Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
September 26, 2017, 12:15:49 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pretense: The Church as Student Organization  (Read 49651 times)
ANobody
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



« Reply #40 on: May 04, 2009, 01:29:45 pm »

Quote from: anonymoustoday
If nobody, or anobody, does not ask, I guess I will. 

1: What exactly did West Lafayette elders Ray and Ken do that causes Doc Sam to want them stricken from the archives of Great Commission history? 

2: Were their sins against Great Commission so grave, as they must have been, that they deserved to be disciplined?  Then why weren't they?

3: Is this another case of covering up the sins of elders, or is it another case of wanting to revise history to make Great Commission look better than they were by pretending to kick out embarassing elders who were never actually kicked out?

So, Doc Sam, you made the public allegations that these two elders acted unbecomingly.  Is that just a charge meant to smear their reputations or can you name the things they did that were a sin against Great Commission?
Quote from: Dr.Sam
Perhaps I was not clear. I never have said that I wanted them "stricken from the archives of Great Commission." My point is that the leadership saw themselves in GC but the reality was that they did not work with the M.O. of how things were done. Our friend from there saw the issue from being inside. I saw it from being a leader watching and interacting with leaders on a national level. I am not smearing their reputations. I am simply trying to correct a misrepresentation that pins unjust accusations that were based on seeing that congregation as part of GC. I say it was on the fringe and not a total participant. Yet GC got all the baggage of the leaders' mistakes attributed to them. I want to correct misconceptions whether doing so makes GC look good or bad. It is my same feelings about the Larry Pile/McDonald/Martin witch hunt mentality. Few see this spirit in them which has shown lack of integrity, healing, and love. Just my two cents.

Still feeling mighty uninformed. 

He is what I have pieced together so far.

Ray and Ken were told they were in the GC association of churches, but one national leader of the association, Sam Lopez, did not want them to be.  Of course, he apparently never told them that.

Ray and Ken did all the conference things with the association and taught all the doctrines of GC, just like all the other in churches.

But Ray and Ken were talked about in secrecy by GC national leaders because in some unspecified way they were different, but that difference was not big enough or bad enough to bring them up on church discipline or to tell to their congregations.  So the national leaders just continued to talk about them behind everyone's backs.

Since the GC association national leaders, especially Jim McCotter, could remove existing elders or add new elders to a local church at any time they wanted, or so Ray and Ken used to tell the flock, it makes me wonder why Ray and Ken were never replaced?

Here is the real irony.  Ray and Ken were, according to Sam Lopez, secretly considered rebellious and factious men by the GC association.  Of course the church was never told this.  What should we think of all the people that Ray and Ken accused of being rebellious toward GC?

----

Maybe I am the only one who sees this whole story as stinking up the place.  Two elders are considered rebels by the GC church association, but their own church is never told and they are never disciplined.  And all the time they are shoving the GC association values, doctrines, and conferences down the proverbial throats of their own congregation because the congregation thinks they are GC elders in good standing and the congregation wants to be a good GC congregation.  Like I said, maybe I am the only one who smells that foul stench given off by deception and power grabbing.

And still I have no idea of even one little thing GC national leaders wanted Ray and Ken to do, that they did not do, that got them secretly classified as rebels. 
Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #41 on: May 04, 2009, 06:36:38 pm »

Anybody,

You are taking my words to an extreme I have not meant. You are distorting my words. You are entitled to think whatever you want. You are wrong in your interpretations.


Quote from: anonymoustoday
If nobody, or anobody, does not ask, I guess I will. 

1: What exactly did West Lafayette elders Ray and Ken do that causes Doc Sam to want them stricken from the archives of Great Commission history? 

2: Were their sins against Great Commission so grave, as they must have been, that they deserved to be disciplined?  Then why weren't they?

3: Is this another case of covering up the sins of elders, or is it another case of wanting to revise history to make Great Commission look better than they were by pretending to kick out embarassing elders who were never actually kicked out?

So, Doc Sam, you made the public allegations that these two elders acted unbecomingly.  Is that just a charge meant to smear their reputations or can you name the things they did that were a sin against Great Commission?
Quote from: Dr.Sam
Perhaps I was not clear. I never have said that I wanted them "stricken from the archives of Great Commission." My point is that the leadership saw themselves in GC but the reality was that they did not work with the M.O. of how things were done. Our friend from there saw the issue from being inside. I saw it from being a leader watching and interacting with leaders on a national level. I am not smearing their reputations. I am simply trying to correct a misrepresentation that pins unjust accusations that were based on seeing that congregation as part of GC. I say it was on the fringe and not a total participant. Yet GC got all the baggage of the leaders' mistakes attributed to them. I want to correct misconceptions whether doing so makes GC look good or bad. It is my same feelings about the Larry Pile/McDonald/Martin witch hunt mentality. Few see this spirit in them which has shown lack of integrity, healing, and love. Just my two cents.

Still feeling mighty uninformed. 

He is what I have pieced together so far.

Ray and Ken were told they were in the GC association of churches, but one national leader of the association, Sam Lopez, did not want them to be.  Of course, he apparently never told them that.

Ray and Ken did all the conference things with the association and taught all the doctrines of GC, just like all the other in churches.

But Ray and Ken were talked about in secrecy by GC national leaders because in some unspecified way they were different, but that difference was not big enough or bad enough to bring them up on church discipline or to tell to their congregations.  So the national leaders just continued to talk about them behind everyone's backs.

Since the GC association national leaders, especially Jim McCotter, could remove existing elders or add new elders to a local church at any time they wanted, or so Ray and Ken used to tell the flock, it makes me wonder why Ray and Ken were never replaced?

Here is the real irony.  Ray and Ken were, according to Sam Lopez, secretly considered rebellious and factious men by the GC association.  Of course the church was never told this.  What should we think of all the people that Ray and Ken accused of being rebellious toward GC?

----

Maybe I am the only one who sees this whole story as stinking up the place.  Two elders are considered rebels by the GC church association, but their own church is never told and they are never disciplined.  And all the time they are shoving the GC association values, doctrines, and conferences down the proverbial throats of their own congregation because the congregation thinks they are GC elders in good standing and the congregation wants to be a good GC congregation.  Like I said, maybe I am the only one who smells that foul stench given off by deception and power grabbing.

And still I have no idea of even one little thing GC national leaders wanted Ray and Ken to do, that they did not do, that got them secretly classified as rebels. 
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 10:38:32 am by DrSam » Logged
Anon
Guest

« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2009, 12:27:44 pm »

I know this is an old thread, but I just recently came across this web site.  In response to the initial poster's comments: There were Purdue students who were part of Harvest House from the very beginning -- even before a name was decided on. In the early years the outreach was almost exclusively to students -- and there were certainly more than "2-6" students involved. The group met at Ray's home in the beginning years -- not on campus -- even though it had status as a campus group. Ray and Ken moved to W. Lafayette to start a ministry to/for students.  How does that equal pretense as a student organization?
Logged
bothered
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 19



« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2009, 01:14:47 pm »

I too just joined GCM Warning. And sort of skimmed this thread too. From what i understand, this is how a lot of GCM college ministries function, not just the campus organization at Univ of Florida. I think most GCMers see it as a strategic way to get on campus and reach out. They can't come on campus as a official church sponsored by the school in some way (I think) so they have to be a student organization. I would say that, for the sake of parents whose students are checking out different student organizations, there might need to be more clarity. In other words, parents may not know that the group the child has joined is actually a church and the student may not understand that either. So, it just needs to be more clear, if it is not clear already.

Personally....I think there is a deeper issue of polity here and overall governance and identity. Which I wrote about in another thread. I think people have to dig deeply into how GCM is structured and go form there.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 01:17:36 pm by bothered » Logged
ANobody
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2009, 04:49:59 pm »

The excerpt from Marching to Zion below shows that the deception by the campus elders over whether their "student organizations" were churches and under the control of GCI elders has been long known as a deception even all the way back to 1976.

I said, “Sam, when we went to Ames in 1976, was it your impression… didn't we have elders in ISU Bible Study?”

He said, “Yeah, of course we did.”

I said, “Well, how come in this newspaper article written in 1979 Mike Stohlmeyer and other men quoted in this article swear there were no elders in ISU Bible Study?”

He said, “Well, it doesn't have elders. The Ames Fellowship Church has elders.”

And I said, “Sam, that organization was not created until 1979. You and I went there in 1976. Now, I want to ask you that question again, Sam. Did the ISU Bible Study have elders?”

And Sam looked at me point blank and said, “No.”

And I looked at him point blank and I said, “You're lying.” And I said, “I'm gonna tell you something else, Sam. You lie for Jim McCotter every day. You violate your conscience.” I said, “I worked closely with Jim and I know that you cannot work closely with Jim and not lie constantly and violate your conscience.” And I read him the verse out of 2 Timothy, I believe, where it says you'll shipwreck your faith if you continue to do that."
Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #45 on: August 20, 2009, 07:43:05 pm »

Gee... please look at my previous responses on this matter. This is old moldy stuff. Technically ISU Bible Study never had elders. Did the elders have influence on the members, of course. That was not hidden. If you attended an  ISU Bible Study Elders were present and taught at those studies as well as students.

I would like to present that Mike Royal was not forthcoming when he approached me. His goal was entrapment, taking advantage of our friendship, in my opinion. He, in my opinion, did not have pure motives. His goal was to trash. I felt betrayed by him as he later mocked me publicly. I think that was dishonest and backstabbing. Just my opinion. The Zion paper/book only presents that side because there is a vendetta motivated by Larry Pile's desire to have "heads on a platter (something that I confronted him on in this forum) as being motivated by an unhealed issue-based agenda.

Also keep in mind that the ISU campus was greatly antagonistic to anything Christian and wanted to totally control student indoctrination in their anti-religion and anti-God stance. When the Publication Board in charge of the student paper became filled with Christians from the ISU Bible study ISU did something illegal and threw them out in dictatorial and unprecedented fashion. Should they have worn a cross on their arms like the Jews of Germany? In my opinion to share your strategy to reach students on a campus openly with haters of God is idiocy. It seems that Mike Royal would have possible called this "deception" also...

I would imagine that Mike Royal would have condemned Rahab for hiding the spies and Joshua for tricking the enemies of Israel.

The excerpt from Marching to Zion below shows that the deception by the campus elders over whether their "student organizations" were churches and under the control of GCI elders has been long known as a deception even all the way back to 1976.

I said, “Sam, when we went to Ames in 1976, was it your impression… didn't we have elders in ISU Bible Study?”

He said, “Yeah, of course we did.”

I said, “Well, how come in this newspaper article written in 1979 Mike Stohlmeyer and other men quoted in this article swear there were no elders in ISU Bible Study?”

He said, “Well, it doesn't have elders. The Ames Fellowship Church has elders.”

And I said, “Sam, that organization was not created until 1979. You and I went there in 1976. Now, I want to ask you that question again, Sam. Did the ISU Bible Study have elders?”

And Sam looked at me point blank and said, “No.”

And I looked at him point blank and I said, “You're lying.” And I said, “I'm gonna tell you something else, Sam. You lie for Jim McCotter every day. You violate your conscience.” I said, “I worked closely with Jim and I know that you cannot work closely with Jim and not lie constantly and violate your conscience.” And I read him the verse out of 2 Timothy, I believe, where it says you'll shipwreck your faith if you continue to do that."

Logged
ANobody
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2009, 06:49:55 am »

Quote from: DrSam
In my opinion to share your strategy to reach students on a campus openly with haters of God is idiocy.

I guess that's as good a summation of the GC stance as I have heard.  Not that I think it is a good one. 

If the Jews had marched around Jericho under the flag of Baal to hide the fact that they were Jews and to make themselves more "acceptable" to the inhabitants of the land, I don't think God would have been pleased. 
Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #47 on: August 21, 2009, 12:38:33 pm »

Quote from: DrSam
In my opinion to share your strategy to reach students on a campus openly with haters of God is idiocy.

I guess that's as good a summation of the GC stance as I have heard.  Not that I think it is a good one.  

If the Jews had marched around Jericho under the flag of Baal to hide the fact that they were Jews and to make themselves more "acceptable" to the inhabitants of the land, I don't think God would have been pleased.  

With all due respect ANobody, I agree but I don't believe it is analagous. To be commanded by God to go obviously identified as Israelites in front of the city of Jericho is not the same as Israelites being told to take over the land of Canaan through their military wits and creativity. Joshua "deceived" the enemy and even tricked them so he could overcome them. Rahab "lied" to her own to protect the spies who were going to report and then invade the city. She was then honored in the genealogical records of the Messiah for doing so. In modern times, Christians during World War II would be confused thinking that they were disobedient to God by lying to the Nazi who asked them if they were hiding any Jews in their homes. Of course, some lied and saved many lives. Others had an erroneously programmed conscience and misunderstanding of scripture and so turned in folks destined for the gas chambers.

The command to "Go into the world" does not mean we have to be naive and play into the enemy's hands.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 02:15:44 pm by DrSam » Logged
ANobody
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2009, 08:17:04 am »

Quote from: DrSam
With all due respect ANobody, I agree but I don't believe it is analagous. To be commanded by God to go obviously identified as Israelites in front of the city of Jericho is not the same as Israelites being told to take over the land of Canaan through their military wits and creativity. Joshua "deceived" the enemy and even tricked them so he could overcome them. Rahab "lied" to her own to protect the spies who were going to report and then invade the city. She was then honored in the genealogical records of the Messiah for doing so. In modern times, Christians during World War II would be confused thinking that they were disobedient to God by lying to the Nazi who asked them if they were hiding any Jews in their homes. Of course, some lied and saved many lives. Others had an erroneously programmed conscience and misunderstanding of scripture and so turned in folks destined for the gas chambers.

The command to "Go into the world" does not mean we have to be naive and play into the enemy's hands.

I found this defense of deceiving the university authorities very creative.  It goes something like this:
  • Since Joshua was not stricken dead when he deceived his military enemies,
  • it must be ok to deceive the unsaved so that we can bring them to Christ so
  • it must be ok to deceive university officials (many of them are Christians) so that we can secretly preach to the unsaved on campus.

Any problems with this strategy?  God tells us to be innocent in our conduct, not to lie, to be honest, and to preach the Word in purity of conduct and speech.

Let us pretend for a moment that God really does find deception a valid evangelism technique as DrSam states above (please, just for a second).  When "caught" in the deception, how should the Christian respond?  Jesus, through the apostle John, said that we should be honest and admit our devotion to Christ, even if it means we will be beheaded.  What do the GC churches who are pretending to be mere student organizations do when they are caught in their deceptions? "Oh no, we don't have pastors overseeing the organization..." and they continue to deceive.

Consider this famous example: "Hey, you, Peter, you are one of Jesus' disciples."  "No I am not, I swear I am not."  Was that deception a good testimony to the unsaved or bad? 

Twist the Old Testament stories anyway you like, Sam (and I suppose you must be the Sam in the MTZ story quoted above?), but God demands of us honesty in our evangelistic efforts.  Nonetheless, I do commend you in this: though your theological logic is flawed, I am pleased to see that you admit that GC has used deception to accomplish their ends on campus.

Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2009, 02:55:10 pm »

ANobody,

You are misrepresenting me and distorting my words. Your logic about my logic is wrong and distorted.

However, I would like you to answer if Joshua in his battles ever used secrecy, surprise, and misleading of the enemy?

Then explain how Rahab was lauded by God in the lineage of the Messiah for lying to her people about the spies.

I would suppose that you would probably turn in Jews to the Gestapo if you lived in Germany in those times. You would feel "guilty" and that you were "deceiving" the Nazis and therefore that would be wrong as a Christian. If I am wrong then correct me and tell me what your scriptural rationale is to defend the Jews you would be hiding? Messy isn't it?

I surmise that in modern society with an evil media bent on destroying Christians and their message, you just might give them all your battle secrets, turn yourself in, and then let them burn you at the stake before their altar of hatred for God.

Quote from: DrSam
With all due respect ANobody, I agree but I don't believe it is analagous. To be commanded by God to go obviously identified as Israelites in front of the city of Jericho is not the same as Israelites being told to take over the land of Canaan through their military wits and creativity. Joshua "deceived" the enemy and even tricked them so he could overcome them. Rahab "lied" to her own to protect the spies who were going to report and then invade the city. She was then honored in the genealogical records of the Messiah for doing so. In modern times, Christians during World War II would be confused thinking that they were disobedient to God by lying to the Nazi who asked them if they were hiding any Jews in their homes. Of course, some lied and saved many lives. Others had an erroneously programmed conscience and misunderstanding of scripture and so turned in folks destined for the gas chambers.

The command to "Go into the world" does not mean we have to be naive and play into the enemy's hands.

I found this defense of deceiving the university authorities very creative.  It goes something like this:
  • Since Joshua was not stricken dead when he deceived his military enemies,
  • it must be ok to deceive the unsaved so that we can bring them to Christ so
  • it must be ok to deceive university officials (many of them are Christians) so that we can secretly preach to the unsaved on campus.

Any problems with this strategy?  God tells us to be innocent in our conduct, not to lie, to be honest, and to preach the Word in purity of conduct and speech.

Let us pretend for a moment that God really does find deception a valid evangelism technique as DrSam states above (please, just for a second).  When "caught" in the deception, how should the Christian respond?  Jesus, through the apostle John, said that we should be honest and admit our devotion to Christ, even if it means we will be beheaded.  What do the GC churches who are pretending to be mere student organizations do when they are caught in their deceptions? "Oh no, we don't have pastors overseeing the organization..." and they continue to deceive.

Consider this famous example: "Hey, you, Peter, you are one of Jesus' disciples."  "No I am not, I swear I am not."  Was that deception a good testimony to the unsaved or bad? 

Twist the Old Testament stories anyway you like, Sam (and I suppose you must be the Sam in the MTZ story quoted above?), but God demands of us honesty in our evangelistic efforts.  Nonetheless, I do commend you in this: though your theological logic is flawed, I am pleased to see that you admit that GC has used deception to accomplish their ends on campus.


Logged
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #50 on: August 22, 2009, 06:08:49 pm »

I would suppose that you would probably turn in Jews to the Gestapo if you lived in Germany in those times. You would feel "guilty" and that you were "deceiving" the Nazis and therefore that would be wrong as a Christian. If I am wrong then correct me and tell me what your scriptural rationale is to defend the Jews you would be hiding? Messy isn't it?

You keep rehashing this excuse, but I ask, is your conscience is that seared? It's one thing to conceal innocents from wicked men; entirely another to 'deceived in the name of Christ'; like one military boy put it, a guy who always carried a concealed weapon somewhere on his person, if its' defending person or someone else, stab or shoot, but if attacked for the faith in persecution, 'you kind of have to take it.' (Anybody wiser, minus Sam, welcome to correct.)

ANobody,

You are misrepresenting me and distorting my words. Your logic about my logic is wrong and distorted.

However, I would like you to answer if Joshua in his battles ever used secrecy, surprise, and misleading of the enemy?

Then explain how Rahab was lauded by God in the lineage of the Messiah for lying to her people about the spies.

No he's not, Sam. By all appearances you match perfectly the description of those false teachers and brethren who will (as in the will) not be held accountable for his words, and thereby we know them. The word of the Lord rebuke you:

Quote
1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, 2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you. --2 Cor 4:1-12

we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

we have renounced the things hidden because of shame

not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God

but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

No longer addressing just Sam:

The day I walked-into another Church, having finally found one that was  preaching God's word, rather than marketing itself, without having informed any of them of my situation, or contacted anyone (just checking it out), the pastor was preaching on this very passage: and without apology openly condemning the craftiness of the 'church' majority of our age, their falsity, that they preach themselves, not Christ, and craft schemes and deceive 'for Christ', and deceive themselves, and so on. It was a major relief, too: that's all GC* was, or ever showed itself to be: this passage condemns them and its defenders. There's much more text of Scripture that can be brought upon the subjects raid just by this one text alone, but for now I believe it in itself is sufficiently clear to make evident to anyone who isn't so seared as to be hardened that these are wicked, evil, schemed, wholly contrary to the Spirit of Christ, and undeserving any sentiment or benefit of doubt. Now Sam, I want to make clear, I don't even bid you 'God speed', only that you obey the command 'repent and believe'; I say I do not wish you well, because I am commanded not to, though I do not wish harm, and my reason is that you come on here defending guys like Schuller who openly preaches 'man centered theology', cried to us all about Peale (who was by definition an antichrist for his teachings on Jesus, as well as openly New-Age an in that taught the opposite), who heaped upon the Church Peale's "New Thought" teachings (Schuller through Peale is the origin of popular 'Positive Confessionalism'/'Word-Faith'), and through Him come the major pushers of Church Growth, the 'superstars', Hybels, Warren, etc.: thousands from all these different avenues converged on the Church--a military commander couldn't have done it better--at first just through zeal, but not long after becoming organized, and though it is but culmination of deeper heresies and deceiving and delusional spirits that have leavened over centuries, it's plain to see: this stuff is heresy. You also come in defense--though not total, but nevertheless of what is wicked--of GC, a festering cess pool of all that, and these heresies (and the trouble is with stating that, is that they are, like so many of these men, so subtle, or they do so organizationally rather than per person, such that even if they weren't constantly mutating it's a moving target), and worse, and it seems the only things you ever had a problem with were that (1) they weren't feel-good towards everybody, but especially (2) you also got burned, and that after you yourself helping to architect the very framework, policies, and justifications for their abusive practices: it's wickedness, and perhaps it was an opportunity to taste your medicine, even if you were only an architect in part, but nevertheless we have your own writing as a persecutor, plain to see.

I for one am not amused as you repeatedly come accusing those who worked righteously for the good against the evil of being merely vendetta'd while you rather show yourself to be that of which you accuse others; as you speak loosely, but clearly enough, and then try wiggle out (moving target) of accountability to whoever pegs you. Your lack of accountability is tiring enough--I don't even expect this to be heard well, or taken seriously, but it doesn't matter.

Quote
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you.
13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE,” we also believe, therefore we also speak, 14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God.
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Cor 4:7-18

The Church is not an earthly army, but a heavenly witness: martyros means witness, and only because of Christians did it come to signify dying to bear testimony truthfully; GC*, however, is all about gaining 'influence', power: wanting to see great things and DENIGRATE 'ordinary' life, the very thing the apostle commands us to pray for our authorities that we may have! The catholic (lower case 'c', pre-trentian, early-centuries) Church taught, (and Catholic big 'C', and the orthodox Churches still teach), for instance, that an 'ordinary life' is honorable before God, that (as the word teaches) we're not to seek else than that place in which we are called, but to be content and faithful, fear God and keep HIS commandments: GC* and like organizations teach "keep your leaders' commandments, even if against God's, you must trust your leaders, by being over you, if they've commanded you wrong, it's they that will be held to account": the word, however, say everyone will be held to account for their own sins--GC* teaches such things that imply legitimization of sin committed knowingly, irregardless of whether or not they try to obscure it through explicit denial, that's not just implicit to that teaching, but the implications have been and are explicitly taught: been there, seen it, even after denials when the 'persecution' dies down the other face comes out again.

All that is heresy, Sam: and you helped persecute those who dared question otherwise by not backing 'the leaders', who sinned by 'listening' to those who condemned such teaching and craftiness, and so on. You've always defended yourself for what we openly know, while suggesting that you've actually repented--but for what we don't. So what do we have to do with you? Or just in case anyone here doesn't want to be included in that, what do I have to do with you? Why do you come in attempt to push your deception upon anyone who speaks rightly--in ways that contradict the evils you taught and committed all the way back then?

How is it you could for a moment even suggest to yourself that willful deception of universities, for instance, in a land where speech is a protected right, be correct? Perhaps there is analogy where Christians must infiltrate a country in order to bear witness, but not here: and even then, if they are to be caught, and brought before the authorities--for which they would be executed, what would be the proper action?

Quote
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you.
13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE,” we also believe, therefore we also speak, 14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you. 2 Cor 4:7-14

Se the morbidity (from the world's point of view, but a trusted hope for us) there? "knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you." The implication: (1) speak even if you will die; particularly I like that here, as everywhere, Paul validates his apostleship not by his own authority, but by their, the sheep's, acceptation. That is, that he conforms with the faith of Christ in which they trust, not by his teaching: see how GC's backwards? (And how also that implies an UTTER necessity of correct and proper doctrine, otherwise it would be false sheep and shepherds, the deluded who are deceiving for which their hearers are destroyed).

Schuller's hearers...are being destroyed. The Church Growth / Seeker sensitive (other possible nicknames: selfism, man/people-centered, methodological naturalism prosecuted by manipulative [psychology and] techniques, and so forth) hearers...are being destroyed. Those who get 'sanctified out' by christ, and brought to repent, have another end...but they renounced such craftiness, which sadly these days IS difficult, since that craftiness not only runs deep in the 'church', but throughout the very fabric of society in such a highly refined 'scientific' way, anymore. So what have you (plural, to all readers), renounce or keep craftiness? (You should know the choice I'd commend.)

If I went to China tomorrow to preach--perhaps having to sneak-in illegally--it would be perfectly valid to do so and preach, in God's eyes, in obedience to Him rather than men: but note how nowhere is the Church, or any individual therein, commanded, when apprehended, to be deceptive--even for a good cause, with regards to belief: again, protecting some persecuted group or people or whatever is noble; nowhere, however, is it suggested we take for ourselves resources of the world for which they attach stipulations, and be deceptive in order to do so (like meeting on its campuses under pretense of being a student org): a Church could wholly with legitimacy meet on the 'free speech zones' of campus, even set-up tents (or likely), and go with it, as they are provided, for instance, and be fine and dandy: yet GC* isn't just being deceptive because of hiding their ulterior motives from campus authorities, but rather they're also pretensing to be 'not a church', so to speak, in many places, but, parsing words like lawyers, 'a place for people to come explore spirituality': some confidence in the word and Christ to convict--and what blatant Pelagianism.

Even that claim of being for exploration is a lie: the meetings themselves are a Church service designed about seeker-principles/rules; outside of it people who tag-along 'explore' only insofar as those 'Christians' around them are trained (and exhorted) to constantly direct them to make a confession or follow 'this vision'; if they were letting people 'explore' (which would, in fact, be quite contrary to what Christians are Charged to do, which is boldly proclaim Christ with neither fear, nor shame, nor deception, nor human wisdom, nor craftiness, that those who believe do so on God and not on man's wisdom), it would be along the lines of religiophilosophical discussion, probably lots of talk on epistemology, and experience-based belief; I like to chat these things up like anyone, with both believers and non-believers, but repented, and am repenting, of being crafty in such things: must be open and clear where I stand, and exhort, preach, not beg: as if God is subject to men in order to save.

[Thanks all for letting me rant...especially at myself here.]
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 06:13:22 pm by theresearchpersona » Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #51 on: August 22, 2009, 11:05:59 pm »

ResearchSupposedly,

You are one funny guy. I don't think anything will convince you. You like to quote volumes of Bible and then equate that with "proof". YOu have not answered my direct and specific questions on those specific verses. I can do the same and just regurgitate a whole concordance like you do. A mass download of verses does not prove you are correct. You remind me a lot when I was a very young believer and I thought I could prove anything biblical by just dump-trucking on poor people my wise and massive database of verses. It made me and my ego feel quite good. Never mind that I was just being a jerk and missing many obvious things staring me at my face. I was pretty full of myself in my arrogant youthfulness. I'm not suggesting that you just could be at that same place of pomposity.

Oh Great Keeper of Purity of the Faith, when you trash folks that do ministry unlike you, and when you imply that others are heretical and false teachers because they don't look like YOU and EXACTLY believe just like YOU and do just like You... you start to sound a little like the Pharisees. I don't think Jesus would be acceptable to you if he showed up disguised as a pierced Goth at a service you would be preaching at.

You want to keep on dragging out some old corpse and yet you fail to understand that I have taken responsibility for my mistakes and I do not excuse GC of their wrongs. You continue having difficulty seeing the other side and therefore totally miss where those who have gone after GC are also wrong in their attitudes of arrogance and superiority through victimization saying, "I'm better because I suffer more than you do." Pile and Co. are not clean. You are biased and cannot see.

I would like to offer you some sincere advise. Stop portraying yourself as a "know-it-all" and dumping your whole Bible Software output on your posts. Few if anyone really care to read them. You turn off folks with your pronouncements that only sound like pomposity. Take it from another brother that has made that mistake in his earlier years in Christ. You're sounding like those clinically dead preachers that put whole congregations to sleep. They're only in love with their own words.

Oh yes, I almost forgot, If I were a Jew in Germany in Hitler's time and you were a German Christian, I would be most certainly glad not to go to your house to hide. You would have sold me to the Gestapo because of your fear of displeasing God in your misdirected and SELF-sensitive conscience.


I would suppose that you would probably turn in Jews to the Gestapo if you lived in Germany in those times. You would feel "guilty" and that you were "deceiving" the Nazis and therefore that would be wrong as a Christian. If I am wrong then correct me and tell me what your scriptural rationale is to defend the Jews you would be hiding? Messy isn't it?

You keep rehashing this excuse, but I ask, is your conscience is that seared? It's one thing to conceal innocents from wicked men; entirely another to 'deceived in the name of Christ'; like one military boy put it, a guy who always carried a concealed weapon somewhere on his person, if its' defending person or someone else, stab or shoot, but if attacked for the faith in persecution, 'you kind of have to take it.' (Anybody wiser, minus Sam, welcome to correct.)

ANobody,

You are misrepresenting me and distorting my words. Your logic about my logic is wrong and distorted.

However, I would like you to answer if Joshua in his battles ever used secrecy, surprise, and misleading of the enemy?

Then explain how Rahab was lauded by God in the lineage of the Messiah for lying to her people about the spies.

No he's not, Sam. By all appearances you match perfectly the description of those false teachers and brethren who will (as in the will) not be held accountable for his words, and thereby we know them. The word of the Lord rebuke you:

Quote
1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, 2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you. --2 Cor 4:1-12

we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

we have renounced the things hidden because of shame

not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God

but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

No longer addressing just Sam:

The day I walked-into another Church, having finally found one that was  preaching God's word, rather than marketing itself, without having informed any of them of my situation, or contacted anyone (just checking it out), the pastor was preaching on this very passage: and without apology openly condemning the craftiness of the 'church' majority of our age, their falsity, that they preach themselves, not Christ, and craft schemes and deceive 'for Christ', and deceive themselves, and so on. It was a major relief, too: that's all GC* was, or ever showed itself to be: this passage condemns them and its defenders. There's much more text of Scripture that can be brought upon the subjects raid just by this one text alone, but for now I believe it in itself is sufficiently clear to make evident to anyone who isn't so seared as to be hardened that these are wicked, evil, schemed, wholly contrary to the Spirit of Christ, and undeserving any sentiment or benefit of doubt. Now Sam, I want to make clear, I don't even bid you 'God speed', only that you obey the command 'repent and believe'; I say I do not wish you well, because I am commanded not to, though I do not wish harm, and my reason is that you come on here defending guys like Schuller who openly preaches 'man centered theology', cried to us all about Peale (who was by definition an antichrist for his teachings on Jesus, as well as openly New-Age an in that taught the opposite), who heaped upon the Church Peale's "New Thought" teachings (Schuller through Peale is the origin of popular 'Positive Confessionalism'/'Word-Faith'), and through Him come the major pushers of Church Growth, the 'superstars', Hybels, Warren, etc.: thousands from all these different avenues converged on the Church--a military commander couldn't have done it better--at first just through zeal, but not long after becoming organized, and though it is but culmination of deeper heresies and deceiving and delusional spirits that have leavened over centuries, it's plain to see: this stuff is heresy. You also come in defense--though not total, but nevertheless of what is wicked--of GC, a festering cess pool of all that, and these heresies (and the trouble is with stating that, is that they are, like so many of these men, so subtle, or they do so organizationally rather than per person, such that even if they weren't constantly mutating it's a moving target), and worse, and it seems the only things you ever had a problem with were that (1) they weren't feel-good towards everybody, but especially (2) you also got burned, and that after you yourself helping to architect the very framework, policies, and justifications for their abusive practices: it's wickedness, and perhaps it was an opportunity to taste your medicine, even if you were only an architect in part, but nevertheless we have your own writing as a persecutor, plain to see.

I for one am not amused as you repeatedly come accusing those who worked righteously for the good against the evil of being merely vendetta'd while you rather show yourself to be that of which you accuse others; as you speak loosely, but clearly enough, and then try wiggle out (moving target) of accountability to whoever pegs you. Your lack of accountability is tiring enough--I don't even expect this to be heard well, or taken seriously, but it doesn't matter.

Quote
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you.
13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE,” we also believe, therefore we also speak, 14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God.
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Cor 4:7-18

The Church is not an earthly army, but a heavenly witness: martyros means witness, and only because of Christians did it come to signify dying to bear testimony truthfully; GC*, however, is all about gaining 'influence', power: wanting to see great things and DENIGRATE 'ordinary' life, the very thing the apostle commands us to pray for our authorities that we may have! The catholic (lower case 'c', pre-trentian, early-centuries) Church taught, (and Catholic big 'C', and the orthodox Churches still teach), for instance, that an 'ordinary life' is honorable before God, that (as the word teaches) we're not to seek else than that place in which we are called, but to be content and faithful, fear God and keep HIS commandments: GC* and like organizations teach "keep your leaders' commandments, even if against God's, you must trust your leaders, by being over you, if they've commanded you wrong, it's they that will be held to account": the word, however, say everyone will be held to account for their own sins--GC* teaches such things that imply legitimization of sin committed knowingly, irregardless of whether or not they try to obscure it through explicit denial, that's not just implicit to that teaching, but the implications have been and are explicitly taught: been there, seen it, even after denials when the 'persecution' dies down the other face comes out again.

All that is heresy, Sam: and you helped persecute those who dared question otherwise by not backing 'the leaders', who sinned by 'listening' to those who condemned such teaching and craftiness, and so on. You've always defended yourself for what we openly know, while suggesting that you've actually repented--but for what we don't. So what do we have to do with you? Or just in case anyone here doesn't want to be included in that, what do I have to do with you? Why do you come in attempt to push your deception upon anyone who speaks rightly--in ways that contradict the evils you taught and committed all the way back then?

How is it you could for a moment even suggest to yourself that willful deception of universities, for instance, in a land where speech is a protected right, be correct? Perhaps there is analogy where Christians must infiltrate a country in order to bear witness, but not here: and even then, if they are to be caught, and brought before the authorities--for which they would be executed, what would be the proper action?

Quote
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you.
13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE,” we also believe, therefore we also speak, 14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you. 2 Cor 4:7-14

Se the morbidity (from the world's point of view, but a trusted hope for us) there? "knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you." The implication: (1) speak even if you will die; particularly I like that here, as everywhere, Paul validates his apostleship not by his own authority, but by their, the sheep's, acceptation. That is, that he conforms with the faith of Christ in which they trust, not by his teaching: see how GC's backwards? (And how also that implies an UTTER necessity of correct and proper doctrine, otherwise it would be false sheep and shepherds, the deluded who are deceiving for which their hearers are destroyed).

Schuller's hearers...are being destroyed. The Church Growth / Seeker sensitive (other possible nicknames: selfism, man/people-centered, methodological naturalism prosecuted by manipulative [psychology and] techniques, and so forth) hearers...are being destroyed. Those who get 'sanctified out' by christ, and brought to repent, have another end...but they renounced such craftiness, which sadly these days IS difficult, since that craftiness not only runs deep in the 'church', but throughout the very fabric of society in such a highly refined 'scientific' way, anymore. So what have you (plural, to all readers), renounce or keep craftiness? (You should know the choice I'd commend.)

If I went to China tomorrow to preach--perhaps having to sneak-in illegally--it would be perfectly valid to do so and preach, in God's eyes, in obedience to Him rather than men: but note how nowhere is the Church, or any individual therein, commanded, when apprehended, to be deceptive--even for a good cause, with regards to belief: again, protecting some persecuted group or people or whatever is noble; nowhere, however, is it suggested we take for ourselves resources of the world for which they attach stipulations, and be deceptive in order to do so (like meeting on its campuses under pretense of being a student org): a Church could wholly with legitimacy meet on the 'free speech zones' of campus, even set-up tents (or likely), and go with it, as they are provided, for instance, and be fine and dandy: yet GC* isn't just being deceptive because of hiding their ulterior motives from campus authorities, but rather they're also pretensing to be 'not a church', so to speak, in many places, but, parsing words like lawyers, 'a place for people to come explore spirituality': some confidence in the word and Christ to convict--and what blatant Pelagianism.

Even that claim of being for exploration is a lie: the meetings themselves are a Church service designed about seeker-principles/rules; outside of it people who tag-along 'explore' only insofar as those 'Christians' around them are trained (and exhorted) to constantly direct them to make a confession or follow 'this vision'; if they were letting people 'explore' (which would, in fact, be quite contrary to what Christians are Charged to do, which is boldly proclaim Christ with neither fear, nor shame, nor deception, nor human wisdom, nor craftiness, that those who believe do so on God and not on man's wisdom), it would be along the lines of religiophilosophical discussion, probably lots of talk on epistemology, and experience-based belief; I like to chat these things up like anyone, with both believers and non-believers, but repented, and am repenting, of being crafty in such things: must be open and clear where I stand, and exhort, preach, not beg: as if God is subject to men in order to save.

[Thanks all for letting me rant...especially at myself here.]

« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 11:12:49 pm by DrSam » Logged
ANobody
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2009, 05:05:09 am »

Quote from: DrSam
However, I would like you to answer if Joshua in his battles ever used secrecy, surprise, and misleading of the enemy?

Then explain how Rahab was lauded by God in the lineage of the Messiah for lying to her people about the spies.

I would suppose that you would probably turn in Jews to the Gestapo if you lived in Germany in those times. You would feel "guilty" and that you were "deceiving" the Nazis and therefore that would be wrong as a Christian. If I am wrong then correct me and tell me what your scriptural rationale is to defend the Jews you would be hiding? Messy isn't it?

I surmise that in modern society with an evil media bent on destroying Christians and their message, you just might give them all your battle secrets, turn yourself in, and then let them burn you at the stake before their altar of hatred for God.

This line of "logic" has simply consumed your argument, hasn't it?  In fact, the inability of GC leaders and pastors to properly exegete, interpret, and apply the Old Testament is one of the movement's great failings.

Just to get this out of the way, Scriptures do not say, "Hey Rahab, you are commended for lying and deception, and therefore all future believers are commended for their lies and deceptions!"  Wrong, just plain wrong.

Rahab had to choose between two sets of deaths: the lives of the Jews or the lives of the godless city.  In either choice, someone was going to die.  Her's was not a lie of convenience, as is the GC deception regarding church v. student organization.  Rahab's was a choice of necessity where corporeal death was immediate and certain. 

Similarly, when Christians in occupied lands saved the lives of Jews they did so on the same premise: it is necessary to serve and obey God instead of man when man's edicts are murderous and evil.

Sam, that principle has long been one the Jews, the church, and the apostles have followed.  But that principle has nothing to do with GC deceiving the university administrations.  The universities are not calling GC to choose between killing the students and killing GC members.  In fact, the universities are not even telling GC they cannot minister on campus.  All that is at stake is whether GC is allowed to use university facilities to meet as a church body.  Convenience and financial stinginess is the motive.

It is my hope that all here can see and discern how badly GC leadership has abused and twisted the Old Testament to justify their deceptions and bullying.  Nehemiah is not a guide on evangelism technique.  Rahab is not a morality lesson on how to deal with university officials.  And Joshua is not a model of global missions at work.  Such nonsense turns the Old Testament from a history of God's self-revelation to an allegory that becomes all things to all GC leaders.

Really, this grotesque and infantile misuse of the Old Testament Scriptures is truly disgusting.






Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #53 on: August 23, 2009, 05:22:27 am »

ANobody,

How amusing your "exegesis" is. For your information, I have three years of Koine Greek, I've translated and diagramed in seminary a half dozen NT books/epistles (many of my sermons were based on diagramatical and grammatical basis), I've taken Hebrew using the OT as a translation text. I studied under some of the best OT and NT scholars of my day. Five of them were translators of the NIV Bible. Yada, Yada, Yada.

I do not typically handle the precious text of the Word as you imply. As a matter of fact your hermeneutics are typical of what I call, an existential leap of faith into "nothing" when you encounter difficult passages. Semantic mysticism is when you give the illusion such as the one you gave in sounding "sound" with words. The difficult passages just get arbitrarily (who makes that decision?) explained away because they are troublesome to you. I think your approach to scripture is no better than the elders of GC you attack. Your expertise is not very impressive. You're giving the typical commentary based pat answers. Many Christians leap over the exact same passages. You pick and choose what suits you in your interpretive philosophy. Reading your "exegetical" attempt shows you are almost ashamed of the OT. Funny.

I do not excuse GC for their many mistakes. Please do not lump me with them.

Now, I came into this discussion because folks have not read my prior posts of long ago and blindly assumed that Larry Pile was Divinely Inspired as he quoted a public diatribe against me coming from Mike Royal. Vaya con Dios


Quote from: DrSam
However, I would like you to answer if Joshua in his battles ever used secrecy, surprise, and misleading of the enemy?

Then explain how Rahab was lauded by God in the lineage of the Messiah for lying to her people about the spies.

I would suppose that you would probably turn in Jews to the Gestapo if you lived in Germany in those times. You would feel "guilty" and that you were "deceiving" the Nazis and therefore that would be wrong as a Christian. If I am wrong then correct me and tell me what your scriptural rationale is to defend the Jews you would be hiding? Messy isn't it?

I surmise that in modern society with an evil media bent on destroying Christians and their message, you just might give them all your battle secrets, turn yourself in, and then let them burn you at the stake before their altar of hatred for God.

This line of "logic" has simply consumed your argument, hasn't it?  In fact, the inability of GC leaders and pastors to properly exegete, interpret, and apply the Old Testament is one of the movement's great failings.

Just to get this out of the way, Scriptures do not say, "Hey Rahab, you are commended for lying and deception, and therefore all future believers are commended for their lies and deceptions!"  Wrong, just plain wrong.

Rahab had to choose between two sets of deaths: the lives of the Jews or the lives of the godless city.  In either choice, someone was going to die.  Her's was not a lie of convenience, as is the GC deception regarding church v. student organization.  Rahab's was a choice of necessity where corporeal death was immediate and certain.  

Similarly, when Christians in occupied lands saved the lives of Jews they did so on the same premise: it is necessary to serve and obey God instead of man when man's edicts are murderous and evil.

Sam, that principle has long been one the Jews, the church, and the apostles have followed.  But that principle has nothing to do with GC deceiving the university administrations.  The universities are not calling GC to choose between killing the students and killing GC members.  In fact, the universities are not even telling GC they cannot minister on campus.  All that is at stake is whether GC is allowed to use university facilities to meet as a church body.  Convenience and financial stinginess is the motive.

It is my hope that all here can see and discern how badly GC leadership has abused and twisted the Old Testament to justify their deceptions and bullying.  Nehemiah is not a guide on evangelism technique.  Rahab is not a morality lesson on how to deal with university officials.  And Joshua is not a model of global missions at work.  Such nonsense turns the Old Testament from a history of God's self-revelation to an allegory that becomes all things to all GC leaders.

Really, this grotesque and infantile misuse of the Old Testament Scriptures is truly disgusting.







« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 05:27:24 am by DrSam » Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 24, 2009, 09:23:55 am »

To help clarify who in this discussion holds the interpretive high ground, below is a quotation from Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart in their book on hermeneutics.  It is taken from their section on how to properly handle Old Testament narrative interpretation.

Quote
Individual Old Testament narratives are not intended to teach moral lessons.  The purpose of the various individual narratives is to tell what God did in the history of Israel, not to offer moral examples of right or wrong behavior.  Very often you will hear people say, "What we can learn from this story is that [we are free to lie or cheat because a character in the story did so]."  But unless the biblical narrator makes that point, on what grounds do we make it?

By way of example to Fee and Stuart's point, the Old Testament does not overtly state that David and Solomon were sinful for having taken many wives each.  Yet, we find that the principle of monogamy explictly taught by Jesus (one woman and one man speech) and by Paul (elders must be husband to only one wife).  If we were to follow the GCx method of "interpreting" the Old Testament we would see that since the patriarchs freely took multiple wives without having been condemned for having done so, it is a lesson to us that we too are free to marry multiple wives.  

Of course, that is an invalid way to approach interpreting the Old Teatament narratives.  We know that both David and Solomon were guilty of adultery for having taken multiple wives in plural marriages even though the narratives do not make this claim.  It is not ever proper to say, "If a patriarch did it and got away with it then it is fine for me to do as well."

In the same way with regard to the charge that GCx often subjected the Old Testament narratives to being nothing more than allegories for evangelism, Fee and Stuart wrote this.
Quote
Old Testament narratives are not allegories or stories filled with hidden meanings. ... Elijah's battle with the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel is not an allegory of Jesus' triumph over evil spirits in the New Testament.  The story of Abraham's securing a bride for Issace is not an allegory about Christ securing a bride through the Holy Spirit.

And the story of Nehemiah and the rebuilding effort is not an allegory about building a local church in a new community, as was so often taught by GCx pastors.

The doctrines for ethical behavior are not derived from the Old Testament narratives but from the Old Testament Laws.  

Quote
'You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. (Leviticus 19:11)

Jesus taught that it is and was acceptable to temporarily set aside some aspects of the Law to mercifully save a life that is in imminent jeopardy.

Quote
But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? "But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. "But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent. "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:3-8)

If this entire thread is premised on a supposed Old Testament ethic of the propriety of lying and deceiving in evangelism derived from the narrative of Rahab's saving the life of the Jewish spies, then it seems the debate is over.  GCx never had a biblical foundation in such a practice, and attempting to defend it on the basis of an inability to correctly read Old Testament narratives simply compounds their errors.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 09:27:44 am by EverAStudent » Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #55 on: August 24, 2009, 11:23:05 am »

Thank you, EverAStudent, for bringing that viewpoint to the table. I remember when I was in seminary how this very same issue would be debated endlessly. The principle, it appears, espoused by the authors you mentioned can take us to the place where nothing or little is to be learned from the Old Testament. I see this as a continuum on an subjective scale of -10 to +10 on interpretation where the zero is God's perfect balance. One can err in each direction. I don't believe in allegorizing all the OT nor do I believe in throwing out implied learnings. Both of those are extreme, not to ignore that even "moderate" can become its own "extreme" too!

My take on this is that the concept of "deception" is anchored with specific cultural and emotional meanings in our personal neurology. We create boxes based on beliefs, hurts, traumas, culture, family, etc. If those anchors are highly negative then we get a very high level of rejection and condemnation of one side of the hermeneutical gamut and embracing the other side. This can happen on both sides.

I often find that theologians of any side have a very fallible foible. That of injecting their own bias into the text. This happens in research often. It is called "observer bias." Qualitative researchers know this principle very well. Qualitative researchers say that there is always bias injected into all research. The Quantitative researchers scream and become dogmatic in their "calculative" and "exact" little neat world. They don't like hearing that they put their bias into the research. Anyone challenging their notions and their personal presuppositions creates many times an uncomfortable feeling in them to the point that Qualitative researchers get trashed for being so "open" and "non-scientific." I find this hermeneutical debate to be similar. Allegorical users are "looser" and "open" while non-allegorical users are "scientific" and "exact," hence more "orthodox." Almost funny... wonder what God thinks about all this sometimes.

I applaud the brothers who wrote the book you mentioned and it looks very interesting. I've seen similar books in my past along the whole gamut of hermeneutics. I am not fast to dismiss the guys you mentioned and I'm not so fast to throw out other theologians and many OT verses when I have a passage such as Romans 15:4 (NIV) where it says, "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

Again, thank you for sharing those thoughts. If you are ever in town, lets have coffee.


To help clarify who in this discussion holds the interpretive high ground, below is a quotation from Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart in their book on hermeneutics.  It is taken from their section on how to properly handle Old Testament narrative interpretation.

Quote
Individual Old Testament narratives are not intended to teach moral lessons.  The purpose of the various individual narratives is to tell what God did in the history of Israel, not to offer moral examples of right or wrong behavior.  Very often you will hear people say, "What we can learn from this story is that [we are free to lie or cheat because a character in the story did so]."  But unless the biblical narrator makes that point, on what grounds do we make it?

By way of example to Fee and Stuart's point, the Old Testament does not overtly state that David and Solomon were sinful for having taken many wives each.  Yet, we find that the principle of monogamy explictly taught by Jesus (one woman and one man speech) and by Paul (elders must be husband to only one wife).  If we were to follow the GCx method of "interpreting" the Old Testament we would see that since the patriarchs freely took multiple wives without having been condemned for having done so, it is a lesson to us that we too are free to marry multiple wives.  

Of course, that is an invalid way to approach interpreting the Old Teatament narratives.  We know that both David and Solomon were guilty of adultery for having taken multiple wives in plural marriages even though the narratives do not make this claim.  It is not ever proper to say, "If a patriarch did it and got away with it then it is fine for me to do as well."

In the same way with regard to the charge that GCx often subjected the Old Testament narratives to being nothing more than allegories for evangelism, Fee and Stuart wrote this.
Quote
Old Testament narratives are not allegories or stories filled with hidden meanings. ... Elijah's battle with the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel is not an allegory of Jesus' triumph over evil spirits in the New Testament.  The story of Abraham's securing a bride for Issace is not an allegory about Christ securing a bride through the Holy Spirit.

And the story of Nehemiah and the rebuilding effort is not an allegory about building a local church in a new community, as was so often taught by GCx pastors.

The doctrines for ethical behavior are not derived from the Old Testament narratives but from the Old Testament Laws.  

Quote
'You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. (Leviticus 19:11)

Jesus taught that it is and was acceptable to temporarily set aside some aspects of the Law to mercifully save a life that is in imminent jeopardy.

Quote
But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? "But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. "But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent. "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:3-8)

If this entire thread is premised on a supposed Old Testament ethic of the propriety of lying and deceiving in evangelism derived from the narrative of Rahab's saving the life of the Jewish spies, then it seems the debate is over.  GCx never had a biblical foundation in such a practice, and attempting to defend it on the basis of an inability to correctly read Old Testament narratives simply compounds their errors.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 11:29:50 am by DrSam » Logged
ANobody
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



« Reply #56 on: August 24, 2009, 07:01:13 pm »

Quote
The gospel sits in judgment on the methods used to proclaim it, and ultimately God's truth cannot be benefited by our falsehoods.
Quote is by Haddon Robinson from his book, Biblical Preaching.

GC is in pretty lonely country among Christians when they think God desires them to use falsehoods to spread the gospel.  Pretty lonely.
Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #57 on: August 24, 2009, 09:00:26 pm »

Quote
The gospel sits in judgment on the methods used to proclaim it, and ultimately God's truth cannot be benefited by our falsehoods.
Quote is by Haddon Robinson from his book, Biblical Preaching.

GC is in pretty lonely country among Christians when they think God desires them to use falsehoods to spread the gospel.  Pretty lonely.

Thank you for sharing that quote. I happen to agree with Dr. Robinson who formerly taught at DTS. I personally believe that what you mistakenly call falsehood is in reality the process of not sharing all your plans with an enemy that hates you. That would be idiocy much like it would be to turn in Jews to the Nazis because your conscience tells you that you are being "false." Does the enemy share their plans with us? Of course not. They are usually not as stupid as Christians typically are.

I also think that you are being extremely severe in judging all GC folks for things of the past. There's a lot of extreme language condemning folks on this forum as "heretics, evil, etc." That is very sad and a sign of spiritual ignorance and youthfulness.
Logged
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2009, 05:40:19 am »

Situational ethics is always a hard subject to debate.  Here are my thoughts:

This thread has already suffered from "reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium" which is defined thusly: As a online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

Hidden motives are all around us.... even within our churches. I have personaly seen Gd fearing Christian churches humiliated and brought to shame by hidden things brought to light, such as financial misdealings, sexual sin, overbearing Leadership to name a few.  We have to beware of our own hidden motives. I am most wary of the ones that are hidden to ourselves, that we are blind to, the log in our own eyes.   

Why hide our true identities here on this forum? Isn't that a form of lying and deception? 

Lastly, I disagree that Iowa State University was a godless and God hating institution that was seeking to inhibit the free expression of opinions. Everyone was welcome to express themselves in a civil manner, Christians included. Iowa State University was Moo U, an agricultural/ engineering school, 75% male, and largely un-interested in controversy. "Live and let live , just don't push anything in my face" was the prevailing attitude. There was as much adverse reaction to Transcendental Meditation and Hari Krishna devotees as there was to strident rabble rousing rhetoric by street preachers. I attended there before I joined  ISU Bible Study as well as after I left Ames Fellowship Church. It wasn't that bad.

Logged
ANobody
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2009, 07:15:15 am »

The purpose of this thread was to illustrate that GC was deceptive when it moved whole churches into a university town already complete with elders/pastors to run them, denied they were churches in their advertising literature, called themselves student organizations instead of churches to get free acess to university resources, and then met on campus as student organizations even though the elders/pastors ran the worship and the church.

If someone wants to keep some things secret or silent, most of the time simply saying nothing at all is not a lie.  When they open the mouth and wag the tongue to intentionally mislead people, or to deny the truth, that is lying and deception.  Peter was not a liar as long as he kept his mouth closed, but when he opened it to deny he was a disciple of Jesus, he sinned by lying. 

When this thread got to the point of having a GC leader state that GC's lying and deception in evangelism were approved by God because it was taught in the story of Rahab, I thought that was a breakthrough.  Finally we understand why they thought they could do that kind of evil and still sleep at night. 

Naturally that kind of misuse of Scripture is the very reason why GC went astray with regard to deception and mistreatment of people.  GC leaders simply do not know how to teach and preach the Word because they cannot understand it.  If a leader cannot understand the Word, they cannot live the Word.

Leland Ryken wrote about interpreting Old Testament narrative (How to Read the Bible as Literature).  He said if the text did not state outright that a character’s actions were good or evil, then the only way to know if what they did was right or wrong was to “place it into the context of [explicit] moral commands elsewhere in the Bible.”

Ryken asserts that there are many narratives in the Bible, like Rahab, where many of the characters’ actions are left un-assessed and unstated as to their moral quality.  Therefore, the only way to know if any given action is right or wrong is to compare it to excellent standards of morality, like the 10 Commandments.

A generally righteous character, like David, can do both good and bad things at exactly the same time in the same story.  Often the focus of the story is not on the bad things, but on the actions of faith that moved the story/history forward. 

May it never be hinted that God wants us to imitate the sins of the patriarchs. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1