Jeaniam

Yes, I do, but that isn't the case in the fellowship I now attend. The leaders in the fellowship I am currently a part of enjoy the company of the believers, and encourage them to stay around and visit for as long as they want (with certain rare exceptions). They are a very loving group of people. The leader I was describing in my other post wasn't even affiliated with CG.

I'm not sure about the 15%. I think they send CG a set sum of money once a year for a 'license' but I don't think it's excessive. The gentleman who administers the ABS in our area as far as I know doesn't have a stock portfolio, and I believe he and his wife work very hard to support themselves and their five children. I've been to fellowships like the one you describe in that the leader in question didn't really want people to stay around after fellowship for any length of time (in one the leader imposed a 15 minute time limit) I like the fellowship I am currently attending because the leaders seem to really enjoy the company of other believers, and encouage them to remain for an indefinite amount of time. Can you define the statement about the Geer heavy revy being the norm or the exception? I'm not sure I understand fully.

True, nowadays. I still think it's a shame that what started off as a very good thing could sink to such depths.

I guess I agree that nowadays it is.

I'm involved with an Off-Shoot or splinter group that is headed by Rev. Chris Geer. The ABS that is generated in my area STAYS in my area and is administered by a gentleman who has a full-time (or more) job and uses none of it for his own benefit. It has been used, since my involvement, for such projects as helping a woman who was widowed unexpectedly, helping a family who were hit with unexpected medical bills, and otherwise helping people who were feeling unexpected financial pressures. All of these uses I believe to be Biblical in nature and I have no problem with my money being used in this way. While I haven't demanded an accounting down to the penny, I'm sure if I did, one would be available to me, and I would be satisfied by it. In fact one of the things that attracted me to this group is the fact that I like the way they handle their finances.

T-Bone, is that the same Jay Adams that wrote the book 'Competent to Counsel' in 1970?

While I would never recommend TWI to anyone in its current state and would never think it was funny to watch what happened to us happen to someone else, I still think that much of what I learned was of value at the time and still is of value today. As I have said before in other places, I received everything that I said I wanted when I signed the green card (a meaningful relationship with God, harmony in the home, etc., etc..) I agree that it eventually became a religion that was at least as legalistic as any of its predecessors.

You could argue that Joseph got himself into trouble in Genesis 37:1-36 because of his indiscretion in revealing his dreams and the interpretations of them; but after that he seems to mostly have gotten into trouble through the evil designs of others (his brothers, to a certain extent; Potiphar's wife, which was no fault of his, etc.). But the end result was to put him in the position of second-in-command of Egypt at a crucial time in history, and he only got there by his habit of trusting God; and God came through for him repeatedly in making lemonade out of what must have seemed like very bitter lemons at times.

1. We control what pops into our head by renewing our minds to the Word (Bible, for those non-TWI members) as in Romans 12:1-3. 2. The Bible exhorts us to obey and be in subjection to those that have the rule over us; but it is based on the premise that they are ministers of God to us for good (Romans 13:1-7). In Romans 13:7 we are exhorted to render to all their dues, but I question what that means in any situation where the leaders are not fulfilling their obligation to us to be the ministers of God for good. I have known many men and women who were ministers of God to me for good (mostly in the early days of TWI); and I have known some who were anything but (mostly in the latter days of TWI). The last TC & BC we had held a meeting where John and I were grilled about our children's behavior both at fellowship and at home. We were asked various questions about our son's behavior at home (did he clean up his room, put away his clothes, help with chores, etc.) and when I assured the TC & BC that he did all of these things, the two gentlemen received 'revelation' that I was lying to protect him and that he must be possessed by at least one devil spirit, directly due to what a terrible mother I was, since he had no physical problems (as far as they knew, which wasn't very far). BTW our son was only four at the time. Two days later John was called and informed that, of our family, only he and our daughter were welcome at fellowship, and if he really wanted to serve God, and save his children from me, he should take the children and divorce me, totally ignoring the fact that I was pregnant with our third child at the time. At that point his free will re-emerged and he reminded them of what the letters FO usually stand for. God has continued to work in our lives since then and has never let us down, no matter badly men have. I guess my point in sharing the previous story is that we were under no obligation to obey leaders who were not looking out for our best interests (which is their part of the obligation). BTW both our younger children were later diagnosed with a physical illness that contributed to their behavior; an inborn error of metabolism similar to PKU that causes brain damage if not caught and treated in time. I sent a copy of the diagnosis to the aforementioned TC and BC; however they didn't care. 3. Good information is always available from God, no matter how flawed our human advisors may be. I think the biggest mistake we made was to assume our leaders always had our best interests at heart until it became more than abundantly clear that their advice was far more self-seeking than altruistic.

It comes from Psalms 138:2- "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." The word 'magnify' means to make great. No, I don't believe God is limited to what is written in that I believe that He can always do more than what is written. I believe that He is limited to what is written in the sense that He cannot do less than what is written nor can He contradict what He has written.

Great post, A. Spot. It seems to bear out what Eyes Open said about the conscience being a clean slate at birth that needs to be written on. When children are very young, the parents do most of the 'writing' i.e. don't play in the street, don't touch the stove when it's hot, don't play with matches, etc., etc., etc.. When they grow older, parents lead them into more moral types of choices; don't steal, don't lie, etc., etc.. The children internalize these points of reference into their conscience and use them as a 'moral' compass, but the points of reference come from without; they are not innate or inborn. T-Bone; no sin and broken fellowship are not synonymous. Sin is sin and results in broken fellowship with God. Once again, in my life TWI's handling of the topics of sin, broken fellowship and how to obtain forgiveness for sins and restored fellowship with God were a great relief to me. I grew up in a very religious, legalistic, cold family and church. My family had very harsh rules and the church had very harsh ideas on what constituted SIN and every little deviation was considered SIN. It was a great relief to have their version of SIN reduced to sin being just a mistake for which an apology was necessary to God and sometimes to another person (when appropriate) and beyond that an attitude of learning from your mistakes was appropriate but condemnation was just more sin and resulted in just more broken fellowship with God. But it was a relief to me to learn that when I did make a mistake (and those occasions were and are more frequent than I like to admit) all I needed to do was apologise to God, learn from my mistake, and keep moving. Some of the scenarios you have described sound like people trying to rationalize their mistakes or split hairs i.e. I'm not stealing, I'm just 'borrowing indefinetly'; or keeping this money I found on the ground rather than turning it into lost and found isn't really stealing, it's just being thankful for a blessing from God, ETC., etc..

I don't know if TWI taught the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide or if I heard it somewhere else. I know that at the end TWI confused and angered the fudge out of a lot of us. Thanks for your response.

According to Young's Concordance the word for conscience (which is only translated conscience in the whole N.T.) is the word 'suneideesis', which appears to be related to the word suneisis, and is defined in Young's as a 'knowing with oneself'. Bullinger defines it as 'a knowing with oneself, consciousness; the being one's own witness; the testimony to one's own conduct borne by consciousness, especially the consciousness man has of himself in his relation to God, manifesting itself in the form of a self testimony. Consequently it is the effect and result of faith, for a man's conscience will never condemn that which he believes to be right, and vice versa: hence the only conscience worth having is that which springs from "a faith unfeigned", see 1 Timothy 1:5'. Tyndale doesn't say anything worthy of note that the others haven't already said. The word 'deesis' which appears to be one of the root words of 'suneideesis' is translated prayer or supplication. I don't know if that last bit helps to clarify things or not.

Well, to repeat, that is why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a dangerous doctrine. Let the written Word (Bible) be your guide with the addition of direct revelation from God. Neither God nor his Word changes, so they are a far more solid foundation for your feet, then your 'conscience' which, as you observed, changes as circumstances change.

Yes, in reference to your earlier post, I believe studying the Bible and receiving revelation would effect how your conscience works, since I don't agree with the person who said a person's conscience is what it is from birth and cannot be taught or learn. 1 Tim. 4:2- Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. This is a negative example of having one's conscience changed in a negative direction, but if it can be changed for the worse, I would assume it can also be changed for the better, as in iron sharpeneth iron. In reference to your question in this post, I would assume that the answer is no, it would not have been sin. Romans 5:13- For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Also Romans 7:7-11-- What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. So, is it your conclusion that the 'conscience' is in and of itself neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral depending upon what each person puts into it? Which would seem to me to bring us back to the conclusion that one's 'conscience' is simply their habit patterns and can be changed for the better by learning the Bible and direct revelation. Hebrews 5:14- But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercise to discen both good and evil. Maybe. Good point, Eyes.

They knew it was wrong to do, but only because God told them it was wrong to do; their 'conscience' (in the way I think you mean it) had nothing to do with it. If God had never told them not to eat of that tree, they would never have known it was wrong; they obviously had no innate knowledge that it was wrong or why did God have to tell them? They would have just known because their 'conscience' would have told them. That's why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a very dangerous doctrine. Let the written Bible be your guide, along with the added benefit that we as born-again believers have the ability to receive direct revelation from God if necessary.

What we were taught in TWI (which may or may not be what you want to hear) is that the spirit within that they had gave them the ability to communicate with God without God having to come into concretion, and that is what they lost by committing the original sin. They were still relying on what God had told them, which to me implies an external source. BTW, thanks for your post, JavaJane, it had a number of very good points in it. We certainly each have plenty of things to work on our own lives, and do not need to judge or condescend to anyone who doesn't agree with us.

It seems to me that by that definition a 'conscience' is not an internal or inborn or innate warning system but rather a set of moral principles that a person has, by the freedom of their will, internalized. It would seem to suggest the prohibitions and obligations of conscience are learned and come from an external source. I find myself much in agreement with the posts that JavaJane and Free Soul made. If I have come across as jumping on someone who disagrees with me, you have my apologies.

The point I was trying to make was that Adam and Eve's original ability to discern between good and evil was based on an external commandment of God's, not on an internal, inbred warning system. It doesn't seem to me that they had some internal moral compass (or conscience) but had to depend on the direction of God. I'm not so sure either that they were that much different than believers nowadays (with the possible exception of Christ within that we have). We also have to depend om the written direction of God for much of our knowledge of good and evil.

It's Brian Bliss. We left in 1994 (or were booted out), but Brian recently released a C.D. called 'Sons Of God and Electrified' that has some really great music on it. And BTW, Good Seed has re-released their music on C.D.s for those of us who remember the 70's.

Yes, but she was still relying on an external source for the recognition of what constituted good and evil. And as dmiller pointed out, Eve didn't receive instruction from God, but God told Adam, and Adam told Eve. Thanks, dmiller.

I had some very good leadership in the early days of my involvement with TWI; men and women who talked the walk and walked the talk. Unfortunately, as time went on, men and women of integrity became harder and harder to find, and the few that were there left in disgust at what TWI was turning into. But as I have said in other places, I always thought the point of the gift of holy spirit was to enable me to become more myself and to magnify the good things about my personality, not to become a VPW or anyone else clone, which I guess is the difference between respect for the Word (Bible) he taught and revering him personally. Thanks for your post. Your experience is valid also, just different than mine.

Obviously, according to Genesis, Adam and Eve had no 'conscience', no internal indicator of good and evil. At the time they were created, they knew only good. Where they blew it was because they failed to rely on the external instructions that Adam had been given by God, and Eve had been given by Adam. They had no internal 'warning system that alerts even when a threat hasn't been fully articulated'. That was the 'convincing-sounding argument' that the serpent used to deceive Eve; that by tasting the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man would become as God and know the difference between good and evil, thus probably acquiring the 'conscience' everyone keeps talking about. As far as what was written in the stars, and when God wrote it; I think it is entirely possible that God foresaw the need for a redeemer before man ever fell or was expelled from Eden, and wrote that in the stars at the time of Creation, because I believe that the way God sees time and history is entirely different than the way we human beings see it.

I think "It's Hot" was released in early to middle 1985, if my memory is correct. I vaguely recall hearing it shortly before I took the Advanced Class. We left (or were booted out) in 1994. And I sure agree with you, Rainbows Girl, a lot of the early music really still blesses my socks off no matter how accurate it may or may not be. We sing songs every Sunday morning that are not 100% accurate, and I am sure that God can manage to overlook whatever errors are there and accept the praise that is meant in everyone's heart. I am reminded of the song "Rock and Roll Heaven". Maybe that can be paraphrased to include some of the believer musicians in the 'one he!! of a band".

Yes, I believe that God wrote His Word in the stars, but it seems to me that at what point He did so is open to question. There is logical backing for both points of view IMHO, because at that point in time man had the option of not sinning, which would have made Christ's first coming unmecessary; on the other hand God probably knew that man was going to blow it, so could have foretold Christ's first coming in the stars. However ALL the themes had not been written in the stars; the mystery, which was kept secret from the beginning of time, was not written in the stars ever. Someone said that the mind of man was designed to love God and his neighbor, and I was pointing out that at the time the mind of man was designed, he had no neighbor to love (not even Eve, if you read carefully. Sorry, T-Bone).