Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Aug 8, 2009 9:25:24 GMT -5
Here is a universal formula for the conditions under which money abuse will occur: 1.Money given which is not earned. 2.Money given without condition. 3.Zero accountability of that money. It's a slamdunk. Under those conditions, even the most noble of individuals will eventually abuse the money. They may not run off with it like the Greece overseer, but they will make expenditures which will be foolish, wasteful or completely inappropriate, it's guaranteed. CD, this post is so true it bears repeating.
The absence of the most elementary boundaries doom it to the inevitable. And you can rest assured, those who are endowed with all that freedom from scrutiny will be very reluctant to surrender it.
Convenient.
Just as egregious, the arrogance of the system is quantified exponentially by its' razor thin lily white appearance. If you were relating a story of financial or whatever flavor of abuse by a known felon, you would, of course, reason that it was just par for the course.
To realize these supposed spiritual leaders, with some degree of regularity, have behaved in such a manner, is difficult for some to wrap their minds around.
There was a well known incident in the mid-west that Charles Mattison refers to in his testimony, where one of the friends observed a "brother" and "sister" worker checking into a motel. They checked the registry and found they had used a alias. ( I re-read his experience and found it be downright depressing.) www.votisalive.com/content/past-reflections-0
The dichotomy of these two, heating up the motel room with money provided to spread the gospel in one breath, to pulling you aside to recommend a "better bun" in the other breath, would incite rage in the coolest of heads.
How could this not make you angry?
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Aug 8, 2009 9:55:49 GMT -5
Ron Hall, in no way to my understanding of HIS nature would I believe the Lord would approve of those with control over large sums of excess money then using what He related regarding something being done against his own death as justification for their own parsimony and abuse of power over such sums. I do not agree with your comparison at all. But then, that is just how I see it, you obviously see it differently.
For me, such a "viewpoint" as you present completely obscures "the what" that was occuring when he was annointed with a costly spice. I see your point. You are absolutely correct where wealth would be gathered in for personal use and to gain power and prestige. From my viewpoint I see the fine buildings locally built on expensive real estate with large parking lots surrounding them, largely empty except for a few brief hours during a week and then I consider the way of the fellowship of F & W. Which group is gathering in wealth for the purpose of gaining power and prestige? Some might point out convention buildings. Where I normally go the only thing of much value is the land -- and that's just because the city has been expanding, pushing up land values. If at some point it is sold, the developer would discount the value of the property for the disposal of any buildings there. Others might point to the travel expenses of workers. I believe that is part and parcel of an itinerant ministry, i.e., monies well spent. Workers need to circulate instead of creating fiefdoms. What I've seen is that whereas the F&W don't normally tithe (perhaps a few do; it is never mentioned, so I don't know) when there is a personal or family need, individual friends step in. This is done silently and efficiently, at least in my little corner of the world. I know your viewpoint is much wider than mine and it saddens me that you happened upon dealings of a few in power that abused their place. I often remember you and your family and wish all could be restored. Though we may each see things a little differently due to our points of view, I welcome such challenges and interchanges because even though I may not come-around, at least not completely, I gain a new awareness and certainly something to consider.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Aug 8, 2009 10:40:31 GMT -5
With money comes, control, and with control you see ungodly spirits. Now, maybe that is why Jesus preached to spread the gospel homeless and penniless. A humble spirit wanting to help and not be concerned with who, where, why you should help. Also a controller doesn't only abuse his money but he also abuses anyone he feels he's above and just has that right to do so. That is also a guarantee!!
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Aug 8, 2009 10:53:46 GMT -5
Money is collected secretly. It is not in the open as in a church collection. But, is that any different? How many will actually be willing to admit that they know when they leave a mission and shake hands, that it is expected to pass money to the worker? How many know of places arranged, like a basket some place, that is placed there for only the purpose of passing money? If there is money given to help with the expense of the mission, why must the money then be given to the overseer who then controls it? Why were papers drawn up for people to use in their estates so that money would be given to the overseer and it would be kept so that the nonprofessing family or courts would not know where it was going or how much? Why does only one worker in each state have the control? What verses in the bible back up this type of worship?
|
|
|
Post by sofastarch on Aug 8, 2009 12:03:23 GMT -5
Here is a universal formula for the conditions under which money abuse will occur: 1.Money given which is not earned. 2.Money given without condition. 3.Zero accountability of that money. It's a slamdunk. Under those conditions, even the most noble of individuals will eventually abuse the money. They may not run off with it like the Greece overseer, but they will make expenditures which will be foolish, wasteful or completely inappropriate, it's guaranteed. Thanks for replying, CD, but that's not exactly sound reasoning as stated. Those 3 conditions are the most likely ones under which abuse of money will happen, however your final 2 words "it's guaranteed" make your whole post sound like a grand exaggeration. Your 3 conditions would be fulfilled in most monetary gifts (except grants or scholarships which have certain requirements attached). By your reasoning, no matter who gets a no-strings-attached monetary gift, it is guaranteed that it will be foolishly, wastefully and inappropriately spent. True in some cases, but not in nearly enough cases to call it a "guarantee". Handling money the way the workers are expected to requires honesty. Your statements above are like saying that there is dishonesty in everyone and given the opportunity to be dishonest, everyone will be, guaranteed. That's why I can't believe your statements "hook, line, & sinker". Put some qualifiers in to make it match reality, remove the words "guaranteed" and "it's a slamdunk" and it would be believable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 18:44:13 GMT -5
Yes SS, I could have worded it better. I wouldn't change "slamdunk" but I would qualify that to say that abuse would occur "sooner or later". It may not occur with one gift, nor would it necessarily ever occur with an unusually wise and honest person, but it will occur "sooner or later with most people". These are powerful conditions which lead to abuse of money.
Even under weaker condtions misuse of money can occur. For example, I have made a few poor investment decisions from with my own hard earned money. With proper consultation, those mistakes may not have been made. It happens to everyone even when it's not easy money rolling in from estates and other sources.
Another problem with easy money is it is character destructive. The most common example is third generation wealth. The third generation becomes disconnected from the hard and smart work that is required to earn it. The earlier generation pours on the money to these young people so they won't have to go without as they did and before long some members of that generation becomes spoiled, petulant and unproductive. Of course there are exceptions.
This would be the basis for my objection to the idea of giving workers "gifts".....it does not have a good effect on the recipient to be living off gifts. Far better is to rightfully earn most money, a few gifts do little or no harm.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 9, 2009 0:27:51 GMT -5
There was a well known incident in the mid-west that Charles Mattison refers to in his testimony, where one of the friends observed a "brother" and "sister" worker checking into a motel. They checked the registry and found they had used a alias. ( I re-read his experience and found it be downright depressing.) veteransoftruth.com/content/quotpast-reflectionsquot-exworker-charles-mattisonThe dichotomy of these two, heating up the motel room with money provided to spread the gospel in one breath, to pulling you aside to recommend a "better bun" in the other breath, would incite rage in the coolest of heads. How could this not make you angry?[/color][/quote] Something doesn't ring true. I am not questioning the possibility of a tryst but have you ever gone into a hotel/motel and tried to check the guest registry?
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Aug 9, 2009 1:37:00 GMT -5
In your initial post sofastarch you were «talking about the POTENTIAL for there to be mismanagement of money or wasteful spending.» You also mentioned that «there MIGHT be a few rare cases where a worker or one of the friends has fallen and mishandled money, intentionally or unintentionally that we'd all agree was wrong. Those cases are so rare that some here are seeming to worry that the sky is falling, when really just an acorn has fallen here or there and hit someone on the head. Face it, if the men of God who are in charge of the money were spending it so frivilously on themselves, they'd have more than a new suit and a new suitcase to carry it in. »
I mentioned three cases of grave mismanagement, but you did not seem to bother to reply. And the problem is that the overseers who took over AFTER the incidents did not bother either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 8:49:53 GMT -5
Bailouts is another area of waste. There have been a few that I am aware of where, if widely known, would have faced vehement objections.
The most undetectable problem is outright theft or fraud. Any account controlled by one person is completely naked to fraud, and no one would ever know. It's simply done and even the overseer wouldn't have a clue about it.
|
|
Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Aug 9, 2009 10:30:13 GMT -5
There was a well known incident in the mid-west that Charles Mattison refers to in his testimony, where one of the friends observed a "brother" and "sister" worker checking into a motel. They checked the registry and found they had used a alias. ( I re-read his experience and found it be downright depressing.) veteransoftruth.com/content/quotpast-reflectionsquot-exworker-charles-mattisonThe dichotomy of these two, heating up the motel room with money provided to spread the gospel in one breath, to pulling you aside to recommend a "better bun" in the other breath, would incite rage in the coolest of heads. How could this not make you angry?[/color][/quote] Something doesn't ring true. I am not questioning the possibility of a tryst but have you ever gone into a hotel/motel and tried to check the guest registry?[/quote] I see your point. The couple who observed the two workers entering their room, then went to the front desk, and asked for the male worker by name. He had slightly altered his last name, and had signed in as Rev.----, and Mrs----.
There was no doubt to this couple who the Reverend was.
I am told they became so disenchanted they left the 2x2's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 11:27:50 GMT -5
So what's the rest of the story? They the couple went out and found a church without sinners? Found a pastor without sin? Not likely.
I wonder if Jesus would have walked away from this situation?
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Aug 9, 2009 20:20:15 GMT -5
I think you can find abuse of money in just about any walk of life. Just as in all walks of life the desire for power, sex, money cause some to fail the trust others have put in them. It's just that a public accounting of funds makes it that much harder. I think that the majority of workers do take the money in good faith and try to use it for the Church's best interest. And I have no problem with ministers having bank accounts, cell phones, credit cards etc.
What I do have problems with is the workers constantly preaching about being "homeless unpaid servants of God." And then portraying "worldly" ministers as being hirerlings only concerned with thier own financial security and abandoning the flock. Even as they, the workers, have bank accounts, credit cards etc--and have cars purchased by thier followers that are at thier disposal.
As for the story about the workers checking into a hotel, NO hotel would allow anyone to view a guest registry, the best you can do is ask if someone has checked in, they certainly won't check spelling or, as according to the story, give out a name for someone who's checked in.
|
|
|
Post by sofastarch on Aug 10, 2009 8:22:02 GMT -5
I totally disagree with sofastarch. Over the years I was with the 2x2s I have known many cases of abusive use of money collected by the workers. Here are some examples - When the overseer in Greece decided to organise conventions there in the 80's a lot of money was sent to him from overseas (mostly the USA). Suddenly the «penniless and poor» overseer had enough money to construct a new convention building (many say he also paid for buying the piece of land on which the building was constructed). Of course the property was in the name of a friend! The same overseer had also enough money to support the establishment of another convention ground - there we heard he had to cover some debts of the non professing person who owned the property. Furthermore, some months later this same overseer, who had started acting like a dictator towards his fellow workers, left the 2x2 organisation and created his own flavour of christianity. He then bought a big property in one of the most lavish suburbs of Athens and constructed a villa apparently with the money he appropriated from the donations given to him for the establishment of the convention grounds. The new appointed overseer never disclosed how much money was stolen, nor asked them back!
- When certain workers in our region (in Europe) started using cars, instead of public transport (as was the custom until then), a friend suddenly bought a car «specifically for the workers to use», although his economic condition was not such as to allow him such largesse. We gathered that the money were given by the workers. When the car crached several times, the workers (who were responsible for the accidents) paid for the repairs although the cost of these repairs was quite high and any logical person would have prefered to buy a new car.
- When the overseer in our part of the world developed an adulterous affair with the wife of one of the friends, he started travelling several times a week from his «field» to the town of the lady. At the time we did not know of the affair but were startled by the frequency of travel who costed a fortune. In view of arranging practical questions about meetings etc. we would often try to contact the overseer whose field covered our region but we could not locate him at the place he was supposed to be and later discovered that he was out of town «unexpectedly for matters pertaining to the work».
So over the (more that 30) years I followed this cult I have seen enough cases which prove beyond doubt that the workers 1. Have a lot of money, 2. Manage this money in a most unacountable way, 3. Very often abuse the money without any control. I would like to acknowledge that you are right, there have been abuses of money in the past (by workers) and I also believe there could be in the future as well. Mankind is prone to times of dishonesty. If you look at the people who followed Christ in his day, you will see that not all in His church had victory all of the time either. I would agree that your statements above especially examples 1 and 3 are indeed mismanagement. Depending on how many crashes involved in #2... it's not any cheaper to fix a new car than an older one. This could have been classified as a mistake by an inexperienced car owner, similar to the poor investments Clearday wrote of on this thread. Either way, money could have been spent more wisely, especially with hindsight. Over the course of 30+ years, as you say you've been watching us, I wonder how many workers have accepted money from friends. Could it be 3000? Lets take your 3 examples x 10 and say that money has been abused or grossly mismanaged 30 times. This makes 1% of the time that it happens. Is that practically no one? I think it is. If a presidential candidate got 1% of the vote I'd say that practically no one wants him/her to be president. I know that everyone is quite offended at outright ripoff artists (especially if they have respected positions of authority) and those incidents stand out in our minds, but still, if you had a hundred bookkeepers and 1 of them stole money from you, you wouldn't label all bookkeepers as thieves. Therefore, I still stand by my statement that nearly all of the workers handle money in an honorable way. Practically none of them are abusing it. By the way, Ghost, did you abuse money while you were in the work, or did you have a strong enough conscience to use it as wisely as most of the people who were giving it to you?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 10, 2009 9:00:06 GMT -5
It strikes me that the question is not one of trust. I personally have no issue with how the money is handled.
To me it's an issue of naivetie. It's basically a cash system which is fine for small expenditures on consumables that kind of thing. But there are also larger expenditures for conventions and even spending on fixed assets. It's known there are large amounts of cash in the system and special maneuvers involving certain individuals in order to have 'meeting sheds' and the like. All this is on the 'up and up' but the dance gets more complicated in order to keep the ministry 'homeless'.
Any other kind of pure business that was run on such a basis would be extremely vulnerable to abuse. It would only take a very small number of bad players to cause serious problems.
In my mind, there is no reason to think that some workers would not be bad players, even if less than the population as a whole. I see an accident waiting to happen. Indeed, they have happened on occasion as 'ghost' has pointed out, and we've read other stories like this besides.
As well, controls exist in a normal business to remove temptation and keep honest people honest.
In addition the constraints that exist on workers themselves are onerously burdensome. I've never heard one complain, but I would guess that they live in a gold-fish bowl to some extent. Do they feel guilty about buying an ice cream cone, or spending on their health thinking the money is better spent on other things?
I personally see business as business and the Bible doesn't offer much to help in setting up an Accounting system. To me the correct way out is to have an organized deaconate with open accountability. The ministry could carry on as homeless and penniless, even more penniless than before.
I also think that we have to shed the defensiveness that considers all criticism as an issue of trust.
Further, I think people would give more money to non-ministry needs such as friends in financial distress, health issues, demonstrated needs in the Third World, ex-workers transitioning out of the work, and many other needs that could be administered through a deaconate involving workers at a policy level but hands-off on specifities.
If change comes, it should be initiated by the workers themselves as they best know the problems and how to solve them. I think Acts 6 might be the door to change. The problem is that we often think certain things are God-given and sanctioned when they are not. I honestly don't think He cares what system is used. The Bible doctrine that we do know and would want to observe does not conflict with Accounting 101.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 10, 2009 9:13:36 GMT -5
How could it? It's in God's hands. If I knew the person it might disappoint me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2009 9:20:44 GMT -5
What, what you say is perfectly sound.
Few people are concerned about what the ordinary worker does with the small bits of money they get. Regular workers have little money and therefore little to abuse although I suppose any amount could be abused. I would certainly hope though that an ordinary worker wouldn't feel guilty for buying an ice cream cone or some similar form of harmless pleasure.
It's the issue of the "kingdom accounts" which deserves scrutiny and your suggestions would solve a whole lot of problems, including the optics problems of the "homeless penniless ministry". The example in Acts6 is certainly a sound basis for running a church.
|
|
|
Post by rjs on Aug 10, 2009 12:36:56 GMT -5
OOpeness is the issue. Accontability is the issue. Workers having money to support themselves is NOT the issue.
|
|
Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Aug 10, 2009 14:07:21 GMT -5
So what's the rest of the story? They the couple went out and found a church without sinners? Found a pastor without sin? Not likely. I wonder if Jesus would have walked away from this situation? The story is the betrayal of trust. What happened after they fled the scene is mute.
What did Jesus do?
Paul Proctor said it best:
There is absolutely no biblical record of Jesus or any of His disciples ever taking a heretic off to the side for coffee and donuts after they led someone astray distorting the Word of God. They didn’t shake hands, exchange hugs, kisses and phone numbers or set up appointments on their PDAs to dialog their doctrinal differences over lunch in the quiet corner of a favorite restaurant at a more convenient time. No, Jesus dealt with heretics harshly, publicly and immediately, as did Paul and the other disciples. And, keep in mind; we’re talking New Testament here friends. In the Old Testament, false prophets were simply taken out and stoned to death for their lies. That’s how serious God is about His Word being rightly divided and properly proclaimed.
So, what was Jesus referring to in Matthew 18? Look again carefully at how he begins: “…If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone…”
You see, the Lord is referring here to a personal offense, grievance and/or misunderstanding between two people – something that has broken their fellowship and has little or nothing to do with anyone else. Personal and private matters of wrongdoing should always be dealt with personally and privately first, so as not to unduly disrupt the unity of the body. That is indeed, biblical.
Now, as for wolves in sheep’s clothing that stand in pulpits and on stages before vast audiences with microphones and television cameras, (or in meeting halls or tents preaching the ministry, Edit by Byron), proclaiming demonic doctrines as the Word of God, the scriptural directive is altogether different:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” – Galatians 1:8
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” – Ephesians 5:11 (“Reprove” is another word for rebuke)
Seems crystal clear....................
|
|
Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Aug 10, 2009 14:32:33 GMT -5
As for the story about the workers checking into a hotel, NO hotel would allow anyone to view a guest registry, the best you can do is ask if someone has checked in, they certainly won't check spelling or, as according to the story, give out a name for someone who's checked in. I disagree.
The couple approached the desk clerk, asked for the worker by name, and the desk clerk replied, "No, but there is a Rev----and Mrs-----. I never said they stormed the service desk, and perused the registry. If I divulged the name of the worker, and told you how he altered his name, it would make more sense to you. Futhermore, this was not the Ritz.... This incident was well known in some circles at the time...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 10, 2009 15:10:22 GMT -5
Carnal nature likes that verse because it seems that it allows it to make demands on others and put conditions on forgivness. This verse puts it a bit different; Mar 11:25 ¶ And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
NLT;
But when you are praying, first forgive anyone you are holding a grudge against, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your sins, too."
NIV;
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
The next verse; Mar 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
|
|
Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Aug 10, 2009 16:06:02 GMT -5
Forgiveness and admonishing someone who is astray distorting the Word of God are two separate issues.
This is precisely why I hesitate quoting scripture. 2x2's are infamous for spinning the matter at hand with passages that suit their purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 10, 2009 18:13:24 GMT -5
Man's carnal nature likes to try to work out another's salvation instead of its own; to determine another's purpose; to try and determine who is or is not spinning and distorting the Scriptures, because doing that it allows it to lord it over others, judge others, admonish others, make demands on others, and put conditions on forgiving others - the carnal loves to do all that 70x7.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 10, 2009 18:36:35 GMT -5
And back to the thread topic, more oversight is not an automatic cure for waste/abuse, case in point the biggest abuser/waster of all - government. Close behind government would be huge business like Enron, GM, Chrysler, etc. with their so called Board of Directors making sure the business is being run efficiently, ha, ha, ha. The worker's books are exposed for audit every day, every visit. When they stop in with a new Porsche or something like that I'll start wondering if I should give them a bit less.
Hey Bert did the workers ever use that helicopter pad you built?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2009 19:14:23 GMT -5
Byron, I appreciate your effort in posting the Proctor work. The problem is this: Proctor's little bit is about heretics, your worker story is about sinners. There's a big difference. A heretic is one who publicly holds forth on doctrine and dogma which is contrary to the mainstream dogma. A sinner is, well we all know what that's all about eh? And yes, I do think that Jesus would sit down a have a coffee with the sinner. It's unfortunate your friend felt his/her trust betrayed. Trusting in mankind for one's salvation is a high risk venture at best, especially knowing that most men and women have sexual impulses and things sometimes happen. So what's the rest of the story? They the couple went out and found a church without sinners? Found a pastor without sin? Not likely. I wonder if Jesus would have walked away from this situation? The story is the betrayal of trust. What happened after they fled the scene is mute.
What did Jesus do?
Paul Proctor said it best:
There is absolutely no biblical record of Jesus or any of His disciples ever taking a heretic off to the side for coffee and donuts after they led someone astray distorting the Word of God. They didn’t shake hands, exchange hugs, kisses and phone numbers or set up appointments on their PDAs to dialog their doctrinal differences over lunch in the quiet corner of a favorite restaurant at a more convenient time. No, Jesus dealt with heretics harshly, publicly and immediately, as did Paul and the other disciples. And, keep in mind; we’re talking New Testament here friends. In the Old Testament, false prophets were simply taken out and stoned to death for their lies. That’s how serious God is about His Word being rightly divided and properly proclaimed.
So, what was Jesus referring to in Matthew 18? Look again carefully at how he begins: “…If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone…”
You see, the Lord is referring here to a personal offense, grievance and/or misunderstanding between two people – something that has broken their fellowship and has little or nothing to do with anyone else. Personal and private matters of wrongdoing should always be dealt with personally and privately first, so as not to unduly disrupt the unity of the body. That is indeed, biblical.
Now, as for wolves in sheep’s clothing that stand in pulpits and on stages before vast audiences with microphones and television cameras, (or in meeting halls or tents preaching the ministry, Edit by Byron), proclaiming demonic doctrines as the Word of God, the scriptural directive is altogether different:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” – Galatians 1:8
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” – Ephesians 5:11 (“Reprove” is another word for rebuke)
Seems crystal clear....................
|
|
Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Aug 10, 2009 19:16:15 GMT -5
Man's carnal nature likes to try to work out another's salvation instead of its own; to determine another's purpose; to try and determine who is or is not spinning and distorting the Scriptures, because doing that it allows it to lord it over others, judge others, admonish others, make demands on others, and put conditions on forgiving others - the carnal loves to do all that 70x7. How ironic. You just described the bondage I grew up in, and the reason you and I are having this conversation. [/center]
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 10, 2009 19:34:10 GMT -5
Jesus Reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (agape) me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love (philo) you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (agape) me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love (philo) you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love (philo) me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love (philo) me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (philo) you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
I have heard that Jesus was asking do you love me (agape love) and Peter was answering that he loved him (as a friend) and that is why Jesus kept asking until Peter answered with love (agape) Maybe Rob could expound on that a bit, as I am sure I am doing a poor job of explaining..... Scott Scott, I heard that often too from various places (and passed it on myself), however I discovered there is no substantial difference between agape and philo. Semantically, philo usually includes the affection of familiarity (such as the love for friends and family) and agape is commanded so it's reasonable that there can be a difference, but in many instances agape also includes the affection aspect. But context is always the deciding factor in how to translate a word in a given instance. If there was a major difference in this passage, the statement "Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love (philo) me?"" would make little sense as Jesus is stated as asking "Do you agape me?" twice and then the third time says "Do you philo me?". Also, it's more likely that they were speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew than Greek, so it can get speculative if we push it too far. 25.43
Though some persons have tried to assign certain significant differences of meaning between ἀγαπάωa, ἀγάπηa (agape) and φιλέωa, φιλία (philo)(25.33), it does not seem possible to insist upon a contrast of meaning in any and all contexts. For example, the usage in Jn 21.15–17 seems to reflect simply a rhetorical alternation designed to avoid undue repetition. There is, however, one significant clue to possible meaningful differences in at least some contexts, namely, the fact that people are never commanded to love one another with φιλέω or φιλία, but only with ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη. Though the meanings of these terms overlap considerably in many contexts, there are probably some significant differences in certain contexts; that is to say, φιλέω and φιλία are likely to focus upon love or affection based upon interpersonal association, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη focus upon love and affection based on deep appreciation and high regard. On the basis of this type of distinction, one can understand some of the reasons for the use of ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη in commands to Christians to love one another. It would, however, be quite wrong to assume that φιλέω and φιλία refer only to human love, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη refer to divine love. Both sets of terms are used for the total range of loving relations between people, between people and God, and between God and Jesus Christ. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains societies.
|
|
Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Aug 10, 2009 21:29:52 GMT -5
Clearday observed:
"The problem is this: Proctor's little bit is about heretics, your worker story is about sinners."
Precisely.
We are all sinners. Salvation though works, being historically 2x2 doctrine, is just one blatant example that illustrates anyone who preaches this is a heretic. Salvation through Works "Any human effort to EARN eternal salvation. The Bible declares that salvation is a gift of God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23; 5:15-18; John 3:16; Heb. 9:14, 22; Rev. 1:5). We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). God imputes His righteousness to believers WITHOUT works (Rom. 4:1-8), because Christ has already PAID our sin debt. In Romans 11:6 Paul states the matter very clearly: "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Anyone who teaches a plan of salvation through religious rituals, sacraments, keeping commandments, baptism, or just "doing more good than bad" is teaching heresy.
Further, the author compliles this:
The main heresies taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are as follow:
1. Annihilation
2. Denial of the Deity of Christ
3. Denial of the Deity of the Holy Spirit
4. Denial of Eternal Security
5. Denial of a Literal Burning Hell
6. Denial of Literal Second Coming of Christ
7. Denial of the Physical Resurrection of Christ
8. Denial of the Trinity
9. Salvation Through Works
10. True Church Theory"
--Pastor James L. Melton "THE BIBLE BELIEVER'S HANDBOOK OF HERESIES"
I count seven of the ten are heresies that 2x2 doctrine has traditionally espoused. Clearday, I think Jesus would give him lots of grief.
You noted: "Trusting in mankind for one's salvation is a high risk venture at best, especially knowing that most men and women have sexual impulses and things sometimes happen."
If he were not part of a legalistic, heretical group that has imposed great suffering to many, who cares? He is a big boy. Certainly no one's business. But when the false doctrine is preached in large doses for years and years, subjecting their fold to heresy, and the heavy yoke of legalistic bondage, I think Jesus would take exception.
To impose such things on your flock is going to get you more than just a "Time Out".
That is why the topic (who is abusing the $), is just a toxic trickle down of the doo-doo that infests the cult, and just a part of the whole picture.
You know the old Ben Franklin close, no? Make the list of positives and negatives, and well, don't risk taking another card in this game.
Just fold.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Aug 10, 2009 21:56:27 GMT -5
most workers I know (well, all but one) are quite frugal with money. I asked one what they do with the money they don't spend, and he said a lot of money accumulates and is given to overseers at the end of the mission. Somehow, that bothered me...I wanted to help HIM continue his ministry, not pay for somebody else to fly across the ocean or build a meeting shed. I wanted to hear that the excess money was given to the needy, ala "real" ministry. I haven't given anything for a couple years, cuz I have no way to assess the need nor where the money will go. No criticism of those who do give...I just find uses for my charity now that better suit me, that's all.
|
|