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 801 – 1000 of 1940 Newer› Newest»hi again
For those who are following the peccablity discussion could you look at these there urls that I found (may be reposts)
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/reformed-view-peccability-vs-impeccability-43133/
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/manchris/manchr6.htm
http://eternalperspectives.com/2006/01/23/jesus-peccable-or-impeccable/
sorry the url should read
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/manchris/manchr6.htm
sorry again it seems to be getting cut off
it should read
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org
/manchris/manchr6.htm
Funnyman:
What's the point behind posting these URLS. Some of us are pretty well-versed with the impeccability vs peccability argument. It's not like we need to wade through many facile URLs when we have waded through the serious texts that deal with the issue.
What is your position?
John: “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.”(June 17)
That is understandable if one reads even just two pieces of their literature which contain sentences such as: “A perfect apprentice is one who gives up all his own opinions and plans and is obedient to his master.” And, “We realize that to be born again means to receive a new life with entirely new interests.”
Rssnspy6, you said to Jarsmom, “Your memory, correct me if I'm wrong, is decades old concerning how SFs view other Christians.”
Isn’t ‘The Bride and The Harlot’ still being published and circulated even today? So, correct me if I’m wrong, but that wouldn’t really be decades old would it? In reading this publication, it is apparent what the SF believes and teaches concerning their views of other Christians.
You also stated, “I agree that there are people that attend SFs meetings that aren't interested in being finished with sin. What of it?”
One of the teachings or beliefs of the SF is that anyone belonging to the ‘religious world’ is a ‘harlot’ and that they really should ‘separate’ from them. It has also been documented on here from those within SF (also, the Bride and the Harlot) that Luke 14:26 is vehemently taught which would bring about this desired end. “Be not afraid of God’s Word that divides and separates. Go out from the harlot!” and “It means to forsake family, your possessions, and your own life,” are just a couple of other examples written in their literature. These types of things are taught in order to separate people from all they’ve ever known because it’s easier to manipulate people. So,“What of it?” This girl has sacrificed much in her own life in order to be a part of this group who claims they are the chosen, the bride, the more godly. So, if there are those in this group ‘that aren’t interested in being finished with sin’, why separate from her family, friends, and all she loved in order to join another group of ‘harlots’ just because they ‘claim’ to be ‘more serious’?
Has this teacher forsaken his own family or possessions, his own life?
“The SFs did not 'CAUSE' a family dispute or estrangement.”
So at what point in this girl’s life did she become ‘estranged’ from all of her family and former friends? Is it merely coincidental that she was close to her own family and friends (Heart to Heart May7 08) until she began attending a ‘church’ that vehemently focuses on scriptures like Luke 14:26 and make statements like those above?
RssnSpy:
“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.”
Many of the people in Jonestown and Waco were adults, too. And, many of them said it was their decision, too. Yet, they were being manipulated and coerced…brainwashed. There is no age limit or age requirement when it comes to being manipulated. Their families and friends were also concerned about them. What is so wrong with being concerned about their daughter??
Maybe it’s not their daughter they don’t trust. This girl knew this man because he was her teacher, right? Did the parents know him or his wife? Were they friends? Neighbors? Relatives? Maybe they trust her, but if they don’t know this man or his family…really know them, perhaps they don’t trust them due to circumstances and behaviors witnessed. If they knew them, maybe then they would have something on which to base trust of them. But, if this man’s family just moved this girl into their home and all of a sudden she turns against her own family and friends, it is understandable to see how her family and friends wouldn’t have trust for this man and/or his family. After all, “You will know them by their fruits.” Maybe those who raised her, and those who love her, saw ‘fruit’ that concerned them. Perhaps her parents are intelligent enough to know that there are murderers, rapists, drug dealers, thieves, con artists, manipulators, child predators, etc. out there and it concerned them for her to be living with people they knew nothing about.
“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.”
Well, obviously these people haven’t yet been convicted of that or they wouldn’t have moved this girl into their home knowing it was divisive to this girl’s family. But, then again, with teachings to ‘forsake family, possessions, and your own life’ it appears obvious as to why things such as these happen within these types of groups.
“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?”
You are correct when you say, “That is completely opposite Biblical teaching.” But all one really needs to do is read ‘The Bride and the Harlot’ and listen to what members and ex-members say.
Jarsmom: ”Some SFers would not ever look up a word in the orignal language for fear of explaining away the gospel”
“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.”
Why wouldn’t they want you to know your Bible well? Why would it be looked down upon to be a Bible scholar?
Perhaps it has something to do with that ‘blind faith’ that has been mentioned here before. Don’t ask questions and try to understand and/or put into context the teachings of the Bible, just believe what I tell you.
Funnyman: Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. You stated, “Unwise zeal has blinded people to break families, dishonor parents and put an end to dissent. It is still remediable.”
I agree. It is remediable. But, can you explain why the group you belong to obviously believes and teaches this?
You also stated, “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.”
You mean that you really don’t discuss your faith, your love of Christ, the Bible, what God is doing in your life with any other SF person?
Concerning perfection: Becoming perfect according to ‘one’s own conscience’ is not Biblical teaching at all. ‘My conscience’ may say it is ok to hurt another person, be a liar, a drug dealer, a thief, a rapist, a murderer, a prostitute, a home-wrecker, commit adultery, threaten,….
The original question, “Is this a cult?” was asked due to a situation involving a male high school teacher and one of his female students that arose centered on the theology and teachings of SF. There have been characteristics of cult behavior that have lined up squarely with the behaviors witnessed by many and described on this blog. The members of Branch Davidian, Jonestown, and even Hitler’s Youth didn’t believe they were members of a cult either.
I have battled much for a long time to love the smith's friends, so I tried to add many them to my facebook page thinking maybe if I see some other side of them then their evil do do do do in the abyss cult side I could at least love like that part them the none do do do do do in the abyss part. And I confronted yelena the girl that brought me to that cult and really dropped me off there, and dumped me as a friend told me point blank she didn't want to be my friend ever a few times. Well then this last e-mail she sent me she was like "I won't be your friend if you keep ............." trying to make it sound like she would be my friend if circumstances changed. The smith's friends "according to their conscience" thing somebody mentioned on this site is true, if according to their current conscience they love me and/or would be willing to be my friend if I wasn't against them like I am - that then they are righteous and good (and the things that they did do wrong to me, I've decided just disappear in their minds, are brainwashed laundried away - and if those things aren't brainwashed laundried away or if I bring them to light they flip out like robotic droids with faulty wiring) 1 them still has me as a facebook friend 1 smith's friend for reals? But many them added me then figured out who I was and deleted me from being their friend. It's righteous in their minds to treat badly a perceived enemy of the church like this.
Their brains are extremely brain laundried. My brain might've been brain laundried to at one point - YIKES! These days if I do something wrong I repent about it, and work to do better, that's how it's supposed to go..........you's supposed to repent...........not be in droid robot "according to my current conscience" smith's friends brain laundry land style.
Funnyman: Here is another question I would like to bring up, and maybe you can help shed some light on this one. One of the things I have tried to determine is whether or not this local leader is a reflection of the larger Smith’s Friends organization and his behavior is driven by their example. Or is this guy a rogue out there on his own just using the SF organization as a smoke screen. Maybe he doesn’t really believe anything himself, but the SF materials, theology, and lack of teaching/oversight are a convenient tool to use in manipulating and controlling those around him. What do you think?
Also, I looked up and scanned your references for peccability and impeccability. Although this debate about whether or not Jesus could have sinned can be an interesting theological discussion, I believe the more important point, and one that we should all agree on as Christians, is that He did not sin. And while it may not be an entirely moot point, it certainly doesn’t rise to the point of separating young people from their Christian families in order to ‘save them’.
Harold:
You said: One of the things I have tried to determine is whether or not this local leader is a reflection of the larger SF organization and his behavior is driven by their example.
It is by example. He is also a respected "local" leader. The SF does not see his actions as "bad" but as missionary work. And the SF defends its own.
Why this work is not "bad" is because of the SF theology from which flows its behaviours. This is why if you say to Funnyman that it is enough to agree that Jesus did not sin and you avoid the impeccability/peccability discussion, you are conceding the central bone of contention between the SF and the rest of Harlot Christianity, as they put it.
It goes like this: Christ (spirit) was manifest in the flesh (of man/body Jesus), he had sinful nature in him for that is what it means to have come in the flesh, he put that sinful nature to death by using the Word of God (Genesis to Malachi in His case) to mortify the sin in the flesh. Since he succeeded totally in this cleansing of himself from sinful nature and the filling of himself with God-nature or divine nature, he was resurrected. (The corollary is we can now do the same as He who overcame gives us His spirit to do exactly what He has done.)
But in this process, what happens? One must obey the Word of God. The Word of God says: Hate your father, mother, etc if they stand against THIS UNDERSTANDING/THIS REVELATION.
You see, this girl has been "gripped by" THIS SPECIFIC REVELATION and therefore is truly become part of the SF whose members are those who have EXPERIENCED THIS REVELATION. Therefore, she, in her own logic, will be unable to "fellowship" with her parents who OPPOSE this revelation. Her duty is fulfilled in obeying God's Word and to "be ye separate, come out from the Harlot, and I will receive you".
This is what it means to "join" the SF. It is a spiritual act brought about by receiving a specfic revelation. The core will never surrender this revelation and will seek to live by it as it has been successfully encoded in the SF behavioral systems that have become embodies in its members over time.
Now, the second question is can SF behaviour change and is it a real change or only a cover, a mask? We know that after Kare Smith came, he has allowed other behaviours to enter the SF, he has in a minimal sense modernized the SF. So, it is alright now for women to wear pants (but not mini-skirts), it is alright for worldly songs (rock, country, pop, jazz etc) to be sung/played in Brunstad concerts and concerts held at the Brunstad feasts in different parts of the world. It is alright now for women to study and work. It is alright for people to pursue a certain kind of prosperity. Television is okay and so too going on holidays for enjoyment. But above all, it is alright for the church to become a gigantic business enterprise investing in prime real estate across the world.
So Kare Smith has had a double responsibility - how to keep the doctrine handed down to him by the "fathers" alive and also how to "manage" the pressures of the modern world.
In many ways, I respect Kare Smith because he has been able to walk the thin edge - (a) letting some things go (allow some behavioural changes)and to integrate "fun" aspects of the world into the church so that the large number of children in the sect do not "go out into the world" to look for these amusements but can be preserved within the sectarian society and (b) preserving the preaching of the core doctrines but "slightly toned down" unlike the "fathers".
Theology does breed behaviours.
Hi again
Yes John I accept that the arguememts of peccability and impeccability have been argued and there are those with more serious texts than the urls I have posted. Saying that I do not think that I am wrong when i say that only a few reading these discussions will have access to and would have read the more serious texts. So these simple urls help.
I was preparing my defense against peccability and had typed out two pages on a word document getting ready to cut it and paste it here when I came across these urls and realized that all my arguements had been made already and were already well known to both sides. That is why i just posted the urls.
Harold said that
"also, I looked up and scanned your references for peccability and impeccability. Although this debate about whether or not Jesus could have sinned can be an interesting theological discussion, I believe the more important point, and one that we should all agree on as Christians, is that He did not sin."
That is my position. Jesus could have sinned but he overcame all sin.
I gather by your postings thay you hold to your view after much study and my aim with these discuusions is not to try and convince you otherwise. It is to prove that by believing that Christ was peccable and overcame sin I do not in anyway seek to dishonor Him or His death on the cross that brought me salvation.
The urls that I posted was to demonstrate that there are others not of the SF who independently hold to this view and still follow the Lord.
If we were to leave the SF out of the picture for a momemnt do we necessarily have to dismiss the other view as equivalent to Hinduism, Buddism etc. There must be genuine Christians who hore ld to a view similar to mine.
Can we agree to the point Harold raised that "that we should all agree on as Christians, is that He did not sin".
Run out of time and will reply to the other questions in future posts.
Funnyman:
Harold put it like this: "I believe the more important point, and one that we should all agree on as Christians, is that He did not sin."
And then you replied: "That is my position. Jesus could have sinned but he overcame all sin."
This is the SF position and you believe in SF-ianity but not Christianity and this position is not actually compatible with what Harold mentions because here you assert that Jesus was a man like any other man who could have sinned. Impeccability is about how and why He could not have sinned even if He tried to do so!
So then:
Was Jesus God while in the flesh on earth?
Yes or No?
I quote Wikipedia because it is important that the "layman" understand that the battle between those who thought Jesus was only "a man who became God" or "a created lower order yet divine being" or "a man (with sinful nature) who could have sinned" - there are varied forms of these "heresies" (differing points of view on the nature of Christ - Christology) was fought over a long period of time.
"Each of the first six councils, from the First Council of Nicea (325) to the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) defined Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human. Christianity did not accept the Platonic argument that the spirit is good and the flesh is evil, and that therefore the man Jesus could not be God. Neither did it accept any of the Platonic beliefs that would have made Jesus something less than fully God and fully human at the same time. The original teaching of John’s gospel is, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God . . . And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us". (The Greek rules of grammar determine the correct word order in English.) The final Christology of Chalcedon (confirmed by Constantinople III) was that Jesus Christ is both God and man, and that these two natures are inseparable, indivisible, unconfused and unchangeable."
What groups like the SF want to do is to reverse this position and show Jesus only as a man and that is why the SF hunts only Christians and seeks to convert only Christians because the attempt is to prove that it is the
"harlot Church" that has hidden the fact that "a man became God."
This is exactly what Hinduism and Buddhism teach - that any human being who is trapped in sin or ignorance can if he genuinely desires it find "moksha" or salvation and become God or merge with God.
SF also believes in the Gnostic doctrine that the "flesh" is evil and the Spirit is good. We can read about how Jesus had a "body of sin" in JO Smith's Letters in which he expounds upon the doctrine of "Christ manifest in the Flesh".
The other trick the SF uses is to make Paul's experiences described in Romans 6, 7, 8 to be Jesus' experiences. So when Paul says: "Oh wretched man that I am, who can deliver me from the body of this death?" It is interpreted that Jesus was also in the same condition.
Harold asked if the behavior of the local leader was in response to examples he has seen in the Smith’s friends and if this is a direct result of the teachings of the SF or if he were a rogue element. John has also written a lot about Christ’s nature. Let me step back from a personal answer and put it in the context of the SF as I see it. Do clarify what is not clear. -
SF growth in new cities is hardly due to active evangelism. It usually stems from an SFer getting a job in a place where there is no other SF gathering. He stays alone as he feels uncomfortable in other gatherings. He is usually an upright person, serious about cleansing himself from sin and this attitude usually draws appreciation in his social circles. He may meet for prayer with a few other local believers. He may be invited to preach in local groups and would preach hard against all forms of sin. This may touch people who would want to know more about living a life of victory and they would meet for prayer. The SFer would then invite them over to his house for fellowship. Depending on how involved the person was in his previous local group he may agree and soon a group of three or four meet and a small home fellowship is born. When people ask the new believers where they gather for worship they would probably describe it as a home fellowship that was not affiliated with other denominations.
This local fellowship is born among people from different doctrinal backgrounds. It is highly possible that the others who have joined the group do not know that the SFer belives that Christ was peccable. The doubt would never have crossed their mind. The usual message that “we can overcome just as Jesus overcame sin” is hardly provoking as the emphasis is placed on the fact that Jesus overcame sin while on Earth. They are also greatly encouraged to live faithfully. If the aspect of Christ’s peccablity becomes an issue for a newcomer either through a direct mention of it or more likely through an indirect reference, he questions the original SFer. The SFer would then point out the references that he believes in from the Bible . The other usually accepts it as his belief of Christs impeccablity was not a result of any deep conviction but rather what his pastor or Sunday school teacher told him, which he did not bother to question. If he does not agree the he usually thinks that it does not matter as there is no one who tells him that the those who believe in such things are heretics and not Christians. So he continues to have fellowship with this group as he finds other things he likes in the group.
The SFer introduces him to SF literature that he has saying those are things that have helped him. The SFer would then tell him about his experience in the SF. HE may describe the birth of the SF, the lives of JO Smith, etc tell him about the conferences that are held at different times of the year.
The SF know that a new group is meeting. IF any SF member is on a business trip or is visiting relatives in that region they would make it a point to visit this small group for the Sunday fellowship. There is no implied servitude to the visiting member. They consider him an equal. They are happy for such fellowship. They still continue their contacts at work, with their relatives though many question them as to why they think other churches are not good enough so as to force them to meet separately. If mature they reply maturely. If not they usually go back to the original SFer who would then possibly say something to the effect that in most other churches the emphasis is not on living but on theory but we stress on ‘living’ or putting into practice what is heard. The new comer would then remember his local church, bring to mind many in his church who were hypocrites and it would fit. The only three or four in the new group are serious and he thus feels that even though they are a small group it is more edifying. Besides in a small group there is time for everyone to speak at the meetings which is a new experience for him . He has been used to predominantly listening. Speaking his testimonies and what has helped him every week is a new experience for him.
The group gradually grows. The emphasis is not on money. The new members are used to tithing and ask the original member what to do with their tithe. They arrange a freewill offering box and money is put into that. Collections are usually not taken. One or two of the new members may be taken on as co ‘treasurers’ as the original SF member knows he has to be accountable.
They usually do not have much expenses as a church and the money accumulates over months. They then wonder what to do with the money. The SFer would then suggest donating it to a conference centre being built in some place say a developing country or to some Brunstad project. The new members usually do not have any opposition to this.
There is no active evangelization. Christian contacts are usually interested about this small group and visit. Some like it and join. Some do not mind it but are not very fascinated. Some oppose it calling the group elitist. Very few disagree doctrinally. Very few leave for doctrinal reasons.
SF elders often visit nearby regions for conferences. The original SFer would invite the SF leader (in this case he may be from Norway) to arrange his trip through that town. The SF leader is happy to oblige. He may have requests to visit such towns in two or three places. The original SFer would arrange special meetings which would have double or triple the attendance and meetings are held. The attendance after the meetings would gradually approach the previous level. One or two would stay on.
The newcomers will then be encouraged to attend the local country’s conferences. They may do so and may be impressed that there are so many more who are of a similar mind. He makes new friends, new conferences and gradually the group develops with different ones having different levels of commitment.
Now here lies an interesting situation. The local church has not been ‘planted’ by the SF leaders. They have watched it sprout automatically and have encouraged its growth. The original SFer may not have been their choice had they ‘chosen’ someone to plant a church. However he has been the most instrumental locally and he is their contact person. It may take many years for a newcomer to gain the level of confidence that the original SFer enjoyed. They do not have any monitoring mechanism as to what is happening in the local church. The visiting SF elder does not get a pulse of what the local situation is as he visits for a short time and then leaves. He meets some zealous newcomers during the conferences and believes that a ‘good work’ is going on.
The group grows in size. May reach a hundred or two hundred sometimes. The multitude of children necessitate children’s meetings, youth meetings activities etc. Newer entrants to this group now have activities to participate in. They may enjoy the closeness and the high level of interaction of the community and may compare it to their previous groups. Some may like the style and stay on. Some may not and do not join. The original SFer is now an ‘elder of the church’. There are sufficient number of people who have been attending the group for years. They take care of the finances, organization etc. They need a new place to gather. They rent out a local large building such as a school or barn for the meetings. All the while they long for their own property. When they collect sufficient money they would like to purchase property.
The finances have now become too large to be uninvested. Now comes the need for registration under the laws of the land. Depending on the country a society/trust/body/committee is formed with the original few members as leaders or office bearers. The rest of the group is informed of this decision and they usually have no objection to it. They are not asked to pay a membership. They are not asked to sign a membership form. The committee formed does not affiliate on paper with the SF of Norway as that may not be legally possible. Though the affiliation is understood.
They identify property and would like to buy it. Unfortunately they have insufficient money. The original SFer then asks his parent fellowship for help. They may announce this in a conference. Other established SF churches contribute and they are able to purchase property often more than their present requirement as they foresee larger growth. The affiliation that was ‘understood’ now becomes a little more obvious as money has poured in from the SF churches all over the worlds. The local SFer now feels more obliged to the SF and the affiliation is cemented.
One of the members of this group has to relocate to Thailand where his employer is relocating. He has to leave the group. They organize a farewell for him and pray that God will bless his stay in Thailand. When he reaches Thailand he searches for local Christians. He stays alone as he feels uncomfortable in other gatherings. He is usually an upright person, serious about cleansing himself from sin and this attitude usually draws appreciation in his social circles….and the SF in Thailand is born in just the same way.
Now there are some interesting points to note.
1. The reason why the small groups start off is because the newcomers are looking for a deeper life in Christ and not to increase or propagate SF.
2. The initial group that meets, does so in all sincerity.
3. The behavior of the local group is largely based on the maturity and humility of the original SFer. If he is mature and not a ‘novice’ the local fellowship is a good edifying fellowship. If he is immature, he becomes puffed up and starts to focus more on putting other fellowships down.
4. The SF leaders are usually not aware of the initial activities of the local group. They exercise little control initially. Their impression of the local group can be highly different from the ground reality.
5. If the original SF member is a ‘rogue’ element the local fellowship usually revolves around him and his personality and not around Christ. It takes the SF elders some time to identify this and more time to correct this as there is often no one else that is known.
6. In case some members of the group are dissatisfied with the original SFer’s behavior they may complain to the SF leaders. However the SF leaders may receive the testimony of two or more witnesses when taking action against such elders. Often the original SFer is able to explain away his behavior and prove his affiliation by other SF supportive activities or collections.
6. ‘SF churches’ were thus local fellowships which had a loosely knit affiliation to the SF and the Brunstad leadership. As they became more involved they realized that they were placing themselves under a group. Some local fellowships resist this and break away from the SF. Others join in wholeheartedly.
8. The various SF churches across the world thus have different flavors and it is very possible that Christians in many places who come into the SF are actually blessed in their walk with God. In many groups the experience can be bitter.
9. With the spread of technology local flavors are slowly being replaced by ‘central’ flavors.
I think this is a true generalization of how the SF started and how it spreads nowadays. It started off well but has been infiltrated with a lot of junk. I still hold to the fact that there is hope and that something good can come trough the SF for God’s glory.
Please feel free to disagree/ask for a clarification for what may not be clear.
Funnyman: The spin you put on things is interesting.
1. "It is highly possible that the others who have joined the group do not know that the SFer belives that Christ was peccable. The doubt would never have crossed their mind. The usual message that “we can overcome just as Jesus overcame sin” is hardly provoking as the emphasis is placed on the fact that Jesus overcame sin while on Earth."
SF evangelists consistently practice this duplicity as they "know" that this can make people keep away from them if they knew what they believed in. So they slide in the backdoor gently and surely to slowly "reveal" the core SF doctrine of Christ having a "body of sin" and "sin in the flesh". This procedure is called "winning the confidence" of the new believer. Once the new believer's confidence in the SF person who brings "fellowship" and "doctrine" has been established, then begins the true indoctrination through a variety of means.
The girl in question has undergone this "process". The "process" works extremely well as more than a 100 years of SF "missionary" work has established. Part of what happens once the new believer has been "established" as having confidence in the SF person is that he or she is systematically convinced that all other Christians and denominations are the "harlot". That is why those who are well and truly indoctrinated never leave the SF and those who do are plagued for evermore with all sorts of doubts and fears because of their experience among the SF and their having had to leave the SF for whatever reason. The SF process inevitably leaves deep spiritual scars on people who choose to move away from the sect.
2. "If the aspect of Christ’s peccablity becomes an issue for a newcomer either through a direct mention of it or more likely through an indirect reference, he questions the original SFer. The SFer would then point out the references that he believes in from the Bible . The other usually accepts it as his belief of Christs impeccablity was not a result of any deep conviction but rather what his pastor or Sunday school teacher told him, which he did not bother to question. If he does not agree the he usually thinks that it does not matter as there is no one who tells him that the those who believe in such things are heretics and not Christians. So he continues to have fellowship with this group as he finds other things he likes in the group."
The SF works at many levels to indoctrinate and keep the "sheep" from the "world" and "the harlot". So if someone has deep doubts about what exactly the doctrine is, the SF is quick to point out all the "nice" things that exists and to take people deeper into that. They know very well that people who are kept well fed and happy will not look into deeper matters like the peccability of Christ. Hence the activities in the SF which not only make the cash counters ring but have also been expanded to include many tastes. For instance, rock and jazz and blues music was once entirely taboo in SF. Now SF members play this as entertainment for their tribe and that is not considered "unholy" but going to a real rock or jazz concert would be suspicious activity. The argument is "We will give you what you need within so you will not stray into the world." The target group are the young people who are usually "drawn to the world" so that they can be "preserved" in the SF.
3. "The SFer introduces him to SF literature that he has saying those are things that have helped him. The SFer would then tell him about his experience in the SF. HE may describe the birth of the SF, the lives of JO Smith, etc."
The SFer will also be careful to steer the new believer whose confidence he has won away from ALL other Christian writings, ALL other Christian groups, and will consistently be condemning these in gentle and insidious ways. He will work carefully so that JO Smith and other key leaders of SF are venerated and propagate ONLY SF literature. Thus, the "mind" and "attitudes" of the new believer are carefully shaped and moulded into the SF image. Further, the new believer is convinced subtly to rely confidently upon the "experiences" of the SFer and his leaders to affirm/confirm his "special" status of being "apart from the harlot". The new believer is taught to follow the "example" of "holy" men in the SF and "pattern" their lives after them and their experiences.
4. "If mature they reply maturely." To be mature is to be a die-hard SFer who would always be able to state why his group is the ONLY CHURCH while all other groups are "harlot".
5. Money - the fantastic success of both the SF and the rich TV evangelists is that they have found the formula to make some people give up large sums of money "sacrificially" for a "cause". The best business is the God business for the "directors" and of course if the shorn sheep are "happy" with that, all the better! Shear them a second time around. :-)
6. "Newer entrants to this group now have activities to participate in. They may enjoy the closeness and the high level of interaction of the community and may compare it to their previous groups."
True. The "tribe" and "community" experience is intense within SF and sucks young people in especially. But deep underneath is the "us" vs "them" syndrome. The intensity of relationships within the SF "tribe" is always fostered by an undercurrent of apprehension and fear and even despising of "them" - those who are not of SF. The whole effort continuously is to keep people penned in by painting the world as extremely evil. No die-hard SFer allows his children to mix with others of the world and the children are herded into SF activities which are extremely intense so that they have no time to look around, interact with or understand what is going on in the world with other human beings - they are blinkered well and are taught all the time that: "You are safe in here, out there are demons out to get you".
7. "The affiliation that was ‘understood’ now becomes a little more obvious as money has poured in from the SF churches all over the worlds. The local SFer now feels more obliged to the SF and the affiliation is cemented."
The circle has closed around both the individual and the group. Now the SF is fully in control and all "key" matters are directed from Brunstad. There is some leeway given but let there be no doubt that Brunstad controls all things. As one powerful SF leader put it to some "dissidents" once: "If you say that you have fellowship with the Smith's Friends and that you believe what we believe, then you must do what the Smith's Friends tell you to do." There is no compromise on this matter.
8. "With the spread of technology local flavors are slowly being replaced by ‘central’ flavors."
It is "compulsory" to watch the satellite broadcasts from Brunstad and to "contribute" when the money campaigns come around and to "be along" with the "work parties". The SF will preach and pretend that it is not "compulsory". But try not to conform and the poor fellow will feel the whiplash of ostracism. The non-conformist will constantly be reminded through speech, actions and gestures and find himself isolated very soon as a "bad example" and a "bad brother".
6. "Newer entrants to this group now have activities to participate in. They may enjoy the closeness and the high level of interaction of the community and may compare it to their previous groups."
True. The "tribe" and "community" experience is intense within SF and sucks young people in especially. But deep underneath is the "us" vs "them" syndrome. The intensity of relationships within the SF "tribe" is always fostered by an undercurrent of apprehension and fear and even despising of "them" - those who are not of SF. The whole effort continuously is to keep people penned in by painting the world as extremely evil. No die-hard SFer allows his children to mix with others of the world and the children are herded into SF activities which are extremely intense so that they have no time to look around, interact with or understand what is going on in the world with other human beings - they are blinkered well and are taught all the time that: "You are safe in here, out there are demons out to get you".
7. "The affiliation that was ‘understood’ now becomes a little more obvious as money has poured in from the SF churches all over the worlds. The local SFer now feels more obliged to the SF and the affiliation is cemented."
The circle has closed around both the individual and the group. Now the SF is fully in control and all "key" matters are directed from Brunstad. There is some leeway given but let there be no doubt that Brunstad controls all things. As one powerful SF leader put it to some "dissidents" once: "If you say that you have fellowship with the Smith's Friends and that you believe what we believe, then you must do what the Smith's Friends tell you to do." There is no compromise on this matter.
8. "With the spread of technology local flavors are slowly being replaced by ‘central’ flavors."
It is "compulsory" to watch the satellite broadcasts from Brunstad and to "contribute" when the money campaigns come around and to "be along" with the "work parties". The SF will preach and pretend that it is not "compulsory". But try not to conform and the poor fellow will feel the whiplash of ostracism. The non-conformist will constantly be reminded through speech, actions and gestures and find himself isolated very soon as a "bad example" and a "bad brother". Worse, his family and children would also face this ostracism in some form or the other sooner than later if he continues to not "be along" in these activities. Everyone is under pressure always to PROVE that he/she is a "good brother" or "good sister" and "approved".
Funnyman
Appreciate your candor. Are you afraid if you get caught you may
be blackballed?? Or are you high
enough in the food chain that you
are able to do such things
My experience is not decades old,
maybe one decade. In my experience
there are some lone rangers out
there as far as leaders go. I sat
under one, or so it would seem. CAn
you elaborate on this.
John
You are correct about compulsory
things, SFers will say nothing is
compulsory but the pressure to con-
form and be along and to be faith-
ful is evident. And it does seem
like the peecability issue is real
as well. I know of some folks who
pulled up stakes lock stock and
barrell to relocate to a town where
there was a SF fellowship to dis-
cover one of their hidden agendas
and ended up not staying at all.
To SFers.
It is discouraging to hear you all
say things like "Nothing is manda-
tory" or "there is no compulsion"
etc. In reality the pressure to conform is staggering.
To John (August 8):
You make many strong assertions with the conviction that they are factual. But, for the most part, you don't cite how you came to these 'facts.'
For example, "That is why those who are well and truly indoctrinated never leave the SF and those who do are plagued for evermore with all sorts of doubts and fears because of their experience among the SF and their having had to leave the SF for whatever reason. The SF process inevitably leaves deep spiritual scars on people who choose to move away from the sect."
Also, "No die-hard SFer allows his children to mix with others of the world and the children are herded into SF activities which are extremely intense so that they have no time to look around, interact with or understand what is going on in the world with other human beings - they are blinkered well and are taught all the time that: "You are safe in here, out there are demons out to get you"."
And, "It is "compulsory" to watch the satellite broadcasts from Brunstad and to "contribute" when the money campaigns come around and to "be along" with the "work parties". The SF will preach and pretend that it is not "compulsory". But try not to conform and the poor fellow will feel the whiplash of ostracism."
Furthermore, "Everyone is under pressure always to PROVE that he/she is a "good brother" or "good sister" and "approved"."
--"As one powerful SF leader put it to some "dissidents" once: "If you say that you have fellowship with the Smith's Friends and that you believe what we believe, then you must do what the Smith's Friends tell you to do." There is no compromise on this matter."
Where do you get these amazingly jaded quotes from? Personal experience? Nay. 1st hand experience where you would be willing to share your sources? No. You are engaging in Yellow Journalism. Sensationalism at the cost of people that sincerely call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Sincerely. It is one thing to choose for yourself what to believe and how to live your life, it is another to actively tear down something that you have limited knowledge of. I can't remember the passage from the Bible, but it goes something like this... The scribes and pharisees are debating whether Jesus has come from God or the Devil. Finally the wisest quiets them all and says that if it is a work of God that humans can do nothing to stop it, and if it isn't then God will deal with it. Sorry for the rough paraphrase. Another place Jesus says, "A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." So, if SF preaches one thing to the world through their 'limited access' portals, and lives a completely different (negative) life on the inside, God will make sure that it fails. So unless God has bequeathed the mantle of inquisition over the SF on you, then you should be careful and conscientious of how you speak and write.
To John (cont):
I believe you have NEVER attended an SF meeting. I believe that you have never spoken with an SF 'elder' or one with responsibility regarding all the claims you make against them. I believe that you have never paused to listen to the message spoken from the 'pulpit.' Your information comes solely from disgruntled former SF members that feel they must speak out. The former 'members' that left of their own free will without the enormous chip on their shoulder have no need to speak out and disparage the SF. So you are left with a very small percentage of SF (former SF) that you listen to. Terrible statistics practice.
So, while you say some things are are true regarding the more 'closed' doors of SF, and their 'zealous' ways, the conclusions you draw from the 'causes' are wildly off base. Funnyman has tried to share that with you, but you are the one that has blinders on and can only see the possibly negative, and expound upon the probable negative, aspects you see of SF. Few things in this world are 'so clearly ALL evil'... Especially when you are talking about an organization that claims to serve and live for God. So please, please John, have care with what you say and think about it more. If you still must rail against this 'possible cult,' then do so with the sure conviction of facts, references, texts, first hand accounts, divine revelations etc etc. Not the blindly bold assumption of willy nilly statements.
Rssnspy6
Gettin a little harsh there arent
you.?? Some SF fellowships are not
like the Salem fellowship, I infer
that is your home base because you
have told giving it to God, " I
bearly remember you." I would also
like to let you know that the like-
lihood that we have met and fellow
shiped is quite high, esp if you
are a peer of Yolena. I do remem-
ber her and spent time hanging out
with many of the single sisters
around her age, I do not know if I
have met giving it to God or not.
I do remember that when I decided
to not attend any more meetings
some of the Salem sisters wanted me
to come there to fellowship, they
were (for reasons I wont discuss on line) very supportive. I did
in the end elect not to go to any
more meetings. I can tell you, how
ever that the experiences at different fellowships is very dif-
fernt. My experiences with Salem
were always fantastic. I would men-
tion the sisters by name but I dont
think that is wise because of safety issues. I used the afore name because it has been mentioned
before.
So I hope that helps, and some of
you all I do miss very much and
hope and wish you all happiness
and blessings . I miss the people
of SF, I do not miss some of the
doctrines. Does that make a little
more sense? I hope so, cause I have come to find out that Jesus is
all about people, he is obssessed
with them. What I am trying to say
is this. If s ome one is unhappy
in SF it m ay be an indication they
need to move on. Because some have
they have some real healing they
need to do. I believe that blogging here may help them to move
on, however at some point they need
to forgive, put their bitterness
behind them and move on. Some
people just move on and do not carry the emotional scars of thier
time in SF, it just varies, for
lots of reasons. Probably the rea
son that you are reading things
that you think are not an accurate
reflection of life in SF are probably not for you, but someone
else may have had a horrific exp-
erience. I know what you might
be thinking and saying to your self
"Oh they need to just take up their
cross" agreed. For some people the
emotional turmoil of their lives is
such that they need to understand
the roots of their bitterness be
fore they can chop them off. Feelings are just that, dying to
yourself is one thing and a neces-
sary thing, but stuffing your feel
ings wont get anyone anywhere. So
I think some folks are just saying
what they feel, it dosent matter
if (it does) if it is based in real
ity or not.(for this discussion) the fact is the feeling needs to
be aknowledged and delt with, then
the dying to the flesh.
So I'm not sure if it is entirely
fair to say things like "jaded quotes" and strong assertions with
with the condition that they are
factual." We are talking about
feelings, and the human heart.
I feel like you are wanting to
disallow some of these there feel-
ings, How will stuffing thier
feelings and thinking, maybe mis-
takenly, that they have died to
them selves, help?
I'm sorry, for rambling on so, but
I am trying to make a point and
not stir up contention.
1. From: "What we believe" by JO Smith which is not on the SF.
"We believe that Jesus gained His great victory because He suffered in the flesh in which He came according to the seed of David. Romans 1:3 & Hebrews 2:10. We believe that He suffered all the way through the flesh, thereby putting all sin in the flesh to death. Romans 8:3 He thereby consecrated a new and living way through the veil, which is His flesh. THIS WORK BEGAN AS SOON AS JESUS LEARNED TO DISCERN BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL and it was finished on the cross of Calvary when He cried out: It is finished. Then the veil between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was rent from top to bottom. A way had been consecrated through the flesh right to the Father. This is the way of self-denial, the way of the cross, the way of suffering, the way of death."
2. From: The Bride and the Harlot by Sigurd Bratlie
"The wages of sin is death. If Jesus had sinned, if He had walked as the natural man walks, the grave would have held Him." p 89
RssianSpy: I am not railing against SF. Just pointing out the "other side". It doesn't matter if one has never been with SF. It is possible to see both sides of the coin.
To jarsmom:
Thank you for your candid words. I believe they are genuine and that you are genuine. I'll try to respond to some of of what you said later. I would ask you to elaborate on what I said that was harsh.
To John:
Thank you for your texts, but what point are you making or countering by posting them?
Your first few posts may have been very objective and both-sides-of-the-coin like, but, like I said earlier, how do you derive what you write? You posted two quotes just now with proper references, and you've done that a few times in the past, but the majority of your writing is unsupported 'factual' sayings. How can you know the 'other side?'?
What I'm really trying to get at, is what experience or knowledge or authority do you have that allows you to make such statements? jarsmom was in the SF for some time before leaving roughly a decade ago.
Keith lives in the same community as an SF fellowship and has had dealings with them.
funnyman was in the SF and is a 'Christ first, SF second' kind of guy.
Even giving it to god was in the SF.
What have you been involved with to give you such intimate insight into SF? It would really help me take your words seriously if I knew.
Hi again
Just a clarification to Rssnspy. Your sentence seems to imply that I was with with the SF and am not now. I still ‘am’ with the SF.
For John. I am also intrigued as to how you are so aware of the activities of the SF. However I think your words echo an aspect of experience/interaction with the SF rather than being only one of an observer. As Rssnspy put it a small clarification to that effect (without exact details )would be really welcome. As he said, it would add a lot of weight to what you post.
Jarsmom said ‘We are talking about feelings, and the human heart. I feel like you are wanting to
disallow some of these there feelings,’ . This blog does provide a vent for those who have bitter experiences with the SF and I hope it helps them move on. So I can understand posts that are full of feeling and emotions.
But I have one comment. John states “No die-hard SFer allows his children to mix with others of the world.....” and again “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".”
Your posts are mixes of facts along with your opinions. Nothing wrong with that per se but sometimes it is hard to differentiate the two.
You say ‘no die hard SFer’... implying that if a person is really SF he is like that. That is not true. I have heard otherwise.
You state “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”. That again is not true. I have heard otherwise
You state “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.’’ I have not heard of this. While the SF may not have an active evangelical programme as far as I know, they do not call an established Christian joining them ‘missionary activity’.
more coming
John you state “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.” I have never heard that preached. But since you have not claimed that all do that I cannot comment.
You also state “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. “ Once again I have never heard of this so this is new to me. But since you do not claim that all the SF do it I cannot comment.
I also find it intriguing that you quote statements of SF leaders. Being in the SF I have never heard those statements or even reports of them. How is it possible that you claim that you know the SF ‘hidden’ agenda so intimately? Were you there or is your source someone who was there?
You also posted ‘rules’ for Brunstad in a much earlier post. Could you point me to where you got them from.
What I am trying to say is that it is clear that you disagree with the SF doctrine and you do so not lightly, but from a very firm base. I appreciate that. You may disagree with the SF even oppose them and that is fine. But your facts have to be supported. Casual readers may join in half way and think that a statement you make for emphasis or rhetoric is actually true. They would respect your opinion but they would believe your facts. A single experience cannot be extrapolated to the whole group. An ‘often’ should not become an ‘always’ and a ‘rarely’ should not become a ‘never’.
This blog is a unique one in that it permits experiences in the SF to be aired and opinions to be raised. Opinions are fine. Some may feel the SF is a cult. That is fine. They are entitled to that. Some may feel we are heretics. That is also fine. Some may disagree with doctrine. That is fine. I value every opinion , but facts about the SF must have a reasonable backing. That is my point.
END
The posts have never said that "all" SF believe or practise some of the things pointed out.
But they are intended to point out that all kinds of weird ideas float within the SF, some of them spouted by leaders or fanatics. You can call these internal myths or legends of the SF, tools used to bind the group together.
Then again, there are many agendas within the SF and like ever secretive sect, no one knows exactly what the central agenda is as it is always mixed on the outside but perhaps clear on the inside as there IS a "core leadership" and "core doctrine" and "core agenda" that does not include the "peripherals".
Most people are happy to be "peripherals" and like in any other sect or denomination contribute money, time and energy to the SF once they have identified with the sect so long as they get the "special diet" doled out through SF. In fact, part of the money raising is justified that "now those who have got the word of God from us (SF) can make reparations by joining in the SF-building activities".
I am not an "opposer" (SF terminology for one who questions them and is therefore marked as an "enemy of the cross" or plain "enemy"). We live in a world where all kinds of weird cults exist with weird belief systems. But I believe that it must be possible to identify the cult or sect's basic belief system and world view and to differentiate it from that of other sects/denominations.
My problem with SF is that it claims to be Christian when it denies certain central doctrines that God enabled the Church Fathers to establish over time.
SFs attempt is to establish a second set of "fathers" whose doctrines are not those of the Church fathers and is insular.
The kind of "heresy" that SF has brought in and is propagating has raised its head often even in the first three centuries and many times thereafter and God's grace has always helped expose it and keep it under control.
My point is that people must be able to understand the implications of the "heresy" (strange word for the 21st century). The heresiacs must be allowed to live their lives like all other weird groups in the world, if they so choose. But let them not have the advantage of confusing Christians who are not trained to spot the difference and to suck them into the SF vortex unconsciously or through slow indoctrination.
And then finally, those who have been damaged badly by their encounter with SF must be enabled to be healed and to understand that one does not need to follow SF doctrine and behaviour or to have fellowship with SF to have a clear conscience before God in Christ Jesus. The great damage done to SF people is this - that they are indoctrinated into ONE system and made to feel that ALL other systems are evil. If one has deeply believed this for a long time, then one suffers terribly when withdrawing from the SF drug.
Funnyman: I do appreciate your viewpoint on the way SF is supposed to function as a church. As you pointed out there are opportunities for specific fellowships to go off track because of very little oversight. As pointed out by Keith some time ago this lack of oversight coupled with the lack of formal training from both a Biblical and organizational standpoint provides a ripe opportunity for abusive fellowships to grow.
I will also admit that there are many opportunities for abusive churches to gain a foothold within mainline denominations as well. Jim Jones and David Koresh are good examples of that, but they aren’t the only ones. But at least within mainstream churches, the formal training that paid ministers are required to pass does create an opportunity to filter out some individuals before they become leaders in a church somewhere. Not that that is a perfect process.
I know that the SF pride themselves on not having paid ministers and having no formal training gives them the illusion of being pure and untainted by the evil majority ruled harlot church institutions. But it also leaves the door open to letting the fox guard the hen house, so to speak.
Anyway to perpetuate the idea that they have a pure and holy church and that they are the bride of Christ on earth, and therefore better than everyone else is itself a sin of pride.
Funnyman (cont): I would also like to point out that the integration of financial and business interests into the organizational structure of a church as pointed out by John is the same mode of operation as the Mormon Church and the Unification Church. The number of companies and properties owned and controlled by these churches worldwide is astronomical.
The only reason for churches to acquire businesses and property in this manner is for the financial gain of the leaders. This is not the church model that Jesus Christ created. These are the like the money changers that Jesus rebuked and ran out of the temple. If this is the church model that SF is following then you have to ask the question; who is the real harlot?
In addition to this I have to point out that a SF church leader that uses his public school classroom to indoctrinate children into the SF church and intentionally cause division and separation between them and their Christian parents (that’s right He is the responsible party here) is not the example that Jesus Christ set for us either. When a young person, who has a healthy relationship with her family and friends, begins to attend this church and suddenly becomes afraid and shuns everyone else, then moves out of a college dorm and into the home of this SF leader, this is not an example of fruit from the Holy Spirit. There is a problem here.
Reading this blog there are obviously similar abuses that have occurred around this country and the world. So where is correction from the SF leadership? The only action attributable to the SF leadership seems to be attacking and harassing those who dare to speak out.
RssnSpy: I believe it is very arrogant of you to state that John does not have any personal experience with SF. Unless you know something not posted here, then you have absolutely no idea what his experiences are. He has not told us. Yet you state as if it is a fact that he has no personal experience. Why do you claim, as fact, things which you don’t know? That is a deceptive tactic to sway other people’s opinion when you don’t have the facts to counter his posts. He has obviously done his research and all you can do is attack him personally.
His descriptions, as well as others on this blog, paint a picture that fits the behavior of this local group like a glove. So how does one separate fact from fiction? It is necessary to listen to people from all sides and couple that with the local observations in order to draw conclusions. I’m still listening.
You said “Few things in this world are ‘so clearly ALL evil…”. And you also said
“It is one thing to choose for yourself what to believe and how to live your life, it is another to actively tear down something that you have limited knowledge of.”
You and all the other SF have judged this girl’s family with statements like “she had to separate for a time” or “because it was better for her”, etc. This SF leader has actively worked to tear down this family through lies, threats, and physical violence even though they themselves really have limited knowledge of her family. This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
You also said “I agree that there are people that attend SFs meetings that aren't interested in being finished with sin. What of it?” (July 29). I agree that there are people in all churches who are at different levels of maturity. But it is the SF that claims to be different than all the other Christians and the reason that this girl had to separate from her family. So what makes your harlot better than the other harlots?
You chastise John and say things like “do so with the sure conviction of facts, references, texts…” right after you yourself paraphrase the Bible? Why is it OK for you to not use references and not for others? Shouldn’t you try to live by your own words?
And one last thing, I love the part where you say “So unless God has bequeathed the mantle of inquisition over the SF on you, then you should be careful and conscientious of how you speak and write.” This is a typical attempt to intimidate others. In other words, John, you should just sit down and shut up so SF can do whatever they want. You have no right to question them.
But the Bible calls us to test the spirits. 1 John 4:1 says: “Dear friends, 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.” So you see, indeed, that God has bequeathed upon all of us the mantle of inquisition. Any organization that has nothing to hide is more than willing to subject itself to investigations, admit their wrongs, and work to correct them.
What SF believes implicitly but does not put up on its website:
1. From: "What we believe" by JO Smith:
"We believe that Jesus gained His great victory because He suffered in the flesh in which He came according to the seed of David. Romans 1:3 & Hebrews 2:10. We believe that He suffered all the way through the flesh, thereby putting all sin in the flesh to death. Romans 8:3 He thereby consecrated a new and living way through the veil, which is His flesh. THIS WORK BEGAN AS SOON AS JESUS LEARNED TO DISCERN BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL and it was finished on the cross of Calvary when He cried out: It is finished. Then the veil between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was rent from top to bottom. A way had been consecrated through the flesh right to the Father. This is the way of self-denial, the way of the cross, the way of suffering, the way of death."
Theological question 1: At what point did Jesus learn to discern between good and evil and to consciously choose the good? Was it at age 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 or 12 or 30? The implicit teaching is that BEFORE THIS POINT Jesus could have sinned "unconsciously" like all other human beings.
2. From: The Bride and the Harlot by Sigurd Bratlie:
"The wages of sin is death. If Jesus had sinned, if He had walked as the natural man walks, the grave would have held Him." p 89
Theological question 2: If Jesus had died because He walked "as a natural man walks" or "sinned" - what would have happened to the Second Person of the Trinity? The SF teaching is this: that Christ was a Spirit and this Spirit entered a human body that had sin in it. The corollary is that if that Jesus-body had sinned and died like other bodies, it wouldn't have made a difference. The Christ Spirit would have found some other body some other time in which the task of a human walking sinlessly on earth might be accomplished. Salvation would only have been delayed and perhaps be accomplished in another body.
This is an "occult" form of reasoning, very much akin to how "spiritualists" see Christ and it is the consequence of dismissing the impeccability of Jesus Christ, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, as "harlot" teaching, the teaching that comes out of "Bablyon" assemblies and from the "anti-Christ".
(end of part one)
3. "But we must not forsake our own assembly." you say. Very well, if Babylon is your assembly, then stay there; but if you are of "my people", then listen to the voice from heaven: Come out of her, my people." pg 60 Bride and Harlot.
This exhortation to leave every denomination, sect and join the SF alone is powerfully propagated throughout the history of this group and it will not easily abandon this tack. Once, this feeling of being "special" is gone and the high of having a "special" doctrine is gone, the group will be like any other group. So it protects itself by differentiation and the "us" vs "them" or Bride vs Harlot or Body of Christ vs Bablyon metaphors are invoked to convert and separate people from other denominations and join them to THE "Body of Christ" - the SF.
If you read the SF literature you can see how this tack is consistently pursued throughout the history of the group. SF implicitly stands against every other Christian formation because it claims it is Christ's Body on Earth. SF's behaviour historically proves that it's primary mission field is "other Christians" - to save "harlot Christians".
Theological question 3: How can SF boldy ascertain it is THE BODY OF CHRIST ON EARTH? Isn't it arrogance to claim that it has special spiritual knowledge so that it knows everyone who is obedient to Christ on earth? Or further, that if anyone is obedient to Christ on earth, they will ultimately find the SF and merge with it!
4. SF does not believe that "once saved, always saved". Therefore, all live in fear of God's wrath because it is impossible to live resting in God's love if you are all the time looking over your shoulder to find out whether God is displeased with some "sin" you have committed and is out to get you! If you believe you will lose the salvation God has sent you in Christ, how closely can you follow Christ? SF also teaches that those who harm the Body of Christ by words or deeds (read SF leaders or churches) will be punished by God with sickness or paralysis or even death. And funnyman, these things have been preached and written about by SF but, remember, there is also a powerful "oral tradition" within SF through which certain ideas are passed around as "true".
Theological question 5: Does Christ cast away one whom he has purchased with his own Blood? Why would he pay such a high price to buy a soul which He is going to dispense with anyway? It means one cannot trust Christ's redemptive love and power towards human beings. In which case, there is absolutely no hope for human beings except FEAR.
(ends)
Ref. what Harold said about the integration of financial and business interests into the church:
Let's juxtapose with it what Sigurd Bratlie writes in Bride and Harlot:
"The workers of the Harlot are businessmen, and the Harlot is called Babylon, the City of Commerce ... Jesus drove the merchants out of the temple ... Perhaps in all your life you have never come across a true shepherd. If you think back, then probably those you who met were satisfied when you gave them much good food, money and honour. Their interest was in shearing the sheep ... All the work within the church - the Bride - is founded upon sacrifice. The priests, the ministers do not become great men on the earth with a name in this world. Neither do they become famous ... There are preachers and businessmen galore. Theological seminaries and Bible schools are training just such people. (pg 47-48)
Should the Beast find himself in danger of being discovered in his sheep's clothing, behind the Harlot as behind a screen, he only has to allocate funds for the building of a new church or for the restoration of an old one and the people will be taken up with that for a time. When the work is finished there will be great festivities ...Woe to him who disrupts their work. Up will go the cry as of old "Great is the temple of Diana of the Ephesians" - the church, the old country church, the little mission hall, the cathedral, the valuable stained glass windows, the beautiful altar clothes and ancient pulpits! To them THIS is "Christianity"!
But if you want the real and "true Christianity" - check out what Brunstad has invested in:
http://www.crownaudio.com/gen_htm/press/pr108.htm
http://www.bcc.no/file/Teknisk/Technical%20equipment%20BCC.pdf
There is no need to envy Brunstad having such great and expensive facilities. When other Christians do this, it is "harlotry"! When Brunstad does it, it is the "bride"! The paradox!
John I would like to send you an email. Could you send me your email to scatterpillar@gmail.com
funnyman:
Impersonal and objective.
That's the idea.
This is a forum that has been pretty open-minded and generous and all matters pertaining to the theology and praxis of SF can be discussed out here.
That's good enough.
For John : Sure if that is your decision. However I had other reasons for wanting to get in touch with you by email (not at all to try and find out your details). I still will continue the discussion here. I still however would like to contact you whenever you agree to. This is not any kind of challenge or anything of that sort. If you do not want to I respect your decision.
Back to the discussion.
As I understand this blog was to explain the behaviour of a particular group of SF in Owasso, a kind of behaviour that has broken down a family. There have been others who have testified to the bad experiences they have had in the SF. I have tried to be as objective about the behaviour I have seen and as fair as possible in my statements.
I have not gone into great discussions on the doctrine of the SF for two reasons. The primary reason is that it has never been an issue for me. The second is that the forum was started with the behaviour of the group in Owasso and I do not think the emphasis of the doctrine of the SF was the primary point of discussion as the differences have already been pointed out and the lines very clearly drawn.
John : It is very obvious that you disagree with the SF on many matters of their doctrine. It appears from your post that the doctrine of the SF is what you consider the most dangerous of all their flaws and hence you seem to indicate that most if not all the SF faults seem to spring from the doctrine. You also seem to dismiss the SF because of this saying that anyway they are not at all a Christian group at all and are just like Buddhists etc trying to work their way to salvation. If the majority of Christians were to have their way we would be burned at stake as we have dared question the impeccability of our Lord.
Your posts however seem to echo the questions “How can doctrine be a small issue?” “How is it possible that Christ’s peccability was never an issue?”
to be contd...
So while I welcome discussions on the SF doctrine I think that is not the issue. I am not skirting it. John you may be able to convince me that Christ was peccable. However I do not see how that will help me honor Christ any more. You may be right. Christ may have been impeccable. I may be wrong. On the judgement day I will find out.
Many say that Christ ‘could not sin’ and mean it to praise Him. They say he demonstrated His divinity on Earth through this. I say that Christ ‘did not sin’ and mean it to praise Him. I say He emptied himself of His divinity and that was a just as great a work if not greater . I mean to praise Him too.
I cannot accept that Christ could not sin even if he wanted to. That seems to dishonour Him. I suppose if the early fathers had decided in my favour the other view would now be called heretics. I also do not believe that once saved always saved. There seem to be too many scriptures that warn me to see if I am in the faith. Incidentally I accepted the Lord before joining the SF. Am I saved now (once saved always saved) or am I a heretic?
to be contd...
Of course when a denomination is started the first thing they do is to lay down what they believe in what their aims are etc. The SF which claims not to be a ‘denomination’ has been slow to do so and it is only with the advent of the internet that recently the websites have become more descriptive.
An open discussion about doctrine by the SF leaders, would be welcome but do you think that is going to solve the problem? Will that change their behaviour if one were to convince a majority of the SF leaders that Christ was indeed impeccable? If they were to believe that Christ was both fully man and fully God would they be any less exclusive – I do not think so. Would they be any less proud? I do not think so.
Each doctrine has inherent pitfalls. While those who believe in the assurance of salvation may not be ‘afraid’, may be gripped by the love of God, they are also more prone to take sin less seriously. They should be aware of that and emphasize faithfulness. Similarly those who hear so much about cleansing themselves and do so are prone to becoming proud and looking down on others. They become exclusive. They should actively resist that and emphasize humility.
to be contd...
There was a time when I would have confidently told people that it was better to join the SF for their Sunday worship as they would get more help in the SF. I still think I was right at that period of time. There was a time when I did think the SF was better than any other denomination I had seen (and I have seen and been to plenty) . This was not because of the doctrine they preached but because of the seriousness with which they dealt with sin, the Godly fear they had in their lives, the peace they enjoyed at home, the way they cared for each other and many other good things. It was obvious also to others who came that the SF was different. They would attend a few meeting and realize that there was something different. Not the doctrine, but the behaviour.
Things have changed however. I would not say the same things now.The SF has now become similar to most churches. The doctrine has not changed. The behaviour and the life has. Now if I were to meet a Christian I would build him up in the spirit of I Cor 2:5-10 and 1 Cor 4:7. I would encourage him to stay and help his own local fellowship. ( I can only speak for myself)
There was a time when I considered building the SF was building a part of the body of Christ. (I mention a part with emphasis). Now I would not say that with confidence about the SF just as I would not say that about any denomination in particular. I earnestly desire fellowship with whoever I meet. Unfortunately I find that often other groups are just as oblivious of their co-inheritors as the SF. They are just as eager to build up their own flock , immerse in activities as the SF. Just as selfish as the SF. The only difference is that they preach that Christ could not sin and the assurance of salvation. Does just hearing the doctrine prevent folly?
We have to accept the fact that the majority of those who call themselves Christians (I include all denominations and including the SF) do not follow Christ sincerely. It is my earnest desire to meet those who are sincere and encourage and be encouraged. Call me utopian, but this is my burden. I still stay in the SF. I do not see how things would be any different in any other denomination.
I could publish the ‘letters of funnyman’ and start my own non denominational group but then s hundred years from now someone else would be writing these similar words against the FF (Funnyman’s friends) and we would be back at square one...
Do not dismiss the SF just for their doctrine.
END
@funnyman:
"I earnestly desire fellowship with whoever I meet. Unfortunately I find that often other groups are just as oblivious of their co-inheritors as the SF. They are just as eager to build up their own flock , immerse in activities as the SF. Just as selfish as the SF. The only difference is that they preach that Christ could not sin and the assurance of salvation. Does just hearing the doctrine prevent folly?
We have to accept the fact that the majority of those who call themselves Christians (I include all denominations and including the SF) do not follow Christ sincerely. It is my earnest desire to meet those who are sincere and encourage and be encouraged."
--
I feel encouraged to hear this and desire the same in my own life. One can argue about doctrines and about who has the best spiritual standards and really get no where. All of it seems rather silly, i.m.o. In the end, it is our behavior and whether these behaviors meet up to the standards of conduct that Christ has set up that will really matter. Do we love one another? Do we forgive one another? Do we reach out to those in need? Are we able to set aside our pride and get down on our knees? Or, do we isolate others because they do not fit our idea of what a 'christian' ought to be? Do we walk around with a 'holier than thee' attitude? Or are we able to serve, seek out, fellowship with ones that might not belong to the same fellowships or walk according to our expectations of how thing ought to be. It is good to be reassured that there are those like yourself within an environment of constant 'self-praising' that exists within the SF church (frankly speaking, so much conversation and testimonies by SF members revolve around 'how good we have it' and how other churches are lacking - it is from my experiences that i am writing from). It is easy to see the folly of this type of statements if we imagine how it will be if an individual went around constantly boasting of how good they are, how smart and perfect they were and how all other human beings were lacking in these same qualities. Maybe these cons that exist within SF will also change for the better. May God bless you and be with you in your spiritual journey.
funnyman:
Will take a day to respond to the issue of theological positioning.
The SF, i reiterate, cannot be clubbed as easily and comfortably as you do with "all Christians".
The SF must be clubbed with the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Unification Church, the Branhamites, the Branch Davidians ...and sundry other groups that claim to be "Christian" but are either sects or cults and have serious deviations in their doctrines, ideologies and behavioural patterns from simple Christianity (which, of course is harlotry and Babylon and the opposers, etc).
The SF leaders/texts themselves claim that the group is unique and THE BODY OF CHRIST and different and better and above all others, so why are you trying to fit them into precisely the box that they differentiate themselves from and hate to be a part of?
Chris:
Thank you for being truthful about SF inner attitude.
"An environment of constant 'self-praising' that exists within the SF church (frankly speaking, so much conversation and testimonies by SF members revolve around 'how good we have it' and how other churches are lacking".
It is in this context that New Brunstad is projected as New Jerusalem, the safest place on earth, heaven on earth, the best place one earth, the only place of true faith and holiness on earth, etc.
You've located the collective "beam (log) in the SF eye". :-)
funnyman:
You speak as one of the SF peripherals - from the outer court or perhaps from the inner court but definitely not from the "holiest of holies" - the "core" of the die-hards.
SF leaders would never want a theological discussion. They are "uneducated" and proud of it. Or they will say in their proud manner: "You have "theology", we have life. Phooey to you!"
In the end, what do they care? For more than a 100 years they have stayed exclusive and arrogant and have entered other churches only to grab recruits one by one but never to give anything to the "harlot". They're so cocksure about their "chosenness", "uniqueness", "exclusivity" and "invincibility" and the harlotry of all other Christians.
And don't worry about your salvation even if you are a heretic who believes that Christ was peccable - Jesus is merciful and "once saved always saved". But you're no different from a Buddhist or Hindu in your fundamental doctrine that any man with sinful nature can become God. This was preached thousands of years before in India, way before the SF came with this doctrine.
"When Christ was crucified, our old man was crucified with Him. Humanly speaking, noone else was nailed to the same cross on Calvary. HOw then could our old man be nailed to the same cross at the same time even before it saw light of day? Simply because Jesus really became the son of man and so received flesh and blood and a will of His own as we did. He overcame and condemned this self-will, so the Father reckons that it was our old man who was crucified with Him and that we died in and through the body of Christ."
So Jesus was a split personality - one side of him wanted to sin and another side didn't want to. The side that didn't want to suppressed the side that wanted to sin. Not bad for a schizophrenic. I wonder what it was like for Jesus to live like that - split down the middle. One side thinking he is God/Spirit and another side wanting to sin like all other men. So there was no ONE UNIFIED PERSON Jesus, only this schizoid man who had two personalities inside himself in one body. One persona killed the other, or "crucified" the other.
Interesting doctrine?
Anybody wants to be split like this?
The quote in the previous post was from Elias Aslaksen's book "I am crucified with Christ".
Again, another quote, and this tallies with the one put up here earlier from JO Smith's "What we believe" (which of course is not up on the SF website):
"On the middle cross hung the Son of God, because He voluntarily became the son of man; because He became partaker of flesh and blood like us, because He took upon himself a self-will, because He never did that will, because He never sinned, because He loved all manking and sought to save them; and because He told them the truth. There He hung, He who in this world had always borne his corss, denied His own will and who spiritually speaking, HAD ALWAYS LIVED A CRUCIFIED LIFE, THAT IS, FROM THE DAY HE WAS OLD ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND IT.'
That is Aslaksen. Sigurd Bratlie says the same thing as JO Smith (will put these up later as Bratlie uses proof-texts). Now we know that Smith, Aslaksen and Bratlie were "one" and in agreement on this doctrine and that the "core" of SF is "one" with the teachings of the apostle J O Smith and Aslaksen and Bratlie. But SF will never put this up on the website although J O Smith was bold enough to put it inside "What we believe".
The question is: Have those who control New Brunstad abandoned this "statement of faith" or do they pursue it secretly - through subtle forms of passing on the "doctrine"?
When did Jesus learn to crucify His self-will? At age 1, 2, 5, 25, 30? And if so, didn't he commit sin unconsciously before that age?
Any answers, RssianSpy, funnyman?
You cannot argue against these foundation beliefs put down in black and white in print.
That is why textual exegesis and hermenutics is important.
Hi again
John you stated “ And don't worry about your salvation even if you are a heretic who believes that Christ was peccable - Jesus is merciful and "once saved always saved". But you're no different from a Buddhist or Hindu in your fundamental doctrine that any man with sinful nature can become God. .”
I seem to have finally extracted from you a small concession that belief in Christ’s peccability will not get me and fellow SFers thrown into hell, and that using the ‘assurance of salvation’, a doctrine I do not believe in. Am I relieved !
You state “ But you're no different from a Buddhist or Hindu in your fundamental doctrine that any man with sinful nature can become God. .” I suspect we differ here. For me a ‘fundamental doctrine’ is the one of salvation. It does not involve Christ’s impeccability. I can find fellowship with other Christians based on my understanding of this ‘fundamental doctrine’ and there is so much more common ground in the Bible.
You stated in your August 1 post “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.”
I disagree with you. I would say that fellowship is possible between SF Christians and non SF Christians. I experience such fellowship.
As this discussion was started due to the result of destructive SF behaviour I do not want to saturate it with too much of a doctrinal discussion when the lines are already clearly drawn out. Would a separate google group be better? (with a link from here)
END
funnyman
You are not really SF ..you are just a confused nice idealist sort ...:-) i think the SF just about tolerates people like you since they cannot afford to lose anyone ...
i do not consider you a Christian in the sense that you understand the Lordship of Christ ...but i also do not enter the space of "who is saved and who is not" - the Lord is Judge of that and decides who gets into heaven or not ... but doctrinally speaking, you are no better than a Hindu or Buddhist with good intentions and a nice sentimentality and generosity, a kind of liberal very unlike SF fanatics ...that's okay by me ...
:-)
google group? who cares? not me ..keith has got this great blog going - why would one want to go anyplace else?
John: I think we need to give Funnyman a little slack. Although I agree with much of what you say, he seems to be open to other opinions and discussions. Shouldn’t we all be open to other opinions and discussion? And you are right to say that his salvation (and ours) is in God’s hands alone. So aren’t we are all in that boat?
There are a couple of points that I would like to pull out of your discussions with Funnyman. First of all, correct theology is important because wrong theology can lead to the isolationist and superiority ideals exhibited by SF.
Also, the average SF member (which may include Funnyman) isn’t necessarily aware of the agenda of the SF leadership. This seems to be intentional on the part of the SF leadership and a big red flag. It is typical of cult organizations that the membership is totally clueless of the true agenda.
I would also like to point out what I said very early in this blog which is that there are many cult groups that exist in the world and not all of them are religious. In order to recognize and categorize a particular group as a destructive cult it is necessary to analyze the behavior and try to recognize the religious aspect as just another tool used by some groups to manipulate their members.
Does SF meet these behavioral requirements and deserve to be labeled as a destructive cult? That is the fundamental question. In this case, I have to say, if they aren’t a cult then why do they continue to behave like one? Why all the secrets? Why try to hide the girl’s car in their garage and other places at night so that no one would know that she was living there? If they believed they were so righteous and God was on their side, why try to hide it? Why move her from the dorm into their home in the first place if not to control her?
Harold:
I accept your wisdom.
All I wanted to do was to show exactly what you pointed out to:
"correct theology is important because wrong theology can lead to the isolationist and superiority ideals exhibited by SF."
Those who do not have it have to deal with God but they cannot excuse themselves because the theology leads next to your primary argument - strange BEHAVIOUR.
So when one puts WRONG THEOLOGY + (=) STRANGE BEHAVIOUR, one can understand why the girl has been brought "under the influence" as it were.
“A perfect apprentice is one who gives up all his own opinions and plans and is obedient to his master.” And, “We realize that to be born again means to receive a new life with entirely new interests.”
These are quotes out of The Bride and the Harlot, written by Sigurd Bratlie. This may be the way Sigurd Bratlie interprets the Bible, but is that really what is meant? 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”
People can take scriptures and twist and wrangle them around for one’s own purpose…maybe to get people to ‘give up’ family, friends, their own belief’s, their own interests in many areas of life in order to be constantly working or hanging around only those of their own group. But, being an apprentice does NOT mean one is to ‘give up all his own opinions or to have entirely new interests’.
If one has had interests in family/friends/sports/music/art/recreational activities/reading/etc. all of their lives, one doesn’t suddenly give those up just because one accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior. If a person accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Savior and is truly filled with the Holy Spirit, then one might give up things like stealing, lying, gossiping, drunkenness, adultery. And, as we are filled with the Holy Spirit, we will over time become more Christ-like. But, that is through and because of the Holy Spirit filling us. It’s an inward beauty that comes only from Christ. ‘You will know them by their fruits.’
Funnyman: You said, “When people ask the new believers where they gather for worship they would probably describe it as a home fellowship that was not affiliated with other denominations.”
That wouldn’t be a true statement… would it…the ‘not affiliated with other denominations’ part? Why would someone who calls himself a Christian be deceitful?
‘that in most other churches the emphasis is not on living but on theory but we stress on ‘living’ or putting into practice what is heard.’
Isn’t that statement hypocritical and judgmental? Even Rssnspy said, “I agree that there are people that attend SFs meetings that aren't interested in being finished with sin. What of it?”……” There are people who are baby Christians in every church congregation (I’ve gone over that before) and there are also hypocrites in every church congregation. Sorry, but SF is NO different in that aspect of things.
John said, “Hence the activities in the SF which not only make the cash counters ring but have also been expanded to include many tastes. For instance, rock and jazz and blues music was once entirely taboo in SF. Now SF members play this as entertainment for their tribe and that is not considered "unholy" but going to a real rock or jazz concert would be suspicious activity. The argument is "We will give you what you need within so you will not stray into the world." The target group are the young people who are usually "drawn to the world" so that they can be "preserved" in the SF.”
Preserved or controlled? I’ll bet music from Christian musicians (who are not part of SF) is probably also taboo. And, if rock, blues, or jazz weren’t ok to listen to ten, five, or even one year ago, because it was ‘harlotry’ what has changed? The music may have changed, but God’s Word did not. So, if it was ‘a sin’ then why isn’t it still a sin? Who decides these things are taboo anyway?
Thus, the "mind" and "attitudes" of the new believer are carefully shaped and moulded into the SF image.” “The new believer is taught to follow the "example" of "holy" men in the SF and "pattern" their lives after them and their experiences.”
Christianity teaches that we are supposed to ‘pattern’ our lives after Jesus Christ.
“Then again, there are many agendas within the SF and like every secretive sect, no one knows exactly what the central agenda is as it is always mixed on the outside but perhaps clear on the inside as there IS a "core leadership" and "core doctrine" and "core agenda" that does not include the "peripherals". Most people are happy to be "peripherals" and like in any other sect or denomination contribute money, time and energy to the SF once they have identified with the sect so long as they get the "special diet" doled out through SF.”
This sounds no different than a government agency where there are SOME corrupt people at the top making the decisions using the money from the workers. In SF do they VOTE the leaders in, or has ‘the core’ been hand picked and proven themselves?
RssnSpy6:“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.”
Possible contexts?
I disagree with this statement. It has been reported over and again where people say that they had a ‘revelation by God’ and that He told them to kill another human being. But, it is clear from reading the Bible that it is a sin to kill another person. Our original Bible was NOT written in English or Norwegian so it had to be translated from the original Hebrew or Greek. So, I’ll say this again…It IS necessary for us to understand the context and the original language as some words have more than one meaning and the cultures were not the same as we live in here and now. Otherwise, one is just ‘interpreting’ the scriptures the way they believe God means them…which may not be what God means at all. It’s only THEIR interpretation.
“It is one thing to choose for yourself what to believe and how to live your life, it is another to actively tear down something that you have limited knowledge of.”
It is intriguing how you continue to defend this teacher who intentionally and actively tore down this girl’s family relationships and former friendships. Being that he was only her teacher in school and not a family friend or relative, he most likely had ‘limited knowledge’ of her family, yet he chose to actively tear them apart, physically and emotionally. Anyone who would do such things couldn’t possibly be ‘calling on the Lord out of a pure heart’.
“So unless God has bequeathed the mantle of inquisition over the SF on you, then you should be careful and conscientious of how you speak and write.”
It is true that we all should be careful and conscientious of how we speak and write. Harold reported how this teacher ‘tore down’ a local church and one of its young student ministers by using his public school classroom to discuss the sinful behavior of this young man. Although I am not defending what this young minister did, why bring that up in a high school classroom? Was that the subject being taught that day? Or was it to disenchant the students (Christian and non-Christian) with the local ‘harlot’ churches? This is a beginning step in getting these young and impressionable students to begin questioning their own teachings, their own church, their own beliefs, their own parents and friends. Was he being ‘careful and conscientious’ of how he spoke? “All have fallen short of the glory of God.” We all are subject to sin, even those within the SF. Was this teacher being ‘careful and conscientious’ when pointing out the sins of others in class?”
I apologize for the novel length. I am not able to post as often as I once was, so I have to make use of the time that I have and jam it all together.
jarsmom (aug 9)
I lived in the Salem area for many years. I am under 30, so I'm not really a peer of
Yolena (sic). She is no longer single. In the time you've been away she has had the
time to create quite a full family.
You said your experiences in/with Salem Fellowship were fantastic... Where did you
experience the negative things you shared?
What you said about understanding the roots of bitterness so they could 'chop them
off' was very good. The SF teaches that the cause of all the problems I see are
really my flesh reacting. Feelings come from the soul, which is easily led away from
God's will. The soul isn't bad or evil, because the Bible says we are to love the
Lord our God the all our soul, among other things. We have to put those feeling in
their rightful place and really make sure that they aren't coming from the lusts in
the flesh.
I made those 'jaded quotes' and 'strong assertions with with the condition that they
are factual' because John has never come out and said what his background or MO
really are. If John were trying to support the SF with unsupported quotes like that
I think that Keith would say he is a bit like elf_asura. A bit, not a lot, but a
bit. I don't know what this blog has to do to get John to support his claims. We
know he has at least three pieces of literature, from JO Smith, Aslakesen, and
Bratlie, but we don't know how those pieces he has shared has given him such great
knowledge into the inner workings of the SF he condemns.
Thank you for making an effort towards avoiding contention. I would also like to
avoid contention. But I cannot sit idle and read what is being written regarding the
SF without opposing what I believe/know is false.
funnyman (Aug 9)
The rules you asked about ... I would have guaranteed that they were on the public
site, brunstad.org/eng/, but I couldn't find them just now. I know that I've read
them before on a website other than this blog.
Harold (Aug 9)
SF does not perpetuate the idea that they have THE pure and holy church. They do
preach that you must be a disciple of Jesus, be pure as He is pure, and 'take up
your cross and follow Him' to be in the Bride of Christ when Jesus returns. There is
no 'Bride of Christ' on earth, just the mindset that the Bride of Christ would have
were she on earth. SF does not preach that SF is better than everyone else, that
pride you speak of dwells in everyone and is each person's responsibility to deal
with it as Jesus dealt with pride.
You said, "The only reason for churches to acquire businesses and property in this
manner is for the financial gain of the leaders." Do you have proof that the leaders
have made this their aim? Or is that what you think? Or is that what you would do if
you were the leader of SF?
What is the church model that Jesus Christ created? I don't recall which gospel it
is written in.
You misunderstood what I said about John and his personal experience with SF. He has
not qualified any statements but the ones he takes from the 3 pieces of literature
he quotes. Yet he makes bold statements asserting what the 'leaders of SF' have done
or said, and what is actually preached in the meetings. I said I BELIEVED that he
had never done those things, not that it was a fact that he had never done those
things. The fact that he has STILL not told us what his personal experiences
are/were should be cause to disbelieve much of what he says. An unknown source means
nothing. Yet here you say that I'm being deceptive for saying what I BELIEVED. SEE,
I QUALIFIED MY STATEMENT SO EVERYONE WOULD KNOW THAT IT WAS MY BELIEF AND NOT FACT.
I could be proven wrong when/if John shares where all his worldly knowledge comes
from, but until then, he is just spouting words that have no foundation.
I'm glad you are still listening, and I hope you listen to the both sides equally.
You seem to be one of the more rational people here. So far you've always been
careful to quote your references and support your opinions as completely as
possible. I respect that.
Saying that, "You and all the other SF have judged this girl’s family with
statements like “she had to separate for a time” or “because it was better for her”,
etc." is misleading. There is no judgement associated with taking my experiences
with the young lady, my conversations with her husband and father-in-law, and my
experience on this blog and making those statements above. I did not slander or
belittle or judge her family in any way.
The SF does not claim to have every member actively living as a member of the body
of Christ. SFs 'members' do have different maturity levels and interest levels, but
the message that is preached is different (peccability, perfect discipleship, follow
Jesus, take up your personal cross). SF was not the 'reason' the young lady 'had to
separate' from her family. The young lady chose to come to the SF.
In order to make my 'chastisement' of John stand I will directly cite Bible verses I
paraphrase. Matthew 12:25 is for the "kingdom divided" paraphrase, and for the life
of me I can't find the other. I'm sorry. But, it IS in the Bible, which is a
citation. If you dispute my paraphrase, then I'll have to rescind my previous
paraphrase until I find the proper reference.
To Harold (cont)
Regarding testing spirits... I read 1 John 4:1 and understand that I am to test the
spirit before I allow it entrance into me and my mind. That is my sphere of work. My
sphere of work and 'mantle' is not to be the inquisitor over all those that have a
different spirit than me. Why do you accuse me of attempting to intimidate John?
John, I assume, is not intimidated by me because he is a smart, sharp, driven guy
and all I can do, at worst, is hurl 1's and 0's at him across cyberspace. Asking him
to reconsider is hardly intimidation and I am baffled as to why you would pull out
that ridiculous argument... intimidation tactics, pfff.
RE: Aug 15
"Also, the average SF member (which may include Funnyman) isn’t necessarily aware of
the agenda of the SF leadership."--What is this 'agenda'? Enlighten my ignorance.
You mentioned 'hiding the girl's car...' There is another side to this story that I
would like to share with the rest of the blog. I've heard (I did not see it first
hand) that the young lady would, at various times, have her car moved or driven back
to her parents house. For example she would go to the store and come out to find her
car gone. I'm guessing (logically) that her parents had a spare set of keys and
'someone' 'stole' her car to 'harass' her. If this were happening to me I'd park my
car in the garage too. There is the other side. No secret there. Also, they didn't
MOVE her by force into their home so don't make it sound that way so your
'controlling' take has more life in it.
John (Aug 9 to present)
You have not answered my questions and inquiries but you want me to answer your
statements.
'just pointing out the "other side"?' Those that are 'against' (for lack of a better
word) SF on this blog have far outnumbered those that have tried to defend SF. Your
side has been laid out before, but with qualifying statements (like 'I experienced'
or 'I heard from' or 'I read that' or 'from this article I deduce...').
I'll ask yet again: HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL THE THINGS YOU'VE ALLEGED? It is impossible
to deduce all you have written from the 3 articles that you've referenced. I just
want to know WHERE and HOW you've come across such evidence that, were it true,
would be very damning to SF. So far very little of what you've said is how I
understand and experience and hear and have learned from SF 'indoctrination.'
funnyman said something to John Aug. 9 that I'd like to counter. While it is
ludicris to allege that someplace as paltry as Brunstad is the 'New Jerusalem'
(which will come out from heaven), it is true that the children are led to believe
that Brunstad is the 'best place on earth.' I have no issue with this because I've
seen the effort and extent the friends in Norway have put into making the
conferences, children's days, summer holidays at Brunstad to make it good for the
kids. Every SF kid would love to go play at Brunstad.
You mentioned that there were 'many agendas within the SF like every secretive
sect.' What are these agendas? Or is this another example of you doing a drive bye
with no supporting facts to broadly brush the SF with 'secretive sects.' Maintaining
a lively, growing website like the SF does is entirely un-secretive. There are
samples of articles from the monthly SF publication (Hidden Treasures)(free) and
enough articles that are posted each week that allow everyone and anyone to get an
idea or taste of what the SF is all about. Every fellowship from around the world is
invited to send articles in.
You said you weren't an opposer. Yet here you are boldly saying everything under the
sun against SF. How is that not an opposing stance? You are working quite hard to
convince others that the SF organization is really out to get them and indoctrinate
them and pressure them to 'give money' and make them feel guilty for not 'working to
spread the gospel.' That is opposition. No denying it. You are an opposer of SF.
Embrace it.
Your 'problem with SF is that it claims to be Christian when it denies certain
central doctrines that God enabled the Church Fathers to establish over time.'-- Who
are the Church Fathers you speak of? What are the central doctrines that SF denies?
Is it just the Peccability/Immpeccability doctrine?
To John (cont)
You asked on Aug 10 "at what point did Jesus learn to discern between good and
evil?"--One answer might possibly be found in Luke 2:40. "He grew and became strong
in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. (NKJ)" Shortly
after that it says He was twelve years old. So SF believes that sometime between
birth and 12 a child learns to discern between some good and evil. It is a growth
process. It probably started with simple obedience to His parents or sharing with
His brothers and sisters. I'll try to find a more complete answer for this question.
In this same vein I have a question back: Do you think that Jesus ever apologized or
said He was sorry?
Your #2 point from The Bride and the Harlot is hard for me to understand, so if I
interpret what you meant wrong, please correct me. The SF teaching is that Christ
the spirit in heaven sharing all of God's fullness shed that spirit perfection and
took the form of a man. Phil 2:6-7 says that He did not hold onto, or grasp, being
equal with God, but emptied Himself, or made Himself of no reputation. He then lived
a life free from the wages of sin, which was death, and because of that
purity/holiness was granted access to 'supernatural' powers--like healing--through
the Spirit. He then took all the sin of the world on Himself and died for us on the
cross of Calvary. God then raised the man Jesus up from the dead back to His
rightful place because of His Christly feat. This understanding of Jesus Life is the
only one that allows us disciples of Christ to walk in His footsteps each day on the
"new and living way through the veil" that you mentioned in #1 from JO Smith. It is
only a heresy to you because either you do not want to suffer your own lusts into
death or you don't understand what SF preaches.
#3 SF does not claim, and should never claim, to be the full and complete Body of
Christ on earth. The body of Christ on earth are those that do His will no matter
where they worship. It is true that the way to become part of the body of Christ on
earth is preached in the SF. That isn't to say that no one else preaches or lives
it, just that SF does preach it.
#4 No where does it say in the Bible that once saved always saved. That is a
half-understanding of Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord
Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be
saved." It is also written that "If you love me, do my commandments," John 12:14.
So, despite what you say and believe, you still must 'do' to be saved. James 2:18
says the same thing when he talks about showing his faith BY his works. "Once saved,
always saved" is a lie from Satan because it lures 'christians' into slothfulness.
Furthermore, you cannot throw away the 'fear of God.' Read Phil 2:12-13, "fear and
trembling..." Read Psalms 111:10, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning..." When
you remove all the fear of God, and turn God into a loving teddy bear, you lose all
respect for His awesome power and wrath. We, with the fleshes of Romans 3:10-18,
deserve nothing but hell and punishment. That fear you denounce does in fact
motivate christians properly to live a Godly life.
Regarding how you compared the Bride and the Harlot to the present day building work
at Brunstad... You have to consider the times in which they are said and done. You
also have to understand more about the purpose of Brunstad than you do to get how
Sigurd Bratlie's words and the present day Brunstad are in perfect harmony. You are
in fact judging a 'book by its cover.'
Regarding your upturned nose at funnyman's request to converse over email... You
reacted in a very belittling way. Why did you have to publicly lecture him and smear
him with the negative traits you bestow on SF? Ask yourself if that was a christian
thing to do.
To John (cont)
Re: Aug 13. SF does not preach that any man can become God. SF preaches that we must
follow in Jesus footsteps, who was exalted by God far above everything to sit at His
right hand. Jesus was not a split personality. SF believes that He 'emptied
Himself/made Himself of no reputation' (put off the heavenly body).
You asked the pointed question regarding Jesus and if He 'sinned unconsciously.' I
have never heard that exact point 'indoctrinated' into me. I resent that phrase
because James 1 lays out what 'to sin' is. You cannot 'sin' unconsciously. It is
possible to un-mindfully, thoughtlessly do/say something that is contrary to God's
will. So, I don't have an answer for you on that yet because I am not sure myself.
You speak of foundation beliefs. I believe that you do not understand the full
preaching of the SF because you are not an SF 'member.' To understand SF preaching
you must live the life that is preached and must not 'interpret' (for lack of a
better word) the scriptures through the glasses you've worn your whole life. Of
course it makes no sense to you if you believe in an impeccable Jesus.
Telling funnyman he isn't SF, just rather confused (and then adding a smiley) is
quite off. Since you've pigeon-holed all SF to act and think a certain way you think
it is impossible for funnyman to be SF. SF isn't a bunch of clones that the 'core'
leadership has fashioned so they can rake in the donation money and live the fat cat
life. Don't be so narrow-minded.
To Sophie (Aug 15)
You wrote about people twisting scriptures for their own purpose. It has happened
since the first Bible was bound. In regards to your statement, "If one has had
interests in family/friends/sports/music/art/recreational activities/reading/etc.
all of their lives, one doesn’t suddenly give those up just because one accepts
Jesus Christ as their Savior..." I would like to share Matthew 6:33 and ask you how
you understand it. "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness..."
Could it mean that instead of holding on to whatever you had before you were
'converted' to christianity, you are supposed to let it all go so that you can seek
for God in everything? You even quoted the verse about 'if you are in Christ you are
a new creation...' Why would a new creation still want to do and have the same
things the 'old' one did and had?
There is a huge difference between being a 'baby Christian' (in maturity) and not
being interested in the gospel. A baby christian is a new convert with a lot to
learn... and they want to learn. The uninterested one just hangs around and enjoys
the goodness of the others and the free things the church has to offer. I don't see
why you had a problem with funnyman's statement. He said that SF stressed living the
life, not that everyone took heed. Or did you take offense to the statement that
other churches did not emphasize living, but rather theory? In support of funnyman,
the churches I've visited (there have been many) were much like this. You can't
dispute my experiences there.
You talked about music in SF. SF preaches that we are to be In the world, but not of
it. (John 17) SF won't be like the Amish. SF will listen to and play music at
'church events' that has uncompromising lyrics and a good spirit. Otherwise, in the
home or by yourself, it is up to the SFer to choose what is and what isn't edifying.
You ask, "if it was 'harlotry, what has changed?" Yet you are the one that recently
brought up the growing baby = spiritual christian analogy. The SF is the same way...
It grows up into what Jesus wants it to be.
You talk about only following the 'pattern' of Jesus Christ. That isn't Biblical.
Paul says, "follow me as I follow Christ," and speaks of how the Ephesians learned
from Epaphras. It is a good idea to see where your 'fathers' in Christ have ended
up... If in fact they are receiving the end of their faith.
There is no voting on leaders in the SF. The leaders are there as a result of what
Paul writes to Timothy (chap 3) about church leaders (among other things). There is
a constant fellowship among the leading brothers around the world (John would call
it a collusion) in spiritual matters that keeps them all on the straight and narrow.
Voting would lead to no end of folly and SF would probably turn into what is spoken
about in 2 Tim 4:3-4 about heaping up teachers for itching ears.
To Sophie (cont)
Regarding 'possible contexts.' I meant that to read 'possible translations.' I
apologize.
Regarding reading the Bible in its original language... Why would that help? Every
Bible scholar under the sun seems to have translated the Bible from Greek or Hebrew
or Latin or whatever and they still cannot come to a consensus on what different
words should read. How would you or I be able to suddenly bring light to what those
countless scholars couldn't do? If a word has multiple meanings you can read
different translations and pick the STRONGEST, MOST ZEALOUS one. For God does
nothing half heartedly or in a pansy way. Like I said before, God must reveal the
scriptures to us for us to have any chance at understanding what they mean to our
lives. Hebrew or Greek is no help.
I was not defending the teacher by asking John to reconsider his words towards SF. I
was only speaking about SF and John. No teacher in that segment. There are multiple
fields of discussion on this blog.
You brought out a contradiction in your last paragraph. First you want each person
to be careful and conscientious. Then you put down the idea that highschool kids
should question what they are taught. Being careful is looking into what they are
taught so they know what they are learning, not blindly following it because their
parents are. You also jump to the conclusion as to what the teacher said in the
classroom. He 'could' have used the situation to warn the students that sometimes
people you think are your friends are the ones that can take advantage of you...
thereby furthering the teaching that it is good to question and be careful and
conscientious. But no, you first think the evil of him because you've already
decided that the teacher is bad and wrong.
Sophie: Your insight into this group is becoming extremely clear.
1. "People can take scriptures and twist and wrangle them around for one’s own purpose…maybe to get people to ‘give up’ family, friends, their own belief’s, their own interests in many areas of life in order to be constantly working or hanging around only those of their own group."
This is exactly what SF teaches at the "core" and practices - physical and emotional cut-off. Once in a way, SF may connect with "harlot Christians" and even invite them to Brunstad (for instance, SF arch-enemy Zac Poonen was once again in Brunstad this summer conference July having surrendered his erstwhile views on the sect - did they pay him off to keep silent now?)but it is never for "fellowship" as funnyman believes. It is in the hope that they can make him into an SF person or at least get him to not "attack" the SF (peace-making).
2. The ‘not affiliated with other denominations’ part...
Yes, it is deceit. No recruit is ever told that the local system is under the global SF denomination or domination. They are gently slid into the system and then locked in psychologically.
3. The emphasis is not on living but on theory but we stress on ‘living’ or putting into practice what is heard.
This is the indoctrination that SF members are consistently fed - that the "harlot churches" (all the denominations around you) stress theory but SF alone stresses obedience and living! SF separates Christians from Christians. But they justify it by saying "I have come with a sword to divide".
4. Preserved or controlled? I’ll bet music from Christian musicians (who are not part of SF) is probably also taboo.
Of course, music of the "harlots" is taboo. The SF is very clever. They will keep one or two "hymns" from the "harlot" in their Christian repertoire to prove that they are not inimical to other Christian songs. It is a mask. In their process, the god-men at the top have the discernment to decide which of these songs written by Christians down the ages are "truly spiritual". So if a song is not kept as "mask" or for "show" when "harlots" come snooping around, then that song is said to be included because "we have tested it and found it to be truly spiritual". Yet, Brunstad has no problems with propagating rock music at its conference centre since it keeps the cash registers ringing.
5. In SF do they VOTE the leaders in, or has ‘the core’ been hand picked and proven themselves?
There is never any vote. SF leaders have often said that "We are not a democracy." The "core" has always flowed in a "royal" manner through the line of J O Smith or Sigurd Bratlie where alliances are made through marriages and utmost loyalty to ideology. Just as media once traced the Brunstad chain of businesses, it might be interesting if someone traced the "core leadership" down time through J O Smith's lineage! It's a "family affair" to an extent to which the entire "family" subscribes and dissidents are "black sheep of the family" and preferably ostracised till they leave or conform.
6. It IS necessary for us to understand the context and the original language as some words have more than one meaning and the cultures were not the same as we live in here and now. Otherwise, one is just ‘interpreting’ the scriptures the way they believe God means them…which may not be what God means at all. It’s only THEIR interpretation.
To get back to originals and interpretations and contexts would mean SF loses its "revelation" and how then can it boast of being "unique" and "special" and "superior" to all other denominations? SF faces the same dilemma as the Branhamites, the Mormons, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Witness Lee group, etc. Naturally, the only response can be that of the ostrich - stick your head in the sand and go on with whatever you have believed in - very much like the Flat Earth Society.
7. Or was it to disenchant the students (Christian and non-Christian) with the local ‘harlot’ churches?
Of course, that is how it is. If SF cannot disenchant a person about the local "harlot" churches, where would it get recruits from?
Finally, I would say that this group is plugged into "a spirit" and it is a "strong" spirit. If you want to test this "spirit", PRAY and MOBILISE PRAYER to the Lord Jesus. It's the only way to take such "spirits" on and perhaps the ONLY WAY to get the girl to meet Jesus and leave behind the SF. You can sure that then her husband, if he is a die-hard SF, will treat her as scum and a second-class citizen if she chooses to leave the sect.
And that is the truth - there are first-class citizens in the kingdom of SF and second-class citizens too - "vessels of honour" and "vessels of dishonour" as SF likes to put it. They do not see "all" as "vessels of mercy".
Rssn Spy:
Let there be no contention between us though you brand me an opposer.
But just one point:
"It is only a heresy to you because either you do not want to suffer your own lusts into death or you don't understand what SF preaches."
How do you know anything about this?
And then I will speak from my "experience" too since you claim much for your "experience" (and everyone who is wise knows that experiences are not absolutes):
Once I was at a healing convention and the preacher was trying to heal a polio-stricken child. When nothing happened someone from the crowd asked why it had not happened. His answer was "The child had not enough faith."
This the SF trick too and comes from both insecurity and pride.
If someone does not agree with SF, he/she becomes an "opposer", "harlot", "enemy", "worldly wise" (you mentioned my worldly knowledge somewhere), an "anti-christ" etc. Many have experienced this in their lives. So it is their experience against yours and you claim your experience to be superior and edifying while they say theirs has been extremely painful and debilitating.
It is easy to blame someone for not understanding you and to claim that ""It is only a heresy to you because either you do not want to suffer your own lusts into death or you don't understand what SF preaches." It absolves the SF of all its actions and places the blame on those who do not pledge loyalty to SF doctrine and behaviour.
Understand?
To John:
I understand pretty well what you and others like you want to do. SF is a threat to you and yours in some way otherwise you wouldn't pay it one iota of your time. You could just leave well enough alone and let those you don't agree with go their own way... Instead you choose to attack, attack, attack so that you feel better about something or can claim that you are doing the Lord's work because you righteously oppose that which you (in your knowledge) find blasphemous.
And still... You have NOT shared how you get your information! How is it possible to know that Zac Poonen was just at Brunstad in July? Whether he was or wasn't isn't the point. The point is that you cite your references. How'd you find this out? Was the source credible? I can't believe that Harold and Keith haven't jumped all over your lack of transparency. You are hiding your background and covering up your sources.
Let's say this blog is a courtroom. Each side has to bring their argument. The information and facts have to be supported and shown how it was collected. You don't do that. You can't walk into this 'courtroom' and act like 'expert' on SF without telling the judge what your credentials are. Do you get what I mean or are you ignoring my request on purpose?
At least when I make a claim backed by my experience I say that it is my experience (and don't pass it off as accepted fact).
You made the claim that the young lady's husband would 'treat her as scum' if she left SF. SF preaches to live a God fearing life according to the Bible. The Bible says that each person should live with their spouse (love as Christ loved the church). The Bible doesn't say that we should treat our spouses like scum if they don't agree with us. Don't make such outrageous claims especially if you don't know the husband or the young lady. The only way you might be able to make that claim is if you knew a couple that had that happen to them. Where one left SF and the other began to treat them 'like scum.' Otherwise don't say such things like, "you can be SURE... her husband... will treat her like scum." This is what you may THINK, but no one can be SURE...
I don't want to contend with you, but I do want to stand up for what SF believes and teaches and not allow unfounded rumors and false 'facts' to be spread to the unknowing without a contrary word.
You talked about the 'core' leadership. JO Smith. Aslaksen (not related in any way). Bratlie. K Smith. Am I missing anyone? 4 Leaders in 100+ years. Royal flow. pfff.
I liked your idea of Praying and Mobilising prayer. If you and those you exhorted to pray did that then we wouldn't have this blog and we wouldn't contend. funnyman, I, and others who have defended SF wouldn't be here if SF wasn't attacked or slandered. It continues to be here because people like you continue to attack with false accusations. If they were all true I wouldn't be able to give any kind of defense.
CITE YOU REFERENCES, BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU SAY... Please.
RssianSpy:
SF is a threat. At varied levels. IT IS A THREAT TO THOSE WHO ARE TRAPPED WITHIN IT. And sometimes it is a threat to (and threatens) those who have encountered the darkness within it and are coming to terms with it.
What does it matter where the blog material being posted comes from? Perhaps you would like to threaten the sources? Get them to shut up?
This blog is a courtroom? I don't think so. It is something Keith has set up for conversation and all sorts of information related to SF to pour in. Revealing the sources would put them directly under threat from SF.
Example: When Zac Poonen attacked SF, the SF leaders published material from his "personal" letters to them which they had stored over the years to counter-attack! Then they tried to put him in jail by filing criminal and civil cases against him (but they failed and have now made peace with him).
Given such a background, would it be wise for any sources to reveal themselves? So, as Harold said, sift through the information to get a "feel" of what SF might be or might not be.
By the way, I respect your blind loyalty to SF just as I would the loyalties of any other sectarian or cult member anywhere else in the world. But that sort of loyalty does not mean that the sect or cult should not be discussed or scrutinised, does it?
Hi again
Whoa ! That was a lot for a day. Here goes my mite ....
1. For John : I am surprised at the ease with which you bandy around half bits of information. State your facts as facts. You state “Once in a way, SF may connect with "harlot Christians" and even invite them to Brunstad (for instance, SF arch-enemy Zac Poonen was once again in Brunstad this summer conference July having surrendered his erstwhile views on the sect - did they pay him off to keep silent now?)but it is never for "fellowship" as funnyman believes...”
Zac Poonen being in Brunstad is a fact. The rest is your assumptions that you dare to put into the public sphere.
I think God requires an account of every idle word spoken and in this internet age every idle word typed. Although there is freedom to say what we feel, we need to have a Godly fear in what we state.
When you allege that a person like Zac Poonen was ‘paid off’ do so with extreme care. He is being used by God . I find it really surprising that you can toss in such information with such scant regard for the truth. True Zac Poonen and the SF parted ways. True we saw him as one who opposed us. But you do not see Russian or me or others in the SF smear his name so. If peace is made we are glad.
How can you be so presumptuous to claim that SF and Zac Poonen did not have fellowship?
2. For John : What exactly is your position as regards the SF? Your initial statements had me believe that you were a theologian and that the SF doctrine was the biggest thing that bothered you. Now you make wide claims that SF may have paid of Zac Poonen, SF has a hidden agenda etc. That is not the position of a scholar but more of one who has an axe to grind with the SF. You have persistently not revealed why you are so anti SF. The tone of your postings seems to indicate an animosity greater than the righteous indignation that would come from one taking offense at doctrine. There are those who have had bad experiences with the SF and I can give them a really lot of leeway in the statements they make. I would do so for you too if that were the case. But if someone claims to be neutral, takes a theological standpoint and then mixes facts, theology and loose talk, it actually makes me confused. I am not asking you to reveal your personal details. I would like a little more clarity on how and why you are making these allegations. If you cannot verify this, say so and stick to the matters of SF doctrine.
3. Do not allege that we want to make your sources ‘shut up’. I am not interested in knowing your exact sources. Surely you must be able to keep their identity and your identity secret and still give us something to substantiate your statements.
4. Everyone here except Keith is anonymous. Keith has granted us that liberty. But almost everyone here has made their positions very clear so that we can see their posts in that light. Could you enlighten us at least a little on your posts as to me they are losing their credibility as you skirt this issue.
END
Funnyman:
1. Thank you for confirming that Zac Poonnen was at Brunstad. I also apologize for using the word "paid off". I did not mean money was paid to him though that might also be possible since having fought the cases which sought to put him in prison meant expenses and usually when "peace" is made, "peace reparations" are also made. But my point was that there is a "pay off" because those were "serious allegations" Zac Poonen made against SF. Do those allegations still stand? Or has Zac Poonen reneged on them for whatever his reason might be, which too I grant.
2. I have no axe to grind against SF, but I am interested in the entire process whereby this group always successfully evades certain direct questions pertaining to its theology and behavior and how it has been able to "hide" pretty successfully for decades from this sort of public or theological scrutiny.
I can see why you and RssianSpy are rattled. But I have no problem leaving this room because, in any case, a strong theological study on SF is coming up which is pretty well based on an entire archive of SF texts. That will be enough to show the direct relationship between theology and behaviour and also to mark SF as not a Christian group but one like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Witness Lee, etc.
3. By the way, the texts that are being studied include many that have directly "smeared" Zac Poonen over the past decade or so. If you or RssanSpy have not smeared him, that is good. You are innocent. But he has been "smeared" and attacked severely in the past and it cannot be glossed over. And this happened simply because he raised these seven questions:
(1) That Christ was NOT God when He was on earth.
(2) That Christ had sin in His flesh.
(3) That Christ sinned unconsciously when he was on earth.
(4) That Christ died for His own sins and ours.
(5) That justification is by works alone.
(6) That they alone are the Body of Christ on earth.
(7) That their publication "LETTERS OF J. O. SMITH" is infallible.
If SF no longer believes in these (there are any number of textual references that point to this belief system underlying SF and being covered up systematically), and Kare Smith is trying to make changes in the doctrine itself that aligns SF with mainstream Christian faith, that is well and good. Otherwise, one only has a masked version masquerading as a "true", "mainstream" Christian denomination. Really?
RssnSpy6: Regarding your questions about churches acquiring businesses and property. Do I have proof that the SF leaders make this their aim? No. I have no proof of this specifically with SF except for the statements from several people (John wasn’t the first) on this blog.
What is the church model that Jesus Christ created? Jesus didn’t define a church organization per se but He did model how we, as the body of Christ, should relate to the rest of the world. I think that Jesus sums it up in Luke 10:25-28
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
Jesus then goes on with the story of the Good Samaritan in order to illustrate who our neighbor is and He describes a Samaritan. The Samaritans at that point in history were outcasts from the Jewish people. Scum of the earth. For Jesus to suggest that Samaritans were worthy of inclusion in the kingdom of God was heresy for the Jews. I think the point Jesus was making is that everyone is our neighbor regardless of religion, race, or creed. This goes along with the law provided by God to Israel on how to treat aliens living among them. Lev 19:33-34 and Dt 27:19.
James, the brother of Jesus, gives us a little picture of the church as well when he writes:
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27 (NIV)
I like the translation from The Message and it’s worth posting here.
“Anyone who sets himself up as "religious" by talking a good game is self-deceived. This kind of religion is hot air and only hot air. Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world.” James 1:27 (The Message)
RssnSpy6 (cont.):
If “SF was not the 'reason' the young lady 'had to separate' from her family,” then what was the reason?
You also say “The young lady chose to come to the SF.” This may be true and I have said before that the parents did not keep her from attending the SF church. But she couldn’t leave the dorm and move into the home of this teacher unless HE allowed it. That is immoral behavior and disrespectful of the parents by this SF leader. It is HIS behavior that is in question here, not the girl’s. You and the other SF keep trying to shift the focus onto the girl and away from him.
And another thing that I will point out here is that this ‘church’ came and picked her up from campus without the parent’s knowledge. The only reason the parents found out is that the girl’s friends from high school, who knew her, realized that she was missing from campus and called the parents to find out where she was. Image the panic of the parents to get a phone call the day after they moved their daughter to a college campus and find out that she is missing from campus. She wouldn’t be the first female student kidnapped and raped on a college campus. That is when they began searching for her, as any responsible parent would do, only to find her at this man’s home. Was she kidnapped? No. But how were the parents supposed to know that?
Is this the way to treat your neighbor? Jesus said to treat you neighbor as yourself. This family has ten children of their own. Would they not care if their daughter went missing from a college campus? She may be 18 years old but parents never stop worrying about their children. These people should know better both as Christians and as parents themselves.
You asked; what is the agenda of the SF leaders? That is a good question. John made a reference to “Just as media once traced the Brunstad chain of businesses…” What media was this and what were the chain of businesses? Is this information available online? Maybe this is a clue to the agenda of the SF leaders. This is one instance where I would like to see John cite his resource.
RssnSpy6 (cont.):
You jumped all over John for not providing sources and used the example of a courtroom. I would like to examine the issue of the car in that light. You mentioned your conversations with the girl, her husband, and the father-in-law. So you are interested enough in this subject to talk with them. Did you contact the girl’s parents and get their side of the story?
I admit there is a smattering of truth in your account; however there is also enough misinformation to lead others astray. For instance, the parents did take the car once in order to have it repaired, with the girl’s full knowledge. She knew exactly where it was at all times.
I would like to point out that the parents were not the only people to have access to her car and keys. She was living in this man’s home.
If what you say is true about her coming out of a store and finding her car gone, how did she find it? Did she call the police? Wouldn’t it be appropriate to report the car stolen? If so, then there should be a record of that report.
What possible motive would the parents have in playing these kinds of tricks on her? I would have to ask the girl, did she ever, in her 18 years living with her parents, ever see such behavior from her parents? Does this pass the reasonableness test?
On the other hand, what motivation would the SF leader have in doing this? Wouldn’t this serve to further isolate her from her family if she thought they were responsible for such things?
I don’t expect answers to these questions here. I am trying to point out that there are lot more questions to ask in order to get the truth. That is the benefit of counseling. Everyone involved gets to give their point of view and ask questions openly without involving a courtroom.
I also think this illustrates that you have been programmed to think a certain way. That SF has the truth and all people outside SF are harlots. Is this a possible result of the quote from Elf “Now, in SF, we preach and teach steadfastly the conditions of discipleship mentioned in Luke 14:25-33.”
This has been used to justify the girl separating from her family. Isn’t it interesting that this hate for everyone only applies to those family members outside SF? Why doesn’t this apply to those families inside SF? Did Jesus qualify this statement to exclude families of SF? Isn’t this a double standard?
Your statement to Sophie regarding teaching high school kids follows this line of reasoning. “Being careful is looking into what they are taught so they know what they are learning, not blindly following it because their parents are.” Bringing this up, especially in a classroom setting, you are disrespecting parents, whom you do not know, and laying a foundation that they should question their parents and their religion. Teenagers don’t need anyone out there in the public high school helping them to question their parents and their religion. First of all, that is not what teachers are being paid to do, and second, teenagers do that well enough on their own.
For Russian
I too agree with Harold that you have to be extremely careful in mentioning/claiming possibilities unless you are absolutely sure of them. Eg the car episode. If you are not sure do not mention it. Once written you have made people think in a certain way. Some will tend to believe you. If you are wrong you have done harm.
Harold I am assuming you and Keith are the only ones with facts as somewhere along the post I realized that you have met the girl and the parents. If what you say is true (and I do take it as default to be true) I would condemn such sort of behavior ie. taking off a young girl secretly, taking her to one’s own house (for whatever the reason) and keeping her parents in the dark. It is an extremely foolish and un-Christian thing to do. Young people are extremely impressionable and I do not think any one can take the ‘she is of age’ line on this. However I cannot comment more on this issue as I am not from the Owasso area and I am aware of the facts of the case only from this blog. There must be her view and the SF view on it too that I am not aware of.
If she did want to join the SF and marry the young man in question I am sure there was a more more honorable way of doing it. We are not permitted to dishonor our parents whatever be the situation.
to be contd…
For John :
John once again you are being careless with your statements. You are raising good points. However they are being diluted by unnecessary adjectives.
You state “ the texts that are being studied include many that have directly "smeared" Zac Poonen over the past decade or so. If you or RssanSpy have not smeared him, that is good. You are innocent. But he has been "smeared" and attacked severely in the past and it cannot be glossed over. And this happened simply because he raised these seven questions…”
I do not want to bring in Zac Poonen in the discussion. Having heard his messages, met him and seen the way God is using Him I respect him. I disagree with his allegations however. That the SF has made peace is good. I am glad for that.
But you however claim that opposition to Zac Poonen was “simply because he raised these seven questions..”. You are wrong. The SF did not oppose Zac Poonen “simply because” of seven doctrinal differences. I will not go into the details. Peace has been made. Period.
Your state that “But I have no problem leaving this room because, in any case, a strong theological study on SF is coming up which is pretty well based on an entire archive of SF texts”.
It is difficult for me to reply to you points on theology as you clutter them with your opinions and quasi-facts that are so misleading. I do not want you to leave this room. Far from that. If you want your “strong theology” to hold any water you have to first be impartial, stick to doctrine when you are talking about doctrine, avoid unnecessary adjectives, and weed out every unnecessary word. If you do not do that one cannot take you seriously. Honestly you do come on as one who has an axe to grind.
to be contd...
In geometry we learn that there are infinite lines that can go through the same point. You do make a point but you go off on entire different directions with each of your points. This may be because you approach the point from a different direction.
Jesus says “Blessed are the peacemakers”. When the SF and Zac Poonen have made peace rather than calling it blessed you belittle the whole process. That is an example of bringing up a point and going somewhere else with it, far from the truth.
You can be free to oppose the SF. If you honestly feel SF is a threat you must oppose it. How can you claim that the SF is at threat and still say you do not oppose it? Even if you do oppose us I would respect you for that. I would not think of you as an enemy but as a critic, a grindstone to sharpen my own doctrinal inadequacies and correct them wherever possible.
You are hiding in the shadows (we all are to a certain degree) refusing to support your statements and yet wanting your statements to be in the open and taken seriously. You refuse to name your sources, refuse to let us know if you were ex – SF etc or whether your sources were/are SF etc.
to be contd...
You mention a “strong theological study on SF is coming up”. I assume it to mean you will bring it up in future posts, correct me if wrong. But if I were to disprove that such teachings exist would you say that I am unaware of the true because you think I am an SF “peripheral”. If I were to prove that none of what you say exists, would you claim (without any substantiation) that all this is the ‘hidden agenda’?
You cannot accuse the SF of saying things they do not say and then hide behind the fact that it is a ‘hidden agenda’. Who would you like to counter your allegations? And even if they did counter your points would you then say that “they did so in public but they actually believe something else which is a hidden agenda”.
Many in this blog have doubts. Many actually want to know what the SF believe. When they get an answer they may be convinced. You however reflect the tone of a person who has made up his mind and cannot be convinced whoever speaks. You will just move on to your next point and claim it is a ‘hidden agenda’ or a hidden doctrine.
Once again let me tell you that I welcome your points, not their embellishments. If you want your points to be taken seriously write them such that each word is weighed with care. When you are talking and at the same time shooting off so many arrows and swinging your sword it is difficult to hear what you are saying.
End
funnyman:
You are SF - peripheral or not.
Who knows?
That is why you cannot "hear" anything other than what you have been indoctrinated with.
Yet you continue to confirm many "bits" of information placed out here.
Thank you.
funnyman:
It is not important if you take the "bits" of information seriously.
It is enough if others get the idea as to "wherein hangs the tale" and can stick closer to Jesus than the SF and be kept from what has befallen this family.
About Zac Poonen, there was the entire decade and more when he and his family and his ministry were continuously attacked in every SF church and he was labelled a "Diotrephes" and he and his wife were labelled "Ananias and Sapphira". No one can erase all this even if "peace" has been established between SF and him.
My point is the Zac Poonen case is an excellent example of how ruthlessly SF goes about hunting down "opposers" and "enemies", especially those who dare to suggest that SF is a "cult".
There you go again John with a statement like "he and his family and his ministry were continuously attacked in every SF church.."
"Every SF church", "continuosly ..." ??? John how can you ever claim that? How can you ever hope to substantiate "every" and "continuosly"? If you are trying to say he was attacked that is one thing. If you are claiming that he was attacked in "every church" and "continuously" that is quite another.
Why do you find fault with me when I confirm your 'bits' of information? I think I am being fair to you when you say something right. I owe you that. I hope to do that with the same zeal that I say you are wrong in other 'bits'.
You are embellishing your points with unnecessary verbal rhetoric.
If this is your feelings/opinions that is fine. If you are trying to pass it off as a fact to the others reading this it is wrong. I urge you to avoid this if you are bringing up a theological discussion.
end
John I agree with this statement of yours :
“and can stick closer to Jesus than the SF and be kept from what has befallen this family…”
That is my desire too. I would like those in the SF to stick closer to Jesus than the SF. I do not want such things that have happened to this family to be repeated. If this blog achieves that that is really good.
end
a
One you said that it's hard for people that have encountered the evil inside the smith's friends to deal with it once they leave - I agree much with this - I saw a lot of evil in this church experienced it first hand (mine isn't a favourable testimony of my experience with this church at all - extremely recently I tried to add many them to my facebook page and had 0 luck or if they added me it was only for 1 day) I'm supposed to love this people that took everything from me just about...feels that way to me, I still don't have friends I'm still struggling to fit into mainstream christianity, fit in in general post the smith's friends cult. They were so mean to me the smith's friends, I was just shunned and shut out of their church ----- lot them say they are my "Friend" but saying you are "my friend" and being my friend are two way different things.....I don't find them to be my friends! They shunned me excluded me treated me so badly the 10+ years I was with them ----- I got to believing I was shit I battle that to this day ----- if I give into the lusts of the flesh at all I really get to thinking I'm shit I'm going to hell the smith's friends are right about me I'm a piece of harlot fooled crap. Being treated like I was worth nothing, it wasn't a good experience for me! (fortunately somewhere deep in me I know I'm not crap, I still battle thinking I'm crap cause that's what I was conditioned to believe of myself in that cult)
post the smith's friends I'm walking around feeling like shit! I still like jewelry, with every piece of jewelry I buy I respect myself less, so by now my respect my love my whatever for myself is clean down the toilet and that is 100% thanks to the smith's friends, they treated me like shit, they made it clear I was worthless to me. I hope to bellydance and have bellydance friends, such is my last ember of hope.
last post for awhile I promise --- I find it nearly impossible to never give into the lusts of the flesh. There's always something......some bubble bath stuffs. I don't know there's always something I find that I would like to reward myself with due to geez all the efforts I put in everyday to keep a clean house and take care of my kids - it's a hard job I have! I like jewelry I can't make myself hate the stuffs? I don't know how to make myself hate the stuffs? I like the jingle on my wrists the clank of the bangles! I find this pleasant! Smith's friend made me feel like shit over buying jewelry ------ doesn't seem that evil to me......to the pure all things are pure the bible says.......before I came to the smith's friends everything was pure to me......it was the smith's friends that told me jewelry wasn't pure!!!!! What is the harm in a few bangle bracelets????????????????? I enjoy my bellydance outfits to, I get to glitter and be looked upon as pretty for a moment on stage - it's nice. Most my week is unglamorous, housekeeping stay at home mom stuffs. I enjoy much to dress up on the weekends in glittery bellydance buisinesses and jingle much ----- and what's wrong with that???????? To the pure all things are pure! The smith's friends have treated me like I'm some unpure thing from hell but I don't think I am! ------- just having a hard time making friends : ( I take jesus as wanting me to have a abundant happy joyful filled life! There is things that would be bad, getting drunk is bad I think. But most things are pure! There is liberty in christ jesus! (smith's friends seem to think there isn't so much liberty in christ jesus - but I'm here to say ya there is liberty in christ jesus) To the pure all things are pure! The smith's friends are a highly destructive cult - that is my 1st hand experience. Church at my mainstream christian church is going good lately that's the good news : ) I've rather made myself at home at my current mainstream christian church : ) they stuck with me for a long long long long long time : )
To John:
You wrote, "What does it matter where the blog material being posted comes from?
Perhaps you would like to threaten the sources? Get them to shut up?"
The truth matters. The posters using this blog want to get to the bottom of either
(or both... among other things) 1. Did the SF have anything to do with the situation
in Owasso, or was the situation independent of the SF, 2. What are the doctrine(s),
agenda(s), etc. of SF. Speaking for myself I do not want to read true, accounted
for, information mixed with speculation. Speculating past facts is good, and usually
expands my mind, but it must be clearly labeled 'speculation' so it doesn't mix. I
do not have any interest in 'shutting them up.'
You wrote, "This blog is a courtroom? I don't think so. It is something Keith has
set up for conversation and all sorts of information related to SF to pour in.
Revealing the sources would put them directly under threat from SF."
The courtroom analogy was meant to emphasize how to share information with other
posters/bloggers. This blog is not a courtroom and no 'decision' will be handed
down... although each of us should learn from what we read. I do not want names of
sources, just proper referencing. If you heard an SF member say that Kaare Smith was
doing such and such, and you want to share that information, say that you heard it
from an SF member. I don't want to beat a dead horse with all this 'referencing'
speak.
Someone earlier made mention that SF did not use 'outside' christian songs, but
rather relied on their own songs. One reason SF uses mostly their own lyrics is
because we believe in a 'peccable' Jesus. I would wager that most of the christian
songs and lyrics are written by people, or for people, that believe in an
'impeccable' Jesus. SF does not preach that, so why would their songs share the
'impeccable' message?
John, you asked me 'how I knew anything about this?' in regards to, "It is only a
heresy to you because either you do not want to suffer your own lusts into death or
you don't understand what SF preaches."
I admit that I don't know very much about you. I don't know if you are interested in
'bringing your lusts into the death of Christ,' or if you even are familiar with
that SF jargon. I don't know how much you actually understand regarding what SF
preaches. I wrote that comment, perhaps hastily, because I have had nearly
completely different experiences and observations than you regarding SF. I hope you
share how much you know.
You wrote, "It is easy to blame someone for not understanding you and to claim that
"It is only a heresy to you because either you do not want to suffer your own lusts
into death or you don't understand what SF preaches." It absolves the SF of all its
actions and places the blame on those who do not pledge loyalty to SF doctrine and
behaviour."
I do not want to blame you or anyone else for not understanding me (or SF). I hope
that through this blog we can come to an understanding. We may still disagree, but
at least we can come to a resolution of sorts.
To Harold:
I agree that the verses in Luke 10 are a good way to relate to the rest of the
world. While that is a good starting place, I don't think it is right to confine all
of the teachings of the Bible into that passage regarding how we should relate. I
don't think that was your intention, and I understand what you are getting at, but
just had to make that point.
You wrote, "If “SF was not the 'reason' the young lady 'had to separate' from her
family,” then what was the reason?"
I admit this... If the young lady was asked why she moved out of the dorm and into
the teacher's home, a possible answer could be, "my new church, SF." What I don't
agree with is the phrase, "had to separate," which makes it sound as if SF requires
all 'new converts' to physically leave their 'former life' (for lack of a better
phrase). That is not a true statement. I don't know the young lady's reason(s) for
moving out. I don't know the reason(s) she became a 'member' of SF. Earlier I
speculated that she made such a choice because, "it was better for her," because I
myself wouldn't make such a large decision unless I was convinced of an improvement.
I know the teacher had to agree to open his home to her for that to happen, but I
don't know the situation surrounding that event either.
You wrote about the 'immoral and disrespectful behavior' of the teacher regarding
the 'move.' On that comment I want to say that communication is one of the major
shortcomings of many issues. In regards to this 3+ year old issue, I'd say that a
lack of communication made this molehill into a mountain. People change churches,
move out, find new friends, etc. quite often. I'm not saying that this lack of
communication between the young lady and parents, the teacher and parents, and
others is the only problem this issue has, but it was a major contributor to the
negativity that resulted. Is that a fair statement?
Regarding the car...
I have not spoken with the girls parents. I do not know how to get ahold of them.
I shared everything I knew about the car situation just to provide a possible
explanation to the question you raised regarding 'wanting to hide things.' I did say
that I heard it (my source was indirectly from a family-in-law member), not that I
had seen it. I did speculate a possible reason. I didn't mean to sound like I was
accusing her parents of trying to 'harass' her. It could have been any number of
people from either 'side' that had access to keys. I am pretty sure her parents want
nothing but her safety and happiness.
My point of view doesn't illustrate that I've been programmed by SF. I may sound
like I'm defending the teacher tooth and nail when I am trying to provide a more
full spectrum of information so that the other readers/posters can sift through and
come to their own conclusions.
Luke 14:25-33 has in all probability been taken out of context many times. I have
heard it preached/taught many times in SF. I have never heard it preached in a way
that would deliberately cause this kind of situation. I understand it to mean that
there must be a separation between me, my family, and its familial bonds so that I
can hear straight from heaven without being influenced by what is around me. That
may be a simplified explanation of how I understand it, but it may suffice. For
myself this passage means much more to me inside the SF (so that I am not carried
about by the trends or revelations of others) so I can maintain my connection with
the Head.
To funnyman:
I should have made my intentions with the car story much more clear. I think it is
fine to share things that aren't proven fact as long as they don't come shrouded as
truth when they are in fact opinion or speculation.
To Giving it to god:
I must apologize to you for the way I responded to one of your earlier posts. Now
that I know more about you, your situation, and your experiences I feel I understand
you better. That being said, please do not use the "s" word to describe how you feel
or how you were treated. There are many other more appropriate words you could use.
Regarding your issue with jewelry... All christians are exhorted by Peter in 1 Pet 3
to "not let your adornment be merely outward...rather let it be the hidden person of
the heart..." If you are able to have a good conscience while wearing jewelry and
knowing this verse then you really do have it pure in your heart. Jewelry is not
evil. The thoughts in the heart and lusts in the flesh regarding jewelry is what
christians are out to deal with. I would exhort you to not be condemned because
someone else believes jewelry is not for them.
RssianSpy:
You are free to read the posts any which way you like. There is no "format" here of the sort you are prescribing.
What is "speculative" to you might be "truth" or "real-life experience" to someone else.
It's relative.
You wrote: I don't agree with the phrase, "had to separate," which makes it sound as if SF requires
all 'new converts' to physically leave their 'former life' (for lack of a better phrase).
The (relative) "truth" is that many in SF have done this and still do it - especially many did break "physically" with those who moved away from or were ejected from the SF over the past two decades. Many remain physically separate on grounds of doctrine and the notion that those who "left" or were "cast out" are now the "harlot" or "opposers".
You wrote: I may sound like I'm defending the teacher tooth and nail.
You don't sound like it - you are doing so and ought to do so as a loyal footsoldier of the SF. That is your duty, sir!
You wrote: Please do not use the "s" word to describe how you feel or how you were treated.
I would suggest that she is describing EXACTLY how she was treated and felt. You cannot downgrade or dismiss her feelings after all that she has undergone, can you?
I would say that in your "youthful zeal" you are insensitive to the pain that this blog represents.
John and johnk : are you the same. Could you kindly clarify.
funnyman:
Yes, am in the process of working on a blog with some other interested people where some interesting materials - video clips, mp3s, etc can be put up pertaining to some of the issues here.
John that would be really interesting...:-). I wish you all the best. I mean that sincerely. If the SF is doing fulfilling God's plan then you will not succeed. If they are not then you must.
funnyman:
succeed with what?
it's so funny how paranoid you and rssianspy are :-)
As an enthusiastic (and undoubtedly narrow-minded) member of SF (that sounds like science fiction to me, but whatever you guys are calling it these days works) and a current resident at Brunstad Conference Center, I would like to say two things. The first is that I love the church that I belong to, that I believe in a living God who has a care and a love for me, and that His word is preached with fire here. The second is, that while I do trust my those who lead and feel very safe in my environment here at Brunstad, I never drink the Kool-aid.
Some of you guys are ridiculous. I didn't have time to read it all, but we do NOT baptize dead people.
Skirtgirl:
Ahh, one of the GenNext SF members, I suppose, taught to be aggressive, the new breed, tough in tone and no toning down of the "we can judge others but they cannot judge us" mentality that is the hallmark of this group.
Here is the SF proof-text for their attitude towards "outsiders" or those who discuss some of the group's theological and behavioral aberrations:
1 Corinthians 2:15
But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him].
However, it's good to have young SF members coming in with their aggressive defense of the ideology they have been indoctrinated with.
And, Skirtgirl, for all the claims to "obedience to every word of God" that SF claims to practice, how come "baptising the dead" has been left out?
Russian said: “You wrote about people twisting scriptures for their own purpose. It has happened since the first Bible was bound.”
I’m not inferring this is what you meant, and am hoping that it’s not; but just because people have been twisting scriptures for their own purpose since the first Bible was bound, doesn’t make it right, correct, or acceptable in God’s eyes nor in man’s.
“In regards to your statement, "If one has had interests in family/friends/sports/music/art/recreational activities/reading/etc…. I would like to share Matthew 6:33 and ask you how you understand it. "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness..." Could it mean that instead of holding on to whatever you had before you were 'converted' to christianity, you are supposed to let it all go so that you can seek for God in everything?”
Putting that verse into its context, Jesus is speaking. He is saying not to worry about the daily needs of life such as what to wear, eat, and drink. He is saying that if God will take care of the birds and the flowers, He will take care of us. People are much more valuable than these things, yet He takes care of them. We need to seek Him and His righteousness FIRST; keep our focus on Him; seek His grace, mercy, and truth; understand how Jesus loves God and others; have faith and trust in God, worship Him, not to waist time worrying about our daily needs such as clothing and shelter because He loves us and He will provide for those who seek Him. It does NOT say to stop ‘holding on to whatever you had before you were ‘converted’ to Christianity’ or that ‘you are supposed to let it all go’. He does want us to seek Him, love Him, honor Him, worship Him, glorify Him MORE than materialistic things. But, if we ‘are supposed to let it all go so that you can seek for God in everything’ where does one draw the line of ‘what to let go’? Do we get rid of homes, cars, televisions, boats, movies, pets, refrigerators, shoes, vacations, medicines, swimming pools, hot tubs, food, computer, cell phones, air conditioning, heaters, the list could go on and on…? Where do you draw the line? And, who gets to decide what one is to ‘let go’? If one really lets everything go to seek God, the only real Christians would be naked, starving, homeless, people. And, everyone who drives a car, owns a television, etc. couldn’t be considered really seeking God. I think He means for us to love and seek Him more than our ‘stuff’.
Let’s say that you have been gifted in and enjoy snow-skiing, playing football, playing soccer, being a musician, being a ballet dancer, an artist…. Or let’s say we enjoy going to the zoo, the theatre, a concert, to the lake. Are any of those things listed in the Bible as a sin? No. So, why should one have to ‘give up’ those types of activities just because they become a Christian?
1 Corinthians 10:31, “So whether you eat or drink or WHATEVER you do, do it all for the glory of God.’
“You even quoted the verse about 'if you are in Christ you are a new creation...' ‘Why would a new creation still want to do and have the same things the 'old' one did and had?”
2 Corinthians 5:17, ‘Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!’
I believe this refers to our position in Christ when we accept Him as our Lord and Savior. We are a new creation in the sight of God Almighty who gave up His one and only Son as a sacrifice, as a ransom for all of our sins. When He looks at us, He no longer sees us as filthy rags (sinners), we have been cleansed by the Blood of the Sacrificial Lamb, Jesus Christ; so He sees us as changed, new creations, clean and spotless because Jesus died and paid the penalty for us. He took our place on the cross out of mercy. It’s not that we are perfect or completely sin free while still in the flesh, but that is the way God sees us when we stand before Him, because of Jesus. When we accept Jesus as our Savior, the Holy Spirit lives inside of us and will convict us of our sins. As we ‘grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,’ (2 Peter 3:18) we will begin to become more and more like Jesus…loving, kind, patient, compassionate, meek, strong, peaceful, faithful, gentle, self-control. (fruit of the Spirit-Galatians 5:22)
Hebrews 10:10, ‘And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.’
Matt.28:20, ‘just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.’
When we come to this type of acceptance, understanding and love for Him, we will change how we treat others, how we think and feel, how we behave, because our HEARTS have been changed.
1 Samuel 16:7, ‘But the Lord said to Samuel…. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.’
Luke 6:45, ‘The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.’
When scripture refers to ‘change’ or ‘give up’ this or that, I believe it to be referring to changing our hearts for the better, giving up sins…not hobbies (unless the ‘hobby’ is sinful…drunkenness, stealing, gossiping, selling drugs, pornography, etc.)
‘Being careful is looking into what they (students) are taught so they know what they are learning, not blindly following it because their parents are.’
Is that what you teach your own children?
You said I made a contradiction in my last paragraph. You need to reread what I wrote. What I wrote was, “This (the disenchantment of these students’ own church body) is a beginning step in getting these young and impressionable students to begin questioning their own teachings, their own church, their own beliefs, their own parents and friends.” I don’t see the contradiction. And, I do not believe, nor did I say, that anyone should BLINDLY follow something because someone else does it. However, it isn’t this teacher’s job to get students to question or turn against their parents’ belief system and how they were raised, their parents’ values, etc. I believe this (being judgmental and critical of others) is a tactic that this teacher uses in order to get students to question, doubt, become fearful or resentful of those in what SF refers to as ‘harlot’ churches and to introduce SF as the true, real, committed church. Remember that these students’ parents are the very ones working to pay this man’s salary with their tax dollars while he is working against what they’ve taught their own children for years. We should remember this is a public school.
‘He 'could' have used the situation to warn the students that sometimes people you think are your friends are the ones that can take advantage of you... ‘
A portion of your statement is true, ‘sometimes people you think are your friends are the ones that can take advantage of you’.
“I liked your idea of Praying and Mobilising prayer. If you and those you exhorted to pray did that then we wouldn't have this blog and we wouldn't contend. funnyman, I, and others who have defended SF wouldn't be here if SF wasn't attacked or slandered. It continues to be here because people like you continue to attack with false accusations. If they were all true I wouldn't be able to give any kind of defense.”
SF was not pulled from out of nowhere to ‘be attacked or slandered’. This discussion began due to a man who teaches in a public school system, who is associated with SF, who moved a student into his home, and the SF teachings (which can be documented) have caused her to abandon her family relationships, her former friends, and former beliefs, and other things. A question was raised and people are offering their answers, their experiences, their understandings, their documentations. This man and his family have hurt several others in that community, yet claim to be Christian. Why is that considered slander or attack? It’s only slander if it’s NOT true.
Giving it to God: I’m very sorry to ‘hear’ how you have been treated by other people, especially ones who claim to be Christian. We’re ALL sinners and NONE of us is ever going to do everything correctly all the time. But it’s very sad that those who claim to be striving toward perfection seem to be deliberately hurting people and don’t seem to care. God created each and every person with a unique personality, with gifts and talents for His purpose.
1 Peter 3:3 says, “And let not your adornment be external only-braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, and putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, ….”
This verse doesn’t say DO NOT wear jewelry…it says don’t let your beauty be external ONLY but again…God looks at the heart. That is another man-made rule that some legalistic groups get hung up on.
Sophie:
In a sense, we have to cut some slack for funnyman, russianspy, skirtgirl etc.
They have all been indoctrinated since childhood into this sect or having joined it at some point have been "thoroughly converted", to use SF jargon.
There are those in SF who cannot even THINK that Jesus was more than a man on earth because they have learnt this "peccability" doctrine from childhood just as others have learnt "impeccability" from childhood. But the methods of indoctrination in SF are stronger - the children are isolated almost entirely (except when they go to school) from other ways of thinking because the SF organises activites to keep the group bound and imprisoned.
Yes, they have "good" activities - skiing, sports, music, etc. But the intention is that the children and youth have no time or opportunity to mix with other humans and enter these activities along side them.
Again, if you read their texts carefully, these people are adept at both twisting scriptures and defending that well.
In a sense, it is not worthwhile to discuss with them as they are "narrow minded" both in theology and practice because they believe they are the only ones who are right on this planet.
The best that can be done is really to get the word out that they are not "Christian" but that they are a non-Christian group or sect or even cult (depending on how these words are defined according to context) like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Witness Lee, Christian Science, Church of Scientology, etc.
I mean we cannot expect the group to die out - even devil-worshiping groups are allowed to exist on earth!
Your wrote: I believe this (being judgmental and critical of others) is a tactic that this teacher uses in order to get students to question, doubt, become fearful or resentful of those in what SF refers to as ‘harlot’ churches.
Yes, this is how SF gains an entry point into the lives of other simple Christians whom they then isolate from the rest of Christianity and the world and imprison in their "ideal" sect.
Hi again
For John :
When I reread my post I see that the phrase ‘you will not succeed’ is very abrupt. This is my clarification :
I understand by your post that you plan to put up material regarding what was discussed here. I understand it is regarding the SF. Do correct me if I am mistaken.
I would infer that the aim of such an effort would be so that the public has access to the truth about the SF. If that is your intention I wish you well. However if what is put up is not true then people will be misled. It may cause attrition from the SF. However I believe that if God is actually using the SF for His Glory then He will continue to do so. That is what I meant.
Hope this makes things clear.
For Sophie:
I agree with the points you are making. Being a new creation does not mean giving up all of our past lives. It does mean giving up every sin that the Holy Spirit convicts us of. It means a complete surrender to God and to His will.
That being said I do not think the SF generally speaks out against past hobbies, jobs and interests etc. If cases do occur they are probably few in number. The SF was quite conservative through the years and is slowly becoming less conservative. When it was conservative there were people did not agree and as it is becoming less conservative there are those who call this departure hypocrisy.
I also like your point about slander. The truth must be told. This blog has been very open for everyone to relate their experiences in the SF. I truly hope this can continue.
For Skirtgirl
‘Baptism for the dead’ – I do not think the SF was accused of ‘baptizing the dead’. I looked back at Keith’s post dated Feb 3 2008. I think he meant that about the Mormons. The sentence looks confusing though.
For all
The SF does not baptize the dead.
For John :
You state " for all the claims to "obedience to every word of God" that SF claims to practice, how come "baptising the dead" has been left out?"
My question : If one claims to want to obey every word of God, why should baptism for the dead even enter into the picture at all?
END
Funny man and John
I was getting a little worried
there about baptism for the dead.
Thought I'd missed something there
for a few moments. Glad we got that all clarified. Any way....
Skirtgirl. My you are zelous arent
you. Do you know why your lead-
ing bro. (probably) tells you not
to come on here? It is because
he knows that your zeal will be
confused with pride, and that most
likely you will probably be in for
a bit of a rough ride, or, depend
ing the brother thinks a little
comeuppence by the harlot may teach
you a lesson, who knows. The people on this forum are not ridi
clous. Ideas may be rididlous but
people are not. I think your resp
onse may be a little reflexive.
There is one thing about a dead per
son, they dont have any reflexes.
Looks like the bloggers found a
live nerve somewhere huh? Now you
can thank them for their gracious
ness and presenting you with the
golden oppertunity to die to some
more of your flesh.
Russian: I did think you were being
a little harsh with John back there
a little while ago. I dont know
what his source is
funnyman:
It may cause attrition from the SF.
1. Are you on behalf of the SF threatening anyone who puts up material on the SF in the public sphere with "attrition"?
2. Thank you for confirming that the SF does take recourse to "attrition" if people make public materials that can damn them as being "cult" in their behavior?
3. Would you like to put up the greater history of SF "attrition" towards individuals and their intimidation and ostracism within the "body of Christ"?
Zac Poonen is a case in point. GivingittoGod is a living example. The Truth mentioned such things. Owasso is an example. Friedrich Griess claims to be such a victim. "Attrition" against those who questioned Kare Smith in the 1990s is also mentioned.
funnyman's question : If one claims to want to obey every word of God, why should baptism for the dead even enter into the picture at all?
Why not? Since SF speaks of "obeying the whole word of God" - can't they find some dead people to baptise to FULFIL this word too? :-)
The point is that it is easy and convenient for sects to take some portions of scripture as essential and others as non-consequential and yet make the tall claim of being a group that "obeys every word of God", being THE Body of Christ, THE Bride, etc.
funnyman: When it was conservative there were people did not agree and as it is becoming less conservative there are those who call this departure hypocrisy.
The way of all flesh, eh? Nice.
John I do not understand your post. I think you have misunderstood the word "attrition" and are thinking of "retribution"
Attrition (from answers.com) :
"A rubbing away or wearing down by friction.
A gradual diminution in number or strength because of constant stress.
A gradual, natural reduction in membership or personnel, as through retirement, resignation, or death.
Repentance for sin motivated by fear of punishment rather than by love of God."
When I used the word "attrition" I mean a gradual loss of membership from the SF.
I do not see how one can be threatened with "attrition" as far as I know that is not possible. Unless there is another meaning for the word "attrition" ,but then my English may not be that good.
I am puzzled as to how one can take my statement as a threat at all.
Have I clarified this?
END
funnyman:
Sorry if I misunderstood YOUR usage of attrition. Took it as SF would wage a "war of attrition" against those who discuss its aberrations.
From Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
War of attrition: a war which is fought over a long period and only ends when one side has neither the soldiers and equipment nor the determination left to continue fighting.
SF always speaks in terms of war against sin/sinners (opposers), so the first thought that came to mind was that of you as an SF footsoldier threatening a "war of attrition" against those discussing SF's theology and behavioural aberrations.
There is such a history of SF waging such "wars of attrition" against dissenters/opposers.
SF texts also encourage such "wars of attrition", the wearing down of opposers and harlots and their ultimate defeat and ignominy.
Russian: Regarding the subject of communication. You said “…I want to say that communication is one of the major shortcomings of many issues.” And also “is this a fair statement?”
I agree, and yes, this is a fair statement. But I don’t agree that this is a molehill made into a mountain. I believe rather that this is a mountain that SF would like to reduce to a molehill and quietly sweep under the rug.
For groups like this, in order to control the members, the first line of defense that needs to be cut from the recruits is communication with family and friends. This can be done by physical isolation which happens when people are invited off of college campuses for weekend retreats for example.
However, it can be just as effective, psychologically, if you can create a sense of fear that your parents and friends will harm you now that you have ‘found the truth’, that they only want to hold you back from this new ‘truth’, and the only safe place is in the group.
This family would like nothing more that to have real, honest communication with their daughter. What has been witnessed instead is that this SF church has deliberately worked to prevent any significant contact between this girl, her parents, her brothers, as well as any and all friends she ever had. The lines of communication have all been damaged.
And this is not an isolated incident. There are several families who have had contact with this ‘church’ and shared their experiences. They all experienced the same thing, a deliberate attempt to separate young people from their families.
You said, ”I know the teacher had to agree to open his home to her for that to happen, but I don't know the situation surrounding that event either.”
I don’t know all the details surrounding this event either, only he and the girl know this. However, the experiences of the local families concerning the behavior of this church all seem to very cultish. So you can talk all you want about what a wonderful and conservative Christian church organization this is. If it is true then the outward behaviors would match up, but they don’t.
You are correct in that there is a lack of communication. That is why I jumped on your comment about counseling. That seems to be a logical way to move forward in opening up the lines of communication. Wouldn’t you agree?
To John (aug 20)
I am not a 'loyal footsoldier of the SF.' 2 Tim 2 does speak about being a soldier, but that is for Jesus Christ. The SF is not a 'jihadist' group. The SF cannot have their cake and eat it too--what I mean is this... If the SF believes that 'all those that are part of the body of Christ are either in SF or will find SF in time (otherwise they aren't the body of Christ) then SF can't also have this aggressive 'lure and indoctrinate' policy that has been brought up. Which is it? Does SF grab anyone and everyone they can find or does SF turn its collective nose up at the world and wait for the 'chosen' to join them? Which would you allege? Or do you allege both scenarios?
Regarding givingittogod's use of the 's' word. I did not/do not attempt to 'downgrade or dismiss' her feelings or history with SF. She had her experience and is sharing it. What I asked her to do was refrain from using language that Christians ought to refrain from. I'm not standing on my soapbox and reprimanding her for writing the 's' word, but it is not a word that should be welcome on a Christian blog.
Could you please expound on your allegation of my paranoia?
You mentioned, "the children are isolated almost entirely (except when they go to school) from other ways of thinking because the SF organises activites to keep the group bound and imprisoned. Yes, they have "good" activities - skiing, sports, music, etc. But the intention is that the children and youth have no time or opportunity to mix with other humans and enter these activities along side them."--Have you experienced this first hand? How can you make this strong statement? I reject this statement as not describing the SF at all. The SF does have activities for youth and children, but does not imprison them with the activities.
To Sophie (Aug 20)
You brought up some very good points regarding Matthew 6. You asked the question of where to draw the line in our seeking after God. I understand it in this way... God speaks to me and convicts me of how I ought to live through His Word and through answering my prayers. This is very relative because no one can say how God convicts me of how I ought to live (as long as it does not violate God's laws). The flip side is that I cannot judge or tell another how to live their life but I can encourage them to consider His words and live by them (whatever their convictions may be).
You asked, "Are any of those things listed in the Bible as a sin? No. So, why should one have to ‘give up’ those types of activities just because they become a Christian?"--Paul writes and says that, 'all things are lawful but not all things edify...' in 1 Cor 10:23. So, you are right, that the things which are not sin can still be enjoyed. But we as Christians must separate what is lawful and edifying and learn when to be free and when to be brought under the 'law' of edification. A direct connection to God through Jesus in prayer must be established to hear such things.
I would like to say this next thing without any guile or sarcasm, just the truth. Sophie, the more we post on this blog, the more I like you and enjoy discussing with you. At the same time I come to understand more and more that we believe entirely different things about Jesus and the salvation that He brought when He came to earth. I could not disagree more with you regarding what you said about 2 Cor 5:17. I must reject completely, absolutely, that God sees us Christians 'through' Jesus because He died for us on the cross despite the fact that we are filthy rags (sinners). If you mean that we get a clean slate to start from because Jesus died on the cross then I could agree with you. But, we must continue building/living Godly lives on this clean slate. If we sin willfully then God sees us and we are condemned along with all sin. Then we must repent and ask forgiveness, which gives us a clean slate again... but all of our 'building' has crumbled and fallen on account of sin. Paul writes to the Galatians in 5:16 that we are to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (sin). What do you say to that?
Also, regarding the new creation part you wrote... Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22, and Luke 5:37 say the same thing (this is how I understand it)... New wine (the 'new creation') must be put into new wineskins (and entirely new life with new goals and direction) otherwise the new wine will burst the old wineskin (our old life before we had Jesus in it). Mixing the two, or trying to 'add' Jesus to our lives without giving up our lives for Him, will only result in the 'lukewarm' life that is written about in Rev 3:16.
To All:
I would like to retract what I said about John 'slandering' the SF. Until it is proven that slander has taken place (I doubt that it ever will) I shouldn't have accused him of doing it to SF. So, John, please accept my apology.
To Sophie
When I wrote about John attacking the SF, I wasn't referring to the young lady and her situation. John has said very little about that. He has rather written many things outside that topic. That was what I was referring to.
To Harold (Aug 22)
We already shared about the counseling. If I were in the situation described here in this blog I would go to counseling with my parents (if they wanted it) to resolve issues. I do not know the 'whole' situation which, if I did, might change my mind.
Russian: “If you mean that we get a clean slate to start from because Jesus died on the cross then I could agree with you. But, we must continue building/living Godly lives on this clean slate. If we sin willfully then God sees us and we are condemned along with all sin. Then we must repent and ask forgiveness, which gives us a clean slate again... but all of our 'building' has crumbled and fallen on account of sin. Paul writes to the Galatians in 5:16 that we are to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (sin). What do you say to that?”
I can agree with those statements. Our actions speak louder than our words. And, God knows our hearts and minds.
You also said, “I could not disagree more with you regarding what you said about 2 Cor 5:17. I must reject completely, absolutely, that God sees us Christians 'through' Jesus because He died for us on the cross despite the fact that we are filthy rags (sinners).”
You can disagree with me if you want to, but you cannot dispute what God’s Word says.
When talking with Nicodemus in John 3:17, Jesus says, “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved THROUGH Him.”
John 14:6, “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except THROUGH Me.”
Acts 10:43, “All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins THROUGH His name.”
Romans 3:21-28, “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God THROUGH faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace THROUGH the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood THROUGH faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, That He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Romans 5:1, “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God THROUGH our Lord Jesus Christ,”
Romans 8:37, “But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer THROUGH Him who loved us.”
Romans 5:8-11, “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. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God THROUGH the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God THROUGH our Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom we have now received the reconciliation.”
Ephesians 1:7, “In Him we have redemption THROUGH His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,”
Colossians 1:19-20, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and THROUGH Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace THROUGH the blood of His cross; THROUGH Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”
Titus 3:5-6, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly THROUGH Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
Read Hebrews Chapter 7, and pay particular attention to verse 25 which says, “Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God THROUGH Him, because He always lives to intercede for them.”
here s the scary part,
Sophie, it sounds like you are speaking to someone who has never
heard the gospel. But these are
saved people, but yet there is
almost 0 agreement between us and
them, (as much as I hate Us and Them)
Conscious or unconscious sin is sin
and it still spereates from God,
and we still need forgiveness. I
am curious, how do you know you
are saved from moment, just because
your conscious dosent condem you
you could still be in sin. SF ers
I am interested in your response.
To jarsmom:
I would like to answer your question, but I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Could you please rephrase what you mean?
To Sophie:
I'll respond to your question(s) as soon as I have time.
Sophie:
A wise and elderly man who also understands Greek said this once to me:
Do not attempt to win an argument about the "nature" of our Lord and God Jesus Christ with a sectarian or a member of a cult. It is an impossible task for a human being to undertake. The sectarian or cultist has sadly been locked into a fenced system from which he can not escape unless God's Holy Spirit opens the door for such prisoners and captives to escape.
This is the condition of those who have been indoctrinated by SF and they will not and do not want to understand what is written about the "nature" of Jesus in Greek in the New Testament. The SF also ensures that its "prisoners" are kept from turning to the original Greek lest they become enlightened.
If the members of the SF were exposed to proper teaching about the "nature" of Jesus, their "revelation" of Christ having "sin in the flesh" would be worth nothing. The shop selling this spurious commodity would have to shut down. So SF keeps decorating the shop and investing in real estate and businesses and making "special" offers of "exclusivity". There are, of course, some buyers in the market for such spurious super-spirituality.
I would suggest to RssianSpy to read this:
http://mrrives.com/Gezer/?p=144
Perhaps God will open his eyes to who Jesus really is. But if his eyes are not opened, he ought to be pitied and prayed for that perhaps one day he too can have access to the truth that is IN Christ Jesus.
RssianSpy:
Apology accepted. Thank you for small mercies. :-)
About the girl - I have said that this is a standard methodology SF uses as part of its "mission work" in which:
1. First, the SF "evangelist" becomes friendly with someone and slowly "offers" him/her "secret" or "special" knowledge on how to come to a "sinless" life.
2. Second, once the person's confidence has been gained, to sow doubts in his/her heart as to
(a)his/her prior "faith" in Christ Jesus as being inadequate to gain "perfection" and (b) to sow doubts in his/her heart about the inadequacy and/or vile condition of his/her prior "church".
3. Third, to invite him/her to conferences and meetings where hopefully the "SF Spirit" or "revelation" of Christ having "sin in the flesh" can penetrate the soul of the seeker.
4. Four, if the above happens then to encourage the "convert" to cut off all ties with family, home and all prior interests and activities to begin with a "clean slate" to live the "SF way".
5. Five, when all the above is nicely and well done, to keep the "convert" nicely penned in and fenced in and to ensure that he/she has all avenues to "return" to the "harlot" blocked psychologically.
SF consists of people in whom this "process" has been deeply embedded and embodied and once this has happened, leaving SF becomes a nightmare and a terribly painful path. One is always scarred for life.
This then is the future for this girl.
To Sophie
I agree with you (and God's Word) that salvation is a gift. We can do nothing to change or deny the opportunity that Jesus has given us through His death on the cross. John 3:17, John 4:16, Acts 10:43, Romans 3:21-28, Romans 5:1, Romans 8:37, Romans 5:8-11, Eph 1:7, Col 1:19-20, and Titus 3:5-6 together speak about the remission of sins, forgiveness, and reconciliation to God. I wholeheartely support them and believe in them. Those verses are a foundation for all of Christianity.
Where we disconnect, and 'disagree' (correct me if I'm wrong), comes next. (I am not accusing you here, I just want to get to the bottom of what you believe). You believe that to be a Christian one must repent, invite Jesus into one's heart, ask forgivess, accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and endeavor to lead a better life. Period. I believe what I wrote above as a starting point. After one becomes a Christian one must 'put off' the former man (Eph 4:22) forever and 'enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh...' (Heb 10:20). (and Romans 6:3-5, which speaks about being baptized into His death, being buried with Him, and walking in the newness of life... being united together in the likeness of His death...). I believe that there is a lot more to Christianity than the forgiveness of sins, which results in salvation (saving from eternal hellfire and damnation).
This belief comes from, in part, 1 Cor 15:40-42, "There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead."
When we are resurrected from the dead when Jesus returns each of us will have a different glory. This is because each of us lived different lives that won us this glory, just like Paul speaks about in Phil 3:12-14, "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. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."
If I haven't shared clearly what I believe the 'gospel' to be lets continue to discuss it further. But here is a question to you... We take two men in the Bible. The first is the Apostle Paul, the second is the thief that hung on the cross next to Jesus (Luke 23:42-43). Jesus tells the thief that he will be with Him in paradise the same day (heaven). I am certain that the Apostle Paul lived a worthy life to be in heaven. Which one will have the greater glory in the resurrection that we read about in 1 Cor 15:40-42? Will they have equal glory?
I am not content with being reconciled with God or the remission of sins. I want to be a tool in His hand, a vessel of honor that can be spoken to and be the hand of the Spirit while on earth. Is that a foolish desire? I believe that the way to be a tool is to live each day as if before God. It is a great help when I follow the preaching that I hear in SF. The SF preaching leads people to live lives that are full of life and action for God. Hope to hear from you soon.
To All
I recently heard an update on the original blog topic. This comes from someone that lives in Owasso and knows the situation.
The relationship between the young lady and her parents has moved forward. There is peace and civility between them now.
In regards to the teacher doing anything 'wrong...' The argument regarding classroom time and taxpayer money has been presented as what he did 'wrong,' so please don't bring that up again. I want to share a little about the "other side" as John likes to call it...
The highschool administration where he teaches was actually pressuring the teacher into bringing two lawsuits against the young lady's parents for events that took place after the initial incident (the young lady moving into his home). The teacher did not bring those lawsuits to bear despite pressure from the school's upper administration to do so. I don't know what those lawsuits would have been about (but the words slander and undermining were mentioned), but they are behind everyone now. The important thing is that the uproar that occurred in Owasso around this incident has subsided and it is now peaceful.
Just wanted to share 'the other side.'
Just throwing a fly in the ointment here, related to Russian's last comment:
1) "...If I haven't shared clearly what I believe the 'gospel' to be." What we believe the Gospel to be is irrelevant. The Bible has already given us the "definition" in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5.
2) I do not believe that Jesus died simply to give all men the "opportunity" to be saved. If Jesus' death was for nothing more than just an opportunity/chance, then His death and shed blood was not effective for a significant number of people who did not or never will be saved. I believe He died on the cross ("according to the Scriptures"), shed His blood to purchase salvation for "the elect," i.e. those who were predestined for salvation from the beginning. (e.g. Eph 1:4-8; Rom 9:11, 15, 21; John 10:11, 15; Acts 20:28)
Talk amongst yourselves... 8^)>
RssnSpy6: Funny. That's not what I've heard, esp in regard to the school administration encouraging the teacher to bring lawsuits against the parents. Why would the school system involve themselves in a civil matter between the teacher and the parents? If they had a problem with the parents, why wouldn't they simply have brought the lawsuit themselves? Your update doesn't make sense or hold water in some areas.
I actually live in the town, personally know the girl and her parents, as well as have a child in the school where this teacher is employed. We hear different, first-hand accounts, including numerous parents that have refused to allow their children to be enrolled in the teacher's class because of the events discussed here and other documented situations.
That is not to say that the relationship between the girl and her parents has not "moved forward" as you say to some degree. You deal the hand that is dealt, but I can assure you that this situation is NOT what the parents had envisioned/hoped for the daughter at the time of her graduation.
The "classroom and taxpayer money" is a very big issue with me and many others. If he spent ONE SECOND of the time he was to be TEACHING the topic he was hired to teach and/or used ONE CENT of taxpayer purchased property to indoctrinate this girl, that's a problem. Not that I'm a fan, but if this situation had involved proselytizing by a conservative, mainstream Christian, the ACLU would have been all over it!
RssnSpy:
Every sect and cult creates its own convoluted doctrinal system within which to imprison people who are weak-minded.
One must remember that J O Smith was "converted" in a Methodist Church and his background is Methodist-Arminian. It is from this base that he heads deeper into the dark waters of "extreme sanctification" and as he dives into its depths a "spirit" appears and teaches him some things that go beyond the "sanctification" and "Christian perfectionism" that John Wesley preached.
In fact, J O Smith and acolytes enter the "secret" places where they alone can see Jesus as being "Adam after the fall", one "born in sin" like David and every one of us!
And with this "special revelation" in his mouth, Smith and friends embarked on a mission to destroy all the "harlot" churches on earth and to "save" the elect. The SF believes that J O Smith is the "apostle" who, after Paul and the years of darkness across more than a 1000 years of Christianity, has come to restore the "true church" which is the SF. Between Paul and J O Smith lie only the ages of the harlot church!
Naturally, like all sects & cults, the SF must teach something "new" and "special" to seduce other Christians. It has to preach a "doctrine of works" superceding "faith". It has to preach an "occult" knowledge of "heavenly heirarchies" to seduce people with "higher rewards" than what simple believers will gain.
RssanSpy endorses this sort of thinking (not surprising) when he cites Elias Aslaksen about "one star differing from another in glory" and each person having to work hard to beat (outshine) the other one in the rat-race to heaven that all the SF members are involved in.
With all these arguments, RssanSpy seeks to divert attention from not just the issue of what happened to this girl but also from the larger issues of "doctrinal deviances" of this sect and its consequent behaviour patterns as it tries to pass itself off as "evangelical" and "non-denominational" harmless Christianity!
Russian
My question still stands, maybe it
should read. How do you know from
moment to moment if you are heaven
bound or not.? I read your latest
blog, I understand about the diff.'
levels of glory etc. I understand
the diff between sanctification
and the atonement. When I was in
I was always worried that I would
die and stand before God and be
guilty of some sin. Some sin I was
unaware of, I do not believe our
conscious is a reliable indicatio
of weather or not we are in sin.
John: I do not know where your
source is from but you seem to
know what you are talking about.
PS One of my great-greats was a
minister in the Bretheren.
I think It is only fair to say:
Most of us do not to wish only to
live in the atonement, other wise
why did Jesus bother? I think us
Harlots get the short end of the
stick. I dont know where some of
you have had contact with main-
streamers but they are shortsighted
I know lots of main streamers that
think more like you do than you
would like to think. I remember
a brother In my fellow ship saying
"we are not the only ones" He
knew the fallicy of thinking that
JO was the only guy to come along
in the past millinia with a clue.
I understand your contact with
mainstreamers didnot reveal such.
The folks I know are all pretty
zelous.
I think John does a good job of describing defects in the SF. But where he errs is the impression created that ALL the SF is so, or that the BASIS of the SF is such. If the entire SF were as John describes it every Christian has to be duty bound to oppose it. If it is only a portion of the SF that has become so then those interested and in the right situations should take the effort (in this blog and out of it) to correct these defects. So John though you bring up points that are true in some aspects you imply that the SF as a whole is bad. This automatically places you in the first group. You would then find yourself opposing those like me who accept some of your points but want to see a change believing this is possible.
This is a slight digress from the topic but I would like to add my thoughts on the role of a teacher. This is not to justify the role of the SF teacher but to add my thoughts on Keith’s statement of using time and property paid for by the taxpayers.
I believe the role of a teacher goes far beyond his academic duty. It is to nurture and guide an impressionable student his search for academic knowledge, development of personality and often the unexpressed search for meaning in life. This needs tremendous maturity. An educational system may categorize these duties to academicians, counselors, religious instructors, those who do career guidance etc. There could then be laws that prevent the overlap of these roles to hope for better efficiency.
Thus a teacher of physics may be taken to task if he brings religion into the topic as he was paid to teach physics and nothing else.
If there were no law to bind me I would preach Christ to each of my students. As a teacher I would yearn that my students meet Christ through my words and actions. Not come to the SF but actually meet Christ. I have seen them perform excellently academically and then run aground hopelessly and make a mess of their lives.If the taxpayers had their way every scent of Christianity would be abolished from schools and colleges. It is already happening. It is easier to discuss Harry Potter, gay rights and philosophy than anything Christian. I would not mind using taxpayer’s money and taxpayer’s property to extend the true kingdom of God .But then that’s me. Others may disagree.
This post is not meant to justify the actions of the SFer. I would not build the SF from a teacher’s position. But I would definitely preach Christ.
END
Funnyman:
I am not saying all of SF is in error but MOST of SF is controlled by the central coterie.
Trace the roots back to the inter-twining of the hereditary leadership through JO Smith's line and Bratlie's line (Aslaksen had no line because though he was extremely zealous, hardly any of his progeny are in the SF) through inter-marriage and further through the directorships of the many Brunstad business ventures.
This outfit operates like the Freemasons and other secretive occult groups. People like Funnyman are "allowed" to hold their "free-thinking" views; the SF leadership does not mind so long as the SF itself is defended by loyal foot-soliders like Funnyman and RssanSpy. It just means that the indoctrination has been successful.
Interestingly, you will notice that neither RssanSpy nor Funnyman nor any SF leader will even dare to bring up hard-core theological issues that can only be understood by means of a persistent and consistent learning (even if by proxy) of key Hebrew-Greek-Aramaic words, exegesis, hermeneutics and Christology.
If one throws all of this to the winds and depends only on the Norwegian translation of the Bible to establish a sectarian theology, it will be impossible to discuss anything with such people who choose to be in error.
My comments on the statement “it will be impossible to discuss anything with such people who choose to be in error”
Yes it may be difficult to discuss "hard-core theological issues that can only be understood by means of a persistent and consistent learning (even if by proxy) of key Hebrew-Greek-Aramaic words, exegesis, hermeneutics and Christology" with the SF because I think they are actually not interested. I think most Christians are not.
However a clear distinction has to be made between those who refuse to listen and those who listen and disagree. I think Russian and I have listened and disagreed with many things John and others have said. We still choose to believe what we believe. One can definitely discuss whatever one wants with us and we have shown no shirking of the issue as is alleged.
However what must be borne in mind is that most Christians will have no idea of what “hermeneutics”, “Christology” and “Exegesis” is and will need a dictionary to look them up. Even in established denominations I suppose the number who could consider themselves learned enough for such a debate will be few. If one is looking for a representative from the SF for such a discussion it will be hard to find as it has already been established that the SF does not have many theologians.
I have repeatedly stated that the doctrine of the SF is one issue and the behavior of the SF is another one altogether. Although I accept that doctrine does influence behavior as someone mentioned before, there are enough instances to prove that the correct doctrinal belief does not necessarily shield from folly.
to be contd...
John (and others too) if you are interested in getting involved in the discussion of the SF doctrine I could facilitate this. However then you will also have to clearly distinguish between the SF’s doctrinal beliefs and all the allegations you make about their behavior etc. You can “hold on’ to your views but will have to “hold back” when documenting the doctrine. IF you are interested I have already given you my contact details. One may have to work out of the blog in addition to posting here, not to hide the truth but to have a greater reach. This blog is a great starting point with its freedom and the cloak of anonymity. However how can one expect to have a full fledged doctrinal discussion that reflects the true SF belief on the comments section of Keith’s blog when the initial blog post itself was for a different reason?
I could post my opinion, Russian his, and everyone post a little on what they think. But there will be little focus, a lot of opinions, and many other issues thrown in.
If however one wants to stick to this blog alone then the options are limited. An SFer could answer what he believes in. If it is in line with the allegations he is “indoctrinated”. If he is different he is a “free thinker who is tolerated by the SF”. Such statements seem to indicate a preformed bias for whatever the reason, not one borne out of just a doctrinal study.
Let me give an example. If someone says that the SF believes that JO Smith is infallible. I could say with certainty that that is not the SF view at all. I would immediately be pounced on with statements that I am unaware, my experiences are different, that it is a hidden doctrine etc. Even if a statement were to come from the SF higher-ups about this it would be called an SF “publicity stunt” to make it more acceptable to mainstream Christians. How does one then say anything?
Let me further give an example of separating doctrine from allegations. A statement made by JO Smith that is quoted in the SF can be taken as doctrine. To say that the SF believes this to be “infallible” is an allegation. The two have to be separated.
So in conclusion one can discuss many things with the SF and the statement “it will be impossible to discuss anything with such people who choose to be in error” is far from the truth.
One can even discuss doctrine if one is willing.
END
Funnyman:
1. I think they (SF) are actually not interested. I think most Christians are not.
I think most thinking Christians are interested in theology the moment they know something "fishy" is afoot. Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Branhamites, etc got "found out". They could fool some of the people (their brainwashed people) all the time, most of the people some of the time but they could not fool all the people all the time. This is going to be the fate of SF soon.
2. When tinkers and tailors and sailors get converted it is excellent; when they start having weird "private revelations and interpretations" that the Word of God does not substantiate, we know a cult has been formed.
Of course, cults have been around a long time-even Satan-worshipping cults - and they use money power, secrecy and subterfuge to continue their "Father's business". Remember Herbert Armstrong who began as a Quaker and ended up just like JO Smith, Bratlie etc with his "special revelations" of British Israelism?
2. It has already been established that the SF does not have many theologians.
Then they should shut up and stop twisting the Word of God and misleading people and take some lessons, acknowledging their ignorance instead of defending themselves and being arrogant and claiming to be the ones who have the FINAL and ABSOLUTE (yet arbitrary) interpretation of the Word of God through the doctrine of Christ being like Adam after the Fall or "born in sin" like David.
Discussions do not work with such people who have "revelation" (Who could argue against Joseph Smith about his revelations from the angel Moroni?) and there is no need for discussion really, as the wise old man said, because God is watching and he will do something about this beyond a point. In the meantime, it is enough to make Christians aware that the SF has something "fishy" about both it's doctrine and its cult behavior!
Funnyman:
You're funny when you offer yourself as facilitator and mediator for a theological discussion of SF doctrine.
How can one have a discussion with someone who is not interested in "hard-core theological issues that can only be understood by means of a persistent and consistent learning (even if by proxy) of key Hebrew-Greek-Aramaic words, exegesis, hermeneutics and Christology"??
Huh?
More likely, you want to find out who are the people on this blog writing anonynmously so SF can target them!
You are perhaps part of that bunch of young brainwashed zealots that Kare Smith has working for him in a house in Oslo getting free accommodation, free food and 600 Norwegian kroners a month whose job is to track down, trace and somehow demolish all information or knowledge that points out to the "fishy" nature of SF?
Russian: You said “…(if they wanted it)…”. So in your discussions with this man, the girl, and her husband, did they ever mention that the girl’s family, shortly before the wedding, extended an offer to pay for counseling to include both families so that they could work out some of these issues? This offer was rejected by both the girl and the other family (a.k.a. the local SF church). As far as I know that offer still stands.
I would like to ask a question here. There seems to be two people posting with the names Russian and RssnSpy6. At first I thought these were the same person, that RssnSpy6 had changed his name to Russian, for whatever reason. But in these last few postings RssnSpy6 showed back up. Are these the same people? Just want to clarify this for myself and maybe others.
RssnSpy6: I think your declaration of peace is premature. I get the sense that you are anxious to suppress this issue and sweep it under the rug. There may be some dialog between the girl and her family but that doesn’t mean that they have had the time and opportunity to re-establish a broken relationship, nor does it absolve this SF leader of what he has done.
Keith is right that this issue is still not resolved in the community. He is also correct when he said “this situation is NOT what the parents had envisioned/hoped for the daughter at the time of her graduation.” However I would like to add that all parents hope that their children may take a particular path when they leave home, but it is unreasonable for them to expect that their children will always follow and obey their wishes. That would be demanding and controlling and it’s not about them and their wishes. It is reasonable that the parents would expect their daughter to live her OWN life according to what SHE had planned to do without undue influence from any other persons, and certainly not to move into the home of her high school teacher.
I also don’t believe RssnSpy6’s story about the “school’s upper administration” putting pressure on this teacher to sue the parents. That doesn’t agree with comments I have heard from school officials. And Keith’s right, it wouldn’t make sense for the school administration to put themselves at risk by getting involved in any civil matter they don’t believe involves them.
Funnyman: I agree with what you wrote about teachers. It is not required that teachers leave their religion at the door when they go to work at a public school. It is also possible to live and treat students in a way that is spiritually edifying and exhibits characteristics of Jesus Christ without proselytizing. There are several teachers at this high school that do exactly that and are well respected by many parents of different faiths.
At the same time, it is not right for this teacher to show films of his church in class to his students. The public high school is supposed to be religiously neutral. Showing films of the Smith’s Friends church during a history class, while at the same time trashing other mainline churches in class, crosses the line and falls under the heading of proselytizing.
Funnyman: I can appreciate your comments about a theological debate and the relation to this blog. Keith’s initial question was “is this a cult” and as I have said before, in my opinion, it is not the specific theology that defines a cult, it is their behavior. There are many non-religious cults out there, and there are many other cults that use religion as a tool to manipulate members. However, the underlying behavior in all these groups is the same. That is isolating members and recruits from family and friends, creating a sense of fear of the outside world. The leader of the group is the source of all truth, etc. Are these behaviors consistent with SF groups? Here in Owasso it sure looks that way.
It is easy to draw people into a theological discussion because in the view of many Christians it is the wrong theology that drives behavior. In a sense, I think it does. But in the larger sense of the relation between the leaders and members, I believe that their theology is a tool used to achieve the behavior desired by the leadership. For the SF leadership to use ignorance as way to avoid theological discussions is just another ploy to hide their real agenda.
Harold:
True. SF theology is a tool used to achieve the behavior desired by the leadership. And "For the SF leadership to use ignorance as way to avoid theological discussions is just another ploy to hide their real agenda."
The leader in Owasso has the full support from the SF leadership who are never unaware of what goes on even in the smallest of their fellowships. Each fellowship has a Brunstad Kontakt (who is the Brunstad spy) to keep an eye on everyone and everything and reports directly to Brunstad. So they know about the situation and have cleared the approach.
In their view of course, this "spiritual abduction" was part of "mission work" and part of the "war against the ungodly". All questioning of this act is the work of "opposers".
So you can see how they are sadly trapped in their own double bind of theology and behaviour.
SF does not care about "outisders" or "opposers". This is often enunciated in the central cult texts written by JO Smith, Bratlie and others.
For instance:
"In the church-within - everything must be pure: the lies of Ananias and Sapphira are not tolerated there. Outside are dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters and whoever loves and practices a lie. God has put such people outside and if any of them come inside we have a right and an obligation to put them outside immediately... As ungodly people they must not be allowed to remain in the congregation of the righteous". (From an Article by JO Smith).
The girl's parents are "opposers" and "ungodly" and hence the disinterest in having anything to do with them. If at all SF tries to build bridges it will be because they want to project a "false peace" (this is RssanSpy's job) given this bad publicity when "within" they continue to practice their hatred towards all other Christians and, worse, towards sinners who are the ones who most need Christ.
Harold:
Showing films of the Smith’s Friends church during a history class, while at the same time trashing other mainline churches in class, crosses the line and falls under the heading of proselytizing.
Indeed. On what basis is the teacher allowed to do this? If this is allowed then other cults should also be free to advertise their wares to the students - Church of Scientology, for instance.
One can understand if he showed a film like "The Passion" but this is a clear-cut and specific case of proselytisation by a sect in a public school. Isn't the school doing anything about it?
Secondly, remember that there is no "objective" outside view of SF. All its materials are produced "within" for propaganda purposes and shaped to show only the best (a form of cult behaviour)they have.
The SF has never allowed anyone from outside to freely penetrate its cover - the two "outsiders" who wrote/write about SF are Lowell Streiker and Kjell Arne Bratli. Streiker was paid to write about the SF and the story goes that his writing came in the wake of a legal case pertaining to SF conducting "spiritual abduction". Kjell is an old "friend" of the sect.
SF will never allow objective mainstream Christians who understand both theology and behaviour to write about itself for the writers would come across issues like the one in Owasso and question it.
John: I don't believe that the school "allowed" it. I'm not sure that they know.
Harold:
Why discuss this on the blog when nobody is willing to tell the school what is happening in their classroom? It would be more useful if the school knew what was happening than just highlight the teacher's flaw here?
Russian: On Aug. 29, you said, “I must reject completely, absolutely, that God sees us Christians 'through' Jesus because He died for us on the cross despite the fact that we are filthy rags (sinners).”
Then on Sept. 2, you said, “I agree with you (and God's Word) that salvation is a gift. We can do nothing to change or deny the opportunity that Jesus has given us through His death on the cross. John 3:17, John 4:16, Acts 10:43, Romans 3:21-28, Romans 5:1, Romans 8:37, Romans 5:8-11, Eph 1:7, Col 1:19-20, and Titus 3:5-6 together speak about the remission of sins, forgiveness, and reconciliation to God. I wholeheartely support them and believe in them.”
First you completely, absolutely, rejected ‘that God sees us Christians ‘through Jesus’ and then after having specific verses printed here, you ‘wholeheartedly support’ it. It doesn’t appear that you really even know what you believe or what the Bible actually teaches…other than selected verses that you’ve learned from SF teachings….which again is why I believe it is important to know things such as original languages, correct contexts, historical settings, cultures, etc.
You addressed me with, “You believe that to be a Christian one must repent, invite Jesus into one's heart, ask forgiveness, accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and endeavor to lead a better life.”
I would agree with everything you wrote here but instead of ‘endeavor to lead a better life’, I would say that when one accepts Jesus to be the Lord and Savior of his/her life, the Holy Spirit will dwell in them and convict him/her when he/she sins. As the Holy Spirit convicts him/her, they repent of that sin and make a commitment and every effort not to repeat that same sin. (Sanctification) However, I believe it’s the work of the Holy Spirit. One can’t do it on their own…we’re still only human while in the flesh. Yes, the Holy Spirit can live in us, but we can still be tempted.
You said, “After one becomes a Christian one must 'put off' the former man (Eph 4:22) forever and 'enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh...' (Heb 10:20). (and Romans 6:3-5, which speaks about being baptized into His death, being buried with Him, and walking in the newness of life... being united together in the likeness of His death...). I believe that there is a lot more to Christianity than the forgiveness of sins, which results in salvation (saving from eternal hellfire and damnation).”
Ephesians 4:20-27: “But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, 22) that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Therefore, laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH, EACH ONE of you, WITH HIS NEIGHBOR, for we are members of one another.”
The ‘lay aside’ in Ephesians 4:22 doesn’t mean to completely change all familial relationships, friendships, where one resides, with whom one always associates, all of one’s interests and hobbies, gifts, and talents. The Christian message here is that one must ‘put off’ or ‘lay aside’ sinning…lying, deceitfulness, lustfulness, corrupt behaviors…sinning-not your family and friends. And being a ‘new creation’ in Christ, we will ‘turn aside’ or make the choice not to sin.
Why take Hebrews 10:20 out of context and isolate it? The whole chapter needs to be read in order to FULLY understand what this passage means….which is that because Christ is the sacrifice for us and our sins, He is the new and living way…no more do priests have to go to a temple to sacrifice, because Jesus, which was the new Living Sacrifice (the new and living way), our High Priest, was sacrificed on our behalf, because of OUR sin.
Russian: (cont.)
Romans 6:3-6 “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.”
I, as a Christ-follower, a Christian, I totally agree with all of these passages. How could I not, if I believe God’s Word to be true?
“I am not content with being reconciled with God or the remission of sins. I want to be a tool in His hand, a vessel of honor that can be spoken to and be the hand of the Spirit while on earth. Is that a foolish desire? I believe that the way to be a tool is to live each day as if before God. It is a great help when I follow the preaching that I hear in SF. The SF preaching leads people to live lives that are full of life and action for God.”
I would commend you for having a desire to be pleasing to God. You asked which person, Paul or the thief would have the greater glory. Thank God that’s not my decision. Only God knows that. The Bible is clear that God knows our hearts and our minds and He is the one who decides who gets ‘the greater glory’. But do you believe that lying, deceiving, hurting other people, intentionally breaking families apart, dishonoring familial relationships would be something that God would look at as deserving ‘greater glory’?
I believe that using scriptures like Luke 14:26, Eph.4:22, Hebrews 10:20, and Romans 6:3-5 and others out of context and for the purpose of separating people from their families won’t gain any favors with God.
“For God so LOVED the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16
“The thief comes only to kill, steal, and destroy.” John 10:10
RssanSpy:
It has been the testimony of a great cloud of witnesses across the centuries that God sees people "through" and "in" Christ Jesus.
The "through" pertains to the helpless, believing sinner's "justification" by faith (which is a gift of God and free)in Christ Jesus.
God does not take back His gift of faith nor of justification.
The "in" refers to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit taking residence in the justified believer and then working in him/her so that he/she can be made complete in Christ Jesus.
Being aware of this process and being dependent on this process (which is entirely dependent on God)is "sanctification".
SF members like you think you can HELP GOD in this process and DO SOMETHING FOR GOD. He needs nothing from the likes of you!
In the process, SF members like you enter a useless space where you are forever contending with and competing against the "sin in your flesh" while God is asking you to come to rest and let Him do the inner surgery.
In the process, SF members like you take the "glory" of this process of sanctification unto yourself instead of glorifying the Father and the Son and the Spirit for what they are accomplishing in you.
In the end, SF members like you want to look at others and congratulate yourself on your great spiritual (inner) achievement of destroying your "sin in the flesh" and consider yourself "holier than others" and despise other humans, especially Christians (harlots).
In the end, you want to stand before God and say: "See, I have tithed, prayed, fasted UNLIKE THOSE OTHER sinners. Now, God, see what a good spiritual person I am and have been - YOU BETTER GIVE ME MY CROWN."
But those who fear God know how to stand silently before God and trust in His mercy and goodness to save them and not THEIR OWN SELF-EFFORTS.
May God give you light on this "new and living way" which is "through" and "in" our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
There were Christians who followed Christ much before JO Smith appeared and Christians do not need ONLY JO Smith to understand how to follow Christ. Christ Himself leads those who love Him and not "special" prophets with "special revelation" like JO Smith who divide His Body by creating yet another sect.
Christ Himself is our Revelation not what some magician brings out of a hat like a rabbit to make people stand in awe. Christ is our Revelation because He is raised from the dead and whoever believes in the risen Christ with His heart and confesses Him before people will be SAVED (God will accomplish this).
There is no further need for "special" techniques like how to "kill sin in the flesh".
I agree with sophie! Smith's friends messed up my mind, but sophie is right w/all the verses she mentioned in last 2 posts!
I agree with the content of John’s post that salvation is a gift and is absolutely independent of works. None ‘deserve’ to be saved. I fully agree with John’s statement that one cannot “demand” the reward that one feels is justified. If one has this mindset one will be like the servants in Matt20:12 who are upset that those who worked one hour are equated with those who bore the heat of the day. I would like to add that neither can we “demand” that we have made the cut for the bride and so we “jolly well” got to be the bride. We are all vessels of mercy. The only reason we survive is because God has had mercy on us.
That having been said I think that our adversary the devil is able enough to enable people to misuse doctrine for their own ends. A constant emphasis that "we do not need to do anything but just let God do the inner surgery" can easily be misused by some to continue to live in sin. The “once saved always saved” can easily be misused. Just as easily a constant emphasis to “kill sin in the flesh” can easily be misused to emphasize human efforts. I do not claim that all do so however.
to be contd...
As to whether we can “help God” in this process…I am sure we can hinder the working of the Spirit in us. Since John brought up the topic of “inner surgery” I would also like to add that most often any surgery is possible only if the person is made fully unconscious. So I grant that a Christian who is fully yielded to Christ, casting himself entirely into His hands will be able to experience this inner surgery. But this is not so easy is it? I mean … if it were so easy most Christians would be really wonderful people showing Christ’s virtues. I need only to look at myself to realize that it is not as easy as it seems to be. There is so much opposition to this “inner surgery”. So there is something that wars against this inner surgery. We can definitely speed up or hinder the process. I Thess 5:19 says “Quench not the Spirit”.
I also agree with John that there were godly people before JO Smith and after him in no way concerned with the SF. Christians do not need only JO Smith in order to understand how to follow Christ.
Though I believe JO Smith sincerely obeyed the Word and encouraged others to do so.
to be contd...
Now a general statement :
The general trend in this discussion seems to indicate that the Bible in its present state is not enough for a Christian. He also needs to know a certain amount of Greek, Latin, a lot of contexts etc. He should also be careful when he thinks he understands certain things as this may contrast with what is believed by the majority of Christians. This is the “true” doctrine that has been "refined" over the ages.
I have seen a sincere Christian, not part of the SF, read his Bible, look to Christ for revelation (Not JO Smith) and then finally come to the belief that Jesus overcame sin (could have sinned but did not) and that he did not believe in the “once saved always saved”. I asked the person who expressed this belief why he thought so. Who told him this? Who influenced him in his belief. He answered… “It is so clear in the Bible..."
So when one says that “Christ is our revelation”, individuals sincerely seeking Christ independent of theological support seem to be getting different interpretations of Scripture. People look to the Lord with their Bibles (in English and in their native tongue be it Norwegian or Zulu) and look to Christ for revelation. When they do get that revelation it is often shot down by mainstream Christians as not “true”. And where did these mainstream Christians get their views from?…. from seminaries, from other Christian literature, from someone else’s study in Greek , from perhaps their study in Greek or perhaps “revelaton”. Such a person would claim then to have access to the “true” “accepted” doctrine that has been “debated” and “purified” over the years.
While I do not disrespect those who labor with the Word and with the doctrine and I am not trying in any way to belittle them, I would also like to point out what Jesus spoke about the Pharisees in Matt 23:3. I think it would be right to say that the Pharisees were the custodians of the doctrine of that day in its purest form. Jesus told the people to listen to what they preached but not to imitate them. So the knowledge of the right doctrine is not an end in itself.
In contrast we can see what Paul had to write “ follow me as I follow Christ”. As Christians I feel the emphasis has to be on Paul’s statement that people can “follow our lives” as we follow Christ. So on the one hand while we should welcome doctrinal accuracy we have to accept the fact that this doctrinal “accuracy” may not be reached by someone independently and sincerely seeking God. God’s Spirit can however work so powerfully in him so that irrespective of doctrinal “flaws” he can testify like Paul “follow me even as I follow Christ”. I think this could be said about a person like br. Bratlie. Even though people have criticized him severely in the things he has written, I think most who have met him would accept that he was truly a godly man.
IF the SF cannot have this testimony (and it is obvious that they do not in places) they have some serious rethinking to do. The rethinking is a rethinking that has to be done in behavior,attitudes and in what is spoken and often not spoken. A rethinking that should focus on why a doctrine that emphasizes godliness fails produce members who react in true love.
END
Funnyman:
Your argument is naive.
If the meaning of a certain word in French is "cow" and you call it a "horse" claiming that is the "revelation" God gave you, well one can only "watch and pray".
Or, if the meaning of a certain phrase in French is "cows eat buttercups" and you state that it is "horses eat butter in cups" and say that is the "revelation" God gave you, one can only "watch and pray".
Having a so-called "revelation" can be neurological in nature (maybe some chemical wiring went haywire with Bratlie or Smith) - schizoids often speak in weird revelatory metaphors (David Koresh was schizoid). Or it might be because the brain got too "heated" from religious pondering or it might be from "ego" or it might even be from a "spirit" even as Joseph Smith or Mohammed received revelations from "angels" and they themselves became "angels".
The fact that one seems "godly" externally is no proof of genuine godliness; the fact that someone speaks "powerfully" and gives acolytes "revelations" or "new understanding" is no sign of godliness.
In shamanistic societies and the East, there are any number of such god-men who claim "revelation" and grow cults.
What or who is this "spirit" that spoke to J O Smith and spread from him virally to others? It definitely is not a "spirit" that understood Greek. :-)
It definitely was a "spirit" that has gone beyond the "sane" and "sober" meanings of several verses in the Bible in order to generate a new "pattern" of interlocking verses which claims to be superior to all that went before. And many have been seduced by this "spirit".
Interestingly, this "spirit" always seduces only those with high spiritual "ambitions". The simple ones know the Lord Jesus and do not need high ambitions and a desire to be "holier than others".
You imply that those men of God who understand the languages and contexts are Pharisees. Of course, that sort of reaction comes only from a sectarian or cultist whose goal is to defend the "doctrine" he has been "brainwashed" into or had "revealed" to him. It is a defense mechanism.
No one prevents you from remaining in error and defending ignorance as vigorously as you do or staying put with the sect. Even Satan-worshippers have a right to practice their religion in liberal and democratic societies; but surely there are many families who do not want their children to be seduced and abducted by such religionists. They too have their rights! And part of that is to understand who "twists" the Word of God to "separate" daughter from family and to warn others against such "fishy" doctrine.
No John, I am not implying that those who know the doctrine, Greek and contexts are Pharisees. I thought I made that very clear. What I am trying to say that accuracy in doctrine is not an end in itself.
Do not dismiss being godly as something external. A good tree will bring forth good fruit. The fruit may look external. IT may be. Do not dismiss it. I will just as quickly accept that something is wrong with the tree if the fruit it brings hatred and disrespect for one’s parents. I would not dismiss it.
Just because someone chooses to disagree with the existing view does not make him crazy/schizoid. Jesus himself tells us that if we love Him we will obey his commandments. To aim to obey this word with the help of the Holy Spirit cannot be called “high spiritual “ambitions””
END
Funnyman: You and Rssnspy6 both seem to agree in your belief that it is not important to know the original languages, history, cultures, contexts, etc. of the Bible. You both also seem to hang quite a great deal on ‘revelation’ from God to certain people. But, you and Rssnspy6 seem to part ways when it comes to believing that separating from one’s family is a Christian thing to do just because one ‘joins a different ‘church’ group’.
Funnyman, you said, “Unwise zeal has blinded people to break families, dishonor parents and put an end to dissent. It is still remediable.”
“John I agree with this statement of yours: “and can stick closer to Jesus than the SF and be kept from what has befallen this family…”
“That is my desire too. I would like those in the SF to stick closer to Jesus than the SF. I do not want such things that have happened to this family to be repeated. If this blog achieves that that is really good.”
You also said: “I would condemn such sort of behavior ie. taking off a young girl secretly, taking her to one’s own house (for whatever the reason) and keeping her parents in the dark. It is an extremely foolish and un-Christian thing to do. Young people are extremely impressionable and I do not think any one can take the ‘she is of age’ line on this.”
“I will just as quickly accept that something is wrong with the tree if the fruit it brings hatred and disrespect for one’s parents.”
From several of your statements, it appears that you think strong family relationships are important and that you don’t believe separating from one’s family is Christian or scripturally sound. But, it appears Rssnspy believes that Luke 14:25-33 means ‘that there must be a separation between familial bonds’.
So, my question is, “Which one of you has the correct ‘revelation’ from God for the meaning of that scripture?” This is why it is very important to have the correct languages, usage of words, cultural contexts, etc. Because one person will interpret the Bible in one way and another will interpret it in another way. If we don’t know what was actually meant, it can be misinterpreted. And as you said, “I think that our adversary the devil is able enough to enable people to misuse doctrine for their own ends.” You also said, “So when one says that “Christ is our revelation”, individuals sincerely seeking Christ independent of theological support seem to be getting different interpretations of Scripture.” (Sept 7)
“When they do get that revelation it is often shot down by mainstream Christians as not “true”.
Perhaps that’s because the ‘revelation’ that one has may not line up true with Scripture. We’re instructed to ‘test the spirits’ and that’s how we can do it-by lining it up with the scriptures. Teaching people (no matter their age) to disrespect, dishonor, disassociate, and separate from their OWN families and all of their OWN friends doesn’t line up with what is (accurately, correctly) taught from scripture about loving God and loving others AT ALL. Matt.22:36-40.
Sigurd Bratlie: “A perfect apprentice is one who GIVES UP all his own opinions and plans and is obedient to his master.” And, “We realize that to be born again means to receive a new life with ENTIRELY NEW INTERESTS.”
“Be not afraid of God’s Word that divides and separates. Go out from the harlot!” and “It means to forsake family, your possessions, and your own life,”
(cont.)
Rssnspy6, Also, regarding the new creation part you wrote... “Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22, and Luke 5:37 say the same thing (this is how I understand it)... New wine (the 'new creation') must be put into new wineskins (and entirely new life with new goals and direction) otherwise the new wine will burst the old wineskin (our old life before we had Jesus in it).”
Again, you’ve added your spin on this scripture. ‘and entirely new life with new goals and direction’ are not what the Bible reads; they are only your ‘interpretation’ or ‘revelation’ of what these scriptures mean. Although I do find it interesting that your ‘revelation’ lines up pretty well with Sigurd Bratlie’s writings, not necessarily the Bible’s teachings, but Bratlie’s.
Rssnspy6 said to John, “SF does not preach that any man can become God. SF preaches that we must follow in Jesus footsteps, who was exalted by God far above everything to sit at His right hand.” (Aug.13)
On Aug 15, I said: “Christianity teaches that we are supposed to ‘pattern’ our lives after Jesus Christ.”
You then said: “You talk about ONLY following the 'pattern' of Jesus Christ. That isn't Biblical.” Paul says, "follow me as I follow Christ," and speaks of how the Ephesians learned from Epaphras. It is a good idea to see where your 'fathers' in Christ have ended up... If in fact they are receiving the end of their faith.”
I did not say ONLY; that was your addition to my statement. I’d also like to point out that you said ‘SF preaches that we must follow in Jesus footsteps’, then when I said ‘Christianity teaches that we are supposed to ‘pattern’ our lives after Jesus Christ’, you added the word ONLY to my statement and told me it wasn’t Biblical.
Yes, Paul states, ‘follow me as I follow Christ’, but if we were to choose between following another human who IS fallible and following Jesus who ISN”T fallible, we will come closer to not falling into sin if we ‘keep our eyes fixed on Jesus’ as Hebrews 12:2 tells us to. Christ calls Himself the Good Shepherd and He calls us His sheep. Sheep are to follow the Shepherd.
1Cor 1:12-15 says, “One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.”
John: I did not say that nobody is willing. I’m just not sure that they have. Why bring it up here? To illustrate the arrogance and disrespect that this SF church appears to have towards their “neighbors”.
Russian: I appreciate your desire to be a “vessel of honor”. I think we all, as Christians, have that desire. I don’t think there is anyone posting here that would say different.
Paul said in Romans 13:10 “Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”
And the apostle John said “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” 1Jn 3:18
“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” 1Jn 3:16
In other words; love is not what you say, love is what you do. Love, as God defines it, is an action, not a feeling.
I don’t believe that God will honor people who deliberately deceive others and lie about it. The actions that this SF leader has taken towards other families in this community are just the opposite of those that fulfill God’s law. You can speak about how godly you desire to be all day long but, at the end of the day, it is your actions that reflect your heart.
Funnyman: There is a book by Jack Cottrell in which he makes the following statement about the importance of accurate doctrine.
“Also, a church that grows numerically without growing doctrinally is immature and not pleasing to God and vulnerable to ‘every wind of doctrine’ and ‘trickery of men’ (Eph 4:14)”
I believe that in order to strive for accurate doctrine it is important to consider all arguments and compare those ideas and doctrines through the filter of the original documents. Thankfully there have been many people who have had the calling to learn and understand those original languages and those cultural expressions of the time so that we, in this time, are not misled by false prophets.
There have been many people who claimed to have had a “revelation” from God. People like Mohammed, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, and Charles Manson. All revelations aren’t necessarily from God. So sound doctrine, “debated and purified over the years” is necessary as an overall safeguard against error, heresy, and cults.
For Sophie and Harold : I do not despise doctrine and the study of the Bible in its context and all that Sophie mentioned. I think it is important. It is also important for a Church to be doctrinally sound. I accept that. However let me state that I do not think that one needs any special theological training to see that Luke 14:26 “hate your father and mother …” is not to be taken literally. I also believe that God still reveals Himself to us through His word in this present age also. This “revelation” will lead me to be more Godly, more loving, more peaceable and gentle. If however I have not surrendered fully to Him, I am in danger of using God’s word for my own end and no amount of doctrinal accuracy will prevent me from going astray. I also am grateful for the in depth study that the early fathers have done. I appreciate that. However I choose consciously to disagree with some aspects. These however remain as isolated doctrinal issues that do not directly influence my behavior. If I am wrong in areas and am convinced later in life I do not think they will still influence my behavior.
I think the safety we have is in surrendering our lives completely to God. When we do so even if aspects of our theology are not perfect our lives are in tune with His will. So yes, I value the correct theology. But I value even more and would place even more emphasis on a heart that fully follows God.
If the SF’s theology is not right but they still followed Christ wholeheartedly with a humble heart of complete surrender, we would not be having this discussion right now.
Many Christians do not think about certain doctrinal issues and still follow Christ with nothing more than a Bible in hand and a sincere heart. To such a person I would not see the need to bring up doctrinal issues. He already has the fruit of the Spirit.
However when one goes a little higher to an organizational level it is more complex. Now in the organization are many who do not have the same heart. There are some who now follow the teachings in a very legalistic way and manifest the isolated fruit of a ‘doctrine’ and not the fruit of the Spirit. Changing the doctrine to a more “correct” one will enable them to manifest a different kind of fruit. But what of it? If the heart is not sincere in following the Lord, the accuracy of doctrine does not matter. If one’s heart is sincere then actually the doctrine is irrelevant in a sense as the Holy Spirit leads one to all truth.
So yes I think doctrine is important. The accuracy of doctrine is the inheritance that we have received from our fathers. But studying doctrine in isolation if one’s heart is not sincere is not going to help. Studying doctrine with a sincere heart is a tremendous help to oneself and those around.
to be contd...
I would separate the necessity of doctrinal accuracy on an individual level and on an organizational level. On an individual level as I mentioned before if one’s heart is sincere and one is fully surrendered to the working of the Spirit, one has the promise of being led into all truth. On an organizational level, the doctrine is the official belief, the more accurate the less loopholes the better. An organization will be held to account for its official doctrinal beliefs. However an individual will be known more by his behavior.
The SF was initially not an organization. It started of as a loose collection of sincere believers who met in house fellowships. As I mentioned before there was no question of control or finance involved. You opened your doors to have fellowship with likeminded people or you did not. Period.
However with growth has come the unavoidable development into an organization. Now the doctrine of the SF is up for scrutiny. I agree with Harold that as this organization develops there is a need for more theological study so that doctrinal issues are stated from an informed standpoint and not just as “revelation”. That is a valid point. However this will not ensure that the hearts of those in the organization are sincere.
Massive growth in numbers often outstrips the number of people who are actually sincere. One thus has a large number, some sincere, some copying those who are sincere.
Yes it is only beneficial to have a strong theological standpoint. But that is not going to ensure a sincere heart. That is my point. I hope I have clarified my stand on doctrinal accuracy.
END
Funnyman:
Your argument of the "heart" is alright (within limited scope) if tribals somewhere suddenly get "revelation" of Christ. Missionaries have often met such tribals who have had revelations.
The developments in such cases can take two paths:
1. the tribals go "wrong" after getting the revelation, usually seduced by a special medicine man who uses Christ-revelation to entrap people in his own "private revelation" (which distorts Christ)
2. the tribals come to the "safe" doctrines and life in Christ and not "private revelation" like J O Smith or sect leaders get.
The argument from the heart is therefore extremely limited and in your case or that of Smith's Friends (whose leaders make this same defence and are often proud and aggressive in making this defence)it is a sign of extreme arrogance and immaturity.
It also puts you in the company of all "sincere seekers of the truth from the heart" which includes Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, even atheists. There is no reason to be a follower of Christ in this case, enough to just be a "sincere heart for God" (whatever that implies).
Your argument makes you no better or worse than any Hindu/ Buddhist or pagan seeker after God (like the follower of the pagan deity Tash in the Narnia Chronicles by C S Lewis. That is of course an argument for universalism.
Smith's Friends actually falls in the category of sect/cults who are pretty well recorded in the list below:
Christians "without Christ":
This is a group of churches that may call themselves Christians, use the Bible as their Sacred Scripture, and may even have the name of Christ in the title of their church... but they say that "Jesus is not God", or that Jesus Christ is god as much as you and I are god.
- Mormons. The Church of Jesus Christ of the of Latter-day Saints, Book of Mormon
- Jehovah's Witnesses. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
- Moonies. Unification Church - The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, Sun Myung Moon
- New Age
- Christian Science Church.
- Church of Scientology.
- Church Universal and Triumphant.
- Children of God, Family of Love.
- Worldwide Church of God, of Armstrong.
- Spiritualism, Spiritualistic Churches, Spiritism.
- Unitarian Church
- Universalism
- Unitarianism... Universalism.
- Unity School of Christianity
- Socinianism
Destructive Cults, Christian
- People's Temple, Jim Jones, Guayana, Jonestown, 913 death
- Branch Davidians, "Waco", David Koresh (Vernon Howell), 82 death
- The Family, Charles Manson, 8 death
- Jeffrey Lundgren, destructive Mormon splinter group, 5 death
- Order of the Solar Temple, 53 death
- Heaven's Gate, 39 death
- Aum Shinrikyo, subway gas attack in Tokyo, Japan, 1995
- Snake Handlers, Serpent Handlers
- Movement of Restoration of "Ten Commandments, in Uganda, 924 death.
Where do you locate yourself, Mr Funnyman?
why doesn't god stop this cult? I'm a christian jew, my idea of god is some open up the earth and suck you in if you go against him! My husband says well god ain't like that anymore that was just how He was in the old testiment days. But where's his anger towards the evil smith's friends????????? Is HE really just going to continue letting them go along in their merry evil way?????? To not see god putting any kind of smack down on this cult has crused my faith is crushing my faith - god must be evil to!!!!!!!!!! For Him to be ok w/the smith's friends as He appears to be! Either that or HE just clean doesn't exist!!!!!! Cause these people have gone on for years past my leaving them and I left them due to some very bad things going on in their church or looking to be going on in their church. Bad things happened to me at this cult really bad things.
God if He exists he doesn't want me to be christian anymore, He wants me to be buddhist cause man I'm telling ya, the god I knew once upon a time, the christian god that I did have a relationship with would've put the smack down on the smith's friends cult by now ------ maybe I hallucinated god? Maybe in some religious zeal ferver I make believed him into existence?
for all the smith's friends done to me the deserve all them to be shish kaboobed and burned at the stake and their bodies ground up and fed to wild animals! Where's god? How he just sitting around doing nothing?
Funnyman: I can understand what you are trying to say and I don’t necessarily disagree with you. There are a lot of Baptists out there who don’t necessarily agree with all five points of Calvinism. They don’t follow the “party line” and their behavior can’t really be associated with the Baptist denomination or its theology. I also know some people, who do not abide by any religion, yet their behaviors are more Christ-like than others who claim to be committed Christians. At the same time, I don’t know that you can always separate church doctrine from individual behavior.
The leader of the Children of God group, David Berg, apparently started out as a fundamentalist Christian preacher but later went off track. His twisted theology justified coercing women in his group to become prostitutes in order to recruit members and generate money for the group. He referred to the women in his group as “God’s Whores” or “Hookers for Jesus”. The girls, I’m sure, were very nice and sincerely believed in their heart that they were following the Lord; however their behavior wasn’t what I would consider Christian.
If David Berg had a correct interpretation of Biblical principles do you think all those girls would still have behaved in the same way?
I believe that there are SF members who are sincere in their desire to follow Christ. But just like the Children of God, the SF doctrines and teaching “steadfastly the conditions of discipleship mentioned in Luke 14:25-33” seems to have produced what we have in Owasso. The actions of this group and this statement by Elf validate each other and expose the true heart of this SF church. The fact that this group, and Elf’s group on the other side of the planet, is in concert with each other on this teaching leads me to believe that this is not just an errant church group gone bad. This seems to be a fundamental doctrine, and resulting behavior, of Smith’s Friends.
I would like to make another point. One of the main arguments by the SF leadership over the years is a focus on the errors of “mainline denominations”. I think that is one of the main points in some of Sigurd Bratlie’s writings that I have read. I, for one, don’t necessarily disagree with that line of thought either.
A recent decision by the Presbyterian Church to allow gay ministers is an example of how far some “mainline” denominations have deviated from fundamental Christianity. This is certainly worth noting and I also believe that this doctrine of the Presbyterians is just as wrong as what appears to be Smith’s Friends abnormal focus on Luke 14:26 as a condition of discipleship.
I am not here to defend 100% the doctrine and creeds of all mainline denominations. I am willing to accept the fact that they are not all pure. But I don’t see the teachings of Smith’s Friends as being all that pure either.
At least the Presbyterians are open about what they are and there is a great deal of public debate within the denomination about these issues and hopefully they will, through this process of open debate move to purify their church.
In the case of the Smith’s Friends, they seem to have one set of writings that are open to the public, and another set that are hidden behind closed doors so that outsiders can’t really be sure what they actually teach. Hiding behind the argument that they don’t have any scholars and therefore can’t be held accountable on doctrinal issues, and therefore behavior, is a cop out.
Funnyman: “I would separate the necessity of doctrinal accuracy on an individual level and on an organizational level. On an individual level as I mentioned before if one’s heart is sincere and one is fully surrendered to the working of the Spirit, one has the promise of being led into all truth. On an organizational level, the doctrine is the official belief, the more accurate the less loopholes the better. An organization will be held to account for its official doctrinal beliefs. However an individual will be known more by his behavior.”
I agree with a great deal of what you said. But, why do members of SF separate and not intermingle with other ‘harlot’ church groups? And why call other groups of Christians ‘harlots’ at all? These facts cannot be denied because they’re written in SF own publications and behaviors are also observable. I believe that most Christians would agree that God still reveals Himself to us in this present day. But, one way to ‘test’ incorrect theology or strange ‘revelations’ is by knowing original languages, cultures, correct context, etc. and when those ‘revelations’ don’t ‘line up’ or ‘agree’ correctly with scripture (in correct usage, context, etc) then one could be sure that it is not a revelation from God. Again, take a look at people like Jim Jones or David Koresh or Joseph Smith who all had ‘revelations’ from God. Their ‘revelations’ did NOT line up with scripture. And, it was observable by the behaviors.
One of the latest and bizarre cases to come to the forefront is that of Jaycee Dugard who was abducted and brainwashed against all she had ever known. One article read that her abductor ‘apparently believed himself to be a powerful messenger of God and had his own church set up in his basement with himself being the ‘minister’’. Yet, he kidnapped, brainwashed, and repeatedly raped her. Do those behaviors line up with scripture? NO. But, he must have been having ‘revelations’ of some kind if he ‘believed himself to be a powerful messenger of God’.
1John 4:1, “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.”
SF looks down upon anyone who has formal training in theology and even refers to them as ‘harlot’. I totally agree that ‘the knowledge of the right doctrine is not an end in itself’. There have been plenty of accounts of those who claim to be a Christian trained in theology and have embezzled money from their church or are having an inappropriate relationship with some member(s) of their congregation. So, no, their correct doctrine didn’t keep them from sinning. That is because WE ARE ALL SINNERS. And, although a person KNOWS the right doctrine doesn’t necessarily mean he/she will make choices that are righteous and pleasing to God but rather to him or herself. That’s a sin; one of selfishness. As you said, “I think that our adversary the devil is able enough to enable people to misuse doctrine for their own ends.” Likewise, incorrect doctrine, incorrect usage of scripture, incorrect contexts, etc CAN and WILL lead to anti-Christian and incorrect behavior. That too is called sin. History teaches us that. We’ve witnessed that in many groups like Hitler’s Youth, The Peoples’ Temple, Children of God, Charles Manson, the Mormons, the Moonies….
SF steadfastly teaches Luke 14:26 and one of its leading brothers writes statements like, “A perfect apprentice is one who GIVES UP all his own opinions and plans and is obedient to his master.” And, “We realize that to be born again means to receive a new life with ENTIRELY NEW INTERESTS.”
“Be not afraid of God’s Word that divides and separates. Go out from the harlot!” and “It means to forsake family, your possessions, and your own life”.
“On an organizational level, the doctrine is the official belief, the more accurate the less loopholes the better.”
So, would you say that those statements are the ‘official belief’ of SF? The reason that someone would write and teach something like this (although it is NOT scriptural) is obvious; it is to get those in ‘the group’ to give up all of his/her own opinions, plans, interests, family, and friends, and take on a ‘group think’ or ‘new interests’ that revolve around the opinions, plans, and interests of whoever the group leader is. How convenient for the ‘church leader’. And, in this case for Brunstad where the money is sent in order to build. The money isn’t used to help overseas’ missions lead others to Christ and build the Kingdom of God for eternity in heaven. It appears that it is to lead others to build a bigger and better Brunstad for SF here on earth. Those are two opposing objectives.
Jesus came to give life more abundantly and satan came to kill, steal, and destroy.
Giving it to God: Your frustration and hurt is definitely understandable. It is difficult to be patient while knowing that people are being wronged by others, especially by those who claim that they are ‘the chosen bride of Christ’. It has been observed and documented that many in the SF organization are incorrect in their interpretation and teaching of God’s Word and have caused separation of loved ones, pain, humiliation, hurt, abuse, and sufferings, on the part of others.
Yes, in the OT, we do read of accounts where we see God protecting those who love, honor, obey, and worship Him and disciplining those who don’t. God gives us a free will. We aren’t puppets that He controls, but rather gives us commands (not suggestions) to live by.
Take a look at the people of Noah’s time who were sinners and continued to turn their backs on God. God was very patient and gave them many opportunities to turn away from their evil, wickedness, but only Noah and his family chose to be obedient and love and worship God. So, God sent a flood to eradicate the earth of all mankind except Noah and his family.
We also see in the OT account of Moses and Pharaoh, God always knew what was going on and in His time, He took care of it. Pharaoh was oppressive and full of hatred, pride, arrogance, and selfishness toward the Israelites. God gave Pharaoh many warnings and opportunities to change his heart and his behavior toward them but Pharaoh didn’t, so God sent many plagues including the death of Pharaoh’s own son, and ultimately his own death along with that of his army.
There are many more Biblical accounts that demonstrate God’s hatred of sin…He loves the sinner, but hates the sin. The Bible says that He knows how many hairs we have on our heads, He watches us; He knows our hearts and our minds. So, just like in Noah’s day and in the case of Pharaoh, He knows what each of is doing and we will ALL have to stand before Him in judgment someday including the leaders of these types of groups who twist scripture in order to use it for their own purposes.
2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
But Hebrews 10:30 also says, “For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” (Lev.19:18, Deut.32:35)
We may think He’s doing nothing or that it is taking longer than we want, but He is still the same God as in the OT. Those who don’t recognize Jesus for the Savior that He is (and that is documented in the Bible), will not be recognized by God.
Harold: But I don’t see the teachings of Smith’s Friends as being all that pure either.
Try telling that to people in the "core leadership". The interesting thing about the SF is that they have no problems playing both ends. There is the story of a top leader of the SF who along with a couple of "disciples' once encountered a simple (harlot) "believer" who had heard somewhere that SF did not believe that Jesus while in the flesh was God having emptied himself of all deity. This leader then assured the "believer" that Jesus was God and the believer went home "happy". Later, when the other "disciples" asked this leader why he had said what he did say, the reply was: You see, you must tell people who are at a certain level only according to their understanding. Never give them more than what they are looking for or can understand. Further, the important thing is to win a person's confidence towards yourself. After that you can tell him things and he will be open to understanding them."
This is a true story. But this approach is also typically and SF approach and it is chicanery (deception by artful subterfuge or sophistry).
This is how SF "prophets" or "evangelists" typically seduce people into the group. They play on their naivete, or on their spiritual ambitions, or on their unhappiness with "harlot" sytems, or win their "confidence" and then slowly feed them their doctrinal and other "delicacies".
But once you are in, you get sucked in deeper and soon one is perfectly conditioned.
This conditioning happens right from the children to you through the so called Bible Studies and Work Parties and Meetings and Conference and Feasts of the group.
Sophie: Your citing relevant Bible verses has no effect on people like Funnyman. In SF, the Bible is not the central book but the books which have a twisted interpretation of the Bible.
Therefore, for instance, the Bible Study competitions among SF in which children and youth from all the fellowships across the world participate are not about studying the Word of God but studying only the twisted interpretations of J O Smith, Sigurd Bratlie, Kare Smith and other "insider" writings which are "prophetic" and therefore "infallible" in a sense.
For instance, the 2009 so called Bible Contest is centred around a selection of J O Smith's Letters. Earlier contests centred around certain key chapters from Kare Smith's book Shepherd and Prophet and Sigurd Bratlie's Bride and the Harlot.
How can those who are trapped within this narrow framework which forbids them from looking at the writings of other children of God be set free?
Prayer - sustained and mobilised prayer is the answer.
Harold said: But just like the Children of God, the SF doctrines and teaching “steadfastly the conditions of discipleship mentioned in Luke 14:25-33” seems to have produced what we have in Owasso.
Not "seems". It has done exactly what was intended to be done. This is a central doctrine preached and practised violently across all the SF groups, except in "baby" or "foundling" groups - groups that are just being seduced and brought under SF control. There, those who control from behind the scenes from Brunstad, introduce this doctrine subtly and when there is a critical mass of those who believe this in the foundling group, they use it centrally and openly.
Delve deeper into the SF groups - you will be able to identify all the families that have been divided using this doctrine and the other one of "Come out from the harlot". Indeed, this process is what the SF seeks time and again to disguise and hide.
SF leaders have always touted these two doctrines to "separate" the "Bride" from the "Harlot" literally.
In other words, this group (especially its prophet-leaders)claim to have the special sight of being able to discern who is of the Bride and who is a Harlot. Like the Pharisees, they divide people based on their "inner eye of judgement". This is very much like the Branhamites being able to identify who has been "marked by God on the forehead" and thus to separate these "special" people from other "believers".
Take this bit written by JO Smith: "There are many different under-standings of the word "church" but GOD HAS ONLY ONE UNDERSTANDING and He has revealed that in Eph. 5:31-32. It is written "one flesh" AS OPPOSED TO "one spirit". THE MAN - Christ - FIRST FORSOOK HIS HEAVENLY FATHER, AND THEN HE FORSOOK HIS EARTHLY MOTHER when he died on the cross...But if Christ is crucified according to the flesh, His church must be just the same and those who are not crucified according to the flesh cannot possibly be "one flesh" with Him. AND IF THEY ARE NOT ONE FLESH WITH HIM, THEY ARE NO IN HIS CHURCH EVEN IF THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO BE LEADERS IN ONE OF THE COUNTLESS CHURCHES HERE ON EARTH."
So here one can see how Eph5:31-32 is twisted out of context to show Christ as (a) just a man (b) as one who FORSOOK his Father (c) as one who FORSOOK his mother and (d) using this logic to judge and condemn others who belong to Christ BY FAITH as "harlots".
Why then be surprised at what has happened in Owasso?
I was never able to hit the bar in the smith's friends church, I've always been a sad sad sad sinner I mean a mall going chi chi buying sinner.....I try to keep the things I buy to a minimum and alot money to give to the poor....I make a efort but I am surely never perfect. But my idea of perfect has changed since leaving the smith's friends, I used to take this verse literally.......1 Peter 5:10 "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you." That I'd become this super human jesus freak. Super holy, super above everyone. Be a holy smith's friend never give into any lusts of the flesh ever again.
Perfection I think doesn't mean I never sin anymore/give into the lusts of the flesh anymore --- sin dwells within us it's always there in us! It's easy to fall! Go a few days without god's word - it's easy to fall! But we can have this perfection and this is the perfection god desires for us to have James 1:4 "But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." But it doesn't mean we going to never ever sin again pry!!!! The sin in my flesh is always there, often I desire to do one thing and do another. Desire to do the good and don't due to the sin in my flesh! Perfection can happen, but even then even then take heed 1 Corinthians 10:12
"Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." Ultra easy to fall I find.
Even if I fall a billion times or any you do DON'T GIVE UP......Hebrews 10:38 "Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Jesus will have no pleasure in me if I draw back, there needs to be sword up against the lusts of my flesh!
But then again, ya we supposed to suffer in the flesh but I think the smith's friends take it to a extreme, I think god wants us to have happy full lives I'm convinced of this you can't unconvince me! John 10:10
"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." And abundant life = me having some stuffs on this earth amen! not like going overboard like fancy cars or whatever....but you know some stuffs! I'm getting a parakeet this weekend and I'm 100% that's part of the abundant life jesus wanted me to have, a full rich abundant life! If I want to play bingo on saturdays great! Jesus came that I could have life more abundantly! And I might play bingo on saturdays for reals : ) hahahahahahahah
John: I agree with your statement that “sustained and mobilized prayer is the answer”. That is at the root of all spiritual battles. I believe that Smith’s Friends is a spiritual attack on Jesus Christ and that Owasso has become a battlefront for that war.
I have to ask what you mean by mobilized prayer. There are many people in this community who are aware of the issue and have joined in this battle through their prayers. But at the same time there are very few, if any, examples in the Bible where God did all the work without people. For example, God freed His people in Egypt but He used Moses as His spokesman.
That is one of the reasons that I believe this blog to be important because it reaches world wide and raises the issue so that many others around the globe can be clued in. This group, and most others like them, prefers to do their work in secret so they can prey on unsuspecting victims. Through forums like this, people can begin to unravel the deceptions and expose the real Smith’s Friends.
So I would like to comment on JO Smith’s interpretation of Eph 5:31-32. First of all when he says “There are many different under-standings of the word "church" but GOD HAS ONLY ONE UNDERSTANDING”, he claims to know the mind of God. When I hear some preacher speak and he uses words like “This is what God means…” or “God thinks this…” these always send up red flags for me. NOBOBY knows the mind of God or can claim to know what God is thinking.
“THE MAN - Christ - FIRST FORSOOK HIS HEAVENLY FATHER”. Did Jesus really forsake God? In Mat 27:46, Jesus, as He is dying on the cross, says “My God, My God, why have YOU forsaken ME?” How can JO Smith say that Jesus forsook His heavenly Father and have anybody believe him unless they have never read the Bible for themselves?
“AND THEN HE FORSOOK HIS EARTHLY MOTHER when he died on the cross”. In Jn 19:26, again as Jesus is dying on the cross, He says to His mother and His disciple (most believe this to be John) “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple “Here is your mother.”
In that culture, my understanding is that it was the responsibility of the oldest son to provide for his widowed mother. Given the fact that Mary, His mother, was at the crucifixion, and that Jesus took the opportunity to make sure that someone would take care of His mother after He was gone, the idea that Jesus forsook His mother is absurd. Again, how can he get by with this unless the SF members don’t use the Bible?
Here is another issue with this topic for JO Smith, if the core SF teaching is to forsake your mother and father, how do they justify their large families? Their web site today has a profile of a guy from Switzerland who says “I am seriously a family man”. How can he say that if he is teaching his children to forsake him when they grow up? Is their web site that contrary to their teaching and if that is the case how is it that their members can’t see such blatant hypocrisy?
Harold:
When I say "mobilized prayer", those who know what spiritual battle is are able to gather with singular purpose and make steady sustained prayer over time till God answers.
The girl is in "spiritual bondage" to a powerful collective spirit, a group mind. The situation must become known to those who have grace to pray so that they can pray specifically about this matter, that she and her husband are delivered from this group to live peaceful lives of their own devoted to Christ and not to the SF.
If there are 20 people in Owasso committed to praying thus every day, that would be "mobilised prayer"; and if there are 50 such prayer warriors that would be an even more powerful mobilisation of prayer.
This group works with "spirits" and also believes fervently that their "enemies" will be destroyed. So unless one seeks the Lord Jesus Himself to counter the pain this group spreads undercover, efforts are in vain. And the Lord Jesus listens to prayers and understands pain and judges righteously.
So if Owasso is a battlefield,as you put it, then let the battle be joined through prayer. This blog is a trumpet call to awaken to prayer against spirit-forces like SF and many others seeking to bind people into "sects" and "cult" behaviours and destroying families in the process.
"Watch and pray".
Harold:
It is clear that JO Smith is in utter error when he speaks of Christ "forsaking" God and Mary.
Christ never forsook His Father to come down and save us, He did it joyfully in collaboration with His Father. We can also perhaps "forgive" JO Smith for knowing nothing of Jewish culture and Jesus' own love for His mother but we would also have to "forgive" him for misleading many.
However, the truth is that he twists Scriptures to forge a "mental and logical system" to hold adherents of this cult together.
The underlying logic is clear from this anecdote:
Once when someone asked JO Smith if he could join the group, the reply was - Sure, if you can believe that the moon is made of blue cheese, you can!
This sort of chicanery or, if you like, use of Zen Buddhist mystical evasiveness is what is troubling as the underlying idea is to make simple believers feel terribly inadequate about Christ's love and care and then to use mystification to get them to pursue the cult line of thinking.
The errors are propounded across the board and down the line. For instance, in the central text "Christ Manifest in the Flesh" penned by Elias Aslaksen:
"The Son was equal with the Father from eternity past; and all things were created by the Son (Col 1: 15-17). But ...He relinquished his God-likeness and instead was made like his brethren in every respect (Heb 2:17). This tells us that in the days of his flesh He was NOT LIKE THE FATHER but was made like his brethren. When at last, he was perfected, He was once again like His Father (Heb 5:9-10).
First of all, he evades the truth of Christ being Godhead by substituting the term "God-likeness" for His substance. Once this is accepted, anything can be done with the Christ.
I can cite hundreds of texts from the SF leaders that show that they are utterly ignorant about textual exegesis and interested only in their twisted version which they propagate continually and partake of like a DRUG.
Even the children and youth are subject to this DRUG. They never read the Bible other than through the JAUNDICED LENS of their forefathers and their objective is to preserve this DRUG DOCTRINE. And this DRUG is fed to them through their "Bible Studies" which are all studies of the texts of the cult leaders.
More from Elias Aslaksen's Christ Manifest in the Flesh:
Referring to Luke 2:21-24 and then Leviticus 12:
"Firstly since Mary had not known a man and secondly since she had conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit (indeed this was the miracle!) and if in addition Jesus had a "holy" flesh, it would have been an absurdity or blasphemy to consider Mary unclean after this birth, a sin offering having to be made for her on that account, or the priest having to make atonement for her...Think! A sin offering was made on behalf of Mary because she had borne the Son of God into the world! Because of this she was not allowed to touch any hallowed thing for 33 days! ...Yes, as everyone must confess: Great is the mystery of godliness! (1 Tim 3:16) And yet it is quite simple. He partook of the virgin Mary's flesh and blood: "He Himself likewise partook of the same nature" (Heb 2:14) thereby taking upon Himself our seed and our sin."
The central position of this group is that unless the Physician is sick himself, he cannot cure the disease!!! This is in sharp contrast to what Jesus told the Pharisees: Doubtless you will say to me "Physician, heal thyself". The SF are satisfed only if Jesus had the leprosy of sin and then found a cure within himself first which then he could give others. They will never be satisfied with a doctor who has never experienced leprosy and yet has the antidote to it.
See what a weird "web pattern" the SF fathers spin using Scripture to propagate their "revelation". Of course, Aslaksen was infected by J O Smith with this doctrine when he was in the Norwegian Navy and became his right-hand man in proselytisation.
Just wanted to post one more observation about SF.
They want to have happy families within the cult, but if anyone goes out of line, they have no qualms about ensuring the destruction of the "outcast" family.
In other words, they care nothing for the sufferings of families affected by those who have joined this group. They like to ensure though that those "inside" have "controlled" happy families and they work very hard to make it so for such people.
During the great split in the 90s, many families were torn apart by this attitude which is part of the core SF attitude. To this day, there are hundreds who are hurting and suffering the consequences of this doctrine - sons who have turned against fathers who left SF and will not visit or talk to the father, brothers who have turned against brothers, husbands and wives estranged but trying to cope and survive.
Presiding over all this destruction with glee was the present leader Kare Smith and his close "faithful and righteous brothers" like Bernt Aksel Larsen, Bjorn Nilsson, Harald Kronstadt, Sverre Riksfjord, Bernt Stadven and a whole lot of others.
It was a political power struggle pure and simple couched in 'spiritual' terms and the victory was gained by the present leadership which has only rejoiced in the destruction of their enemies.
I am trying to find the right quotation but somewhere JO Smith endorses exactly this path and writes something to the effect that wherever the "church" goes, it leaves behind a trail of death and destruction!!! This notion is gained from this group holding as a role model the destruction the Israelites wreaked in Canaan and though the group cannot use swords and spears today, they use psychological weaponry to get the same results.
Indeed, it has done this now in Owasso as in many other places.
you really nailed a lot of things wrong with the smith's friends john, I was glued to my computer reading your posts this morning : ) I've finally started talking w/my mainstream christian church pastor about the smith's friends - it's helping - and your posts help, any time I can sit and say "oh ya that was messed up" : ) The smith's friends, worked very hard to make me feel like a piece of crap by shunning me the whole time I was at their church, their treatment of me in general, they treated me like I was a piece of !@#$. It was always "what did you do wrong now sheri" they were always telling me I was guilty of something or another. - they definately weren't loving me!!!!!!!! (but I guess in their warped cult minds, shunning me a slew and treating me like crap pry was holy of them in their minds, cause I was such a sinful piece of #@%$@#$) I've posted up lot on my blog to lately, they appeared to of rasied like $807,000 odd dollars to date via rose garden and pge they appear to be bragging about it on their secret password protected site - for the salem fellowship branch of this cult. Recovering from the smith's friends is meant for me to accept I wasn't the bad guy at all, this people abused me, mentally abused me a slew, and are messed up to all hell doctrinally. http://givingittogod.blogspot.com/
I agree w/person on this site that said the smith's friends is a attack on jesus christ. The smith's friends at christmas time in particular didn't come off to me as a people loving jesus (the last christmas feast I went to the way the older brother was saying "baby jesus" - you'd just would've had to of been there) I told pastor of my mainstream current christian church I often went to other churches behind the smith's friends backs cause I wanted to praise god and none their songs praise god or jesus. I really like praising god/jesus! Towards the end I was super miserable at the smith's friends hell!
John: You quoted JO Smith
"On the middle cross hung the Son of God, because He voluntarily became the son of man; because He became partaker of flesh and blood like us, because He took upon himself a self-will, because He never did that will, because He never sinned, because He loved all mankind and sought to save them; and because He told them the truth. There He hung, He who in this world had always borne his corss (corss? Should this be ‘cross’?), denied His own will and who spiritually speaking, HAD ALWAYS LIVED A CRUCIFIED LIFE, THAT IS, FROM THE DAY HE WAS OLD ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND IT.'” (Aug.13)
FROM THE DAY HE WAS OLD ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND IT? Is that in the scriptures? Or, is that another one of their ‘interpretations’ or ‘add-ons’ to scripture?
“In other words, this group (especially its prophet-leaders) claim to have the special sight of being able to discern who is of the Bride and who is a Harlot. Like the Pharisees, they divide people based on their “inner eye of judgement”.”
We should be very careful not to believe everything we hear about someone or some group unless we witness actions that defend what we’ve heard or read. In this case, what you’ve written is defendable by several cases involving SF described on this blog. So, if what you’ve said is true, there are a couple of points to be made. Although there are many different cults, one thing that the leaders of these types of groups all seem to have in common is a belief that he/she possesses some ‘special revelation’ or ‘special sight’ or he/she is a ‘special messenger’ of God’s. It is God’s job to judge people and their heart, not men’s. So, when one claims to have the ‘special sight’ of being able to discern such things as who is part of the Bride and who is a Harlot, he/she has been deceived into believing such lies him/herself. It is God and God Alone who knows who ‘the elect’ are. God wants all to come to Him…it is not for some men to decide who is and who isn’t, who will and who won’t, who does and who doesn’t…
“There is the story of a top leader of the SF who along with a couple of "disciples' once encountered a simple (harlot) "believer" who had heard somewhere that SF did not believe that Jesus while in the flesh was God having emptied himself of all deity. This leader then assured the "believer" that Jesus was God and the believer went home "happy". Later, when the other "disciples" asked this leader why he had said what he did say, the reply was: You see, you must tell people who are at a certain level only according to their understanding. Never give them more than what they are looking for or can understand. Further, the important thing is to win a person's confidence towards yourself. After that you can tell him things and he will be open to understanding them."
“This is a true story. But this approach is also typically and SF approach and it is chicanery (deception by artful subterfuge or sophistry). This is how SF "prophets" or "evangelists" typically seduce people into the group. They play on their naivete, or on their spiritual ambitions, or on their unhappiness with "harlot" systems, or win their "confidence" and then slowly feed them their doctrinal and other "delicacies".” (Sept.19)
So, essentially this SF leader lied. How can a group who claims to be THE Bride of Christ (who cannot lie, Heb.6:18) be so comfortable doing things that are clearly NOT of God: lying, threatening, deceiving, and purposely and uncaringly causing division among family and friends? Those things are NOT of God.
John 14:6-7 Jesus says, “I am the Way, THE TRUTH, and the Life;”
“Delve deeper into the SF groups - you will be able to identify all the families that have been divided using this doctrine and the other one of "Come out from the harlot".
John cont.
It has been documented that many friends, family, and loved ones have been divided thus devastating many people as a direct result of the SF teachings. Is this the reason that Lowell Stryker was hired by SF to write his book? Did he write the book before, during, or after ‘the great split in the 90s’? Was the purpose of his book to do ‘damage control’?
“Therefore, for instance, the Bible Study competitions among SF in which children and youth from all the fellowships across the world participate are not about studying the Word of God but studying only the twisted interpretations of J O Smith, Sigurd Bratlie, Kare Smith and other "insider" writings which are "prophetic" and therefore "infallible" in a sense.”
From what’s been posted, members of SF don’t seem to put a great deal of importance on original languages of the Bible, knowledge of historical settings, contexts, and cultures. Yet they believe studying the writings of J O Smith, Sigurd Bratlie, Kare Smith and others and their interpretations are important enough on which to base their ‘Bible Study competitions’? So, they put greater emphasis on what their leaders believe than on learning the cultures, original languages, and historical settings of the Bible in order to correctly understand God’s Word? You’re right, that would indicate that they believe their leaders to be ‘infallible’.
“The errors are propounded across the board and down the line. For instance, in the central text "Christ Manifest in the Flesh" penned by Elias Aslaksen: "The Son was equal with the Father from eternity past; and all things were created by the Son (Col 1: 15-17). But ...He relinquished his God-likeness and instead was made like his brethren in every respect (Heb 2:17). This tells us that in the days of his flesh He was NOT LIKE THE FATHER but was made like his brethren. When at last, he was perfected, He was once again like His Father (Heb 5:9-10).”
He was ‘NOT LIKE THE FATHER’? Following are a few passages from the Bible, God’s Word, that contradict this infallible leader’s interpretation:
John 1:1-2, 14, 18: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, and the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” “No one has ever seen God, but GOD THE ONE AND ONLY, WHO IS AT THE FATHER’S SIDE has made Him known.”
John5:18, “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.”
In John 10-30, Jesus is quoted as saying, “I and the Father are one.”
Also read John 14:6-14.
Hebrews 1:3 says, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the EXACT REPRESENTATION of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.”
Funnyman: “The SF was initially not an organization. It started of as a loose collection of sincere believers who met in house fellowships. As I mentioned before there was no question of control or finance involved. You opened your doors to have fellowship with likeminded people or you did not. Period.”
“However with growth has come the unavoidable development into an organization. Now the doctrine of the SF is up for scrutiny. I agree with Harold that as this organization develops there is a need for more theological study so that doctrinal issues are stated from an informed standpoint and not just as “revelation”. That is a valid point. However this will not ensure that the hearts of those in the organization are sincere.
Massive growth in numbers often outstrips the number of people who are actually sincere. One thus has a large number, some sincere, some copying those who are sincere.
Yes it is only beneficial to have a strong theological standpoint. But that is not going to ensure a sincere heart. That is my point. I hope I have clarified my stand on doctrinal accuracy.”
I would absolutely agree with these statements. But, then that would make the SF organization just like all the other ‘harlot’ churches, (except for the fact that their leadership has no formal theological training). It is still full of sinners, full of people who need a Savior and forgiveness of sins, full of people who may or may not be serious about repentance. So, why separate and be so reclusive? Because then it takes on one more characteristic of being a ‘cult’. Every single ‘church’ organization or collection of believers has people who are sincere believers and those who are just learning (baby believers) and beginning to understand what sin is, who God is, who Jesus is and what He does for us. Then there are those who are not baby believers or sincere either….they are there just as a ‘social club’ of sorts….it’s a way to get to know others, have organized activities with others, etc. For SF it sounds as if it has become a profitable business organization that generates a profit. And, if you can deceive enough people the more contributors there are to grow your business.
Rssnspy6 said, “The relationship between the young lady and her parents has moved forward. There is peace and civility between them now.” (Sept.2)
The implication is that there had been no peace and civility between this girl and her parents. At what point in this girl’s life did this ‘no peace and no civility’ begin? If asked, do you think the girl’s parents would describe their relationship as having ‘moved forward’? From what’s been posted, it wasn’t only the relationship with her parents that has been damaged. Have all of the relationships between her and her siblings, former friendships, and extended family also ‘moved forward’? If so, is she now spending more time with them? It’s hard to have a relationship with someone when you don’t spend much time with them.
“I don't know what those lawsuits would have been about (but the words slander and undermining were mentioned), but they are behind everyone now.”
Slander? It’s interesting how many times the word ‘slander’ has been brought up on here. Again, slander is only slander if what is being said isn’t true. Accusing one of slander is just one of many methods attempting to quiet people from speaking truth about actual events. We still live in America where we have freedom of speech and it is not against God’s law or against man’s law to speak truth. If one doesn’t like what people may say, maybe they should change their behaviors and actions instead of accusing others of ‘slander’.
And, undermining? (Undermine 1. to dig out or wear away the supporting earth beneath. 2. to weaken or wear away secretly or gradually.) It sounds to me like the teacher was the one doing the undermining. He undermined a whole group of people when he showed a video of SF church to a classroom full of students who were essentially a ‘captive audience’ (age doesn’t matter). This makes me think of something I just saw on the news recently. Staff members in a New Jersey public school were teaching students songs and chants about our current president. The parents were outraged and thought the teacher/principal should be fired because they were not made aware of this agenda beforehand…it was only after the fact that they found out about it on the internet. These songs and chants were not just teaching about the office of president, but in fact were singing the praises of this current president. The commentator, Sean Hannity, made a comment that it was as if this tax-payer ‘captive audience was being indoctrinated’. It doesn’t matter how old the tax-payer ‘captive audience’ is, the classroom shouldn’t be used to ‘indoctrinate’ someone into something or proselytize. Some students don’t graduate from high school until they’re 19 or 20. That doesn’t give a public school teacher the right to push his/her own agenda on tax-payer funded public school property and time.
Rssnspy6 cont.
This teacher also undermined this girl’s parents when he came between her and her whole family by moving her into his home and turning her against all of her own family and friends. It would be difficult to convince anyone that this man and his wife were unaware she was living in their house spending the night, taking showers, eating meals, spending holidays, doing laundry, etc. He would have to know that she wasn’t with her own family during all these times.
And, let’s not forget that there is another young man involved who has also demonstrated similar behaviors in relation to his family. So, he’s undermined this young man’s family as well. This man is supposed to be a trusted individual by the very people who pay his salary.
Lawsuit? It’s probably a good idea he didn’t go forward with a lawsuit for slander and undermining. Wonder what a judge and jury would say about a case like this? One in which a public school teacher would be suing the parents because HE was using his classroom to proselytize a captive audience on a public school campus and then move one of those students into his home and use his ‘religion’ to turn her against her own family. He made a bad choice and in so doing, he undermined himself because he obviously no longer enjoys the same reputation he once did due to the actions he’s chosen to take in and out of the classroom. (Keith, Sept.2) I can think of NO ONE who would want this to happen to them and their child. The argument that she moved in because she chose to ‘join a different church’ is lame.
Luke 17:1-3, “Jesus said to His disciples, “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for Him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves.”
This man, using the SF teachings, has brought dishonor, disrespect, bitterness, anger, fear, distance, and division among young people and their families. Turning family members and loved ones against each other and against Jesus is a sin. Woe to this man! And woe to the SF!!
Rejoinders to Sophie's comments:
1. Be careful not to believe that ALL SF members are like those who control the system. (a) There are many innocents who "are along" blindly with what they have been used to all their life and which does not seem to patently damage their lives. (b) There are also some genuine saintly ones (as in any sect or cult) but they have no say or do not want any say with those who control the system. They are ONLY bothered about becoming "more saintly" or sanctified as this is a central SF teaching too - WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION - and they turn a blind eye to the "bigger picture" or what happens "elsewhere" as they believe that in do so they would commit the SIN OF BEING BUSYBODIES.(c)These "saints" are also unwilling to break "oneness". As an SF leader put it once: An individual can go wrong BUT THE BROTHERHOOD CAN NEVER GO WRONG. They believe this and to speak out against what the collective leadership decides is a NO NO in the SF when it comes to Kare Smith and his Central Commissariat. (d)The saintly ones also blindly believe in the SF interpretation and practice of the section in Luke that allows family divisions and enmity, so the Owasso situation is one they have often experienced and through which they have come out "victoriously" in times past.
2. In other words, the SF believes that the girl has been "won" for ever and whatever its "enemies" do, the girl will remain with SF and no harm will come to the SF.
3. The SF believes in undermining and cowing down its "enemies" and "critics" over time. In Owasso, they are certain this furore will die down with time. They are always encouraged by their victories in such situations in the past. One of their greatest triumphs recently has been that - though they lost the legal fight against Zac Poonen in India - they could patch up with Zac. SF over 10 years had been able to silence this man (by means of the legal case and making the views about SF "sub judice")who best saw through their theological errors and suffered being "cast out" as Antichrist and Diotrephes as a consequence. The SF leaders spent tranches of money to fight the legal case through their Indian proxies Sukumar Oommen and Fred Oommen and have Poonen imprisoned. Having lost the case, they took another tack - that of seducing Poonen to remain silent. Poonen visited Brunstad this year and made peace with Kare Smith. No one knows what the "business" deal was between SF and Zac. But the key question remains - has Zac Poonen retracted his 7 QUESTIONS that exposed the inner ideologies and working of the SF? Has he now given SF a clean chit? There is something fishy in this deal but the point is that SF always seeks to be "victorious" over its enemies one way or the other. Harold, Keith, Sophie and all on this blog questioning SF are marked as "enemies" and SF waits to have victory over them over time one way or the other.
4. It is important to note that RssianSpy and Funnyman have pulled out of the discussion. SF sends out instructions to its members to not get involved. For the SF this blog is an "unclean thing" and people like RssianSpy would have been warned by the leadership to "touch not the unclean thing". By not being lured into participation in this blog, the SF believes the blog itself will die a timely death and they will be able to continue with their practices in hiding as they have done for over a 100 years.
IMPORTANT: The SF are in the process of establishing an image of themselves as NOT A SECT OR CULT. So this blog is a threat to that project. But let us look at some quotes from Lowell Streiker's book called "Living Faith: The Truth About Smith's Friends" written in 1996, immediately after the Great Split:
(1) "The cluster of churches known as SF conforms to a familiar sociological category. THEY ARE A SECT in the sense defined by the great German historian and sociologist Ernst Troelstsch in The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. The issue that separates church (ecclesia) from sect is compromise with the world versus rejection of the world ..."
(2) "In the case of SF, authority may be traced to a prophetic individual, Johan Oscar Smith, the founder of the group and to an inner circle of early followers. SF would of course point beyond Smith and his associates to divine revelation through Smith and the others. However, this charismatic leader, his teaching and his earliest interpreters form a standard or canon of legitimation."
3. "We might even consider a term suggested by American psychiatrist Marc Galanter and refer to SF as a "charismatic group". As Galanter explains, a charismatic group whether it has a dozen members or thousands, is characterised by the following psychological elements: members have a shared belief system, sustain a high level of social cohesiveness, are strongly influenced by the groups behavioural norms, and IMPUTE SPECIAL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO THE GROUP OR ITS LEADERSHIP...Both consciously and unconsciously the individual member looks to the group in order to determine appropriate behaviour. Members LEARN FROM THE GROUP how to behave in new situations, how to act in the presence of strangers, how to respond to criticism or hostility. Sometimes members are consciously following instructions. At other times, reactions are automatic, based on previous INTERNALISATION OF GROUP MORES. Galanter tells of visiting the headquarters of one group "where even the style of socialising, the way food is served and the response to strangers are the same as in countries several 1000 miles away."
The above is an excellent picture of SF. The actions-reactions that one has met in Owasso have been conditioned by the desire to conform to group mores in the members of SF there. These mores are reinforced by the satellite and internet feeds from Brunstad, Brunstad conferences which consist of main conferences, brothers conferences, sisters conferences,youth conferences, children's meetings), Brunstad Feasts, Work Parties, Song Mission, pressure to give time, money, and energy, only to the group, etc.
4. "The beliefs held in common by members are a vital force in the group's operation. They bind members together, shape their attitudes and MOTIVATE THEM TO ACT IN A SELF-SACRIFICIAL MANNER. For the individual who joins a charismatic group, there is a relief in neurotic distress. The more committed the individual is to the group and the higher the group's claim to exclusivity, the greater the alleviation of anxiety. The lessening of the distress continues over the course of the individual's involvement. In the eyes of the individual, CONFORMITY to the theological and ethical norms of the group are NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING THIS WELL BEING. In many direct and subtle ways, the group acts "LIKE A PSYCHOLOGICAL PINCER, PROMOTING DISTRESS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING RELIEF.'
A clarification - I am still in the discussion and will continue posting.
Hello,
(from some time ago)
The person Russian and Rssnspy6 are the same. This blog did some weird things with bloggers handles, i.e. my name and johnk to name a few.
To John:
You beat the brush well, for here both funnyman and I are... While I haven't posted in some time I still read each post and think about what is written. Contrary to what you have written, I have not received instruction from SF 'leadership' in regards this blog, nor any blog. Your assertion is false.
To Harold:
Earlier in this blog you said something to the effect that Lowell Streiker had been proven to be an unreputable source regarding SF. Since John has joined you and he have agreed on many things and viewpoints regarding the SF. Now that John has brought out L. Streiker again to prove some of his (John's) points, what do you say to that? Is Streiker credible or not?
To jarsmom:
In reference to this, "My question still stands, maybe it should read. How do you know from moment to moment if you are heaven bound or not.?"
I will answer this the shortest and best I can. In 1 John 3 it is written that we know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren. This sure promise from God allows us to live without fear of 'being left out.' 1 John 4 also lays this out in plain words if/when we live according to what is written there.
I'm glad funnyman and russian are still here, means this blog will remain lively : ) But russian like I wouldn't put much worth on idea of you having crossed over to life cause you love the smith's friends "brethren" ----- IT'S A CULT! It's not the body of christ, smith's friends aren't even a part of the body of christ. It means you love the 3 real "saints" at your church ok what 100 real smith's friends out there - not many I don't think, not from my experience, salem fellowship smith's friends church I went to not much saintly stuffs happened to me there YIKES.
And the smith's friends should just sue me, cause you can't buy me off, and appology while would be nice, won't shut me up (I know I'm never going to get a appology - at that church jumping someone w/intent of murdering them and stopping short of their face like happened to me at salem fellowship is perfectly ok saintly heavenly even) I pry could be bought off which is sad, there is a saying everyone has their price - but the good news is my price would be a entire vacation home : ) like free and clear! That'd pry shut me up : )
Zac poonen pry got such a good "buisiness" deal ; p with the smith's friends, you know he's been bought off! His price couldn't of been cheap either, a new car, a new house something?
But it's better I never let myself be bought out, cause zac poonen now has to live with the guilt of having sold his soul to the devil!
My husband tells me I'll get my vacation home I just gotta be patient, and it's true we going to be able with our own money a vacation home eventually in what 5 geez 10 years.....someday. I need a vacation to : p my husband aunts cornea retina or whatever has detatched, she's had 3 surgeries and her eye is still bleeding they don't know what's going on! Drama'd out and tired ----- BUT -- love to stand up for what I believe is right : ) I really believe the smith's friends at salem fellowship are doing illegial stuffs, if they ain't - I REALLY believe they are! and I believe I wasn't treated good at all at their church very mentally abused there. Getting counseling at my church, so on the road to recovery : ) but like one my church members said to me it's going to be a long road to recovery, I'm not just going to forgive the smith's friends overnight - forgiveness is a slow slow process for me. REalizing ok, these people are messed up they think what they did to me was holy......accepting that stuffs.
RussnSpy & Funnyman:
1. It's good to see you back! There is something of the "individual" left in both of you! Great to have you around. By the way I did not make an assertion, I only proposed that the reason you might not be back is because SF continualy instructs those who consort with "opposers" to be careful they do not "contaminate" themselves! :-)
2. The issue is not about Lowell's credibility. It is about his not having had the opportunity to meet with those like GivingittoGod who have suffered in the SF. And to note that even one so sympathetic to the SF has pointed out that it is a "sect" in no uncertain terms.
3. My point again is that SF is NOT A CHRISTIAN SECT but a PAGAN SECT. The Christ of the SF is no one other than The Third Jesus of the Indian Guru Deepak Chopra, the "Christ Consciousness" of Guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who began Transcendental Meditation, Edgar Cayce, etc.
4. JO Smith, Aksel J Smith, Elias Aslaksen, Sigurd Bratlie, Trygve Sandvik, Kare Smith ...and all their acolytes are agreed upon ONE so-called FACT (in their deluded minds) - THAT JESUS WAS A MAN WHO BECAME GOD (who was not like the Father when He was on earth in the flesh). This is an EASTERN NOTION - that all men are deluded by "ignorance" or "sin" (avidya and paap in Sanskrit), that each one is potentially God and only has to awaken and grow into Godhead, that what prevents this is the Veil (maya or delusion caused by desire in the body/flesh), and that it is possible for a human being to strive and become God by his own works (karma). It is amazing how this "spirit" has flown across continents and made a secure home in Norway in this sect and how it spreads its virus from there.
Funnyman:
You have claimed so often that SF does not believe that it is the ONLY TRUE BODY OF CHRIST and all others are HARLOTS.
How do you account for this bit which was emailed to a friend of mine some time ago and found its way to me? This is not the only proof of this "secret" or "open" belief of the SF. I can provide countless such proofs.
This is from an interview with Glen Owens of the Syracuse (USA) branch of SF and he was taught this by his elder and leader.
This is the true belief throughout the SF at the core leadership level. Funnyman may not believe in it, but he is not "core SF".
"I must also mention that the leading brother of Syracuse - Hobie, dared to tell me very early on, that he believed that this fellowship I had found, was Gods' one and only church. My reaction was both unbelief and belief at the same time. On the one hand, I was astonished that anyone would exclude so many others from claiming the same; but then the greater part of me rejoiced exceedingly, to dare believe that I had stumbled upon the greatest treasure on earth. I was in a place like the fellow in the bible who said to Jesus--I Believe---help my unbelief! Of course over time, as relationships at work and family, as well as with God and the brothers were put in order because I dared to obey him, my unbelief disappeared."
Yes, if you hang around enough with the SF and believe its "core leaders", you will get to know all the secret and twisted doctrines they believe and sooner or later you will believe them too.
This is also why I believe Keith was too hasty in casting elf_asura out, because he would have confirmed many secret doctrines of the SF because of his utter faith in them and long involvement with them. The blog lost a "good", albeit eccentric, source that way.
After following this blog for some time (without reading every single comment) I have some general comments to the discussion.
First I have som information to "John" about his statements about the SF leadership behavior. In one of his recent posts he wrote that "SF continualy instructs those who consort with "opposers" to be careful they do not "contaminate" themselves!" For some time ago he wrote that SF arranges internal activities for children and youth to prevent them from getting information from "normal" people. I have been in SF my whole life, worked with children and youth for about 15 years, have had a major position in Brunstad Conference Center, I know most of the "leadership" very well, and I have worked a lot with information technology in BCC and SF. It is very obvious that if those two strategics existed in SF, I would have been exposed for them in any way. To be honest, I have never heard a single instruction or frace even close to those statements. However, if this was a hidden agenda there might be a slight chance that I could have missed it, but the claim is "SF continualy instructs...", which makes me believe that I can not have missed it if this claim was true.
So, will I condemn John as a liar? No, basicly because it is not my task, and actually I can't be sure he is lying just by writing something that is not true. Several options here:
1. He gets information from sources he believes are true
2. He has his own general view of SF and concludes that this must be the truth
3. He has experiences with other groups and believes SF is doing the same
4. He has picked fragments from multiple stories about SF and put them together to something he believes is true
Finally, it should make you all - and especially John - very happy to know that those two myths are eliminated. If your agenda is to help people and serve God, you will certainly be glad to hear that the SF members are not exposed for such mind control. But, if this fact makes you angry, then it might be that your agenda is not edifying but destructive. I don't demand any answer to this, because this should also be between you and God.
So, back to the old story about the teacher letting a young student live in his house and separating her from her parents. I don't know anything about this which I have not read in this blog, although I know some of the people described in the story. Therefore I will not comment anything about this.
Now it seems that this girl is married to the teachers son, and they are a family within the SF group in Owasso. If the girl in 2020 finds out that her parents were right and SF is wrong, it will again put her in a difficult position. How would you then advice this young woman? Would it be possible for her to "convert" to her parents' "teaching" when living together with a husband who still use all his power to keep her inside the "cult"? Or would the best solution be to move into her parents house for a while, even if that included separating the married couple?
According to many statements here, SF appears to do anything to keep the youth inside the group, including brain washing, isolation, violence etc. If all this was true, and you were a teacher for a 18 year old SF member wanting to leave the cult, how would you advice her about the relation to her parents?
I don't want your long answers to this; that is not the point. I only hope that this can make you all more objective and make you think twice before attacking "the other side".
It seems that John's main prove that the teaching of SF is wrong, is that SF believes that Jesus was a man while on earth. Well, I will not argue with him, because the Bible itself does the job a lot better. SF believes that Jesus was God before being born by Mary, then he was a man made (but not living) like everyone else while on earth, and when he had completed his task on the earth he was restored as God.
Here is the passage:
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
I don't know any way to convince you if the Bible itself can't.
1 Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." I have to way ass disagree with "blogmaster" jesus was god in the flesh!!!!!! In the flesh though for reals, I'm not saying jesus wasn't full out in the flesh, but he was god! He said so, he said "I am" somewhere in the bible? """"and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him"""""------- sure sounds like he was god to me!!!!!!!! WAY WAY WAY ASS DISAGREE WITH YOU BLOGMASTER How the smith's friends still believe that nut buisiness that jesus was just a man in the flesh ---- NUTS! Though jesus was really in the flesh, but he was god in the flesh! He is the "I am" he said he was the "I am" and he really is!
Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee." Who does god call himself here ------- "I am the LORD thy god" ........hypervenilating over here. The trinity is real, god jesus holy spirit they are tied to one another!
Is this the old testiment or new? I don't know but what I do know is jesus was god in the flesh! still hypervenilating..........so much I disagree with blogmaster and his belief that jesus was just a man on earth - RIDICULOUS..........
Isaiah 43:11-13 (King James Version)
11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
12I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
13Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?
Is this the old testiment or new? I don't know but what I do know is jesus was god in the flesh! still hypervenilating..........so much I disagree with blogmaster and his belief that jesus was just a man on earth - RIDICULOUS..........
Isaiah 43:11-13 (King James Version)
11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
12I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
13Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?
Jesus christ is god in the flesh, he is the alpha and omega the beginning and the end - that sure seems to be he's either god or with god some big ticket item not just a mere man about to show us all how to become gods........there's verse talks about being jesus's brethren, and joint heirs with christ......do I become a god no - jesus is christ!!!!!!! Jesus is the lord of lords Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:" ------ if I could speak in tongues I had that gift I'd be going off right now Revelation 17:14 "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."
Who is jesus.............
John 14:20 "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."
Revelation 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
Revelation 21:6 "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."
Revelation 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
The smith's friends cult definately are being lead by some "spirit" you all have mentioned on this site and it AINT the holy spirit! There some demon over their church for them to be thinking jesus was just a mere man while on the earth. SEriously some massively powerful terrible demon running that church! ----- they need a hell a lot prayer to break free from this evil spirit! I prayed for you today smith's friends that god break you free from this evil demon that has held you all in bondage!
Blogmaster:
Welcome. Thank you for comments.
1. Thank you for clarifying that for you and for SF the "core" doctrine is that Jesus was a sinner like Adam after the Fall and like David and you and me and that he was ONLY A MAN and also for the central "proof text" of kenosis in Philippians.
Your "testimony" confirms that SF is NOT AT ALL A CHRISTIAN group but only one that masquerades as 'christian'. SF is actually AN ANCIENT HERESY REVIVED, and a variation on the Arian heresy.
2. Given the testimony that SF is NOT CHRISTIAN BUT A HERETIC GROUP, it should be important to inform ALL CHRISTIANS who do understand and subscribe to the Athanasian, Nicene and Apostles creeds (these were formulated so that people with no theological understanding could memorise them, meditate on them and thus be kept from being seduced by heretical teachings and groups)that the SF IS NOT A CHRISTIAN GROUP but is nothing more or better than sects and cults like the Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians,the Branhamites, the Mormons, etc. It is also the Norwegian version of Eastern/New Age movements, religions and sects that teach that human beings can become Gods just as Jesus became a God through some strange spiritual techniques of purification. Such information about the SF must be circulated across the Christian world so that people will not be deceived by the SF's posturing as a 'christian' group. For instance, the Southern Baptist Convention leadership should be informed about the SF and its activities in and around its churches.
3. It is important to mount both a powerful prayer vigil and to let churches in and around the SF centres in Salem, Syracuse, Delaware, Connecticut, Seattle, Detroit, Macleay, Victory, etc know about this group so that SF cannot seduce people, whether simple Christians or unbelievers, into their system and sect. The existence of this group and its deviant doctrines must be made known to the leaderships of all key Christian denominations and movements.
Till now SF has been able to work "under the covering" (in disguise and in secret), as SF puts it. But once the existence of this group and its teaching and behaviour become publicised, it will give people a fair chance to CHOOSE between orthodox Christian faith and the sectarian system/"mission" activities of the SF which primarily consists of poaching on other churches whom they consider as "harlots". The girl in question was a "harlot" who was "converted".
4. The counter-argument concerning the girl is only a defense of what happened. One ought not to expect anything other than self-defense and self-justification when SF meets criticism. That is SF knee- jerk reaction almost always.
5. Finally, Blogmaster, Rssanspy and Funnyman - please read James W Sire's book "Scripture Twisting - Twenty Ways the Cults Misread the Bible". Blogmaster, if you read this book you will perhaps, and may the Lord and God Jesus Christ help you, understand why it is not sufficient to give a proof-text to back your theological argument that Jesus was only a sinner and a man like any of us who became God. It will also help you, and may the Lord and God Jesus Christ help you, understand that SF uses all 20 ways to twist the Word of God to keep its followers "captive".
OK, John, you have adviced me to study how people like me twist the scripture. Unfortunately I don't have access to this book. But how can you be sure that your understanding of Philippians 2 is not twisted? A neutral person reading this passage would find it supporting SF's view rather than your view.
And when we talk about twisting: You are attacking statements I never gave, like Jesus was a sinner like Adam and David. Of course that is not true, and SF does not teach this. The main difference between David and Jesus was not that Jesus was never tempted, but that Jesus never sinned.
You are using 90% of your latest comment to describe how SF must be stopped. It seems like a way to cover that you actually deny what the Bible clearly says.
Some more examples of how the Bible speaks clearly against you:
Peter 2: "Jesus entrusted himself to him who judges justly." If he was God on earth, why did he not judge by himself?
Hebrews 4: "We have a high priest who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin." Was Jesus tempted like you and me or not?
James 1: "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone" Can God be tempted or not?
2. Peter 1: "You may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." Is it possible to a man to get divine nature?
I guess these passages are already twisted away in that book....
The fact that the SF believes that Christ was peccable but did not sin has not been in doubt. I have accepted that repeatedly on this blog. This is however different from saying “he was a sinner” as John would like to imply. Blogmaster has pointed this out before I could.
to be contd...
John’s statement : “so that people with no theological understanding could memorise them, meditate on them and thus be kept from being seduced by heretical teachings and groups”. I find that surprising. I thought the defect of the SF was its lack of theological understanding. I do not see how memorizing and meditating the creeds could save a person from heretical teaching if he had no theological understanding. I have previously posted how theological understanding is not an end in itself and does not prevent us from going astray.
Blogmaster’s post regarding John's statement bears further thought. John has posted many things here that are not true, and with such vehemence that one wonders why. Yes I too would not go so far as to call John a liar, but he has twisted words and exaggerated tremendously on this blog. If his posts are wrong why has he not corrected them? He has made really false statements about the SF, and even about Zac Poonen who is non SF. Why? He has mocked both the SF posts and even the SF silence. Surely this cannot be the act of one who encourages us with “Sustained mobilized prayer is the answer” . Surely such vehemence cannot come from a mere doctrinal standpoint as John himself has departed from that standpoint and has used doctrine, behaviour, alleged practices, assumptions, alleged hidden agendas etc to try and prove his point.
John also seems to persist that the SF is non Christian. He seems to be unable to categorize people like me into his idea of the SF and so would rather dismiss me as “not core SF” or “periphery” or “unaware” of what is going on. If people think otherwise he classifies them as "a minority". He would rather hear what he calls “eccentric” voices on this blog so as to prove his picture of the SF.
I agree with Blogmaster that if John were genuinely searching for truth his posts would have a different tone.
Enough about that.
to be contd....
Sophie: Thanks for bringing up that quote from John. I had forgotten about that, and I have another point to make out of it, the part where Elias Eslaksen says “because He took upon himself a self-will”. How can someone who doesn’t have a self-will, take upon himself a self-will. This is nonsensical. If you don’t have a self-will you can’t decide to get one! That would mean you had a self-will to begin with, wouldn’t it?
I have another comment about the story John posted of the top SF leader who lied to the believer (Sept 19). Sophie is right about the fact that he deceived the believer and that is the same as a lie.
I read an article recently which reminded me of this because it talked about how useless it is to negotiate with Muslims in the Middle East. This article refers to an Islamic doctrine called ‘al-Taqiyya’ which was defined as; one can lie outwardly as long as he believes what is true in his heart.
I knew a man once who had lived in Iran during the rein of the Shah. He talked about finding an apartment to rent and signing a contract. The only problem was that the contract meant nothing to the Muslim owner. He raised the rent several times in spite of the contract. Because my friend was a western ‘infidel’, in the Muslim world he was a non-person. The contract meant nothing to the Muslim man. He only signed it because the ‘infidel’ wanted it. The Muslim man would have signed anything but it only meant something to westerners. So their word cannot be trusted.
This SF leader is teaching the same thing which, as Sophie pointed out, is not Biblical.
The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him. Pro20:23
Kings take pleasure in honest lips; they value a man who speaks the truth. Pro 16:13
It is a common theme in cult groups that it is OK to lie to outsiders because those outside are lost anyway. Since they, in the group, are the only ones who have the truth, it is important to preserve that truth from any and all people that may contradict the group teaching. Those outside the group are lost anyway they don’t really count. If they were worthy of being saved then they would be in the group.
In some cases they would say that those outsiders are of satan, and satan is a liar; therefore it is OK to lie to a liar.
Ref. # 8 of Dr. Lifton’s eight criteria “Dispensing of Existence: The cult decides who has the right to exist and who does not. They decide who will perish in the final battle of good over evil. Families can be cut off and outsiders can be deceived, for they are not fit to exist!”
But this concept of lying to or deceiving outsiders also is contrary to God’s word.
When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. Lev 19:33
“At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” Mat 24:10-11
“No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence.” Ps 101:7
"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 1Peter 2:22
John:
Smith’s Friends may believe that time is on their side but I believe they misread their enemy. It is not Keith, or you, or Sophie, or me, or anyone of this world that they are fighting against. Someday they will have to stand before God and answer for what they have done to His people. It is they who are kicking against the goads.
I have to disagree with you about the usefulness of elf_asura. You mention that he has a long involvement with them, implying that he is one of the “core SF”. This is interesting, because both Yukonbound2 and Russian discount him as important to SF. But also the fact that he is out there on the internet soliciting “non-platonic relationships with the opposite sex”, in my opinion, makes his opinions irrelevant.
Also, if your information is correct, you can’t trust anything the SF say anyway. They are like the Muslim whose word is worthless.
Blogmaster: you make me laugh. You show up here and take exception to what John wrote, which is OK, you’re entitled to your opinion. But then you state, very definitively that those “two myths are eliminated” just because you said so! And then you have the audacity to imply that if we don’t agree with you then we have a destructive agenda. Who are you to make such statements? As if I am going to believe you over all the witnesses that I know personally here in this community?
The examples you proposed are not relevant either. In your example, you asked about an 18 year old girl who wanted to leave the cult. You are trying to compare the events here and turning them around and wanting to know how we would handle the situation in reverse. This is not the same because in your example the girl has made the decision, on her own, to leave the cult. What happened here is that this SF leader pursued this girl in his classroom. She did not enter his classroom seeking to leave her family or her religion. He intentionally, and with malice, undermined the parents of this community by proselytizing in his public school classroom. She is a very vulnerable and impressionable young woman and he took advantage of that. So you can’t compare the two incidents, they are completely different.
I like the scripture you quoted, however, I don’t necessarily agree with your interpretation. You believe that this proves Jesus gave up His deity to become a man on earth. But there are many other references that state otherwise. Jesus himself claimed to BE GOD. So are you going to ignore all the other reference that state otherwise? And if you are correct in interpreting this one passage then that would mean the other passages are contradictory. If the Bible contradicts itself then it can’t be the infallible word of God. So then the Bible just becomes another book written by man and cannot be trusted.
Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God?
Russian: About Lowell Striker. I don’t believe that John proved anything one way or the other by quoting from Mr. Striker’s book and I don’t think that was John’s intention. Either way my opinion of Mr. Striker has not changed.
(Please see these posts as a continuation to my prev posts)
I am not claiming that the SF is without fault. I have repeatedly agreed with many of the defects pointed out on this blog. But all these defects cannot be pulled out whenever needed in defence of the allegation that the SF is a cult.
I think when one thinks of the SF one could use the illustration that the Lord Jesus gave us in Matt 13:25-30. The good seed was sown. While the owner was sleeping tares have also been sown. Yes the SF in its fold has both wheat and tares. It is very obvious to many who look at the SF from the outside. It is not so apparent to those in the field.
In reply to John’s question I would say :
There are those in the SF who believe that the SF is the only true body of Christ. This has also been my observation. This is unfortunate and unbiblical.
I also have had many experiences with those who do not think the SF is the only body of Christ.
So I would NOT say that “SF being the only body of Christ” is the official SF teaching.
So when we see an organization that has both wheat and tares, what is our response? Are we to write off the field? Are we to analyze its every defect and use all these defects as excuses to prove the field is of no use and should be bulldozed through? I do not think so. We need to prayerfully awake the owner, and ensure that the tares are removed.
to be contd...
Sophie’s point is valid when she says
“ But, then that would make the SF organization just like all the other ‘harlot’ churches, (except for the fact that their leadership has no formal theological training). It is still full of sinners, full of people who need a Savior and forgiveness of sins, full of people who may or may not be serious about repentance. So, why separate and be so reclusive? Because then it takes on one more characteristic of being a ‘cult’. Every single ‘church’ organization or collection of believers has people who are sincere believers and those who are just learning (baby believers) and beginning to understand what sin is, who God is, who Jesus is and what He does for us”
I would agree with you Sophie that the SF is just like any other denomination. However many in the SF are in a state of denial about this fact. This may partly be because the SF is in a transition from an unorganized loosely knit group into an organized group. One of the faults that is more peculiar but not limited to the SF is its exclusiveness. However that does not make it a cult. I have seen exclusiveness in other churches too. Although they may not go so far as to say that they are the only body of Christ many definitely do feel that they are better off than other groups. This attitude is not limited to the SF.
to be contd...
Rather than describe the SF as a cult I would describe the SF as having many Christians who are not living up to their potential. It is just as the servant who buried his talent in the ground. It is like a Christian who looks at himself in the mirror and is constantly adjusting his tie and getting every hair in order thinking that the bridegroom will choose his good looks over the dusty torn and dirty look of his neighbour who has been hard at work in God’s field.
This same burial of the talent in the ground is seen in money matters too. The SF could channel funds to support missions abroad instead of channelling funds from poorer countries to build Brunstad.
So I disagree with SF channelling funds to build Brunstad. But that does not make the SF leaders guzzlers of money or mind controllers. They are Christians. They are not out to split families. I do not think that Bratlie, JO Smith and Aslaksen secretly hoped for the situation in Owasso when they were planting Churches. The Bride and the Harlot was not written to break families. No. To allege that is wrong.
If there are tares...pull them out. Do so. Bring them to the notice of the SF. Have you been mistreated? Bring it out. But in angst do not cry “cult” “mind control” “David Koresh” “Buddhist”. That is just not true.
I will post more later but would like to conclude with a statement of John’s that I like and agree with : “sustained mobilized prayer is the answer”.
END
Blogmaster:
Please do not like a parrot repeat those five or six proof texts that SF uses to cover up the many ways in which it twists God's Word and denies the deity of Jesus Christ while He was on earth.
It is not possible to convince you about who Jesus Christ was and is - you will not be satisfied till others agree with your (the SF) heretical position. This is sadly and PROBABLY because you have drunk this doctrine with your mother's milk and read only SF literature while avoiding "harlot" material.
Therefore, the ONLY understanding you can have of Scripture and Jesus is what JO Smith, Bratlie, Aslaksen, etc have taught you. If you claim it "works" for you and that you have "victory over all conscious sin", I have no problem. But that is not the issue at stake.
So I would say please do not play that game which all cultists play:
"See, isn't this what Scripture says clearly?" At that point, one can only inquire as James Sire says: "Oh, is this REALLY what Scripture says?" I would suggest again gently that you do get that book by James Sire and read it and may God help you to see who Jesus really was on earth!
Funnyman:
That quote from the Syracuse interview was posted to show you what a respected leader taught another person in this cult.
If Keith could put up a facility on this blog where audio and video could be posted, there are people who will upload edited segments of audio and video tapes from within SF where you can hear clearly this teaching of SF being THE ONLY CHURCH and JESUS BEING ONLY A MAN, etc. Tapes and videos you will never be allowed to see or hear!
It will be impossible to convince die-hard SF members that Jesus was Lord and God because they have been brainwashed into believing that Jesus was just another man who became God.
Serious theological error lies at the core of the SF and all their "good works" which they ascribe to their doctrine makes them no better than "holy" and "righteous" Buddhists or Hindus or atheists or simple good people on earth who have no doctrine at all!
(contd..)
Blogmaster & Funnyman: (CONTD..)
How core SF views Jesus is shown in Aslaksen's assertion in his central text "Christ Manifested in the Flesh":
"The Scriptures do use the expression 'a man' about the Son of God in the days of His flesh. Indeed, Jesus himself says "But now you seek to kill me, 'a man' who has told you the truth which I heard from God." The apostle John who in his epistles strongly emphasises Christ manifested in the flesh, also uses the same expression calling Him 'a man'. ...
It is crystal clear that He knew FROM HIS OWN EXPERIENCE what dwelt in man and NOT BY VIRTUE OF GOD WHO SEES AND KNOWS ALL THINGS."
Then again, JO Smith, Bratlie, Aslaksen and all their acolytes believe that Jesus did not know who He was until some time later in life. Of course, none of them can tell you when exactly Jesus got 'revelation' that he was the Son of God and the "point" from which he began "denying himself", that is his "self will" and "the sin in his flesh".
It is because of this reasoning too that the SF has often tolerated in their midst those who believe that Jesus could have "sinned unconsciously", ie, when the 'unconscious' sin in his flesh jumped out.
But the argument then is that this could have happened only before he got 'revelation' that he is the son of God from which point he was spotless and kept himself in all temptations.
Of course, all this is speculative stuff that emerges from the idea the SF has that Jesus was 'a man' like all of us, did some deep introspection daily and listened to some voice in his head which showed him the sin (or self will) inside himself which he then "slew', "put to death", "crucified', "denied", "put off", "cleansed", etc.
So then he spent his lifetime looking within himself and demolishing this lump of sin in himself millimetre by millimetre till no sin existed any more in himself and then he became the sacrificial Lamb and he had become God.
Fantastic stuff! May God bless those who believe this speculative science fiction but may they not imagine that they can fool everyone that this is God's Word! It is either the works of some deceiving spirit or that of a man with strong imagination converted into a doctrine for others.
In fact, JO Smith and the SF venture are somewhat like the Scientology venture where the strange ideas of L Ron Hubbard in his sci-fi books laid the foundation for a whole new religion.
JO Smith has achieved the same thing, except on a much tighter, smaller, profit-making, real estate hogging, controllable level!
this blog is so hopping right now I loosing track of who is who, but to the 1 of you that said a person should just call out who's done wrong to them etc. so your church can get rid of the "tares" I've tried to say who wronged me on my blog......7 them jumped me and I never ever ever got a appology. Saroj mascarenas told me to shut up and not talk about the word of god no more that she already knew everything and only to say something if it was "edifying" ----- I never got a appology from her ----- though she does flee from me when I venture to the smith's friends cult. Anna hunter meanly way ass meanly told me I had stumbled on the stumbling block --- it was mean and nasty of her ---- I never got a appology. Yelena galante, dumped me for a friend 2 times, and was just mean to me! (and she annoys me last time I talked with her she was acting like she wanted to be my friend like she almost always does but this 2nd time she dumped me for a friend she said "I don't want to be your friend ever" and I believe she was serious - that girl doesn't want to be my friend) All of salem fellowship shunned me the entire church, and so I really wanting to be a part of this church rental cooked and finally they paid attention to me ----- my beef is with that entire church! They ALL wronged me. And none them ever appologized or were decent christian peoples to me at all! ANd the whole time I was there they were super quiet around me - it was SHADY!!!!!! Hiding macleay solutions trucks in the shed is SHADY! And they didn't even tell me about macleay solutions until we all saw the trucks hiding in the shed that summer conference! Here brunstad helped them buy macleay solutions helped them start up this buisiness ----- and I wasn't even told about it til I find your macleay solutions trucks hiding in the shed - I DON'T THINK SO!!!!! CULT CULT CULT CULT
Harold: If my comment made you laugh, it might be because of my bad English. Sorry for this.
I did not write that everyone not accepting my statements has a destructive agenda. What I wrote was if the truth is good news, and it still makes you angry, then you might have a destructive agenda.
Another example: Sophie bets that SF are not allowed to sing songs written by Christians outside SF. As John seems to know she is wrong, he writes there are just a few songs in use which are used as an excuse to the "outside".
I participated in the last revision of the "Almond Blossom", and in fact there are about 100 songs in this songbook which are written by non-SF'ers. (Actually we wished to add more "non-SF" songs to the songbook, but we were denied by copyright holders to use them.) This fact can easily be proven by reading the author register in this songbook.
In this case it should bring joy to John and Sophie (I hope she did not bet all her money) to hear that children and youth in SF are allowed to sing songs like "Abide with me" or "Jesus loves me". If they are mad at me because I proved they were wrong, they might ask themself what their agenda is.
And yes, I believe that the Bible is God's infallible words. Which Bible verses do you mean SF is not practicing?
John:
I don't have a problem being called a parrot; they are God's creations too. Still I have problems finding where I earlier have mentioned these 5 passages. As far as I know the English language, the word "repeat" means doing or telling the same thing several times.
You still seem to be scared of being confronted directly by the Bible. In fact, I did not expect you to capitulate that fast.
Funnyman:
No SF church is raising money to Brunstad. The money stream goes the opposite way; from Brunstad and out to distributed mission projects, as Brunstad is making business that generates more then what is needed to cover the management of the center.
GivingittoGod:
Don't you know that the SF wants you to be "crucified" and not hurt when they treat you badly? Don't you know that you are supposed to be "crucified" and not be offended at anything SF people say or do? Don't you know that Christ gives them the authority to treat "harlots" and "enemies" badly?
Blogmaster:
What is there to capitulate? A person belonging to a cult cannot be convinced that there might be something wrong with his or her way of twisting Scriptures. Why enter discussion with people who will (like the communists in the old days) repeat "official ideology" using "proof texts".
Again, why are you (SF) afraid of destruction? If SF is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, it cannot be destroyed, right? But then, the Scientologists or the Moonies or the Mormons or other such cults have not been destroyed yet. As Harold put it, the time is only coming when God will judge the cults and that includes the SF.
Concerning "outsider" songs, it was only recently that SF brought out two song books - Almond Blossom and/but the official one is THE WAYS OF THE LORD in which there is not a single "harlot" hymn though they have used many "harlot" tunes.
Earlier, the English songbook was called New Songs and it had songs by Zac Poonen in it. As soon as Zac Poonen spoke of the heresy in the group and its cult activities, he was cast out as Anti-Christ and Diotrephes and he and his wife were dubbed Ananias and Sapphira, and his songs expunged from New Songs. There used to be a song by the founder of the Salvation Army in New Songs but the new The Ways of the Lord has expunged that song too.
SF plays a double game under Kare Smith. If someone says they do not sing "harlot" songs, they can hold up Almond Blossom as Blogmaster does. But they wont mention The Ways of the Lord.
If someone says "Oh, they don't mix with the world", then they will hold up their internal rock and jazz bands and say "See we too play rock, we too play jazz." But they will not mix with musicians of the world as this rock and jazz is "sanctified" and played by SF house bands.
Kare Smith has been very smart. He has let the "world" into the SF (but not the SF into the world!) so that SF can counter charges of being a cult and claim to be "open". But in the end, final control is with the "core", especially financial control.
Blogmaster:
You said: "No SF church is raising money to Brunstad." This is not true. You mislead this blog when you say money doesn't go to Brunstad but that it is the other way around.
You do not know that in England people mortgaged their own homes to pay off Brunstad's debt? Likewise all the fellowships were "prophetically" fired up to pay off Brunstad's gigantic debts across the world. That is what has allowed Brunstad now to generate funds from its businesses like Horze headed by Gunnar Gangso, BCC, Diana housing, etc.
Some of these funds have gone into buying prime real estate in countries like Ukraine and India which are being developed into fresh business ventures. But all this is CONTROLLED DIRECTLY BY BRUNSTAD DIRECTORS.
how is it that a post on the Melbourne church site long ago said:
Melbourne Brunstad Debt Paid Off
01.01.2008 14:24:59
After a tremendous effort over the past 20 weeks the Melbourne Brunstad Debt has been paid off!!!
Would you like to know the amount that was paid off to Brunstad, dear Blogmaster?
A note of clarification:
I appreciate all of you participating in the discussion here. Some new faces have come along in recent days. Good to have you here. That said, in response to a few questions/comments of late:
(1) This post and thread of comments began over two years. The post/question "Is This a Cult" is ONE of MANY posts that are all part of my personal blog spanning 2006 to present…and many diverse topics.
(2) This blog does not exist for the sole purpose of debunking or exposing the Smith's Friends organization--although I do believe enough information has been provided to do so many times over.
(3) Because this blog is hosted on a server which I have no control over, I don't have the ability to customize this post/thread beyond what you currently see. I have yet to figure a way to display a certain number of comments. I also don't know of a way to set the blog up for posting videos within the comments area.
(4) I read most of the comments in their entirety; some I just "skim." I try to keep up with the "players" best I can. One commenter has been jettisoned for his blatant dishonesty. I don't tolerate liars well; if I catch you—YOU'RE OUT. So, keep it on the up-and-up, and we'll all get along.
(5) I do not use profanity. Some of you do and I've let it slide. Please stop. I have the right to not only make this request, but to also ban anyone that continues to use language that I believe is not appropriate, particularly within a spiritual/Biblical discussion. Yes, I'm imposing my beliefs; it's MY blog. You are an invited GUEST. Conduct yourself accordingly.
(6) I'm a pretty simple guy. I have a day job that requires much of my time. My responsibilities have changed over the years and consequently, I don't have time to blog or comment as much as I did previously. Rest assured however, this topic is one I have not forgotten. I asked the original question out of a deep concern for a family I know and care about. I pray about this situation often. I may not post a comment or add to the conversation as often as some think I should, but I think I've made my position(s) pretty clear.
(7) Could some of you work on using paragraphs? It would make things so much easier to read?
Now, carry on…and PLAY NICE!
John:
You are very brave. I have been working with business and economy in Brunstad for several years, and yet you try to convince me I don't have the clue. It is like an Al Qaida soldier in Guantanamo trying to correct Michelle Obama about the staff in The White House.
Maybe you can tell me how many percent of the total sum that were moved as debt to churches outside Norway?
You are absolutely correct when claiming that you can not convince me that SF is a sect or cult. If you met a seller trying to sell you a new phone, I don't think you would have bought it if he used this method:
"Hi, your car is ugly, your father is a criminal, you smell really bad, your house is rotten, and by the way, will you buy the best cell phone in the world? Special prize for you, my friend!"
And how did you get the idea that SF is afraid of destruction? I have never observed any sign of that.
Post a Comment