dizzydog

Cman wrote: "And for the one, whoever it was that says there were leaders because there were followers. I'll say who was the one leading the ones that it says they followed. Leadership is leading by doing, serving, not doing it for you. Paul and others were observed and seen to be doing things. Others followed their EXAMPLE. That don't mean the followers duplicated their every move. And were not told what to do and how to do it. Such a finite limited view of Christ." Cman - I believe you were responding to me. If you weren't so be it. Perhaps you should get to know a person before determining how limited their view of Christ is. At the very least perhaps you should make sure you understand what the post said before you make a judgment about how limited a persons view is. Your statement here (until the last sentence), what I can gleen of it, didn't disagree with my post, as near as I can tell. As far as the last sentence - it seemed a cheap shot. I don't know a lot but I don't suspect Christ would have responded that way. Perhaps your vision of him needs a little focus yourself.

That “leaders” have offended us doesn’t mean that the scriptures do not indicate that there are no leaders and followers. I can think of at least 4-5 records in the epistles where the people of the first century church are encouraged to be followers of Paul or others. The issue isn’t whether someone leads; the issue is where are they leading. For the Christian the answer can only be to one place – Christ. Also - just because someone once led doesn’t bestow the mantle of leadership once and for all and for all time – his ministry shouldn’t define who he is, Christ should. If Jesus Christ is the head he will energize different ministries to step up to the role they are best suited for as the needs come up. I therefore as a humble servant to my Lord will know when to be humble when he is directing a brother to lead and I will know when to lead – once again in humility to my Lord. I will also know, in full confidence, when to rebuke an unfruitful work of darkness. If a man has a ministry (which I believe all believers have something to serve) one of his real qualities as a leader will be seen when he is called on to be meek to another minister when Jesus Christ is calling on that other minister to edify the body of Christ. If my pride comes from what Jesus Christ accomplished and not from my own accomplishments then I will never feel threatened when I need to be humble to another believer who’s steps God is directing. Of course these things can only happen when individually we are convinced of our own righteousness – as we learn in Romans. Yes it’s true that this comes from an attitude of service but that doesn’t negate the need for someone to lead. Once again, my pride should come from what Jesus Christ accomplished and not from my ability to lead; I’m not the one who should be glorified by my leadership and service. If Jesus Christ is the subject of the scriptures then we would do well to make him the subject of our service. The situation in CES is really no different than any other religion that’s based on serving and following any man other than Christ. The thing I wonder about in Acts 5 isn’t the manner in which they served but the results of their service. Why don’t we see these kinds of results in Christianity today? Organization is not inherently evil. The people in the organization are – all members. Give homage to a leader who walks by his carnal nature and the results will always be catastrophic. No man is immune to these possibilities. The only way to insure the organization stays loving, fruitful and a glory to God is if all members of the organization point, in unity, to Christ. The result of a man’s service to another believer must result in the edification of the body of Christ – with Christ being the center, focus and result. The result of this of course is a glory to God in this world with all members then of the church serving the community in which they dwell. People will know we are Christians by our love – how this is evidenced will be at his direction. For examples of what he might direct we would do well to familiarize ourselves with the gospels and the book of Acts. Define any group anyway you want to – church, cult, religion, ministry, non-profit organization. The issue isn’t how they are (or aren’t) organized the issue is, once again, who gets the glory. If as a group Christ is glorified in love then his works will be readily seen by anyone observing the group and spiritually this will be a place for people to comfortably and lovingly fellowship with one another.

Trying to decide how many people were crucified with Jesus Christ makes about as much sense as trying to figure out how many people Rome crucified that year. It's clear Jesus was one of them, beyond that what's the purpose? To prove that there are no errors in the Word of God? Some believe the bible is totally unreliable (can anyone say tattered?) anyway. For those who are convinced that salvation lies in Christ and that this is revealed in the scriptures they aren't going to be affected by 2, 4 or 400 people being crucified with Jesus Christ.

This whole debate about the accuracy of God’s Word still amazes me. We talk about where we can find God’s Word, where the accuracy of it lies, what gives it its authority. There is one point that is repeatedly ignored, I’ll make that point shortly but I want to ask a question before I make it. Were the scriptures that Jesus Christ quoted originals? The scriptures he himself spoke of and quoted, were these the originals? He quotes the scriptures in many situations. How about Luke 4:17-19? When he read from Isaiah chapter 61, was he reading from the original document? How about when he quoted Deuteronomy to the devil in the wilderness, what original document was he quoting from? Did he even have a document with him, or did he just know the scriptures that well that he could quote them. Did he quote the words verbatim? How did he know if they were verbatim or did he speak that which God gave him with the authority God gave him to speak them. Once again, what gives God’s Word its accuracy, or more important what gives it its authority? If it’s true that the devil has done his utmost to hide, disprove and utterly destroy God’s Word over the last 2,000 years or so what did he do to them in the Old Testament? It’s pretty clear that God’s Word was all but lost on a number of occasions. It says in Jeremiah 15:16 “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.” God’s Word was buried in the ruins of the temple. Satan’s ability to wrack and ruin the world had no restraints in the Old Testament, at least with the coming of Christ he can be rebuked. If his nature is to destroy God’s Word what did he do to it in the Old Testament? If we base our dubiousness on what the devil has done to the scriptures over the last 2 millennium then logic dictates we should be equally dubious about what he did to it in the time between Adam and the Gospels. And yet, Jesus Christ himself commented on searching those scriptures. John 5:39 – “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (KJV). Does the truth of this change if we read it in the NSV? "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.” How about the ESV? “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,” Weymouth is particularly insightful. “You search the Scriptures, because you suppose that in them you will find the Life of the Ages; and it is those Scriptures that yield testimony concerning me;” It's interesting to note that Jesus Christ was actually being critical of his audience when he commented on their searching of the scriptures. He was making the point that these men thought they would have salvation through the exercise of study, and yet they missed the real point of those scriptures, him. Nicodemus had a similar problem in John 3. Many today also have this problem. Which scriptures were Jesus Christ declaring when he said they testify of him? Were they the originals? Were they utterly without error? Were they translated perfectly in every page and word? Were they complete? Were the documents they had in the temple at this time all the documents God had revealed over the thousands of years that God had been giving his Word to holy men? Remember - the temple was tended by the priests, high priests and Pharisees that demanded the execution of Jesus Christ. Was God’s Word kept and translated in a Godly manner by these men who Jesus Christ said were of their father - the devil? Over and over again the point is the same, that Jesus Christ gets revealed when God’s Word is revealed. Is John 10:10 now given authority because VPW taught and revealed it in PFAL? How about Romans 10:9-10? John 3:16? Ephesians? Thessalonians? What about the record above, just because VPW taught and wrote it in this day and time does that now give it authority? No this puts the cart before the horse. All of God’s Word has authority because of who it reveals, Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is not revealed and glorified then we do not have God’s Word. Is Romans 10:9-10 unreliable? Or is it only reliable when rewritten in PFAL? There is one man who has given us God’s Word in this day and time, Jesus Christ, and he’s still living.

...

I want to ask one question. What does God reveal in his Word? When we recognize what God reveals in his Word then we have the means to recognize his Word wherever it’s written, spoken or otherwise declared. When Jesus Christ is revealed and glorified, God’s Word is revealed and glorified. Jesus Christ is the subject of God’s Word, the inerrant accuracy of God’s Word comes from the perfection of his walk and the completeness of his resurrection and ascension. If he'd failed everything God said in the Old Testament about the messiah would have been a lie and everything God says now would be a lie. If you want a standard for truth, there it is. The declaration “He’s alive” is authoritative and not an approximation. And my authority to determine whether or not the statements I read are true and authoritative comes from Jesus Christ. First by recognizing whether those statements reveal and glorify him and second by him at work as the living head of his body. It’s interesting to me how many discussions take place about God’s Word and how infrequently the REAL subject of God’s Word is brought up. The only yardstick I use to determine whether a man is declaring God’s Word (whether written or spoken) is to determine whether the sum total of what he says leads others to Christ or leads them to something else.

True, but fortunately through the actions of Jesus Christ mans choice to do evil doesn't have to remove him from the grace of God, as it did in Adams case. As much as Adams choice to sin doomed him to death, our choice to believe and accept Christ destines us for salvation and eternity. Jesus Christ doesn't return man to the state Adam was in, fortunately. Our state is a new one, wholly in God's grace despite our shortcomings. It's a good thing, if Adam couldn't do it in his environment than the possibilities of us making it are impossible. Of course we shouldn't use our liberty as an occasion to sin, far too many christians know their salvation and use the liberty they've been given to do whatever the old man gives them the impulse to do. Often hurting others in the process. I think there's a good reason why Paul makes this distinction in Romans. The gift God gives has a responsibility attached to it. Once again the example is Christ, if his life was enough to save us then the example of his life should be good enough for us to try to emulate.

Sorry, this is a long response but I haven't posted much lately so perhaps you'll all bear with me. In relinquishing his authority in this world Adam also relinquished his relationship to God. Whether or not Adam would have naturally rebelled against God isn’t made clear in the scriptures, the fact is the serpent (devil) offered him (or rather Eve) a choice and they took him up on it. It’s interesting to consider that the devil wanted to exalt himself above God; he wanted to be worshipped as God was. It’s clear this was his intention in rebelling against God. Perhaps we begin to see the characteristics of evil in this. The devil offered man a choice, man took it and found himself in the same rebellious and condemned state the devil was in, at odds with God, dead in sins and an enemy of heaven. In tricking man the devil committed murder. Now man is in the same state that Lucifer was in. The devil could now use man as a shield from God’s judgment. He tempted God; if God now passed judgment on Satan he would have to pass judgment on man also, a real conundrum. Many have asked why God would put a “tree” in the garden to tempt man. God always warns man about what might cause him problems. We erroneously assume God created this tree to trip up man. What if God told man enjoy the garden but watch out for those cliffs over there, if you fall you’ll be killed? The cliffs aren’t there as a trap, they’re just part of the landscape. How is the warning about this tree any different? Would we wonder if Adam jumped off a cliff? No we’d call him a fool. What’s the difference? God gave a spiritual warning to man and he ignored the warning. Since it’s not clear what the tree was exactly and since we can’t go to local garden center and buy seeds for a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” then we can only speculate about what exactly this thing was. We know one thing, it was something that could cause a problem for man and God warned him about it. I don’t see anything so far that we can find fault with God about. The devil was subtle; he changed God’s words. In tricking man he partially accomplished his goal, he put himself above man and between man and God. For all intents and purposes man was subservient to Satan. Now Satan had the legal right to accuse and demand God’s judgment on man. He had the legal right to control the outcome of the one who God created to worship him. In effect forcing man to worship him instead of God. Man no longer had the ability or authority to worship God because he transferred that authority to the devil. Man traded a relationship with eternity for a relationship with sin. And yes he did make the choice to do it, tricked or not he could have refused but he didn’t. He did it with his eyes wide open. God created man and woman and gave them a wonderful place to live and provided all they needed for a wonderful and fulfilling life. God also provided them companionship, authority over their environment and even warned them about the dangers around them. More than that God provided a way for man to have a relationship with his creator. What hadn’t he done for man? What did he do to make them want to rebel against him? And yet for all of that man still chose another option and he’s been in a condemned state ever since. Again we don't know what the garden looked like, it was probably much like the earth is now. The difference is found in the relationship man had with God. Fortunately BEFORE God passed judgment on man he promised a messiah and with the ministry, sacrifice and ascension of the lord Jesus Christ man now has a way out of the death he’s found himself in. How could we have a clearer picture of goodness than we have in the earthly life of Jesus Christ? How could we have a clearer picture of evil than looking at what the devil did and continues to do? He did it selfishly, he did it arrogantly and he did it knowing full well that it meant death for man. The devil caused a righteous man to sin and in so doing he condemned him to death. He provoked man to trade righteousness for death. This, my friends, is evil. He’s the one who accuses. He’s the one Jesus Christ called the father of lies. He’s the one who wanted to be higher than God. God never did anything to provoke this treatment from the devil or from man. Call it what you want, evil, disharmony with God, absence of goodness, it’s all the same thing and when you begin to see it for it what is you realize just how bad it stinks. Jesus Christ is for the Christian the standard of goodness and love and harmony with God. Even today men challenge us with their words to think of something other than Jesus Christ. At times even using God’s Word in error to accomplish this goal. The world attempts to steer us away from glorifying him in our hearts, minds and words. He’s the one who saved man from the condemnation of the fall of Adam (Romans 5). If people think this is just a story, that this isn’t true, that the story of “creation” is somehow refuted by the theory of evolution then they’ve been just as tricked by the devil as Adam was. The first chapters of Genesis weren’t written to explain how the universe came into existence but rather to explain God’s original heart for man and how man came to the state he now finds himself in. It doesn’t even fully explain the devil, the subject is man until Genesis 3:14 and the subject is the Messiah (Jesus Christ) after Genesis 3:15. We would do well to recognize evil for what it is and it isn’t natural. Wars don’t occur because they’re part of the natural state of the world. Are there religious wars in nature? Is greed part of the evolutionary process? Is slavery a normal occurrence in the natural world? Do animals build atomic weapons? Do animals inflict genocide on other animals? The sheer magnitude of destruction committed by man alone should show us there is something different about man from the rest of nature. Evil is not supposed to be part of the equation. If you want proof that Genesis was true put down your science book and pick up a newspaper, the proof is on the front page every day. Now I think I'll go play a game of checkers...

Anyone remember her or know where she is? She was in the fifteenth corps. At emporia in 1987.

Silence, perhaps not, let's leave that statement where it sits and if I am misunderstanding someone then I'm big enough to admit it. I've also been misunderstood here and in the interest of changing the tone a little I will refrain from continuing with that line.

That's honest and I can respect your feelings. You didn't hear that much in TWI either.

Is this the quote you were referring to? “What’s wrong with a group who loves each other, stands with each other, shares the scriptures with one another and attempts in their own limited way to stand together in Christ?” One way they stand with each other is in prayers. Another is in caring for each other in the hospital or caring for the family of one who is infirm. Standing by someone when life has challenged him or her. Caring for a brother who lost a job, wife or family member. Having finances available for someone down and out or suddenly having financial troubles. Sometimes it’s nothing more than sharing the scriptures with each other. The point is we don’t give up on each other. We don’t bite and devour one another as once might have happened. It’s all part of standing by someone you care for. Call it what you will, fellowship, being a caring brother in Christ. The term isn’t nearly as important as the actions.

These "offshoots" are as varied as the people in them. One church was started back in the late 60's by the only other person who VPW ever allowed to be licensed to teach PFAL. After splitting with VPW this woman along with her husband started one of the finest church's I've ever been in, in the late 60's. From the most cursory view this church or ministry if you will could be construed as an offshoot. It wouldn't be fair to paint her into such a corner as I've seen pointed out here, I've seen what this church has done for their community. I know some others that could fall into the same category. But no one here wants hear that. No if the people involved ever had anything to do with The Way then they must be as evil as the original group, how petty. And as far as how little I know about The Way, I was steering people away from that place when you were still gladly throwing your money in the horn. Why'd you stay so long? There was plenty of information available, why didn't you listen? Go ahead with your little crusade, I'm all for it. Once the last few pieces of that place is auctioned off to Honda or Caterpillar I'll toast a glass of Louis XIII. And I have personal reasons for the joy that will bring. I'm just always amazed that the minute someone here writes something that is anything less than outright vitriol they are jumped on like a rabid dog who needs to be silenced.

I'm not going to respond to your assumptions about me. If you want to be specific about what I said I will respond to that, otherwise we'll have a short conversation.

So getting angry on a website is akin to Jesus Christ running the money changers out of the temple?