a very long thread

[Oscar]

First, let me say that for anyone to use a pseudonym, instead of their real name, engenders suspicion, at least on my part,  as to their purpose for doing so.  As has been shown , it allows the user to insult and berate others while hiding behind a mask of anonymity.  What other purpose it could serve, I fail to see.  Of course, it could be used to give the user a favorable report by speaking of his or her self in the third person.

It has been strongly suggested that “Brass Wall” is really John Malone.  In light of so much information to which BW is privy concerning John, I admit that I would have to concur with the probablility of that supposition.  John’s and/or  BW’s failure to deny the allegation seems to reinforce the contention.  However, inasmuch as BW chooses to conceal his/her true identity,  I will defer my speculation,  and will simply afford little or no credibility to his/her postings.  Regarding the accolades that John receives from his friend, BW, let each of us who read them decide whether or not they are merited.  

All of that aside,  the real purpose of my post is to admonish both Brass Wall and Chuck Vanasse to consider the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and take the following actions.  

1.  Desist from any further postings of derogatory statements about one another (or anyone else).

“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.”     Ephesians 4:29                                                                                        

2.  Seek to be reconciled in accordance with Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5:23-24.

 "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”

3.  Do not refuse to abide by Jesus’ instruction on the basis of each one asserting that the other is not a “brother-in-Christ.”  Jesus alone knows our hearts, and to err on the side of  emotional speculation is much more dangerous that erring on the side of cautious consideration.  

4.  Give prayerful consideration to the damage your actions cause to the testimony of Jesus Christ to unbelievers as well as to believers.  Nothing is of more paramount importance than this.

5.  Remember Jesus commands us to love one another.  Disregard your personal doubts about the possibility of being reconciled to the other, and rely on the grace of our precious Savior to bring about reconciliation between the two of you.  It will edify and bring glory to Him.

If you chose to disregard this admonition, then I would suggest that each of you take a sabbatical from teaching  in your gatherings and spend time meditating upon obedience to Christ and His enabling grace and mercy.  

To Chuck,  I would entreat you to remember Ecclesiastes 10:12  “Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious.”
.
To Brass Wall, it is my admonition to drop the charade and reveal your identity or discontinue posting.  

To John Malone, I suggest you entreat Brass Wall to reveal his/her identity

To Brian I would suggest that you refrain from allowing pseudonymous postings unless it would be under extreme circumstances (I.e. “Kristin‘s” confession).  

 I will gladly listen to and consider any rebuttals or comments concerning these exhortations.

Chuck Miller

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer. Psalm 19:14

Chuck,

Brian Tucker deleted "BrassWall" after he refused to stop calling people nasty names on the board.

I suspect that I stirred up BW after I posted something about one of his old friends.  At least, that is when he appeared on this bb.

If, as everyone suspects, BW is John Malone, his ire is understandable.  He probably values his friends very much, since the law of supply and demand indicates that they would be highly valued.  

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[BenJapheth]

First, let me say that for anyone to use a pseudonym, instead of their real name, engenders suspicion, at least on my part,  as to their purpose for doing so.  As has been shown , it allows the user to insult and berate others while hiding behind a mask of anonymity.  What other purpose it could serve, I fail to see.  Of course, it could be used to give the user a favorable report by speaking of his or her self in the third person.

It has been strongly suggested that “Brass Wall” is really John Malone.  In light of so much information to which BW is privy concerning John, I admit that I would have to concur with the probablility of that supposition.  John’s and/or  BW’s failure to deny the allegation seems to reinforce the contention.  However, inasmuch as BW chooses to conceal his/her true identity,  I will defer my speculation,  and will simply afford little or no credibility to his/her postings.  Regarding the accolades that John receives from his friend, BW, let each of us who read them decide whether or not they are merited.  

All of that aside,  the real purpose of my post is to admonish both Brass Wall and Chuck Vanasse to consider the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and take the following actions.  

1.  Desist from any further postings of derogatory statements about one another (or anyone else).

“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.”     Ephesians 4:29                                                                                        

2.  Seek to be reconciled in accordance with Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5:23-24.

 "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”

3.  Do not refuse to abide by Jesus’ instruction on the basis of each one asserting that the other is not a “brother-in-Christ.”  Jesus alone knows our hearts, and to err on the side of  emotional speculation is much more dangerous that erring on the side of cautious consideration.  

4.  Give prayerful consideration to the damage your actions cause to the testimony of Jesus Christ to unbelievers as well as to believers.  Nothing is of more paramount importance than this.

5.  Remember Jesus commands us to love one another.  Disregard your personal doubts about the possibility of being reconciled to the other, and rely on the grace of our precious Savior to bring about reconciliation between the two of you.  It will edify and bring glory to Him.

If you chose to disregard this admonition, then I would suggest that each of you take a sabbatical from teaching  in your gatherings and spend time meditating upon obedience to Christ and His enabling grace and mercy.  

To Chuck,  I would entreat you to remember Ecclesiastes 10:12  “Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious.”
.
To Brass Wall, it is my admonition to drop the charade and reveal your identity or discontinue posting.  

To John Malone, I suggest you entreat Brass Wall to reveal his/her identity

To Brian I would suggest that you refrain from allowing pseudonymous postings unless it would be under extreme circumstances (I.e. “Kristin‘s” confession).  

 I will gladly listen to and consider any rebuttals or comments concerning these exhortations.

Chuck Miller

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer. Psalm 19:14

Thanks for the note, Chuck.

Chuck Vanasse

 

[Chuck Miller]

Regarding my recent post,  I received an e-mail from my son-in-law, Chuck Vanasse.   Here is an excerpt from it:


“I caution you strongly Chuck for not following Christ’s instruction – Reject him.  Reject him, Reject him – We have no other choice. He’s warped and sinning. You’ve played footsie with Malone for too long – Shame on you.  You do the church no favors by encouraging the saints to play with a snake. I believe your note was well intentioned, but it actually confused the issue.  Did you know John was kicked off the Board?  You practically invited him back…How naïve!  “Come on back in the hut little snakey…cute snakey.” Kind of embarrassed about the analogy, but this is exactly how it appears to everyone.  You saw Tom’s response to you – most people are laughing up their sleeve.  Again, you put WAY too big a premium on church government process.  “If only people followed the properly functioning new testament pattern, everything would work out.” I think that’s a bunch of hooey. Read Paul’s instruction to Titus about Heretics.”


Would those of you who are “laughing up your sleeve” at my admonition to BW and Chuck Vanasse, please write and tell me why you disagree.  As I said, "I will be glad to consider any rebuttals or comments concerning these exhortations."
I could be wrong, but have no reason to change my mind without hearing your scriptural reasoning.   You can write to me privately at chuckmiller888@yahoo.com or you can post on the BB.  

Chuck

[BenJapheth]

Regarding my recent post,  I received an e-mail from my son-in-law, Chuck Vanasse.   Here is an excerpt from it:


“I caution you strongly Chuck for not following Christ’s instruction – Reject him.  Reject him, Reject him – We have no other choice. He’s warped and sinning. You’ve played footsie with Malone for too long – Shame on you.  You do the church no favors by encouraging the saints to play with a snake. I believe your note was well intentioned, but it actually confused the issue.  Did you know John was kicked off the Board?  You practically invited him back…How naïve!  “Come on back in the hut little snakey…cute snakey.” Kind of embarrassed about the analogy, but this is exactly how it appears to everyone.  You saw Tom’s response to you – most people are laughing up their sleeve.  Again, you put WAY too big a premium on church government process.  “If only people followed the properly functioning new testament pattern, everything would work out.” I think that’s a bunch of hooey. Read Paul’s instruction to Titus about Heretics.”


Would those of you who are “laughing up your sleeve” at my admonition to BW and Chuck Vanasse, please write and tell me why you disagree.  As I said, "I will be glad to consider any rebuttals or comments concerning these exhortations."
I could be wrong, but have no reason to change my mind without hearing your scriptural reasoning.   You can write to me privately at chuckmiller888@yahoo.com or you can post on the BB.  

Chuck

Chuck, my note to you was written in private.  If I had wanted to it to be published, I would have done so.  Are you desiring to contend?  

The scriptural reasoning for John Malone is Titus 3:10,11.  This reasoning applies to any who fulfill the qualities of heretic. Titus 3:9 would be helpful as well since the disputes of a heretic usually arise upon his stridency to make a particular point over the scriptures. I believe John Malone does fulfill the qualities of a heretic.  

Chuck, you engage the man at your and the larger Christian community's peril.  Would you prayerfully consider Titus 3:9-11 and what it means, brother?  

But avoid foolish disputes, genelogies, contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self condemned.

And, if you would like to dialogue let's do that in private face-to-face since we live only a mile from one another and we will see each other today for Mother's day.  I think going public like this is foolish...It doesn't edify.  It tears down.

To reiterate - the treatment of heresy is distinct...consider that.  Lest anyone enable another George Geftakys to take root - in this case a very powerful Omaha man - John Malone.  It has been noted that John Malone has a national ministry over the radio.  Better that he is exposed early by a few people who know him well and be rejected among God's people - than for the world at large to suffer needlessly cause we lacked the courage to reject the man as well as to warn others and expose him as is necessary.

Many people in various churches and ministries in Southern California knew about George over 30 years ago and said nothing.  Your family suffered the devastating repercussions of those vital omissions - Never again, Chuck.  Never again.

I love you, bro - As a friend and a Son-in-Law, let's take heed.

Let's not upset our wives by toiling on this stuff on their special day - Happy Mother's Day to Mary Ann!!!

Mary Ann gave me one of the the most wonderful woman on the planet!  She's a Super Mom!

P.S. See you later today for dinner, Chuck...Look forward to fellowshipping on this and other matters.

Chuck Vanasse

[al Hartman]

Chuck & Chuck,

     Frankly, I'm surprised that one of you would post the contents of a personal e-mail from the other, and equally dismayed that the other would respond with a post.

     Are you trying to [1.] discredit your brother by publicly humiliating him, [2.] justify yourself by rallying public support, or [3.] both?  (If there is something behind door #4, it escapes me, so why am I and everyone else being exposed to your differences?)

     If you are in the right, God will justify your position, and if you care about your brother, prayer and personal (private) counsel are the route to take (at least at the start), regardless of how he treats you.

     Make peace, or feud if you must, but don't pollute the uninvolved with your personal issues.  You don't even have to overcome-- Jesus Christ has done that for you.  Will you accept it?

Enjoy all you have in common, together, in Him,
al Hartman

[BenJapheth]

Regarding my recent post,  I received an e-mail from my son-in-law, Chuck Vanasse.   Here is an excerpt from it:


“I caution you strongly Chuck for not following Christ’s instruction – Reject him.  Reject him, Reject him – We have no other choice. He’s warped and sinning. You’ve played footsie with Malone for too long – Shame on you.  You do the church no favors by encouraging the saints to play with a snake. I believe your note was well intentioned, but it actually confused the issue.  Did you know John was kicked off the Board?  You practically invited him back…How naïve!  “Come on back in the hut little snakey…cute snakey.” Kind of embarrassed about the analogy, but this is exactly how it appears to everyone.  You saw Tom’s response to you – most people are laughing up their sleeve.  Again, you put WAY too big a premium on church government process.  “If only people followed the properly functioning new testament pattern, everything would work out.” I think that’s a bunch of hooey. Read Paul’s instruction to Titus about Heretics.”


Would those of you who are “laughing up your sleeve” at my admonition to BW and Chuck Vanasse, please write and tell me why you disagree.  As I said, "I will be glad to consider any rebuttals or comments concerning these exhortations."
I could be wrong, but have no reason to change my mind without hearing your scriptural reasoning.   You can write to me privately at chuckmiller888@yahoo.com or you can post on the BB.  

Chuck

I think your admonition was proper. We all at some point are in need of that kind of correction.

I believe John Malone does fulfill the qualities of a heretic.  

Chuck Vanasse

Very serious charge...should not be made lightly....

Verne

Heresy is a serious charge.  I don’t make it lightly.

Al, Chuck Miller and I should resolve issues concerning our personal relationship in private.  I am not pleased that my private correspondence with him would be published.  I am not pleased, but neither am I offended.

The issue that he and I are discussing is heresy– What is it?  And, how should it be dealt with - The subject is germane to this community.  Is it not?  I would think so...Especially to this community.

I have no problem that this should be a public discourse.  

Heresy is not a Matthew 5 issue where it involves personal reconciliation with another individual as has been indicated; nor is it a Matthew 18 issue where the subject involves a prescribed order for correction and church discipline.  If I’m missing something, I’m open to clarification – my views are constantly being revised.

From Titus 3 it appears that heresy involves a controversialist; a person who thrusts or imposes his private viewpoints upon a believing community. He is a disputer.  Most people walk away from arguments. Heretics thrust themselves in the middle of arguments.  They contend for their viewpoint as supreme. They desire attention and seek that others conform to their viewpoints on non-essentials. There are different kinds of heretics some are nasty and others are just persistent…But, all heretics feel compelled that others hold to their view of the truth.

Heresy and Titus 3 involves a standard for resolving issues surrounding a public disputer – a public disruptor (a public disputer and a public disruptor are really the same thing).  Since there seems to be some confusion on this matter it’s an appropriate discussion for this forum, especially since the audience here has been victimized for many years by its own infamous heretic.  If the appropriate actions had been taken over three decades ago against a certain heretic many lives could have been immeasurably ennobled.  

Our refrain should be - NEVER AGAIN!

Since many of us here have spent substantive portions of our formative Christian years deep in the capacious sphere of a heretic, if we look hard (or not even too hard), we can see some of these latent heretical qualities in ourselves, tugging at our soul, at least I know I can – Several of us on this bulletin board NEED TO BE CAREFUL.  The knowledge that there are violent consequences for not dealing with these heretical and disputatious impulses is a gracious restraint from our good shepherd in resisting these sordid leanings of the flesh.

The Word says we are to “reject” a heretic after a couple of warnings.

Indeed, His rod and His staff they comfort me.

Thank you Vern and Al for the comments as well as for the reminders.

Chuck Vanasse

[Kimberley Tobin]

I chose to respond to Chuck M privately, through e-mail.  But I would like to contribute here that I agree with Chuck V in that I believe this issue to be ABSOLUTELY germaine to this BB community.

NEVER AGAIN will I subject myself to a person (man OR woman) who treats me in the vain that John Malone or "Brass Wall" has done.  I endured 15 years of that in the assembly, I WILL NOT tolerate it in my life, ever again.  That does not make me non-christian, not abiding by the scriptures, you fill in the blank.  It makes me wise.  We were taught in the assembly to take all kinds of that behavior and I am cured of ever again allowing it in my sphere.  It is toxic and it does not make me an unbeliever.  

[Oscar]

Regarding my recent post,  I received an e-mail from my son-in-law, Chuck Vanasse.   Here is an excerpt from it:


“I caution you strongly Chuck for not following Christ’s instruction – Reject him.  Reject him, Reject him – We have no other choice. He’s warped and sinning. You’ve played footsie with Malone for too long – Shame on you.  You do the church no favors by encouraging the saints to play with a snake. I believe your note was well intentioned, but it actually confused the issue.  Did you know John was kicked off the Board?  You practically invited him back…How naïve!  “Come on back in the hut little snakey…cute snakey.” Kind of embarrassed about the analogy, but this is exactly how it appears to everyone.  You saw Tom’s response to you – most people are laughing up their sleeve.  Again, you put WAY too big a premium on church government process.  “If only people followed the properly functioning new testament pattern, everything would work out.” I think that’s a bunch of hooey. Read Paul’s instruction to Titus about Heretics.”


Would those of you who are “laughing up your sleeve” at my admonition to BW and Chuck Vanasse, please write and tell me why you disagree.  As I said, "I will be glad to consider any rebuttals or comments concerning these exhortations."
I could be wrong, but have no reason to change my mind without hearing your scriptural reasoning.   You can write to me privately at chuckmiller888@yahoo.com or you can post on the BB.  

Chuck

I think your admonition was proper. We all at some point are in need of that kind of correction.

I believe John Malone does fulfill the qualities of a heretic.  

Chuck Vanasse

Very serious charge...should not be made lightly....

Verne

Heresy is a serious charge.  I don’t make it lightly.

Al, Chuck Miller and I should resolve issues concerning our personal relationship in private.  I am not pleased that my private correspondence with him would be published.  I am not pleased, but neither am I offended.

The issue that he and I are discussing is heresy– What is it?  And, how should it be dealt with - The subject is germane to this community.  Is it not?  I would think so...Especially to this community.

I have no problem that this should be a public discourse.  

Heresy is not a Matthew 5 issue where it involves personal reconciliation with another individual as has been indicated; nor is it a Matthew 18 issue where the subject involves a prescribed order for correction and church discipline.  If I’m missing something, I’m open to clarification – my views are constantly being revised.

From Titus 3 it appears that heresy involves a controversialist; a person who thrusts or imposes his private viewpoints upon a believing community. He is a disputer.  Most people walk away from arguments. Heretics thrust themselves in the middle of arguments.  They contend for their viewpoint as supreme. They desire attention and seek that others conform to their viewpoints on non-essentials. There are different kinds of heretics some are nasty and others are just persistent…But, all heretics feel compelled that others hold to their view of the truth.

Heresy and Titus 3 involves a standard for resolving issues surrounding a public disputer – a public disruptor (a public disputer and a public disruptor are really the same thing).  Since there seems to be some confusion on this matter it’s an appropriate discussion for this forum, especially since the audience here has been victimized for many years by its own infamous heretic.  If the appropriate actions had been taken over three decades ago against a certain heretic many lives could have been immeasurably ennobled.  

Our refrain should be - NEVER AGAIN!

Since many of us here have spent substantive portions of our formative Christian years deep in the capacious sphere of a heretic, if we look hard (or not even too hard), we can see some of these latent heretical qualities in ourselves, tugging at our soul, at least I know I can – Several of us on this bulletin board NEED TO BE CAREFUL.  The knowledge that there are violent consequences for not dealing with these heretical and disputatious impulses is a gracious restraint from our good shepherd in resisting these sordid leanings of the flesh.

The Word says we are to “reject” a heretic after a couple of warnings.

Indeed, His rod and His staff they comfort me.

Thank you Vern and Al for the comments as well as for the reminders.

Chuck Vanasse

Chuck,

It seems to me, based on my experience with him and my observation of the manner in which he interacts withs others on this BB, that John Malone is not a spiritual man.  In describing him I would use adjectives like belligerent, aggressive, domineering, rude, and other similar terms.  

He is, in my opinion, not a man to take seriously.

However, you are calling him a heretic.  You seem to be defining "heresy" as having to do with the manner in which a person promotes his ideas.  It seems to me that heresy has more to do with the content of the message rather than the delivery of the content.

Are you saying that John Malone denies essential truth of the Christian faith?  That is a serious charge, and I think that you should substantiate your charge if you are going to make it.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[al Hartman]

     Tom has got the issue in the crosshairs:  It is the nature of heresy that is germane to this community, and the naming of anyone whose beliefs fit the profile.
     Heresy is defined as being divisive in the sense of being schismatic; that is, denying some fundamental of Christian faith, e.g., the Godhood of Christ, His resurrection, or the efficacy of His sacrifice for our redemption, in such a way as to pull away a portion of God's people from belief in some essential of the faith, and thus from the rest of the body of Christ.

     I'm in agreement with anyone who will impose the "never again" motto on not being dictated to by an overbearing blowhard who leads by force & intimidation.  But that in itself only makes one unspiritual, as Tom points out.  A lousy shepherd is not necessarily a heretic.

     Anyone want to be more specific about what constitutes heresy or what makes someone a heretic?  Give it a go.  Got questions about someone's specific words or deeds possibly being heretical?  If that someone is posting here, then the questions are appropriate...

     But if you have an issue with my method of delivery, I'd consider it a favor to us all if you'd give me a personal heads-up & an opportunity to clean up my act before making it a public issue.  There are a lot of weighty issues coming up here every day that can be overwhelming, without getting into how each of us dots his "i"s or crosses her "t"s.

     Personally, I really appreciate everyone's contributions to this discussion.  We really are marching to Zion together... not in precision lockstep, but all in the same direction, toward the same Goal!

al

[BenJapheth]

Tom, you are correct we disagree on the definition of heresy.  

Titus 3:9-11 describes a heretic.  The heretic is the person who is factious, divisive and causes splits among God's people.  He is a disputer. The heretic takes non-essential truths and compels people to take sides - with him or against him.  This is the classical definition of heresy. If you go over to Malone's site you'll see he is taking a very "heretical view" of the Steve and Margaret Iron's view of Calvinism.  I am not a five point Calvinist, however, certain people will break fellowship upon such a difference - this is the classic definition of heresy – John Malone is such a one. He would wish to impose his views on others. This is heresy to divide over non-essential doctrines.  This is how new denominations get started via schismatic and heretical dividers.

Indeed, it is both the content and the manner of a man that determines heresy.  Also, if you go back to BW/Malone's content on this site you'll find he takes positions that forces one to be with him or against him.  The points aren't essential doctrines - they’re merely nuances, and they should not be elevated by one person to the point of deference and macro-assimilation by the Christian community.  When one does this they have departed from the true faith.  They are creating their own following.  That is why, I suspect, dividers, the factious, heretics are to be rejected.  Forget the word “heretic”…Rejecting is the serious part.  

As we see from Titus 3 delivery and content are to be taken seriously.  Why?  Cause manner and delivery are sometimes more needful for the hearers than the actual content.  Which one of us wouldn't want to fellowship more with a gracious person with whom we have minor disagreements on non-essentials than to listen to harsh know-it-alls with whom we generally agree, but is a braggart, rude and insists on dominating those around him.  I would guess that of the most recent 100 people that have posted on the ABB board concerning details of the church, church government, the kingdom, etc...I'm perhaps more in agreement with John Malone than anyone here.  

Jesus had the greatest issue with the most biblical – Torah observant Jews.  His issue was not so much content, but more the manner and delivery - just read Matthew 23.  In fact, he said do what the Pharisees tell you….But, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.

When we are speaking of spiritual things, the delivery is a substantive part of the content...If it's missing - LOVE  -and if it's missing purposeful charitable motives - it's a fraud and a freak – It’s not Christianity.  How could it be without Christ? It’s not that God was so RIGHT that he sent his sent His only begotten Son into the world, but that He so LOVED the world that he sent His only begotten Son.  Being right about "the four points" of the gospel, doesn’t mean we can beat each other up...And, if the content is correct and love is lacking it's even more dangerous.  I don't think George was a heretic because of his content - Christians believe those things - Plymouth Brethren are believers.  I am a reader of Lang, Govette, Chitwood, Pember, Groves, et. al....And, enjoy it.  I believe in many of the kingdom teachings that you all were exposed to. It's what we do with our beliefs that matter.  We have to love people into Jesus.  The gospel is a wind of love blowing through the flute of the knowledge of Christ – who He is and what He did.  The knowledge without the wind is nothing...except to use our glorious flute as a stick to poke others in the eye.

The reason heretics are known for bad doctrine is because good doctrine normally makes for good behavior and humility – cause love is on the advance of the mouth and the actions.  Doctrine are teachings of Jesus, and Jesus greatest teachings were all around loving your neighbor as yourself - That's the defining doctrine of doctrines - Love.   Zeal for "truth" without love produces heresy.

Being mean, accusatory, intolerant, belligerent, domineering, rude...All these betray the greatest doctrinal compromise.

Let's put it this way - Malone is factious and a divider - biblical words - This is serious.  We are to reject a man like this; as described in Titus 3.  To reject a man is serious.  A person that does these things is warped and sinning - that's serious.  The word says we can know that they are sinning for sure - That's serious.  

Second, John Malone is a man to take seriously. He has a ministry that one could argue touches more people than George Geftakys ever did at its height.  We under-estimate him and others like him at our own peril.  That’s another reason I’m writing all this; as an outsider looking in (merely married to an ex-assembly person),  there seems to be a deficit of understanding in who is dangerous among folks who have grown up in the assembly.  You don’t like George, okay – But, it’s not like you still don’t like domineering, rude people – You seem to bear with them nicely.  You kind of like people that slap other folks.  That’s subjective and just my impression – I may be totally wrong, but that’s how I see it. I’m certain there were many who didn’t take Geftakys seriously decades ago.   Wouldn’t it have been marvelous if they had and the evil could have been nipped in the bud?

One more point, Malone states that he has thousands of regular listeners around the country. If so, that’s serious. Why?  Cause a lot of people take him seriously.  

Our testimony rises or falls on our behavior which is both our manner and the content of our words and deeds.

What’s at stake is the testimony of Christ – Very serious.

Finally, Titus 3 is clear.  It is not an option.  We are to reject men that fulfill those qualities – call it bad bunny, divisive, factious or heretic….We are to reject them.  That’s serious.  I advise you to take men like this seriously.

All the best, Chuck

[BenJapheth]

Heresy...1 Titus 3:9-11

Middle English heresie, from Old French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, a choosing, faction, from haireisthai, to choose, middle voice of hairein, to take.

Easton's Bible Dictionary...In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1).

Titus 3...King James
9   But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10   A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
11   Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Titus 3...Darby Translation
9   But foolish questions, and genealogies, and strifes, and contentions about the law, shun; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10   An heretical man after a first and second admonition have done with,
11   knowing that such a one is perverted, and sins, being self-condemned.



Chuck Vanasse

[sfortescue]

    But if you have an issue with my method of delivery, I'd consider it a favor to us all if you'd give me a personal heads-up & an opportunity to clean up my act before making it a public issue.  There are a lot of weighty issues coming up here every day that can be overwhelming, without getting into how each of us dots his "i"s or crosses her "t"s.

Al,

I'm guilty as charged.  Sorry about that.  I didn't spend enough time thinking about the ramifications of my action.  I had rationalized it as a response in kind, when in reality it was a response unkind, a shameful thing to do.  Fortunately, I was able to delete it before anyone quoted it, but shamefully I didn't recognize my mistake until someone gave me a negative point.

Words are like fireworks.  They don't always go off the way you would expect.  Some earlier words that were merely intended to lighten a post that seemed too heavy were unexpectedly picked up by BW.  I'm sorry that that caused you grief as well.

[Oscar]

Tom, you are correct we disagree on the definition of heresy.  

Titus 3:9-11 describes a heretic.  The heretic is the person who is factious, divisive and causes splits among God's people.  He is a disputer. The heretic takes non-essential truths and compels people to take sides - with him or against him.  This is the classical definition of heresy. If you go over to Malone's site you'll see he is taking a very "heretical view" of the Steve and Margaret Iron's view of Calvinism.  I am not a five point Calvinist, however, certain people will break fellowship upon such a difference - this is the classic definition of heresy – John Malone is such a one. He would wish to impose his views on others. This is heresy to divide over non-essential doctrines.  This is how new denominations get started via schismatic and heretical dividers.

Chuck, so if Joe is a five pointer and won't fellowship with Arminians he is a heretic.  But if Sam is a five pointer and will fellowship with Arminians, he is not a heretic.   Somehow that just doesn't seem to work very well.  At least not to me.

Indeed, it is both the content and the manner of a man that determines heresy.  Also, if you go back to BW/Malone's content on this site you'll find he takes positions that forces one to be with him or against him.  The points aren't essential doctrines - they’re merely nuances, and they should not be elevated by one person to the point of deference and macro-assimilation by the Christian community.  When one does this they have departed from the true faith.  They are creating their own following.  That is why, I suspect, dividers, the factious, heretics are to be rejected.  Forget the word “heretic”…Rejecting is the serious part.  

So If Bill is a modalist or an arian that wants to be nice to you and fellowship with you he isn't a heretic?  

As we see from Titus 3 delivery and content are to be taken seriously.  Why?  Cause manner and delivery are sometimes more needful for the hearers than the actual content.  Which one of us wouldn't want to fellowship more with a gracious person with whom we have minor disagreements on non-essentials than to listen to harsh know-it-alls with whom we generally agree, but is a braggart, rude and insists on dominating those around him.  I would guess that of the most recent 100 people that have posted on the ABB board concerning details of the church, church government, the kingdom, etc...I'm perhaps more in agreement with John Malone than anyone here.  

Jesus had the greatest issue with the most biblical – Torah observant Jews.

Actually Chuck, this isn't true.  These guys were demanding that people obey the "tradition of the elders", a system of interpretation that had been superimposed on the Torah.

  His issue was not so much content, but more the manner and delivery - just read Matthew 23.  In fact, he said do what the Pharisees tell you….But, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.

When we are speaking of spiritual things, the delivery is a substantive part of the content...If it's missing - LOVE  -and if it's missing purposeful charitable motives - it's a fraud and a freak – It’s not Christianity.  How could it be without Christ? It’s not that God was so RIGHT that he sent his sent His only begotten Son into the world, but that He so LOVED the world that he sent His only begotten Son.  Being right about "the four points" of the gospel, doesn’t mean we can beat each other up...And, if the content is correct and love is lacking it's even more dangerous.  I don't think George was a heretic because of his content - Christians believe those things - Plymouth Brethren are believers.  I am a reader of Lang, Govette, Chitwood, Pember, Groves, et. al....And, enjoy it.  I believe in many of the kingdom teachings that you all were exposed to. It's what we do with our beliefs that matter.  We have to love people into Jesus.  The gospel is a wind of love blowing through the flute of the knowledge of Christ – who He is and what He did.  The knowledge without the wind is nothing...except to use our glorious flute as a stick to poke others in the eye.

The reason heretics are known for bad doctrine is because good doctrine normally makes for good behavior and humility – cause love is on the advance of the mouth and the actions.  Doctrine are teachings of Jesus, and Jesus greatest teachings were all around loving your neighbor as yourself - That's the defining doctrine of doctrines - Love.   Zeal for "truth" without love produces heresy.

Being mean, accusatory, intolerant, belligerent, domineering, rude...All these betray the greatest doctrinal compromise.

Let's put it this way - Malone is factious and a divider - biblical words - This is serious.  We are to reject a man like this; as described in Titus 3.  To reject a man is serious.  A person that does these things is warped and sinning - that's serious.  The word says we can know that they are sinning for sure - That's serious.  

Second, John Malone is a man to take seriously. He has a ministry that one could argue touches more people than George Geftakys ever did at its height.  We under-estimate him and others like him at our own peril.  That’s another reason I’m writing all this; as an outsider looking in (merely married to an ex-assembly person),  there seems to be a deficit of understanding in who is dangerous among folks who have grown up in the assembly.

 You don’t like George, okay – But, it’s not like you still don’t like domineering, rude people – You seem to bear with them nicely.  You kind of like people that slap other folks.  That’s subjective and just my impression – I may be totally wrong, but that’s how I see it.

What could possibly have led you to such a conclusion?  
Chuck, you think folks on this board "liked" JM?  Just because some of us chose not to answer him in kind....that's not "liking" him.

Frankly Chuck, that's heretical!  

I’m certain there were many who didn’t take Geftakys seriously decades ago.   Wouldn’t it have been marvelous if they had and the evil could have been nipped in the bud?

One more point, Malone states that he has thousands of regular listeners around the country. If so, that’s serious. Why?  Cause a lot of people take him seriously.  

You believe him?  On his website an article he posted said that about 25 adults attend his church.  That's a couple shy of "thousands."

Our testimony rises or falls on our behavior which is both our manner and the content of our words and deeds.

What’s at stake is the testimony of Christ – Very serious.

Finally, Titus 3 is clear.  It is not an option.  We are to reject men that fulfill those qualities – call it bad bunny, divisive, factious or heretic….We are to reject them.  That’s serious.  I advise you to take men like this seriously.

All the best, Chuck

[BenJapheth]

Tom, you are correct we disagree on the definition of heresy.  

Titus 3:9-11 describes a heretic.  The heretic is the person who is factious, divisive and causes splits among God's people.  He is a disputer. The heretic takes non-essential truths and compels people to take sides - with him or against him.  This is the classical definition of heresy. If you go over to Malone's site you'll see he is taking a very "heretical view" of the Steve and Margaret Iron's view of Calvinism.  I am not a five point Calvinist, however, certain people will break fellowship upon such a difference - this is the classic definition of heresy – John Malone is such a one. He would wish to impose his views on others. This is heresy to divide over non-essential doctrines.  This is how new denominations get started via schismatic and heretical dividers.

Chuck, so if Joe is a five pointer and won't fellowship with Arminians he is a heretic.  But if Sam is a five pointer and will fellowship with Arminians, he is not a heretic.   Somehow that just doesn't seem to work very well.  At least not to me.

Indeed, it is both the content and the manner of a man that determines heresy.  Also, if you go back to BW/Malone's content on this site you'll find he takes positions that forces one to be with him or against him.  The points aren't essential doctrines - they’re merely nuances, and they should not be elevated by one person to the point of deference and macro-assimilation by the Christian community.  When one does this they have departed from the true faith.  They are creating their own following.  That is why, I suspect, dividers, the factious, heretics are to be rejected.  Forget the word “heretic”…Rejecting is the serious part.  

So If Bill is a modalist or an arian that wants to be nice to you and fellowship with you he isn't a heretic?  

As we see from Titus 3 delivery and content are to be taken seriously.  Why?  Cause manner and delivery are sometimes more needful for the hearers than the actual content.  Which one of us wouldn't want to fellowship more with a gracious person with whom we have minor disagreements on non-essentials than to listen to harsh know-it-alls with whom we generally agree, but is a braggart, rude and insists on dominating those around him.  I would guess that of the most recent 100 people that have posted on the ABB board concerning details of the church, church government, the kingdom, etc...I'm perhaps more in agreement with John Malone than anyone here.  

Jesus had the greatest issue with the most biblical – Torah observant Jews.

Actually Chuck, this isn't true.  These guys were demanding that people obey the "tradition of the elders", a system of interpretation that had been superimposed on the Torah.

  His issue was not so much content, but more the manner and delivery - just read Matthew 23.  In fact, he said do what the Pharisees tell you….But, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.

When we are speaking of spiritual things, the delivery is a substantive part of the content...If it's missing - LOVE  -and if it's missing purposeful charitable motives - it's a fraud and a freak – It’s not Christianity.  How could it be without Christ? It’s not that God was so RIGHT that he sent his sent His only begotten Son into the world, but that He so LOVED the world that he sent His only begotten Son.  Being right about "the four points" of the gospel, doesn’t mean we can beat each other up...And, if the content is correct and love is lacking it's even more dangerous.  I don't think George was a heretic because of his content - Christians believe those things - Plymouth Brethren are believers.  I am a reader of Lang, Govette, Chitwood, Pember, Groves, et. al....And, enjoy it.  I believe in many of the kingdom teachings that you all were exposed to. It's what we do with our beliefs that matter.  We have to love people into Jesus.  The gospel is a wind of love blowing through the flute of the knowledge of Christ – who He is and what He did.  The knowledge without the wind is nothing...except to use our glorious flute as a stick to poke others in the eye.

The reason heretics are known for bad doctrine is because good doctrine normally makes for good behavior and humility – cause love is on the advance of the mouth and the actions.  Doctrine are teachings of Jesus, and Jesus greatest teachings were all around loving your neighbor as yourself - That's the defining doctrine of doctrines - Love.   Zeal for "truth" without love produces heresy.

Being mean, accusatory, intolerant, belligerent, domineering, rude...All these betray the greatest doctrinal compromise.

Let's put it this way - Malone is factious and a divider - biblical words - This is serious.  We are to reject a man like this; as described in Titus 3.  To reject a man is serious.  A person that does these things is warped and sinning - that's serious.  The word says we can know that they are sinning for sure - That's serious.  

Second, John Malone is a man to take seriously. He has a ministry that one could argue touches more people than George Geftakys ever did at its height.  We under-estimate him and others like him at our own peril.  That’s another reason I’m writing all this; as an outsider looking in (merely married to an ex-assembly person),  there seems to be a deficit of understanding in who is dangerous among folks who have grown up in the assembly.

 You don’t like George, okay – But, it’s not like you still don’t like domineering, rude people – You seem to bear with them nicely.  You kind of like people that slap other folks.  That’s subjective and just my impression – I may be totally wrong, but that’s how I see it.

What could possibly have led you to such a conclusion?  
Chuck, you think folks on this board "liked" JM?  Just because some of us chose not to answer him in kind....that's not "liking" him.

Frankly Chuck, that's heretical!  

I’m certain there were many who didn’t take Geftakys seriously decades ago.   Wouldn’t it have been marvelous if they had and the evil could have been nipped in the bud?

One more point, Malone states that he has thousands of regular listeners around the country. If so, that’s serious. Why?  Cause a lot of people take him seriously.  

You believe him?  On his website an article he posted said that about 25 adults attend his church.  That's a couple shy of "thousands."

Our testimony rises or falls on our behavior which is both our manner and the content of our words and deeds.

What’s at stake is the testimony of Christ – Very serious.

Finally, Titus 3 is clear.  It is not an option.  We are to reject men that fulfill those qualities – call it bad bunny, divisive, factious or heretic….We are to reject them.  That’s serious.  I advise you to take men like this seriously.

All the best, Chuck

Tom, Malone has a national radio ministry - that's where the thousands come from.

________________________________________

Tom you say, "Chuck, so if Joe is a five pointer and won't fellowship with Arminians he is a heretic.  But if Sam is a five pointer and will fellowship with Arminians, he is not a heretic.   Somehow that just doesn't seem to work very well.  At least not to me."

________________________________________

Yep, that's what I'm saying.  Heretics will argue than divide over non-essentials.  Tom, I'm not trying to say something that "will work for you."  I'm trying to understand the scriptures and apply them accordingly.  If I'm wrong I am open to correction; thus far, I am unpersuaded.

________________________________________

Tom you say about the Torah observant in Jesus day, "Chuck, this isn't true. These guys were demanding that people obey the "tradition of the elders", a system of interpretation that had been superimposed on the Torah."

________________________________________

Correct and not correct they applied much if not most of the Torah in their lives; Jesus did have issues of them "adding" to the Word, yes - However, his major issue with them was the way they lived their lives (Matt 23), that's my point.  I think we're talking past each other here, we may be in agreement here.  

________________________________________

You say, "What could possibly have led you to such a conclusion?  
Chuck, you think folks on this board "liked" JM?  Just because some of us chose not to answer him in kind....that's not "liking" him."

________________________________________

I stand by that impression, I said, "You seem to bear with them nicely.  You kind of like people that slap other folks.  That’s subjective and just my impression."  

It's not a conclusion - It is merely an opinion - An opinion that I'd love to change! This impression has not been formed by the latest Malone interaction.  In fact, as moderator your behavior argued against this impression in many respects.  Also, Malone was speaking violently against the innocent, I on the other hand moved violently against the tearing wolf in our midst.  Therefore, it was not "in kind"...I abhor playing the pugilist.  However, it is something I will do when I see the sheep under attack...the innocent in duress.

Actually, if I responded in kind, you also did - "You rejected him" as you should have and threw him off the board.  The pressing of the nose produces blood.  Violence produces violence.  Tragic.

Appreciate your note.  

Chuck Vanasse

[outdeep]

The news on John from his website:

John is the primary voice in a church of about 40 that meets in a building that appears to be someone's garage.  You can see this at
www.millardcommunitychurch.com  The practices and bold stands of this church (as well as its apparent lack of growth) feels hauntingly familiar to me.

He has a daily radio program on three AM stations in Kansas City, Omaha and Indianapolis.   When I clicked on the "Galatians overview" I was met with Quartet-type music that I would expect only appeals to an older set though I could be wrong.  It's one thing to say that you are preaching to thousands over the radio.  It's another to actually know that people are listening to you.  Those of us in non-profit ministries tend to have ways of tracking this sort of thing so we know we are not wasting our money.  Here is his radio setup:  http://www.biblestudy.net/

The most interesting item I found is a four year old profile that was done on John in the Omaha World.   I'll let you form your own opinion on how much his positives were fluffed and how much of his negatives smoothed over.  Nevertheless, it has a nice action photo in case you don't know what he looks like.  I didn't.
http://www.millardcommunitychurch.com/Pages/News/OWH_John_Malone.htm