onesimus (onesimus)
09-26-2005, 11:29 AM
Sins can be taken out from under the blood?
This doctrine is a refuge of scoundrels, akin to “don’t touch God’s anointed.”
It was ingrained into us by Don Barnett, obviously as a preemptive strike against pending exposure of his predatory ways.
Speaking of past sins - regardless of ongoing consequences - was taboo. DB blasted those who thought otherwise as evildoers, who were "taking sins out from under the blood."
Undoubtedly, this false doctrine - that sins can be taken out from under the blood - is still in vogue at COA.
It has also been promoted on CCG, with hearty amens from the peanut gallery.
"If these situations are under the blood of Jesus and are forgiven - who are we to dredge up old sin & pain? It's under the blood......leave it there!" (Joe W)
One of the “situations” Joe refers to is the Jan Cole tragedy.
Joe didn’t like it that “Wobbler” posted the following:
"Would someone please convey the stories of Kelly Scott and Jan Cole and any other similar incidents Chapel or COA?
"It’s strange that I knew Jan better than most yet I never heard the details of what happened to her and her child and why.
"I am reconsidering the whole demon deliverance thing and wish to consider some of these circumstances."
Rather than take at face value Wobbler’s assertion that he wants to reconsider deliverance, the loving saints of CCG heaped abuse upon him.
"I think it is horrible to want to dig up the 'facts' on these two issues."
This gem from “On the Sidelines .” DB’s influence is evident.
Wobbler responded:
"...By all means, anyone close to these painful events can choose to talk or not. I am not trying to exert any pressure, only inquiry."
two notes:
1.) Wobbler is just asking, and
2.) Nobody has to answer
Not to be outdone, “A Vet” waxes didactically chapelesque towards Wobbler.
"I am concerned that you not lose the understanding of the need to fight the good fight against those beings(fallen angels) that our older brother, Jesus, felt was of great need for His Body to get/and stay free from...Help us understand where your at, so that we might be able to provide you with some helpful information."
It won’t do to simply answer Wobbler’s question - or not answer it. “A Vet” KNOWS WHAT YOU REALLY NEED.
"Help us understand where your at..."
READ: Name that demon! You wouldn’t be trying to drag things out from under the blood if you didn’t have a demon!
Me thinks “A Vet” is a COA member. I also have a hunch about his identity, based on his enthusiasm for deliverance and his vocabulary.
Joe threw in an extra barb:
"Using a handle (instead of your name) and trying so intently to gather personal info. to me seems a bit suspect!"
Memo to Joe: the info is part of our history, and some find it needful to make sense of that history.
Did Peretti pull things out from under the blood (how ghoulish!) when he modeled the main character in Piercing the Darkness after Jan? I think not.
Neither was it sinful for the authors of the OT historical books to record the story of David and Bathsheeba.
Harry frets about the process of historiography, which he sees as a battle of..."voyeurism vs decency" !?!
<font size="-2">voyeurism: sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts.</font>
Likely, Harry is hyperbolizing. He probably isn’t really accusing Wobbler of being a pervator. Problem is that a little hyperbole, in tandem with all the hysteria wrought by Joe and Mr. Sidelines - tends toward hyperventilation, if I may hyperbolize.
Harry continued: "Perhaps there are loved ones who would be hurt by your need to know."
I hope the loved ones would feel free not to answer Wobbler’s query.
Wonder if it occurred to Harry that some might be hurt by his need for them <u>not</u> to know.
Finally, John’s comments:
"It is a very dicey situation to try and figure these types of situations out as a direct onlooker at the time of the incident, let alone nearly 20 years after the fact without all the information...I would say this falls into a category that should be broached very carefully, and I appreciate greatly Dave's thoughtfulness in this regard."
“dicey”? “very carefully”
C’mon. Just answer Wobbler’s query.
Or don’t.
“Dave’s thoughtfulness”?
Watching the abuse that is regularly heaped on people at CCG, and having experienced it at the hands of both Dave and John, this comment evokes deja vu...of exhortations to follow the pastor and stay in the boat....don't listen to dissidents...be afraid, be very afraid.
There are going to be more books about the Chapel experience. Maybe some of us on this forum will team up on one - who knows?.
Why don't we try to get the story straight?
P.S.
I am not personally interested in knowing more about the Jan Cole tragedy. My interest is in the reaction given to someone does want more information.
P.P.S.
The main character in Piercing the Darkness finds redemption in the end.
(Message edited by onesimus on September 26, 2005)
This doctrine is a refuge of scoundrels, akin to “don’t touch God’s anointed.”
It was ingrained into us by Don Barnett, obviously as a preemptive strike against pending exposure of his predatory ways.
Speaking of past sins - regardless of ongoing consequences - was taboo. DB blasted those who thought otherwise as evildoers, who were "taking sins out from under the blood."
Undoubtedly, this false doctrine - that sins can be taken out from under the blood - is still in vogue at COA.
It has also been promoted on CCG, with hearty amens from the peanut gallery.
"If these situations are under the blood of Jesus and are forgiven - who are we to dredge up old sin & pain? It's under the blood......leave it there!" (Joe W)
One of the “situations” Joe refers to is the Jan Cole tragedy.
Joe didn’t like it that “Wobbler” posted the following:
"Would someone please convey the stories of Kelly Scott and Jan Cole and any other similar incidents Chapel or COA?
"It’s strange that I knew Jan better than most yet I never heard the details of what happened to her and her child and why.
"I am reconsidering the whole demon deliverance thing and wish to consider some of these circumstances."
Rather than take at face value Wobbler’s assertion that he wants to reconsider deliverance, the loving saints of CCG heaped abuse upon him.
"I think it is horrible to want to dig up the 'facts' on these two issues."
This gem from “On the Sidelines .” DB’s influence is evident.
Wobbler responded:
"...By all means, anyone close to these painful events can choose to talk or not. I am not trying to exert any pressure, only inquiry."
two notes:
1.) Wobbler is just asking, and
2.) Nobody has to answer
Not to be outdone, “A Vet” waxes didactically chapelesque towards Wobbler.
"I am concerned that you not lose the understanding of the need to fight the good fight against those beings(fallen angels) that our older brother, Jesus, felt was of great need for His Body to get/and stay free from...Help us understand where your at, so that we might be able to provide you with some helpful information."
It won’t do to simply answer Wobbler’s question - or not answer it. “A Vet” KNOWS WHAT YOU REALLY NEED.
"Help us understand where your at..."
READ: Name that demon! You wouldn’t be trying to drag things out from under the blood if you didn’t have a demon!
Me thinks “A Vet” is a COA member. I also have a hunch about his identity, based on his enthusiasm for deliverance and his vocabulary.
Joe threw in an extra barb:
"Using a handle (instead of your name) and trying so intently to gather personal info. to me seems a bit suspect!"
Memo to Joe: the info is part of our history, and some find it needful to make sense of that history.
Did Peretti pull things out from under the blood (how ghoulish!) when he modeled the main character in Piercing the Darkness after Jan? I think not.
Neither was it sinful for the authors of the OT historical books to record the story of David and Bathsheeba.
Harry frets about the process of historiography, which he sees as a battle of..."voyeurism vs decency" !?!
<font size="-2">voyeurism: sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts.</font>
Likely, Harry is hyperbolizing. He probably isn’t really accusing Wobbler of being a pervator. Problem is that a little hyperbole, in tandem with all the hysteria wrought by Joe and Mr. Sidelines - tends toward hyperventilation, if I may hyperbolize.
Harry continued: "Perhaps there are loved ones who would be hurt by your need to know."
I hope the loved ones would feel free not to answer Wobbler’s query.
Wonder if it occurred to Harry that some might be hurt by his need for them <u>not</u> to know.
Finally, John’s comments:
"It is a very dicey situation to try and figure these types of situations out as a direct onlooker at the time of the incident, let alone nearly 20 years after the fact without all the information...I would say this falls into a category that should be broached very carefully, and I appreciate greatly Dave's thoughtfulness in this regard."
“dicey”? “very carefully”
C’mon. Just answer Wobbler’s query.
Or don’t.
“Dave’s thoughtfulness”?
Watching the abuse that is regularly heaped on people at CCG, and having experienced it at the hands of both Dave and John, this comment evokes deja vu...of exhortations to follow the pastor and stay in the boat....don't listen to dissidents...be afraid, be very afraid.
There are going to be more books about the Chapel experience. Maybe some of us on this forum will team up on one - who knows?.
Why don't we try to get the story straight?
P.S.
I am not personally interested in knowing more about the Jan Cole tragedy. My interest is in the reaction given to someone does want more information.
P.P.S.
The main character in Piercing the Darkness finds redemption in the end.
(Message edited by onesimus on September 26, 2005)