, yet your blind refusal to acknowledge facts that are in front of your face has gotten to the point where is it tearing apart the fabric of this online community, and i really want you to go away. the sloppy falliciousness of your arguments and your dogged persistence in a position you have not been able to defend has gone so far that either your blind faith is completely out of control, or you are being malicious. either way, your high posting rate makes this a real problem, which is why i'm writing this in such strong terms.

The problem with Tom Maddux's post is that he is trying to accuse honest, hard-working LB's of abusing the saints, just because he abused the saints. He also has a funny idea of financial exploitation. If the saints freely gave after being told only that their money was for "work here and abroad," then that was enough accounting to satisfy them. AND no one was ever forced to give their money. So, just because he was a worker, doesn't mean he has infallible logic.

[Matt]

This is so sad...

matt,

since i can safely assume you did actually read what tom wrote, below is one example among many that leads me to believe you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand

What did I misunderstand about Mr. Maddux's post, sir? I had no problem with his personal repentance. I didn't "misunderstand" him when he said that "every LB exploited the saints." And that was the only problem I had with that post, sir.

and that the only reason you post here is because you enjoy inciting argument (as opposed to discussion). evidence for that can be found under the 10 most recent posts link most of the time. if you wanted to understand, your understanding would have grown by now, and we would be having discussions, not pointlessly rehashed arguments.

I don't think you mean "if I wanted to understand." What I think you're saying is "if you wanted to be of the same opinion as Brent Tr0ckman and his followers, you would have done so by now." The thing is, I'm not of the same opinion as Brent Tr0ckman or his followers. I see how heavy-handedly they've dealt with people who disagree with them, and I don't want to be associated with that verbal brutality. It is also alarming to see the amount of deception going on here. Brent has become an idol to you and everyone who disagrees is the "enemy." That's really frightening.

you are not alone in this, of course, but you are the most extreme example i'm aware of at this point. you have gotten to the point where you toss out eyewitness testimony because you simply don't want to believe it.

I've never thrown out anyone's eye witness testimony. I've never accused anyone of lying when they gave an eye-witness account. i've never denied that people were abused. I've only refuted the lack of logic that people show when they equate their eye witness testimony as some sort of standard by which to judge all LB's or the whole assembly system. Speaking of not "wanting to believe something," I think you are guilty of that , sir, by largely ignoring Brent, Verne, Arthur, Lurker's indiscretion. Sadly, only 2 in that group have repented for their verbal abuse of the younger brethren and of affirming.

your deliberate blindness dosen't bother me personally, but you are ruining what could be good discussions with it, and i'd like you to take it elsewhere. i'm not banning your account or kicking you off as an admin - i am saying as a fellow member of this bb community that you have soundly and repeatedly lost the same arguments over and over, yet your blind refusal to acknowledge facts that are in front of your face has gotten to the point where is it tearing apart the fabric of this online community, and i really want you to go away. the sloppy falliciousness of your arguments and your dogged persistence in a position you have not been able to defend has gone so far that either your blind faith is completely out of control, or you are being malicious. either way, your high posting rate makes this a real problem, which is why i'm writing this in such strong terms.

The arrogance is overwhelming. I have "repeatedly lost the same arguments over and over again." "the sloppy fallaciousness of my arguments" "position I have not been able to defend" "blind faith" "Malicious."

Sorry, those are all emotional terms. I didn't lose any arguments because you said "um..you lose." Maybe you need to read through some of the sites on that link you provided.I think in many ways, the behavior of Brent and his followers have really spoken to their hypocrisy. Just look at this latest post. "i'd really like you go to away." These are the same people that complain that the assembly was exclusive! (that's exactly what God would say too, "get out of my sight!! just go away!!) Or how about the verbal abuse (shamefully from the older brethren to the younger) on this bb - the same kind of abuse they complained about while they were in the assembly. Or the threats and intimidation - like when Arthur blackmailed me into removing a post to Verne by gathering up all my bad posts and threatning to post them (which he did) - reminiscient of some of the problems that people had in the assembly. And we can't forget Brent and Verne's mistreatment of Affirming - the same people who complain that women were disrespected in the assembly...interesting. I suppose I could also mention people's willingness to believe that Brent is infallible. I think these are the same people that attached themselves too much to GG. They're used to following a man, and not the Lord.

And what's this verne?
Posted by: vernecarty Posted on: Today at 04:58:54pm
Thanks for that link Bran...a most insightful header:

"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
 
I thought you were being led to stop posting. Did the Lord tell you to start posting again?

[brian]

This is so sad...

you're quite the expert on what is and is not sad, aren't you?  

What did I misunderstand about Mr. Maddux's post, sir? I had no problem with his personal repentance. I didn't "misunderstand" him when he said that "every LB exploited the saints." And that was the only problem I had with that post, sir.

well, since you asked so nicely...

that quote should be "All the leading brothers, in all the assemblies, were involved in the financial exploitation of the saints." that means the saints were financially exploited, and the leaders were involved in that process. you shouldn't put quotes and then twist, er, paraphrase what he said. i'm not going to dig up your entire post in response to his, despite your misleading comment that "that was the only problem you had with that post". there is quite enough for me to play with in the couple short paragraphs i have right here.

The problem with Tom Maddux's post is that he is trying to accuse honest, hard-working LB's of abusing the saints, just because he abused the saints.

he was giving eyewitness testimony of what he did in collaboration with a bunch of other honest, hard-working leading brothers. it is possible to be honest, hard-working, abusive, and wrong all at the same time. tom clearly stated the false teachings that all the leading brothers worked hard at propogating. he didn't say that they all did this maliciously - after all, they were pumping the money into george's pocket, not their own. all tom said was the simple fact that they all participated in it, as leaders in the church. that is a terrible, sad thing. but its not complicated, and i can hardly believe that you didn't understand what he was saying. you simply didn't want to face that fact, apparently.

He also has a funny idea of financial exploitation. If the saints freely gave after being told only that their money was for "work here and abroad," then that was enough accounting to satisfy them. AND no one was ever forced to give their money.

actually, as i'm sure you well know, we were all assured repeatedly that the money was used for the work of the Lord both here and abroad. as opposed to: going directly into george's wallet. it was belief in that deception that made what happened exploitation. exploitation: Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes. yes, the leaders were also exploited to some degree, but they also did far more to propogate the exploitation than the average member, which is what tom was explaining that he saw happen.

and since you made the broad sweeping generalization that noone was forced to give money, tell me, whats the difference between pressured and forced? pressured becomes forced when the one who is pressured capitulates. you are quite sure NOONE was EVER pressured to donate money without having any idea where it was going?  does the phrase "why are you so worried about what God is doing with His money *suspicious stare*" ring any bells around here?

again, i'm not saying all the leaders were malicious in doing this, but there is no denying they did it to people who believed that their trusted shepherds would never do/say that unless it could be relied on. which is precisely why the position of leader in God's house is such a solemn responsibility to assume - and each of them knowingly assumed it.

its also true that many (most?) leading brothers have publicly apologized and worked hard at making right these sorts of things. this is old news to those who were actually involved, matt. thats why we're all so suprised that you still refuse to understand.

So, just because he was a worker, doesn't mean he has infallible logic.

first of all, who made that claim?   secondly, he wasn't building logical arguments - he was giving eyewitness testimony to facts that have been well established by many witnesses.

I don't think you mean "if I wanted to understand." What I think you're saying is "if you wanted to be of the same opinion as Brent Tr0ckman and his followers, you would have done so by now." The thing is, I'm not of the same opinion as Brent Tr0ckman or his followers. I see how heavy-handedly they've dealt with people who disagree with them, and I don't want to be associated with that verbal brutality. It is also alarming to see the amount of deception going on here. Brent has become an idol to you and everyone who disagrees is the "enemy." That's really frightening.

this is obviously just silliness. do i really need to answer it? *sigh* ok, just this once, because i'm in a good mood.

so, nope, you had it right the first time - i meant exactly "if you wanted to understand", not that other line in quotes. you weren't seriously trying to convince me that i meant something else, were you? heavy-handedly?? he responded to your posts on a bb. who is the victim now? you taunt people with nonsensical arguments and then you pounce on any emotional reaction like a prize you can wave around whenever you want to discredit something entirely unrelated that they said. please go read that link about fallicious arguments and clear up your thinking. please? you think brent is my idol? i never even hinted at him in my post. i never talk about brent. that you would so sloppily lump everyone who disagrees with you together as a follower of brent is simply absurd. and you can quote me on that anytime - i know how you love to quote words like sloppy and absurd. just try really hard not to forget the context, ok?

so, what is this alarming amount of deception all about - specifically?

I've never thrown out anyone's eye witness testimony.

by now you must know that i was referring to tom's, as this is a simple and clear case close at hand.

I've never accused anyone of lying when they gave an eye-witness account.

i never said you did. talking about things i never said about what you never said is really boring and complicated. shall we avoid it in the future?

i've never denied that people were abused. I've only refuted the lack of logic that people show when they equate their eye witness testimony as some sort of standard by which to judge all LB's or the whole assembly system.

um, yeah, that was eyewittness testimony of a large majority of leading bros and the assembly system.

incidentally, aren't you taking your small amount of time in the assembly and experiences with one (two?) leading brother(s), which was positive, "as some sort of standard by which to judge all LB's or the whole assembly system"?

Speaking of not "wanting to believe something," I think you are guilty of that , sir, by largely ignoring Brent, Verne, Arthur, Lurker's indiscretion. Sadly, only 2 in that group have repented for their verbal abuse of the younger brethren and of affirming.

but they have repented of it repeatedly and publicly. a heated debate is not always abuse. its not an easy judgement call, and i really prefer noninterfence whenever possible. notice i never accused you of being verbally abusive.

The arrogance is overwhelming.

yeah, sorry about that. i didn't mean to overwhelm you. but why should i state my thoughts as though they are not really what i think? i know i could be wrong, but why should i assume i am? arrogance would be simply deleting your account, rather than debating you. obviously, i think my opinions are right, or they wouldn't be my opinions.

I have "repeatedly lost the same arguments over and over again." "the sloppy fallaciousness of my arguments" "position I have not been able to defend" "blind faith" "Malicious."

Sorry, those are all emotional terms.

sorry, i wasn't emotional at the time. are you making the argument that if i was emotional, they wouldn't be true? you will read that page on fallacies won't you? soon?

I didn't lose any arguments because you said "um..you lose."

no, its more of a consensual reality kind of thing.

i'm sorry, i am really out of time. if you are still unsure about what i was talking about, please point me at some paragraphs that you believe to be your very strongest points and i'll work through them with you. i simply don't have time  or inclination to rehash all your posts, or to even keep up with your average posting rate.

brian[/quote][/quote]

[Matt]

you're quite the expert on what is and is not sad, aren't you?  

It's becoming that way, sir. It's sad to see people still in bondage to their hatred of the assembly and to the LB's who loved and served them.

well, since you asked so nicely...

that quote should be "All the leading brothers, in all the assemblies, were involved in the financial exploitation of the saints." that means the saints were financially exploited, and the leaders were involved in that process. you shouldn't put quotes and then twist, er, paraphrase what he said. i'm not going to dig up your entire post in response to his, despite your misleading comment that "that was the only problem you had with that post". there is quite enough for me to play with in the couple short paragraphs i have right here.

play with the paragraphs? And people accused me of thinking this was all a game! Actually, I didn't twist Tom Maddux around at all. I said every Lb instead of his "all lB's." I also dropped the word "financial."

he was giving eyewitness testimony of what he did in collaboration with a bunch of other honest, hard-working leading brothers. it is possible to be honest, hard-working, abusive, and wrong all at the same time. tom clearly stated the false teachings that all the leading brothers worked hard at propogating. he didn't say that they all did this maliciously - after all, they were pumping the money into george's pocket, not their own. all tom said was the simple fact that they all participated in it, as leaders in the church. that is a terrible, sad thing. but its not complicated, and i can hardly believe that you didn't understand what he was saying. you simply didn't want to face that fact, apparently.

Sorry, you make it sound like all the money was funneled into GG's slush fund. Where are all the millions of dollars that GG has taken from us? Where's that mansion of his? I'm not defending GG, by the way. He needs to repent. I'll even grant that he did launder some money - but if he did: The LBs aren't responsible if GG misled them on how the money was to be spent. Perhaps the ones in Fullerton (like tom maddux) could see how the money was spent, but how is an LB in...say Chicago or Providence, RI going to see how the money is spent. Were they going to fly out to LA, drive to Fullerton, every week of course, and make sure all the money was going to be spent on the "Lord's work."

actually, as i'm sure you well know, we were all assured repeatedly that the money was used for the work of the Lord both here and abroad. as opposed to: going directly into george's wallet. it was belief in that deception that made what happened exploitation. exploitation: Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes. yes, the leaders were also exploited to some degree, but they also did far more to propogate the exploitation than the average member, which is what tom was explaining that he saw happen.

and since you made the broad sweeping generalization that noone was forced to give money, tell me, whats the difference between pressured and forced? pressured becomes forced when the one who is pressured capitulates. you are quite sure NOONE was EVER pressured to donate money without having any idea where it was going?  does the phrase "why are you so worried about what God is doing with His money *suspicious stare*" ring any bells around here?

Actually, forced is when you don't have a choice. All the saints had a choice about whether to give money or not. If they felt pressured to give money when they didn't want to, they could have left the assembly at any time. Nobody was pinned down while their wallet was fished out of their pants or purse (well...I don't know. But if that did happen, they should have just called the police).

again, i'm not saying all the leaders were malicious in doing this, but there is no denying they did it to people who believed that their trusted shepherds would never do/say that unless it could be relied on. which is precisely why the position of leader in God's house is such a solemn responsibility to assume - and each of them knowingly assumed it.

its also true that many (most?) leading brothers have publicly apologized and worked hard at making right these sorts of things. this is old news to those who were actually involved, matt. thats why we're all so suprised that you still refuse to understand.

What can they say? Sorry we didn't know about GG's money laundering? How can you apologize for something you had no idea about. That's like me saying sorry for not knowing who you were in 1997.

this is obviously just silliness. do i really need to answer it? *sigh* ok, just this once, because i'm in a good mood.

so, nope, you had it right the first time - i meant exactly "if you wanted to understand", not that other line in quotes. you weren't seriously trying to convince me that i meant something else, were you? heavy-handedly?? he responded to your posts on a bb. who is the victim now? you taunt people with nonsensical arguments and then you pounce on any emotional reaction like a prize you can wave around whenever you want to discredit something entirely unrelated that they said. please go read that link about fallicious arguments and clear up your thinking. please? you think brent is my idol? i never even hinted at him in my post. i never talk about brent. that you would so sloppily lump everyone who disagrees with you together as a follower of brent is simply absurd. and you can quote me on that anytime - i know how you love to quote words like sloppy and absurd. just try really hard not to forget the context, ok?

so, what is this alarming amount of deception all about - specifically?

What's the deception all about? You were completely blind to Brent's abusive history in this last quote of yours. If you think that all brent did was ok because it was just a bb, but you think that I'm dangerous because I'm tearing apart the fabric of this online community (sorry if I got that quote wrong), then you're holding Brent to a different standard. You're blind to his sin. So, no, I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me is a follower of Brent, but people who can't see his indiscretion, but can see his oppositions..well...

i've never denied that people were abused. I've only refuted the lack of logic that people show when they equate their eye witness testimony as some sort of standard by which to judge all LB's or the whole assembly system.

um, yeah, that was eyewittness testimony of a large majority of leading bros and the assembly system.

incidentally, aren't you taking your small amount of time in the assembly and experiences with one (two?) leading brother(s), which was positive, "as some sort of standard by which to judge all LB's or the whole assembly system"?

No, sir - that's ridiculous. I'm not judging the whole assembly system by my own experience. Read above where i say that I don't deny people were abused.

but they have repented of it repeatedly and publicly. a heated debate is not always abuse. its not an easy judgement call, and i really prefer noninterfence whenever possible. notice i never accused you of being verbally abusive.

Nope, not all of them. Verne and Brent did. Verne's apology needs to be taken with a grain of salt. He has posted on here with the intention of offending with that quote from your link after he repented. I have also emailed him 3 times in hopes of some kind of reconciliation, and he has only responded to one email.

I have "repeatedly lost the same arguments over and over again." "the sloppy fallaciousness of my arguments" "position I have not been able to defend" "blind faith" "Malicious."

Sorry, those are all emotional terms.


sorry, i wasn't emotional at the time. are you making the argument that if i was emotional, they wouldn't be true? you will read that page on fallacies won't you? soon?

Well, those certainly are terms of reason. malicious? sloppy? lost the same arguments? These are nothing more than opinions.

Have a great weekend.

- Matt

[Mark Kisla]

Pro.29:9
"If a wise man contends with a fool, the fool only rages or laughs and there is no rest."
Pro.21:16
"The man that wanders out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead"
Pro.26:12
"See a man wise in his own conceit ? There is more hope for a fool than for him."
James 1:5
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that gives to all men liberally without faultfinding; and it shall be given him."
Pro.29:2
"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked man rules, the people groan and sigh."

[vernecarty]

I have been startled by the e-mails from some of you expressing disappointment with the manner in which I left the BB. I would point out that I never posted on the BB in any official capacity and considered myself a regular poster. Some of you contend that my responsibility in a local gathering requires a higher standard of me in defense of the truth.
I will confess that I never considered that anything I wrote would be viewed in that context as I never mentioned any such responsibility. In fact the reason I deleted most of my posts was that I did not think it fair to leave positions I would no longer be defending in the marketplace. I am sorry if this offended some.
Upon some reflection I will post, in the near future a more detailed explanation Of my decision under the thread:
“How To Biblically Deal With A Heretic”
Its purpose will be to present the position I think every servant of Jesus Christ should take on the subject and as a direct response to those of you who invoked my own responsibility in that regard. Thank you for your entreaty.
For those of you who asked if I would be willing to answer any question you have, I would. I would however, prefer  to respond privately rather than via the BB.

"Text:  The Greek word hairesis means: (1) a choice e.g., Lev. 22:18, 21 (LXX), where "gifts according to their choice" means free-will offering; (2) a chosen opinion, the only NT example being in II Pet. 2:1, where "destructive opinions" are caused by false teaching; (3) a sect or party (holding certain opinions), used in the NT (a) of the Sadducees and Pharisees (Acts 5:17; 15:5), (b) of the Christians (Acts 24:14; 28:22; in 24:14 Paul substitutes "way" for "heresy," possibly because he himself had given the word the bad meaning), and (c) a sect or faction within the Christian body (being synonymous with "schism" in I Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20), and resulting not so much from false teaching as from the lack of love and from self-assertiveness, which lead to divisions within the Christian community. It is the meaning given to hairesis in II Peter which came to predominate in Christian usage.
Heresy is a deliberate denial of revealed truth coupled with the acceptance of error.

The creeds were considered to contain the standard of truth and correct belief, and themselves formally contradicted various false teachings, e.g., Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. The union of church and state after Nicaea led in time to legal penalties against heretics. Paul's and Luke's usage (#3 above) survives in, e.g., Eusebius's History X. v. 21-22, where Christianity is "our most sacred heresy," and Augustine Epistle 185, a valuable commentary on the early Christian idea of heresy."
Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary
Verne

[Eulaha L. Long]

Brent, I apologize for those of us who treated you wrongly.  I hate to see you go brother!  I'm going to stop posting myself.  It's high time I got on with my life and stop the mindless bickering.  If this is what you call conversation, I want NOTHING to do with it.  I'll be emailing Brent directly for questions I have.  He is one of the few mature people posting on this BB.

[Mark C.]

Hi Eulaha, Verne, and Others!
  I hope there are some left here to read this post as it appears everyone is leaving.  I'm very sorry to see, what I consider very necessary contributions, from very good folks, no longer on the BB.
   I don't think Brent or Verne are the types to run away from insulting posters, or to retreat in the battle for the truth.  I think we can take their decisions to leave at face value and see that they are seeking to honor Christ.
  Verne has raised the issue of dealing with heresy and the Biblical injunction to avoid these kind of individuals.  There is no doubt that heresy, and some very confused teaching, has been presented by some posters here.
  It is to be expected that many (especially recent members) of the Assembly are confused re. what is right or wrong in re. to their former instruction.  
   Posters who, while confused, come to the BB to learn have rarely (John Malone is gone) been  jumped on for their errors and have been treated with tolerance and respect.  Even those who have departed the faith have not been treated as enemies here, but as those we hope to persuade to return to Christ.  Most of us understand the destructive power the Assembly had in former members lives and are sensitive to the need to "restore such a one in the spirit of humility."
  So how to deal with heretical opposition on a BB?  I had a change of heart a couple of months ago re. this after reading Matt's and Luke's apology and, what I believed to be, a sincere explanation of their situation.  Maybe I was deceived (it wouldn't be the first time) and these individuals lacked sincerity and are only intent on destroying the BB.  But, maybe I was right and these two young men are only confused and are searching for answers.
  It is impossible for anyone to know the motives of anothers heart while posting and some times the most cynical individual becomes the most serious disciple("can anything good come out of Nazareth?").
   Is Matt a heretic because he seeks to defend certain aspects of the Assembly?  Some of his arguments have some logic, such as not all leading bros. are equally culpable.  Matt's exposure to the Assembly was limited and he is defending only what he's seen.  What is so frustrating is that he rejects those who have had many years of experience with the Assembly who attempt to entreat him.  Is it heretical to be unentreatable, insulting, and a  frustating individual?  Yes, he has made some clearly false statements and doesn't seem to understand why, but heretical?
  This troubles greatly (myself included) those who were deeply hurt by the Assembly system.  We have all read the testimonies of those abused in this system.  Those that would dismiss, excuse, or deny that the Assembly of GG was contrary to the purpose of Jesus Christ invoke a great deal of pain and anger from many of us here.  As I've said before, this emotional reaction can be righteous indignation if it arises in response to the defense of the truth, and the little one's offended by that evil system.
   I think, in re. to heresy, that there is a difference in how we respond in a church setting vs. a public forum like this BB.  The concern re. heresy is it's propagation.  In a church we can censure a false teacher, on a street corner all we can do is ignore him(the right of free speech).  On this BB there will be those here who desperately need to hear the healing words of truth and grace and if we decide to depart, in reaction to heretical posters, the needy are left with only the heretical side of the argument.  I believe the "leave them alone" argument does not mean to abandon the public square, or else Paul never would have gone to Mars Hill and preached.
   The darkness has never mastered the light and the simple Gospel message will defeat even the most deceitful conspiracies that Satan can muster against it.  This is just as true re. the truth of God's purpose of grace in his people.  The false and damaging teaching/practices will be rejected by those that hear the voice of the Master.  There will always be those who seek to draw disciples after themselves and wish mastery over other believers, and to this we must continue to announce the liberty of the grace of God in truth.
                              God Bless,  Mark  
   

[Matt]

I am really very angry that Brent has been allowed to be verbally abused.  I am upset that Brian Tucker, the "moderator" has done nothing to stop this.  Brent has taught us all a lot about the Assembly history, as well as church history.  His insight is the only reason I continued to come to this BB.  And now he has been shood away by someone's insensitive remarks.  Since when did thanking God become wrong?  What is the matter with some of you?  You are acting like George Geftakys himself, and you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Now we no longer get to read Brent's insight and learn from his wisdom.  Well, it's ALL of our losses, it really is.  Maybe now some of you will learn that a person can only take so much abuse before they say "forget it!

This is what is so frightening. Brent was the only reason you came to this bb? We all lose out if Brent isn't here? You won't post anymore if Brent leaves? Stop idolizing a man, Eulaha. Brent's just a man, he's not God! You are right about your last sentence, Luke R, Paul R, Affirming, etc deleted their accounts and said "forget it." I lift you up in prayer, Eulaha. I entrust you to Him - I pray that you will repent for your verbal degradation of Luke and Paul R  and myself and that you will be freed from your bondage to brent and your hatred of a church (the Assembly).

I don't think Brent or Verne are the types to run away from insulting posters, or to retreat in the battle for the truth.  I think we can take their decisions to leave at face value and see that they are seeking to honor Christ.

I agree with this completely, Mark. When Brent and Verne realized that this bb does not honor Christ, they decided to move on to something that will (I pray). I think we have to keep our eyes on Verne though. He said he was under clear direction from the Lord to stop posting and he repented for his verbal abuse of many individuals on the bb. Sadly, even though he is a man in his 40's, he was unable to to be a good example and a shepherd to the younger brethren on the bb. He has also gone against what the Lord has told him in regards to his final posting. I pray for Verne too, just that he would begin to honor Christ in his posts and that he would remember that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.

So how to deal with heretical opposition on a BB?  I had a change of heart a couple of months ago re. this after reading Matt's and Luke's apology and, what I believed to be, a sincere explanation of their situation.  Maybe I was deceived (it wouldn't be the first time) and these individuals lacked sincerity and are only intent on destroying the BB.  But, maybe I was right and these two young men are only confused and are searching for answers.

Well, I'm unsure why you put Luke in a position to defend his point of view when he has long since deleted his account. I am here, though, and I'm afraid that you're wrong on both counts. That is, I didn't deceive you into thinking that I was sincere just so I could "destroy the bb." And, you are incorrect to think that I'm confused. I know exactly where I stand. I'm here to defend the majority of LB's - the one's who poured their hearts and souls out for the welfare of the saints. I'm sure it was stunning for most of them to have the saints on this bb turn around and slap them in the face. These men gave their LIVES to the saints. Making themselves available to the saints for 4 or 5 gatherings a week, taking a personal interest in the spiritual welfare of the saints, etc etc, in addition to having jobs and a families of their own.  To claim that all the LB's exploited or abused the saints is ridiculous - even if ex-LB's claim that all the LB's abused the saints or exploited the saints. They can repent for themselves, but they cannot assume that since they abused saints (like tom maddux) that means that every LB abused saints. We are to honor the LB's that served us well (look at my signature line).
 

It is impossible for anyone to know the motives of anothers heart while posting and some times the most cynical individual becomes the most serious disciple("can anything good come out of Nazareth?").

Good point, sir.
 

Is Matt a heretic because he seeks to defend certain aspects of the Assembly?  Some of his arguments have some logic, such as not all leading bros. are equally culpable.  Matt's exposure to the Assembly was limited and he is defending only what he's seen.  What is so frustrating is that he rejects those who have had many years of experience with the Assembly who attempt to entreat him.  Is it heretical to be unentreatable, insulting, and a  frustating individual?  Yes, he has made some clearly false statements and doesn't seem to understand why, but heretical?

Heretical?!?! No, sir - that's ridiculous.  People called Brent a bunch of names when he created the website - diabolical, etc. I guess you learn that just because someone calls you these things - that doesn't mean you are! Verne's engaged in a lot of name calling, so don't worry, sir, I'm not taking him seriously. He has repeatedly ignored attempts from me to form a reconciliation, so sad. Another problem with Verne is that he believes that everyone who disagrees with Brent's and his opinion is against the truth. I guess everyone feels that way when someone disagrees with them.

Also, you claim that I reject entreaty from the ex-LB's like Tom Maddux. I reject what I know to be false, and I know that Tom Maddux has not observed every LB's behavior to see if they exploited or abused saints. Tom Maddux was also in Fullerton and so he had access to information that the vast majority of LB's couldn't have seen. Brent (though not an LB) was at SLO and also could observe things that the vast majority of LB's outside of Fullerton and SLO (and I'll even throw in the SF Valley for good measure) could not have seen. Those are 3 assemblies though out of many.

Last week, we had an interesting sermon about how we act in front of unbelievers based on some verses, but I found this one to be the best one in regard to this bb:

"If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. (5) I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?" - 1 Corinthians 6:4-5

To drag a Christian brother or sister, whether it be LB's or not, into the public forum for the purpose of rebuking them in front of all is wrong - primarily because this bb is not limited to believers. Paul said that is to YOUR shame! Unbelievers can see the backbiting taking place among the disgruntled ex-assemblyites and think "look how these Christians backbite and harbor bitterness and wrath." This BB is hardly Christ-honoring, and, no, it's not because of my presence here. If I left, the public accusations against LB's (like from Tom Maddux) would still be present for all unbelievers to see.

- Matt

[Mark Kisla]

Luke 6:41-45
"Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but pay no attention to the log in your own eye ?How can you say to your brother,'Please brother let me take that speck out of your eye', yet cannot see the log in your own eye?
You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye,and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
"A healthy tree does not bear bad fruit , nor does a poor tree bear good fruit. Every tree is known by the fruit it bears; you do not pick figs from thorn bushes.
A good person brings good out of the treasure of good things in his heart; a bad person brings bad out of his  treasure of bad things.
For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

[Mark C.]

Hi Matt!
  I sent an e-mail and PM to you and would like to hear back from you.
  I'm glad that you responded to my post as I hope that you will prayerfully consider what follows.
   My first concern re. your position is in your personal attacks against the character of Verne, Eulaha, and Brent.  To say that they do the same thing to the leading bros. would be a childish argument.  Your position re. the defense of the Assembly is not the problem, but your suggestion that you know the motives of those who oppose you.  As I mentioned in my last post, I have repented of making these kinds of judgments re. those I differ with on the BB.  Mark Kisla posted some verses on this thread that are applicable.
  Make your arguments, but assume those that disagree are sincere in their position.  Only God knows their motives, and we cross boundaries when we assume an evil hidden agenda.  I:Cor. 13 asks us to believe the best re. anothers motive and to recognize that it is God that changes hearts.  As we show true concern, (even for those that oppose themselves), we can pour hot coals on the consciences of those who err. (we can all profit from understanding the above and I am not just talking to you Matt re. this)
   I will say that I believe that you are confused Matt, not insincere, but confused.  You may be confident in what you have shared, but it is contrary in some areas to orthodox Christian teaching.  In these areas we are called to excercise discernment and judgment, and are not called to be tolerant.
   Such doctrinal/practical judgments are absolutely necessary for they are the difference between spiritual life or death.  Those who follow Assembly false teaching (Galatianism, nicolaitism, false mysticism,etc.) are under a curse.  The false teaching/abusive control has been clearly documented in GG's own hand and from many eyewitness accounts.
   Re. your defense of the "many" leading bros. who may have not subscribed fully to the above (or possibly at all) and the claim that some Assemblies were normal healthy churches:  There may be something to this argument, but it is difficult to make such an assesment without stepping back and having the awareness of what is God's view of a healthy church.
  From what I have seen of your understanding of the Bible I would say, though your leading bros. in SD were very sincere and hardworking, they let you down considerably.  As I've said before, the instruction in the Assembly was mostly of a devotional nature.  This devotional instruction tends to deal with subjective issues and interprets one's relationship with God based on how I am responding to the demands to follow Christ.
   Making "heart knowledge", and one's own ability to actualize their faith, the sum and substance of a life in Christ leads to a very weak and/or dangerous setup.  It leads to a rejection of clarity re. the true nature of the grace of God and as such a healthy life in God.  Your position that all churches/leaders are heretical to some degree shows that you are not clear re. the simple Gospel and the confidence we can have re. the truth that sets one free.
  I come back to my oft used example of the Church at Laodicea.  Christ comes to the church with a call to repent (change the way they think).  It would have been silly for protestors to arise and defend the diligence of the leaders in the church as this was not the issue.  Christ's concern for Laodicea was their blindness to their own condition and their need to find grace working in their lives-- they desperately needed to learn to live by the Gospel! (See Jerry Bridges article on the Assembly Reflections home page.)
  I believe Jesus was/is knocking at the door of the Assembly (and not just the Assembly) because he desires to bless our lives with his gracious presence.  This always comes from a clear understanding of the grace of God in truth, as it is revealed in the Gospel, that gives us spiritual life and light.
  We don't know how Laodicea responded to Jesus knock at their door, or if they rejected the entreaty to consider the possibility that they erred in their understanding, but the exhortation is still calling out to us today.
  What is the greater risk?  To reject the call to repent as "of the Devil",  "an evil conspiracy of embittered exmembers", or to receive Jesus' entreaty to understand the true nature of life in Christ and enjoy his blessing.  
   The choice seems clear to me and in following the latter we can only advance the cause of the Gospel in His peoples' lives.
                                   God Bless,  Mark    

[Kimberley Tobin]

Hi All!  Although I have been a frequent poster in the past, I had taken a break from entering into the fray of posting.  I have kept up with the dialogues (I believe there are many "lurkers" who monitor the BB but don't enter into the discussion.)

I have been rather concerned with the "factions" that have been "lining up", opposing one another and entering into argument, rather than dialogue.  As Brian stated on another thread re: communication (much better than I could) this is a community of individuals who are desiring to come together for a common purpose.  For most, that purpose has been to discuss their experiences (however short or long) in the assembly and to find healing and answers.  Every once in a while, there is a person or persons who seek to enter into the discussion and defend the system most of us have fled.  

What has been most difficult is that a BB community is only two dimensional.  And what has often transpired is that the conversation degenerates into an argument rather than constructive dialogue.  Upon listening to our pastors' sermon this morning on Acts 17:15-21, I was burdened to share what the Lord has laid on my heart regarding this issue, but I fear I won't be able to communicate effectively.

Those who seek to defend the assembly do not see the error in the teachings and have been taught to think in a certain fashion.  It is just these ones the Lord would seek for us to reach out to with the gospel of grace and show them the liberty with which Christ has set us free.  To descend into arguement is to invite attack.  Our pastor was pointing out Pauls' state as he arrived in Athens in Acts 17, verse 16, "Now while Paul was waiting for them in Athens his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols."  Paul was provoked.  He was irritated, disturbed.

3947 paroxunw paroxuno par-ox-oo’-no

from 3844 and a derivative of 3691; TDNT-5:857,791; v

AV-stir 1, easily provoked 1; 2

1) to make sharp, sharpen
1a) to stimulate, spur on, urge
1b) to irritate, provoke, arouse to anger
1b1) to scorn, despise
1b2) provoke, make angry
1b3) to exasperate, to burn with anger

The pastor brought out that although Paul was all these things; angry, disturbed, irritated, he did not lash out at these ones (who were filled with idolatry - like the assembly) but he reached out to these ones with compassion, love - the gospel.  He mentioned 2Cor 5:14, "For the love of Christ constraineth us..."  

Now isn't this what happens when someone comes to the BB defending what we know now to be idolatry and heretical teaching?  We become angry, provoked, disturbed.  And why?  Because for many of us, it took so long to come out of the assembly, we endured much pain and suffering....it cost many of us dearly.  Some are even still experiencing the negative fallout from our involvement.  And this propels some of us to respond in this manner of anger resulting in arguement, etc.  But what did Paul do?  The love of Christ constrained him and he "disputed" with these ones:

1256 dialegomai dialegomai dee-al-eg’-om-ahee

middle voice from 1223 and 3004; TDNT-2:93,155; v

AV-dispute 6, reason with 2, reason 2, preach unto 1, preach 1, speak 1; 13

1) to think different things with one’s self, mingle thought with thought
1a) to ponder, revolve in mind
2) to converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss

He reasoned with them, he did not desolve into name calling (although our pastor brought out that the ones who were listening to Paul began to call him names, "babbler".)  

These ones are lost/confused and in need of the gospel of grace.  Not our treating them like we were used to being treated in the assembly.

This is my 25 cents worth (it was a little more than 2!)

Sorry for being long-winded - hope some will even read it!

For any who are interested, you can listen to the sermon on the churchs' website "www.shepherdschurch.com".  It won't be on there until probably next week, but the sermon date will be 6/15/03.  

I was greatly encouraged, perhaps some of you will be as well.

[Matt]

Hi Matt!
  I sent an e-mail and PM to you and would like to hear back from you.

I have your PM, but no emails from you.
.

My first concern re. your position is in your personal attacks against the character of Verne, Eulaha, and Brent.  To say that they do the same thing to the leading bros. would be a childish argument.  Your position re. the defense of the Assembly is not the problem, but your suggestion that you know the motives of those who oppose you.

Mark, I am sad that you posted this. I didn't think you were one of the people blind to Brent's and his followers sins. Brent, praise the Lord, has repented of his treatment of the younger brethren, but Eulaha has refused to do so. Verne repented, but started up again, rather than choosing to honor Christ. I have never seen you publically speak out on some of these issues, Mark, but you sure took me, luke, paul, affirming to task a lot of times. Perhaps as a moderator, you are still with bias, and thus quick to take one side over the other.

 

 Make your arguments, but assume those that disagree are sincere in their position.  Only God knows their motives, and we cross boundaries when we assume an evil hidden agenda.  I:Cor. 13 asks us to believe the best re. anothers motive and to recognize that it is God that changes hearts.

ahh.....believe the best. One of my favorite things to take from the assembly. I believe the best about Eulaha and Verne's motives. Mainly, I don't believe they post be intentionally abusive, but rather they have allowed themselves to be deceived by a hatred for the assembly system and for those who appear to defend anything ...any miniscule thing about it. I do believe that God changes hearts, of course, and I pray that He will change Verne and Eulaha's hearts.

 I will say that I believe that you are confused Matt, not insincere, but confused.  You may be confident in what you have shared, but it is contrary in some areas to orthodox Christian teaching.  In these areas we are called to excercise discernment and judgment, and are not called to be tolerant.

Why, Mark, defending LB's is hardly against orthodox christian teaching.
   

The false teaching/abusive control has been clearly documented in GG's own hand and from many eyewitness accounts.

Right you are, Mark, and for the millionth time I will say that I do not deny that some people abused the saints. But we cannot make blanket statements like Tom Maddux made saying that all the LB's exploited and abused the saints. I think deep in the hearts of many saints, they know that they've been loved in the assembly - especially by the LB's and their families. It's enough to make a person want to weep to see these poor men slapped in the face after they worked SO HARD for the saints. (ok that was an emotional statement, and I've never weeped about it!)

From what I have seen of your understanding of the Bible I would say, though your leading bros. in SD were very sincere and hardworking, they let you down considerably.

WHAT AN ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE THING TO SAY, MARK!! We are to honor the LB's who labored for us, we are not to publically accuse christian brothers and sisters before unbelievers, but you still have? Does that mean that all your pastors have failed you miserably? I thank God for bringing Bob Starr into my life, and to see you backbite here is horrible, especially when he's not here to defend himself. You can be under excellent leaders, but not do a thing with it - that's not the leaders' faults, that's your own. Somebody mentioned something interesting to me the other day - was it Moses fault when the people built the golden calf?

- Matt



               

[Mark C.]

Hi Kimberley and Matt!
  Thank you so very much Kimberley for your clear presentation.  I was blessed and instructed by it and greatly appreciate the effort you put into it.
  Matt I apologize if in the past you have felt that my position is to demean any individual's character here.  I will contend earnestly against those who would teach a toxic faith and if that has been construed as an attack that certainly was not my intention.  I recognize that people sometimes are ignorant re. the consequences of what teaching they follow, but this is why we are to be entreatable one of another.
   I am not trying to insult you (or others) when I mention that I believe something you believe to be correct is wrong.  Nor am I trying to speak evil of the Leading bros. when I mention that Assembly teaching was lacking or erroneous.  The Bible commands us to test the spirits, to entreat one another; it is all part of our responsibility as brethren in Christ.  Indeed, it would be dishonoring to Christ and unloving to you if I were to remain silent.
  Can you not see that believing that all are heretical, except Christ, is an erroneous and dangerous postion to take?  Can you not see that Affirming's propagation of Local Church teaching is clearly heretical and very damaging to God's people?!  This is the kind of orthodoxy I'm refering to, and not the issue you mentioned re. whether all leaders of the Assembly are equally culpable with GG.  You take too literal of an approach with Tom's comparison and seem to make a huge effort to miss the clear point he has made.
   Maybe we better just start all over again with a fresh slate and ask the question:  What do you believe the Gospel is and what does the Gospel mean to me as a believer?  This will cut to the chase as by knowing what truth is we can clearly identify error.  I think this is the only way to break the impasse we have arrived at as we both seem to be having trouble communicating.
  (on that note your e-mail address must be wrong as listed on the BB as this is the 2nd e-mail I sent that you did not recieve)
   I hope that you take up my question and that we can discuss it in the future to the benefit of all on the BB.
                                God Bless, Mark