A glossary of "Faith Camp" terms and phrases
This is my first post on this web site. I thought that I would start with some humor with a bite to it. Tell me what you think. Hombre says that we need to have more humor in this forum and not take things so seriously, so maybe this will help lighten things up. Or maybe it will make some people mad. Whatever. If the shoe fits, wear it (how many times did we hear that?). Since every religious, political and social group has its own jargon and special vocabulary, I thought that I'd make an attempt to interpret some Faith Assembly jargon for the casual reader who might encounter some of the literature or audio teaching from that group, or possibly meet someone who still talks that way. Some of the statements might actually seem irreverent or delusional, but you have to understand the context in which they developed. Read some of my entries in my blog http://journals.aol.com/jisamazed/making-sense-of-faith-asse mbly in order to learn how it got that way. I cringe just to write it, because often the concept behind the term is legitimate (such as having faith in the blood of Jesus) but simply got turned into jargon. However, we need to laugh at ourselves sometimes, and this is an attempt at humor with a bite to it. Enjoy. "I'm healed in Jesus' name" = "I don't want to admit that I am sick or have a physical problem, so don't mention it to me, because then I might not be healed if I think that it hasn't happened yet." "I confess I don't have a cold" = I have a cold "I have prosperity" = "I'm struggling financially." "...in Jesus name" = a magic phrase that enables you to get whatever you just said. Long ago it was forgotten that it is the holy name of the personal, loving God. "THE BLOOD OF JESUS!" = "Something bad might happen, and I am warding off evil by saying it." "I confess..." = "What I want will happen if I say that it will." "Critical spirit" = Refers to anyone who expresses concern or criticism of a teaching of Hobart Freeman, or one of the teachers who agrees with him. However, does not apply to criticism of any other ministry, which means that you can rail on all the men of God who have some error (all of them) and write off their entire ministry. Hobart could dish it out, but he could not take it. "Believing for..." = I hope that I will be (fill in the blank)-- healed, prosperous, married, thin, etc... "The negative..." = any reference to the person being sick, poor, overweight, unmarried or any other state contrary to 'what they are believing for'. Could also apply to someone expressing their disagreement with Hobart Freeman or the teacher of the local assembly. "Go to the arm of the flesh" = "Go to doctors" "See it in the Word for yourself" = "See it in the Word for yourself. However, if you don't see it in the word, or if what HF teaches is just plain error, don't tell anyone or say anything because then you would have a critical spirit." "This teaching is the Word!" = "I don't really know the Word well enough to tell if the teaching lines up with it, but Hobart Freeman taught it and I am afraid to go against it lest the ground open up and swallow me." "Total faith" = "We don't go to doctors even when they can help, we don't have any kind of insurance, we don't take out mortgages and we don't budget our money for the future." Alternative popular meaning = "Be passive about everything." "Denominations" = All churches or organizations of churches that are not charismatic. Pentecostals and Independent Baptists are included in "denominational". If you imply that Faith Assembly and its satellite churches were a denomination of sorts, see "critical spirit" above. "Oh, for the good old days!" = "I don't handle change very well." "Preaching a strong word" = being obnoxious or condemning from the pulpit, taking scripture to an extreme far beyond what the Lord ever meant for it "Listen to the tape" = "I don't know the word very well on this matter." "Prophesy" = "Yea, sayeth the Lord, yea, behold, I have called you, and yea, the Lord sayeth, yea, I have created you, and yea, sayeth the Lord yea, you shall never fail, and sayeth the Lord, yea, you are my chosen, sayeth the Lord." Must always be spoken to the entire church after a couple of songs, never to be done in a small group or individually, even if there are witnesses. "Not for today" = ALL denominations believe the gifts are not for today. They are all bad because they don't believe healing is for today. However, "James 5:15 isn't for today, not for Faith Assembly." (an exact quote from HF) "Cope for yourself" = "Don't bug me with your requests for healing. I don't care how needy you are or how much pain you are in. You are weak if you don't just claim it and confess it on your own without any help from anyone else." "Spirit of _______________" = anything that we don't understand or perceive as a fault in someone else. A demonic force that makes them that way. You can put in the blank anything that you don't like about a person-- "intellectualism", "criticism", "fear", "medical science", "denomination", "religion", "vitamins", "Nike shoes", etc... "Going to a fellowship" = "going to a party" "They need deliverance" = "There is something I don't like about that person." "Legalism" = any rules that the FA group doesn't have such as forbidding to eat certain foods, Pentecostals forbidding women to cut hair or Mennonites forbidding people to eat ice cream. Does not apply to any of the unspoken or spoken rules advanced by some FA teachers, such as 'TV is always wrong', 'women should never wear slacks', 'adults should not wear jeans' because they are childish and 'the teacher can never worship the Lord with the congregation during church. He should be in the study praying.' "Principles" = rules. We don't have rules in this church, just principles. They really are rules, sometimes very odd rules, but we don't want to be denominational so we call them principles instead. However, if you violate them your level of commitment to the Lord will be called into question. "Pray for his salvation" = "He criticized Hobart Freeman." "He left the Word" = "He stopped teaching the Word the way Hobart Freeman taught it, so he must be backslidden" "I'm an overcomer" = "I really hurt inside, I'm depressed, I battle doubt, I would like an encouraging word but I don't want anyone to think that I'm wavering so I won't show it. See the joy on my face?" If anyone has any other ideas for entries into this dictionary, send me an e-mail or include it in a comment on this blog.
Re: A glossary of "Faith Camp" terms and phrases
Ouch! That hurt! I'd attempt a rejoinder but it would be like bailing the ocean out with a spoon. I'm just going to die to it. (Although I will say that you may need deliverance... do you have any rebels in your ancestral history?) William P.S. <grin>
Laughing at ourselves is a good thing! We sure had the "talk" downpat, now how about the "walk"?
Yep, we certainly had the talk! But really, if you think about it, most of us were there because we wanted to go all the way with Jesus... we were tired of the hypocritical expression of Christianity and did not want anything to do with the powerless, ineffectual, model that most of us grew up with. Who could have foreseen that our sincerity would have produced such caricatures? But we should all know that it is possible to be sincere, and wrong... (Sincerely wrong.) Blessings, William
That is exactly why we (my husband and I) were there, and God blessed us in a big way for being hungry for more of Him! No regrets on this end, we have 9 great kids, 14 grandkids and 1 on the way, and we have an awesome God that still loves us and is still hanging on to us!
Lest anyone misunderstand--- I should have said sincerily wrong in some of our thinking... the seed of the word that was planted is still bearing good fruit in our lives. Blessings, William
I had to laugh at some of that. William said "But really, if you think about it, most of us were there because we wanted to go all the way with Jesus... we were tired of the hypocritical expression of Christianity and did not want anything to do with the powerless, ineffectual, model that most of us grew up with." I don't know how anyone could say it better than that. Over on factnet a while ago Hombre said (not an exact quote here) We saw something deeper there and it took ahold of us and we just can't let go of it. Those two statements say it all for me. I don't care how many mistakes we/I made. I don't care if everything wasn't perfect. I don't care if Bro Freeman did make some mistakes. I just saw/heard something there that reached into my soul and set me free along with a call to follow Jesus no matter what. Thank God for overcomersonline. This place can be very encouraging
I agree with Hardbones. Everything wasn't perfect (if there are people involved, is isn't going to be perfect), but we came away with a love for Jesus, and a desire to please him. How grateful we are to all of the men who ministered to us during our years there, because of them and their faithfulness to God, we are still standing!
terri wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 21:54 I agree with Hardbones. Everything wasn't perfect (if there are people involved, is isn't going to be perfect), but we came away with a love for Jesus, and a desire to please him. How grateful we are to all of the men who ministered to us during our years there, because of them and their faithfulness to God, we are still standing! AMEN!
Terri, my experience with the Faith Assembly group of churches was relatively positive, too, compared with that of some other people I know. I try to chew the meat and spit out the bones. Although I agree with your statement, at the same time I grieve the fact that Hobart Freeman did not seem to give other people the same grace. If we judge other churches with same standard that you have judged Faith Assembly, then we will no longer condemn them as "dead denominations", but rather as brothers and sisters who love Jesus wholeheartedly in spite of their shortcomings. If we allow ourselves to make mistakes, we should allow others to do so as well. The purpose of my post is not to condemn anyone or write off Hobart Freeman as a deceiver (which is hard not to do sometimes), but rather to give ourselves perspective on the matter.
jisamazed wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:30 Terri, my experience with the Faith Assembly group of churches was relatively positive, too, compared with that of some other people I know. I try to chew the meat and spit out the bones. Although I agree with your statement, at the same time I grieve the fact that Hobart Freeman did not seem to give other people the same grace. If we judge other churches with same standard that you have judged Faith Assembly, then we will no longer condemn them as "dead denominations", but rather as brothers and sisters who love Jesus wholeheartedly in spite of their shortcomings. If we allow ourselves to make mistakes, we should allow others to do so as well. The purpose of my post is not to condemn anyone or write off Hobart Freeman as a deceiver (which is hard not to do sometimes), but rather to give ourselves perspective on the matter. HEF a deciever? You've already swallowed your share of bones. Hopefully it won't be fatal to you or yours.
DeWayne your glossary was intersting to read. Terminology that I recall hearing again and again 26 years ago. It brought back some memories. I can laugh now but for many years those words saddened and greived me greatly. To some extent it still does. I have noticed that it doesn't matter what teacher you listen to or what group you join your self to there is some sort of distinguishable marker that identifies them as being of this church or that church, or this teaching or that teaching. Has anyone else noticed? I've listened to a few different teachers and visited a few churches and it's interesting to hear that many just repeat what they've heard. Their terminology and phrasology is the same. There is nothing wrong with that but what I am saying is that, we should all be careful how we sound when we confess and teach about our faith and walk with Jesus. When I read Stephen giving his account of old testament history before he was stoned to death in Acts 7 I don't read him using any of the terminology that was listed in DeWaynes table. Stephen just told it the way it was. To testify like that is what I'm working for but not the stoning just yet cause I don't think I'm ready for that. Christians should be distinguable by the identifying marks of Jesus in their lives and I believe they are the fruit of the spirit. We shouldn't be distiguishable by our jarjon or terminology but by our love, joy, peace, meekness, kindness, faith, gentleness, temperance against such there is no law (Gal 5:22-23.
Greetings all! First I would like to say how very grateful I am to the ministry and example Brother Freeman and Sister Freeman was to me. After Brother Freeman died I had the opportunity to go to lunch with Sister Freeman and a couple other sisters in the Lord, and what a Christlike woman she was! It was interesting to hear her talk about her husband and how much he loved the church and the Lord. I was blessed to have had the opportunity to hear all the wonderful messages that came out of Faith Assembly and get to know some very Godly, Christlike people who to this day still have a very close walk with the Lord. As far as the glossary of "Faith Camp" terms I couldn't disagree more with the writer. Maybe in his mind these were the things he was believing/not believing when and if he ever spoke any of these things, but there are those of us who made confessions of faith, if I am allowed to use that terminology without being accused of just quoting Brother Freeman, and actually had faith in the Word of God(not just because it was preached from the pulpit.) The way this person writes his glossary, he is accusing those of us who happen to believe in confessing the Word and what we are believing God for as being liars and deceptive. No reason to go into details on specifics at this point, all one has to do is read the error of what was said. If I confess I am healed in Jesus name, then it is because I am basing my confession on God's word for me. If someone wants to go to a doctor that is between them and the Lord. So much could be said, but I think this is good for now. Have a great day everyone!
Hi Sue. C'mon now. Surely you had conversations with people who talked that way. Some still do, based on some of the posts on this forum. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Sometimes it is helpful for us to laugh at ourselves. I never completely bought into the idea of saying "I don't have a cold" when I do have a cold. I don't see that kind of denial in the Bible. Faith acknowledges reality for what it is, and then looks to the Lord for a resolution. Away with the weird confession thing. Talk in everyday language. People all over the world are suffering greatly for the name of Jesus, and they don't have time for that silliness. It's easy to come up with self-absorbed confession doctrines when there is no threat to your life every day. You need to ask yourself why you are so defensive about Hobart Freeman. I remember those days when I was so intent on defending him when others would point out his errors or extremes. I finally woke up to the idolatry involved. It takes some self-honesty and a willingness to admit that he was wrong and that his teaching became toxic due to isolation, fear and pride. This glossary of terms reflects that toxicity, where people would use terms and words completely differently from the way they were used in everyday life, and became quite religious. All of us know some people who talked that way to one degree or another. I was guilty of a few of these entries myself. I can laugh at it now. I wish that you could.
DeWayne said, "HEF a deciever? You've already swallowed your share of bones. Hopefully it won't be fatal to you or yours." DeWayne, I never said that he was a deceiver, only that it is hard not to resort to referring to him that way. I would say that he was just short of being a deceiver. He certainly was deceptive sometimes, especially later in his life. He was also deceived about some things. I expect that in eternity both he and I will be in the same multitude of millions and millions of people who worship the Lord. In the eternal state, eventually all of this nonsense will be forgotten. In the meantime we try to thrash out what was true and what was not. It has taken some time for me to spit out the bones from his teaching while being careful not to spit out the meat. Have you spit out any bones from his teaching, or do you believe that he never taught any error or had any extremes in his ministry?
I find no humor in this thread. It belittles many things that I believe are true. It belittles a man whom I respected. No one who lived it took it as a joke..........and what's funny about it now rather escapes me.
Barn kid said, "I find no humor in this thread. It belittles many things that I believe are true. It belittles a man whom I respected. No one who lived it took it as a joke..........and what's funny about it now rather escapes me." Barn kid, you seem to be at a different place in your perspective than some others of us. After many years of having repudiated the ministry of Hobart Freeman and having no contact with any associated person, I have developed a clearer perspective than I used to have. I used to feel a lot of anger when I thought of the experience and had to struggle to forgive him for the bondage he put on people. I've worked through it. Now I can laugh at our extremes and the goofy things we did back then. I can affirm the truth that was preached and refute the errors and dangers without second-guessing myself. For me, it is liberating to be able to write a biting entry such as this. There was a time when there was a lot of fear of saying anything negative about Faith Assembly or Hobart Freeman, and I felt it. I no longer am afraid to do so. I admit that this "glossary" is sometimes caustic, and I knew that it might make some people mad. I think that it needed to be written, anyway. I do try to follow the leading of the Lord in the things that I write. I know that I am human and might miss it some times.
I find it interesting how that when some leave the strong meat of the Word (Heb 5:14) for a tainted gospel or they leave the narrow way for the broad way (Matt 7:14) the term "liberated" is used. I have heard on more than one occasion, an atheist, when talking about how they came to settle on the belief that there is no God, speak of how "liberating" it was to be free from the "rules and regulations" of a "suppressive Being". Many individuals who once walked in the light of the Word that they received from the ministry of Faith Assembly now use terms like "legalism" and "bondage" to describe their experience. They have been "liberated" from the "bondage" of "no TV and Hollywood entertainment" and now they can't take their eyes off of it and all of it's corruption. I know from personal experience that God's presence and anointing mix with worldly entertainment like water and oil or clay and iron. (1 Cor 10:21) They have been "liberated" from the teachings that America's holiday's are saturated with occult, pagan practices and beliefs. Now they are "free" to welcome Tammuz, Baal, Horus, Osiris, Mithra and other pagan deities into their home. (Jer 10) They have been "liberated" from the teachings that emphasize confessing sin and staying clean before the Lord so that we can look to Him for the healing and health of our bodies which He purchased with His blood. (James 5:14-16) Now they can be "free" to be on all kinds of medication (poisons that our bodies reject every time, you know, "side effects") and the financial bondage of expensive medical bills. They have been "liberated" from the teaching that we are to assemble when the church assembles and edify the body with the gift that God has given by His grace.(1 Cor 12-14) Now they can go to any church they want, when they want, and get "lost in the crowd" of a mega, "seeker sensitive church". I know of several that were a blessing to the body of Christ but now they attend churches that will not allow the gift to be used by the Holy Spirit according to the NT pattern. (1 Thess 5:19-21) They have been "liberated" from the bondage of trusting Jesus for everything and in everything.(Heb 11:6) Instead of learning how to have simple child like faith in Him and rejoicing in His faithfulness these individuals are free now to lean on the "Syrians"(2 Chron 16:7-10) God is looking for pure faith in these last days. Are we allowing Him to remove all impurities of doubt? They have been "liberated" from the "bondage" of the teaching concerning divine order in the home as well as the church. Because of this new "liberation" many have had there homes destroyed by divorce as the wives are now "wearing the pants in the family" and some are sitting under ministries with women ordained as pastors and teachers. Yes, they have been "liberated" from 1 Cor 11 & 1 Tim 2. They have been "liberated" from God's instruction concerning not being unequally yoked and keeping yourself pure by not participating in the "dating game". The result... several families have children having children out of wedlock! This has brought reproach upon the fathers house, the church and most importantly, the name and gospel of Jesus Christ. (2 Tim 2:22) I was first introduced to the teachings of Faith Assembly back in the late 70s. I was a pre-teen then and I am now almost 40. I am thankful that by God's grace I still have a hunger for the old paths teachings. I haven't walked in total faithfulness and obedience like I should have yet God's hand is still on my life. We will give an account for all the biblically based teachings that we have heard over the years and what others have said and done that was contrary to sound doctrine will not mean a thing to us on that day! I accept totally the account of Bruce Kinsey when he said the devil visited him in that farm house and asked him to destroy the ministry of Hobart Freeman. Bruce had to sleep with the light on for a while after that experience. It was real! I can separate the message from the messenger. Bro. Freeman was an anointed vessel not to be put on a "pedestal" but to be respected for the calling and anointing that was on him. Why would Satan want his ministry destroyed? Was it so we all could be "liberated"?
Quote: I find it interesting how that when some leave the strong meat of the Word (Heb 5:14) for a tainted gospel or they leave the narrow way for the broad way (Matt 7:14) the term "liberated" is used. I have heard on more than one occasion, an atheist, when talking about how they came to settle on the belief that there is no God, speak of how "liberating" it was to be free from the "rules and regulations" of a "suppressive Being". Many individuals who once walked in the light of the Word that they received from the ministry of Faith Assembly now use terms like "legalism" and "bondage" to describe their experience. The problem with your analogy is that it labels any and all who use those terms with the same broad brush of your rather limited viewpoint. Not that I haven't heard the same sort of comments myself, I have, but not all who use those terms are by association, apostates from the truth, which is what you imply by your note. Paul often uses the same terms: Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. This case would be a good parallel to your analogies in that it too is dealing with strongly held religious issues (from the Word of God) that Paul and his companion had been liberated and set free from. No one would accuse Paul of apostasy from the Truth, although he was an apostate from the bondage of his former "religion". Comprende? William
Paul's "strongly held religious views from the Word of God" that he was liberated from are not the same views that individuals are claiming to be liberated from today. Paul was free from the bondage of the OT law as a means to be saved. Though some may take NT principles and make them a type of "law" that doesn't make these NT biblical principles void or irrelevant. To label the faith movement as a whole a movement of legalism and bondage is a "cop out". It is because we are saved that we now have a responsibility to obey our Heavenly Father as he gives us light in certain areas. Christians are citizens of God's holy kingdom and because of that we have a different standard of conduct than those in the world. This is not legalism and bondage it is freedom from the condemnation of this world. We must count the cost. If our saving faith is genuine we will bear fruits of righteousness and thereby glorify God who called us and saved us by grace. When we reject the light of God's Word we have nothing else to turn to except darkness. This is what I have seen with too many saints over the last 20 years. The "religious views" that many have "hang ups" with today do not come from the book of Leviticus. They come from the NT books, many of which were written by the Apostle Paul.
indy8 wrote on Sat, 26 April 2008 18:51 Paul's "strongly held religious views from the Word of God" that he was liberated from are not the same views that individuals are claiming to be liberated from today. Paul was free from the bondage of the OT law as a means to be saved. Though some may take NT principles and make them a type of "law" that doesn't make these NT biblical principles void or irrelevant. To label the faith movement as a whole a movement of legalism and bondage is a "cop out". What I'm pointing out is that not all who use terminology that reflects our liberty in Christ and our freedom from bondage fit the category you earlier described. I see now that you are referring to those who "label the faith movement as a whole a movement of legalism and bondage". Punch that group as much as the Lord will let you. Quote: It is because we are saved that we now have a responsibility to obey our Heavenly Father as he gives us light in certain areas. Christians are citizens of God's holy kingdom and because of that we have a different standard of conduct than those in the world. This is not legalism and bondage it is freedom from the condemnation of this world. We must count the cost. If our saving faith is genuine we will bear fruits of righteousness and thereby glorify God who called us and saved us by grace. So far, so good, I agree, amen. Quote: When we reject the light of God's Word we have nothing else to turn to except darkness. This is what I have seen with too many saints over the last 20 years. The "religious views" that many have "hang ups" with today do not come from the book of Leviticus. They come from the NT books, many of which were written by the Apostle Paul. This is true, unless you are talking about prohibiting women from wearing pants... (which, btw, is totally acceptable as long as you are speaking metaphorically) …that "law" came directly from Deuteronomy (not Leviticus but close) and somehow didn't find its way into the New Testament's Five Gentile Commandments: 1-Love God with your whole heart 2-Love your neighbor as yourself 3-Abstain from pollutions of idols 4-Abstain from fornication 5-Abstain from things strangled and from blood. Of course Paul was a little fuzzy on 3, and 5, but hey, so am I, so put me in his camp. Blessings, William
Okay, it looks like I'm going to need to clarify by dealing with the specific things you mention... indy8 wrote on Sat, 26 April 2008 01:56 I find it interesting how that when some leave the strong meat of the Word (Heb 5:14) for a tainted gospel or they leave the narrow way for the broad way (Matt 7:14) the term "liberated" is used. I have heard on more than one occasion, an atheist, when talking about how they came to settle on the belief that there is no God, speak of how "liberating" it was to be free from the "rules and regulations" of a "suppressive Being". Many individuals who once walked in the light of the Word that they received from the ministry of Faith Assembly now use terms like "legalism" and "bondage" to describe their experience. I'm not going to deal with the atheist argument since it is anecdotal (you've only heard this twice if I understand you), and besides, we aren't talking about atheists, but as you say, former FA'ers... and I've already objected to your blanket condemnation toward anyone who might use the terms legalism, bondage, and liberty, anyway. Quote: They have been "liberated" from the "bondage" of "no TV and Hollywood entertainment" and now they can't take their eyes off of it and all of it's corruption. I know from personal experience that God's presence and anointing mix with worldly entertainment like water and oil or clay and iron. (1 Cor 10:21) First off we need to determine whether or not you really want to defend this type of argument? Since you closely associate valid scriptural arguments (later in your note) with an example (TV or no TV) that will be tough to defend scripturally... I'm going to assume that you know what you are doing, and based upon that assumption, I'm going to let you defend the other things that were taught that had dubious scriptural support. 1--TV (Worldly) I'll help you here with the verse that was given: Ps 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes... but I'll need you to prove that TV is in all respects, evil, and that anyone who watches TV should be condemned with the broad stroke of your judgment. 2--Tennis shoes with stripes (Don't wear them because you look like the world--specifically like the homose*ual.) Do any of your shoes fit this definition, if not, I praise you for your consistency! 3--Painter's pants (Same as above.) 4--Dancing (Worldly) Worldliness is a pretty broad umbrella, so if you could please give us a scriptural definition that we could apply to these externals it will go far in helping all of us understand each other. For instance, is it worldly just because the world does it? Or wears it? 5—The prohibition against women wearing pants (mentioned later in your note). Don’t just quote Deuteronomy here, because there is a lot in that chapter that I’m going to ask you to explain, like building houses without “battlements”, not wearing wool and linen together (especially relevant given the Indiana climate), wearing fringes on the four corners of your garment, various things dealing with the tokens of virginity and the command to stone the person if certain requirements aren’t met. That is just the chapter context; the broader context must be kept as well, if you are going to insist on keeping this one. (James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.) Quote: They have been "liberated" from the teachings that America's holiday's are saturated with occult, pagan practices and beliefs. Now they are "free" to welcome Tammuz, Baal, Horus, Osiris, Mithra and other pagan deities into their home. (Jer 10) Love the way you phrased this, but I’m not going to defend holidays, unless you start messing with my birthday cake (no candles,btw--<grin>). Quote: They have been "liberated" from the teachings that emphasize confessing sin and staying clean before the Lord so that we can look to Him for the healing and health of our bodies which He purchased with His blood. (James 5:14-16) Now they can be "free" to be on all kinds of medication (poisons that our bodies reject every time, you know, "side effects") and the financial bondage of expensive medical bills. Again, your phraseology precludes me from making much of a comment here, especially since I haven’t taken a drug since 1976, with the exception of pipe tobacco and caffeine. PLEASE NOTE: I’m not looking for any merit here, unless you are going to de-merit me for the tobacco and caffeine, in which case I’ll have to plead that I had permission from HEF for these. One by implication—he drank coffee (he liked his hot and June liked it cold), and the other was explicit permission-- quote: “if you want to smell like a pig pen, go ahead…” which brings me to a clear disagreement with Hobart, a good pipe tobacco is sublime in both taste and smell, and he was flat wrong in equating that with an Indiana hog pen. Having said that, if you can persuade me from scripture that I’m wrong here, go ahead, I’m listening. (And please, not the one about defiling the temple again… even God likes the smell of smoke now and again.) Quote: They have been "liberated" from the teaching that we are to assemble when the church assembles and edify the body with the gift that God has given by His grace.(1 Cor 12-14) Now they can go to any church they want, when they want, and get "lost in the crowd" of a mega, "seeker sensitive church". I know of several that were a blessing to the body of Christ but now they attend churches that will not allow the gift to be used by the Holy Spirit according to the NT pattern. (1 Thess 5:19-21) I’m going to ignore the gratuitous stuff in this quote and ask you to please explain how it is that we are to go about choosing an assembly? Do we choose based upon where we live? (Since where we live is usually based on where we work, is our place of worship secondary to where we work?) Do you make any exception for leaving a particular body? (Scripture please.) Is the best choice for us, the choice that has the least amount of scripture conflict? (Should we all move back to Faith Assembly—since we already know that they have the least amount of scripture conflict, right? –btw, were you ever a part of FA, or was it just Jim Oswalt’s meeting that you attended? Which reminds me of another question… WHAT IF THE CHURCH FOLDS UP AND LEAVES US??? Or the preached Word turns sour??? Is there a scriptural basis for staying forever in a particular assembly? I’d better move on or I’m not going to get any sleep tonight… Quote: They have been "liberated" from the bondage of trusting Jesus for everything and in everything.(Heb 11:6) Instead of learning how to have simple child like faith in Him and rejoicing in His faithfulness these individuals are free now to lean on the "Syrians"(2 Chron 16:7-10) God is looking for pure faith in these last days. Are we allowing Him to remove all impurities of doubt? Good point… assuming that they actually were at a place that taught the unadulterated (i.e. free from unscriptural petty side issues) Word of God. Let’s face it, some people are going to always need something to lean on… they will lean on the Syrians, or maybe God—if they are taught… where is that place that is teaching this kind of stuff without error, and without legalism, and without man-made traditions? If it isn’t being taught, it probably won’t be learned (few exceptions.) Your question: “Are we allowing Him to remove all impurities of doubt?” Yes, that is my prayer, and I would venture to say the prayer of most of those who frequent the board. Don’t assume we are all apostate from the truth just because you disagree with a few points. Speaking of leaning on things, I’ll throw this is to muddle the water a bit! Quote: 2Kings5: 17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules’ burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD. In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing. And he said unto him, Go in peace. I hope it isn’t too much of a stretch to say that this may be a good example of a liberated man! Quote: They have been "liberated" from the "bondage" of the teaching concerning divine order in the home as well as the church. Because of this new "liberation" many have had there homes destroyed by divorce as the wives are now "wearing the pants in the family" and some are sitting under ministries with women ordained as pastors and teachers. Yes, they have been "liberated" from 1 Cor 11 & 1 Tim 2. My take on these issues can be found in the Bible Issues section in a couple of different topics with headers that contain something along the lines of ”Divorce and remarriage”, and the other one I believe is “Women in Ministry” (earlier I outlined my views on the headcovering). If you disagree with my conclusions, respond there… if you don’t mind. For those who don’t want to take the time, let me at least say that I *do* believe in divine order, both in the home and Church. I oppose divorce, but recognize it as a problem that must be dealt with, both within and without the Church. Quote: They have been "liberated" from God's instruction concerning not being unequally yoked and keeping yourself pure by not participating in the "dating game". The result... several families have children having children out of wedlock! This has brought reproach upon the fathers house, the church and most importantly, the name and gospel of Jesus Christ. (2 Tim 2:22) Yep, common ground here… however I do believe that it is a mistake to ignore this problem by judging an after-the-fact pregnancy. If there is one place where we can apply the “judge not” passage without reservation, it is here. No matter the reproach, our response should be to reach out and help without judgment. Quote: We will give an account for all the biblically based teachings that we have heard over the years and what others have said and done that was contrary to sound doctrine will not mean a thing to us on that day! I can totally agree with that, and I’m sure you can totally agree with this passage: James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? Blessings, William
Indy8 said, "I find it interesting how that when some leave the strong meat of the Word (Heb 5:14) for a tainted gospel or they leave the narrow way for the broad way (Matt 7:14) the term "liberated" is used. I have heard on more than one occasion, an atheist, when talking about how they came to settle on the belief that there is no God, speak of how "liberating" it was to be free from the "rules and regulations" of a "suppressive Being". Many individuals who once walked in the light of the Word that they received from the ministry of Faith Assembly now use terms like "legalism" and "bondage" to describe their experience." I find it interesting that you seem to assume that I am somehow leaving the Word of God or want to follow a broad way. You have no idea how I live my life. I have not stooped to getting into that because my convictions and actions are not the issue here. Strong meat is much greater than HEF's teaching or that of any other person. As Christians we are liberated from the power and guilt of sin, and we are not to use our liberty as an occasion to the flesh. I love what Galatians 5 says (we used to sing it): "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of bondage... you, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love." Loving one another is the focus. Using our liberty (or not using it) for selfish means is not Christlike. We are to use it as a way to love one another. We love God and each other. Everything else follows those two greatest commandments. Hobart Freeman's teaching was liberating in some ways (especially in his early ministry), but brought us under a heavy yoke of bondage in others. I don't buy that it was just misinterpreted. Sometimes it was, but sometimes he put people under a yoke of bondage himself. I won't go into all the things he said here because I have already pointed them out elsewhere. I refuse to be bound by any man's opinion that gets mixed with the Word of God. It has been indeed liberating to state HEF's errors for what they were and not dance around them out of fear that I was somehow opposing the Lord's anointed. Anyone who has struggled with that in the past knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Hi, everyone. I am not as logical as some of you are, but I just read through the thread and had some thoughts here. Regarding the following, the first a quote by indy8, and the response following: Quote: They have been "liberated" from the "bondage" of "no TV and Hollywood entertainment" and now they can't take their eyes off of it and all of it's corruption. I know from personal experience that God's presence and anointing mix with worldly entertainment like water and oil or clay and iron. (1 Cor 10:21) Response: First off we need to determine whether or not you really want to defend this type of argument? 1--TV (Worldly) I'll help you here with the verse that was given: Ps 101:3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes... but I'll need you to prove that TV is in all respects, evil, and that anyone who watches TV should be condemned with the broad stroke of your judgment. Being a person of "grays" instead of "black and white" (sorry, guys, God made me that way), as the response above suggested, I can't look at things like whether a person watches TV at all after FA as something that tells me where they stand with God. Using TV as just one example, two people can watch TV for different reasons (as well as watch different programs); however the Bible says whatever we do has to be done in faith or it is sin. I will grant that as soon as you let the possibility of media into your life (and to some extent I have), Ps 101:3 comes into play, and so does the statement, "God's presence and anointing mix with worldly entertainment like water and oil or clay and iron." There is real truth here, both in the scripture and the statement, and if I am going to be in obedience to God, I am going to have to be very vigilant to guard the anointing! I will even go so far as to say if it dampens the anointing, well, that has to be my first priority. But I don't believe all TV will always dampen the anointing for all people. We are not little children who should have to have these things legislated. Those who know about the anointing know how it works for them. They need to make decisions based on what works for them, and I need to guard against my tendency to automatically judge the situation. What do I have a right to judge? Whether I sense the anointing (that's called discernment), but not another's motive and heart (unless God reveals it with a supernatural gift). I am sister, not Father or judge. I don't want to have the "caught you in the act mentality," because that hinders my relationship with you. If you're smart (and I know you are) you won't want to "get real" anywhere near me if I think and come off that way. But having said that, there is one more issue I just want to touch on. When we all left Faith Assembly, we did so for various reasons, and I can't presume to know why anyone else left unless he/she tells me. But God cares why we left. We have to make a decision in our hearts concerning the message we were taught, and to do that we have to separate the message from any painful experiences we had. Then and only then will we have any chance to decide if it was from man or God. If it caused conflict because of life-experiences that came crashing in (it did for me), it is understandable if we were angry and confused. It is okay to have left to sort things out. But from what I've observed over the years, it is of the utmost importance for the health of our spiritual walk, our relationship with God, if we allowed ourselves to let anger or confusion turn us toward rebellion, that we repent. Rebellion is poison. Maybe I said, "Now that I'm no longer there, I don't have to...," you fill in the blank. The only way I know to get around that is to say, "Father, I'm sorry. I don't want to live my life that way--in reaction to what I experienced. What do You want for me? How do You want me to walk here? What do You want me to do with what I learned? I don't want to walk in bondage, but neither do I want to fall into the trap of thinking I have to prove I'm free and take all my freedoms. Lord. I want You to show me Your way for my life. I want to be guided by Your Spirit. Thank You for hearing and answering, in the mighty name of Jesus." I want to end with a thank you to all of you who are making me think and encouraging me to verbalize just by your participating here...it's part of my process...and I owe You a great big thank you, Lord for bringing me to the point where I can begin to do this. Up till recently, friends, I have been able to deal with some aspects of things, but this is like scratching an itch I couldn't get to. By God's grace I want to deal with every hindrance to going on in my relationship to Him! God bless you all...
Quote: I will grant that as soon as you let the possibility of media into your life (and to some extent I have), Ps 101:3 comes into play, and so does the statement, "God's presence and anointing mix with worldly entertainment like water and oil or clay and iron." There is real truth here, both in the scripture and the statement, and if I am going to be in obedience to God, I am going to have to be very vigilant to guard the anointing! I will even go so far as to say if it dampens the anointing, well, that has to be my first priority. But I don't believe all TV will always dampen the anointing for all people. We are not little children who should have to have these things legislated. Those who know about the anointing know how it works for them. They need to make decisions based on what works for them, and I need to guard against my tendency to automatically judge the situation. Thanks for highlighting Indy's main focus when making this point... in my haste to defend Hombre's 100-channel-mecca-of-quality-programming (ahem, cough), I totally missed the truth of his statement, which is the truth that garbage and the anointing do not mix! Blessings, William
OK, couldn't stop laughing...and began to feel saddened at all of those same words that came out of my mouth. I thought of a few others "Touch not God's annointed" meaning whatever the pastor said or did was not to be criticized or questioned. However, that only applied to those who were FA or *sister church* teachers. "I know people who left this assembly and 6 weeks later they were 6 feet under" making even the thought THINKING of leaving that assembly out of the question. "You didn't hire me, you can't fire me." said whenever pastor might have been stepping on some toes. (I DID fire him when I stopped allowing him to be my pastor.) And all of this made me think of all the things we "weren't allowed" to do or say..... Pregnant is only for animals and unmarried people; say the woman is "with child." We couldn't use coupons because if we were so "prosperous" why would we need a .25 coupon??? Women should never pump their own gas. Which TODAY, would be a serious problem since I don't think there is a full service gas station in existence. Women should never use boxed mixes...everything should be made from scratch. (I guess we weren't too virtuous if we opened up Betty Crocker and mixed it with eggs?) No amusement parks or anything else "fun" like that because what would happen if Jesus returned while you were on the rollercoaster. No pierced earrings and definitely NO nose rings....something about slavery and just plain, "unholy" to have a nose ring...makes me wonder if the Egyptians gave the Hebrews clip on earrings when they left Egypt and what Rebekah thought when Eleazer was looking for a wife for Isaac and he put a nose ring in Rebecca's nose (duh, where else would you put a nose ring?) No Nike (or was it Addias?) tennis shoes/sneakers. All television was bad, but some movies were ok on video, only of course, because going to the movie theaters would be like walking into a bar, or even a restaurant with a bar.... OK, brain now fried (am I being negative, again?) Oh, I think we were even at one time told "how" to raise our hands to the LORD. sigh shalom, m
jisamazed wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 20:37 DeWayne said, "HEF a deciever? You've already swallowed your share of bones. Hopefully it won't be fatal to you or yours." DeWayne, I never said that he was a deceiver, only that it is hard not to resort to referring to him that way. I would say that he was just short of being a deceiver. He certainly was deceptive sometimes, especially later in his life. He was also deceived about some things. I expect that in eternity both he and I will be in the same multitude of millions and millions of people who worship the Lord. In the eternal state, eventually all of this nonsense will be forgotten. In the meantime we try to thrash out what was true and what was not. It has taken some time for me to spit out the bones from his teaching while being careful not to spit out the meat. Have you spit out any bones from his teaching, or do you believe that he never taught any error or had any extremes in his ministry? It's plain that you are severely deceived. You don't think much of God's Word either. Have you ever read Mk 11:23? I don't know if you're in the dead church, but the dead church is in you. DeWayne
[SIZE=2]Greetings M. OK, couldn't stop laughing...and began to feel saddened at all of those same words that came out of my mouth. First I mean no disrespect to you or anyone, but I want to disagree with you on some things you wrote. To be honest it saddens me also for words that come out of peoples mouths(or posts) because of the mocking way that what I and others still hold to is being condemned. We confess what we believe not because Brother Freeman said it, but because we saw/see it in the Word of God. If this is wrong then so be it. I believe that some of this is happening because of the hatred for Faith Assembly and Brother Freeman. When people were going to Faith Assembly and getting answers to prayer it was wonderful, but then things happened. Too bad people that leave Faith Assembly have to be so mocking and condescending. I thought of a few others "Touch not God's annointed" meaning whatever the pastor said or did was not to be criticized or questioned. However, that only applied to those who were FA or *sister church* teachers. Actually it is wise not to criticize God's anointed, and it is a very common phrase many ministries say, just check the false apostolic/prophetic movement of today and you will hear it constantly. "I know people who left this assembly and 6 weeks later they were 6 feet under" making even the thought THINKING of leaving that assembly out of the question. Could be true, as it could be true when someone slanders and criticizes any man of God. God looks on the heart and contrary to what many people might think, God does still judge. That is why it is important to ask God to be merciful to people who come against His people. As far as leaving Faith Assembly, I never saw any bars on the doors, and actually had friends move from Faith Assembly with the pastors blessing. How many times did Brother Freeman tell people God sets people in local assemblies? If these people were not a part of FA, then it was right they would leave. And all of this made me think of all the things we "weren't allowed" to do or say..... I am not sure anyone, but the Holy Spirit tried to have you speak like a christian. Pregnant is only for animals and unmarried people; say the woman is "with child." I still use that term, depending on who I am with, or I might say the lady is expecting a baby. What is wrong with using a biblical term, other than the fact it might be King James english? Women should never pump their own gas. Which TODAY, would be a serious problem since I don't think there is a full service gas station in existence. I saw this as a "principle," not legalism. I actually never quit pumping my own gas, because I did not have that conviction. But I must say, it was nice to drive into a gas station and have someone do it for me. Women should never use boxed mixes...everything should be made from scratch. (I guess we weren't too virtuous if we opened up Betty Crocker and mixed it with eggs?) Again a principal. Sister Freeman once told me that her husbands favorite cake was from a box mix. Was it so hard for the ladies to cook meals from scratch for their families? I think Brother Freeman also taught for the mothers to stay at home and take care of the children, so wouldn't you think they would have time to make a descent meal for their familiy? No amusement parks or anything else "fun" like that because what would happen if Jesus returned while you were on the rollercoaster. Personally I hate amusement parks, but again a principal. No Nike (or was it Addias?) tennis shoes/sneakers. All television was bad, but some movies were ok on video, only of course, because going to the movie theaters would be like walking into a bar, or even a restaurant with a bar.... I did not know that Brother Freeman ever said that some movies were okay if they were on video. As far as the Adidas shoes, there was an article in a major news magazine at the same time Brother Freeman spoke of homosexual dress, and it said exactly what he shared. The homosexuals identified each other by their dress. When Brother Freeman said what he did about homomsexual dress I saw that as a shepherd trying to have his flock not dress like the world. No problem on my side giving up a brand of tennis shoes. I am saddened that so many people want to crucify a man who tried to have his church live and talk and believe in a way that would help them live in this wicked world and be a light to all. It isn't just the miracles that people see that will draw people to Jesus, but how christians live their lives each day, in every aspect of dress, speech, helping others and faith in a God who cannot lie. People can see that we are different by how we treat each other and others and when we speak the words of God in faith, the unbelievers will have to acknowledge that we have something different. It is not a pride issue to be different, but just something that happens when we don't walk and do things like the world. I still confess and believe the promises in the Word of God, and am not afraid to be mocked or laughed at or made fun of because I use phrases, like: I have _____ by faith... I am healed in Jesus name. My family is saved by faith in Jesus name and according to the Word of God. I am prosperous in Jesus name. I have a job by faith in Jesus name. I have acute discernment in Jesus name. I have the peace of Christ. I am an overcomer by faith. And anything else that pertains to life and Godliness. So M, please give those of us the same respect to speak what we truly have faith in, whether it is healing, family salvation, prosperity or many other things, as we will give you the opportunity to speak whatever you believe that Lord would have you say. [SIZE=2]