Re:Guided by God

[vernecarty]

Verne, re. leaders, IMO most were fresh ground when they became leaders, and were trained by George.  Some were already saved.  Some spoke out because they had some spiritual discernment, but they ended up leaving the system or were pushed out.  Others were deceived.

Those who remain, "choose"   to do so??

Marcia

I trust God will have mercy on me for all my sins when I stand in His presence.
Don't anyone misunderstand my intent.
Marcia the point you are making is sobering indeed. Those who left or were tossed out will bear scathing witness.
To deny a  failing of both intellect and will (as well as affections) in those who remained with a man like George Geftakys is to make, in my view a mockery of Him with whom we have to do...
We cannot excuse what happend.
We should not excuse what happened.
Verne

[editor]

Oh the love that sought me
Oh the blood the bought me
Oh the grace that brought me to the fold
Wondrous grace that brought me to the fold...
Verne

Interesting hymn.

I don't think that person understood choice.  Perhaps the only thing he knew was Grace.  Oh well.  Live and learn.

Brent

[vernecarty]

Oh the love that sought me
Oh the blood the bought me
Oh the grace that brought me to the fold
Wondrous grace that brought me to the fold...
Verne

Interesting hymn.

I don't think that person understood choice.  Perhaps the only thing he knew was Grace.  Oh well.  Live and learn.

Brent

Gimme that old time religion...
Verne

[al Hartman]

Oh the love that sought me
Oh the blood the bought me
Oh the grace that brought me to the fold
Wondrous grace that brought me to the fold...
Verne

Interesting hymn.

I don't think that person understood choice.  Perhaps the only thing he knew was Grace.  Oh well.  Live and learn.

Brent

Brent,

I have long considered myself certifiably nuts,
but I can't hold a candle to you!

Try not to sprain your tongue,
cramming it into your cheek that way!

al

[vernecarty]

I sometimes get the impression that others think I   talk about former assembly leadership the way I do because I get some kind of satisfaction from their failure.
What possible difference could my opinion make at this point?
To them or anyone else?
The only value in any discussion or analysis of what happened is inocculation of each of us against a repeat of that tragedy.
We really ought to keep that goal in mind.
It is therefore critical that we be quite clear in our minds about what happened and why it did.

Verne, re. leaders, IMO most were fresh ground when they became leaders, and were trained by George.

True, but it should not have mattered and it is not an excuse.
I have also done some incredibly stupid things in my own youth.
We do not remain children.
If you accept the mantle of spiritual leadership, then you ought to act like it.
If you don't, you have no business being in that position.
God will absolutely hold us accountable, trained by the likes of George Geftakys or not.


 

Some were already saved.  Some spoke out because they had some spiritual discernment, but they ended up leaving the system or were pushed out.

For the ones who do not know Jesus Christ, I am not even talking to them for that is none of my business.
The fact that some did speak up and paid the price proves my point. Had more of them acted with integrity, that situation would not have degenerated to the condition we saw at the end.


 

Others were deceived.

True, but again not an excuse. Biblical teaching on deception is that it takes place only after a person, saint and sinner alike, has deliberately rejected revealed truth.
This is fundamental.
Deception  by its very   nature and definition, is substitution!

Those who remain, "choose"   to do so??

Marcia

No, they were hand-cuffed to the meeting places.
What kind of question is this?

OF COURSE THEY CHOSE TO REMAIN! SOME STILL ARE!(choosing)

Verne

[editor]

Interestingly from my point of view is that this discussion, which has veered off into Calvinism/Arminianism, is one of the things that got me into the Assembly.

In my 19 year old, super-intelligent mind, George made perfect sense and ended the age old debate about these things.  Justification was NOT predestined, but Sanctification in Christ was, according to George.

In other words, God never chose who would be saved, but chose that of those who were saved, many would be sanctified in Christ.....those who went the way of the cross.  

Using this lens, I could dodge my way around different scriptures, and assign the context in such a way that I had no trouble fully comprehending how Reformed and Arminian people just lacked vision, which was why they were stuck in systematic theology of one kind or another.

I was so glad I wasn't stuck, and understood what this was all about!

Anyhow, today I have come to the conclusion that both sides have valid arguments, and that somehow both are correct, to the extent that neither camp knows it all.

As Tom has pointed out, there is much agreement between the two.

Brent

[Oscar]

Brent,

From what I read in your posts, you seem to be under the impression that Arminians believe that man can choose to save himself.   That is not what the dispute was/is about.  The Arminians disagreed with the Calvinists over the issue of how God elects.

The Calvinist view is called monergism.   God does everything, including controlling your mind in such a way as to make you think..."I want to be saved."  

The Arminian view is called synergism.  They believe that man is fallen, condemned, completely alienated from God.  

They reason that since God loves the world, and sent his Son to die for the sins of all men, grace is extended to all men.  Grace, they believe, gives men sufficient light and freedom from bondage to enable the mind to understand the need for forgiveness and to see that Christ is the savior.  

They believe that grace enables sinners to will to receive Christ.  They also believe that men can resist grace and reject Christ, which becomes the basis for their condemnation and judgement.  Calvinists, of course, reason that grace is irresistable.

Arminians start their reasoning in God's revealed character, his love and justice.  Calvinists begin with God's sovereignty, his power and freedom.

Both systems, in my mind, meet the criteria of plausibility.  Both, however, have problems as well.

One of the real problems that I have with Calvinism is that if they are correct, much of what we percieve of as our life histories is nothing but an illusion.  We thought we were thinking, learning, deciding...but it was really God all along.

To me, this falls below the plausibility level because I don't think it matches with the Biblical worldview.

More later.  

Thomas Maddux

[matthew r. sciaini]

Verne:

I guess I should have understood more clearly what you were saying about those speaking of spiritual perfection...that they already claim to be spiritually complete, perfect.   I don't think that I have personally encountered anyone I knew in the assembly that actually SAID that they had reached spiritual perfection.  Of course, a number ACTED as if they had, however much they might have said to the contrary.  

And by the way,  you are right about wondering how much some of us really have learned from our experience in the assembly.  If the website and various saints had not pushed the issue, the system would probably still be extant and many of us would still be there.  

I don't know if I've learned much of anything except to have a healthy distrust of ANY organized Christian group, even of those with which I'm involved, and to go with "gut" feelings AS WELL AS what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears, checking it with the Word.

Matt

[vernecarty]

Verne:

I guess I should have understood more clearly what you were saying about those speaking of spiritual perfection...that they already claim to be spiritually complete, perfect.   I don't think that I have personally encountered anyone I knew in the assembly that actually SAID that they had reached spiritual perfection.  Of course, a number ACTED as if they had, however much they might have said to the contrary.  

Few people will actually explicitly admit their view of themselves as sinless Matt. They are too smart for that. All you have to do is listen to them though. They will try to convince you that they have a method of arrival at spiritual maturity the rest of us lack. Little  need for confession and or repentance on their part is a dead giveaway. The rest of us mortals understand the daily walk, with much failure, mis-steps and the need to continually be filled with the Spirit. We know better than to trust our own holiness. It does not exist apart from the Saviour.

And by the way,  you are right about wondering how much some of us really have learned from our experience in the assembly.  If the website and various saints had not pushed the issue, the system would probably still be extant and many of us would still be there.  

No question about that. Brent's as well as others relentless pursuit of truth is what turned the tide. This impetus should rightly have come from God's men on the inside.
It is a painful reality that it did not.

I don't know if I've learned much of anything except to have a healthy distrust of ANY organized Christian group, even of those with which I'm involved, and to go with "gut" feelings AS WELL AS what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears, checking it with the Word.

Matt

Good for you my friend.
God helping me, I will never do anything in a position of spiritual trust for which I would later be ashamed. What happened in the assemblies has had a profound impact on me personally.
I am ruthless, almost to the point of being reactionary, with any appearance of impropriety by anyone involved in the ministry of the gospel.
There is far too much at stake.
 There is nothing more heart-breaking than seeing men who should be displaying the matchless grace and dignity of the Lord Jesus Christ, absolutely abrogating that high calling by conduct that brings shame and discredit to His name.
Again, I am not talking about some saint with a besetting weakness, I am talking about leaders. We need to be faithful...at all costs!

One of the real problems that I have with Calvinism is that if they are correct, much of what we percieve of as our life histories is nothing but an illusion.  We thought we were thinking, learning, deciding...but it was really God all along.

To me, this falls below the plausibility level because I don't think it matches with the Biblical worldview.

More later.  

Thomas Maddux

Have you been reading "Broca's  Brain"??!!  

I agree that what you say is implied  by Calvinist theology (unmitigated determinism) is not a Biblical world view.

God's review of each life would be an excercise in futility.
I am not convinced that such a view is necessitated by what most Calvinists believe. I still think the model that permits God to determine  outcome (that is to accomplish His ultimate purpose) is one that does no violence to man's decision making degrees of freedom.
Verne

[Oscar]

Verne,

You wrote:

Do you really believe this Tom?
After all that I have heard, it seems to me a far stronger case can be made that the problems were primarily spiritaul!

The words of condemnation do not begin to equal the personal anguish...for opportunities lost... and lives broken...
Verne

Let me clarify the point you were responding to when you wrote the above.  First, I do not deny in any way that many, many wrongs were committed by leaders in the George Geftakys assemblies.  I know, I committed some myself, and have had to ask forgiveness from some folks.

When the website started, I wrote an article  I entitled, "Loyalty", which I believe is still posted.  In that article I stated what I believe enabled much of the abuse that went on in that system.  

George Geftakys convinced people that he had a special calling from God, and that loyalty to him was loyalty to God.
This gave tremendous authority to the mystical interpretations of the Bible that he made himself or had inherited from the Plymouth Bretheren.

One of the main pillars of delusion that held up the Geftakys empire was the idea of "God's government".  If God was telling you what to do through his officially designated and annointed servants...you had to do it or defy God!!  

If one's conscience was uneasy...well, you just aren't spritual enough to see things as clearly as George, so you'd better deny it and obey "God".

That this was wrongheaded and produced all sorts of evil consequences is undeniable.  But once one had accepted George's premises...his conclusions seemed to follow.  

In my own case, it was only by going back to research and rethink the foundational ideas that allowed me to break my own mental bonds and escape.  

But even though much evil came of these false beliefs, and many souls were damaged for over 30 years, no one, to my knowledge, was physically assaulted by any of the leaders.  Even though it was difficult to leave psychologically and emotionally, it was only a matter of walking away if you wished to do it.  I know.  I did.

(David G's family situation, deplorable as it was, was not a typical example, and was not openly approved)

Second, what the Calvinists did to the Remonstrants, (Arminius' followers), was far worse than what happened to anyone in the assembly.  Ultimately the worst the assembly  could do was to throw you out.  (Which, odd as it may seem, was actually doing you a favor.)

After the Synod of Dort all of the Arminian pastors and professors were deprived of their livlihood, most were banished from Holland, ie, their beliefs made them outcasts from society, losing hearth, home and country.  Worse, many were imprisoned in the unhealthy brutal prisons of the 17th century.  Some were executed.

So, my point was this...if the evil acts of GG's subordinate leaders are proof of their utter spiritual corruption and renders them worthy of the degree of excoriation you regularly heap upon them...what about those Calvinist leaders who did even worse?

My overall point is this: The truth of why men do what they do is far more complex than you make it.  Life history, personality, doctrinal assumptions, pride, ambition, fear of criticism, sincere belief that one is doing God's will, the social milieu in which one lives, and more...all play their part.  

I think both GG and his sub-leaders and the leaders in Holland were both wrong.  On some issues, they were both right as well.  That is the problem we all face.  We are both good and evil at the same time.   The same man said, "Oh wretched man that I am", and "There is now no condemnation."

One long ago discredited leader who had been noted for his ability to teach and preach said to me shortly after GG fell, "When I preached, I preached for the Lord."  I believed him, because I can say the same thing.

So, my take on it is to let God do the judging.  Yes, wrong actions should be condemned, but I'll let Him who knows the hearts, try the hearts.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Verne,

You wrote:

Do you really believe this Tom?
After all that I have heard, it seems to me a far stronger case can be made that the problems were primarily spiritaul!

The words of condemnation do not begin to equal the personal anguish...for opportunities lost... and lives broken...
Verne

Let me clarify the point you were responding to when you wrote the above.  First, I do not deny in any way that many, many wrongs were committed by leaders in the George Geftakys assemblies.  I know, I committed some myself, and have had to ask forgiveness from some folks.

When the website started, I wrote an article  I entitled, "Loyalty", which I believe is still posted.  In that article I stated what I believe enabled much of the abuse that went on in that system.  

George Geftakys convinced people that he had a special calling from God, and that loyalty to him was loyalty to God.
This gave tremendous authority to the mystical interpretations of the Bible that he made himself or had inherited from the Plymouth Bretheren.

One of the main pillars of delusion that held up the Geftakys empire was the idea of "God's government".  If God was telling you what to do through his officially designated and annointed servants...you had to do it or defy God!!  

If one's conscience was uneasy...well, you just aren't spritual enough to see things as clearly as George, so you'd better deny it and obey "God".

That this was wrongheaded and produced all sorts of evil consequences is undeniable.  But once one had accepted George's premises...his conclusions seemed to follow.  

In my own case, it was only by going back to research and rethink the foundational ideas that allowed me to break my own mental bonds and escape.  

But even though much evil came of these false beliefs, and many souls were damaged for over 30 years, no one, to my knowledge, was physically assaulted by any of the leaders.  Even though it was difficult to leave psychologically and emotionally, it was only a matter of walking away if you wished to do it.  I know.  I did.

(David G's family situation, deplorable as it was, was not a typical example, and was not openly approved)

Second, what the Calvinists did to the Remonstrants, (Arminius' followers), was far worse than what happened to anyone in the assembly.  Ultimately the worst the assembly  could do was to throw you out.  (Which, odd as it may seem, was actually doing you a favor.)

After the Synod of Dort all of the Arminian pastors and professors were deprived of their livlihood, most were banished from Holland, ie, their beliefs made them outcasts from society, losing hearth, home and country.  Worse, many were imprisoned in the unhealthy brutal prisons of the 17th century.  Some were executed.

So, my point was this...if the evil acts of GG's subordinate leaders are proof of their utter spiritual corruption and renders them worthy of the degree of excoriation you regularly heap upon them...what about those Calvinist leaders who did even worse?

My overall point is this: The truth of why men do what they do is far more complex than you make it.  Life history, personality, doctrinal assumptions, pride, ambition, fear of criticism, sincere belief that one is doing God's will, the social milieu in which one lives, and more...all play their part.  

I think both GG and his sub-leaders and the leaders in Holland were both wrong.  On some issues, they were both right as well.  That is the problem we all face.  We are both good and evil at the same time.   The same man said, "Oh wretched man that I am", and "There is now no condemnation."

One long ago discredited leader who had been noted for his ability to teach and preach said to me shortly after GG fell, "When I preached, I preached for the Lord."  I believed him, because I can say the same thing.

So, my take on it is to let God do the judging.  Yes, wrong actions should be condemned, but I'll let Him who knows the hearts, try the hearts.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Excellent post Tom. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to share your perspective and insight. I have to say that I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Part of my own personal struggle for understanding in all this is driven by a profound desire and determination by the grace of God to never do anything knowingly that would cause harm to the flock of God. I am learning a few things from your perspective. Thanks again.
Verne

p.s. I trust it is not your implication that religious extremism was the exclusive domain of Calvinists for that would be neither fair nor accurate. Some of the things that were done in that era in the name of religious zeal would be unthinkable to most people of faith today. Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?  

[editor]

Brent,

From what I read in your posts, you seem to be under the impression that Arminians believe that man can choose to save himself.   That is not what the dispute was/is about.  The Arminians disagreed with the Calvinists over the issue of how God elects.

Yes and no.

I am not confused about what Calvinists and Arminians believe, although I definitely do not consider myself to be well versed or skilled on this topic.

What I mainly refer to in my posts is the Galatian heresy, the proponents of which are almost exclusively Arminian.

They teach that their choices (works) result in greater holiness.  It is up to them to do the right thing, and only then can God's sanctifying grace take effect.

It seems to me that the really intense deeper life proponents fall into this category, and many ex-assembly people are confused on this issue.

Your insights into all of this are most welcome and instructional.

Brent

[vernecarty]

Oh the love that sought me
Oh the blood the bought me
Oh the grace that brought me to the fold
Wondrous grace that brought me to the fold...
Verne

Interesting hymn.

I don't think that person understood choice.  Perhaps the only thing he knew was Grace.  Oh well.  Live and learn.

Brent

Brent,

I have long considered myself certifiably nuts,

How long?  


Verne

[Oscar]

Verne,

You wrote:

p.s. I trust it is not your implication that religious extremism was the exclusive domain of Calvinists for that would be neither fair nor accurate. Some of the things that were done in that era in the name of religious zeal would be unthinkable to most people of faith today. Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?  

My point was that when a Christian does something wrong, it does not mean that he is utterly corrupt.  

It seems that when Christians find themselves in a position of power, the temptation to abuse it is frequently yielded to.

This really becomes a problem when the church is allied to the state, as in Catholic countries of the past, or in Lutheran, Anglican, and Calvinist countries of the past.

In the assembly the only tools of enforcement were emotional and psychological.   In church/state situations the law enforcement officials are called in to settle doctrinal and behavioral issues!   Then when corrupt officials are involved, evil is compounded.

I am not aware of any "low church" groups, Baptists, Methodists, Brethren, etc., that were involved in church/state alliances of this type.

But what of those brethren who are involved.  Calvin himself was involved in burning one man alive on charges of heresy.  But most would say that he was a godly man in spite of this.  He was acting on a false belief that this was the right thing to do.

Many of the actions of the leaders of the GG assemblies were wrong.  They frequently believed they were doing the right thing.  They were wrong.  Seriously, sadly, harmfully wrong.  Sometimes they were just being mean, fearful, selfish, or whatever.

But much of what was done was done in the belief that they were actually serving God.  

For those of us who were involved in the assemblies, our experience should always serve as a check upon any tendency to want to control other people.  ESPECIALLY for their own "good".

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Verne,

You wrote:

p.s. I trust it is not your implication that religious extremism was the exclusive domain of Calvinists for that would be neither fair nor accurate. Some of the things that were done in that era in the name of religious zeal would be unthinkable to most people of faith today. Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?  

My point was that when a Christian does something wrong, it does not mean that he is utterly corrupt.  

It seems that when Christians find themselves in a position of power, the temptation to abuse it is frequently yielded to.

This really becomes a problem when the church is allied to the state, as in Catholic countries of the past, or in Lutheran, Anglican, and Calvinist countries of the past.

In the assembly the only tools of enforcement were emotional and psychological.   In church/state situations the law enforcement officials are called in to settle doctrinal and behavioral issues!   Then when corrupt officials are involved, evil is compounded.

I am not aware of any "low church" groups, Baptists, Methodists, Brethren, etc., that were involved in church/state alliances of this type.

But what of those brethren who are involved.  Calvin himself was involved in burning one man alive on charges of heresy.  But most would say that he was a godly man in spite of this.  He was acting on a false belief that this was the right thing to do.

Many of the actions of the leaders of the GG assemblies were wrong.  They frequently believed they were doing the right thing.  They were wrong.  Seriously, sadly, harmfully wrong.  Sometimes they were just being mean, fearful, selfish, or whatever.

But much of what was done was done in the belief that they were actually serving God.  

For those of us who were involved in the assemblies, our experience should always serve as a check upon any tendency to want to control other people.  ESPECIALLY for their own "good".

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I hear ya Tom. I still get the creeps when I read what happened to Saavedra.
In a strange kind of way though, I would almost rather be physically abused, than to suffer the kind of spiritual and emotional rape that took place in the assemblies.
In some respects the latter seem far worse for instinct would prompt one to run to escape from the former - the latter is so much more insidious....
I would also distinguish between a godly man whom I believe was sincerely mistaken (like the president of the C & MA  ) and George Geftakys, whom I believe to have been diabolical. How much culpability those who served with him deserve may well be open to question for you have made that case well. Regarding Geftakys himself, I believe the jury has spoken...
Verne