Is this a Cult? *UPDATED*
It's been several days since I've posted-- my mind and time has been occupied with a situation that I am at a loss as to how (if even how) I should respond. In a nutshell, the 18-year-old daughter of some friends has decided to "join" a group known as Smith's Friends. I've been able to find a little bit on the internet about the group. On the surface, they sound like a "christian group"--they refer to themselves as The Christian Church (no association with the Restoration Movement churches, some having the same "name"). But some of the teachings I've read about don't ring true with my understanding of Scripture. Here are some links that I've read:
Some of the teachings (according to one website) are that Jesus was not God and He sinned unconsciously when He was on the earth. The site also claims the group teaches that Christ died for His own sins, as well as the sins of man. Current day leader, Sigurd Bratlie's teachings are accepted by Smith's Friends as infallible.
Several things concern me about this situation (NOTE: I'm speaking from information I've been told by the parents and close friends of the family). First, is how quickly the group was able to convince this girl to join them-- telling her, in essence, that the church she belonged to was not a true church and the things she had been taught by the church and her parents were not right. Second, they convinced the girl to move into their home, out of her dorm where she recently began attending college on a full scholarship. This girl is VERY intelligent-- she graduated at the top of her class; the scholarship was to a well known, private university. Yet, somehow...
The most disturbing thing to me is that the person that lulled her into this group is one that should be a trusted individual in our community. It appears that he has been "grooming" this girl for some time by giving her literature, etc. to help indoctrinate her. I spoke with another parent who said their son brought home some of the literature; that boy did not join the group.
The parents are devastated. Please pray for John and Joanie. Also pray that their daughter will have her eyes opened to this deception.
UPDATE 08-21-09 : Updated broken or dead links
1,940 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1940 Newer› Newest»I for once really really agree w/you sophie. I think you said it all well that last post. Sin is always in us 1 John 1:10 "If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives." and as paul said nothing good dwells in his flesh........idea is to overcome the flesh.......1 John 5:5
"Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."
I believe much there is a overcoming the world, overcoming all the lusts of the flesh, it's possible really really possible. (to me the world overcoming the world that entails the lusts of the flesh, all envy, and anger, all hatred, etc. etc. and I believe it's 100% possible)
--------- I'm not saying the smith's friends have done it at all, they have been are being super hateful towards me most the smith's friends are right now ----- I mean I've asked them 3 times now for feeds and they ain't budging.
So you and me sophie almost on the same page : ) ------ that's pretty good : )
I have one more thing to add.......I think bad days still happen for us all.......Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." I think though for sure, victory happens in christ jesus.....I pry watched bit to much the "word" network last night I get into some nights : ).....Romans 8:37 "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us." There will be bad days, many trials to hit us, but I believe w/all my heart jesus he wants us to live victorious lives in him, to be more then conquerors. I ain't sweatin no more the econmic times, cause for sure god's bank account is still running. I pry am in a particularly good mood since I've lost even more weight and man clean was able to wear some tight fitting close today without having to cover the flab w/jackets like I usually do! Check my new bodyspace pic http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/15inch/ The flab will not conqueror me I am more then a conqueror in christ jesus!
hi, I am a part of "sf". I have been involved with this church for 31 years. I have been to brunstad. I usually attend a local church where I live in the states. I have never been pressured to do or say anything. Anyone who has interest in the money raised in our local fellowship and where it is spent can find out down to the penny.
anutor1: “They want to be like Jesus so dont mind to offend people by their actions.”
You stated that ‘they (SF) want to be like Jesus’, so perhaps we should take a very brief/condensed look at Jesus. There are just a few things that set Him apart from every one else. Who was He offending? Certainly not the people who loved and obeyed God and worshiped Him.
Jesus is God.
In John 10-30, Jesus is quoted as saying, “I and the Father are one.”
Jesus is the uncreated One.
John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Genesis 1:26, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
(You notice this last verse doesn’t say ‘let them rule over other people’?
Jesus is Truth.
And in John 14:6-7 He says, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
Jesus is Love.
John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
1 John 4:7-8, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and every one who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
John 15:13, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”
Ephesians 5:1-2, “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.”
Jesus is everlasting life.
1 John 5:11, “And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.”
Jesus is abundant life.
In John 1:16 Jesus gives us an illustration of who He is and how He saves us. But verse 10 says, “The thief comes only to steal, and kill, and destroy; I came that they MIGHT HAVE LIFE AND HAVE IT ABUNDANTLY.”
Being fearful or too busy to spend time, hobbies, special activities and occasions, or interests with anyone outside of a closed group is NOT life more abundant and is not fulfilling God’s purpose for us on this earth. Having your life, dominated by other people is NOT life more abundant.
Jesus is in the people business.
His disciples were His best friends but He had many other friends outside of His group of disciples. He mingled, fellowshipped, and spent time building relationships with many people. There are several accounts depicting Him out among the crowds teaching God’s mercy, love, compassion, and power. He couldn’t do that if He stayed only around the same people all the time. He had to get out and ‘rub shoulders’ with the ‘sinners’ of the world. He even tells us in Matt 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15, and John 20-21, to make disciples of all nations. If you only talk to people that are in ‘your group’ how are you going to spread the gospel?
John 12:46 says, “And if any one hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.”
Jesus is merciful and compassionate.
Think of the woman at the well. He didn’t shun her because she had inappropriate relationships with many men. He talked to her, and revealed compassion and truth to her. He was also compassionate with many sick people, lepers, the blind, the deaf, the dying, and even those already dead. He made time for people.
Look at the story of Zaccheaus. Even though this man was a ‘sinner’, Jesus went home and spent time with him. Zaccheaus repented of his sin and even repaid the people what he had wrongly taken from them.
Jesus is forgiving.
Even when people hurt Him, beat Him, ridiculed Him, spat on Him, even to His death. His words were, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” and to the thief on his right, “Today you will be with Me in paradise.”
The Bible places much emphasis on obeying, trusting, glorifying, praising, worshiping, and loving, God. In so doing, we will automatically become more like Jesus. That is our purpose in this world. It’s all about Him-not all about us. Focusing so much on how we can ‘become like Jesus’, we miss the real purpose and that is to glorify and worship God.
Followers of Christ should love Him, worship Him, be obedient to Him, and praise Him. Yes, they are sinners and still make mistakes. That’s why He continues to forgive us. John 1:29 says, “The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” John the Baptist said those words some 2000+ years ago, so Jesus took all of the sins from that time on to the cross with Him for everyone who accepts His gift.
But, when one witnesses this group habitually lying, threatening, teaching fear, manipulating, deceiving, displaying arrogance, and contempt for those outside their group, one would draw the conclusion that they are not believers and followers of Christ. Remember the verses, “You will know them by their fruits,” and “Man looks at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart”, and “If you love Me, you will OBEY what I command.” I don’t find in the scriptures where Jesus does something or tells us to do something because He might ‘get a kick out of it’ or for us to ‘get a kick out of it,’ especially harming and hurting other people for no other reason but to glorify themselves.
Korsets Vei: Consider yourself fortunate--some have not been so "lucky." Thanks for stopping by.
A recent event has come to my attention that I need to talk about. It seems that a local church here in Owasso had an employee who has been accused of sexual misconduct with a teenager in the church. This situation is currently under investigation by the authorities and has been reported in the local media. This person was also a substitute teacher in several local school systems, including Owasso.
The interesting thing about this is that the leader of the local Smith’s Friends group, who teaches in the high school, decided to share the news media information, using his computer in class, to discuss this incident with students. There were students in his class that attend that same church.
Why would this “church leader” show this in class? Why bring up this subject at all, in school? What does this have to do with teaching history?
I believe his motivation was to discredit other churches, in order to put doubts in the minds of these young people. It illustrates that he has an agenda to manipulate the minds of these children in order to recruit members for his church. He seems to be trashing the local churches and introducing his relatively unknown church as more serious Christians.
Let’s take a look at how the events at this church line up with other groups discussed recently. As soon as this “allegation” was made, remember this is just an allegation, nobody has been arrested or convicted of any crime, as soon as the allegation was made he resigned immediately. He voluntarily went to the local police to deal with the situation. The church staff then met with the congregation to inform them and offered professional counseling for the youth and their parents.
Let’s compare this with Tony Alamo’s church. Mr. Alamo was arrested for having sex with 6 girls ranging in age from 10 to 17. So what was Tony’s comment when he was arrested? “Consent is puberty”. His church following is still intact. Tony shows no remorse for his actions and is fighting these charges in court.
Another case is Wayne Bent, the leader of a group called Strong City in New Mexico. This guy was arrested for molesting minors. He claims to be the messiah and admitted having sex with his followers. What was his response to these allegations? “It was God…God came down on them and told them to do it.” His church following is still intact and claim that Wayne is completely innocent. He continues to fight these charges in court.
So what purpose did showing the video of this particular church serve if not to run other local churches down in order to build his up? Is that an example of good Christian ethics? Is this becoming more like Jesus?
Yes, if this story is true then this is a bad thing, and the person should be held accountable. But this teacher has no business bringing this up in a high school history class when he knows that there are students from that church in his class. Especially when we know that he moved one of his female high school students into his home as soon as she graduated. That was also inappropriate, and for him to point his finger at this other church shows his hypocrisy.
The church being discussed at least has had the decency to deal with this allegation honestly, openly, and immediately. They have tried to do the right thing.
This local SF leader continues to lie about his behavior and cover things up.
In Chuck Colson’s latest book, there is a story about a guy who murdered another man during a drunken brawl. He was never a suspect in that crime. Years later, after becoming a Christian, this man confessed the events to his wife and children. This weighed on him so much that he finally turned himself into the police and confessed the crime to the authorities. He is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence. But you know what? He is, in reality, much more free today than before. He has repented of his crime, accepted the forgiveness of a loving God, and gained the respect of those who know his story.
The same is waiting for the leader of this local Smith’s Friends group.
Luke 12:2,3 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
Ez 18:27,28 But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life. Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die.
Korsets Vei: I am glad for your input. I hope what you say is true. What is interesting is that through all of the posts from people who will admit to being part of Smith’s Friends, none of them have condemned the actions of the leader in this local fellowship. As I have stated, if what is happening with this latest news story in Owasso is true, then I believe the young man should be prosecuted. On the other hand, I have yet to hear a Smith’s Friend come out and say: Hey Keith, if what you say is true, it is wrong and that man should be held accountable.
Just like the Tony Alamo and Wayne Bent followers, it seems that the SF members refuse to believe any evidence that is damaging to their group.
Ref. # 7 of Dr. Lifton’s eight criteria; Doctrine over Person: Common-sense perceptions are often disregarded if they are hostile to the cult’s ideology.
Harold: I haven't condemned any actions because I don't know all the facts. However, I do believe that if any laws have been broken or crimes comitted, then people should be accountable for there actions we are encouraged to live according to the laws of the land.
Keith: do you know if any leaders from any of the other (SF) local churches are aware of this story. I've been to several of our churches in the USA, Canada, and Norway. I have seen people in leadership roles asked to "step down" if inappropriate behavior was taking place. Unfortunately, I didn't even know that we had a church in Owasao, OK. until stumbled upon this blog. So I'm not sure of the friends in question. Take care!
This is a bit off topic: But, check out www.top10proofs.com I own a copy of this set and I find it very informative and interesting.
What ARE you thinking? JK. I just thought I should leave a little comment here. I am a member of the Smith's Friend's church and as one of the other commenters already pointed out, everything that we do is voluntary and we do not condemn those who have chosen to leave. My good friends no longer attend services and I remain very close with them still. I guess I don't expect you to agree with anything and or everything that Smith's Friends, but I would say that is important to be tolerant. There is a book by Lowell Streiker (can't remember the name) about Smith's Friends that, although outdated, is still very accurate. If you are still tied up about this whole thing, I would recommend it.
Korsets Vei: I never said this leader broke any laws. As far as I know he has done nothing that the state would consider illegal. I do believe that his behavior and teachings are in direct conflict with God’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. In the long run, that is a bigger deal. God will eventually hold him accountable. But it would be much better for him to repent and make amends.
Luke 15:10: In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.
Your reference to Top Ten Proofs is interesting and in direct conflict with the teachings of Smith’s Friends. Sigurd Bratlie and others on this blog have made very clear their belief that Jesus was not God but a man like us who became God.
This material from Top Ten Proofs includes this statement: “Jesus taught that he was God in the flesh, who came to Earth in human form to die for the sins of mankind,…” This contradicts the teaching of SF.
Mireille: First of all, Lowell Streiker has already been discussed on this blog. He is not a credible or unbiased source.
Second, it is interesting that you call for others to be tolerant. Anutor1 claims that “They (SF) want to be like Jesus…” yet their behavior is not Christ like. Was Jesus tolerant of the moneychangers in the temple? Did Jesus preach that everyone should be tolerant of the Pharisees? Jesus used God’s words to rebuke those who did wrong and reveal God’s mercy to others.
Where is the tolerance of SF to other Christian people? When you preach that you are the only true church on earth and the only true Christians and isolate yourselves socially from all others then I think you are the intolerant ones.
This local SF fellowship has intentionally caused division and strife between this girl and her Christian family for their own intended purpose. Where was their tolerance toward this family? Where was the love for their neighbor?
And is it Christ like to use your public school classroom to denigrate other Christian churches. I believe that is an example of purposefully causing strife and dissention among churches which is not only questionable from a legal standpoint but conflicts with the NEA. The following statement comes from the NEA code of ethics.
“The educator recognizes the magnitude of the responsibility inherent in the teaching process. The desire for the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of PARENTS, and of the MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY provides the incentive to attain and maintain the highest possible degree of ethical conduct.”
I believe that in using his classroom to run other churches down, introduce his church, influencing young girls to separate from their family and move into his home, he is undermining and showing the utmost disrespect for the parents, the members of this community, and their beliefs. But most importantly, it disrespects God’s commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.
Mireille, I believe it is this Christian community that has shown the greatest tolerance and Christlike behavior toward this teacher and his family.
Harold: I'm very happy to hear you say that as far as you know, he hasn't done anything that the state would consider illegal.
I've attended many many meetings and we do believe and are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves.
How do you know that he is not doing this?
Do you know BETTER than HIM how HE should love others better than HIMSELF?
One of your only only true statements was that "God will eventually hold him accountable."
Yes, God will eventually hold each of us accountable for the things that we've done. Both for the good things and also the bad. And HE is a fair and righteous Judge.
Have a good week-end!
Harold: Also, many people have different views about Jesus being God in the flesh while here on Earth.
Unlike being in a mind-controlled freedomless "cult", I'm happy to enjoy the freedom to listen to the Top 10 Proofs cd's. As I stated preveously, I have found them to be "informative and interesting" not "infallible and the Word of God."
Korsets Vei: You asked how I know he is not doing this. I think the statements made previously on this blog speak for themselves.
Regarding my only true statement, which ones do you believe are false?
I know there are different views about Jesus being God in the flesh. I’ve made mine very clear. What is your view?
Harold: What you wrote isn’t surprising, because it is apparent from posts by several different people and even a statement made on their own webpage that discrediting and demeaning those outside of SF is not unheard of. But, I agree with you. What did that have to do with history? So, again this guy has a captive audience (and all the while is being paid by the taxpayers) that is subjected to listening to this teacher’s ‘opinion’ about some of his students’ own church? No doubt, he most likely did the same when this girl was his student? And, although wasting class time to voice his ‘negative comments’ about someone from a local church congregation, isn’t something that could get him arrested, it is inappropriate and in violation of our American constitution and the policies of the NEA.
Korsets Vei: You stated, “I have seen people in leadership roles asked to "step down" if inappropriate behavior was taking place. Unfortunately, I didn't even know that we had a church in Owasao, OK.”
This is one of the problems with groups like this. There is no accountability for their actions. If you have a tyrant for a leader, those under him are scared to say or do anything. If you’re brainwashed, you fear the outside world. You’re caught in the middle.
“I have never been pressured to do or say anything.”
Sounds like what the people of Jonestown said right before they all drank the poisoned Kool-aid. They all believed they were making their own choices, too. Pressuring someone to do or say something isn’t the same as mind control, manipulation, coercion, intimidation. You probably don’t see it for what it is. Or perhaps you are one of those doing the manipulating.
You also stated, “we are encouraged to live according to the laws of the land.”
Although it is Biblical to abide by the laws of the land, as those claiming to be Christians, we are to live according to God’s commands first. Acts 5:29, “Peter and the other apostles replied: We must obey God rather than men!” This SF man has violated God and His commands in more than one way.
The first one that pops into my head is John 15:12, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.” 17 “This is my command: Love each other.” 14 “You are My friends if you do what I command.” So, do you think lying, threatening people, intentionally turning people against each other, bashing other churches are all ways to show love to others? Again, those are not things Jesus did.
Mireille: You stated, “I guess I don't expect you to agree with anything and or everything that Smith's Friends, but I would say that is important to be tolerant.”
I’d love to hear what you mean by tolerant. Did Jesus tell the people from whom Zacchaeus stole that it was important for them to be tolerant? No. He told Zacchaeus to stop wrongfully taking from people that which did not belong to him. He not only obeyed Jesus, but he also gave back four times the amount that he stole from them. He made right the wrong he’d done; he didn’t just keep on hurting people. A lesson to be learned; not just a cute little story about a little person.
So, would you also advise SF people to be tolerant? I would have to agree with Harold that these SF people are the ones who are being intolerant by moving this girl into their home and turning her against all her friends and family. They’re being intolerant of anyone outside their group.
If it was your family member, friend, or former student that you cared about and loved very much, and someone moved them out of their college dormitory, secretly without the parents knowledge of where she was, and moved them into their own house and used fear tactics to suddenly and deliberately turn them against you and everyone besides those in your group so you and they no longer had a loving relationship that you’ve shared with them all their life, would you still say ‘it is important to be tolerant’? Most likely, they’ve not only hurt this girl’s family and friends, but they have stolen from her a very important, meaningful, and anticipated time in her life, a time of experiencing the freedom of a normal college life.
I still believe that jesus 100% came absolutely in the flesh, and it's scary to me that everyone outside the smith's friends doesn't appear to believe jesus came 100% in the flesh...Matthew 27:46
"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Why would jesus cry that out if he was entirelly god and entirelly man??? Surely he just must've been entirelly man and his god part of himself way way way up in the sky for him to pray like that!!!!!!! What would jesus even pray at all for if he was fully god in the flesh??????? ----- HE WOULDN'T the smith's friends dang the nation have it right........but most them are butt munches that should kiss my ass! They've been mean to me, they appear to be just doing construction work all them on a whim - it should be a church not a employment agency! The smith's friends have been extremely mean to me w/0 apologies and they owe me a few apologies........til they willing to treat me right I will not go back! They still treat me like shit! Yes, I wear some jewelry, yes I like to wear cute clothes and yes some the latest fashions, but by god I am running the race to win the prize, I take up my cross daily and follow jesus ------------- smith's friends are wrong about me and assholes, they've been utter assholes to me. Jesus though he came in the flesh, their doctrine is correct the smith's friends doctrine is correct.
I'm going to mainstream christian churches bible study every week for geez guess the entire year? Mainstream christians are warm and sincere and loving, even though I just shake their hands at greet time every sunday - I can get a grasp of that warmth that sincerity. I don't get greeted at salem fellowship the smith's friends church besides by maybe 2-3 outsiders not the insiders of that church......I sit alone and often nobody says hi to me. Yelena smith's friends sister that dumped me 2 times as a friend told me "it's a free country I can be friends w/who I want" told me "I know you try to heed god's word you just never get there" I live 1 1/2 half hour drive away she's only visited me 1 time.......and judging me like that!!!!!!!!!! I was never given a chance by the smith's friends. I deserve the warm hello's I get at mainstream christian churches, I deserve to be loved like that!!!!!!!!! (the smith's friends abuse towards me is not ok) So I'm going to my mainstream christian churches bible study ------- where I'm loved and not judged that's where I going to be til smith's friends can find it in their hearts to love me.........though I don't think that day will ever come..doesn't look like it.
my husband thinks most christians believe jesus came in the flesh, they just clump god/jesus together in their minds cause it's hard for them to think about them in a separate sort of way. Jesus isn't called god in the bible, jesus is called the son of god cause that's what he is ----- and the son of god totally came in the flesh. I'm hoping to god my husband is right that most you really believe that. My husband (me breathing sigh of relief) believes that jesus came in the total flesh as I do. I e-mailed a smith friend today - they were really pissed to get a e-mail from me can read about it at my blog........http://givingittogod.blogspot.com/
My husband thinks I've been so brainwashed in 10+ years I was with the smith's friends that it is a struggle for me to not believe they are THE body of christ on earth like they say they are ------ he's right it's a struggle.......but not such a struggle today this smith's friend was so mean to me today!!!! And what for?????? I was being nice!!!!
In a previous post, I said, “There are just a ‘few’ things that set Him (Jesus) apart from every one else.” That should have read ‘many’ things that set Him apart.
A few things I’d like to add to the previous list….
*Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
Romans 1:4 – “and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.”
John 11:25 – “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
Acts 1:3,9,11 – “After His suffering, He showed Himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that He was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” 9“After He said this, He was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid Him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as He was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.”
*Jesus died for our sins. Because He was perfect, no one but Jesus can die for someone else’s sins.
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him would not perish but have everlasting life.”
Romans 5:6-10, “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.”
Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
*Jesus committed no sin.
1 Peter 2:21-24, “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by His wounds you were healed.”
2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
All of Romans 5 and 6
Korsets Vei: You stated, “Also, many people have different views about Jesus being God in the flesh while here on Earth.”
That is correct; many people do have different views on this topic. However, IF you claim to be a Christian, a follower of Christ, a believer in Christ, a member of the body of Christ, then it stands to reason that you also believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God and every word in it is truth. You do claim to be a Christian, right?
In John 10-30, Jesus is quoted as saying, “I and the Father are one.”
And in John 1:1 & 14, it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only.”
1 John 1-3, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.”
There are many people in the world today who claim to be Christian, yet say there are many paths to heaven, many views about Jesus, etc. The Bible is very clear concerning who Jesus is and how to get into heaven. Do you believe the Bible to be true?
“I'm very happy to hear you say that as far as you know, he hasn't done anything that the state would consider illegal.”
Although, he hasn’t done anything that the state would consider illegal, does it not disturb you that what he is doing is immoral and detrimental not only to other families, but also to the reputation of your group?
Churches are made up of people. Because we are only human, we are prone to sin. As long as we are walking on the face of this earth, we will be under satan’s attacks. That is the reason Jesus Christ, the perfect, sinless, holy, blameless Lamb of God, bore our sins on the cross (Romans chapters 3,4,5,6). But, when one who claims to be a Christian yet continues repeating the same sin over and over, knowing it is wrong and hurtful to others, it is not Christ-like nor glorifying to God in the least. Again, look at Zaccheaus and the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus told them to repent-stop sinning and turn away from it.
Romans 6:1 “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?”
6:15 says, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”
When confronted with our sin, do we try to lie, hide, blame others, and continue in the same destructive path or do we humble ourselves before God and man and repent? In the story that Harold told about a local church, the church handled it and the young man turned himself in to the local police. That church didn’t try to hide it, lie about it, or tolerate it. It is alarming that SF continues to make excuses for this man and his immoral behavior. You will know them by their fruits. We all sin….its how we handle it that shows who we are in Jesus.
Giving it to God: You said, “My husband thinks I've been so brainwashed in 10+ years I was with the smith's friends that it is a struggle for me to not believe they are THE body of christ on earth like they say they are ------“
Why do you believe they are THE body of Christ? Is their name written in your Bible somewhere? All religious cults claim and teach that they are THE chosen body of Christ. That’s one of the classic key markings of a religious cult….that is one way they achieve the exclusivity, claiming that they are better than everyone else, ‘if you leave our group, you’ll go to hell’ (or things will go bad or wrong with you), ‘we’re the ONLY ones going to heaven’, etc. etc. etc. But, that is so arrogant, prideful, selfish, and manipulative to cause people to stay in the group…and not scriptural at all.
From other comments on this blog, it is apparent that members of the SF believe they are the chosen and they appear to be very arrogant, prideful, and judgmental (very quick to point out faults) of anyone not belonging to their group.
The Bible is very clear. There are many scriptures that refer to belief in Jesus and faith in Jesus Christ that saves us…that is an open offer to everyone in the whole world. The one scripture that comes to mind first is…..
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
You have been associated with SF for a very long time. Have you read books written by people other than SF who have actually studied Greek, Hebrew, etc. to know word translations, Biblical history, etc?
My suggestion would be to gather as many books from a Christian book supplier as possible, visit the local Christian book store, call around to some churches asking about Bible studies etc.
WHAT SF BELIEVES EXACTLY
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Romans 5:19.
The first man was Adam. He was placed in the Garden of Eden to care for it and was given liberty to eat anything except for the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Adam disobeyed this command and as a result, sin entered him and laid claim to mankind. God gave people laws to help them acknowledge their sin and find forgiveness. But there was no help to stop sinning.
The second Man was Jesus. He was also born with a flesh (human nature), as we read in Romans 1:3: “...which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” This meant that He could be tempted just as we are in life's daily situations, and that is why He called Himself the Son of Man rather than the Son of God. Instead of sinning when He was tempted, as all people had done until then, Jesus sought the help of His Father. In Romans 8:3 we read: “God...sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.” When Jesus sensed that something was causing Him inner unrest, He turned to His Father, and God showed Him the sin that wanted to gain the upper hand. Had that happened—if Jesus had committed sin—then the way of salvation from sin would have been lost forever. Instead, in Hebrews 5:7, we read that Jesus prayed to His Father with “strong crying and tears.” He was led to victory by being obedient.
Sophie: I do appreciate your position. I believe you get it. I even think Giving It To God, deep down, gets it. She sees the lies and manipulation that are the driving force behind groups like this. And it is real hard to see it sometimes when, on the surface, they seem to be so good.
I know I’ve mentioned the recent documentary on Jonestown before, and I don’t want to run that into the ground, but it is so revealing because of all the interviews with the survivors themselves. One thing that jumps out at me is that they all, still to this day, recall those days with such fond memories. They speak about what great and wonderful things they were accomplishing as a church. They were out to change the world and make it a better place and they all STILL think that they were so very close to accomplishing that. They loved their church.
But at the same time, they reveal all these things that were going on behind the scenes that were, in retrospect, lies, manipulation, and immoral. And they were so focused on the goal of their changing the world and thought that they were so close to that goal that they chose to ignore the bad things. They were so focused on that goal that they couldn’t see that it wasn’t real. They ignored the reality because the imagined goal looked and felt so good.
And in the end the whole house of cards came crashing down.
Giving it to God: Wake up. Smell the coffee. Bad fruit does not come from good trees. Does the behavior of these SF people line up with the command from God to love your neighbor as yourself?
In Steve Arterburn’s book ‘Toxic Faith’, he talks about religious addiction. Here are some excerpts from the book:
Addictions can be divided into three basic types: substance addiction (e.g., alcohol), emotional addiction (letting an emotion run your life e.g., depression), process addiction (e.g., work, religion)
Addiction is ultimately idolatry, that is, the worship of a relationship, substance or behavior instead of God
Religion becomes unhealthy when our attendance and service flows, not out of faith in God who has loved us in Christ and given us opportunities to serve out of that place of rest, but out of a need to be loved and find worth. Religious addiction is hard to spot because it has to do with motive. Two people could be serving side by side and one is doing it by faith in God for an eternal reward (gold, silver and precious stones; 1 Cor 3.12) while the other is doing it by faith in the behavior for a temporal reward with no eternal dividends (wood, hay and straw). Religious addicts are also usually the best workers in the church so their dysfunction is not only overlooked but rewarded. Meanwhile, their lives head for disaster.
There is also a self test in the book which is available online at http://www.darvsmith.com/dox/toxicfaith_test.html
Uriah Heep: I’m glad to know you are still around. This question about ‘what is Jesus Christ’ is an interesting debate that has been going on since He began His ministry 2,000 years ago.
But please answer this question. Here we have what claims to be a Christian man, a leader of a church fellowship, teaching a high school history class. How does he justify encouraging one of his former female students to leave a college campus and move into his home, breaking all relationships with friends, parents, brothers, aunts, uncles, grandparents? You can’t use the argument that they were a dysfunctional family. There are too many witnesses that will testify to the contrary. Regardless of how old she is, or what she claims to want, the issue is HIS behavior. She can’t live in his house unless he allows it. If he really was concerned about her family relationship, encouraging her to live in his house, and consuming all of her time, isn’t going to help that. It does just the opposite by CAUSING strife and dysfunction. So is this the kind of behavior that Jesus was talking about when he said “love your neighbor as yourself”?
If he really cared about her, even if she begged to live in his home he would have denied that and encouraged her to seek counseling with her family. By him putting himself squarely between her and her family, HE becomes the problem.
Hi All
I tried to post yesterday and it
didn't come through. It looks like
you all saw the documentry the History channell did on cults, there was another doc. done about
some fella in new mexico claiming
to be the messiah and his little
band of followers. BIZZARE.
Giving it to God, I hope you can
work through all of this. My ques
tion is this, If Jesus were God in
etrinity past, how do you stop being GOD?? Obviously he subjected
himself to human frailty, but to
the extent he was no longer God?
I think what you call the mainstream would do well to consid-
er what subjecting himself to human
frailty really ment for him.
g
Jarsmom: You stated: It looks like you all saw the documentry the History channell did on cults, there was another doc. done about some fella in new mexico claiming to be the messiah and his little band of followers. BIZZARE.
I saw a program about that same guy, too. And you’re absolutely right. It is bizarre. Although this teacher and his group probably ‘appear’ to be more ‘normal’ from outward appearances as far as their lifestyle (house, car, job, etc.) is concerned, what they’re doing (their behavior) is just as bizarre. Any male teacher who would use lies and manipulation to intentionally turn a young female student away from everything and everyone she’s ever loved or known and move her into his house is just as bizarre. That is not normal behavior. The only reason this SF group is being ‘talked’ about is due to what appears to be unChristi-like and immoral behavior. They’ve obviously brought this attention on themselves.
Uriah_Heep: I had decided that I would not respond to your comments on Jesus, but I have just recently run across several references on that subject so I have decided to share some differing opinions.
You made the following statement “The second Man was Jesus. He was also born with a flesh (human nature), as we read in Romans 1:3: “...which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” This meant that He could be tempted just as we are in life's daily situations, and that is why He called Himself the Son of Man rather than the Son of God.”
I don’t argue with the first sentence. Jesus had a human nature that is true and he was born with a flesh, coming from Mary. Mary was from the line of David.
In your second sentence the reference to the “Son of Man” emphasizes Jesus as a man. I think this is a reference to the SF theology that Jesus was just a man, like you and me, that he became perfect, and so became a God.
I read an article recently by H. Cornell Goerner titled “Jesus and the Gentiles”. In this article Mr. Goerner points out that the term “Son of Man” was used in the book Ezekiel 87 times and the Hebrew words used are “ben Adam” or literally “Son of Adam” or you could use the phrase “son of mankind”. Mr Goerner goes on to say:
“Originally it meant only ‘man’, as opposed to God, and reminded Ezekiel of his humble status. But by the time of Jesus, the term had become an honorific title of the Messiah, and many passages in Ezekiel idealized and interpreted messianically.”
One of Daniel’s visions, which is a prophecy of the coming messiah, is described in Daniel 7:13,14. In this passage Daniel refers to the coming messiah, using the term “son of man”, approaching God (the Ancient of Days) and receiving all authority, glory and his kingdom.
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a SON OF MAN, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
In the new testament Jesus refers to himself over 40 times using the term “Son of Man”. By using this term to refer to Himself, Jesus is claiming to be THE messiah. This was probably well understood by the Jews of that day. This, of course, was the reason that He was crucified.
I was also reading from the book of John, where Nicodemus came to talk with Jesus.
John 3:2
“He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a member of the Jewish ruling council. If anyone was to deny that Jesus was the son of God, and that He came from God it would have been someone like Nicodemus. But what does he say about Jesus? He doesn’t argue about whether He was just a man or not. He recognizes His deity. What he is saying is ‘I know you are not just an ordinary man’ or ‘I know that you came from Heaven and are not like any other man that ever has or ever will walk on this earth.’
Jesus goes on to say in John 3:13-15:
“No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”
In this passage Jesus is making the statement that He, the “Son of Man” or “THE messiah”, came from heaven. He doesn’t say He is going to become perfect and then go TO heaven; He instead makes the claim that He IS the messiah who came FROM heaven.
But just so we don’t misunderstand, in John 4:25,26 the Samaritan woman at the well has this exchange with Jesus:
“The woman said, ‘I know that Messiah’ (called Christ) ‘is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us.’ Then Jesus declared, ‘I who speak to you am He.’ “
Can He make it any more clear than that?
Jesus is also referred to as the “Son of God” by Himself and others at least 15 times in the New Testament. The most revealing is in John 10:30-38.
Jesus answered …“I and the Father are one.”
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because YOU, A MERE MAN, CLAIM TO BE GOD.” Jesus answered them, “…what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, “I AM GOD’S SON”? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
So Jesus had this same exact argument with a group of Jews in the Temple. They accused him of being a “mere man”. Jesus rebuked that idea and reinforced His claim to be the Son of God, and for this very reason the crowd tried to stone Him.
I really don’t need to defend this argument because Jesus already did. So I will leave this post with one question. This is for any Smith’s Friend out there:
Who was the father of Jesus Christ?
If you say God, then Jesus is not just a “mere man” like you and me. If you say Joseph, then Jesus the “mere man” is a liar, He is not worthy of our worship, and the Bible is a fraud.
harold ya you right! (this off topic, but my car still isn't working - I'm so bored right now, pray that I keep my sanity ---- my car hasn't ran for 2 months - we took it to a car shop and one problem was fixed and another one directly started up that made my car 100% undrivable) Jesus must've just been in great distress in the garden when he said "god god why have you forsaken me" I can relate to his distres : p
Harold: I appreciate your constant research into the notions of the usages of "Son of Man" and "Son of God".
But, pray, tell:
What did Jesus overcome if it was not that "something" within Himself (which he had to overcome by the Spirit of God whereof He was born of the Virgin Mary, born under the Law, born of the Father in heaven)whereby we who are his brothers are ourselves tempted?
Hebrews 4:15
If He overcame as God, it is impossible for me to follow Him for I am not God.
If He overcame as a man born of the Holy Spirit of God, born from above, it is possible for me to follow Him in His footsteps because I have access to the same Spirit to the same Father.
What I desire to overcome/be delivered from is the "sin in the flesh", the "evil that is present within me", the power of the "body of sin", the "works of the flesh" and the "deeds of the body".
That is the place from which I am tempted, from within. And that is precisely the place where Jesus overcame daily and in every moment when he was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh" and "tempted in ALL POINTS like as we are".
And Jesus won and was victorious in ALL POINTS and was therefore raised from the dead and declared to be the Son of God without any doubt.
Now the "way" is open for us to follow Him exactly in His footsteps because He has poured out that Spirit of the Victor upon us and His Father is our Father and He continues to intercede for us so that we can overcome just as He overcame through the Most Holy Spirit.
Rev 21:7
Rev 2:21
This is the understanding of the SF.
One clarification:
I did not make those statements, I only submitted what you can find on the www.brunstad.org SF site concerning their notion of the "Son of Man".
Uriah_Heep: Jesus came to earth as the Son of God. He was declared the Son of God before He was raised from the dead. When He was baptized by John, God spoke from Heaven and said “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased”.
Your statements are the exact same deception that Satan used with Eve in the garden. He convinced Eve that she could be the same as God by eating the fruit from the tree.
Jesus says in John 10:16: “…and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”
We are the sheep and He is the shepherd. The sheep can follow the shepherd wherever He leads them, but no matter how closely the sheep follow the shepherd, they will still be sheep. The sheep can never be a shepherd too.
So tell me, is this the reason that this girl left her college dorm room and moved into the home of her high school teacher? Was that her path to perfection? Was this SF church leader walking in the footsteps of Jesus when he caused another Christian family to be split apart?
Harold: These are not my positions. I have only submitted what I know for sure about SF theology.
You seem to vacillate between discussing SF theology and your local situation. Since I don't know the other version I suspend any comments on it.
Isn't that fair enough?
I do not have to follow your agenda of painting the SF black in your context by believing only your version of it.
You said in an earlier post that no laws have been broken. So then what exactly are you driving at? Are you beyond laws which are put in place by God?
My intention is not to argue with you but to have a gentlemanly discussion and if you are not for it just put it down here in black and white and I will stop posting here.
Uriah_Heep: What I said was, to my knowledge, he has not done anything the state would consider illegal. I do believe he and his church have, and continue to, trample all over God’s laws.
We have in this country what is called the Bill of Rights. These are the first 10 amendments to our constitution established by our founding fathers. Included in the first amendment is the right to free speech. I will continue to exercise my right to speak freely about what I know to be true and, in this country, you have the freedom to disagree with what I say and speak your views as well. That is the essence of freedom in this country.
I believe I have been very cordial in expressing my beliefs. You have indeed been a very good spokesman for the Smith’s Friend community. You have expressed their theology and I have, in turn, presented what I believe to be the truth from Scripture. Isn’t that the basis for a “gentlemanly” discussion?
I keep bringing up our local situation because, as I have said in the past, it is the behavior of groups that define them as cults, not theology. I don’t mind having a theological discussion but Keith’s original question was “Is this a cult?” In order to answer that question, I believe that we need to focus on the behaviors of the group.
I've just been sitting on the sidelines watching the conversation for a while.
Sophie, Jarsmom and others: Thanks for keeping the discussion civil and encouraging.
Harold: I am amazed at the amount of information you have collected and shared with us. Thanks so much for your diligence.
Whether we (or anyone) labels SF's as a whole as a cult is really not the issue. I believe the information/evidence has been presented here to certainly say that the local group--aligned with SF--conducts itself like a cult.
Am I remembering incorrectly, but isn't there a connection between Uriah_Heep and elf_asura? Uriah made the statement that "...These are not my positions. I have only submitted what I know for sure about SF theology." Maybe I've misunderstood, but I thought Uriah was a member of a SF's group and a close acquaintance of elf. Is that not correct?
Uriah Heep: “You said in an earlier post that no laws have been broken. So then what exactly are you driving at? Are you beyond laws which are put in place by God?”
This man hasn’t been convicted of breaking any laws. Unfortunately, it isn’t against the law to lie, manipulate, denigrate and threaten in order to scare and coerce people. These, however, ARE against God and His Word.
Perhaps there is vacillation between discussing SF theology and the local situation because both play a part in answering the original question, “Is this a cult?” As has been stated on here before, there are many types of cults. Religious cults are just one of many types. Due to the fact that this group claims to be Christian, one would expect their behaviors to be more in line with the scriptures.
Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will obey Me.” “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself.” Although this group claims to be Christian, they are obviously demonstrative of anything but. Right doctrine produces right behavior. 1 Corinthians 13: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. LOVE DOES NOT DELIGHT IN EVIL BUT REJOICES WITH THE TRUTH. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” If a person really loves God, they would do everything in their power to honor, glorify, obey Him. When we do evil things like intentionally turn a person against all the family and friends they’ve known and loved all their lives, it is not showing God’s love.
Keith: You said, “Whether we (or anyone) labels SF's as a whole as a cult is really not the issue. I believe the information/evidence has been presented here to certainly say that the local group--aligned with SF--conducts itself like a cult.”
You are correct in saying that isn’t really the issue however, from evidence presented here alone, it appears that SF (as a whole) could be classified as a cult. The same types of behaviors that have been described here have obviously been witnessed in other SF groups as well.
Jarsmom: In the last post, you mentioned how bizarre the guy in New Mexico who thought he was the messiah. You’re right that is bizarre. But, do you remember the Elizabeth Smart case out in Utah? Young Elizabeth had been kidnapped and brainwashed by her captors. What she didn’t know was that she had a loving family who she had been torn apart from for someone else’s purpose. And what about the boy in Missouri who’d been kidnapped and brainwashed? That too was a bizarre story. So, for all the naysayers out there who don’t believe this story could be true, think again!!!
Following are more scriptures dealing with who Jesus is.
1 John 1:1-3, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life-and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”
1 John 2:2, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning SACRIFICE for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
1 John 4:14,15 says: “And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.”
And chapter 5:4,5: “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world-our faith. And who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?”
2 Peter 1:16-17, “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased.”
From the book of John:
5:18, “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself EQUAL WITH GOD.”
5:26, “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. 27And He has given Him authority to judge because He is the SON OF MAN.”
5:36, “For the very work that the Father has given Me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has SENT Me. 37And the Father who SENT Me has Himself testified concerning Me.”
6:28, “Then they asked Him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
6:29, “Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has SENT."
6:38, “FOR I HAVE COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN not to do My will but to do the will of Him who SENT Me. 39And this is the will of Him who SENT Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
6:46, “No one has seen the Father except the One who is from the Father; only He has seen the Father.”
6:47, “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.”
7:16, “Jesus answered, "My teaching is not My own. It comes from Him who SENT Me.”
7:28, “Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know Me, and YOU KNOW WHERE I AM FROM. I am not here on my own, but He who SENT Me is true. You do not know Him, 29but I know Him because I AM FROM HIM AND HE SENT ME."
Uriah Heep: You stated, “What did Jesus overcome if it was not that "something" within Himself (which he had to overcome by the Spirit of God whereof He was born of the Virgin Mary, born under the Law, born of the Father in heaven)whereby we who are his brothers are ourselves tempted? If He overcame as God, it is impossible for me to follow Him for I am not God.” Hebrews 4:15
If He overcame as a man born of the Holy Spirit of God, born from above, it is possible for me to follow Him in His footsteps because I have access to the same Spirit to the same Father.
How do you believe we have ‘access to the same Spirit to the same Father’?
The big difference is that we have TWO human parents. Jesus was born of God and ONE human virgin. We don’t have the same divine nature that Jesus does. He is born OF GOD.
Yes, we are supposed to ‘follow’ Jesus however, the Holy Scriptures are clear that God wants us to not just follow, but to obey and to ‘worship’ Him. Jesus came to the earth from heaven and did many things: performing miracles showing God’s power, teaching and ministering to us about God, and being an example of how to live our lives in truth, fellowshipping with and demonstrating compassion to others, spreading the Good News, worshipping God. He came to be a holy, living, perfect, blameless SACRIFICE for our sins, to die in our place (that is for every human being in the whole world who confesses faith in Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior).
God knows that we are not perfect, nor have the same divine nature that Jesus does, and that as much as we try, we will not be perfect until we reach heaven because we live in a fallen world where satan is roaming around like a roaring lion. But, because Jesus has the divine nature of God, He is able to defeat (overcome) satan and all his tactics every time. We, however, are not divine in nature as Jesus is, so sometimes when we are tempted by the deceiver satan, we may give in to that temptation.
1 John 2:2 says, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning SACRIFICE for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Hebrews 10:10, “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
1 Peter 2:24 says, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by His wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”
Isaiah 53:5-6 says, “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”
Read Eph 11-22. Ephesians 2:18 reads, “For through Him we both (Jews and Gentiles) have access to the Father by one Spirit.”
We get that Spirit when we accept the fact that we are in need of a Savior due to the fact that we are sinners (Romans 3:23, 1 Jn 8-10), believe He is God in the Flesh (John 10:30), and confess Jesus as our Lord and Savior (Romans 10:9). When we do these things is when the Holy Spirit fills us. We do not have access to the same Father without accepting that Jesus is who He claims to be, God’s perfect, holy, Son (John 7:37-39).
If we could have access to the same Spirit and to the same Father, on our own, without Jesus, why did He have to come down from heaven, die a cruel and painful death on a cross? Why not just stay up in heaven? The Bible is clear that the ONLY way to the Father is THROUGH the Son.
Sophi: I appreciate your position on who Jesus is. All those scripture verses are good ones to show who He is and where He came from. It shows how much He said, over and over again, that He came FROM God and was SENT by God. There is nobody on earth before or after Him who can claim that they were in Heaven with God and SENT here on a mission like Jesus was. For anyone to make the claim that they can be equal to Jesus Christ is not of God. As I said before that is exactly the deception that satan played with Eve in the Garden.
However, I want to expand on your statement: “Due to the fact that this group claims to be Christian, one would expect their behaviors to be more in line with the scriptures”
Claiming to be “Christian” and behaving “Christ like” are two different things. That is why I say that it is the behavior that defines them. If you study the Bible and are truly following the example of Jesus then get examples of people like Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, or William Cameron Townsend. People like Wayne Bent and Tony Alamo claim to be Christian but their behaviors are not consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
In groups like this, the Bible is just a tool to be used in controlling and manipulating the people around them. It’s too easy to take the scriptures out of context and twist them make people believe that they need to work their way to Heaven. And while they are working for you on their way to Heaven they need to tithe too. It’s a very profitable enterprise if you have the charismatic personality to get away with it. This same thing was happening in the first century church as well. That is why Paul and the other apostles warned about false prophets.
People in groups like this are actually in a kind of mental prison. They can’t enjoy the freedom that God wanted for His children. God wants everyone to know Him and recognize Him as the creator. He wants everyone to follow Him. So much so that He sent His Son to give us an example to follow. Kind of like He said “OK, I’ve been trying to TELL you who I am but that just isn’t working. Here let me send my Son down there in flesh and blood to SHOW you and TEACH you in person.” Jesus had the opportunity to become the earthly king that everyone expected from the Messiah, but He didn’t do that. He kept directing all glory to the Father, not Himself. He didn’t take anything for Himself.
The leaders of these groups put themselves between the people and God. They pretend to act as an intercessory with God on behalf of their people but in reality they are blocking these people from the freedom of a direct relationship with God. Their religion is all about themselves. Just like the Pharisees in the first century, they were religious but not godly and Jesus rebuked them for it. That is why I said earlier that religion is dangerous. Steve Arterburn wrote another book called “More Jesus, Less Religion” which expands on this subject but the title kind of tells it all. This Smith’s Friend group is very religious, but they’re not following Jesus. There is a big difference.
Interesting to see how this discussion has progressed.
To those who claim that SF does not "force" people to contribute money via the numerous schemes in place, I must say this is an outright lie. At least in my experience from my local church and having been to Brunstad on numerous ocassions in the past.
The way SF "forces" people into giving their money for the group is by using biblical verses out of context against them. The meetings are saturated with attacks against those who don't contribute funds.
In my local group for instance, those who did not have a column or pay quarterly dues (set amount) to the group were called "snakes" and un-righteous. This was continually hammered into them in nearly every meeting.
The environment is such that if you do not contribute you won't last long, because the entire groups emphasis is built upon raising money for the expansion of the group and it's glorified in such a way.
For example, they list names of members who've donated the most money and paid off their "debt to brunstad".
The group leaders even emphasized and forced many members through their intimidation and belittlement to take mortgages out on their houses and give the money to Brunstad to pay off their Brunstad debt.
In regards to "brunstad debt", basically every member was allocated a certain amount of debt that they owe to Brunstad (the spiritual home of the group, or as they call it "new jerusalem").
The main focus of the group is financial, expansion and elitism.
Smith's Friends view themselves as the one true church and therefore they need the funds to preach the true gospel the church professes around the world or Christ will never return.
All other churches are viewed as the harlot and pharisies. I suggest you read the book by Bratlie (one of the group's former leaders) called "The bride and harlot", the disdain and hatred to all other Christians and churches is written plainly there.
It's good to see that government in Norway and media are starting to expose the actions of this group, especially in regards to tax-free status, in which they have many businesses operating under this guise, whilst using the profits for other purposes, such as expanding personal businesses of the leaders.
Keith: Did you see the most recent newspaper article in the Owasso Reporter about the local high school teacher who was arrested for sexual battery? If you missed it you can see it at:
http://www.owassoreporter.com/articles/2009/03/01/news/doc49a4d5d0eaa73082765039.txt
There are a couple of things that are interesting about this event. First of all, remember that this SF church leader, who is also a teacher in the same high school, made sure that the students in his class were aware of the local church minister who was recently charged with sexual misconduct. This was apparently an attempt to discredit mainline churches in the community by, as elf put it, “poisoning the well”. It seems that he doesn’t miss an opportunity to label other churches as just a bunch of hypocrites while talking up his own church even in a public school classroom.
But if he is allowed to make that generalization and use that incident to show how mainline churches are hypocrites, can we make the same kind of extrapolation and infer that all the male teachers at the high school are sexual predators?
If that holds any water, then this SF leader has double trouble. Remember that elf, who is a leading SF brother in India, was caught here advertizing his interests online which included “non platonic relationships with the opposite sex”. So could one make the extrapolation that this behavior is consistent with all the leading brothers in Smith’s Friends?
Following that line of reasoning, it would seem that this church leader, as a male high school teacher and a SF leading brother, must also be a sexual predator.
While all these events in our local community are sad, I must point out one thing. In these two recent events, both were publicized in the newspaper so that everyone was informed. Nothing has been hidden from the public and the perpetrators are being prosecuted using due process in a public courtroom.
So what has happened to elf? Is Brother Avy still a leading brother? Is he still out there on the internet trying to befriend young girls, just using a different pseudonym? Is the Smith’s Friend organization investigating these things, do they really care, or are they sweeping this information under the rug so that their so-called perfection is not tarnished with their members? We can only guess because they are so reclusive. We sure aren’t likely to read about it in the Owasso Reporter.
I realize that this argument is rather extreme (a hyperbole if you will) but I am just trying to point out the hypocrisy of this SF group who point fingers at all other Christian denominations and claim that they are the work of satan while they seem to protect their own set of shady characters. That is the human condition and no one group is exempt from the works of the “prince of this world”. Not my church, not your church, and certainly not Smith’s Friends either.
By the way, in Thursday’s article about the school teacher the police department released some interesting behaviors about sexual predators that describe how they work. While focused on sexual predators, it is also descriptive of all types of predators as well as what happens in the recruitment process in most cults. I have provided these to illustrate what can take place, even in a high school classroom.
----------------------------------------------------------
Many offenders will purposefully place themselves in a position allowing access to children.
Once the offender has access to potential victims, “grooming” can be exhibited in a number of different ways. Some offenders attempt to befriend the child, some attempt to establish dominance or fear. Often, there is a combination of the two methods.
The ultimate goal for the “befriending offender” is to make the child care about—or even love—the offender, making them more willing to submit to inappropriate activities and less likely to tell anyone about them. Some examples of building trust or befriending the child include:
• Extending privileges/gifts that other kids don’t receive—showing the child they are “special.”
• Keeping secrets between the offender and the child—building trust.
• Discouraging a close relationship between the child and their friends/family—“I am the only one who cares about you.”
• Acts that lower the child’s self esteem.
• Finding ways for the child and the offender to be alone together without raising suspicions.
The ultimate goal of the “dominant offender” is to establish a sense of worthlessness in the child and an unyielding fear of the offender. Once again, this will encourage the child to submit and make it unlikely that the child will disclose the abuse. Some examples of establishing dominance include:
• Punishing the child for false or frivolous infractions—lowering self esteem and establishing the child as a “troublemaker.”
• Threats to harm the child’s family, friends or pets.
• Establishing that the offender is a “well-respected member of the community”—convinces the victim that “nobody will believe them” if they tell.
• Convincing the child that it’s their fault and they will get in trouble if they tell.
In both grooming types, the offender will often befriend a victim who has been in trouble before. This serves two purposes, the child may be longing for someone to reach out to them and if the child discloses abuse, the public will likely discredit the child as a liar or troublemaker. During the grooming process, the offender will “test the water,” so to speak. They will initiate sexual advances in a way that could be seen as accidental or innocent, such as “accidentally” brushing against the child’s groin with their hand while roughhousing or an inappropriate hand placement during a hug. If the child reacts adversely to the “accidental touch,” the event can be dismissed as an accident. If the child doesn’t react, they will gradually escalate their sexual advances in the coming days, while continuing to build their relationship with the child.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So Keith, if this guy doesn’t want to be known around the school system as a cult leader then he needs to quit behaving like one. By isolating these young people from their families he just continues to exacerbate the idea that he is a cult leader. If these families had a chance to talk things out with their children and re-establish their family relationships then all talk would stop. There would be nothing for anybody to talk about. But the continued isolation, secrecy, and deceptions only lead to confirmation of what many people have witnessed.
Whatever has been done can be forgiven. That is the truth and the message of Jesus Christ. He died for our sins; my sins, your sins, and these people too. That is the free gift that God offers to us through His son Jesus Christ. The sin that this guy lives in is bondage. He has the opportunity to set himself, and his family, free so that they can truly live for God and rejoice in the victory over sin that Jesus claimed for us, once and for all. If this group is not a cult, then this church leader would prove it by doing the right thing.
The Truth: I have a question about your comments. You said that “every member was allocated a certain amount of debt”. So who decided how much every member was to contribute? Was this figure something each member decided for themselves, or did someone else decide what that number should be?
Harold, you wrote:
"Remember that elf, who is a leading SF brother in India, was caught here advertizing his interests online which included “non platonic relationships with the opposite sex”. So could one make the extrapolation that this behavior is consistent with all the leading brothers in Smith’s Friends?"
I really really doubt that Elf is a "leading SF brother in India". He may have claimed such, but I really doubt it. There is too much about him and his communication that seems "off" - if anything, he is probably viewed internally as a sort of rogue or weird member of the church.
And even if he is/was a leader, I dont think you can extrapolate his behavior to all the leading brothers in SFs. Most of the SF leaders that I got to actually know were personally upright men who were quite serious about their commitment to God and to the group. Some of them are and were truly exemplary men. This is not to condone the significant error in the group, just to say that many among them are really and truly trying to live God-honoring lives.
Harold said: "..., if this guy doesn’t want to be known around the school system as a cult leader then he needs to quit behaving like one."
Sadly, he appears to be a popular teacher among the students. I know some adults that had him when they were in HS--given all the information, they still hesitate to believe he has done anything wrong.
Keith: It is amazing how naive and gullible people can be. Perhaps that's why God tells us to "not be deceived". If it weren't possible to be deceived, He wouldn't have to warn us. I just hope for these people's sakes, this never happens to them or their children.
Apparently, there was some confusion re: my last comment, so to clarify: I am not condoning ANY teacher using their position to influence a student toward a specific religion/cult.
What I was trying to say is that there are people that, even when faced with all kinds of evidence, they will continue to deny the obvious. I have spoken with several individuals that just will not believe any thing bad about the teacher involved here. They had him in HS and "loved him" and can't imagine him doing anything like this. They've come here and read the 600+ comments...and they still say things like "there's got to be something else to it," but when I ask them "WHAT?!", they don't have an answer.
It's like Clinton or Obama supporters. They will defend "their guy" regardless of the evidence. I've used the line before: The Clintons (or Obama) could set fire to an orphanage on Christmas morning, and people would still sing their praises!"
The Truth: Your input is appreciated. You made some statements I’d like to comment on or inquire about. You said, “The way SF "forces" people into giving their money for the group is by using biblical verses out of context against them. The meetings are saturated with attacks against those who don't contribute funds.”
SF seems to use biblical verses out of context. This is one reason it is important to study the Bible, the original languages it was written in, and the history surrounding biblical events. There are Bible scholars who have devoted their lives to studying archeology, languages, anthropology, etc. Wise people glean as much information from as many different sources as they can, based on facts, in order to read and understand the Bible. Unfortunately there are people who use their ‘opinion’ rather than factual information to interpret the Bible. In such cases, it is easy to use biblical verses out of context. I believe I’ve read on here somewhere that SF is proud that their leaders are just ordinary men who have no formal Bible training.
“In my local group for instance, those who did not have a column or pay quarterly dues (set amount) to the group were called "snakes" and un-righteous. This was continually hammered into them in nearly every meeting.”
“The group leaders even emphasized and forced many members through their intimidation and belittlement to take mortgages out on their houses and give the money to Brunstad to pay off their Brunstad debt.”
So, it sounds like intimidation plays a major part in achieving the leaderships’ desired effects. This group claims to be followers of Jesus Christ and to be working to become more like Him. But, Christ didn’t intimidate people. He was truthful when He dealt with people, but not belittling or intimidating.
“The main focus of the group is financial, expansion and elitism.”
When reading the entire Bible, it is apparent that the most important thing to God is people - not elitism or finances. It is made clear, we are to love God, love each other and carry the message of salvation to all people worldwide.
Matt. 6:19, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
In Matt.28:18, Jesus says to His disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
“Smith's Friends view themselves as the one true church and therefore they need the funds to preach the true gospel the church professes around the world or Christ will never return.”
“All other churches are viewed as the harlot and pharisies. I suggest you read the book by Bratlie (one of the group's former leaders) called "The bride and harlot", the disdain and hatred to all other Christians and churches is written plainly there.”
What do they base that claim (the one true church) on? I know I’ve asked before and still haven’t gotten an answer from anyone. Are the words ‘Smiths’ Friends’ written in the Bible somewhere? And, from what I’ve gleaned so far, it doesn’t appear they are supportive of missions, so how are they ‘preaching the true gospel the church professes’? Also I’ve listed just a few of the many scriptures that guide us to ‘love others’. By believing we are the elite, the chosen, are better than others, and therefore show ‘disdain and hatred’ toward outsiders is not Christ-like. How do they account for this?
Matt. 7:1, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Matt.22:37, “Jesus replied, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Luke 6:31, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
Luke 6:32, “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. And, if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that.
John 13:34, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
John 15:12, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.”
John 15:17, “This is my command: Love each other.”
1 John4:7-12, “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed His love among us: He sent His one and only Son into the world that we might live through Him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us.”
As in all Christian groups, there probably are people in SF who sincerely believe they are trying to follow Christ, but it is obvious that there are ‘rogues’ out there who continue doing things that are very obviously anti-Christian. Remember, this isn’t the only time something like this has been known to happen within SF. With that being said, it appears that SF as a whole has some teachings based on scripture being used out of context and twisted in order to control, manipulate, isolate, and turn people against their own friends and families, Luke 14 among them. That’s one thing that makes it so cultish. Every ‘church congregation’ is made up of sinners. No ‘congregation’ on the face of the earth is immune to it. But, healthy, Godly congregations don’t show hatred and disdain for anyone who isn’t part of their church. One of the differences is that mature believers within mainline denominations admit their own shortcomings and that they are sinners in need of a Savior. They try to obey, worship, and follow Jesus. But, when they do sin, and we ALL do, a mature believer will humble themselves to admit when they have done something wrong. 1 John 2:1-2, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense-Jesus, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” So, are there really ‘rogues’ out there or does SF group teach judgmental and critical behavior toward other churches (which is printed in their own literature) which purposely causes dissension and division among believers?
Yukonbound2: I appreciate your comments. However, the fact that Brother Avy seems to have connections with the Salem fellowship and other groups here in the US and Canada leads me to believe he is quite active and well connected among the Smith’s Friends leadership.
I do realize that you can’t generalize the whole SF leadership based on Brother Avy’s behavior. That is my whole point. This local leader, and SF as a whole, makes that generalization about all the outside church denominations. That is one of the isolation tactics that define what they are. I’m just trying to turn that same argument around to illustrate how stupid it is. I’m sure there are many people, including leaders in SF, who seem to lead very moral and upstanding lives. But we live in a fallen world and it is naïve to trust anyone without question.
Keith: To your point as well, many people probably would have said the same thing about the music teacher before he was arrested for sexual battery. There were probably others who said the same thing about Irene Taliaferro too. (She is a former Owasso high school teacher too. Have you heard that story?) There are probably still people who believe that Al Capone was just an innocent businessman who was persecuted by the Chicago police.
That just means that we should be more conscientious and watchful of those people we have entrusted our children with. They are held to a higher standard.
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. James 3:1
Don’t worry, Keith, about those people who don’t get it. There are plenty of people in Owasso who know the truth because they are witnesses themselves. They have their own stories to tell. This girl and her family are not the only victims here.
Keith: A friend of mine recently showed me a copy of the Owasso reporter from Thursday, March 5. There is an interesting advertisement on page 48 for the Owasso Christian Fellowship. This advertisement reads:
Many Christians are admirers of Christ, but are you a disciple true to His word?
“If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me.”
Luke 9:23, Matt 10:38, Matt 16:24
They also provide a web site www.OwassoChristianFellowship.com. If you go to this web address it takes you directly to the Brunstad web site in Norway.
There are a couple of interesting things about this advertisement. First of all, I find it interesting that they use the name Owasso Christian Fellowship and present it as a legitimate Christian organization when the truth is that they are not registered with the state as any kind of organization that I can find, non-profit or otherwise. Does this violate “truth in advertising” rules in this country?
Another thing is that he uses the verse about denying oneself. What has this man denied for himself? He lives in one of the more prosperous neighborhoods in Owasso, drives new cars, etc. His lifestyle seems to be very upscale, all of this on a teachers salary too. He doesn’t seem to have denied himself much. He hasn’t seemed to deny himself a relationship with his own children either which should follow from Luke 14 that they stress so much.
There is also deception in the advertisement itself. This implies that they aspire to be more than an admirer of Christ, in fact, to be a disciple of Christ. We have heard from the SF community on this blog and they have admitted that they do not believe Jesus to be the son of God. They believe He is just a man like you and me. If they have the ability to become perfect like Jesus, why do they need Jesus? Wouldn’t this put them in the camp of being admirers of Jesus, even equal to Jesus, instead of a disciple?
If he implies this to mean a disciple “true to His word”, what about Jesus words in John 3:18 “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
Or John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
How does it show love to another family when you move their daughter into your home and twist her world so that she turns her back on her parents, brothers, grandparents, friends, etc? You cannot be a disciple of Christ and do this to other people.
Harold: Thanks for the heads up on this. Nothing like painting the truth a different color.
This blog is important, because it now remains almost the only site on the internet (other than the site of Griess and a dead Google group)that investigates, questions and critiques the Smiths Friends.
One can perhaps be almost sure that at some point an attempt will be made to shut down this blog using legal methods and more so because there are too many derogatory and defamatory statements made here by those who are angry with the SF and their anger unbalances their critique.
The charge that the SF fears most is that of being a "cult". The SF has had prior experiences of being accused of being a cult including the Griess case, the accusations made directly by Zac Poonen and a couple of other close shaves.
The SF may not be a cult but as YukonBound put it: it is a sect with extreme viewpoints and "cultistic behaviours and tendencies" controlled by a powerful and rich heirarchy that cannot be questioned. This makes people who are outside of it and some who are inside of it nervous and wary. Many who are within cannot afford to leave as that will mean divided families, emotional traumas, etc because the experience of "fellowship" within the SF is extremely intense and affects reason and emotions. Further, the SF has become a very centralised, rich, powerful sect that has no qualms about meeting threats to its being and existence ruthlessly.
(The Truth: Yes, people have mortgaged their homes in the UK to pay off Brunstad's debt and to make Brunstad rich and powerful but it is because most of them believe in what they are doing. Of course, they are whipped into shape by prophetic frenzy, persuasion and diktat by leaders whose "wisdom" no one dares question. This is termed "oneness" or "unity" in SF circles.)
Harold's skewed methodology of attacking the SF is one of casting aspersions based on inferences and deductions from hearsay - for example, quoting from books and seeking, by association, to brand the SF as a cult or its members as sexual predators. He has no evidence to give from SF texts for its behavior. This emotional approach does not cut ice with intelligent people but only demonstrates his subjectivity - frustration and hatred masked as "righteous indignation".
I do not say this to offend Harold but it is only too obvious that Harold really doesn't know much objectively about the SF - he neither has SF texts, or videos (an SF video once placed on Youtube was removed because the SF claimed copyright was violated)or audio tapes, nor does he know any SF legends or leaders, nor does he know any SF group from within. He is beating the air with his fists and the SF does not fear that.
In fact, this has been the success story of the SF. It is excellent at covering up their theology ("we are not theologians")and keeping themselves out of public view. The only presence they project on the internet or in public is that of being "above board" at all times and in every way. And the SF now is confident that it has the firepower to quench all criticism and even go out into the world on a massive missionary endeavour to bring new recruits into is fold. This also stems from the basic premise within the SF that "while an individual might err, the brotherhood cannot err". In other words, the SF collective "cannot and does not sin" being the true "Body of Christ" on earth.
Now this situation is possible only because the SF is a sealed society. Its apostles travel through all the fellowships ensuring that all cracks and chinks are sealed.
The SF has two traditions that run within it. One is that of a group of "disciples" who obey the "Word of God" and seek to become "like Christ" - a laudable ideal which they seek to manifest by means of their "special revelation", interpretation and understanding of the Bible combined with "key texts" written by JO Smith, Elias Aslaksen, Sigurd Bratle, Trygve Sandvik, Axel J Smith and Kare Smith and worked out in tandem with over a 100 years of "experience" of building the sect.
A second is an "oral tradition" and these teachings cannot be pin-pointed by anybody "outside" the sect. Simply because an "oral tradition" is exactly what it is - esoteric and without tangible proofs. And often, "oral" commands are executed within the organisation and its fellowships.
However, if one has access to the SF texts and has been inside for a long time, one can easily see the co-relation between the two traditions. This is the premise from which Zac Poonen attacked the SF - that it is only those who are "within" who will be able to bring about a substantive critique of the system which has its headquarters in Brunstad, Norway.
These co-relations include key questions pertaining to the "gospel" presented by Brunstad. For eg:
(a) Jesus was only a man who became God.
(b) Jesus carried sin in His flesh.
(c) The SF is the only true church on earth and most other Christians and Christian churches are part of the "Harlot" system.
(d) Jesus might have sinned unconsciously.
And so on and so forth.
The strongest public threat to this system came from Zac Poonen who openly charged that the SF was a cult and asked seven "key" questions to the then leader Sigurd Bratlie.
This resulted in Zac being pushed out of the SF and having criminal and civil cases filed against him. The SF lost the appeal in the High Court and then took the appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
Zac Poonen was attacked across the board as a "harlot", "opposer", "antichrist", "Diotrephes", etc (common terminology used by the SF against those who critique the system or dissent - if a husband and a wife dissent together, then they are branded as "Ananias and Sapphira) by the SF and an open letter was published against him in which the 7 points he raised were replied to in ambiguous terms using proof texts. Some of the "personal" letters he wrote to SF leaders were also included in the open letter to prove that he was in the wrong and not SF - a tactic called "hitting below the belt".
The SF is excellent in strategic thinking - the Zac Poonen case has dragged out across ten years or more but, wonder of wonders, the SF has just now dropped all its cases against him.
This is an interesting development as it raises questions of whether Zac Poonen is still seen by SF as a "harlot" and "antichrist" and "opposer". Why would the "true" Body of Christ drop accusations against its arch-opponent and Harlot and thus strengthen the Harlot's position? Was the SF finally convinced that it would lose its case in the Supreme Court? What was the deal?
The real advantage that the legal action against Zac gained for the SF was strategic - in that he could be "shut up" and "bound" for ten years and time gained for the critique and furore over the SF being branded a "cult" triggered by him to die down quietly.
Another point:
Harold's contention at one point was that the theology of the SF does not really matter but only its "behaviour" matters and it is the behaviour that ought to be scrutinised. There are a couple of lacunae in this kind of thinking. Theology begets behaviour. For eg: Augustine broached the notion that heretics should be arrested and tortured and killed and this doctrine led to the slaughter of tens of thousands over the centuries.
The behaviour patterns of SF are directly linked to their so-called non-existent theology. But if one peruses the texts of the SF leaders over the past 100 years, the theology of the SF is clear.
This is why it is important that the SF's theology must be examined more closely and related to its behaviour patterns.
The only books on the SF are those authored by those within the system or those sympathetic to the system. These books are published by the SF publications house. The SF is extremely wary of its text, video and audio materials going into the hands of "outsiders" who are capable of analysing and synthesising its theology. This is why SF slammed Zac Poonen with criminal charges under copyright laws.
It might be quite some time till an objective theological critique of the SF is made and a socio-cultural, behavioural study undertaken of this sect which has survived for more than a century and has had a powerful impact, both negative and positive, on the lives of those who get caught up in it.
Inevitably, it will have to be a well-informed and objective person who has spent a long time within the SF and has seen both its positive and negative effects who can do this job. But where is such a person to be found? The "unofficial" biography of the Smiths Friends is yet to be written.
Because such a critique is yet to be made, the SF can continue to project its singular "see how happy we are" face to the world. And the critics can only feel helpless or frustrated as in the case of Harold and Keith in the face of such a reality.
Uriah_Heep that was a super good post you just put up. I wasn't deep enough into the smith's friends ever to do this "critique" you talk about, they pretty well shunned me for the 10+ years I was there I was never let into the inside (though I know very well it existed, and possibly secret beliefs that I've seen mentioned before online of them having) But their happy face that they put up on www.brunstad.org I don't buy that so much. I didn't find any happiness in their church, I didn't find life in christ at their church, I felt condemned by their members was made to feel like shit --- always sat and hoped if I just stopped wearing the jewelry if I got up and testified enough, if I went to enough rental cookings, I'd be let into "the brother's ring" they sang about all the time......."so come inside the brother's ring" the song says as if a person could just go right into that brother's ring. Eventually I gave up hope of ever being able to go inside their brother's ring nomadder what I tried to go, and I'm better off in mainstream christianity ----- finally being loved by christians.........the love that god wanted me to experience all along. God didn't want me to be shut out like that!!!!!!!! Smith's friends is a full out cult to me......I would also call the smith's friends a sect.......but I'd also extremely much call the smith's friends a cult......a very secretive and powerful cult.
You said...."Because such a critique is yet to be made, the SF can continue to project its singular "see how happy we are" face to the world. And the critics can only feel helpless or frustrated as in the case of Harold and Keith in the face of such a reality." I share this frustration as well. All I can hope at this point is that people will go to my blog and if they go to one the smith's friends churches they'll not take everything as from god, they'll wonder to themselves "why is this sunday's theme this?" There often isn't a tieing thread between service and service at all I found, like most churches were one service somehow often links up to another and it makes sense. There's lot's of mind control stuffs in my opinion in the smith's friends services.
re: Harold's post- Mar 18,2 2009 - more evidence of deception when a group identifies itself as "Owasso Christian Fellowship," yet its website URL takes you directly to the Brunstad website. So much for honesty in advertising. I wasn't aware that Norway was considered a suburb of the Owasso area.
Uriah_Heep: You assume I "feel helpless or frustrated." I feel neither, because I know Who is in control of ALL things; His justice will revealed in His time.
Interesting that all SF could dredge up was a supposed violation of copyright laws re: Zac Poonen. Last time I checked, having an opinion wasn't against the law.
Uriah_heep, Thanks for your insightful post. You are either a current member of SF, a former active member, or else you are being fed key information by an insider (Elf, I suspect).
The lawsuits against Poonen were dropped because the Supreme Court of India found that there was a "lack of cause" underlying the whole mess.
Uriah_Heep: I appreciate your comments and I find it very interesting that you seem to be the only active spokesperson for Smith’s Friends even though you claim to be theologically neutral.
You obviously haven’t read everything I have written on this blog, because I have copies of several pieces of SF literature and have commented on them earlier. And I don’t remember anyone making the comment that SF theology was non-existent. Maybe that is a reference to the fact that the SF leaders pride themselves on being un-educated in the subject of theology. On the surface, this gives them an opportunity to present themselves as pure and un-spoiled by the organized denominations, but the underlying reality is that it gives them a license to twist the scriptures, unchecked, in order to suit their goals.
I also can understand your position on theology driving behavior. I think you and Sophie are in the same camp on this subject. But when you step back and look at the behavior of coercive groups and Lifton’s eight criteria for thought reform, any theological system or ideology can be used by a coercive group to achieve their goal of totalism. There are cults within mainline church denominations that use the same coercive techniques under the name of discipleship. Nazi Germany was a political cult. I think the pre-war Japanese can be considered a religious cult.
All of these ideologies engage in the same behaviors to achieve their goal. That is what makes Dr. Lifton’s book so important because he broke through all of the extraneous propaganda and focused on the underlying behavior that was common to all of these coercive systems in order to define what they are.
I do agree that wrong theology can, and often does, lead to wrong behavior. There are a lot of examples of that throughout the history of Christianity. But those behaviors can be corrected with the infusion of correct theology only in the presence of free and open discussions, something that can not take place in a closed system such as Smith’s Friends.
Several of your comments line up very well with Lifton’s criteria:
“And the SF now is confident that it has the firepower to quench all criticism”
Ref Dr. Lifton #3. Demands for Purity: People and organizations are pictured as either good or evil, depending on their relationship towards the cult.
“This also stems from the basic premise within the SF that "while an individual might err, the brotherhood cannot err". In other words, the SF collective "cannot and does not sin" being the true "Body of Christ" on earth.”
Ref Dr. Lifton #5. The Sacred Science: The cult’s ideology becomes the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. The ideology is too ‘sacred’ to call into question, and a reverence is demanded for the leadership. The cult’s ideology makes an exaggerated claim for possessing airtight logic, making it appear as absolute truth with no contradictions.
Uriah Heep: I’d agree; your post was quite insightful.
SF believes and professes itself to be not only a ‘church’ but ‘THE body of Christ’. Yet, from your post, it appears more like a pyramid scheme with the ‘powerful and rich hierarchy that cannot be questioned’ leadership at the top. God created every single human being on this earth. He loves everyone the same. He doesn’t play favorites or elevate people to lord over others. From the sounds of it, this leadership appears to be very arrogant in thinking that they are invincible and ‘aren’t to be questioned’. It is difficult to believe that a ‘closed society’ can have an evangelistic mindset which was instructed by Christ Himself. True disciples, serve, follow, love Jesus (rather than leaders of an organization) by spreading the message of the gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ all over the world.
Surely men with such power, intelligence, and wisdom would realize trying to bring legal action would only draw more negative attention in the school system where this man is employed and possibly the local media. And, it makes one ponder what Dr. Phil would do with this?
Harold, you quoted John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
1 Corinthians 13:4 says, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
Love is a verb…it is an action. It isn’t just a feeling or a word that is said to someone. Again, “you will know them by their fruits”. Anyone can ‘say’ anything. That’s fairly easy. Our actions speak louder than our words.
Threatening, lying, having arrogant attitudes by claiming that you are the only ‘bride of Christ’ and that all other congregations of believers are harlots, purposely separating young people from their own families are all contrary to this definition of love.
Giving it to God: It is so good to see that you have found freedom to live the life that can only be found in Christ Jesus…not the freedom to knowingly go on sinning…but certainly the freedom to know that Christ loves you. You have apparently found the love, compassion, redemption, and freeing forgiveness from Christ. You are free to experience the true joy and peace that knowing, loving and serving a risen Savior will bring rather than putting on a facade ("see how happy we are" face to the world).
“The SF may not be a cult but as YukonBound put it: it is a sect with extreme viewpoints and "cultistic behaviours and tendencies" controlled by a powerful and rich heirarchy that cannot be questioned. This makes people who are outside of it and some who are inside of it nervous and wary. Many who are within cannot afford to leave as that will mean divided families, emotional traumas, etc because the experience of "fellowship" within the SF is extremely intense and affects reason and emotions.”
Some logical questions that an intellectual and curious person might ask:
1. Why can’t this ‘rich hierarchy’ be questioned?
2. Why would it (leaving) divide families?
3. What about this girl’s family? Or Friedrich Griess’ family? Or this young man who has also been mentioned on here? Haven’t they been divided?
4. What do you mean by the experience of “fellowship” with the SF is ‘extremely intense and affects reason and emotions’?
5. What is the difference between a cult and a sect?
SECT: a dissenting or SCHISMATIC religious body, one regarded as extreme or heretical; a religious denomination; a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.
SCHISMATIC: division, separation; lack of harmony: discord, a formal division in or separation from a church or religious body; the offense of promoting schism.
CULT: formal religious VENERATION: worship; a system of religious beliefs and ritual, also its body of adherents; enthusiastic and usually temporary devotion to a person, idea, or thing; a group of persons showing such devotion.
VENERATION: the act of venerating, the state of being venerated, a feeling of reverence or deep respect: devotion.
VENERATE: love, charm, to regard with reverential respect, or with admiration and DEFERENCE.
DEFERENCE: deference implies a yielding of one’s own opinion or preference to that of another.
So whether one calls this a cult or a sect doesn’t really matter. The facts are the same…this group endorses separation and division from former friends and family members, by twisting scripture, lies, fear, guilt, threats, anger, discord, lack of harmony, coercion, manipulation, bitterness which are all contrary to Biblical teachings and the message of Jesus Christ.
Sophie: An intellectual conversation is impossible with someone who cannot see the difference between "sect" and "cult" and instead conveniently mashes up the two.
By the way, those who were called Christians in the early days were a Jewish "sect". The Pharisees were a sect (Acts 15:5), the Sadducees were a sect (Acts 5:17) and then there was the "sect of the Nazarenes" (Act 24:5, Acts 28:22)which was attacked often by the other "sects" and "secularists" (the Romans, the Herodians). You may also belong to some Christian "sect" that pretends to be "mainstream" because it has numbers. But your job is the same as that of the sect of the Pharisees - namely to attack another "sect". It is a natural and historical pattern repeating itself ad infinitum and ad nauseum.
This blog is useful because more than the attacks on the SF, it highlights the hatred Christian sectarians have for each other. One can understand the extent to which the poison of "schism" has ruined Christianity and how schism is propagated by both "mainstream" and "sectarian" Christians.
In this context, the SF has as much right as any other Christian sect to remain a "sect". The Nazarene sect was also attacked in the first century for "dividing" families for faith's sake if you read up the early historians. That is the nature of being "sectarian" - you do not marry into "other sects" for instance and you do not endorse their world view or belief systems.
SF also has a right to exist as a "sect" - people have a right to choose to be with this "sect that is spoken against". In religious spheres, it is alright to be a "sect".
Isn't it interesting that the cocksure "sect" of the Pharisees abused Jesus and His followers and finally killed Him because He brought "division" or "schism" into Judaism apart from being a man who claimed to be God (a practice that would not surprise anyone in Asia and is culturally acceptable in the subcontinent - you could say Jesus was born in the "wrong" culture and so ended up dead!!)?
Uriah_Heep is on the "smith's friends" team, I hope all you that aren't on the "smith's friends" team keep posting.
We are not Uriah_Heep against the idea of the "smith's friends" being a sect, if they were some friendly nice sect, really I mean REALLY nice people, it'd be no issue........if families weren't being torn apart by this "sect" there'd pry be no issue.
Quakers I think they a "Sect" they are very nice people, they no harm people far as I can see........there's some nice sects out there people don't have issue with.
I cleaned turned salem fellowship into the fbi, cause they clean posted up on their secret password protected website, a article saying that they did request for help tearing down a building or two in portland's walls that were water logged ------- since when are churches employment agencies?????????? And I still think macleay solutions is fishy, what the hell did they hide the macleay trucks at their church if everything is so very legal and ok??????????????????????? They freaking mentioned last time I went their that their "stocks" were going up while everyone elses were going down, this church appears to have "stocks" -------- is that normal???????? Is it?????? I don't know????????? But so much is fishy with salem fellowship, with the smith's friends in general.
At salem fellowship they commended themselves much that "even people from the outside are able to join us" but I tried hard for 10+ years to seriously become one of them, I was sincere, I really tried w/0 luck I mean 0000000000000 luck. They no reply to my e-mails most the smith's friends don't these days..........and if they do they are most them very very hostile to me. Not friendly peace loving quakers not to me the smith's friends aren't!!!!!!!!!
I have been without friends for 5+ years pry longer then that lot longer....I had a best friend once.....but when I got married and moved several miles away it was just to hard for me to keep that friendship up (I was the one doing all the work in that friendship to keep it going - once I stopped e-mailing that person I didn't get e-mails from them no more) The smith's friends can declare themselves to be the body of christ all they want, but there were many weekends I'd be at the mall w/my 1 best friend and I'd clean see the smith's friends sisters my age hanging out together (on much more then 1 occasion salem is a stupid town were all there is to do there is hang out at 1 of the 2 malls in the town ---- or coffee shops) They used to like invite me over the smith's friends sisters did but I wasn't ever invited to go to the mall w/them..........when it came to them hanging out together time I wasn't invited!!!!!!!!!!!! I wasn't invited..........things are super dire for me still I talk about it finally on my bodyspace page.......http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/15inch/
My heart isn't acting up on me no more hardly, the heart monitor isn't picking up much anymore that's only good news I have.
I myself stumbled across this blog in my research about this organization, most specifically the "Salem Fellowship". I don't want to think that the creepy feeling I'm getting about these folks is some emotional reaction that The Enemy has invoked in me, but I am currently a member of a church which has had members of the SF speaking in it, and it looks as if the direction our ministry is headed is in line with their ambiguously defined beliefs.
Before I sit back and possibly watch The Bride of Christ get turned into a "Theological Stepford Wife", I wanted to learn as much as I could about this group. I have "The Bride and The Harlot" at my disposal and have begun reading it, but other publications are very hard to find.
I asked someone who has had dealings with these brothers if they understood why, if these texts were so useful in the understanding and application of the Holy Scriptures of The Bible, why it is that they don't simply give them away online as PDFs? The closest thing to an answer I can get is that they "might be abused".
How in the world can TRUTH be abused if one truly seeks, through God's Holy Spirit, the truth? Now if by this they mean that they don't want another Zac Poonen out there sowing dissent, well that's going to happen when people who seek to do the same use God's Word to do so...I mean, how often is it that Scripture is taken out of context in places that claim to be CHURCHES?!?! If the same logic were applied to The Bible, than the biggest destroyers of Christianity in history were the Gideons!
I'm pursuing a copy of "Christ manifest in the flesh" in the mean time, and searching out anything that I can find on the Web..(Thank God for BabelFish!)
I don't want to seem like I'm paranoid, just that I endeavor to be like a Barean...
"Just a guy" glad to hear me and my husband weren't the only people on the earth getting knots in our stomachs around the "smith's friends" of salem fellowship (I didn't get that somethings not right feeling in my gut around all the smith's friends but some them I hella did!) They do have good things about their doctrine, if they really lived it - they'd pry rock! Those that are jesus's have crucified their fleshes to it's lusts and desires, today I looked a tiffany jewelry - there is a part of me that super would like a certain tiffany piece or two : ) but "he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin" I'm going to suffer in the flesh, work harder to have my flesh crucified to it's lusts and desires.........basically I'll be sticking to my cheapo bangle bracelets (but the smith's friends hate loath and hate me entirelly cause I wear jewelry -- that part why I wasn't allowed to become one of them I've always had a thing for charm bracelets - I like pretty things -------- but it's bestest we all work to crucify our fleshes to it's lusts and desires, it's better to suffer in the flesh, it's better to lay up treasures for ourselves in heaven then on earth -------- if I were to get a tiffany piece of jewelry that wouldn't do nothing for me in heaven!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Salem fellowship has a bookstore, their churches phone number is in the white pages of the phone book in salem - call it you should be able to find out the church times and when the bookstore is going to be open.
Did the smith's friends save my soul - maybe they still are BUTTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Sophie: I agree with you that it doesn’t matter what you call it the facts are the same. I would like to add that one thing that is different in a cult is the thought reform processes that are at work. In particular, the isolation of members from all other outsiders, especially all other family members and friends.
Uriah_Heep: Yes, you have the right, in this country to do whatever you want. And I will defend all day long the freedom of all people in this country to do as they wish. But that freedom ends when you begin to harm other people. You do NOT have the right to intentionally harm other families, to manipulate, deceive, and undermine the free will of others. It may not be illegal in terms of man’s laws in this country, but we are all subject to God’s law in the end, and these are some of the things that God hates. Pr 6:18
I would like to make another point. Earlier on this blog there were some statements about how SF viewed “missionary work”. Apparently, SF missions in other countries is about raising money for Brunstad. That is so anti-Christian. In authentic missionary organizations the purpose is to reach other people groups, help build them up, improve their conditions, so they can hear and respond to the gospel and then go out themselves to reach others. The flow of money and resources is outward. It seems that, in SF, the flow of money and resources is all inward. This shows where their heart is.
Just_a_guy: thanks for stopping by and posting. Your input is very interesting, and you pose some very good questions.
I would also like to hear Uriah_Heep address some of Sophie’s questions too. Particularly #1 and #4 which come from the following statement by Uriah_Heep:
---------------
The SF may not be a cult but as YukonBound put it: it is a sect with extreme viewpoints and "cultistic behaviours and tendencies" controlled by a powerful and rich heirarchy that cannot be questioned. This makes people who are outside of it and some who are inside of it nervous and wary. Many who are within cannot afford to leave as that will mean divided families, emotional traumas, etc because the experience of "fellowship" within the SF is extremely intense and affects reason and emotions. Further, the SF has become a very centralised, rich, powerful sect that has no qualms about meeting threats to its being and existence ruthlessly.
----------------
Does this sound like a Christ centered church? Sounds more like the Chicago mafia to me. It also sounds like a veiled threat to Keith and others on this blog.
Call them a sect, a church, anything you want, but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it’s probably a duck.
Sophie: Apart from denotations you gave using dictionaries, and since I don't think I should use "secular" sociological and semiotic definitions of "cult" and "sect" which a proof-texting mind may not accept, I give you an easier differentiation to digest.
SECT AND CULT
While the two words are often used interchangeably there is a distinct difference. Sects are usually subsets of a larger religious body. For example, Catholicism, Protestantism and the Orthodox churches are all sects within Christianity. Shi'ite and Sunni are sects within the Muslim religion. These are usually differences built around doctrine and sects may or may not recognize the validity of one another within the larger body. Cults are more often built around a personality and may pick up elements from other religions but tend to have very unique beliefs, often centered around the person and unique character of the person who started the cult. Think of David Koresh or Jim Jones. If the cult becomes old enough, established enough and benign enough it may eventually merge into a sect of some organized religion. Mormonism is thought to be a cult by some, built around the personality of Joseph Smith, but has become mainstream enough that it is starting to be seen by other as a sect within Christianity. While words have specific meanings, how they get played out in the real world is usually messier.
That apart:
Q1: Haven't you been questioning the SF on this blog? Also, aren't you in cahoots with others who question SF orleft the sect? That they could leave proves that the barn doors were not bolted to prevent "escape". Be satisfied.
Q4. You would not be able to understand (just as I do not) the intensity of "fellowship" in SF. All you can do is hypothesize about it and cite the point of view of those who are against SF as being Gospel Truth! The pity of it is none of the prosecution on this blog have any access to SF and have no intention of building a bridge across the divide.
Some clarifications: SF is not built on any single person or text. Many make this erroneous judgment! SF is a cohesive body with a collective global leadership who are united in vision and purpose, a singular doctrine and practice and generates a collection of texts and narratives that are as "spiritual" and any other texts generated in Christendom over the centuries.
Harald: God instituted the laws of the land and if a man has not broken them, he is innocent before God's face too.
Finally, pardon me for proof texting like Sophie, but this blog has forced me to read the Bible and this is what I found recently:
Romans 13
1 LET EVERY person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities. For there is no authority except from God [by His permission, His sanction], and those that exist do so by God's appointment. 2Therefore he who resists and sets himself up against the authorities resists what God has appointed and arranged [in divine order]. And those who resist will bring down judgment upon themselves [receiving the penalty due them]. 3 For civil authorities are not a terror to [people of] good conduct, but to [those of] bad behavior. Would you have no dread of him who is in authority? Then do what is right and you will receive his approval and commendation. 4 For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, [you should dread him and] be afraid, for he does not bear and wear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant to execute His wrath (punishment, vengeance) on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath and escape punishment, but also as a matter of principle and for the sake of conscience. 6 For this same reason you pay taxes, for [the civil authorities] are official servants under God, devoting themselves to attending to this very service.
So, if you cannot prove under the law that the person(s) you hate has/have shown "bad/illegal behaviour", you are indulging in maligning people and mud-slinging.
Of course, you may counter by saying God looks at the heart and KNOWS that this person or the SF is "evil". But how do you know this? You are not God to know the motives of the heart and to claim to be higher than the laws of the USA thus contradicting Romans 13? :-)
Giving it to God: I am not on the SF team or the anti-SF team. That way, I can see the gaps on both sides of this argument.
Uriah_Heep: I can accept your definition and distinctions between sects and cults. But just because a large organization like SF may have worthy intentions doesn’t mean that there can’t be factions within them that can go awry. The Branch Davidians, that David Koresh became leader of, was born out of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The Boston Movement is a questionable group that is still associated with the larger Church of Christ. There are many discipleship groups within mainstream Christian churches that exhibit cult behaviors as well. As you said, these groups are often centered around a charismatic personality who deceives his followers. Keith has alluded to that possibility for this local group of SF as well.
However when you have other similar stories happening like Fredrick Griess, Millard Melnyk, the two young people here in Oklahoma, and one in Connecticut, you have to start to wonder about the whole organization, and how many more are there are that just haven’t spoken up yet.
I applaud you for actually reading the Bible. Why don’t you try reading all of it, in context, and while you’re at it, pay particular attention to the places in the gospels where Jesus throws out the money changers from the temple. What these people were doing was quite legal according to the laws of the times but Jesus recognized that they were violating Gods laws and rebuked them for it.
Also read Acts 5:29 where Peter stands before the Sanhedrin and says “"We must obey God rather than men!”
Your idea that because Smith’s Friends exists, that it is somehow ordained by God and should be obeyed without question, is ludicrous.
Using that kind of logic, we should never have intervened in Europe during WWII. Your logic says that, “Well, Hitler was appointed by God so we should sit back and just accept our fate.” Is that what King David did in the Old Testament? How about Nehemiah? Ester?
No, I believe that God calls us to speak out and work against injustice in the world, to speak the truth in love. Some people won’t like that but as Peter would have said, I must obey God rather than Smith’s Friends.
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear Him.” Luke 12:4, 5
On another note, why did you dodge Sophie’s questions? It was you that stated the SF rich hierarchy can’t be questioned. She just asked the question why, and you say “be satisfied”. That was a fair question because it highlights one of the basic cult behaviors in that the leadership is beyond reproach. And any one who questions the leadership gets removed. Any true Christian organization has nothing to hide and will answer all questions openly and freely.
Harold: I was just showing your response to some colleagues and they said: "Why are you wasting your time with people who are not listening, are not reading the posts carefully and are aggressive towards those who don't toe their line?" HMMM.
Yeah, my friends are wise but I guess I am stupid. Why are you taking out your frustrations and aggressiveness on me? Your approach is not objective but subjective and you are loud and aggressive towards anyone who doesn't agree with you that the SF must rot in hell. :-)
As for that matter about the rich not being questioned, if you read my post carefully you will find that I was making inferences from the posts of die-hard SF-baiters on this blog.
Then again, people like Sophie and you and some outcast SF personnel are continually questioning SF (or its awry factions) loudly enough on this blog. Should I join the howling
? You seem to want to force me to do that! Sorry "I must obey my conscience and not Harold"! :-)
It is amusing how easily people quote the bible to justify their subjective positions and to demean others who disagree with them.
Again, if as you claim, I am dodging Sophie - you seem to be dodging a key issue: Has God appointed you higher than the laws of the United States? Yes or no? If the US laws do not condemn a man and you do so, then it's a personal grudge and opinion and you're free to trumpet it. But turning personal grudges into a mudslinging smear campaign is perhaps only possible because you consider yourself superior to God-ordained laws of the land. And that's lynch law, isn't it?
By the way, just for information's sake, have you tried taking your complaint to the higher leadership of the SF beyond the backwaters of Owasso?
...what does the Bible state as the God Prescribed method for settling disputes such as these?
1 Corinthians 6:1-8
...and what do we know the Bible states about letting ourselves (I'm not off the hook here, I'm a BIG offender in this at times)get wrapped up in grinding against each other in heated discussion about Doctrine, which eventually comes down to interpretation of The Word of God?
Titus 3:9-10
If we can reason without attacking...if we can defend without feeling demeaned... If indeed we can discuss without making or taking as personal what is being said, than couldn't one calmly work up the line through the internal structure of any Church/Faith/Ministry making sound and reasonable inquiry so as to influence or correct in Love those who may err in their thinking or understanding?
Passion and Zeal are good, especially when attempting to save someone from their folly, but to stand on the shore and yell at the drowning man, berating him as to how stupid it was to fall in the water, does nothing to remove him from peril...and to become enraged if he does not listen to reason will not do either person any good. There is a point where, in Love, one needs to realize that all the pearls in the world will not purchase understanding from a swine...so to speak.
Just a Guy: So who is the "swine" you are referring to? Do clarify.
Anyone who does not receive correction...(Myself included) If I have a dispute over doctrine or organization or what I perceive as being bad stewardship or the like, it is clear what God intends. He demands that I not, as my flesh desires me to do, blow up...take jabs and stabs or cynically and snidely attempt to demean those I am attempting to correct. I am called by God to show them Love, and because of my Love there should be a desire to bring betterment.
In the case of Smith's Friends, were I to find objection with any of their teachings or beliefs, I would attempt to discuss these with someone in authority. (From what I am learning this is not always easy to know, unless one observes those who "preside" over their meetings)
I'm just saying that even when I was an agnostic who was playing Christian to fit in I saw the foolishness in self agitation caused by my friend's parents when they picketed the "Church of Christ" because they had aught with their teachings. This is not what Paul did with the church at Corinth or Philipi. *Shrug*
A general thought not aimed at any contributor on here specifically :Why criticize other Christians for making commentary on Smiths Friends methods when the friends of Smith are also making the same commentaries and criticisms of other Christian groups. Isn’t that double standards? The sad truth is this group is really no better than any other establishment run by human beings. We walk away from one group into another group and we bring the same human follies along with us. No one of us is better than the other. There are many independent thinkers within the church who are really interested in living a life with Christ. However, sadly enough there are also many more in the group who are always ‘whining’ about other Christians and can go on long monotonous spiels about the goodness of SF and the badness of non-SF. It can get a tad bit tiresome then and if you are not strong enough mentally, you too can easily get caught up in that type of thinking. Talking from personal experience here. So outsiders will have to do their own ‘weeding out’(as the expression goes) to get to these independent thinkers when dealing with the group. BTW, I am not pro or anti-the friends of Smith. Just placing my observations on here which will appear partial or non-partial depending on which side of the conversation you belong to or do not belong to. I wish only good luck to the ones who come across this church that they will come across the right people who are really interested in becoming better Christians and not the ones who will isolate you if you do not follow SF church culture.
Hello All
I cant believe I have been following this blog for over a year. I cant believe how long it has been
running. Amazing! I have been
silent a while now, guess i ran
out of things to say at least for
the present. Hope all of you are
doing well.
Just A Guy: Glad to be introduced to varieties of "swine" (another fascinating christian term used for those varieties of christians who might dislike one another for one reason or the other). But it makes it a level playing field.:-)
Chris: A really positive post and very close to what I have been thinking. There's always those who are within a religion, race, sect, denomination, etc seeking to follow hard after their Christ or Zoroaster or Socialism or whatever ideal role model or doctrines their group is after. One must always distinguish between the genuine ones and those who might be doing things their own way. One cannot tar an entire group as "black" for what might be construed as the "blemishes" of the few. People make choices when they join groups and must be free to exercise their own choices. And others are free to voice their opinions about the people who make such choices (call them dumb or brainwashed, etc).
Harold: Someone recently gave me a copy of "Spirit and Flesh - Life in a fundamentalist Baptist Church" by James M Ault to read. It's a great ethnographic study that shows how fundamentalists are all alike in their thinking whether they belong to the Baptists or the SF or Islamic Jihad. Check it out.
Chris,
You are correct, and you do speak
as though you have experience with
SF. There are those who are interested in persuing a life with
God. Then there are those who just
were born into it,SF, they don't know
anything else. They know the ver-
bage and the act that is expected.
They get up every Sunday and testify, they wear their head cover
or holler so loud when they test-
ify you cant understand them. So
as I see it, it dosent really mat-
ter, which group you belong to, what matters is if you have a life
with God or not. There are people
in SF (plenty) who DO NOT, and
those who do, there people in the
(Harlot) who have a life with God. Believe me, I knew plenty of
folk in SF who understood that there were people who ,"had a life
with God" that never once heard of
SF. Oddly the SF folks who realized that there were some harlots out there with understanding were the ones who
had contact with said harlots on
a regular basis. The harshist
critics of our afore mentioned
harlots were folks ,(usually) who
never had contact with them.
You are right, the us and them
battering does get a bit tedious
from time to time, not just here
but in general. I do believe that
the owner of the blog is concerned
and rightly so that there is a
predator loose in a local high school, and that there are other
young people who are in danger
of being misled into the fold of
the local group. NOw, I must admit
for most of my stay, I had a won-
derful experience with SF.
( so much for not having any thing
to )
Uriah_Heep: So as not to seem like I’m dodging your key issue I will respond to your request point by point.
“Has God appointed you higher than the laws of the United States? Yes or no?”
No. God hasn’t appointed me to anything. I never made this claim. But I did try to make the point that God’s laws are supreme and are above all man made laws.
“If the US laws do not condemn a man and you do so, then it's a personal grudge and opinion and you're free to trumpet it.”
Thank you. Yes, this is a free country and the First Amendment to our Constitution allows, among other things, my freedom to have an opinion and the right to speak it.
“But turning personal grudges into a mudslinging smear campaign is perhaps only possible because you consider yourself superior to God-ordained laws of the land.”
Our constitution and the laws of every nation today were made by men. Sinful, imperfect men. I don’t buy your reference to Romans 13 as evidence that God has ordained the laws of this land. Romans 13 was written to encourage Christians to live at peace with all men including civil governments…as long as they don’t contradict God’s commandments. Doing this set an example for all pagan men of that time and eventually led to Christianizing the whole Roman Empire.
Again, our First Amendment gives me the right to speak out and expose injustices. That is not because I consider myself superior to any laws but because I believe it is the right thing to do. Keith asked a question and I am exercising my right to respond to that question.
“And that's lynch law, isn't it?”
No, that is not lynch law. A lynching would be when a mob of men in this community gathers together at the home of this local SF leader and proceeds to deliver him into God’s hands for judgment. It is fortunate for him that most of the people in this community are law abiding Christians and would not do this.
“By the way, just for information's sake, have you tried taking your complaint to the higher leadership of the SF beyond the backwaters of Owasso?”
Who would this be, since SF is not supposed to be an organized denomination? However, since we seem to have the attention of you and other SF people from all over the world, I think this blog has served that purpose.
Uriah Heep: “But your job is the same as that of the sect of the Pharisees - namely to attack another "sect".
My job as a Christian is not to ‘attack’ other ‘sects’ of Christians, nor do I make it a habit of doing so. I have many friends who belong to different groups or ‘sects’ of Christians (follower of Christ) and I don’t ‘attack’ them or their beliefs, but rather fellowship and study God’s Word with many of them. My job as a Christian (Christ follower) is to accept the Lord as my Savior, love and worship Him, and be as obedient to Him as I humanly am able. We know what His teaching is by reading the scriptures. It is very clear through all of scripture that people are the most important thing to God. He loves us. He wants us to love Him and each other. So, out of obedience to Him, we will love others.
Why is it considered ‘attacking’ to say that separating and turning young people against their family and friends is wrong, that lying is wrong, that threatening others is wrong, that deception is wrong? These can all be backed up by scripture, yet when scripture is brought into the dialogue, you refer to me as ‘a proof texter’. You may believe that those who belong to ‘mainline’ churches are ‘attacking’ SF. But, you should remember what started this discussion in the first place. There are people within SF who claim to be Christian, yet misuse scripture (proof text Luke 14) in order to divide young people from their family and friends.
“If you love Me, you will do what I command.” John 14:15.
“Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will obey My teaching. My Father will love, him and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me will not obey My teaching. These words you hear are not My own; they belong to the Father who sent Me.” John 14:23-24.
“Do not merely listen to the Word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” James 1:22.
“This is love for God: to obey His commands. And His commands are not burdensome.” 1 John 5:3
“And this is love: that we walk in obedience to His commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.” 2 John v6.
“Jesus replied, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself’.” Matt.22:37.
“Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue, but with actions and in truth”, 1 John 3:18.
“Mormonism is thought to be a cult by some, built around the personality of Joseph Smith, but has become mainstream enough that it is starting to be seen by other as a sect within Christianity.”
There is a difference between being ‘Christian’ (I am referring to a follower of Christ) and being ‘a religion’. Christianity was started, grew, and built on those who worship, love, serve a Risen Savior, Christ Jesus, God incarnate, who is The Uncreated One, sent from Heaven to the earth as a perfect atoning sacrifice for the sins of ALL mankind.
“For God so loves the world that He sent His one and only Son that whosoever BELIEVES in Him shall not perish but have eternal life,” John 3:16.
Those who accept Him as their Lord and Savior, believe in Him, confess that they are sinners in need of a Savior to be reconciled to God the Father are called His children; Christian. Mormons do not believe that…they believe that they can BECOME A GOD themselves. That means there is no need of a sacrificial lamb, Savior. So some may say that Mormonism is ‘Christian’ but really it is a ‘religion’ not really ‘Christian’ according to scripture.
“One cannot tar an entire group as "black" for what might be construed as the "blemishes" of the few.”
You are absolutely correct. I think most people would agree with you that ‘one cannot tar an entire group as “black” for what might be construed as the “blemishes” of the few’. But, isn’t it ironic that this is precisely what SF does? Isn’t it printed in their literature and don’t they teach that all organized churches (besides SF) are ‘harlots’ and they are ‘THE Bride of Christ’? Church groups are made of men and ALL men and ALL women are sinners….including members of SF. A follower of Christ or ‘Christian’ recognizes their need for a Savior, whether in SF or not.
“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD, and are justified (to release from the guilt of sin and accept as righteous) FREELY by His grace (a state of freedom from sin) through the REDEMPTION (liberate or free from the bondage of sin; repair; restore; to get or win back; ransom) that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a SACRIFICE (to give up for the sake of something else) of atonement (reconciliation) through faith (complete confidence; belief and trust in) in His blood. He did this to demonstrate His justice, because in His forbearance He had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - He did it to demonstrate His justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” Romans 3:22-26.
We are held accountable before God for our own actions. I can’t be held accountable for the actions of anyone else, nor will anyone be held accountable for my actions. This blog began by someone asking a question due to the fact that a local high school teacher (who appears to be a local leader in SF) moved a young girl out of her dorm and into his house (without her parents’ knowledge of her whereabouts; that would be enough to alarm, or concern any normal, loving parents) and proceeded to separate her from her family and all her close friends. Since those are classic cult behaviors, a logical question was asked. I would venture to guess that if this same scenario had happened with a church leader from a mainstream church, the same reaction would have arisen. The fact is that this is a group many had never heard of until recently. No one went out seeking someone to ‘tar’, ‘bash’, or ‘attack’. But, due to what has happened, it has caused people to ask questions and research the subject themselves. “Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right.” Proverbs 20:11
Even if there are differences in SF and mainline denomination church theology, why can’t this girl have any close personal relationships with anyone ‘outside’ SF group? Even if one person believes one thing and another person believes something else, why can’t this girl still spend meaningful time with her own family or former friends? What does theology have to do with everyday activities like going to a movie, swimming, skating, attending concerts, art shows, museums, plays, etc…. bicycling, traveling, bowling, celebrating special events or holidays together?
Jarsmom: You stated, “I do believe that the owner of the blog is concerned and rightly so that there is a predator loose in a local high school, and that there are other young people who are in danger of being misled into the fold of the local group.”
I would agree with your statement because I don’t know ANYONE who wants to be divided from all their own lifelong relationships of friends and family, and to live in fear and isolation from close friends and familial relationships. I don’t know any parents who want to lose their child due to the influence of a person with wrong motives. Wonder what this teacher and his spouse would do if someone did this same thing to one of their children?
Chris: Thanks for the great posts! I’m glad you jumped into this conversation and you are absolutely right. Why leave all you’ve ever known and loved and all of your support system only to go to another group made up of imperfect people also? I think one difference in a ‘mainline’ church that places its focus on Christ is that the people, although imperfect, recognize their need for a Savior and want to ‘worship’ Jesus. They don’t make their main focal point to ‘always whine about other Christians and go on long monotonous spiels about the goodness of’ their group and the badness of anyone outside of their group.’ They also don’t believe they can ‘become a god’ or ‘become sinless on this earth.’
Just a Guy: Another Biblical principal for handling disagreements can be found in Matthew 18. But, who’s to say that this hasn’t already been tried?
Giving it to God: I’m happy for you that you seem to have found God and His unfailing, unending, unconditional, grace-filled love for you. God’s grace from His Son, Jesus, is the ONLY thing that will get you into Heaven. Your posts are always appreciated.
Sophie:
1. Why can’t this girl have any close personal relationships with anyone ‘outside’ SF group? Even if one person believes one thing and another person believes something else, why can’t this girl still spend meaningful time with her own family or former friends?
Yes, what she has done seem extreme. But it is her choice too. I don't understand why this has happened. From my limited knowledge of SF, I haven't heard of anyone who has done that. I am not sure if she is brainwashed. All we have is your word and you seem to be a Bible-quoting machine and that's all. :-) Perhaps she stays away from her parents as otherwise she would have to listen to religious tirades against her new found belief system of the sort you expound here. That sort of behaviour on the part of religious parents does isolate those who have suddenly found a new passion or new belief system.
2. What does theology have to do with everyday activities like going to a movie, swimming, skating, attending concerts, art shows, museums, plays, etc…. bicycling, traveling, bowling, celebrating special events or holidays together?
Theology has nothing to do with all this and yet it has. I know that many Pentecostals and Baptists and other weird Christians who who teach their adherents not to watch movies (or at least some kind of movies), forbid them from having close friendships with Muslims or Hindus (whom they call idol worshippers) or participate in their festivals, and proscribe other activities too. You may be more liberal in some things than others but such comparisons are relative.
3. The theological position you cite is limited to some sort of species called "evangelicals". But the Roman Catholics do not say such things. I am sure you are against Roman Catholicism for instance and will dub it a religion. But Baptist and other denominations are also religious units. I do not buy your distinction that one who does what you claim - "worship" Jesus is non-religious. Such a person is only one form or species of religious being.
3. You are imperfect too and therefore why should I believe or accept your arguments as the "truth" about this situation. These are just opinions that you or X or Y are posing on this blog. One can believe you or disbelieve you. Thus far, I have not seen anything so excessive in the behavior of the girl (it is strange indeed but not excessive) or the man who married her as to warrant the kind of tar that has been poured on them on this blog in public.
4. Finally, since I am forced to read the Bible to try to make sense of the gobbledegook, non-logical statements you make when you "proof text" to back up your arguments, may I place another interesting verse I found in Romans 2 (this book tickles my intellect):
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
Interesting. You accuse the SF of condemning others. You condemn the SF. Same business on both sides.
Let God judge is what this book seems to be saying.
Hello 'Is this a Cult?' crowd,
I stumbled upon this blog 4 days ago. Since I began reading Sunday evening, that's all I've wanted to do. It took me these 4 days to plow through all 676 posts, and when I got to the end I thought, "what, no climax? No radical repentance and conversion? No more posting bans?" At times the back and forth banter, the ebb and flow of momentum, and level of civility gave me the feeling that I was reading a cheap, yet passionate, novel.
When I started reading this blog I had no idea that (around) 3 years later the same arguments would be laid out repeatedly or that there would even be current content. Amazing in many ways.
I hope to ask a few questions in the near future (sorry for the teaser, but I just don't have time today) and take part in this discussion... This civil dialogue...
Speaking of civil dialogue, I must ask you, Keith, to be more diligent with your moderating. Poster Giving it to god has repeatedly used derogatory/uncouth/foul language that was at times directed at members of the SF fellowship located in Salem. I was shocked that this was allowed, so I began to count a little: 7 uses of sh*t, 1 use of sh*tty, a few uses of ass, butt, and asshole. Elf_Asura got banned for continuing to flame and make inflammatory comments, but at least he didn't use foul language. Please keep the standard of civility alive in the future so that this discussion can be positive.
Thank you.
Russian Spy's comment - Keith, would you delete his post which uses foul language by "proxy"?
I would give some slack to the posts by GivingittoGod - she seems to have a need for others to listen to her pain through her own form of linguistic expression.
Perhaps the use of "foul" language does not make anyone a monster - there are those who are adept at using polite politically correct "moral" language who could be slanderers - another kind of pretty-faced monster!
For instance, for some time the propaganda on this blog was that the man who married the girl in question is a "sexual predator". But how is it, as Keith himself, stated, he has a "good reputation" among others in Owasso and his school? A paradox. Not to forget that he and his wife have the right to live a happy peaceful and even isolated life based on their unique belief system if they so choose.
The trick used is projecting the SF and this man as "evil" by repeating allegations ad nauseam in the hope that everyone who comes here will believe it.
This was a trick of the sort used by Hitler and Goebbels when they portrayed Jews as "evil". In the south of the USA, this trick is still used to portray blacks as "evil". This trick was also used by the religious people to brand Jesus as a mad man, a "rebel king", a blasphemer, a demon possessed man and a non-conformist so that they could paint him as a criminal and crucify him.
The trick is to repeat a lie till people believe it to be the truth.
RssnSpy6 : Thanks for stopping by. You really must be interested in what is being said here to have read through all 670+ posts!...or you had some extended time off from work/school (don't know your age since you don't have a public profile).
8^)>
GivigItToGod's language does make me uneasy. I personally don't use those words and I would prefer she didn't either. However, I've tried to be as open here as possible, allowing anyone and everyone, pro-SF and anti-SF (for lack of better terms) to express their thoughts, feelings, etc.
At times the comments can be a harsh, even "derogatory/uncouth." It's an internet blog and you get all kinds of people reading and posting here. For the most part, I think people have tried to stick to the facts as they know or believe them.
The man in question does enjoy a "good reputation" (as Uriah_Heep quoted) in the school...WITH THE STUDENTS mostly from what I can gather. There are some parents that are not aware of his "activities," but those who are---well, let's just say he is not at the top of their Favorites List.
Elf was banned and his comments--as I encounter them--will continue to be deleted because he came into the discussion under absolutely false pretenses. There may be others here, but they have not exposed themselves, at least not as blatantly as Elf. I don't tolerate liars well at all. He's out.
Looking forward to your perspective.
Uriah_Heep : The trick is to repeat a lie till people believe it to be the truth. Or maybe "the trick" is to repeat the TRUTH often enough until those who are in denial finally take notice!
GivingItToGod : RssnSpy6 does make a valid observation, one of which I have avoided up to now. I realize you are passionate about your feelings toward SF and you are entitled to your opinion, but as the owner of this blog I'm asking that you dial back the profanity. There are plenty of other words you may use to express yourself. I, for one, have to listen to foul/filthy language from co-workers all day; I prefer not to hear/see it here as well.
Keith:
It's amusing to see Christians contradict themselves.
For all the talk about "truth" and "love", and to my understanding one cannot be without the other, Keith has no qualms advertising his hatred for elf_asura.
Reading Romans, I find that this writer Paul criticises religious people like Keith who are akin to the Jews of his time in behavior.
Sophie states that no Christian can be like their Master in this world. Then, such professing Christians are free to behave as they will, free to demonstrate "behavior" contradictory to their Master's virtues.
From my reading of some sections of the Bible, I find Keith's hatred of elf_asura to be diametrically opposite to Christ's love for sinners.
Keith enjoys being "superior" to elf_asura and other SF members as he is obviously not a "liar" or "sinner". So he can abuse elf_asura or SF members and exclude or treat as pariahs.
But he doesn't realise that he is only doing what he accuses the SF of doing to the girl's family. :-)
The behaviour of so many Christians is that of finding fault with others while clearing themselves of faults. How amazing that they cannot see this contradiction themselves. The Pharisee, the self-righteous man, the one who judges, the one who condemns - where can one find this behaviour most easily?
How can Christians cite the Bible all the time and then behave contrary to it? On all sides. For 20 centuries!!!
The trick is also to repeat this TRUTH till all are aware of this contradiction, individually and institutionally.
Uriah_Heep: Do not put words in my mouth. I do not "hate" Elf. I will not tolerate him coming to this blog under the guise of seeking answers, deceptively pretending to not be associated with SF, all the while knowing he is deeply entrenched in SF. All I ask is that people participate here in an honest dialogue. Elf did not. Elf is the ONLY person that has been blocked/deleted and it is ONLY because of his deliberate deception. Many SF people have posted here and their comments remain to this day. Only one other person to my recollection has had comments deleted and that individual DELETED THE COMMENTS THEMSELF--not me.
Your comments are inaccurate and misleading. You cannot cite one place in this blog where I claim to be without sin of any kind.
If you do not like what you read here or you find it to be offensive to you---as we say in my part of the country---"don't let the door hit where the Good Lord split ya!"
I am the one providing the platform for you! You don't seem to be very grateful. Incidentally, I find you quite amusing as well.
RssnSpy6,
If only life were like a novel or a play in which conflict, suspense, drama, characters were all manipulated by the pen of one writer and things are all nicely tied together in the end. From your 670 plus readings, you have probably learned that there is no one writer pulling the strings here but several many ‘characters’ exchanging dialogue under a blog post. And though on the exterior, the dialogue may seem at times to be redundant there is surely character development occurring in the interior – sans an omnipresent narrator to clue the reader in onto these developments. From one observer’s point of view, this conversation has taken on greater depth and has progressed quite considerably from the original blog post topic – it has in some ways become a work of art (whose creator is the differing opinions that are displayed here) that has captured a wide array of human emotions. Welcome to the dialogue.
First, a general comment. As this blog explored the theology held by SFs I noticed that some of the same verses were being referenced to back up, or prove, opposite positions. I thought to myself, 'How can this be... How does God's Word do that?' It could be because there are different translations people are familiar with. Or it could be because many verses are viewed through the lens of a 'focus' verse. For example, if I grew up under the teaching that Jesus was God on earth (as was debated earlier), and there were verses to 'prove' it, I would find it extremely difficult to hear that Jesus wasn't God on earth (even with verses to 'prove' it). It still baffles me how subjective a person can be with the Bible. No wonder there are 100s of denominations.
Any thoughts on the above?
Further in that vein-when i saw the verses in James 1 posted to 'prove' something, I couldn't help but notice verse 13.
13Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted from God; for God is incapable of being tempted by [what is] evil and He Himself tempts no one. (Amplified version)
For those who believe that Jesus was 100% human and 100% God during his days on earth, how does James 1:13 fit into that?
For those who believe that Jesus shed his divinity when he came to earth, how do you fit the John 10 "I and the Father are One" verse/chapter into your theology?
I hope this creates some thinking and good, proper explaining, instead of verse quoting (by themselves, as they can be 'argued' either way). This topic seems to have really divided those that desire to be real Christians from those that maybe aren't so interested in being Christ-like.
Uriah_Heep: Some of the facts you stated in your posts are incorrect.
“For instance, for some time the propaganda on this blog was that the man who married the girl in question is a "sexual predator".”
The man in question is the local leader of SF and a teacher in the high school. This girl did not marry him. She married his oldest son.
Nobody ever accused him of being a “sexual” predator. The point was made that he is a type of predator who operates much in the same way the sexual predator did in the case reported here in the Owasso newspaper. The similarities are there.
“Sophie states that no Christian can be like their Master in this world. Then, such professing Christians are free to behave as they will, free to demonstrate "behavior" contradictory to their Master's virtues.”
Nobody ever made that extrapolation on this blog. The idea that because Christians are made righteous by the blood of Christ, therefore they believe they have a free license to “behave as they will”, was never put forth. I think you are guilty of tarring us with your preconceived ideas of Christianity.
“From my limited knowledge of SF, I haven't heard of anyone who has done that.”
You are implying that this is an isolated incident and there aren’t any other cases like this. The fact is that there is another young man here in Owasso who is involved with this church and has displayed similar behaviors. You also have Wiltrud Griess, Millard Melnyk’s story, and there are others as well. These have been mentioned on this blog before.
“Perhaps she stays away from her parents as otherwise she would have to listen to religious tirades against her new found belief system of the sort you expound here. That sort of behaviour on the part of religious parents does isolate those who have suddenly found a new passion or new belief system.”
This local SF leader teaches in the local high school. He used his classroom to introduce students to his church without the knowledge or consent of the parents. As a result, this young girl began attending his church after graduating from high school. She enrolled in the local university where she had a dorm room, however she soon moved out of her dorm room and into the home of this high school teacher, again without the knowledge or consent of the parents. She proceeded to commute to the university from his home. In the process she broke all ties with her family and friends, including grandparents, brothers, uncles, aunts…everybody.
Your implication that perhaps she may have tired of her parent’s religious tirades against her NEW belief system doesn’t make sense. SF claim to be Christian, the parents are Christian, they both claim to follow Jesus Christ. There isn’t a NEW belief system.
Second, it doesn’t matter what she believed, or wanted. Her actions could not have happened without the explicit knowledge and assistance of this SF leader. It is HIS behavior that is at the root of this controversy. She could not have moved into his home unless HE allowed it. She, at 18, is an impressionable, immature, young woman. He is old enough to know that encouraging her to live in his home would cause dissention and conflict in her family. How is that being a good neighbor? How does that demonstrate his church to be an honest upstanding moral institution that others would want to join?
Even if her parents were the most rotten parents in the world, is it right for him to come between them and cause more conflict and disharmony? Both as a school teacher or a religious leader, this was wrong and it doesn’t matter what religion you are, or how old she is. This is not moral behavior in just about every culture and religion in the world.
And what about her brothers, grandparents, aunts, uncles and friends? Did they all turn against her? I find it highly unlikely, that someone who claims to have a new belief and truly exhibits the fruits of the spirit, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and faithfulness, that they would find everyone in their life turned against them. But even so, SHE HAD A DORM ROOM. She was supposed to be living at the university. She didn’t have to listen to any religious tirades from her parents. So why move her into his home? The answer to that seems obvious to me and many others.
RssnSpy6 and Chris: Uriah_Heep has a tendency to misrepresent the statements made by others. I encourage you to read everything for yourself, my words, his words, and others. Then make up your own mind about who said what.
There is a lot written here about the theology of Smith’s Friends and different views of Christianity. The Bible is a complex work but I believe it boils down to a simple theme of Jesus Christ. And just like Uriah_Heep takes the words of others on this blog and misuses them, the words of the Bible can be taken out of context to support just about anything. You have to read it for yourself, all of it, so as not to be deceived by false prophets. And the Bible gives us advice on how to know a false prophet; “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them” Mat 7:20
To intentionally cause harm, and discord in other families around you, to threaten your neighbors and other people with physical violence and law suits, are these the signs of a church that produces good fruit? I believe that these are not the acts of a good Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist. But these are some of the behaviors witnessed by people in this community. Even Uriah_Heep said “Further, the SF has become a very centralised, rich, powerful sect that has no qualms about meeting threats to its being and existence ruthlessly.”
Isn’t it the responsibility of all of us to stand up for the truth, and expose those who do evil? It has been said that the best way for evil to flourish, even in the church, is for good men to do nothing. So what do you think?
Harold: A most impassioned plea. Now finally the argument moves outside of the "Christian" religious space to a more universal space as you have begun to include other religions and accept that a certain morality prevails in all of them and not just Christianity. Impressive.
But, the attempt now is to brand the SF and its members as being contrary to all religions and not just the religion Harold professes.
However, these facts remain. The girl was of age. She made her choice. Obviously, her parents, grandparents, etc did not have the "fruits of the spirit" in abundance enough to prevent her joining the SF. Was their religion or "love" insufficient? Perhaps so.
Again, as one unfamiliar with "Christian" practices, I wonder: If SF is Christian and you Harold are Christian, then why bark at and bite one other? Why not make peace? Or perhaps your God and religion does not have the power to make peace between warring factions both of which claim to have the same God?
I am intrigued by what I continue to read in Romans - everything written there seems to be proven true by this business this blog is involved in:
Romans 3
10As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away,they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good,not even one." 13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." 14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." 15"Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know.
A quote from William Blake also comes to mind:
"Mutual Forgiveness of each Vice
Such are the Gates of Paradise
Against the Accuser's chief desire
Who walkd among the Stones of Fire
Jehovah's Finger Wrote the Law
Then Wept! then rose in Zeal & Awe
And the Dead Corpse from Sinai's heat
Buried beneath his Mercy Seat!
O Christians Christians! tell me why
You rear it on your Altars high?"
Uriah_Heep : For "[some]one unfamiliar with 'Christian' practices," you sure seem to be familiar with (or at least attempt to portray yourself as such) the Bible. Hmmm. You wouldn't be misrepresenting yourself here would you? Be careful or you may find yourself among the ranks of Elf!
"She was of age." That seems to be the mantra of those who want to justify the actions of our local SF. Guess that makes it all better.
I certainly don’t intend to offend anyone, but by using more than one scripture to back up my statements illustrates the fact that these are not proof-texts but rather themes that run through the entire Bible. For example, the last long run of scriptures all dealt with ‘obedience to Christ if we love Him’. There are more, but I just chose a few to show that this is what the Bible says; this is not my opinion. If we claim to be Christian, then we should be able to use God’s Word to back up our beliefs and behaviors.
Rssnspy6: Discussing theology can be very interesting and complex however, the bottom line is that it is wrong to use a public school classroom to discuss theology with students…to introduce your religion….unless of course the class is titled ‘Theology’ and everyone knows what they’re enrolling in. Theology should never have been discussed in this public school classroom at all. And, correct, there are many denominations; but legitimate ones don’t intentionally isolate and turn people against all family and friends. That is why this group has been called into question.
Uriah: You stated: “SF is a cohesive body with a collective global leadership who are united in vision and purpose, a singular doctrine and practice and generates a collection of texts and narratives that are as "spiritual" and any other texts generated in Christendom over the centuries.”
They may be ‘spriritual’, but are they “Biblically correct”?
“Yes, what she has done seems extreme. But it is her choice too. I don't understand why this has happened. From my limited knowledge of SF, I haven't heard of anyone who has done that. I am not sure if she is brainwashed. All we have is your word and you seem to be a Bible-quoting machine and that's all. :-) Perhaps she stays away from her parents as otherwise she would have to listen to religious tirades against her new found belief system of the sort you expound here. That sort of behaviour on the part of religious parents does isolate those who have suddenly found a new passion or new belief system.”
If you have children of your own, you should know that it is no easy task to raise children. Parents have to make decisions concerning many things, some big, some small. If parents are abusive or harmful to a child, in our country, we have a Department of Human Services to contact. Some parents seek help from outside sources such as counselors. But, if every time a young person doesn’t want ‘to listen to religious tirades’ from their parents, a teacher will move them into his home????? What if they don’t like the curfew the parents set? What if they think the parents are too controlling? What if they think the parents are too lenient? What if the parents won’t let them drive as soon as they become ‘of age’? It is a natural tendency for teenagers to think their parents are ‘too something’. Rarely do teenagers think that their parents have done everything correct all the time. But, they don’t yet have the maturity to understand all of their parent’s decisions and that the parents usually do the best with what they have at the time. But, given time and opportunities to communicate, these issues resolve. Is it this man’s job/responsibility to save teenagers from having to listen to or respect their parents? That would cause concern for any parents who have children in this high school and want to continue to have a relationship with them after graduation.
“But it is her choice too”. She wouldn’t have that ‘choice’ if he had not allowed her to live in his home.
You stated: “Keith has no qualms advertising his hatred for elf_asura.”
Keith enjoys being "superior" to elf_asura and other SF members as he is obviously not a "liar" or "sinner".
Keith didn’t say he ‘hated’ anyone; what Keith actually said is, “I don't tolerate liars well at all.” He also has not, to my recollection said he is not a sinner. Again, you’re putting words in other’s mouths.
You also stated to Harold: “Your approach is not objective but subjective and you are loud and aggressive towards anyone who doesn't agree with you that the SF must rot in hell. :-)”
Did Harold say that ‘SF must rot in hell’?
“Perhaps the use of "foul" language does not make anyone a monster - there are those who are adept at using polite politically correct "moral" language who could be slanderers - another kind of pretty-faced monster!”
What is slanderous about someone stating truthful ‘facts’?
You also stated, “For instance, for some time the propaganda on this blog was that the man who married the girl in question is a "sexual predator".”
If you look back through the posts, you can see that YOU are the ONLY ONE who has made that statement.
“Not to forget that he and his wife have the right to live a happy peaceful and even isolated life based on their unique belief system if they so choose.”
Correct, but they forfeited that privilege when they violated another family by moving someone else’s daughter out of her dorm and into their home, and then proceeded to isolate her from all former family and friends.
“I know that many Pentecostals and Baptists and other weird Christians who teach their adherents not to watch movies (or at least some kind of movies), forbid them from having close friendships with Muslims or Hindus (whom they call idol worshippers) or participate in their festivals, and proscribe other activities too.”
Weird Christians??? Now who’s slandering? Not only is that slanderous, it is not true. And the ‘forbid them from having close friendships with Muslims or Hindus’ part....that is doubtful. Remember, Christ said, in Matt.28:18, to His disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” The above named groups support missions abroad as well as at home. If they ‘forbid them from having close friendships with Muslims or Hindus’, how could missionaries fulfill this mandate?
“Sophie states that no Christian can be like their Master in this world. Then, such professing Christians are free to behave as they will, free to demonstrate "behavior" contradictory to their Master's virtues.”
Those are your words; not mine. What I actually said was, “The big difference is that we have TWO human parents. Jesus was born of God and ONE human virgin. We don’t have the same divine nature that Jesus does. He is born OF GOD.”
Yes, we are supposed to ‘follow’ Jesus however, the Holy Scriptures are clear that God wants us to not just follow, but to obey and to ‘worship’ Him. Jesus came to the earth from heaven and did many things: performing miracles showing God’s power, teaching and ministering to us about God, and being an example of how to live our lives in truth, fellowshipping with and demonstrating compassion to others, spreading the Good News, worshipping God. He came to be a holy, living, perfect, blameless SACRIFICE for our sins, to die in our place (that is for every human being in the whole world who confesses faith in Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior).
God knows that we are not perfect, nor have the same divine nature that Jesus does, and that as much as we try, we will not be perfect until we reach heaven because we live in a fallen world where satan is roaming around like a roaring lion. But, because Jesus has the divine nature of God, He is able to defeat (overcome) satan and all his tactics every time. We, however, are not divine in nature as Jesus is, so sometimes when we are tempted by the deceiver satan, we may give in to that temptation.”
Now, in addition to that I would state that we are not “free to (knowingly, willfully) demonstrate “behavior” contradictory to the Master’s virtues’. That’s not only where obedience comes into play, but also forgiveness and the covering of our transgressions when we do sin. Yes, when we love Jesus, we will want to spend time getting to know Him by allowing Him to indwell us and by spending time in the Word. As we get to know Him more and more, we should become more Christ-like…’you will know them by their fruits’, but no matter how hard we try we will not become perfect this side of Heaven. That’s why He was sent by God, to be our ‘atoning sacrifice’. He is a forgiving God.
Keith: You're pathetic but what good can come out of Oklahoma?
This blog is a platform indeed, even a forum for your ego. When you don't like to hear something, you threaten. And for sure, you must be begging Harold and Sophie to support you in your derogatory remarks against those who disagree with your analysis or opinions. It's a mutual back-patting society.:-)
I pity you and your platform where your voice of utter helplessness and utter frustration resounds daily. You've lost the girl for ever and you take it out on others who do not bow before you or take a different tack on this forum. First Elf, now me. Well, may you live to your last day knowing you could do nothing about the issue that first made you create this platform. Your God is as weak and helpless as you are. That is true justice.
This platform only reveals your pettiness, gratuitousness, self-righteousness, bitterness and inability to demonstrate any of the goodness of that poor Christ you crucify each day.
Goodbye, my pity and sympathy remains with you. Hope you find some more "yes men" like Harold and Sophie to worship at the altar of your opinions. :-)But you will always remember that the SF and this girl have been the nemesis of your belief system. :-)
Wow....quite a goodbye, i wish i could hang with guys like that
Uriah_Heep said: This platform only reveals your pettiness, gratuitousness, self-righteousness, bitterness and inability... What? Couldn't think of a fifth word that ended in "ness?"
I'm sad to see you go, because I was on the verge of seeing the error of my ways and proclaiming SF was the end all to be all in Christendom. But since you're leaving, I'll just continue on with my "pathetic" blogging. Surely someone as transparent as yourself will come along to pick up the fight. It's been fun--you're loads of laughs. (My money says you won't be able to stay away.)
SF = "nemisis?" I think I read that in the Bible. "Go ye therefore and be a nemesis..."
PS to Uriah_Heep: Whether or not anyone has "won" re: the situation which started this post, the bottom line is the local SF group has been exposed. Parents in our community are aware of their tactics and they are watching...very carefully. The original situation may never change; I don't lose sleep over that because my trust is in God and His providence in ALL situations.
RssnSpy6:
“It still baffles me how subjective a person can be with the Bible. Any thoughts.....?”
What is so baffling about this subjectivity? Are you proposing an all-objective approach to the Bible? As readers, we do bring in a lot of external/internal factors to text interpretation – our life experience, our environment, culture, gender, mood, trials that we are going through in life etc. An example (please do not think that I am equating the discussion that is happening here to the Bible), after your reading of the exchanges, you came away with the opinion that you were “reading a cheap, yet passionate, novel” because of the “ back and forth banter, ebb and flow of momentum, and level of civility.” And I came away with the opinion that the exchanges had become a work of art because of the human emotions that it had captured. Two readers. Two different interpretations of the same text that each had come across.
Uriah_Heep said: “You're pathetic but what good can come out of Oklahoma?”
Well let’s see: Will Rogers, Wiley Post, Tom Stafford (Gemini and Apollo astronaut), Garth Brooks, Reba McEntire, Carrie Underwood, Paul Harvey (God rest his sole). Shopping carts, parking meters, Phillips Petroleum, Conoco, Skycam. Just to name a few.
Uriah_Heep said: “Or perhaps your God and religion does not have the power to make peace between warring factions both of which claim to have the same God?”
I think if God can create the universe and everything in it, including Uriah_Heep; if He can flood the world; if He can raise people like Lazarus, or Himself, from the dead; if He can take a tiny egg and a sperm put them together and create a life; then He can do anything He has a mind to. He has allowed satan to run loose on the earth for now, but the Bible is clear that Jesus will return and when He does there will be peace and justice for all who believe.
Uriah_Heep said: “The trick is to repeat a lie till people believe it to be the truth.”
Uriah_Heep said: “If SF is Christian and you Harold are Christian, then why bark at and bite one other? Why not make peace?”
I find this very interesting that you first insult us by calling us liars and then turn around and say “why not make peace?” Why is it OK for you to insult other people and their religion? Aren’t you half way around the world? Since you seem to know so much about what has happened in our community, tell me what I have lied about.
brunstad has a facebook page, but it's a closed facebook page they have to approve you before you can join their facebook page (which they claim on it they will answer any questions you have seems totally unfare and uncooperative to be saying you'll answer my questions if you choose to allow me to grace your facebook page) If they add me I have some questions for them alright like what the hell bible verses did they read that made them think it's ok to build houses in norway for "fundraising" and ships for "fundraising" how they get the idea that was ok? That's my first question just for starters : )
I hoped to get a response to my questions from my April 23rd question regarding James 1:13 and John 10:30 before I introduced myself. But, since Chris asked me a question, I didn't want to let it sit there for too long. (And I don't want Keith to ban me because I didn't declare my affiliations early enough.)
I was born into a Smith's Friends church and have lived my whole life (in my late 20's now) in an SF church. I have lived on the west coast of North America (the fellowship located in Salem) and on the east coast. I have lived at Brunstad (the internation conference center, www.bcc.no/en/) and made extended visits to a dozen or so SF churches in Europe. I am an active 'member' of the church. ( I am NOT an official spokesman or in a position of authority, but I do have nearly 30 years of experiences and observations.) This doesn't mean I haven't visited or been to other churches/church services/bibles studies. During highschool and university I visited a number of different assemblies/gatherings (some for the sake of school friends, some out of interest in what was being preached, and others in an effort to win people for Christ). Keith mentioned April 23 that I 'really must be interested' in what was being discussed to have read 670+ posts in a few short days... I am very interested in this for 3 reasons:
I know (I've met and spoken with) the young lady that has been discussed here.
I know (I've met and spoken with/am friends with) the highschool teacher and his family that has been discussed here.
As an SF I disagree with some of the posts that have been made.
To Chris-april 27:
I am not proposing an all objective approach to the Bible. I do think that most subjectivity should be done away with in regards to the Bible. Webster's = Subjective: modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background. That is a lot like you stated, "As readers, we do bring in a lot of external/internal factors to text interpretation – our life experience, our environment, culture, gender, mood, trials that we are going through in life etc." I'd like to make the distinction between this blog topic and the Bible. As the Bible is the word of God our interpretation of it, if it is a subjective interpretation, immediately skews the message in a human way. That is a most unwanted outcome. This blog, however, is the work of many people who are subjective, and we had different reactions to it. The Bible cannot be truly understood in a subjective way. Thomas Aquinas believed that divine revelation reveals the mysteries of the Bible that reason (insert subjectivity) cannot. Ephesians 1:17-19 reads,
"17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding[c] being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power"
This is the way to understand the message of the Bible-God opening our eyes to see how He wants us to see. 100s of denominations/factions did not come to being because those in authority were doing as this verse exhorts. At one time or another the leaders were being subjective and interpreting the Bible how they thought was right. Hope I answered your question.
To Giving it to god-may 1:
I remember you from when I lived in Salem, but just barely. Earlier you wrote that you've had 10+ years of being in Smith's Friends in Salem yet they never let you into the 'brother's ring.' I think I can help you understand why. You barely came. I can remember one time (maybe even less) when you gave your testimony. I remember that when you came you always sat in the very back row. You even wrote earlier that you'd sit and wait to see if 'they' would come talk to you (did you ever go up to any of them and try to build a friendship?). You also wrote more than once that you live (I hope my memory serves me right) 1.5 hours from the meeting hall/church and that you weren't going to go/rarely went because gas was too expensive. You don't know the youth leader's name that pulled you aside to talk to you about your anti-SF blog. The only name you've dropped a few times is Yelena, and only when you complain about fundraising. (I am not asking you to name all the names you can remember, as that would be foolish, but it seems like you don't really know the church or the people that you say you spent 10+ years with).
On another note... almost everything you've shared about 'fundraising' has been incorrect. No one is building ships for fundraising. Macleay Solutions is a legitimate company (construction management if I recall correctly) that happens to be owned by members of Salem Fellowship. The naming coincidence, Macleay Christian Retreat and Macleay Solutions, is due to the name of the nearest town, Macleay.
Giving it to god: could you please tell me what you mean by a "free market society?" Why are you so worried/taken up about the money and fundraising that goes on in a church that you don't attend or to which you contribute?
I don't intend to harp on you Giving it to god, but another reason things didn't work out between you and SF is because of this, "I deserve the warm hello's I get at mainstream christian churches, I deserve to be loved like that!!!!!!!!!" Yeah, you want people to treat you a certain way, you demand that you are treated a certain way. Even though you loved the message from the 'pulpit' (as you've mentioned many times) you've never been able give up that demand to be respected. God can't bless that. That is how satan has been able to drive a wedge between you and SF. This hasn't allowed you to "come inside the brother's ring" because you've brought your lust to be recognized with you. The figurative 'brother's ring' you speak of is what is written about in Ephesians 4. The lowliness and gentleness, the longsuffering, the bearing with one another in love... You can't come to this if you waver back and forth between 'mainstream' churches and apostolic churchs and SFs church.
I apologize for writing so much at Giving it to god. I hope it doesn't happen again.
I also hope someone can give an answer to my question regarding James 1:13 and Jesus. I'll try to do my best from my POV. SFs, and I (of course), believe that Jesus was with God in the beginning... As a divine being He couldn't be tempted. But God saw how the old testement law could not be fulfilled, even in the most devout Jew. Hebrews 10 speaks quite plainly about this and both Sophie and Giving it to god have used it to argue points. I won't post the entire chapter, but reading it wouldn't be a bad thing as I try to lay this out.
The reason Christians esteem God so highly, in that He gave His ONLY begotten son, was that God could have lost Jesus forever to the taint of sin and satan. What glory is there without risk? Phil 2:6-11 speaks about this as well. Jesus completely shed His divine being when it says He humbled Himself and became as a man. As a man, who was tempted and went to God in prayer for grace (help in time of need) to not sin, but triumph over the sin in the human flesh/body, He lived a perfect life. Sin didn't contaminate Him as we all know. But it wasn't because He had special divine power residing in Him that we can't have. We have access to that same power, the Holy Spirit. Phil 2:8--why does it say that He was faithful to the point of death, EVEN the death of the cross? What death is Paul speaking of that wasn't on Calvary? It is the death that Jesus brought over the lusts and desires that exist in the body of man due to the fall of Adam. Since sin didn't contaminate Him, death couldn't hold Him. Therefore, God was able, was allowed, was bound to exalt Jesus above every name.
James 1: As a result of this, Jesus was not God on earth. He couldn't have been because He was tempted. Now Jesus reigns in heaven at God's right hand until the day He comes to fetch His bride, those that have followed Him where ever he went.
To Sophie-jan 17:
You asked, "Do you really know any people who have actually reached a state of perfection on this side of heaven?" I'll try to answer that the best I can.
I'll use the analogy of a master and his apprentice. The master is perfect at his trade, he doesn't make mistakes. Because the apprentice is unskilled he makes many mistakes. So the master teaches the apprentice one small part of the trade. The apprentice practices it, gets better, and in time becomes as good as the master is at that small part of the trade. So, in that small part of the trade that the apprentice was taught he became just like the master, perfect. The reason Jesus used so many analogies in His sermons is because they are directly related to the spiritual life. In what the master had revealed to the apprentice about the trade, as far as the apprentice knew/was aware, he was perfect. Then the master reveals a new part of the trade, and the apprentice is again a novice that makes many mistakes... You see the pattern?
It is the same with us in our race, in this life, to become like Jesus Christ. Hebrews 12:1-7 is a good place for this. In this life there are two laps to the race. The first is to overcome manifest sin. Eph 4:31, Col 3:8, 1 Pet 2:1 all have to do with this gross/manifest sin (Here we must understand the definition of sin as it is written in James 1. We must agree with the thought or lust or evil desire in order to sin. If, like it is written in Romans 7, we find that though we want to do the good, my first human reaction is bad, we know that we didn't sin, because we didn't agree with the thought or action.) The second lap is sanctification. Rom 8:12-14, Phil 3:12-16 are about this. Here we are cleansed from the first reactions of the flesh (human mind and body) by hating the bad result and determining not to do it again. In this hate and determination God comes to our aid with help the next time, and perhaps the next time that first reaction rises up, it comes before our decision maker in our head... and then we disagree with it, put it to "death" as Jesus did, and don't allow that first reaction to come out of my body and cause me to sin.
So, a state of perfection? Lets just take the next second. Can we all get through that next second without sinning? How about the next minute? An hour? Can we go a whole day without allowing sin to come out of our bodies, or to dwell on sinful thoughts? It is possible to do it in my own strength for awhile, through constant vigilance. But my strength only goes as far as my attention span. Without Jesus on His throne of grace (Hebrews 4:14-16) we would never be able to do it. But the time of need is right when Satan tempts me, and my flesh/human body/lusts rise up to meet and agree with this temptation. Jesus can give us the power to deny my lusts through the Holy Spirit EVERY time we ask for it... Then we don't have to fall in sin, but can walk in the same footsteps that Jesus walked in. So, perfection? It is fully possible, though as long as I am in my fleshly body on this earth I will be in danger of falling in sin. I can be perfect to the light that God has allowed me to walk in. Since the flesh is so exceedingly corrupt it takes years and years for it to be rooted out so that this earthly body can be free of that sin. Jesus took 33 years of absolute zealousness against the sin in His human flesh. I know of some who have/had complete victory over all unrest/anxiousness, for example. Perfection (to what God has revealed) like Jesus must be attained by those who want to fulfill the requirements of Revelations 14 and be Jesus bride. This is my calling from God. I have this hope that I will be among that number. While there will be multitudes of multitudes who have called on Jesus to forgive their sins, and will be in heaven, there is only a very small number of those that live the life that Jesus did while He was on earth.
It is getting late and my eyes are clouding over. Sorry if there are gross spelling errors. I hope that it is readable... That is what 695 post reading in a short time will get you ;-)
RssnSpy6 your comment's are fair about me. Your right I do like the message of the smith's friends, I do, I surely do --- I just never have liked how I was treated. I would like respect.......maybe respect is to much for me to ask for......but I'd like respect.
So the smith's friends added me to their facebook group, I asked my 1 billion dollar question to : )
I also went to a modeling agency yesterday - my little sister is a super model - I've long envied her $10,000 a photo shoot earnings......though I'm shooting for a local modeling career where I'll make $150-200 a hour. More then the money I want to model, I sincerely love being photographed, I enjoy looking at pics of me afterwards, I enjoy fashion, I would enjoy trying on several outfits, I would like my makeup and hair to be fussed with. I'm the sort to really enjoy modeling!
I'm super hopeful my career is going to launch off soon : )
RssnSpy6:
As I started off by addressing the first question that you posed here, let me continue along with that train of thought. Before I proceed, thanking you for engaging me with your opinion and thoughts. Now here is mine:-). I agree that the Word is a matter of divine revelation. One has to understand what the Word means to him or her personally. It cannot be discerned through reaction to externalities. But you are proposing to do away with 'most subjectivity'. But not all?.Who is to draw that line of where objectivity stops and subjectivity begins? Divine revelation to me might be deemed nonsense by you. If there are two people, both of whom think they are divinely inspired, can there ever be a discourse? Personally, I feel that a lot of us are trying to prove one point or the other. We ourselves are so convinced of our position and wont budge, even in matters of what another's experience should mean to that person. There seems few who are actually seeking. Out of a curiosity, if a child and parents came to you for counsel and presented their differing viewpoint and opinions on a situation very similar to the one addressed here in this blog post, how would you advise the child from an objective biblical point of view? How would you advise the parents from an objective biblical point of view?
You say that you have grown up in the SF and have visited other churches. I know from my experience that it can be very difficult to leave one group of people you are comfortable with and join another. Especially if the new group of people do not show much willingness to get to know you, unless you meet certain requirements. I do not expect you to understand this as well as someone who has had to go through it, since you have never been in that position. But I do not understand why you would reject this premise. I think if a person comes to a church for 10 years and doesn’t know many people in the church, that’s a tragedy, both for the person and the church. You can try and put the blame on the person for not making an adequate effort and convince yourself that you are in the right. If I ever tell you my experience, I am fairly convinced that you will have an exact answer as to what that experience should mean to me and how it has nothing to do with the others. Personally, I agree with that approach. But I have also found that such an approach is not ideal for everyone.
You grew up in a christian/SF home and perhaps know the value of 'working with people'. Your parents/family/friends/brothers/sisters have probably worked with you in many areas (Who knows, may be I am wrong here and you were a perfect person:-), perhaps you have worked with others in your life). Did they ever stop working with you because you didn’t show 'interest' for a time? Would you have rather they did that? The way I understand it, it’s the difference in attitude between a father and a teacher. I am sure you know the verses where Paul talks about that. A teacher will probably tell you that you failed a class because you didn’t come for many sessions or that you sat in the last bench all the time and didn’t pay attention. A father would not stop engaging you just because you sit in the last bench. Neither does he put any demands on you.
I have often heard this phraseology from different churches 'Come as you are'. Perhaps its not used by SF as often.I do not know. But I wonder what it really means. Can I come with all my view and opinions as they are, or do I have to agree with everyone on some essential points? Will I be forgotten/ignored if I do not 'participate' in the accepted way? Can I be known as a 'sinner' and still be welcome?
There is an exhortation that the strong are to bear with the weak. Perhaps, you consider yourself so strong that you can go to a church for just the message that is preached from the pulpit, even though the people themselves may not engage you or appear to be welcoming. If you are going for the sake of the Word, then it doesn’t really matter where you sit (Unless the church has a really bad audio system :-). But is it right to expect or demand that level of strength and maturity from another who might not be as strong as you? In such a situation, the least you could do (of course you don’t have to, if you think the entire fault is with the person who is not making the effort) is to show a willingness to introspect/reconsider/engage. Who knows, you might even win a few souls that way;-).
Chris: I appreciate your civility and input. And, I would agree with your statement, “As readers, we do bring in a lot of external/internal factors to text interpretation – our life experience, our environment, culture, gender, mood, trials that we are going through in life etc.”
I had already begun to work on a response to your earlier post and then you posted again and added, “But is it right to expect or demand that level of strength and maturity from another who might not be as strong as you?”
What I had written previously was: Some people may have been Christians longer and so are ‘mature’ Christians; some have just come to know the Lord and are just beginning to learn what the Bible says. So, someone may claim Christ as their Savior, but still not yet be aware (be convicted) that certain behaviors in their life are sin. Some may be more mature Christians, but remember ‘satan prowls around like a hungry lion waiting for someone to devour’. So although people are covered by the blood of Jesus, because they accepted Him as Lord and Savior, satan knows our weaknesses and attempts to pull us away from loving, praising, worshipping, obeying, following, honoring, glorifying God. Because we are still in the flesh sometimes we give in to a sin. He knows what is most important to us and that’s where He attacks us. So, it may look as if people are just saying they’re Christians but not really trying to live it (hypocrites), when actually they were just being attacked by satan.
Some people are young or immature believers and then when they say they are a Christian, others may look at them and think or say, ‘If that is what a Christian is, I want no part of that’. But, is it our job to judge?
However, in any culture, environment, gender, mood or trials, God is a universal God and He says to obey His commands and some of His commands are to tell the truth, and love one another, treat others the way you would want others to treat you, clothe yourselves with compassion, mercy, gentleness, kindness…..
RssnSpy6: Your input, civility, and openness to dialogue are appreciated as well.
Although I agree with you on several points, there are also several things that I disagree with. But, for now, I’d like to ask a question: You used the analogy of ‘a master and an apprentice’. Who would the master be and who would the apprentice be?
Chris:
Thank you for challenging my statement regarding 'most subjectivity' and the Bible. I left myself an out by saying 'most' because I wasn't sure at the time I wrote it, but now I'd like to say all subjectivity should be left out of Bible-ing. I say that because there was only one way Jesus lived when He was on earth. We are to live that same way. 1 Pet 4:1 says we should have the same mind as He, which completely removes my feelings and externalities from my walk (before God's face/ in Jesus' footsteps).
So, there is no line of subjectivity, just God's Word.
As to this comment, "If there are two people, both of whom think they are divinely inspired, can there ever be a discourse?"---I think there can be a discourse because we are first directed to look after ourselves (spiritually speaking). Jesus lived His life here on earth by the commandments-You shall love the Lord with all your heart, strength, etc, and You shall love your neighbor as yourself. In my understanding of the Bible I'd say that being a christian is a nearly entirely introverted life. He wants me to be changed from the inside out. We've read many times that, "by their fruits you will know them..." So if my inner life is in line with God's commandments/Jesus life, then I can have a discourse with anyone.(and because God gives His divine revelations to those that are obeying His commandments).
I hope that I am not so stubborn that I could be swayed by another's better idea. It would take some convincing, but it could happen. I could budge.
regarding my advice to the situation discussed in this blog:
Advice should be given rarely. I'd like to call it council. There isn't much good to say other than what the Bible tells us--to young adult "child"--Honor your father and mother. No greater joy has a mother than to see her children walk uprightly. You will one day stand before the judgement seat of Christ and answer for the things you did and said during your time on earth. You must take a stand for what you believe in, what you have faith for, and do it. Live a normal life and be at peace with all men.
To the parents--Some of the same above. If you raised your child to fear God, then those seeds are planted, and God can cause them to grow. (I feel a little foolish trying to 'advise' people that are older than I am. It is much easier to identify with the young adult as I was once a young adult that moved out of my own home for university and a job and a wife).
regarding leaving one group and joining another:
My parents left an orthodox 'religion' after being married nearly 10 years. They moved to a different state. They had to complete cut ties with their former life and embrace a new one with new friends. While I haven't had to do that, I have spoken at length with both of my parents regarding this life change that they made (leaving family, friends, former faith for something completely new and unknown). I hope you don't already know my answers before I made them regarding your experience... You'd be psychic ;-) I agree that the onus is more on the individual to make sure that things work out for them--not so much on the others.
I recall that there were people that never stopped 'working' with me when I went through rockier times in my life. There were others that I didn't have as much to do with when my situations changed, but at no fault of theirs. I don't disagree with you regarding fathers and teachers.
"Come as you are." This is true. Please come no matter your state. Once that person hears the Word then they 'should' begin to make some decisions and life changes (I'm speaking about adults. Children are children--Sometimes it takes them longer to get to that 'serious' life check situation where they begin to think about more than themselves and more about their eternal future). If by 'views and opinions' you mean character/individuality, then each person should be allowed to be an individual. When you come, and plan to stay, you should agree that living a life before God in Christ is the goal. It would be very odd if someone came, decided to stay, and believed something completely different. Where would the fellowship be? Where would the encouragement on the Way be?
Everyone is born a sinner. Not everyone needs to remain a sinner. A continuing sinner (who lived in continuing sin) wouldn't be a help to the body, would it? If they had no intention of coming out of that sin they wouldn't find themselves very welcome.
I hope to win souls, even one soul, along the way (for Jesus Christ). Thank you for the exhortation to introspect.
To Sophie:
You made this comment, "So, it may look as if people are just saying they’re Christians but not really trying to live it (hypocrites), when actually they were just being attacked by satan."--Being attacked by satan does not equate to hypocrisy. Satan 'attacks' us by luring and enticing the lusts and desires that dwell in our flesh/body of sin. When we give in to those lusts and agree with them, then we are a hypocrite (if we proclaim to be a christian). There is always forgiveness from sin, but the intention is that christians do not continue giving in to the same 'attacks' from satan.
In the analogy of the master and apprentice:
This is a short version of sanctification. A lot more goes on--chastening/correction, after thoughts, etc. The master is Jesus, our great high priest. The apprentices are all those that have made the decision to be disciples of Jesus Christ.
To Anyone:
Why do so many christian organizations and churches make such a big deal about the 'Great Commission?' In my observations, which have limits, there is a lot more emphasis on 'sharing the Good News' than living it. The 'Great Commission" is contained in a few short verses, and the whole rest of the New Testament is dedicated to how we should live in the heart and thoughts. I would rather let my life shine as a light rather than have people say what Sophie mentioned, "I want no part of that" because I hadn't come to any maturity before I began to speak. Francis of Asisi (spelling?) said, "Preach the gospel everywhere you go... Use words if you have to." Actions speak so much louder than...
I'm not against the 'Great Commission' by any means, but I do know that I haven't been given the ministry of an evangelist (by God). Just a question...
RssnSpy6: I do appreciate what appears to be a sincere effort to explain the SF frame of reference for some difficult theological subjects. I can respect your interpretation of these points in scripture. I don’t agree with you on several points, and I think it would be interesting to discuss these issues with you. But I think we can also agree on some fundamentals like Jesus is the Son of God, He lived; He was crucified for our transgressions; He rose again after three days, and He lives today. If we can agree on these things the rest is interesting, but in many ways just academic. So the question is; do these other issues justify dividing and separating the families of other believers?
This case here in Owasso is not an isolated incident. The observed effect this local SF church has had on several young members of this high school is to become scared and hateful towards their friends and families. Doing just a little research into the background of this church leads to other incidents around the world like Wiltrud Griess and Millard Melnyk which display similar characteristics. These cases tend to validate the local observations. The testimonies from former SF members on this blog are also consistent with the behaviors observed here locally.
So, you speak of your effort to “win people for Christ” and I applaud you for that, but the behavior of your church, both corporately and locally do not seem to be consistent with your words. And your right, actions do speak louder than words.
What do you think? By extracting this young girl from her family, secretively moving her into their home; is this is going to win the favor of other family members or members of the community, especially when these people are already believers in Christ?
Allow me to provide a contrasting example. I know a Christian man who has a passion for reaching Muslims. His approach was to move into the middle of a local Muslim community here in the U.S. This is a large community of Muslims complete with businesses, a mosque, and many neighborhoods. His is the only Christian family within this community.
He does not preach on the street corner or anything like that, he just lives his life. He has made a point to reach out and make friends in the community and will, for example, invite his Muslim friends to his home for meals. He doesn’t preach or anything; just does his normal thing. He prays before meals for instance. He has lived there for 5 years and during this time he has made many Muslim friends. Sometime during the course of their day they will ask questions about things that lead to an opportunity to share his belief about Jesus Christ. During this time several of his Muslim friends have come to a belief in Christ.
Now here is the point to this story. When these Muslims become believers, he doesn’t tell them to leave the mosque. He doesn’t teach them to leave their family or community in order to follow Christ. The idea is that they can still attend prayers at the mosque, as long as they are praying to Jesus Christ. He encourages them to stay in the community so that they can be an influence on their Muslim friends and look for opportunities to share their belief in Christ. Extracting these new believers from their families would not win the rest of the community to Christ. Rather it would more likely scare them and instill a fear of him and other Christians instead. Not the desired effect if your mission is to win the whole community to Christ.
About the Great Commission, the reason Christians make a big deal about it is because that’s what Jesus said to do. The last thing He commanded of His disciples wasn’t to sit in the upper room with like minded people and wait for Him to return. His command was to go out and make disciples of all nations. So if you claim Jesus as your master and you chose not to do what He commanded, are you really His disciple?
So in these two contrasting examples, who is a disciple of Jesus Christ?
Chris: You make a good point. When someone comes to your church for a long time and never gets plugged in, that can be the result of that person but, on the other hand, the church body has some responsibility to reach out as well. Everyone in a church is not going to be at the same place spiritually. That’s OK. One job of the church is to provide opportunities for spiritual growth. What people do with these opportunities is a personal thing.
to harold:
i will respond to the questions you raised soon.
you shared a story about a christian man in a muslim 'world.' i'd like to share a story about a hindu man in a christian 'world.'
story reference-(http://www.brunstad.org/en/Worth-Reading/Mahatma-Gandhis-brush-with-Christianity.aspx)
Mahatma Gandhi is described in history books as the man who was at the centre of India’s fight for freedom from the British Empire, which led to its independence. What is perhaps not so well known is this man’s lifelong search for the truth. In his writings he always searches for three main virtues: Truth, love and purity (Satya, Ahimsa and Bramacharya).
Gandhi grew up as a Hindu, and he confessed this faith his entire life. He spent several years in England while studying the law, and later moved to South Africa for some years, where he worked as a lawyer. He met and conversed with many believing Christians in these countries, particularly in South Africa. He listened to these people with an upright mind, one that was seeking the truth without prejudice, and also read many books about the Christian faith which were available to him.
In his autobiography he writes:
I was together with some Christian friends when one of them said something I was not prepared for. ‘You cannot understand the beauty of our religion. From what you say it appears that you must be brooding over your transgressions every moment of your life, always mending them and atoning for them. How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can out throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless Son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God's infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must, It is impossible to live in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restlessness is yours, and what a promise of peace we have.’
The argument utterly failed to convince me. I humbly replied: ‘If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.’
Gandhi writes further about this person:
“And the brother proved as good as his word. He knowingly committed transgressions, and showed me that he was undisturbed by the thought of them.”(from “An Autobiography, or The Story of my Experiments with Truth,” by M. K. Gandhi, 1927-29).
Gandhi was never converted to the Christian faith. Like Socrates before him, he chose instead to listen to the “inner voice.” He followed a political career, and writes that he made it his religion to serve people.
What Gandhi heard from his “Christian friends” in his youth was not true Christianity. It was not the entire gospel. Paul, on the other hand, writes about true Christianity in Romans 6:11-12: “Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.”
It is written about Jesus that He was “tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin,” which proves that it is totally possible for a human to come to victory over sin. We are encouraged to approach Him to find help and grace so that we can win the same victory. (Hebrews 4:15-16)
Are you interested in meeting people who can testify that the Christian gospel has liberated them from the power of sin – liberated them from the very thought of sin? If so, feel free to contact us via our homepage: www.brunstad.org/en
to harold:
i hope to respond to your previous comments before the weekend is over.
The excerpt you provided on Gandhi in the church promotion above proves once again this principle that ‘action speaks louder than words.’
“And the brother proved as good as his word. He knowingly committed transgressions, and showed me that he was undisturbed by the thought of them.”
Gandhi is not only influenced by the man’s words, but my inference of the reading that you have provided tells me that he [Gandhi] seems to be somehow even more troubled and disturbed by the man’s actions. What if the man who shared this brand of Christian gospel with Gandhi had lived a life that exemplified the nobilities of the Christian religion? It might have lead to a different conclusion on Gandhi’s part.
a bit busy today but a quick thought...@RssnSpy6
The excerpt you provided on Gandhi in the church promotion above proves once again this principle that ‘action speaks louder than words.’
“And the brother proved as good as his word. He knowingly committed transgressions, and showed me that he was undisturbed by the thought of them.”
Gandhi is not only influenced by the man’s words, but my inference of the reading that you have provided tells me that he [Gandhi] seems to be somehow even more troubled and disturbed by the man’s actions. What if the man who shared this brand of Christian gospel with Gandhi had lived a life that exemplified the nobilities of the Christian religion? Who knows, it might have lead to a different conclusion on Gandhi’s part.
1
Hello all
Havent posted in a while and I see
we have some new additions. Harold
I see your reference to Millard Mylnak, I have actually met his wife. She actually seemed very nice, but completely distressed by
the situation she found herself in.
It was a fairly fresh situation
when I satrted coming around, and
it was kind of the talk about town.
Ohhhhh evil Millard is calling us
a cult. Here is the deal, a family
has been destroyed. SF blames Millard, Millard blames SF. Ok everybody, what about the kids who
will be irreprely damaged? My understanding in all this was there
was a horrible court battle. Imagine Mommy and Daddy saying such
terrible things about one another.
I have had the opportunity to see
how destructive such things can be
to both sides, believe me, the SF
people suffer too. Millard , if
memory serves me correctly, got the
kids. How terribly hurtful that
must have been for that mother.
To Harold:
You listed some fundamentals that all christians should believe in. I agree with them, but think that it is an incomplete list. It seems that the difference in 'theology' between mainstream christianity (you, unless you object) and SF is rooted in these fundamentals. The 'separation' between SF and mainstream christianity is because of this difference in foundation. At the risk of simplifying too much we might agree that we disagree on the full purpose of Jesus time on earth. For that reason I'd say it isn't just academic and that the issues stem entirely from the foundation.
You said, "So the question is; do these other issues justify dividing and separating the families of other believers?"
It has been opined that the teacher from Owasso deliberatedly divided this family. I don't agree. Without being controversial, or trying to stir up the same debate again, I don't believe that 'coercion' was used to impel the young lady to shun her family. I believe, from what I gather, that she conciously made the choice to separate herself for a time from her former life because it would have been far too hard to continue on her new found path of faith when her previous life was so close. I'll use the example of a habit to illustrate my point. To break a habit you have to put it far from you.
You might ask, "why would she have to do that if we are both 'believers?'" The differences between SF's faith and the 'believers' faith you mentioned look somewhat similar, feel similar, and so on, but begin and end quite differently. I argue that she did what she needed to do.
One more related question: Does it matter what family we are from in Heaven after the rapture(who our friends were, or who our marriage partner was)? Matthew 22:30.
You mentioned the Millard Melnyk incident. Could you share information, or a link, regarding his story? I would like to see if my memory lines up with what you have researched.
You asked, "So in these two contrasting examples, who is a disciple of Jesus Christ?"
I don't know how to answer this question. I don't know your christian man or his fruits. I'm very leery of judging what I can't see and taste and that which is clearly not my responsibility to do. I also don't think that the two situations you mentioned are a white vs black comparison. Both could be disciples before God...
I'll ask you this in return (and I'll ask this of Sophie and Keith as well)...
IF, hypothetically, time shows that the Owasso teacher did nothing wrong, but rather only the good, moral, right, and Godly, what would you do? Please consider this carefully.
To Chris:
You asked, "What if the man who shared this brand of Christian gospel with Gandhi had lived a life that exemplified the nobilities of the Christian religion?"
If by 'exemplifying the nobilities of the Christian religion' you mean this, "SIN WE MUST," then I'd assume you'd not taken Romans chapter 6 seriously. It is impossible to believe what Ghandi's christian friend believed and live a noble christian life. To sin is not noble.
You mentioned a 'brand' of Christian gospel... Is that because you don't share the same brand? What brand do you call your own?
Ghandi was troubled by his christian friend's words and actions equally. That belief could only lead to those actions. Ghandi sought after truth, love, and purity. No one can attain these virtues if they believe in a Jesus that takes all our sins on Him so we may live as we please. Jesus took our sins upon Himself so that we might not be condemned to death, not so that we could continue abiding in sin.
As far as I know, I equate 'mainstream christianity' and its gospel with Ghandi's friend's gospel. How am I wrong to do this?
To jarsmom:
Hi, I've met Millard's ex-wife as well. I stayed in her home one weekend. At that time at least two of the children were living with her. She is a strong woman rooted and grounded in God's Word. I know that her stand has planted God's seed in the hearts of her children.
@Rssnspy6,
I am not sure whether you have read Gandhi-ji’s autobiography in its entirety. Have you? Gandhi’s reasons for not converting to Christianity ran much deeper than this one fellow’s interpretation or brand of the gospel [Gandhi identifies the fellow as a Plymouth Brethren btw]. There were deeper philosophical reasons behind the reluctance. To name two such reasons: He had a tough time believing that “Jesus was the only incarnate son of God and that only he who believed in him would have everlasting life.” He had issue with the idea that only human beings had souls. Yes the words of the Plymouth Brethren fellow troubled Gandhi’s intellectual nature. However, the point that I was trying to make was we must not overlook the fact that Gandhi was also deeply impacted by the man’s action. He later states “the distorted belief of a Plymouth Brother could not prejudice me against Christianity” and that he “knew…that all Christians did not believe in such a theory of atonement.” In the earlier pages of the book, Gandhi also talks of the dislike that he developed for Christianity as a young teenager growing up in India. He writes of the reason being, “In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment.” He also writes of the changes that is observed in a Hindu who converted to Christianity, “I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity.”
As mentioned in earlier posts, there are certain actions that are universally regarded as positive behaviors and that all of us can identify with and admire regardless of religion or cultures: kindness, love, forgiveness, humility, gentleness, honesty, patience etc. (qualities not just exclusively claimed as good only by Christianity). Gandhi mentions a Christian family, the Waltons, who had a positive influence on him. He writes, “At the back of this acquaintance was of course my contact with Christians in Pretoria. Mr.Walton had a manner all his own. I do not recollect his ever having invited me to embrace Christianity. But he placed his life as an open book before me, and let me watch all his movements. Mrs. Walton was a very gentle and talented woman. I liked the attitude of this couple. We knew the fundamental differences between us. Any amount of discussion could not efface them. Yet even differences prove helpful, where there are tolerance, charity, and truth. I liked Mr. and Mrs. Walton’s humility, perseverance, and devotion to work, and we met very frequently. This friendship keep alive my interest in religion.”
I wonder what you mean by the term mainstream Christianity? It is a phrase that I hear being used quite often but can never fully understand. Who (or what group(s) swims in that stream?
RssnSpy6: I think you are an interesting contradiction in yourself. You said you are leery of judging what you can’t see and taste yet you seem to be very judgmental of other Christians.
First of all I don’t identify the man in your story with mainstream Christians. I myself don’t believe that when the Bible speaks about the grace of God that it is a license to sin. I believe what Paul wrote in Romans chapter 6, but I also believe what he wrote in chapter 3, 4, 5, and 6:1 as well, so don’t paint me with that brush.
Also, I have yet to meet a serious evangelical Christian who would agree with the man in your story. He is a sad example of Christianity but I know that there are those people out there. Paul wrote about it in Romans as you point out, so obviously there have been people with that view since even the first century. It is just that most of the ministers I have listened to and in most of the books I have read, from many authors and from many different denominations, I just haven’t found that interpretation of God’s grace to be the prevalent belief among fundamental mainstream Christians.
You say you don’t believe that ‘coercion’ was used in this local SF church. I’m sure you don’t and you are entitled to your belief but at the same time you have only heard the story from one side. If you were truly interested in the truth, shouldn’t you investigate both sides of the story?
But here again, whether or not she was coerced to move into this man’s home, it is HIS decision to let her live in his home. If he was truly a godly, moral and just Christian why let her move into his home and then lie to people about it? Why let her stay there when he is well aware of the strife that it caused in her family? If you have read all of this blog then you read a post from Heart2Heart who knows this girl, both before and after SF, and gave her observations. It doesn’t sound like her family is so dysfunctional that she needed protection from them. It sounds more like she came from a good Christian home. I don’t buy the idea that she had to wean herself from the bad habits of her former environment. And even if this was the case he, as her school teacher, should be aware of the immoral implications of such a move and he should also be aware of social organizations whose job it is to handle such cases if she needed physical protection. I just don’t see a good explanation for his actions except that of classic cult behavior.
Regarding your question: “IF, hypothetically, time shows that the Owasso teacher did nothing wrong, but rather only the good, moral, right, and Godly, what would you do?”
I have to say there is always room and opportunity for reconciliation and God has a history all through the Bible of taking bad situations and turning them into amazing testimonies for Him. Joseph is the classic example.
I would also point to what Jesus said.
"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” Mt 5:23, 24.
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Mt 18:15-17
Also the prophet Ezekiel said “And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right- if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live.” Eze 33:14-16
And “The LORD said to Moses: "If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do- when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found, or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering.” Lev 6:2-5
To Chris:
I have not read Ghandi's autobiography. Thank you for taking the time to research it out. The other reasons Ghandi gave for not embracing christianity were valid for someone raised in a Hindu upbringing. He could have felt that his faith was getting him as far as any other religion could to the three virtues he sought. Again, thank you for sharing deeper insight.
Harold:
I don't see where I've been judgmental of other christians. I have challenged the words of some people, and shared my beliefs regarding Jesus, His purpose on earth, and my purpose on earth. I don't want to be judgemental, so If you can show me where I have been, I will apologize and clarify what my words were to mean.
Thank you for sharing your belief regarding grace as (not being) a license to sin. I may have mistakenly placed Sophie's beliefs from January 10th and 17th and April 25 to your credit. I apologize. Then Sophie said that "God gave Himself in the form of a human being, came down from heaven as His One and Only Perfect Son," (I disagree with this and think that a mainstream christian believes this) and that we can't be perfect while here on earth (I see this statement as mainstream christianity which I disagree with because it is possible to stop sinning, through help from the Holy Spirit, and to continue on to a life of only virtues--perfection/all the fullness of the Godhead).
Ephesians 3--16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
I can't think of a reference for this, but we can agree that God cannot dwell where sin dwells. So, if the fullness of God is to dwell in my heart/inner man then there cannot be anything sinful there. This is the goal. If God allows me to live long enough on this earth, and I am zealous for Him with my time, thoughts, actions, etc, then I will reach the same end that Jesus reached. This is NOT what mainstream christianity preaches or believes. This is my definition, so if you'd like to add to it, or modify it, or challenge it, feel free, as this is a discussion.
Chris:
You haven't said, unless I missed it, exactly what your beliefs are concerning these matters that Harold, Sophie, some others, and I have been discussing. I hope I've answered your question regarding 'mainstream christianity.' As to the who--I think that the majority of people who call themselves christians, yet don't believe in the goal/possibility of attaining Jesus' life while here on earth, are 'mainstream.' The majority, in my view, believe they will gain this perfection when they reach heaven.
To Harold:
You said I've only heard the story from one side. I've spoken with the young lady and the teacher and I've read and intereacted with you, Keith, and Sophie... I'd say 'both' sides are represented there. I haven't spoken with the parents of the young lady, but I'd say you've represented them adequately. Where else could I investigate?
You said the teacher lied about allowing her to move into his home... How did he lie? Did he deny she was there? Or did he say it was her choice to move in? I don't understand.
I don't doubt she came from a good home. I didn't say she had to wean herself from the bad habits of her former environment, I did say, "from what I gather, that she conciously made the choice to separate herself for a time from her former life because it would have been far too hard to continue on her new found path of faith when her previous life was so close. I'll use the example of a habit to illustrate my point. To break a habit you have to put it far from you."
The habit example was to parallel reality. The young lady changed what she believed (if only in the foundation-what Jesus did on earth, and the goal-victory over sin while on earth), but If she continued to live with people, her parents, that believed differently it would have been very hard for her to hold on to her new found faith. I did not slander her household or upbringing.
I have tried to answer all the questions put forth to me. I have previously asked questions that I hope some people will try to answer.
jarsmom
RssnSpy6: I’ve not had time to post for a while now, but I have been reading and working on some responses to several of your questions. But, in the meantime, I have another question for you.
In your recent post was: “Then Sophie said that "God gave Himself in the form of a human being, came down from heaven as His One and Only Perfect Son," (I disagree with this and think that a mainstream christian believes this) “
Which part of my exact quote do you disagree with? That Jesus came from Heaven? That He was God’s Son? Or that He was perfect?
To Sophie:
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I should have asked you to clarify what you meant by that statement instead of just disagreeing with it. I may have misunderstood what you meant. I believe:
Jesus came from heaven,
Jesus was God's son,
Jesus became the only perfect human being on earth by not sinning and by doing the will of the Father (which is very close to your statement, "Jesus was perfect").
The part I misunderstood/disagree with is the phrase, "God gave Himself..." Can you explain what you mean by that? I don't see how God could give Himself (as Jesus) to earth, and then (as Jesus) pray to Himself (the Father) in heaven. Thanks for explaining.
to RssnSpy6:
"I have not read Ghandi's autobiography. Thank you for taking the time to research it out."Not a problem as the book is in my personal collection:-).
"As far as I know, I equate 'mainstream christianity' and its gospel with Ghandi's friend's gospel. How am I wrong to do this?"
I am somewhat befuddled that a non-Christian like Gandhi-ji who writes "But I already knew...that all Christians did not believe in such a theory of atonement [and] the distorted belief of a Plymouth Brother could not prejudice me against Christianity" can arrive at this conclusion that those who take their calling as Christians seriously do not believe in this 'license to sin' and yet there are some who are using Gandhi's observation in parts to imply the notion that this 'license to sin’ is a part of ‘mainstream Christianity.’ Now - a simple thought, if the majority of Christians did believe in this 'license to sin' then why do so many of them oppose and speak out against abortions, homosexuality, divorce, adultery, hatred, bitterness etc? Why would they care enough to get actively involved in speaking out against these matters if they all believed in this idea that "our own sins do not bind us"?
I think that you are somehow blending this idea of 'license to sin' along with ' complete victory over sin'(or a lack of belief in this idea) and attributing it as a cohesive quality found in mainstream Christianity. This 'sin we must' belief is an aberration from Christian principles whereas living an overcoming [victory over sin] life (a life of sanctification) is a principle that is preached and accepted in many Christian groups though the jargon for each group might be different.
"You mentioned a 'brand' of Christian gospel... Is that because you don't share the same brand? What brand do you call your own?"
"You haven't said, unless I missed it, exactly what your beliefs are concerning these matters that Harold, Sophie, some others, and I have been discussing."I do not believe that the blood of Jesus entitles Christians with a free license to sin. I do believe that the calling of a Christian life here on earth is to become like Christ – to obtain the mind of Christ [Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus]. It is a noble endeavor to aim to obtain (to have faith in the possibility of) complete victory over sin and I respect such a calling and can find no fault with it.
I think that Sophie raised a good point and gave me a fresh perspective when she wrote on [May 4, 2009] “Some may be more mature Christians, but remember ‘satan prowls around like a hungry lion waiting for someone to devour. Because we are still in the flesh sometimes we give in to a sin. He knows what is most important to us and that’s where He attacks us. So, it may look as if people are just saying they’re Christians but not really trying to live it (hypocrites), when actually they were just being attacked by satan. Some people are young or immature believers and then when they say they are a Christian, others may look at them and think or say, ‘If that is what a Christian is, I want no part of that’. But, is it our job to judge?”.
RssnSpy6: In reference to your statement: “I don't see where I've been judgmental of other christians.” I’ll point to your earlier statement: “As far as I know, I equate 'mainstream christianity' and its gospel with Ghandi's friend's gospel.”
That sounds to me like you’ve just judged all “mainstream” Christians, and me, by this one man.
Referring to several questions in your last post, there is more to this story that I am not at liberty to reveal because, as Uriah_Heep said, “Further, the SF has become a very centralised, rich, powerful sect that has no qualms about meeting threats to its being and existence ruthlessly.” The behaviors witnessed from this local SF group substantiate this statement and lead me to believe that this is no idle threat.
You also said: “The young lady changed what she believed (if only in the foundation-what Jesus did on earth, and the goal-victory over sin while on earth), but If she continued to live with people, her parents, that believed differently it would have been very hard for her to hold on to her new found faith.”
It sounds to me as if you are implying that Christians like her parents are not interested in overcoming sin here on earth. I don’t believe that is true. All serious Christians I know are working very hard to overcome sin and lead a holy life that is pleasing to God. But I believe that when I stumble and fall, IF I am truly repentant, that Jesus is there to pick me up and say “OK, learn from that and keep going…finish the race”. Jesus, who knows my heart, has mercy, and the authority, to forgive that sin and encourage me to keep going and try to do better, just like the woman at the well or the thief on the cross. That is my view of God’s grace.
Another point to make about this statement is about the separation of this girl from her family. One of the main behavior identifiers of controlling groups is the separation of their members from all former friends and family. That’s number one on Lifton’s Eight Criteria for Thought Reform (Milieu Control). I have put that out here already.
In every case that I have read about, the thing that has put the attention on questionable groups has been the family of the victims raising a red flag to say that something is wrong. It was the families of those people in Johnstown that raised enough questions and got the attention of the congressman Ryan who decided to investigate for himself. There were family members that helped put the spotlight on David Koresh in Waco. In the cases publicized by Dr. Phil recently, the investigations were all initiated by family members.
You see this same pattern over and over again in controlling groups. The group, or church, comes between family members and actively works to the keep the victims separated from their families. It is necessary for controlling groups to do this because they usually feed their members a steady diet of misinformation.
If the group is successful at demonizing the family and former friends so that the member is afraid of them, then they can control all the information about the group that the member has access to.
All of us make decisions based on the information we have. So if the group can control the information, then they control the decisions that their members make. If you ask the members, “did you make your own choices?” their answer will always be “yes”. They did make their own decisions. That is true. But they usually made those decisions based upon wrong or deceitful information. That’s the control technique.
There was another case, here in Owasso, where a married woman started attending a ‘church’ that was meeting at the Sixth Grade Center. The husband didn’t feel comfortable attending this ‘church’ so his wife went without him. As it turns out, the female minister of this ‘church’ was counseling this woman to divorce her husband because he didn’t conform. The minister even drove the woman to the attorney and helped her fill out the paperwork to file for divorce.
I see the same pattern in Smith’s Friends with Griess, Melnyk, others. Even you RssnSyp6, spoke about your parents and said “My parents left an orthodox 'religion' after being married nearly 10 years. They moved to a different state. They had to complete cut ties with their former life and embrace a new one with new friends.” They HAD to? Why? If they have learned some new truth then wouldn’t they want to share it with their friends and family; to live among them and show by example how their new faith is different and better?
A healthy church doesn’t intentionally come between family members and split them apart. Healthy churches help build up and strengthen all families. They work to mend broken families and are examples that others will see and want to follow.
A healthy church is not afraid for their members to have access to all the information about the church, both good and bad, and will discuss this information openly with anybody either inside or outside the church without lies, fear, or intimidation.
RssnSpy6: You asked “Why do so many christian organizations and churches make such a big deal about the 'Great Commission?' In my observations, which have limits, there is a lot more emphasis on 'sharing the Good News' than living it. The 'Great Commission" is contained in a few short verses, and the whole rest of the New Testament is dedicated to how we should live in the heart and thoughts.”
I believe one reason that Christians make such a big deal about the Great Commission, is that it is what Jesus said to do…it is a combination of sharing the Good News while living it. It is not just contained in a few short verses…it is actually written throughout the whole New Testament, Mark 1:17, John 11:49-52, Galatians 3:8, Revelation 5:9 are just a few. By ‘living it’ those who are real Christians, will be a witness to those who have not yet become believers. Part of the Great Commission v20 says, “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you….” And what does He command us to do? “Love the Lord your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” John 15:12 says, “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you,” and v17 “This I command you, that you love one another.”
To Harold you stated, “Thank you for sharing your belief regarding grace as (not being) a license to sin. I may have mistakenly placed Sophie's beliefs from January 10th and 17th and April 25 to your credit.”
If one goes back and reads those posts and the last portion of my April 25 post which reads, “I would like to state that we are not “free to (knowingly, willfully) demonstrate “behavior” contradictory to the Master’s virtues’. That’s not only where obedience comes into play, but also forgiveness and the covering of our transgressions when we do sin. Yes, when we love Jesus, we will want to spend time getting to know Him by allowing Him to indwell us and by spending time in the Word. As we get to know Him more and more, we should become more Christ-like…’you will know them by their fruits’, but no matter how hard we try we will not become perfect this side of Heaven. That’s why He was sent by God, to be our ‘atoning sacrifice’. He is a forgiving God.”…you can see that I did NOT say that we SHOULD deliberately continue sinning but rather, grace covers us ‘WHEN we do sin’. Does that really sound like I believe ‘grace is a license to sin’?
Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Hebrews 10:26-29, “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries, anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
In your May 2 post, you used the analogy of ‘an apprentice and a master’. Although I like your analogy, I do have a question. Assuming that Jesus is the Master and His followers are His apprentices…what happens to the apprentice if/when he dies BEFORE becoming perfect in EVERY area of the trade…not just the areas that he/she ‘was aware’ of?
This is where the ‘mainstream Christian’ believes ‘grace’ comes into play….NOT that ‘grace is a license to sin’….but that we may have sins that we’ve not ‘become aware of’ or ‘been convicted of’ yet. I’ve been to a lot of ‘mainstream churches’ throughout my lifetime and I’ve NEVER heard that ‘grace is a license to sin’ being taught or preached.
Galatians 2:19-21 says, “For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
1 John 8 says, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we CONFESS our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives.”
You claim to have grown up in the SF fellowship, I’m assuming that you’ve heard their teachings predominately. Is this a fair assumption? I’ve NEVER heard any ‘mainstream Christian’ group teach ‘sin we must’. I will certainly agree there are people who ‘claim’ to be Christian and attend ‘mainstream churches’ who knowingly and willingly sin. But, that is NOT what is being taught or preached from the pulpits.
“It is written about Jesus that He was “tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin,” which proves that it is totally possible for a human to come to victory over sin. We are encouraged to approach Him to find help and grace so that we can win the same victory.” (Hebrews 4:15-16)
Yes, it is written that Jesus was “tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.” It does not ‘prove that it is totally possible for a human to come to victory over sin’ because Jesus was fully man AND fully God, He could be tempted like we are, yet He never sinned. Jesus was born of God, and a human virgin named Mary….an immaculate birth. We are born of two parents…not God and not a virgin. That verse states that Jesus was tempted in all pointed like we are, but He did not give in to them.
Hebrews 4:14 says, “Therefore, since we have great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.”
Ephesians 4:7-10, “But to each one of us, grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: “When He ascended on high, He led captives in His train and gave gifts to men.” What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.”
I know of no one that has ever walked through the heavens, nor have I descended or ascended…only Christ Jesus. Jesus was not only human, He was also God. There are many verses to back that up.
You said “I don't believe that 'coercion' was used to impel the young lady to shun her family.” Do you live in the same community and have you witnessed what her family/close friends/other acquaintances have witnessed? Did you know this girl or anything about her life prior to her involvement with this teacher in order to be able to make such a judgment? And let’s not forget the other young person who has also demonstrated some of the same behaviors as this young lady….fear of their own families. Is it just ‘coincidental’ that neither of these two young people was fearful of or wanted to separate from their own family ALL of their lives or as they graduated from high school…and then ALL OF A SUDDEN after they have been influenced by this group they became fearful and wanted to separate? Fear, lies, and keeping people busy are all tactics commonly used to ‘coerce’ people.
Isn’t it true that she couldn’t have separated herself from her family if this teacher hadn’t moved her into his home? She would had to have stayed in her parents home or in her dorm and IF there was any issues that needed working out she would’ve had the opportunity to do so. It sounds like this man and his family knowingly and willingly aided and abetted a girl to do something that is hurtful to all concerned. It’s similar to someone buying liquor for an alcoholic…something not in their best interest and then saying, “It was his/her choice to get drunk.” He deliberately came between this girl and her family. God created the family and Jesus Christ was all about love, reconciliation, bringing people together…not splitting people apart. Satan came to kill, steal, and destroy. These people were instrumental in destroying this girl’s relationship with her family and friends. NO church should EVER come between familial relationships.
You asked this question. “IF, hypothetically, time shows that the Owasso teacher did nothing wrong, but rather only the good, moral, right, and Godly, what would you do? Please consider this carefully.”
And, how would ‘time’ demonstrate that? Are you suggesting that people just over time forget what has happened? I doubt that all her family and friends would, over time, just accept that he has done something good, moral, right, or godly by moving her into his home/thus separating her from them.
Would you ask that same question to the parents of Elizabeth Smart? Do you really think that time is going to change what that man did to her and her family?
For one to ask forgiveness of others who have been damaged by his actions without first repenting and setting the record straight and making reparations for any damage done is really only an attempt at saving face and looking for damage control.
To All: Your posts and views are appreciated.
A healthy church doesn’t intentionally come between family members and split them apart. Healthy churches help build up and strengthen all families. They work to mend broken families and are examples that others will see and want to follow.A great point, Harold.
I would also add that school teachers shouldn’t intentionally come between students and their family members and split them apart. This man has at least two very apparent reasons to not be doing what he’s doing. First he claims to represent a Christian church and second the state (the taxpaying parents) have entrusted their children (of age or not) to him to teach….not move into his home.
Jarsmom: I recently got a book by Neil T. Anderson and remembered you had mentioned his name. This book is titled ‘The Path to Reconciliation’. Great book. Thanks.
I left the smith's friends when they started doing all the "fundraising" like all them like several 2-3 times a week. And a kid posted on my blog who also decided the smith's friends were a cult then - all the fundraising salem fellowship the smith's friends cult I went to (they do pge, rosegarden, and rental cooking at macleay christian retreat where their church is located - also they distribute phone books, do yard work - they did yard work for my aunt when she was alive, go door to door collecting cans etc.) they do keep the people very very very buisy!!!!!!!!!! Suspictiously buisy!!!!!!!! I was one the few thinkers of that group : (
I also agree w/harold when he said...."A healthy church doesn’t intentionally come between family members and split them apart. Healthy churches help build up and strengthen all families. They work to mend broken families and are examples that others will see and want to follow.
A healthy church is not afraid for their members to have access to all the information about the church, both good and bad, and will discuss this information openly with anybody either inside or outside the church without lies, fear, or intimidation."
so true, so so so true
I do not want to contend with anyone regarding how you live your life. I do want to discuss Christianity and encourage each one to be more serious in their personal walk with Jesus.
To Chris: (from May 18)
Don't be somewhat befuddled. I have not read Ghandi's entire book, just the small section I posted. There are/have been many 'christians,' (some I've known personally) who do believe that Jesus' blood is a covering over all their sin--As long as they acknowledge God and call Jesus their 'savior' and life goes on unchanged. You and I know that this is not a real christian life. I am very happy to read that you, Harold, and Sophie strongly refuted that 'Plymouth Brother' christianity.
You mentioned a simple thought regarding speaking out against certain sins. The majority of sins you mentioned were gross, outward, public sins. Those are easy to speak out against because even the non-religious world speaks out against them. But the sins that are easily hidden in the thoughts and hearts... those are the ones that need to be spoken out against because God is the only one that sees them. In my experience I haven't heard so much preaching about coming to a life of overcoming those sins. Like the verse in Matthew 5:28 that speaks about how a look can be sinful...
I may not have written so clearly regarding what you called a 'blending' of two ideas, complete victory over sin and a license to sin. While 'sin we must' is something no 'christian' would admit, the attitude of many christians wavers between 'sin we must' and 'complete victory over sin.' Jesus said in Matthew 12:30 that whoever is not with Me is against Me. If we don't heed His words, like the ones to the adulterous woman (your sins are forgiven, go and sin No more), then we are against Him. Almost no one believes that it is possible to come to a life of complete victory over sin while on earth. If you don't believe this, then how can you say you are being obedient to Jesus commands? Just a question...
I've never been priviledged to hear about a life of sanctification (victory over sin) outside of SFs. If you are sure about your statement regarding these many christian groups that preach that, please put me in contact with them.
To Harold: (May 21)
Regarding being judgemental towards other christians... Does a judge read the defendant a sentence and then ask the defendant, "Tell me what you think of the sentence and say if it is a fair sentence."? No. After my comment on 'mainstream christianity' I asked, 'How am I wrong to do this.' That was the opening that allowed discussion regarding 'mainstream christianity.' Chris jumped right in and offered his thoughts on it. He didn't feel judged, I presume. Do you still think that I am being judgemental? If so, please provide evidence. I do not want to be judgemental of anyone.
Referring to the several questions in my last post... I know that there is more to the story. Which questions were you referring to so that I know which ones you don't want to answer. Maybe we can find another way for you to answer them and not worry about the threats.
I did not imply anything regarding the young lady's parents. I do know that she left her former faith for what the SFs teach/preach/live because it was better for her.
You mention 'serious Christians.' Do you know Christians that aren't serious? Are they still Christians if they aren't serious?
You wrote, "OK, learn from that and keep going…finish the race”.
What do you learn when you fall?
What do you mean by keep going?
What race are you talking about?
Does Jesus only want us to 'try to do better?'
You keep mentioning Lifton and victims and control techniques. Are you painting the entire SFs, some tens of thousands of members, with the Owasso school teacher's 'actions.'
You never gave me the link to the Melnyk information you have. I would appreciate it if you'd let me read it.
Regarding my parents and their reasons for leaving the orthodox 'religion' they were in. You asked why they had to cut ties... Two reasons:
1. Former friends, some well meaning and some not, began pestering them with information and promises and threats regarding their orthodox 'religion.' Letters were written trying to get them to reconsider because if they left they'd be lost forever, etc, etc. This 'religion' is a major European religion, not some cult.
2. You'd know why they had to cut ties with their old friends/church if you've ever smoked and tried to quit. You can't quit smoking and continue to hang out with the same smoker friends. The lure and temptation to smoke again would prove to be too much. Sophie made the analogy of the alcoholic and alcohol. You just have to cut ties and get far away from whatever it was you are trying to leave. I'm not saying their old religion was a sinful one like smoking or drinking in excess, and neither am I saying that the young lady's former faith was wrong. Just that she had to separate herself so that she could make the change easier.
Maybe after some time my parents would have felt comfortable in their new faith to go back and "show by example..." but not right away, they weren't firm enough in their new faith to be tested like that.
You have mentioned many times what a healthy church does and what it doesn't do. I disagree with what you say a church does. The Only thing a church should do is lead people to Jesus, the Head. A church should offer spiritual food and guidance. After a person has been led to Jesus, then they will most likely be led to do some of the things you mentioned, but a church is not a counselling office or a family fixer. It is God's house. Where we go to get food and help for our inner person for the trials of life.
By this statement, "A healthy church is not afraid for their members to have access to all the information about the church, both good and bad, and will discuss this information openly with anybody either inside or outside the church without lies, fear, or intimidation."---Are you saying that this is what the SFs church in Owasso has done?
To Sophie:
Thanks for sharing those verses on "the Great Commission."
You mentioned something about doing what He commands us to do... What about the 'Go and sin no more' commandment? Paul writes that we would never be tempted beyond what we were able to bear, so why would we not be able to fulfill this commandment at all times and go for many many years without sinning?
If by, "we will not become perfect this side of Heaven" you mean that original sin keeps us from becoming perfect like Jesus (never sinned), I agree. But I know that we can live, from a certain point in time until death, perfect.
Despite what you say about God being forgiving, and that we have an atoning sacrifice, and that we should not deliberately continue sinning, I am not convinced that you are that serious about not sinning... It sounds like you just fall back on grace when times get a little hard and you don't want to live like Jesus lived, "Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me." Please convince me otherwise.
Apprentice and Master: Regarding the question about dying before becoming perfect in every area of the trade. God will judge how you took your situations and if you used them to get as much perfection as possible. My mindset is that if He gives me enough time on earth I will become perfect JUST AS HE IS PERFECT, like Matthew 5:48 says.
I have heard more SFs preaching/teaching than any other. But I have heard many non-SFs teachings as well. Enough to make a well informed opinion.
How can you read Hebrews 4:15-16, and then read Hebrews 12:1-4, and STILL say that it is not proven to be possible to do what Jesus did?
1. If Jesus was fully God He couldn't have been tempted, James 1:13.
2. Hebrews 12 says that Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith and that we are running the same race/path that He went. Exactly as He went. In His footsteps.
3. Matthew 16:24--Follow Me. All of Matthew Jesus invites us to 'follow' Him the same way He went.
It sounds like you are hiding behind the belief that Jesus was 'special.' He had a special flesh. That is baloney. The only extra power Jesus got was when He cried out with loud cries and tears to God for help, Hebrews 5:7. This is the same place we can go for help so that we NEVER have to sin again. Many verses have been trotted out to say that Jesus is God. That whole argument is a big conundrum wrangled up by people that don't want to deny their own fleshly lusts, take up their cross, and do what Jesus did.
To Sophie:
You asked if I lived in the same community as the young lady. I don't. I didn't know her before she met the SFs church in Owasso.
Aided and Abetted...to do something hurtful to all those involved? I think that is a far stretch. I know the young lady hasn't been 'hurt' like you alluded to. Not too long ago she and her husband had a very amiable dinner with her parents.
God created the family... And when you stand before Him on judgement day it won't matter what family you come from.
Jesus was all about love, reconciliation, bringing people together... Not ALL... read John 2:15 and Luke 14:26-27 and Matthew 8:21-22 to name a few.
Like I wrote to Harold, a church has the ministry to lead people to Jesus, the Head, not play family mediator. There are professional councillors for that.
Two more things:
To those that answered my question regarding What if the teacher hadn't done anything wrong... Both answers didn't answer what YOU would do. I think, if the teacher didn't do anything wrong (a big IF to you guys because you are quite convinced he did), you would owe God and the teacher huge apologies/repentances. For all the words you said that turned out to be false. You didn't even try to answer the question, you just launched into why the teacher was obviously wrong.
This whole thread started when Keith wrote about the cultic way that this young lady was 'poached.' I'm wondering if part of the problem here is the proselytizing that went on, christian on christian. WHAT IF... the young lady was a muslim that was converted to christianity because of this teacher? Would we all rejoice, or would we still raise such a fuss?
I look forward to more discussions.
RssnSyp6 asked: "WHAT IF... the young lady was a muslim that was converted to christianity because of this teacher?...would we still raise such a fuss?"
ABSOLUTELY! That is one of the main points of the original post. This man used his position as a trusted educator to lure this girl and ultimately indoctrinate her into SF. His job is to teach the subject for which he was hired. I don't care if he is a satanist, a Christian, Muslim or a Jew. He has no right to use the classroom/his influence to proslytize ANY child under his instruction. I believe his motive was more than just another convert to SF...I won't discuss that here.
Also stated: "...church is not a counselling office or a family fixer." Really? I wasn't aware that people/organizations outside the church* possessed the spiritual/Godly insight to guide us through the trials we face in this world.
(* I'm speaking of "the church" that Jesus Christ said He was building on the foundation of God's Word, the fact that Jesus IS the Christ, the son of THE living God, come to earth in human form to die for those who would believe in Him.)
RssnSyp6-- you have only met this girl in recent years. Several of us have actually known her and her family since she was in elementary school. I hardly think your casual acquaintance qualifies you to speak about her or her family. My two cents.
RssnSpy6: “Despite what you say about God being forgiving, and that we have an atoning sacrifice, and that we should not deliberately continue sinning, I am not convinced that you are that serious about not sinning... It sounds like you just fall back on grace when times get a little hard and you don't want to live like Jesus lived, "Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me." Please convince me otherwise.”
I’m sorry you got that impression but that was not my meaning, you’re trying to put words in my mouth.
“God created the family... And when you stand before Him on judgement day it won't matter what family you come from.”
So, are you implying that it is ok to intentionally turn someone against their own family because on judgment day, it won’t matter anyway? If that’s the case, then you wouldn’t mind if someone did this to one of your children, because after all on judgment day, what difference does it make????
“Like I wrote to Harold, a church has the ministry to lead people to Jesus, the Head, not play family mediator.”
Did the girl and her family NEED a mediator or councilor BEFORE she became involved with this group? Correct Biblical teaching/interpretation brings the fruit of the spirit; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, honoring each other; NOT divisiveness. From the sounds of it, she had a close family before her involvement.
RssnSpy6: “To those that answered my question regarding What if the teacher hadn't done anything wrong... Both answers didn't answer what YOU would do. I think, if the teacher didn't do anything wrong (a big IF to you guys because you are quite convinced he did), you would owe God and the teacher huge apologies/repentances. For all the words you said that turned out to be false.”
The public school classroom is funded by the taxpayers and is to be used by teachers to teach subject matter, not encourage students to have personal relationships with them, join their church, social organization, or anything else. If anyone has said anything that is untrue toward this teacher, then you’re correct; that person would owe big apologies/repentances. Can you tell us what WE have said that is false?
“It sounds like you are hiding behind the belief that Jesus was 'special.' He had a special flesh. That is baloney.” “Many verses have been trotted out to say that Jesus is God. That whole argument is a big conundrum wrangled up by people that don't want to deny their own fleshly lusts, take up their cross, and do what Jesus did.”
I’m sorry that you believe that. Here are a few quotes from Jesus found in the Bible, God’s Word.
John 10:30: Jesus answered, “I and the Father are One.”
John 14:6: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you really knew Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him.”
John 14:9-11: Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in Me? The words I say to you are not just My own. Rather, it is the Father, living in Me, who is doing His work. Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracle themselves.”
Matthew 1:20-23: “But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”-which means, “God with us.”
Titus 2:11-14 says, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for Himself a people that are His very own, eager to do what is good.”
HI all
I would like to adress something
Russian Spy said. Seriously dude
what part of immaculate conception
do you not understand???Jesus did
not have a bio dad. That does make
him different. Also I cannot fathom the arogance it takes to
tell Sophie she isn't really in-
trested in overcoming sin. Who do
you think you are. I'll tell you
all, this a common example of 2
decades of SV indoctrination.
So................ Lets chat about
the Cigs for just a sec, K??
I dont know if you realize it or not, but you just shot down your
whole of theological leanings. Wanna
know how? How about all of you?
This what I love the most, exposing
circular reasoning. My dear boy,
a few posts back you talked about
quitting smoking and then not hang
ing around smokers. Clearly you
DO NOT belive in death to sin in
the flesh. If you did you would
understand that DEAD PEOPLE AREN'
TEMPTED. Right????? Come on now.
See folks, it works like this.
The sin in my flesh bound me to
somking, but when I have died to
that,the smoking no longer has
any hold on me. Ergo,since I have
mortified my members I cannot be
tempted any longer in this area.
Right. ???? Correct me If I am
wrong, but this your own stuff you
have been telling all of us. NOw,
which way is it. ???
Giving it to God: “they do keep the people very very very buisy!!!!!!!!!! Suspictiously buisy!!!!!!!!”
Another behavior designed to isolate people. Yes, people are busy. I am busy. I’m sure everyone posting here leads a busy life. However, it is not healthy to be so busy that you don’t have time to develop or maintain important relationships, especially with your own family. Cults usually keep their members so busy that they don’t have time to stop and think about their friends or family. It can serve two purposes. First it gives their members a very plausible excuse for not seeing their families. It can also be used to produce more income for the group. Keep everybody focused on working, working, working their way to salvation and they won’t have time for anything or anyone else. If you think about it this is a very selfish motive. The members are so focused on their salvation and working their way to heaven they don’t think or care about anybody else. This is NOT what Jesus taught us to do as Christians.
Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Romans 15:1-3 “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please Himself…”
RssnSpy6: I will try to answer all of your questions.
“Do you still think that I am being judgemental?” – The jury is still out on that one, but I agree with what Jarsmom said.
“You mention 'serious Christians.' Do you know Christians that aren't serious? Are they still Christians if they aren't serious?”
I believe that there are a lot of “cultural Christians”. I saw a video clip one time of someone asking people on the street if they were a Christian. One of the responses was something like this: “I live in America and this is a Christian nation, so I guess this makes me a Christian.” Is this person a Christian? That’s debatable. I have my opinions, but it really comes down to the fact that his salvation is God’s decision not mine. He is God, I am not.
“You wrote, "OK, learn from that and keep going…finish the race.
What do you learn when you fall?
What do you mean by keep going?
What race are you talking about?”
a) We all make mistakes. I have grown in my faith and I don’t do a lot of the things I did as a youth. I learned not to make those same mistakes again. But it’s not easy. Do you think that you will never say something you shouldn’t and have to repent for that? If you say no, then let me talk to your wife or children. James 3:8 “…but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” And Eph 4:26 "In your anger do not sin."
b) To keep going is to continue learning and hopefully becoming what God wants me to be. To do those things that Christ has commanded us to do. Spread the Good News of Jesus Christ and, yes, to live a life without sin.
c) The race is to keep doing God’s will with the hope of ending our life standing with Jesus and hearing the words. “Well done, good and faithful servant!”
“Does Jesus only want us to 'try to do better?'” – You’re right; Jesus wants us to ‘do better’. 1 John 2 says it this way: “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” This is a clear mandate for us not to sin, but John also recognizes that as humans, we are not perfect and in the first chapter he says “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” Our only hope is in Jesus Christ. If we could become perfect then there would be no reason for Him to die on the cross for us as “the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” 1 John 4:10.
To RssnSpy6 (continued).
“Are you painting the entire SFs, some tens of thousands of members, with the Owasso school teacher's 'actions.'” - No. I believe that there are some SF members who are sincerely seeking God and are decent honorable people. And like other denominations there are variations in certain doctrines. But you all can’t even agree on Jesus Christ. You obviously don’t believe that Jesus was God while on earth. You even berated those who do. But your fellow SF members such as Daniel Strubhar, Crystal, elf_asura, and Shadowfax, and obviously Jarsmom too, all disagree with you. Elf’s statement to PS on 3/26/08 said “In 28 years of knowing the SF and having read all their available literature and having had ‘closer fellowship’ than you ever had or will have with them across the world I have come across only two people who thought that Christ was not God while on earth. Both of them have now ended up – outside. People who belabour this point usually find themselves outside the pale because this is not an ‘open’ doctrine in the SF as far as I know and leaders whom I respect have plainly stated to me that it is not so. I have to believe them till it is proven otherwise. I have never heard this preached from any pulpit either.”
Will the real Smith’s Friend please stand up?
“You never gave me the link to the Melnyk information you have. I would appreciate it if you'd let me read it.” - That’s right. The information I received is not on the internet.
“…lies, fear, or intimidation.’---Are you saying that this is what the SFs church in Owasso has done?” – Yes. Ref Keith’s post March 25, 2008. The contrast with this is the fact that this girl’s parents have, in several instances, shown mercy and grace to this man and his family that few people, including this man and his family, know about. The truth is that this man has a lot to be thankful for with regards to the girl’s family.
“To those that answered my question regarding What if the teacher hadn't done anything wrong... Both answers didn't answer what YOU would do.” - You asked a hypothetical question. I believe my answer was adequate. What I specifically would do would be determined by the circumstances.
“Like I wrote to Harold, a church has the ministry to lead people to Jesus, the Head, not play family mediator. There are professional councillors for that.” - That is a very good suggestion. Just think; if the girl and her family could, through counseling as you suggested, work out their differences related to her involvement with this SF church then this might convince her parents that the teacher did nothing wrong. Then the ball would be in their court; wouldn’t it? This just might lead to the apologies and repentances that you suggested.
To Keith:
Thanks for your response.
I would like to ask you to clarify this for me--How do you/we KNOW that the teacher used the classroom to influence/ultimately indoctrinate the young lady? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm asking How you KNOW it happened.
Regarding a church....
While it is true that there are others that have posted/are posting here with a longer history with the young lady than I, it is also true that I am the only one that has known her first hand since this incident took place 3 years ago. I haven't spoken about her family, just her.
To Sophie:
I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I hope with all my heart that you meant different than what I described--"I am not convinced that you are that serious about not sinning... It sounds like you just fall back on grace when times get a little hard and you don't want to live like Jesus lived, "Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me."--I wouldn't expect a christian to be this way.
Regarding the family comments
It is not right to meddle in other people's affairs. When my children are old enough to understand, and are responsible before God for the decisions they make, then I will have to allow them to make their own decisions. I can advise against bad choices, I can pray for them, I can offer them better choices... But after I've done my best to raise them in a God fearing way it is up to them to seek the right. In Galatians 6:4-5 Apostle Paul says the same thing, "Let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For each one shall bear his own load." I live for the day when I can stand before the throne of judgement and hear, "well done good and faithful servant." My life, my judgement, no one else can have an effect on that.
Regarding apologies
Thank you for admitting that an apology/repentence 'could' be in order IF untrue statements were made. The question was put for the see what kind of heart you had and to see if you were really seeking truth. Those that have already made up their minds and closed the case against the teacher wouldn't be able to acknowledge that they might have been wrong. I can't answer the 'WE' part of your question because I don't know who 'WE' are, but the 'you' part I might. I'll get back to you on that.
John 10:30: Jesus answered, “I and the Father are One.”
--Yes, they are 'one.' Not one and the same, just 'one.' Which means of one mind, of the same spirit, having the same goals/ideals... Not the same entity. Even the christian apologists say that there is one eternally existing essence which exists in the divine relation of three persons. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I think that proves that, do you disagree?
John 14:6
I am 'in' the Father, not, 'I am the Father.' The Father lives in Jesus through the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:20-23
'God with us' does not mean Jesus was 'God while on earth.'
Titus 2:11-14
This passage seems clear that God and Jesus are separate. Otherwise it would say, "the glorious appearing of our great God AS Jesus Christ, our Savior... No, Jesus showed people the mind of God through His life while on earth.
To jarsmom:
Immaculate (Websters def.)=1 : the conception of the Virgin Mary in which as decreed in Roman Catholic dogma her soul was preserved free from original sin by divine grace... WHAT? Are you a catholic? Do you really believe Mary was preserved free from original sin because she gave birth to Jesus? Preposterous.
You are right to say that Jesus didn't have a biological dad. But you are wrong to assume that made Him 'different' than us. Lets read Hebrews 2:14-18,
14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
'In ALL things... made like His brethren (us)' does not leave room for 'different.'
Regarding arrogance
I did not tell Sophie she wasn't interested in overcoming sin. I said, "I am not convinced that you are that serious about not sinning... Please convince me otherwise.” You see, I hope with all my heart that Sophie is deadly serious about ceasing from committing sin.
Regarding Cigs
I may be younger than you, but I am not a boy.
I did use an analogy that included cigarettes. Someone else used the same analogy with alcohol. You either misunderstood the analogy or don't understand sanctification. Here is the correction you seek...
Being 'dead to sin and alive to God' is a state of mind. Once I have this mindframe I begin to mortify my members/bring death to the sin in my flesh, but it doesn't happen instantly. I can't immediately overcome the sin in my flesh in an instant so that I'm NEVER tempted to it ever again. It took Jesus 33 years to do that. Paul tells us that we have to "always carry about in our bodies the dying of the Lord Jesus..." In time (with this mindset), if God allows me the time on earth, I will experience a complete death to the sin in my flesh so that I am not tempted anymore. Glorious isn't it?
To Harold:
Thanks for answering the questions.
Is the jury still out on the judgemental claim? DId I answer jarsmom adequately?
Regarding serious christians
I know people who call themselves christians but don't act like it.
If we take the word--Christian--It means 'one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.' I would modify it to mean 'one who lives like Christ lived, or follows in His footsteps. So if some one was wasn't a 'serious' christian I'd say they weren't trying to be christian very hard. No, they wouldn't be.
A)I know that I still say things that I have to repent from. The goal for me is to come to the place where I never say something that I'll have to repent from... Just like Jesus.
B) and C) are things we agree on. Instead of just hoping that I'll become what God wants me to be, I have the full assurance of faith that I will, read Hebrews 11:1.
Regarding 'try to do better'
I said this with someone like 'Pastor' Joel Osment (sp?) in mind. The megachurch guy on TV. He has a book out titled (something like) 7 ways to a better you... I think that is foolishness. Someone mentioned earlier Romans 3:10-18. This is how humans are by nature, by flesh. We can't have a 'better us' unless we tear down everything of the flesh and build on the one true foundation, Jesus Christ. But the tearing down must happen first, like it is written about in the beginning of Jeremiah.
You mentioned that passage in John about claiming not to have sin. Jesus is the only hope for this because we ALL have sinned and were separated from the Father, but this doesn't say that we can't be perfect from a point in time till the end or that Jesus wouldn't have to die for those people that came to a perfect discipleship.
Harold Cont...
Regarding the SFs
Jesus was not God while on earth. Daniel Strubahr did not contradict what I've said--read his post Sept 23 of '06. Jesus WAS in the form of God, but humbled Himself, made Himself with no reputation, and took the form of a bondservant while on earth. Correct me if I missed it, but Crystal (who is not in SFs currently) never made any statements regarding Jesus being God on earth. Shadowfax (a member of the Brethren, not SFs) made this post on Oct 1 '08:
Jesus endured every temptation that can ever come to any man, and He faced temptation as we have to face it. He was tempted IN EVERY POINT, AS WE ARE. This is the plain and unmistakable teaching of Hebrews 4: 15. And this is our encouragement. Jesus exercised no power that is not offered us by God
today. He met and overcame temptation, as a man, in the strength given Him by His Father through the Holy Spirit...And if Jesus lived that perfect life, without the weakness of our flesh or with power unavailable to us, then His life is no example to us and no encouragement to us ...
5. Excerpt from Page 20 of the book:
In all those situations (of temptations), He denied Himself and mortified the desires of the flesh that tempted Him to sin. Thus He consistently "suffered in the flesh".
6. Excerpt from Page 27:
We have seen that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. Some of our strongest temptations are those which come to attack our thought-life. So too it must have been with Jesus.
Shadowfax is not contradicting what I've said either, but rather supports (through agreeing with the book he is quoting) what I've said about Jesus. He later posted this:
2. I do not think that even by "paraphrase" it is established that SF believes that Jesus was NOT GOD. What SF emphasises is that even if He was/is God, He did not overcome temptation as God but as a human being who faced every temptation any human being can/will face and overcame by the Holy Spirit which same privilege is given to all who believe on His name. For, SF therefore, proper worship would be that which is described in Romans 12:1-2.
This makes no contradiction either.
Elf_asura on the other hand was a loose cannon that no one here could really predict or stomach. I don't know if he is an SF or not. He did say he believed that Jesus was God on earth... Not sure what to say about the person that Keith rightly banned from this discussion.
Regarding the ministry of churches
I did not suggest that the family of the young lady and the young lady should go through counseling. I did say that churches should be places that lead their members to the Head rather than mediate family disputes and estrangments.
Regarding the Melnyk story
I would like to read it if it is in a readable format. If that is impossible, then say so and I'll drop it. You have mentioned his story here without providing any facts about it.
RssnSpy6 : "How do I know?" First hand accounts from students and families.
Since you claim to have a personal relationship with the girl, it should be obvious to you what the real story/motive was/is re: her indoctrination.
Your explanation(s) of Jesus' deity reveals a predisposed bias (filtered through SF "teachings")...and a very poor exegesis of Scripture. It is apparent that you "have already made up [your] mind," so any further discussion on that topic would be fruitless.
test
Rssnspy6
I am not catholic. I was refering
to a virgin birth only. I know
diddle about catholic theology, and
care even less. Mary was just like
or me. I am curious however, on
your take re Jesus not having a hu-
man father, that would make him half human, ahh never mind, this is
pointless. Just because we dont
believe what you do doesnt mean we
are into greasy grace. How many
Mainstreamers do you know anyway.
If memory serves me correctly, friends who knew mainstreamers well
understood that the thinking about
mainstreamers was incorrect, and
SF attitudes were very judgemental.
I am a former SFer and have tons of
experience with the mainstream.
Ya know what else,?? there in people who are in SF who arent
interested in being finished with
sin, they just know the retoric.
I feel sorry for you.
RussianSpy
Point One:
Don't you see that this blog is set up with a bias towards the SF and no amount of cordiality or discussion can change the viewpoints of Keith, Harold, Jarsmom, Sophie, etc. This blog is not about reconciliation through dialogue but about people who are diametrically opposed to one another.
Being a member of the Brethren and one who has long followed this useless debate between those who emphasize Christ's deity at the cost of His humanity and those who emphasize his humanity at the cost of His deity, I can only say that what is being demonstrated on this site are "irreconciliable differences" between two types of Christians/ideologies.
The process renders ineffective Christ's hope 'that they might all be one'.
In this sense,this blog is a blot and disgrace upon the name of Jesus Christ and his would-be disciples. It should be renamed the Blog for Bickerers.
John:
1) This blog is NOT all about SF. This POST is only one of 370 that focuses on SF, a group that was virtually unheard of in our town (so much for being salt and light) until this particular situation became known. The original intent of this blog was and continues to be my thoughts, daily journaling, etc. My main focus here is NOT SF and it never has been. As you can see from the date stamps, this conversation has been going on for some time--nearly three years. I have posted about lots of other topics during this time.
2) I never had any intention of "changing my viewpoint." I've done way more than enough digging to form an opinion about the situation here. There's never been a single argument posed by you or any other SF member that caused me to pause and reconsider my conclusion. I won't speak for the others.
3) Your reference to Christ's "High Priestly Prayer" in John 17 assumes we (SF and non-SF) are all on the same team. I haven't seen that locally or in the posts from SF members from locations around the globe.
4) In my book, an individual that misuses their position to indoctrinate young people and turn them against their family is a "blot and disgrace upon the name of Jesus Christ."
You know...you're absolutely right. This conversation is going nowhere. So why do the SF posters keep coming back? Do the SF posters really think they will win people over to their way of thinking?
BTW, the previous post marked as "deleted by the author" was one of my own...just so no one can cry FOUL--that I'm deleting posts from opposing views. Keep posting if you want; it's your dime.
There seems to be some problem posting longer items. So I am breaking this one up:
ONE
It is clear that the views of Keith et al are at variance with that of SF apologists like RssnSpy. However much RssnSpy seeks to justify SF, as Harold noted, there are behavioural patterns in SF that are quite unlike those of the Man Christ Jesus.
There is a hatred towards sinners and those who do not toe the line of the group. Those in the group are encouraged to isolate themselves from 'sinners' and see themselves as superior to sinners. This attitude is imposed in all the churches stringently and anyone who questions is sidelined and ostracised. A lot of young people who have questioned things have experienced this isolation within this so called church; so too have grown-ups. It is traumatic when one is treated like that.
TWO (CONTD)
The girl in question has been dragged into the same mindset and sees her family as 'sinners' and probably even as 'devils'. Hence she keeps her distance. If she were to rejoin them, the SF would begin to ostracize her too.
This attitude of the SF is the greatest hindrance to the spread of their 'gospel' but they do not care because they believe that one 'brainwashed' (gripped) member is better than a 1000 'believers'.
Look at the language of some of the rules that Brunstad and the churches practice worldwide. The reason ostensibly is "security" or 'safety" or so that 'all can have it good". But it is really about "exclusion" - exclusion of those who do not fit the behaviour patterns demanded by this group.
RULES:
It is very important that young people showing negative conduct in their local church are not allowed to come to Brunstad and continue their activity there. This must be more vigorously adhered to.
Anybody who clearly works against the basis or work of the church, or who verbally or in writing expresses that they have left the church is no longer regarded as being part of the church. The eldership for Brunstad Conference Center may pass a resolution that a person who by his/her conduct or doctrine is regarded as unsuitable to participate in the church is denied access to Brunstad Conference Center and the events taking place there.
If anybody is denied access to the conference centre, this will be done in cooperation between the Board for Brunstad Conference Center and the responsible brother of the local church. Such resolutions may be dissolved by the responsible brother attesting to the fact that the conduct of the person in question has changed in a positive way. The Board of Brunstad Conference Center will have the final say in such cases.
Conclusion: It is clear that this is a group with set behaviour patterns for its members and that believes in the use of ostracism, exclusion, isolation and shunning of those who do not conform or who question aspects of the organisation's work or dissent in any way. It is a subtly operational totalitarian system.
Like it or lump it, is the watchword. Combined with, as an SF member put it once, "the sinner has no right to stand in the congregation of the righteous".
These people believe they are more righteous than others on the earth and have the right to exclude sinners and they collectively decide who is a sinner and who is not one, who is an "opposer" of the church and who an "ally".
People who join this group have to give up their identity and self-will and surrender/submit to 'church discipline'.
Also, the SF works tirelessly not to have adverse criticism in the media. There is the example of Johan Velten who wrote Ansatt av Gud" (Employed by God), a strong critique of SF and he was it seems threatened with 'death' and 'legal' prosecution for voicing his opinion.
There are Brethren theologians who are aware of this group's activities and have been researching this group for years with whom materials from SF texts are also available on the doctrines and teachings of this group.
Which is why I wrote in the first place that the central discussion about Christ and his humanity/deity is invalid in this context because this group does not believe in his Deity on earth, one of the key charges brought by Zac Poonen.
It is a dangerous group to be involved with spiritually unless one wishes to 'lose one's self' literally and wants a scenario where one blindly adheres to everything the group mind believes in and practices.
1
Rssnspy6: “While it is true that there are others that have posted/are posting here with a longer history with the young lady than I, it is also true that I am the only one that has known her first hand since this incident took place 3 years ago. I haven't spoken about her family, just her.”
Hmmmmmm…..wonder why nobody else but this group knows her first hand in the last 3 years?
“It is not right to meddle in other people's affairs.”
That is an interesting comment coming from someone who is defending the actions of a public school teacher who has ‘meddled’ in the activities of another family by moving their daughter into his home thus splitting up their relationship.
Did this girl’s parents tell her she couldn’t go to this man’s church? According to Harold (April 28, 2008), the girl’s parents never told her she couldn’t go to this SF church. Meddling? Or concerned and questioning parents, family members, friends, and citizens of the community? Because he is a tax-paid government PUBLIC school teacher, people not only have the right, but also the responsibility to ‘meddle’.
It can be hard for parents to send their kids off to college to live in dormitories or elsewhere, because of many unknowns, after all we do live in a fallen world where all kinds of evils exist. There have been young people kidnapped, molested, raped, killed, etc. off of college campuses. Remember Ted Bundy? For parents to be concerned about a child’s (no matter their age-after all we don’t stop loving them just because they turn a magic number) whereabouts and their safety is not domineering, meddling, overprotective, or controlling. That is called ‘love’. This girl’s parents apparently trusted and respected their daughter, her decision making, her goals and dreams, and her relationships during her formative years growing up in their home and care. They obviously trusted her enough to allow her to live in a dorm with the freedoms of not being constantly under their watch.
“When my children are old enough to understand, and are responsible before God for the decisions they make, then I will have to allow them to make their own decisions.”
Who said the girl wasn’t allowed to make her own decisions? That is part of the problem. Due to the fact that her parents DID allow her the freedom to attend this SF church (where this man and his family violated their trust), is the reason their family has been split apart. Just because she attended his church doesn’t mean she had to live with him and spend all of her time with him and his family.
“John 10:30: Jesus answered, “I and the Father are One.”
--Yes, they are 'one.' Not one and the same, just 'one.' Which means of one mind, of the same spirit, having the same goals/ideals... Not the same entity. Even the Christian apologists say that there is one eternally existing essence which exists in the divine relation of three persons. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I think that proves that, do you disagree”
The Bible is very clear. Yes, Jesus says, “I and the Father are One.” He didn’t say ‘one and the same’ – nor did I say they were the ‘same entity’. And, yes, I am aware of and believe in the Holy Trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Jesus is God manifest-(John 1:1-2, 14).God in human form walking and talking on the earth - the One ‘yet without sin’ (Heb 4:15) the One Who descended down from heaven (Eph 4:7-10) the One who healed the lame, blind, and deaf, the One who had the power to bring Lazarus back to life.
“Which means of one mind, of the same spirit, having the same goals/ideals...”
That is not scriptural-that is only your interpretation of what ‘One’ means.
I quoted John14:6 which reads: “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you really knew Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him.”
Your post said: John 14:6 says: “I am 'in' the Father, not, 'I am the Father.' The Father lives in Jesus through the Holy Spirit.”
What translation are you using, because your reference to this passage is different than mine?
“Matthew 1:20-23 'God with us' does not mean Jesus was 'God while on earth.'”
Again this is YOUR interpretation.
Titus 2:13 says: “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,”
You wrote, “This passage seems clear that God and Jesus are separate. Otherwise it would say, "the glorious appearing of our great God AS Jesus Christ, our Savior... No, Jesus showed people the mind of God through His life while on earth.”
I think you should retake English grammar.
“Jesus is the only hope for this because we ALL have sinned and were separated from the Father, but this doesn't say that we can't be perfect from a point in time till the end or that Jesus wouldn't have to die for those people that came to a perfect discipleship.”
Romans 5:6-8 says, “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
You stated: “I did not imply anything regarding the young lady's parents. I do know that she left her former faith for what the SFs teach/preach/live because it was better for her.”
So, why can’t she leave her former faith but still have a meaningful relationship with her family and former friends who love her? Why did she have to move in with this man? What did that have to do with ‘church/God/sanctification/Jesus’? Like it or not, that is one of the ear markings that has caused this group to look so ‘cultish’.
“Aided and Abetted...to do something hurtful to all those involved? I think that is a far stretch.”
You don’t think she moved into their house without their help, knowledge, or consent, do you? They had to know there was another person living in their home.
And, surely this has been hurtful to her whole family. If this very intelligent girl who suddenly abandoned her OWN identity, goals, dreams, family, and other important relationships in order to become part of this SF group and take on a ‘group think’ submitting to ‘church discipline’ then, it HAS been hurtful to her.
You asked Harold, “Do you still think that I am being judgemental?”
And, you said to me, "I am not convinced that you are that serious about not sinning... It sounds like you just fall back on grace when times get a little hard and you don't want to live like Jesus lived, "Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me.”
“I said this with someone like 'Pastor' Joel Osment (sp?) in mind. The megachurch guy on TV. He has a book out titled (something like) 7 ways to a better you... I think that is foolishness.”
Aren’t those statements being judgmental?
And, concerning judgment…shouldn’t we primarily be concerned with our own relationship with Christ/salvation/sanctification/walk with Christ/victory over our own sin and not be focusing on what all the ‘other harlots’ or ‘other brothers’ or ‘other Christians’ are doing or aren’t doing? Shouldn’t that be between them and God/Jesus/Holy Spirit?
I’d like to state that it was I who used the alcohol analogy; however it was not the ‘same’ analogy as you suggest.
I also have several points about Jarsmom’s comment:
a) I believe she understands sanctification very well actually…if you’re DEAD to sin, you should never be tempted by it again. She also has been a SF so she obviously understands their teachings and rhetoric well.
b) It took Jesus 33 years to become perfect?? Really? What about the scripture that says, “He was tempted in all points as we are, yet WITHOUT sin?” You can’t have it both ways.
Sophie,
Thank you for your comments. I also wanted to comment on the sanc
tification piece, I understand it
very well, I think our young friend
is confusing sanctification and wis
dom. If you have died to the
body of sin, then there is nothing
to be tempted right?? That being
said it doesnt make it wisdom to
hang out with x smokers if you have
gotten victory over cigs.
That being said, I am curious if
she has any experience with main
streamers, she may well come to
find out there are many of fighting
the good fignt.
My other concern is this, I think
I may know who this young girl is,
based on her pseudonym. The girl
I remember was very sweet and won
derful and I cant imagiane her
being so emboldened as to suggest
that someone dosent care if they
sin or not. So, Sveetie oops sweetie I hope you are able to hear
what we are saying. I remember
being at hospital during orientat-
ion and listening to a speech by
a very liberal nun. A lady that
was in SF with me was telling the
leading bro how awful she was,(the nun, she had attened the same orientation) he
said to her " CANT YOU HEAR THE AR-
ROGANCE IN THAT" SF can be a
very excellent medium for self rightous attitudes, I found myself
doing it too. "See I wear dresses"
I would like to also address the
very misogynistic attitudes of SF
leadership. ( I had to look it up
too) WE are all familir with the
scripture I donot premit a woman to
have authority over a man. That
word authority in hewbrew can also
mean to put a curse on. In that
time and culture it was very com-
mon for women to become enraged
with their husbands and hire people
to place hexes on them. Intrester-
ing huh, ohhhhh darn, there goes
some hebrew scholar explaining
away the gospel. I call it another
inconvienent truth to keep the fe-
male part of the congregation in
check. Ok well I am going to shut
up now.
Rssyn spy
I understand, much better than you
think I do. I never did buy Jesus
wasnt God while on the Earth. I still believe much of what I learn-
ed while in SF. But I have come to
learn they are not as alone as they
think they are. You do not need to
correct me. I left because of the
leading bro and how he was gloating
over his inappropriate behavior
with his son. I was going to travel
to another fellowship so I wouldn't
have to leave, that would have ment
a flight every so often cause they
were hundreds of miles away, but it
would have been worth it. In the
end here I sit, blogging away about
SF and why I left so many years ago
it would be too lengthy to explain
why I didnt just fly out to the other fellowship once a monbth or so, but sufice it to say I really
feel God directed me away. People
who arent interested in persuing God dont get on a plane once a month to go to church.
John:
Your input was very interesting. I respect your opinion but in my book the fundamental dialog here is not about the deity of Christ. It is about a group who claims to be righteous yet their behavior is anything but. So it is easy to get sidetracked into seemingly useless debates about theology but sometimes it is useful to illustrate their own inconsistencies.
Anyway, your description of this group and the rules line up very well with the observed behaviors here and what I have been able to learn about the group. I find it interesting as well that you used the phrase “totalitarian system”. That is exactly the idea expressed in Dr. Lifton’s book on coercive groups. In fact the title of the book is “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism”. Any coercive relationship like this, be it a one-on-one system in the case of the battered wife, or a large group like the Moonies, is all about the total control of their members. I think you understand the SF psychology very well.
On another subject, John, you describe yourself as one of the Brethren but you are obviously not a SF insider or you wouldn’t be so critical of the group. I am familiar with the Brethren churches which I think is an association of independent churches. These seem to be a truly independent group. Unlike the SF who claim to NOT to be an organized denomination when in reality they are.
I guess that’s my whole point, they are like the Pharisees who claim to be so righteous yet Jesus rebuked them. The SF are so eager to point out the speck in my eye and yet they refuse to see the plank in their own eye.
It really matters not to me if SF believes that Jesus was God on earth or not. They are entitled to their interpretation of scripture. But when this local group CLAIMS to be Christian and their behavior is totally anti-Christian, and they intentionally work to destroy family relationships in our community, then I feel they need to be exposed for what they are so thatother families can protect themselves and their children. Families in this community also need to understand that the Owasso public school and even some churches are not safe.
RssnSpy6:
Are you judgmental? I think I agree with Sophie. At least you’re not as belligerent as elf_assura was. I’m still trying to figure out who this Joel Osment guy is. I don’t watch TV evangelists so I’m lost on that one. I have heard of Joel Osteen though.
I know you are hung up on this idea of reaching perfection. I hope you get there. I have asked this question before but I’ll ask again; how many people in SF have achieved perfection? And how do you know when you get there? What measure do you have to make this claim?
Is it possible for someone not in Smith’s Friends to achieve perfection?
On the subject of Jesus being God on earth, those are your interpretations of scripture. I profess a different interpretation which I think is defendable. But as I said to John, this is not the central issue for me and it is obvious that there is not a consistent opinion even within SF.
I thought the idea of counseling would be rejected. Your group seems to have no interest at all in the suffering they have caused to others. That alone speaks volumes.
I don't think it is possible at all to ever become perfect in a smith's friends church. Jesus when he says in the bible "you never knew me, depart from me" jesus was all about loving people I find, having lot's of compassion for the poor, the lame, etc. Smith's friends I found them in the 10+ years I was with them to be much about hate. I don't see them as a people loving people's outside themselves at all?????
I find very much so jesus was about caring about people. If you lay down your life for a friend or family member or stranger some today and do some sort of good or another - that's the way jesus went! It was more then doing the good, I believe jesus really cared for people. To know jesus is to know he loved people in my opinion. He loved even his enemies and prayed for them!
JEsus wasn't about judging people, jesus wasn't about excluding any people's cause they didn't act right or dress right etc. JEsus was about loving people! --------- I've gotten to know jesus much better since leaving the smith's friends and my love for jesus has grown much since leaving the smith's friends.
I'm not good at following jesus but am eager to keep trying : )
At one time, the question was raised concerning the passage of James 1:13 which reads, “When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.”
Although Rssnspy added his own interpretation (the part in parenthesis), I thought he answered it pretty well when he said: “John 10:30: Jesus answered, “I and the Father are One.”--Yes, they are 'one.' Not one and the same, just 'one.' (Which means of one mind, of the same spirit, having the same goals/ideals...) Not the same entity. Even the Christian apologists say that there is one eternally existing essence which exists in the divine relation of three persons. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.”
The Trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit does give explanation to this question. God (as the Father-omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient) cannot be tempted, but because Jesus (who is in the flesh-form of a human-God manifest) He (Jesus) CAN be tempted. It doesn’t mean He sinned (gave in to the temptation) only that He was tempted by satan. He did overcome every sin by the fact that He never gave in to any of them.
Jarsmom: You said: “I also wanted to comment on the sanctification piece, I understand it very well, I think our young friend is confusing sanctification and wisdom. If you have died to the body of sin, then there is nothing to be tempted right?? That being said it doesnt make it wisdom to hang out with x smokers if you have gotten victory over cigs.”
Although I partially agree with you concerning your comment on wisdom, I’d like to add some thoughts. If you have ‘gotten victory over cigs’, and you now ONLY hang out with people who don’t smoke, how will you be an encouragement, an example, a witness to help any of your old acquaintances/friends/relatives who may still smoke. Because you know smoking is harmful to one’s health and that YOU were able to ‘kick the habit’, and you have friends who also need and desire to quit, how would it be helpful to your friends/acquaintances if you suddenly turned your back on them with an elitist attitude of being better than them because you were able to quit? If you knew for a fact that one is capable of quitting smoking, wouldn’t it be best to be a witness and an encouragement to your loved ones so they too could overcome smoking?
Matt 5:13-16 teaches us about being Salt and Light. The stories of Zachaeus and the woman at the well are also a couple of examples illustrating how Jesus loved even the sinners. If we are to call ourselves disciples of Jesus and want to become more Christ-like, then shouldn’t we too try to lead others to Christ? So, with the analogy of cigarettes, it isn’t the people who have already overcome cigarette smoking that need help overcoming cig smoking, but the ones who still smoke. If we’re never around those who smoke, how will we help them?
Matt 9:12, “On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But, go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Because there has been some discussion on here concerning perfection, I decided to do a little more research on the word ‘perfect’. Here’s what I found.
Since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the definition of the Greek word translated as ‘perfect’ in the NIV is “wanting nothing necessary to completeness”. The NASB translation uses the word “complete” in Matt 19:21.
Matt 19:21, “Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect (complete), go sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”
In Matt 5:43-48 Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and send rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect (complete), therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (complete).”
So, can someone become ‘perfect’ here on this earth?
Luke 6:27-36 says it this way, “But I tell you who hear Me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
Let’s compare an infant (a baby) to an infant (a baby) Christian. As a baby grows, he/she will go through stages and changes as he/she matures. He/She wasn’t born in his/her ‘completed’ stage. God equipped us with what we need in order to learn to walk, talk, and think for ourselves. An infant has to go through stages, phases, learning processes, maturing. It is the same with a Christian, someone who has made a choice to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, place their trust and faith in, and follow Him. As this follower, disciple of Christ continues to mature, he/she will undoubtedly make mistakes, stumble, fall, sin, as an infant is learning to walk will stumble and fall many times before ‘perfecting-maturing-becoming complete’ their ability to walk. Even after his/her ability to walk has matured, he/she may occasionally trip over an obstacle or fall. The parents are there to pick the child up and brush it off when it falls. The parents don’t say, “Well, you must not really be our child because you made a mistake and fell after you began walking.” The child may even be left with scars from the fall, but that doesn’t mean he/she hasn’t learned to walk. I believe this is a good analogy for a Christian. Just because a person has made the decision to become a Christian, disciple or follower of Christ, doesn’t mean they are all of a sudden going to be ‘mature, perfect, or complete’ in Christ. And, when we do ‘fall-sin’, Christ (like our parents, when learning to walk) is right there to pick us up and brush us off and be there when we fall the next time. It is a growth process.
In her last post, Giving it to God made a great statement, “I'm not good at following Jesus but am eager to keep trying : )” It illustrates this point well. It is God alone who knows the hearts and minds of all mankind.
Revelation 2:23, “Then all the churches will know that I am He who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”
Luke 16:14-15 says, “The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, ‘You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight’.”
Rssnspy said: “This whole thread started when Keith wrote about the cultic way that this young lady was 'poached.' I'm wondering if part of the problem here is the proselytizing that went on, christian on christian. WHAT IF... the young lady was a muslim that was converted to christianity because of this teacher? Would we all rejoice, or would we still raise such a fuss?”
If the ‘proselytizing’ resulted in a young person of any gender turning against and becoming “estranged” from his/her family no matter what they called themselves, then the answer is a resounding YES!!
“I did not suggest that the family of the young lady and the young lady should go through counseling. I did say that churches should be places that lead their members to the Head rather than mediate family disputes and estrangments.”
Nor should a ‘church’ CAUSE ‘family disputes and estrangements’.
John: Thank you for your post as well.
Hi
I would like to post my comments in this blog but it looks as though there has been no activity for half a year. Is this still active?
Sorry for that post. I could not access the last six months post. Can access it now. Will read that and get back.
Hi
I skimmed through the last six months posts and am back. I could not read them in great detail as I took about three hours to read through the initial posts and I just concentrated on some posts that seemed interesting.
I see that there has been a lot of debate about the identity of the posters primarily as to which side they are on so I will quickly state my position.
I belong the the SF. I would not like to be too specific as to where I belong. I read a lot of what is written here with pain. I can easily gloss over the false accusations. What is more difficult is to face things that I have also seen in the SF that I know to be true.
I am always eager to see what others think of the SF. I have searched for material on numerous occasions and had a reasonable idea of what was on the net. I do not know how this blog escaped my google search :-). I found it today and spent hours reading through it. I was amazed at the amount of effort and time that so many of you have put into this blog. I would also like to do my part.
Often there have been accusations that SF insiders do not respond. So here am I. My opinion is not the official SF one, there being no one to suggest I type and no one to tell me to stop.
I also would like to convey my appreciation to Keith for keeping this blog open and giving us a forum for discussing issues.
I do not want to comment on the initial situation of the girl leaving her father's house, breaking away and joining the SF. A lot has been said about that. My intent in coming here has been to clarify things that I can clarify and be involved in a discussion that has been useful to me.
My position again lest I do not make myself clear. I 'belong' to the SF. I follow Christ. If the two come into contradiction I choose Christ. I have been tremendously blessed by the SF. I would like to give something back and the best thing that I think I can do is to stay on and help correct (if God does see me fit to do so) what is wrong.
I cannot promise replies the same day but I am glad to be here.
Hello again. It has been awhile since I posted. I went on a two week vacation and had some time to think about my involvement in this forum. Until John and funnyman showed up no one was bringing up contentious points but me... I wonder if it would be better to stop posting than continue contending... I'll try to respond to the replies I've received without stirring the pot too much.
Keith, you once said that you could see how much activity there was to this particular thread. Is there still a lot of traffic, or is it down to a handful?
To Keith (June 15):
My explanation of Jesus' deity does indeed reveal a predisposed bias... Unless I'm quoting someone else (it would be their bias then) everything I write is biased by me and my life experiences/studies etc.
Thank you for your edifying words regarding my exegesis of scripture. It is not a 'take' (or good discussion habit) to tear down another's work without showing your own foundation or giving good reasons for others to judge/weigh. Furthermore, there would be no discussion if each of us did not bring our own opinions to discuss. This forum is useless if everyone lacked an opinion--what would we talk about?
(June 17);
You made special note of the "deleted by the author" post. I remembered that you deleted posts from Daniel Strubahr... Sept 23, 2006. Two posts. Why would you do that?
To jarsmom (June 15):
Where in the Bible is Jesus described as 'half-human?'
You don't need to get defensive about your beliefs when I don't agree with you. I did not say you were into 'greasy grace.'
I knew and know many 'mainstreamers.' In highschool I went to different christian gatherings including Young Life and public Bible studies/worship services. In University I went to Fellowship of Christian Athletes and other private Bible studies. Your memory, correct me if I'm wrong, is decades old concerning how SFs view other christians.
I agree that there are people that attend SFs meetings that aren't interested in being finished with sin. What of it?
Why do you say, "I feel sorry for you."? What does that mean? I am here to present how I understand and experience SFs in order to provide an opposing viewpoint to the negative, decades old, sometimes spiteful, report of others. I call upon the Lord with a pure heart, and want to serve Jesus as my Lord and Master... Why do you say, "I feel sorry for you."?
To John (June 17):
If you say that SFs exhibits 'hatred towards sinners and those who do not toe the line of the group' you must provide some kind of proof. Statements like those and the ones following it regarding isolation, ostracision, and trauma really need to have a foundation or you are just propagating hear-say.
You posted the Rules section from something regarding the Brunstad Conference Center in Norway. Your conclusion is not founded on any personal experience or reliable place (please correct me if I erred in saying that). You've taken this Rules statement way out of context. These rules are only for SFs conferences at Brunstad. Brunstad is not a 'public' place. Conferences are meant for the edification of the members. If someone is acting as a wolf among the lambs that person is not allowed to attend the conferences. Is that so hard to fathom?
How can you honestly say that SFs believe they are more righteous than others on earth? That is completely opposite Biblical teaching. Where do you get your information?
To Sophie (June 19):
You mentioned a responsibility to 'meddle.' Is that in the Bible? The responsibility of the people you mentioned would be to bring the issue to the proper authorities and let the proper system handle the 'issue'... And pray.
How does Ted Bundy come into a conversation about christianity, prosyletizing, and Jesus' deity?
I know this argument has been floated before, but when you talk about how trusting and respectful the parents were of the girl, why don't they just continue in that same trust and respect after the girl makes a difficult decision? I hate to bring that up yet again... but she is an adult.
Regarding John 14... I use the New King James version.
Your quips following my 'poor exegesis of scripture' (according to Keith) don't argue anything. If you are trying to help me see the 'right way,' your way, then you should defend and back up why you think my interpretation is wrong. Thank you for helping me see how bad my grammar be.
You wrote, "why can't... [she] still have a meaningful relationship with her family..."--She can. Maybe she does now. Whatever she does, it is HER choice. There is nothing 'cultic' about allowing people to make their own choices about who they spend time with and where they attend church.
Regarding being judgemental. Disagreeing with someone else does not make me judgemental. I disagree with Joel Osteen's (thank you Harold) interpretation of the gospel. I tried to challenge you to defend how you live before God... instead of engaging me you told me that what I said was 'my opinion.'
We should be concerned with our relationship with all you mentioned.
Regarding being Dead to sin... The verse reads, "RECKON yourself dead to sin and alive to God"(NKJ). It is true that when you are in fact dead to sin you can't be tempted, but until that sin has been rooted completely out it is still alive regardless of your mindset to reckon yourself dead to it.
33 years... I may have mixed up my words when I said that about Jesus. I meant that it took Jesus 33 years to root out the entire body of sin/the flesh so that in the end He had only a 'divine' nature left. God couldn't stamp His approval of completion on Jesus until He had finished the work, even though Jesus was sinless up until that point.
To jarsmom (June 20):
Sanctification and wisdom are pretty different. I think I can distinguish those two...
How do misogynistic attitudes of SFs leadership have anything to do with your circumstantial evidence regarding angry hebrew women placing hexes on their husbands? If you are trying to say that female members of SFs are 'lower' in the church you are completely wrong. What are you trying to say?
You mentioned that you didn't fly to visit another fellowship, but then said that people that did get on planes were very interested in persuing God. Your reasoning just placed you in the 'disinterested' section of christians...
To Harold (June 24):
What do you mean by Not and organized denomination? SFs has an organizational structure, but are not Anglican, or Baptist etc... What do you mean?
Regarding righteousness... When did an SF claim "to be so righteous?" When were the "specks in your eye" pointed out by a SF?
Regarding perfection... Throwing that word 'perfection' out there without defining what you mean makes it hard to answer your question. SFs does not have a book that logs the names of anyone. That would be foolish. God judges the hearts. I can guarantee that there have been at least a handfull of people that have been perfect disciples from a certain point in their lives until they died. You don't 'get' there... you live for God until you die. There is no need to 'claim' any such standing, it is enough to hold true your relationship with God through Jesus. The quote has been thrown out before, "You will know them by their fruits."
Regarding counseling... When was counseling rejected? And for what was counseling rejected?
To Sophie (July 10):
As John said, we are diametrically opposed regarding Jesus situation on earth. I cannot accept your explanation of how the scripture defends your viewpoint. So we don't continue to belabor the same argument, I am fine ending it by saying I disagree with you.
Regarding your response to jarsmom's 'cig' analogy... It is good to be a good example. You don't have to become an elitist if you choose to stop hanging out with people who continue in destructive behaviors. There are two verses I'd like to share: "Evil company corrupts good morals," and "Do not be unequally yolked with unbelievers." These two verses warn that your own good choices and morals can be compromised by those that you spend time with. For your own sake it is best to save yourself first, and be sure of it, rather than to try to save those around you without being sure of your own salvation first. The smokers could still see that you quit smoking and that it was possible for you... maybe that is the best way to be a good example, from afar??
Answer me this... If you spend time with a person engaged in a destructive behavior, while they are engaging in their destructive behavior, are you enabling them and agreeing with their behavior by being with them? Or, when someone lights up, do you say, "smoking isn't good for you, I quit, you should too." That is just a nag.
You quoted Matthew 9:12--I believe that we should think about ourselves when we read this verse. Not the others. I am the sinner. I am the one that needs Jesus in my life continually. I still have sin in my flesh. I need to become righteous. This verse was meant for the pharisees that pretended to be good but inside were full of dead men's bones.
You wrote a very nice story about a baby and its development. I disagree with you righ in the middle when you were describing how the baby 'undoubtedly makes mistakes, stumbles, falls, sins...' I disagree with this. It comes back to the definition of sin in James 1. You have to agree with the thought or action for it to be sin. A baby does not stumble because it chooses to. It stumbles because it isn't physically able to stand. In that situation, if the baby cried out to its parent to hold it up, the parent would grab it and the baby wouldn't fall. Just like us. If, in our situations and temptations, cry out to God for grace to overcome He will give it to us and we won't sin. We DO stumble sometimes in the form of deeds of the body. Those are unrevealed sin in our flesh. If you want I will dig up the explanation Paul gives in Romans (I think) about this...
Again, we don't need Jesus to 'pick us up' after we've fallen as much as we need Him to keep us from falling... GRACE IN TIME OF NEED. My time of need is before I fall.
The SFs did not 'CAUSE' a family dispute or estrangement.
To funnyman:
Thank you for being forward about where you stand. It is very important that Christ comes before any and everything else in this life.
Hi
I would like to post a comment on Jesus' deity/humanity.
As I understand the SF are believed to hold to the doctrine that Jesus was only a man on this earth. This is viewed as heresy by other groups who believe that that is a denial of his deity.
To begin with I have never heard these things preached in SF meetings. Many of you are former SF members and some of you who are reading still are. I do not recall anyone standing at the pulpit and trying to explain these things.
A lack of such overt preaching has led many to accuse the SF as having a hidden agenda or a hidden doctrine. The SF is thus accused of hiding their true doctrine from newcomers.
That being said there is a strong emphasis on overcoming sin. That is not unique to the SF. There are other groups (which I have attended) who also believe in overcoming sin. However in real life one would hear such a message once in four or five weeks depending on who is giving the message. In other groups the other messages may dwell on God's love for us, faith, peace etc. In the SF however you can almost be sure that every meeting will have the emphasis of living a pure life and overcoming sin.
About 15 years ago I was asked by a young person from the Brethren a question. He asked me " Jesus lived a life without sin. Was it because he could not sin or that he did not sin?" He had been told by someone he knew that Jesus could not sin (I do not know if that is the Brethren view point) He was told that as Jesus was both fully God and fully man and that God cannot be tempted, it therefore followed that Jesus could not be tempted. Having heard so much of overcoming sin I told him that I believed that Jesus could be tempted but that he overcame sin.
I still think about that intersting question. If someone could take my beat up car and win the F1 race beating all the other ferrari's/BMWs etc I definately will look on my beat up car knowing that somethig great can be achieved even with it.
I feel that is the same about my flesh. The fact that our Lord took on a flesh similar to mine and overcame ALL sin leaves me hope that I too can overcome sin.
More in the next post
People then ask "man becoming God... that is heresy.."
What I have heard in the SF (I can only vouch for what I have heard overtly) is that it is not that we become God but that we become more godly or more Christlike. There is such a great difference.
Will we become perfect? No but surely better than I was before. Will I ever become perfect... no. Do I know anyone in the SF who is perfect : NO! Will anyone in the SF ever become absolutely perfect NO!
However an average person (when I say average I mean a regular attender) in the SF is encouraged to cleanse himself. This inculcates an inward vision where one is often trying to 'judge oneself' or as we would say in less religious terms 'introspect'. So dare I say that on an average a person from the SF introspects on his actions more as he is placed in a group that encourages him to introspect.
With such constant introspection comes some avoidable pitfalls which in many cases unfortunately has not been avoided.
Let me list some
1. A person who has overcome his own anger to a degree automatically tends to look down on a person who does not. Thus as a person cleanses himself and masters himself (often with the help of the Lord and sometimes unfortunately without) he tends to look down on the other Christians he knows. They are often from other groups and so the gradual feeling that the SF is better than other groups because the 'doctrine' has led him to a 'better' life. This is pride and nothing else.
2. A constant inward vision and the hope of cleansing oneself leads one to believe that that is the 'true calling' and that all other Christian work is a 'lesser' work (term is my own). Evangelism is thus often unconsciously clubbed with these 'lesser works'. The SF does not preach out against evangelism. I have never heard that (personal observation) However many I have met are 'too busy' introspecting or 'judging themselves' to be doing anything else. I find this strange. It is almost as though someone tinkers with the engine of the car about without putting it to useful use, claiming that having a good running engine is more useful than doing something useful with the car. I believe God is able to help me judge myself and still do a lot more.
3. The lack of such constant unending emphasis in other churches leads one to believe that other churches are lukewarm and the harlot. To be sure it is easier to sit through a sermon on love and peace than it is to sit through a zealous SF meeting on cleansing oneself. The average SF will thus think that this word is given only through the SF and is not present in other churches. He thus feels that the SF is a guardian of a special doctrine. He thus believes that to hear the doctrine one has to attend the SF meetings and hence the the belief that only in the SF are there people who hate sin.
More in the next post
Having said that you may wonder again as to whether I am a part of the SF. I seem to be pulling them down.
Not in the least. I believe that these pitfalls are remediable. If the SF has to grow it has to separate the wheat and the tares and now weed out the tares.
Many have spoken about how the SF was better before. Now it seems to 'in the dumps' so to say. Perhaps some of you who have been in the SF will agree with me that attitudes that have crept earlier and were unchecked have now begun to be manifest and bear fruit.
Unwise zeal has blinded people to break families, dishonor parents and put an end to dissent. It is still remediable.
Another feature of the SF is that it is large enough to be self sustaining. People have rightly pointed out that there are those in the SF who have companies and can be employers. So one can have work in the SF and get one's salary. There is always the Sunday meeting. A large enough group will have a large number of youth. There are youth activities, children's activites and so much more. Dare I say almost a society? (I do not know the exact definition of a society so do not penalize me for that)
But living in such a society gives one a sense of acceptance and belonging which is what a human heart really longs for. People who find that in the SF are really satisfied.
So back to your first question Keith. Are they a cult. I would say no. The amount of activity going on within them in large fellowships is enough to alienate a person from his family automatically. There are time that to visit one's family one will have to pull out of feasts, programs etc.
But again that is not unique to the SF. I have seen other groups also demand a similar commitment from the youth in terms of time.
But the SF could definitely help by encouraging its members to actively visit their relatives and love them and honor them be they in the friends, out of the friends, atheists, Muslims etc.
Sorry to end my post like this so abruptly . Run out of time. Will be happy to reply to any queries. Will write more later.
I am getting confused. Will the real SF ers please stand up. It
seems like russyn spy is saying
one thing and funny man another.
From my experience, women do occu
py a lower rung on the SF ladder,
although I know they thing going
lower is a good thing. We are to
humble ourselves, not the brothers.
I dont know where you fellowship
but your experience seems to be
vastly different than mine. The
leading bro is a very arrogant guy.
To me there was never question
where a sister's place was. Good
for childbearing. The single sisters, money and time. That was
it. I am telling you my experience
This was SF for me. I realize that
there was contention between my
fellowship and others, mostly I think because of the leading bro.
The reson I mentioned the hexes
is because I know this a passage
some brothers love to use to just
ify their denegration of women.
Some SFers would not ever look up
a word in the orignal language for
fear of explaining away the gospel,
hi again
RE : Jarsmom's July 30 post
Could you clarify what you mean by real SFers and what you had in mind when you said that RssnSpy and Funnyman are saying different things? As I mentioned earlier I have not read posts 600 onwards in detail. I hope to do so as soon as I can.
A small request. If one is mentioning previous posts could you mention the date of the letter. It makes it easier for those who are reading to look them up.
Your comment on the local church leader being arrogant is interesting. The SF had very little control over individual churches. I know earlier there was a certain pride in this 'lack of organization' and a lack of 'membership lists'. This could explain local churches having strange flavors.
With its growth and increasingly large amount of money being collected comes the obvious need for organization. Whether this can cure arrogant local leaders is another question altogether. Finally no amount of organization can be a cure for a person who has lost his personal connection with the Head - the Lord Jesus Christ.
I have a good time in my local fellowship having built bonds with them for over 15 years. The bonds we have built have been independent of doctrine. I have never tried to find out if they believed the same things as I did. Neither did they ask me to prove my loyalty to any doctrine.
Let me add that I fully agree that I would like to see audited accounts of the money collected from different churches and how it is spent. I do not claim that it is being misused, but if there were audited accounts it would clear the air about the finances.
Now I understand from previous posts (cannot pinpoint them easily) that others in some churches have been put through hardship because of the pressure to contribute to Brunstad. I have not seen that in my local fellowship, though I am not saying this does not exist. I believe all offerings to God are have to be freewill offerings. Pressure directly or indirectly on a person has to be discouraged and really condemned.(Just like how we are encouraged to condemn sin in the flesh. Goodness this is real sin out of the flesh and hanging out there for everyone to see!!)
The SF never used to speak about tithing (my experience). I have even heard people claim that in the 'other' churches the emphasis was on money. It now seems that the SF is going the same way if these reports are true. If there are any SF members silently watching this blog my appeal to them is that if God is really doing something in Brunstad He will provide for it. No one must be put to hardship in monetary matters for building up the conference centre.
Now to Jarsmom's points on women.
Reality in the SF : Women do not start the meetings and do not have much of a role in the usual meetings. That must be your experience too. The verse about not permitting a woman to preach and not having authority over a man is taken literally here. If there is another meaning to it and if the SF is missing the meaning there is very little chance of any change happening as someone rightly said there is hardly anyone in the SF who could claim to be a Bible Scholar. In fact that would be looked down upon.
Having said that there are other major churches too which hold on to the same view and would not permit women to start meetings etc. However in the SF women are permitted to testify which I feel is a moderate stand between the extremes of both sides, one where we have women pastors and one where women cannot speak at all.
If I dare claim to understand your experience I would suppose that it is more one of exploitation by someone not mature enough to be an elder. Those who could be exploited and had no say were used. I would not be surprised if a woman would be convinced to bear more children than she would wish for or spend more time and money than she would wish for, so that she could be accepted by the larger group. The need for acceptance and belonging is tremendous in the human heart.
ACTIVE - 1
It's good to see this blog active again after a long while.
I would like to begin with one of Funnyman's comments:
"I 'belong' to the SF. I follow Christ. If the two come into contradiction I choose Christ."
If everyone in the SF had this sensibility, they would be safe.
But there are too many who are utterly sold out to the SF and not to Christ Jesus. That is not their fault. It has been drummed into their minds (especially that of the children and youth) through a sustained oral tradition and the teaching in writings, messages and general consensus, that belonging to the SF is equivalent to belonging to the Body of Christ and vice versa.
Without doubt, the teaching in the SF is that only its members belong to the Body of Christ on earth and the SF leadership is adept at giving ambiguous views when queried on this matter. There is not a single SF leader who will go ON RECORD PUBLICLY that there are other "members" of the Body of Christ on earth who are "not along with us". The general tack is that "if such people are there, they will come and join us".
(more)
ACTIVE - 2
Funnyman said: "About 15 years ago I was asked by a young person from the Brethren a question. He asked me "Jesus lived a life without sin. Was it because he could not sin or that he did not sin?" He had been told by someone he knew that Jesus could not sin (I do not know if that is the Brethren view point.)"
Yes, this is the Brethren point of view and it ties in with the Christological issue of whether or not Christ was "impeccable" or "peccable". Some believe Christ could have sinned (peccability) and others believe that Christ could not have sinned (impeccability). The SF believes in and preaches that Christ could have sinned and there have been those among the SF who have taught that Christ could even have sinned "unconsciously".
Sigurd Bratlie mentions in a text that there was a period in Christ's life when he did not know how to differentiate between good and evil "consciously".
There is enough textual evidence in the writings of SF leaders that boldly assert that Christ was "peccable" and which even flirts with the notion that He might have "sinned unconsciously".
This is why it is important for someone to do a thorough study of the SF's literature and its exegesis. Then people can understand the implications of the SF's theological and Christological stances about the nature of the Christ.
For the SF, this sort of study is something they must be avoided at any cost as it would demonstrate some of the theological confusions that exist within this group.
The SF itself brushes away many theological challenges by stating in different ways that:
1. "Theological studies are a waste of time and the work of the harlot"
2. "We are not theologians" (read: since we are not theologians, do not blame us for doctrinal errors or heresies among us!!!!)
3. "It is not necessary to go back to Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek to understand the Scriptures, just obey what you read, preferably through the interpretations of the church leadership in Norway.!!"
4. "What we have is divine revelation given to J O Smith by God, he is the Paul of our age, and this revelation cannot be studied, critiqued or questioned but it must only be followed."
5. "Theology means nothing. Look at our pure lives. That is all that one needs."
(MORE)
ACTIVE - 3
Finally, this blog is worth preserving and I hope Keith is taking back-ups (just in case!).
As of today, there is no other space where the belief systems and practices of the SF are under scrutiny.
There is very little open material in the "world" on the SF other than those materials created and disseminated by the SF itself. So those who get hammered within the SF system have trouble making other humans understand what they might have gone through. The world has no reference points other than what is carefully monitored and doctored and sent out into the world by the SF. The ambiguity and lack of open information of the inside workings of SF protects this group no end.
More recently, the SF and Zac Poonen, who shook the SF by making charges of it being a cult and being deep in doctrinal error and had to face criminal charges for the same, have shaken hands with one another.
This means the SF has absolutely no critics out there in the world who can do a deep enough study of their doctrines, business activities or behaviour systems. And no critic within the SF will dare criticise the system as it will mean isolation and one cannot easily survive the isolation or ostracism that comes his way if he chooses to question the system. In other words, here is a construct for an entirely closed system.
I do not grudge those who are part of this SF system their happiness - they have worked hard to get there and they work hard to remain within it. I only wonder what they will do if the bubble bursts one day and they are left out in the cold. The SF is a group that believes that those who leave it have been ejected from the Body of Christ because of "sin". So those who leave or who are ejected, end up with terrible feelings of helplessness, guilt, fear, etc.
Hopefully, when people reach that point, they will turn again to the Lord Jesus Christ and put behind their faith in the SF system and be filled with the joy that comes from Christ alone. May God make this possible for such souls.
(END)
Hi again
John your comments are interesting and predominantly right. I will comment on the specifics later
I agree with you fully that this blog is a place where the discussion of the SF is going on openly and currently. It is so good to see a discussion alive although I am three years late! Yes Keith please do continue to keep this forum open.
Another question. Earlier there was mentioned a google group. Can someone point me to it if it is still active. I could cut and paste my postings there :-)
Funnyman - The google group is not half as intelligent as this blog.
http://groups.google.com/group/smiths-venner/topics?start=0&sa=N
On this blog, the only slip up I have noticed is Keith's "punishment" of elfasura. But of course the blog belongs to Keith so he is free to flog or delete anyone he does not like! :-)
For John
I am not a bible Scholar and have no knowledge of Greek Latin or Hebrew. The best I can do is perhaps download or seek out some commentary. ( I fall into the category of the spiritually unstudied average SFer :-) )
But I have a question that you or anyone could answer. You mentioned the implication of saying Jesus was peccable.
Yes I am reasonable sure that is the SF stand on it and if one carefully reads their literture there will be evidence to the same. That is what I believe too now.
So my question : What is the implication of saying that Jesus was peccable but yet fully overcame ALL sin. How does that in any way dishonor Him or make the salvation He wrought on the cross any less meaningful?
What is the implication of saying that Jesus was impeccable and COULD NOT sin. Why is this more acceptable to mainstream churches
Would you call the first heresy?
Could you also provide references. They will be useful to me and may be useful to SFers in watching this blog too.
I would also like to mention something more. Earlier there have been people who have accused this blog of being biased against the SF and refusing to yield whatever the argument. I understand that many have had a raw deal in the SF. The reason I have jumped in is to see what can be salvaged in the SF. I mean... has the SF gone so far that now it has to be pulled down completely, called a cult and opposed as a group that damages and preaches a heresy? Or are there people out there who believe that things need to and can change.
A lot of the posts have realities of the SF that cannot be denied and I do not deny them. (personal view but I hope will one day be the official view). But I do not think that we can classify them as a cult. One can easily break family bonds, wreck lives and give a feeling of hopelessness without being a cult.
Although I haven't personally posted on this thread in a while, rest assured the blog itself will remain open. This post and comments are merely a portion of my personal blog. As always, any and all comment are welcome...unless...
John--if you have read through the thread, you will see that Elf was NOT "punished flog[ged] or delete[d]" becase I do not like him. Elf came to this blog with dishonest motives and comments. He was confronted and banned. You should be glad--people like him give their group/church/etc a bad name.
Funnyman and John--welcome to the discussion.
Funnyman: Since you "belong" to the SF, I must warn you that entering into the space of understanding the consequences of the impeccability of our Lord Jesus Christ may put you in grave danger of being cast out of the SF.
However, since you have asked to know more about this central issue pertaining to our Lord's nature, do consider reading the material at this URL:
http://www.fbinstitute.com/McCormick/IMPECCABILITY.htm
I quote again:
"As man, Christ was peccable; but as God, He was impeccable. Though Christ had two natures, he was one person and could not divorce Himself of His deity. Wherever He went and whatever He did, both natures were present. Therefore, since from the divine side Christ was immutable or unchangeable (Heb. 13:8), omnipotent (Matt. 28:18), and omniscient (John 2:25), it was impossible for Him to sin as God (Jam. 1:13) though He could be genuinely tempted as man."
This testing demonstrated the sinlessness of Christ. The purpose of the temptation was not to see if Christ could sin, but to show that He could not and did not sin. His temptation showed what a unique Savior He was and that He was qualified to pay the penalty for all the world.
The problem with the SF is that they think:
"Testing demonstrates the sinfulness of Christ - it was meant to show that Christ could have sinned - it proves that Christ had a depraved sin nature".
Hope this helps you Funnyman.
Hi again
John. Thanks for sending me that link. I will read it and get back to you about this point.
Regarding what will happen to me if I change my belief I do not know. I do not claim understand everything and am open to what is the truth.
I would like to make some comments however from my personal experience in the SF
This doctrine is not openly preached in the SF. I have never heard anyone preach about the humanity or deity of Christ as a topic. Though there are indirect references to it such as "we can overcome just as Jesus overcame". I still say that. So what each one personally believes is never questioned.
This is not a "shibboleth" in the SF. I have never heard (again my experience) anyone ask another as to whether they believe that or not. I have not kept that as a precondition for fellowship just as I have good fellowship with those from the Brethren and other denominations. So I do not think I will be cast out of my local fellowship.
Someone mentioned an 'inner core', 'brothers ring' etc. The SF may not include someone who thinks differently from them in terms of doctrine into their inner management circles. But I think that is reasonable. It is unreasonable to 'demand' a persons trust. Though it will be to the SF's advantage if people who think differently are also wholly trusted.
The lack of fellowship with those from different denominations is often because there is some other SF activity available. I mean if one has the audio files of all the different meetings to listen to, a lot of SF literature available to read and a host of SF songs to sing it will take a deliberate effort from the local SF elder to encourage his local fellowship to read or listen to other material.
So the point I would like to make is that there are attitudes and behaviors of the SF elders and laity that are horribly unwise. I feel (personal opinion) that this is a result of immaturity rather than a fruit the belief of Christ's peccability.
Similarly some of the behavior is due to a lack of emphasis on the other aspects of the Bible such as onoring one's parents, living at peace with one another, 'first be reconciled with your brother'.
So I agree that I would like to be convinced of the truth. But even if the SF were wrong about this and Christ was impeccible and everyone in SF were to believe that I do not see how this would change things in the reality in SF now.
What I am claiming (personal opinion again) is that the behavior in SF and problems in the SF are not a result of the doctrine of Christ's 'peccabilty'.
Anyone differ?
P.S. Thanks Keith for the note of welcome.
Funnyman:
It is possible that many of the SF behaviours stem from their belief in the "peccable" Christ. There are any number of texts in the writings of the SF leaders that openly assert the peccability of Christ. It is strange that you have never "heard" this preached. How long have you been in SF and which SF fellowship are you in? Perhaps one that tones down the "peccability" aspect?
I also would like to ask you how someone who believes that Jesus had a sinful nature and another who believes that he did not have a sinful nature have "fellowship" together? How does syncretisism work in this case?
If you read J O Smith carefully, you will find that he became sectarian around 7 years after his conversion, five years after his baptism by the Holy Spirit.
It is around this time that he first begins to write about his revelation about "the veil - that is His flesh" (Letter 11). Simultaneously, he begins his disparagement of the "slave (who) is always asking for forgiveness and more forgiveness" to contrast it with the ones who have "victory over sin in the flesh".
This is also "when he also begins to make a distinction between "spiritual" people like himself and those who listen to him and "carnal" people - "Carnal people cannot please God; neither, of course, can they please us." He implies that he/SF have a certain advantage/superiority that helps them see through carnal people who are below him/SF.
It is at this time too that J O Smith begins his virulent attacks on the state church, the sects and the denominations. Simultaneously, he speaks of forming his own "sect" which he equates with the Body of Christ (proof text: Acts 28:22).
The SF understand all this quite well and preach it and practice it - they are authorised by God to be a "sect" that can attack other denominations and sects but are themselves exempt from criticism especially by "outsiders" who are considered "enemies" or "opposers".
What do you say to this?
Rssnspy6 said: “What do you mean by Not and organized denomination? SFs has an organizational structure, but are not Anglican, or Baptist etc... What do you mean?”
The Brunstad web site claims to be a non-denominational church. My definition of non-denominational would be a local independent church that is self governing. There would be no hierarchy of leadership outside the local congregation. They may associate with other churches but the leadership is strictly local.
Now I know there are churches that grow to several campuses and maybe even expand throughout several states and at some point you have to ask when does this become a “denomination”. But clearly a worldwide organization with tens of thousands of members would be in the same category as the Baptist, Presbyterian, or other traditional organized church denominations.
Here is the problem with this kind of statement. When Sigurd Bratlie defines the Harlot as the “religious world” (The Bride and the Harlot”) he is pointing his finger at all the other religious denominations as demonic. I just don’t see the difference between the Brunstad Christian Church and, lets say, the Southern Baptists when it comes to being an organized religious denomination. This statement by Bratlie is hypocritical.
Rssnspy6 said: “Regarding righteousness... When did an SF claim "to be so righteous?" When were the "specks in your eye" pointed out by a SF?”
You have made the statement that the girl left her former faith because SF was “better for her”. By making that statement you have judged me and all others outside Smith’s Friends.
Rssnspy6 said: “Regarding counseling... When was counseling rejected? And for what was counseling rejected?”
I know you didn’t suggest counseling but you did point out that there are professional counselors to help families work out their differences. Since the SF church doesn’t offer any help in this area, if the family offered to employ a professional counselor to help repair their relationship with their daughter, would you encourage her to participate?
Rssnspy6 said: “You mentioned that passage in John about claiming not to have sin. Jesus is the only hope for this because we ALL have sinned and were separated from the Father, but this doesn't say that we can't be perfect from a point in time till the end or that Jesus wouldn't have to die for those people that came to a perfect discipleship.”
You’re right, but just because the Bible doesn’t say that doesn’t mean it’s true. The Bible doesn’t give any examples of anyone ‘becoming perfect’. None of the apostles ever claimed perfection. Isn’t kind of arrogant to think you could be better than the apostles?
“...And if Jesus lived that perfect life, without the weakness of our flesh or with power unavailable to us, then His life is no example to us and no encouragement to us ...”
The fact that Jesus suffered and died for me, even though I don’t deserve it, is a great example for me on what it means to be Christian and how to humble myself and to think of others before myself.
It’s also a great encouragement to me that I don’t have to worry about my salvation. There are many examples of imperfect people in the Bible who were acceptable to God. Abraham, Jonah, David, Solomon, Moses. They all messed up but even David was referred to by God as “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). Moses messed up and did not get to enter the Promised Land, yet who did Jesus council with at the Transfiguration (Luke 9:30)…Moses was there.
That, however, is not, as Jarsmom put it “greasy grace”. That is recognizing that I am not perfect and I don’t have to be perfect, I just have to believe (Jn 6:29). But the fact that I have been given a great gift makes me WANT to be worthy of that gift.
Phillipians 2:3-11 gives a great picture of the example that Jesus set for us.
[Emphasis is mine]
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, [He is divine, something beyond human]
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
[something that you have to work for, or earn by your good works]
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
[Col 2:9 “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”]
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
RssnSpy6 (cont.)
Regarding perfection, you did bring that up by your statement: “But I know that we can live, from a certain point in time until death, perfect” on 6/3/09 and again on 6/15/09 already quoted above.
This is consistent with SF teaching. I posted this a year ago but here it is again. This is from Sigurd Bratlie’s booklet ‘The Grace that is in Christ Jesus’.
“Now I can become perfect according to my conscience. My conscience is my understanding of good and evil. To be perfect is to put everything in my life in order according to the understanding I have. Then I no longer have these continual reminders of sins.”
Bratlie goes on to say:
“When we speak about being perfect, we mean perfect according to our conscience as disciples – and this is possible.”
Isn’t he saying that right and wrong are relative? Right and wrong are defined by my conscience. These statements are all about ‘me’. It’s MY conscience that defines right and wrong for ME. If it causes harm to you then that is your problem. If I can justify my actions in any way then I don’t have to think about my behavior as sinful. I am not bothered by ‘continual reminders of sins’. How convenient. How arrogant!
I believe that GOD defines right and wrong. He wrote it all down for us and Jesus boiled it all down into one verse. “Love your neighbor as yourself”. If you intentionally cause harm to other people for your personal gain then you are working against God’s commandment.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”
So according to the apostle Paul, our salvation is not from ourselves, it is a gift from God. If men could attain perfection and therefore salvation by their own work, then they could become prideful and boast. But as it is a gift from God, then no one has the right to boast about anything, we are all sinners and only the sacrifice of Jesus Christ gives us any hope of salvation.
Rssnspy6 mentioned that Shadowfax is a member of the Brethren and not SF. John stated that he is Brethren as well, but seems to know a lot about SF. John also stated that there are Brethren theologians “who are aware of this group's activities and have been researching this group for years…”
Can someone tell me what the relationship is between the Brethren and SF? Why would this group of theologians be aware of, and be researching this group’s activities?
testing
Hi again
First to Harold's questions
Yes there have been Brethren people who have an interest in the SF. I remember last year reading a blog from someone in a Brethren church where the SF was discussed in quite a detail. I may be able to google that again.
John : your comments about the SF are very insightful.
Regarding the specifics
I did not make myself very clear in what I said about SF preaching. Of course the SF as I know believes in the peccability of Christ. They ( I prefer to use the term 'they' instead of 'we' to prevent giving the impression of defending the SF. It is my way of trying to be objective. In addition when I use the word 'We" I feel that I am speaking on behalf of the SF when I do not represent their official voice) believe that one can get victory over sin just as Jesus overcame sin. They believe that Jesus could sin but overcame sin.
Now I said tha I had never heard anything like this preached from the pulpit. What do I mean by that. I mean that such doctrines are not preached overtly. I have never heard someone preach a full sermon about the humanity of Christ. It is all implied.
John I am not saying it is not believed. I am saying that the aspect of peccability is not discussed from the pulpits as a doctrine for the simple reason that the SF does not devote time in their meetings to doctrine. They have precious little in their literature that they will classify as 'doctrine'. (I think the term 'doctrine' too is something that the SF does not like to use too often just like the word 'preaching'. Those who have an SF background will understand that to be called a 'preacher' has a negative connotation in the SF
more coming
Keith a small request
Do you have a setting in your blog that groups comments by 25 or so. It is now grouped by 200 that takes ages to scroll down and come back up again. Is this possible
Back to the what I was talking about ... the lack of doctrine.
Yes ... the SF has precious little that can be classified as doctrine. There is no dearth of literature. So as people have done those who want to know what the SF believe will have to look at the brunstad site. That has a little. For anything more the letters of JO Smith are used, along with the Bride and the Harlot by Br. Bratlie under the reasonable assumption that these are widely read and believed by the SF
So my point is that the doctrine of the SF is not preached at you openly. It is not offered to you as a pamphlet and as a detailed webpage to a newcomer that "Hey we belive Jesus was a man on earth... if you believe it join us.... if you do not... leave"
So I stand by the point that unity in doctrine is not the uniting factor in the SF although it makes things much more easy. If I speak like the others, pray like the others and talk what the others talk I will be accepted much more easliy into the 'brother's ring' (the term 'brother's ring' comes from an SF song).
Yes my local fellowhsip has been remarkably mature.
I was a blind follower of the SF so I can fully understand what all of you are saying. There was a time when I too thought that the SF was the true Chruch (even though no one told it to me directly. It crept in through attitudes, subtle phrases, impressions that were created in me) As I told you my local church was remarkbly mature. Still I was a committed SFer in all ways zealous etc until I had to go through certain situations which caused me to rethink all that I had gone through and take a fresh root in Christ.
I still am a committed SFer. But my 'commitmets' are different.
More later
Funnyman: I will look into the comments grouping request. Since I didn't write the template for the blog, it may take a bit of research. Actually, that has bothered me as well.
Hi
A few more comments
Harold you hit the nail on the head in one statement when you said that your idea of a non denominational group is one where the local church is self governing. If I am not mistaken that is how the SF started out.
Those were the days when a few people were dissatisfied with the Christianity of the state church and thought that they could have a better time by starting a local fellowship. Now I fully agree with that. I mean in the end time it is written that people will heap up for themselves teachers to tickle their ears and there will be a famine for the Word of God. (I am not hitting out at other groups, this famine can include the SF too)
It is also written broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many on that path. So I assume that a majority of those who would call themselves christians are on the broad way, independent of whether they are in the SF, the Brethren, the Baptist etc.
So when three or four people, dissatisfied with their local fellowhship meet together it is only natural that the meetings are a blessing and the group may grow. That is how the SF started. One can get a certain idea of it from the letters of JO Smith. Br. Bratlie has also described this process in the Bride and the Harlot.
So the SF did start off well.
Yes Br. JO Smith did hit out at the State church. Yes Br. Bratlie did hit out at the 'majority' and the 'harlot spirit'. Yes he did talk about the 'religious world'. But you can see the fruit of all his doctrine was a life that was Godly. I do not think he meant that the Harlot was denomination specific. The harlot (as I understand his writing) was those who are not serious about their walk with God IRRESPECTIVE of their denomination. The aim of the book as I saw it was so that the harlot spirit of dividing our hearts between the world and God does not creep up in us.
So the bride and the harlot does speak out at the harlot but dare i say that it was more for a person to judge himself and be wholehearted for God.
Those who have the Bride and the harlot can note that the minority that meets separately finally grows and becomes the harlot again. That almost seems prophetic about the SF :-). !
The Bride and the harlot can be twisetd by those who want to call other denominations the harlot. Granted. So can the letters of JO smith (which he never meant to be published). Goodness gracious. Just think if someone were to collate all the letters we have written and use that as a basis of judging the group we belong too.... I am not willing for that scrutiny.
So my point. I have been encouraged by the Bride and the harlot and by the Letters of JO Smith. I feel they were written by Godly people. They are not infallible as some have claimed. No.
More to write but run out of time. Will post later.
End of this post
Funnyman:
I did not think you would take a naive track on the SF's "lack of doctrine". For one thing, there is a kind of doctrinal statement on the SF website. But does it state the SF "doctrine" per se? I do not think so. In the past five years or so Kare Smith and his acolytes have been working on a project to make the SF palatable to the harlot (the religious world) and the "world" itself. The SF believes that it now has the "critical mass" to take on the harlot and the world - financially and doctrinally.
The "mission" that the SF is on is to convert as many as possible to their point of view and the satellite transmissions, the Alag (A-team) in Brunstad, the fund-raising activities, the financial/business network they have built up are all geared to this next phase of "missionary activity". Within the SF, Kare Smith speaks of a "blitzkreig" via media which will overthrow the harlot TV evangelists of the USA. There are those in SF who believe that Brunstad is New Jerusalem on earth and the children are taught that it is "heaven" and the best place on earth. There are others who believe that the end will come when the SF doctrine of "Christ Manifest in the Flesh" is preached all over the earth.
Apart from all this, there are clear central doctrines and practices in the SF. Anyone who has read the SF literature knows what the "doctrine" is and SF "watchdogs" are awake and sniff around in every fellowship to ensure that all believe and "speak" the same doctrine (Proof text: 1 Cor 1:10 - say the same thing, judge others together, etc).
But before I spell out the SF doctrine in detail from SF texts, let us hear Funnyman some more on this matter of "lack of doctrine".
And then again, if as Funnyman puts it: "So I stand by the point that unity in doctrine is not the uniting factor in the SF although it makes things much more easy. If I speak like the others, pray like the others and talk what the others talk I will be accepted much more easliy into the 'brother's ring' - we ought then to go by Harold's principle of judging everything by "behaviour". It is because SF imposes on others to "behave" in a certain way to "prove" unity, that the girl has had to move away from her parents and old friends. She is "proving" her "loyalty" to the " SF doctrine" by her "behaviour" imposed on her by the "cult".
hi again
John in response to your questions.
I am not saying that the SF has no doctrine. As you have rightly said the SF believes in "Christ manifest in the flesh". I looked at the website brunstad.org today and found no entry on the faith coulumn regarding Christ's peccability other than the sentence that he overcame sin.
What I am saying is that it is not easily available. To get an understanding of what the SF believes you will have to go through a lot of old SF literature and integrate that.
John thanks for giving me another shot at what I was trying to say. Posting takes time and I do not have such time in bulk so my posts may seem fragmented and superficial. I will try to limit my posts to one topic. Let this one be on the 'lack of doctrine'. Do keep in mind this is all my personl opinion and will reflect my experiences.
The lack of doctrine:
There is a pamphlet called "what we believe" that does list the central beliefs of the SF. Zac Poonen had also pointed to some beliefs about the SF that I see were quoted earlier and the SF has replied in detail to his queries. That can be taken to be a kind of belief statement too I suppose. Those statements may be hard to find now. Perhaps by googling them one can find them if they are online.
1. As I understand the SF believes that Christ was fully man on earth and that he could have been tempted and he was tempted and he overcame ALL sin.
2. As Christ was able to overcome sin in a body like mine it is therefor possible for me to overcome sin if I ask God for help in times of temptation.
3. As I live a life of victory I can be perfected. As long as I have this body I can be tempted, but so to say if I have been faithful in a particular area the temptation can lose its power so that it is possible to finally not be tempted in that area.
There are numerous SF texts and letters, books songs etc that will show that the above is belived.
4. The SF does believe in the anointing of the Holy Spirit and in the exercise of the Gifts of the Spirt.
In other areas I believe the beliefs of the SF are mainstream Christian beliefs.
I think I have been quite simple in the above and cut out spiritual jargon peculiar to the SF.
I for one do not see how such a doctrine can be an explanation for divisive, abusive behavior. If a person claims to be becoming more like Christ then he SHOULD be more loving, more respectful and more gentle. In fact any Christian who reads his Bible and genuinely follows the Lord will become like that.
John I did not understand what you meant by the 'naive track'. I will be happy to clarify if the above is not known.
So coming back to the 'lack of doctrine'. Perhaps can I say it is a lack of a collated manifest doctrine. Will that clear the air.
However it is the behavior that practically characterizes the SF more than the Doctrine. Don't pounce on me as yet. Let me explain. The way he speaks, the way he/she dresses (or used to), the 'fire' in the speech, the host of church activities, the work parties etc. are practically what keeps people the people together than the common belief. I mean are you asking a person who is digging a ditch with you what he/she believes about Christ's humanity? No I do not think so. A lot of the activity revolves around work, fund raising, Children's activities and Youth activities. So if one fits in to the general pattern of the SF one usually finds acceptance. No one questions you if you if you say a few fiery words and join in.
Yes I do not justify this breaking away from families. I hate that. Yes there is a great pressure to conform. A GREAT PRESSURE. I hate that too and am its critic.
But the points I am trying to make is that if one were to analyze the faults in the SF(and there are many) one has to be able to divide them as to what is SF specific and what is not.
Foolishness, pride, arrogance, immaturity are common to all Christians and so are pitfalls in any Christian group.
The doctrine of Christ manifest in the flesh is something that is supposed to lead to a Christ like nature. For example some have claimed financial irregularities in the SF. If that were so I want to differentiate this kind of sin from something that springs from a doctrine.
Exclusivity, belief that Brunstad is the new Jerusalem and that the SF is a true church can be traced to the belief that the SF has a special doctrine of overcoming sin. But just as easily one can claim that those who do not believe in victory over sin will finally end up living lives of sin.
The SF has a lot of dirty linen. No doubt. But my aim in this group is not to be a defender and neither to pull the SF down. I would like to see what can be done.
So I do not agree that we can club all the dirty linen, all the faults, all isolated actions of foolishness and then take the doctrine, practices and then claim cause and effect.
All the SF doctrine was supposed to create people who were Christ like. I mean if you met someone in the SF for twenty years he should have really been Christ like in his humility, grace etc. People say that about their experiences with Br. Bratlie. Unfortunately that is often not true today.... why? Is the doctrine at fault? I do not think so.
The doctrine of the SF is different in the matter of Christ's peccability. But does that matter. Even believing that Christ was peccable one should have been able to live a life of godliness, of virtue, of worhip and of love.
So what is wrong?
I claim that it is not the doctrine of Christ manifest in the flesh, but rather an absence of other teaching that is causing this.
The absence of a thrust to be good to all. The absence of a thrust to honor ones parents EVEN and ESPECIALLY if they are not in the friends. The emphasis that the SF Is NOT the only church. That has to be started at a young age so that a young SFer looks for fellowhip wherever he goes istead of looking for another SFer.
If this is not done the words of Br. Bratlie in the Bride and the harlot will become strangely prophetic. A young small group will have become big and and the finally there will be infighting and the harlot spirit will enter in.
Hello All
I really appreciate Funnymans com-
ments. It seems that both he and
John are really putting things quite well. I really agree with
funnyman saying that alot of things
in SF are implied, rather than tau-
ght from the pulpit. Peer pressure
is another thing that is also util-
ized frequently.
John, I think you have a really
good understanding of SF for some
one who is not.
Funnyman. Thank you for stepping
forward with your comments. I think they are illuminating and
strait forward. I want you to un-
derstand that the temor of some
of my posts probably comes across
a little stronger than I intend.
I do believe we have had some zel-
ous young posters here, who I think
unwittingly are offending some of
us. I think most of us are as
firmly rooted in our beliefs as are
SF.
I would like to expound on the verses i refered to about sisters
and curses. I do believe that in
many places women are looked down.
The verse is an example, not just
to SF but us all about the import
ance of the original language.
(If you recall the scripture,I do
not permit a woman to have author-
ity over a man) If you research
that out you find that it can also
read I do not permit a woman to go
out and hire someone to put a curse
on her husband. I know it is a
verse SF (men) love to use some-
times. THis why I say some times
it is important to review what
we read in the original language.
I know there is a lot of guys out
there like you who are reluctant
to speak up for fear of being cast
out of the brothers ring. God Bless you.
To funnyman (July 30 1:12 AM CDT)
So far I agree with you very much on what you've had to say. In places where I thought I might disagree I realized that you were writing in your own words and from your own experiences. I especially appreciate that you are dividing between the 'evidence' the possible 'causes.' That in mind I would like to clarify something you said on "perfect," which seems to be a contentious point for some. Let me know if you agree...
You said, "Will we become perfect? No but surely better than I was before. Will I ever become perfect... no. Do I know anyone in the SF who is perfect : NO! Will anyone in the SF ever become absolutely perfect NO!"-- Regarding what Harold pasted from Sigurd Bratlie's writings on being perfect according to your conscience, and what I've written regarding being a perfect disciple, I'd say those two instances of perfection are possible to attain. Attaining the perfection that Jesus had is impossible because all men have sinned while He never did. Does that clear up what is meant by "perfect?"
To jarsmom (July 30)
Where have funnyman and I, both SF, said different things?
Regarding your memory of women's issues in SF... How long has it been since you were 'current' with SF? Women's rights and normal behaviors overall have changed quite a bit in the world since you were a 'member' of SF. Progression. This has happened in the SF too. Once SF women were strongly discouraged from wearing pants (for example) because it was 'wearing mens clothes.' Now SF women are free to wear pants for whenever pants are fitting to wear. The short of it is, is that your local experience is but a small pebble on the beach when you consider that there are thousands and thousands of SFers around the world that have had much different experiences than you. I don't mean to belittle your experience, it is just a little dated and stale because of the time you've been away. Women are respected and are encouraged to fulfill every role the Bible has for them, and pursue everything they find in there heart to do.
I'd like to say something about your last comment, "Some SFers would not ever look upa word in the orignal language for fear of explaining away the gospel."--It would be nice to know Hebrew and Greek, but it is NOT necessary to be saved to the uttermost (SF jargon for 'live the life God as called me to in every little detail'). The scriptures must be revealed to me by divine revelation, through prayer and supplication, through need... studying the Bible in all its original languages and possible contexts brings about a knowledge ABOUT the Bible and the history surrounding it etc., but it does NOT inspire revelation from God in a person's life. This understanding in SF may have erroneously placed a negative light on those that do study the Bible in a Theologic (if that is a word) way. People are free to do as they please. I'll say this again... It is not necessary to know Greek or Latin or Hebrew for God to speak to you and for you to understand the Way that Jesus went and to follow.
To John (July 30):
I read the link you provided on McCormick's Impeccability essay. He is a good writer and provides quite a bit of background and explanation and reasoning for why he believes so strongly what he believes (something you could learn from). But In order to take a position on this peccable or impeccable debate that has raged for centuries you have to assume from the beginning that certain verses mean certain things. Once you establish those starting points you can find whatever you want to back it up. That has been established here are recently as this blog. It is hard to critique his entire essay because of its length, but i'll start with this:
"We turn now to a final proof of the absolute Impeccability of Christ, namely,
5. The Proof Of His Conduct-which contains so many far reaching implications that we can only touch upon it briefly. In no other area is the Impeccability of our Lord so clearly seen than in that of His behaviour. Let the reader carefully and prayerfully consider the following:
c. He never apologized for a single word or for a single act. At no point in His peerless ministry did our Lord blunder in the slightest degree. He never had “second thoughts!’ about any thing He ever did or said! Where is it even implied that He ever came back to a person to ask forgiveness for a hasty word or for a thoughtless act?"
So, I'm to understand that McCormick himself followed Jesus around 2000 years ago and verified this, and all those, statement(s)? McCormick, throughout his essay, refers to these NEVER, ALWAY, NOT ONCE, OBVIOUSLY etc statements that are completely unprovable in a court of law (which seems to be what he is trying to do). There are 30 or so years of UNACCOUNTED for life that Jesus lived. We don't know what happened in those years--except that He never once sinned and "grew in wisdom and stature with God and Man." (I believe that is the verse i'm looking for). A second issue... When he turns to his proof of character and does his 'Kenosis passage" there are a lot of rampant assumptions. He says in his point c. (about a quarter down the essay) that God couldn't do something. The all powerful God couldn't do something. But earlier he... forget it. I don't see how I, in the span of a few minutes, can hope to argue any better than the millions of Peccable believes that have argued before me. It comes down to this, that I disagree with you, yet I still live for Christ.
To Harold (July 31):
Denomination--SF does not have a single paid pastor or person on payroll. That seems quite a bit different than denominations. There are other differences but those probably won't matter to you. What is unique about SF is that the whole world (of SF) sees the same message via satellite/internet at the same time quite often. So despite the large numbers (which SF may share with a denominational church) we are like one large church. Essentially under the same 'roof.' I can't quite get what is in my mind across regarding this subject right now... maybe i'll try back another time.
Just because you don't see the difference between BCC and Southern baptists doesn't make Bratlie a hypocrite.
Regarding specks and judging:
By making a statment about a third party has NO bearing on you whatsoever. I said, "SF was better for HER," NOT "SF is better." You do NOT have any connection to my comment about the young lady. NO SPECKS, NO BEAMS, that wasn't judgementa.
Counseling--Where I in the situation, and my 'estranged' parents felt they wanted to go through counseling with me, I would do it. At least for their sake. Everyone should have a good, positive relationship with their parents (assuming their parents weren't creeps).
Better than the apostles:
It isn't arrogant to want to be like the apostles. I feel that I am doing and saying what Paul said when he wrote in Phil 3, "Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me." That 'already perfected' part means to me that the pressing on leads to it.
Perfect:
I hope my comments above regarding perfect discipleship change your mind... rather than assume I mean perfect as God has been perfect His whole existence. That we strive to perfection is Biblical, ... but I can't find the reference at this time.
Phil 2:3-11:
Your comments in brackets are quite foreign to me when I consider the passage. As I understand it, there is a time factor you missed in His divinity (which raises the whole peccability argument again), and you misread 'grasped,' and miss another time factor when you reference Col 2:9. But those are just my understandings, which we both know are different than yours.
You railed against Bratlie for his arrogance. When he speaks about being perfect according to his conscience he does not set aside the laws and commandments that the Bible sets out for believers. When a person reads the commandments (ie Love your neighbor as yourself) they get convicted by it and can't honestly treat their neighbor with anything less than respect. This is your conscience working. So this conscience talk isn't a willy-nilly I feel like I want to do this feeling.
Only the sacrifice of Jesus Christ gives us any hope of salvation: You are correct. What you miss is that those who have only hope in this life are of all men most pitiable. I have my hope for savation through the sacrifice, but I do everything in my power (like you said before) to be worthy of that sacrifice. My power is bent upon being a perfect disciple and living according to God's laws as He convicts me.
To jarsmom (just above):
I apologize if I am the 'young, zealous poster' that is offending you. I do not intend to offend you. But think, when you are tempted to offense you can ask Jesus for the strength to not be tempted and instead treat your fellow man with a kind work.
Could you please share with us what translation the hex verse is from regarding having authority over a man?
Funnyman: I did not mean to insult you when i said "naive track". But in this discussion of doctrine, one has to be equipped to understand what this great "lack of doctrine" implies; otherwise one will remain naive as to the SF approach and methodology of indoctrination.
1. "The SF believes in "Christ manifest in the flesh". I looked at the website brunstad.org today and found no entry on the faith coulumn regarding Christ's peccability other than the sentence that he overcame sin.
What I am saying is that it is not easily available. To get an understanding of what the SF believes you will have to go through a lot of old SF literature and integrate that."
The SF puts out on its public site only that which is palatable to all and non-controversial. All else happens as circles within heirarchical circles (a) at the level of the "core" in Brunstad - (Bernt Stadven once stated: Do you think these 7000 people here are in the Body of Christ; I doubt whether even 800 are in the Body of Christ though all gather here." So who exactly in the SF is in the Body? Not everybody obviously.) and (b)at the level of the inner court (those approved by the core) and the outer court (children in the church who are not yet conformed and confirmed to SF doctrine and ways and newbies (as yet untested in loyalty) and then the Gentile outsiders who are of the "world" and one must keep away any close association with them.
2. Yes, one must integrate the "old" literature with what is "new" to understand what the core doctrine of SF is since the "core" leadership will never admit to error on the part of its founding prophets. With the SF, one must always learn to read beyond the website and read between the lines.
3. The "doctrine" is extremely clear in the "texts" of the varied founding prophets including Smith's Letters, Bratlie's Bride and Harlot, Smith's "What we Believer", Aslaksen's "Christ Manifest in the Flesh" and "I am crucified with Christ", etc.
4. Funnyman's naivete shows when he says: The doctrine of the SF is different in the matter of Christ's peccability. But does that matter. Even believing that Christ was peccable one should have been able to live a life of godliness, of virtue, of worhip and of love. So what is wrong? ...The absence of a thrust to be good to all.
If this be the case, we do not need Jesus or the Bible or doctrine or anything. One can just say: Hey I want to be good to all, I want to do good to all. And then one would be on track, to heaven or Christlikeness or whatever? Right? When an SF person cannot answer pointed questions, this is usually the tack he takes.
RssianSpy:
There is nothing new in what you say. You are only repeating standard SF doctrine. That Jesus Christ was peccable. That he was exactly as human as we are. That, by implication, he was not God on earth.
Can you - just as you confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (as a human being with sinful nature within him - which is how SF understands Him) - confess that Jesus Christ was Lord and God all the days of His life and not just at some point in the last three years of His life?
No SF leader will PUBLICLY CONFESS WITH CLARITY that Jesus was Lord and God from the moment of His birth to the point when He died on the Cross. Or perhaps the new lot might just do it to "preserve" the group from charges of "heresy" and "cult"!
SF leaders might believe/say that the Christ (spirit) was God before the Incarnation and the Christ (spirit) is God after Resurrection, but it is unlikely that any one in the "core" will confess that Jesus was God all the days of His life here on earth.
They believe just as Bratlie wrote in the Bride and the Harlot that "the man Jesus BECAME God".
Zac Poonen was a thorn in the side of the SF because he raised precisely these issues about the SF but now that Zac Poonen has made up with the SF (what did he profit from that and does he still hold to his accusations?), there is no direct threat to the doctrine of the SF except from this blog.
Was Jesus made "exactly" like His brethren as the SF believes? Did he have a human father at all? If not, then how can He have been "exactly" human?
What do you believe, RussianSpy? That there are "millions of peccable believers"? WHERE? The SF and its peccable believers are a drip in the ocean of those who believe in Jesus as Lord. The SF and its peccable believers are in the list of groups like Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the deity of Christ. Where are the millions of peccable believers? Believers in the impeccability of Christ are sought to be converted to a peccable Christ through the evangelisation of the SF, right? Isn't that why SF makes converts only among impeccable believers but there are very few converts from the "heathen" as it were?
Then again RussianSpy: "I don't see how I, in the span of a few minutes, can hope to argue any better than the millions of Peccable believes that have argued before me. It comes down to this, that I disagree with you, yet I still live for Christ."
I have met many who believe in Buddha or Krishna or other Gods and also love Christ and believe they live for Christ. In what way are you different, RussianSpy?
Hi again
John i did think about what you said. I accept my inadequacy in theology. I do not claim to be a scholor. I have zero knowledge in the ancient texts. Like many in the SF I have read precious little out of the SF literature (something that is changing of course but slowly)
Your explanation that the SF believe that Jesus was a man on Earth is right. I am not debating that though I would not accuse them of a deliberate malicious indoctrination.
However I disagree with the conclusions you make from them. Why is believing that Jesus was a man so obnoxious to mainstream Christians. You say that we would say he was God, He is God but for those years as a man the SF will not acknowledge that.
Why would you then club the SF along with Buddhists, Hindus etc who are living good lives. A person in the SF accepts that Jesus Christ is the Only true God, accepts the Bible as his Word, and there is so much more that is common in his belief with every other mainstream church. Your implication is that those who believe that Jesus came as a man do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that they just live according to what they think is right. I do not agree with that.
I would like you to separate this doctrinal difference of the SF from their other quirks.
I know a lot of good people in the SF who believe that Jesus was a man. I would not classify them along with the Hindus and Muslims. I know plenty of godly people who believe that Jesus Christ was not fully man on Earth. So in my simplicity I ask what is the difference? No one denies CHrist's diety now.NO one disputes His Word. For one small period of time around zero AD we are debating what the status of our Lord was on Earth. Am I wrong in stating that this does not matter and should not be an issue for fellowhsip?
Your thoughts are welcome on this
Funnyman:
Your condition is the result of your being brainwashed by the SF and reading only SF literature and being too long with them. It does matter whether or not Jesus was God on earth.
If he was a man who became God while living for 33 years on earth, we do not need the Bible or the teachings in the Bible. We can turn to the East and to the Hindus and Buddhists, etc, who teach that a man who is in sin or ignorance can become a god. There are many such "attained" beings in Hinduism and Buddhism (Bodhisattavas). SF is just another cheap, 20th century version of these ancient teachings that precluded Christ and clearly state that any human being can become God.
In my understanding, Jesus came to tell us clearly that "He is from above and we are from below", that there is an atonement for sin that only the Lamb of God slain from BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD can make, that following Him is not a matter of one's own choice and works and pretensions at being righteous through works but that it is a matter of His choosing someone and ordaining that the ordained ones will bring forth fruit thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit in them.
In many ways, the SF is a mix of Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age mysticism, human potential movement hypotheses and Freudian mumbo jumbo (there is no use of the terms unconscious sin, conscious sin, ego, self, etc in the Word of God) but J O Smith and his acolytes injected these Freudian (psychobabble) terms into their exegesis of the Word of God to suit their "evangelisation" purposes. I do not blame them - they only drank the "spirit of the times". :-)
Again, the so-called holy "glow" that seems to light up the SF leaders is no indication of their belonging to Christ. There have been many Hindus/Buddhists etc who have "mortified" their flesh to attain this holy "glow" to be magnified and glorified by others as "holy men". This is the ambition of the SF mission - that their leaders be worshipped as "god-men" by a mass of people.
Further, this Christological battle about Christ's deity on earth was fought several times in the early history of the Church. That is why we who believe in Jesus as both Lord and God (prior to His death and resurrection) on earth are not ashamed to cite the Nicene creed in which Jesus is cited as "being of one substance with the Father". In other words, unlike the false doctrine the SF preaches and teaches that Jesus was ONLY A MAN while on earth WHO STRUGGLED TO BECOME GOD, the early Church Fathers understood the dangers of the doctrine the SF preaches and its ineptitude and guarded the Church against this false doctrine. The Arians first fought to establish that Jesus was only a created human being and God in His graciousness defeated this doctrine. Down the centuries this doctrine has made its appearance in many forms through many so-called prophets like Edward Irving, etc and J O Smith and the prophets of the SF are only following this ancient heresy with minor variations.
Those who believe these spirits that teach that Jesus had a sinful nature, that He was nothing but just another human being, etc, have a judgment waiting not so much on this earth as before the throne of the Lord Himself.
In that sense, we have to let you believe whatever you (or the SF) want you to believe. Just as the Hindu and the Buddhist and the Mormon and the Jehovahs Witness is free to believe whatever they want to believe and form their own little denominations.
But these are not "Christian" denominations though they love to pride themselves so. They are "heresies" that deny the deity on earth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
In our day and time, we do not kill or imprison heretics. That gives great freedom for groups like the SF to propagate their confused ideas which they call "revelation" and to consider its propagation as "evangelism" and to consider their silly little group as "the true church".
Funnyman:
You ask why there cannot be fellowship between those who believe that Jesus was ONLY A MAN on earth and those who believe that He was Lord and God while on earth.
Fellowship?
The SF does not believe that there can be fellowship between the two. The SF considers the latter as the Harlot.
Fellowship?
There might be friendship or acquaintanceship. But fellowship?
Many Hindus accept the deity of Christ on earth. They understand this naturally. The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming deity/equality with God and picked up stones to kill Him. The SF cannot understand this or conveniently ignores it.
The Jews knew that when Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I AM", He was claiming deity.
The SF understands nothing of this.
If you think there can be fellowship between SF (which denies the deity of Christ while he was on earth) and other Christians who bow down before the deity of Christ while he was on earth, then there can be fellowship between all of us on earth (a high ideal) - those who are SF, those who are Jehovah's Witnesses, those who are Brethren, those who are Church of England, those who are Roman Catholic, those who are Hindus, those who are Buddhists - everybody.
In which case, better to follow the high ideal and not get mixed up with the SF at all or any other group on earth. I wish you luck in this universal venture.
Rssnspy6: I think there is some common ground on the idea of perfection, at least in the sense that I strive to be like Christ. I can accept your interpretation if you are truly sincere. Where I get crosswise with the SF speak is the focus on the word ‘perfect’. I believe the only perfect life came in Jesus Christ. For you or me to claim to ‘be perfect’ or that we are able to attain the same perfection like Jesus Christ is to put ourselves on the same level as Jesus Christ and God. This is blasphemy.
I can’t help but believe that you are down playing this terminology in order to make SF beliefs more palatable to this discussion, especially if this truly is the only forum for open dialog of SF critics. But I will try to keep an open mind.
Thanks for you comments about counseling. I think it would be better for everyone concerned if this girl and her family could repair their relationship. Then there wouldn’t be much to talk about, here in Owasso at least.
John: Your comments on Brunstad being the new Jerusalem were good. I would like to add that if you replaced the names of Smith’s Friends and Kare Smith with the Rev Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church it would almost still work.
Funnyman: You asked the question “Why is believing that Jesus was a man so obnoxious to mainstream Christians. You say that we would say he was God, He is God but for those years as a man the SF will not acknowledge that.”
This is my take on it. It is because Jesus himself claimed to be God (part of the trinity, sent from God). I have posted those references before. It is for this very reason that the Jews of that day crucified Him. They didn’t crucify Him for being a good and moral teacher. If you believe in Jesus Christ then how can you ignore His claim to deity? By His own statements, I don’t believe that Jesus left any room for another conclusion. He didn’t claim that He was God previously, or that He was going to become God. He claimed to be sent personally by God, with power. He demonstrated this over and over again by His miracles. No one around Him disputed this claim. He proved it to them.
1John 5:10-12 says “Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”
It all boils down to this: If you don’t believe what God testified about “HIS SON”, then you mock God and “make Him out to be a liar”. If God, and Jesus, are liars then they are not worthy of our worship, and why follow a liar. Why follow Jesus Christ at all?
But if belief in Jesus Christ, the narrow gate, is the only way to God, while these Hindus, Buddhists, and SF may be living good lives according to what they think is right, they will not get into Heaven.
Another observation about this local group is that this leader, as a school teacher, does not seem to be interested in those children who are not Christian already. This comes through comments from people both inside and outside the school. His focus seems to be on those students and young people who are already believers in Christ and are seemingly well grounded, faithful, church going Christians. He has changed their belief about Jesus Christ and instilled a fear of all their previous friends and family to such a degree that they are hostile toward them. The girl here is not the only example. So how is this belief better for the girl? Is it really more Christ like to instill this fear in these young people and isolate them from their families, to threaten those outside their church with physical violence? Or is the ultimate goal to bring these people into the group in order to feed this financial/business network they have created?
Hi all
Will be busy in the next few days but will post as I get time
Post a Comment