Loading...

Thursday, 25 December 2014

No action should be taken in any way to treat vindictively, maliciously or unfairly persons whether within or outside the community, including those who were within the community and who are leaving or have left the community.

P51 section 7 of the Charity Commision Decision Document 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/336112/preston_down_trust_full_decision.pdf states; 
  1. 7)  No action should be taken in any way to treat vindictively, maliciously or unfairly persons whether within or outside the community, including those who were within the community and who are leaving or have left the community. Every care should be taken to provide for and support the welfare and education of children and young persons within the community. Where persons seek to leave the community, reasonable assistance should be afforded to them in terms of support and/or financial assistance relating to employment or other matters, where they have been dependent on the community for that support. Reasonable steps should also be taken in these cases (consistent with and subject to any legal requirements applying to the persons involved and the human rights of the persons involved) to allow the continuation of family relationships where a family member has left the community, including providing access to family members, in particular children. Where a person within the community dies, the principle of separation allows members of the extended family of the deceased, including former Brethren, to attend their funeral service. Any people attending a funeral service (whether from within or outside the community) should respect the wishes and beliefs of the deceased, behave with dignity and be treated considerately.


    How have the PBCC demonstrated compliance with this section in the last 12 months? 




40 comments:

  1. LJO; Dot Jim and other Exclusive Brethren supporters who post on this blog

    May I wish a happy Christmas to you and your families.
    However I would ask you to reflect for a moment on those individuals who because of the relationships that have been broken by the edicts of the Exclusive Brethren are unable to visit or share even a cup of coffee with close families.
    When is this going to change in accordance with the agreement made with the Charity Commission?

    ReplyDelete
  2. God changes not.
    Therefore we must change to be in accord with his will.

    Dot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Dot,

      God is love; his will is love.

      Supremely, Jesus exemplified this in his ministry and at his execution. The apostle Paul then journeyed west along Roman roads and sailed along the coasts of the Graeco-Roman Empire to spread this good news. Ever since, Christians and many others have tried to live by this standard.

      God's will is that we love our neighbours, strangers and - as Jesus taught - even our enemies, as one of us. That's there in the ancient Hebrew Holiness Code and, according to Jesus and Paul it's THE essential element of how God wants humankind to live.

      The Charity Commission, non-Brethren outsiders and former Exclusive Brethren members hold the PBCC to this standard of inclusive love.

      Delete
    2. Dear Dot

      I sense confusion and disunity here; Leonardo tells us that God turns corners and that the PBCC, apparently, keep abreast of His movements.
      Could you clarify, please?

      Delete
  3. So, do it Dot. Separation is not His will.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 08:16 You are avoiding the issue....

    There is total separation of Good and Evil.
    There is also total separation of light and darkness. They do NOT mix together.
    God is love and goodness and therefore God excludes Evil because he cannot accept it in his presence. Separation from Evil is therefore God's principle of unity. Common sense tells us two cannot walk together in unity unless they be in agreement. Does darkness have fellowship with light?

    If two walk together in unity, then the above principles stand. The truth stands and the truth shall set you free to serve God.

    You cannot serve two masters

    Dot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dot,

      From your comments above @ 26th Dec 10:35 are you saying that –

      The PBCC EB is ‘good’ & all other Christians are ‘evil’ ?
      The PBCC EB is ‘light’ & all other Christians are ‘darkness’ ?

      Dot,

      Please explain to all the readers where in the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God do the following doctrines & principles appear ?

      (not forgetting the Holy Bible tells us that God does not change & that anything which adds to, or takes away from Gods Word is unacceptable & anything that contradicts Gods Word is also unacceptable as God does not contradict Himself)

      Separation from all other Christians in all other Christian Churches – Refusing to eat or drink with any other Christian – Dividing families – Separation of family members simply because some are not in the PBCC EB – Refusing to sit at the Lords Table with any other Christians – Refusing to fellowship or worship with any other Christians – Teaching that the PBCC EB are ‘the church’ – Refusing to obey the Bible regarding appointment & qualification of elders, pastors, deacons, shepherds – Teaching that an alcoholic former leader found in bed with another mans wife is pure - Following hundreds of edicts, rules, fancies, ideas of men which can not be supported by Gods word the Bible – Refusing to eat or drink with any non member – Declaring all non members to be ‘worldlies’ & iniquitous even if they are Christians – Allowing babes in arms to take the communion elements - etc, etc, etc

      Delete
  5. Dot
    God does not change but the Exclusive Brethren seem to change at the whim of the current "Man of God" They have performed somersaults, done u-turns and promised the Charity Commission.
    God's will is made known to us in the bible and that has not changed. Joan has succinctly described God's will for us.
    God sent His Son into this world (which all mainstream churches remember at this time of year) to demonstrate His love for us and that surely places a responsibility upon us to love our neighbour as ourselves. (Read Luke 10: 25-37)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:22 With all due respect -
      Joan is not qualified to say what God's will is for the PBCC.

      God's will includes obedience to his current word in our day.
      True, she might have known the PBCC for a very long time, but this does not come even close to being a member of the group.
      A certain something is missing.

      They are humble, yet have a unique understanding and knowledge of the Bible and know how apply it in today's increasingly deceitful world.
      Christianity is not static, it is current and is to be applied in such a way to combat the world as it is today.

      Easy to cherry pick scriptures if one wants to avoid the ones which will humble you and cause real and lasting change to your life.
      Moreover, looking at scripture in full or correct context is not possible with those who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.

      Turn on Hells Goggle Box and in an instant the news and corrupt views of the world will invade your room and your family is affected and damaged.
      The break-up up the family is due in most part to the corruption being channeled into millions of homes 24/7. As with many other groups of real Christians, the PBCC are determined to shut this evil out and keep the family intact.

      Leonardo J Octavianus

      Delete
    2. Mr LJO

      You say “God's will includes obedience to his current word in our day”

      Did you know the Bible says

      - Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
      - Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
      - 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not [a God] of disorder but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints
      - James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
      - Hebrews 6:18 So that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.

      Now Mr LJO,

      It is clear from the Holy Bible which is Gods Word (Quoted above) that God does not go back on His Word, or contradict His Word, or lie about His Word. Do you agree LJO ?

      Did you know the Bible also says

      - Deuteronomy 4 :2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye take from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.
      - Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
      - Psalm 119 : 160 The sum of thy word is truth, and every righteous judgment of thine is for ever.

      It is clear from the Holy Bible which is Gods Word (Quoted above) that God does not allow persons (whoever they are) to add to, or take away from His Word, & that every Word of God (The Bible) is pure & true. Do you agree LJO ?

      These extracts from Gods Word clearly show that anything which adds to or takes away from Gods Word is false & wrong & anything that contradicts Gods Word is also false & wrong as God does not contradict Himself. Do you agree LJO ?

      LJO, if the doctrines followed by the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church Exclusive Brethren are found to be adding to, or taking away from, or contradictory of Gods Word, then those doctrines are NOT “his current word in our day” because God can’t accept adding to, or taking away from, or contradiction of His Word & God doesn’t contradict Himself.

      Therefore PBCC EB doctrines such as,

      Separation from all other Christians in all other Christian Churches – Refusing to eat or drink with any other Christian – Dividing families – Separation of family members simply because some are not in the PBCC EB – Refusing to sit at the Lords Table with any other Christians – Refusing to fellowship or worship with any other Christians – Teaching that the PBCC EB are ‘the church’ – Refusing to obey the Bible regarding appointment & qualification of elders, pastors, deacons, shepherds – Teaching that an alcoholic former leader found in bed with another mans wife is pure - Following hundreds of edicts, rules, fancies, ideas of men which can not be supported by Gods word the Bible – Refusing to eat or drink with any non member – Declaring all non members to be ‘worldlies’ & iniquitous even if they are Christians – Allowing babes in arms to take the communion elements - etc, etc, etc

      All of these listed doctrines & many more, are NOT “obedience to his current word in our day” because they are adding to, or taking away from, or contradictory of Gods Word the Bible. As the Biblical quotes show, God does not change, nor contradict His Word, nor will he accept adding to, or taking away from His Word.

      It is therefore impossible for the doctrines listed to be “Gods Current Word” because they contradict Gods Word & add to it & take away from it. The doctrines listed which the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church Exclusive Brethren follow are not Christianity or Christian at all, but simply the false teaching, rules, edicts & fancies of “men” holding the membership in bondage to ‘every wind of doctrine’ (Ephesians 4 v14).

      The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church Exclusive Brethren is a False Church

      John

      Delete
    3. Mr LJO

      You Say - “..but this does not come even close to being a member of the group. A certain something is missing.”

      - How does that view fit with other PBCC EB supporters who try to claim PBCC EB is “part of mainstream Christianity”.?

      - If Christians in mainstream Christianity have “A certain something is missing” then, how can PBCC EB be part of “mainstream Christianity” ?

      You Say- “They are humble, yet have a unique understanding and knowledge of the Bible and know how apply it in today's increasingly deceitful world.”

      - How can they be humble if they all live in big detached houses, drive expensive cars, and strive for possessions ?

      - How can they have a “unique understanding and knowledge of the Bible” when they ignore huge vast swaths of the Bible ?

      - How can they know how to “apply it” when the application takes away from, adds to & contradicts Gods Word ?

      You Say -“Easy to cherry pick scriptures if one wants to avoid the ones which will humble you and cause real and lasting change to your life..”

      - Whoa !, don’t PBCC EB do just that & “cherry pick” & “avoid the ones which will humble you and cause….” & ignore the “full or correct context” of the Bible ?

      - Example - 2 Timothy 2, which you / PBCC EB “cherry pick” to prop up your false teaching, while ignoring vast swathes of the rest of the Bible. This means you / PBCC “avoid the ones which will humble you and cause real and lasting change to your life” while also refusing to “look at the scriptures in full or correct context” .?

      - Where are the scripture references from the Bible to explain in full context the following doctrines of PBCC EB ?

      Separation from all other Christians in all other Christian Churches – Refusing to eat or drink with any other Christian – Dividing families – Separation of family members simply because some are not in the PBCC EB – Refusing to sit at the Lords Table with any other Christians – Refusing to fellowship or worship with any other Christians – Teaching that the PBCC EB are ‘the church’ – Refusing to obey the Bible regarding appointment & qualification of elders, pastors, deacons, shepherds – Teaching that an alcoholic former leader found in bed with another mans wife is pure - Following hundreds of edicts, rules, fancies, ideas of men which can not be supported by Gods word the Bible – Refusing to eat or drink with any non member – Declaring all non members to be ‘worldlies’ & iniquitous even if they are Christians – Allowing babes in arms to take the communion elements - etc, etc, etc

      - Don’t insult readers by spouting off nonsense about it being “Gods Current Word” because ALL of these doctrines contradict Gods Word & add to it & take away from it. Yet, the Holy Bible tells us that God does not change, nor contradict His Word, nor will He accept adding to, or taking away from His Word.

      You say - “Turn on Hells Goggle Box and in an instant the news and corrupt views...”

      - Did you know TV has an off switch, so those who have moral standards & are free to exercise their God given personal conscience can turn off the TV if something is not suitable ?

      - Did you know TV has schedules & program listings so persons can choose what to watch ? it is not on 24/7 a day.

      - Did you know TV can be very educational in a positive & also a Christian way & did you know TV has many Christian programs spreading the Good News of the Gospel of Christ ?

      - You speak of blaming TV for family breakup, where is your evidence for that ? & have you no conscience about family division / break up caused by the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church Exclusive Brethren ?

      - Who are these “many other groups of real Christians” who also spout such scaremongering doom laden hyperbole ?

      - Are you implying persons can not be “Real Christians” if they have TV !! ?

      - What about the millions & millions of “Real Christians” who know how to use an “OFF” switch when necessary ?

      Delete
    4. Leonardo,

      In you post of 26 December 2014 at 17:25, if you are accusing Joan of cherry-picking scriptures, you would also need to accuse Jesus and Paul of the same, because the scripture that Joan drew special attention to (Leviticus 19:18) is the same one as Jesus and Paul both drew special attention to (see Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:30-31; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14). Paul said, “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Jesus said, “There is not another commandment greater than these.”

      If a church intent on following Jesus and Paul were to choose a charter verse for itself, surely it would be that one. Despite the great emphasis that Jesus put on it, it is not a verse that I have ever heard Brethren refer to, perhaps because it clashes with their set of values.

      You also say, “With all due respect - Joan is not qualified to say what God's will is for the PBCC.” What Joan actually said was, “God's will is that we love our neighbours, strangers and - as Jesus taught - even our enemies, as one of us.” It does not require any great qualification to say anything so obviously central to the Christian message. Surely you do not intend to contest that statement of Joan’s? To do so would amount to rejecting Christianity.

      You also say, “Moreover, looking at scripture in full or correct context is not possible with those who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.” That is very true, and if you look at Joan’s post of 26 December 2014 at 14:27 and think about it honestly, you will see that this is exactly what JND did in order to promote his version of separation. He gave scriptures an entirely false meaning.

      Another verse that Joan has quoted is not a case of cherry-picking either: it was the verse most relevant to what was under discussion, namely God’s principle of unity. You will not find anywhere in the Bible any verse that says separation is God’s principle of unity, but as Joan pointed out, there is one that says in effect that LOVE is God’s principle of unity. Colossians 3:14 says, “Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony”.

      Most decent people practise separation from evil, but the Exclusives do not have a good record in this respect. They talk incessantly about separation from evil, but what they actually practise is separation from anyone who disagrees with them, especially anyone who disagrees with their universal leader. That is not separation from evil. In fact, it often amounts to separation from goodness and truth. In itself it IS a great evil, and it creates a trail of needless human suffering.

      Admittedly, as well as separation from evil, it is sometimes necessary to separate from persons. In 1 Corinthians 5:11 Paul gives a list of the kind of people you should separate from: people who call themselves brother and are sexually immoral, or avaricious, or idolatrous, or abusive, or a drunkard, or avaricious. In 1970 the Exclusives were led by a man who was probably all of these things, but they conspicuously failed to separate from him. While he wallowed in his own depravity they were running around inventing ridiculous excuses for him. Instead of separating from him, they separated from those who would not condone moral depravity.

      Delete
    5. LJO/PBCC spokesperson/s

      Should not Demas come into this in some way, do you think?

      Could you explain what the current word might be? Dot told us that God did not change.

      When you say the PBCC have a unique understanding of the Bible, do you mean that they have their own interpretation based on bigotry rather than authority? In fact, quite a lot of cherry picking, too.

      Regarding you comments on the effects of TV, many people ration use of TV and "cherry pick" their programmes to avoid poor quality. I do not think that programmes are responsible for breaking up families, but the PBCC are known to have encouraged separation, divorce and the wrecking of families on a scale that can only be equated with the worst of the cults.

      Now that the PBCC have devices of all kinds (principally because they could not organise as businesses without) many are now illicitly accessing questionable material actually worse than most things on TV ; so why the paranoia over TV? I suppose this is the last bastion of fake separation from the world, so you need to emphasise it. Actually, I think there might be some members of the PBCC who access TV when they wish, there is always hypocrisy within such movements.

      By the look of the replies on this blog, you have been shot down in flames yet again (to coin a phrase).




      Delete
  6. Re 08:16 I'm avoiding nothing. While agreeing with you Dot that good and evil are totally separate and indeed Christians should separate from evil, the key texts the Exclusive Brethren use for separation are talking about separating from good and evil deeds, not people. The EB/PBCC have been teaching and are still teaching this error for all these years. That in itself is evil. But worst of all, then living lives that do not match up to their own abusive standard.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Separation from evil as God's principle of unity, to which Dot refers above, was the notion promoted by J N Darby when he wanted C19 Christians to leave the established and dissenting churches and join with him in his ideal, non-clerical Christian community. He often quoted Jeremiah 15:19 and 2 Timothy 2:19 because he felt that those verses supported his ecclesiastical requirements. For example, in 1846 he wrote, “I cannot touch the unclean, as I am to separate the precious from the vile.” (Letters, Vol.1 p95)

    The context of the Jeremiah reference shows that the prophet had been complaining to God about his personal situation and the Lord replied telling him to buck up, stop talking nonsense and start proclaiming a worthwhile message again. The “vile” refers to the prophet’s own words, his spoken message/oracle, and not at all to the people to whom he was speaking. Similarly, the 2 Timothy 2:19 verse requires believers themselves to withdraw from committing illegal and unjust acts (‘adikia’ in Greek).

    This all accords with the clear teaching of Jesus that it's wrong to pay attention to ecclesiastical matters, however worthy, while neglecting justice and the love of God. (Luke 11:42). Jesus would have known the Jeremiah reference which J N Darby quoted and he reinforced it memorably: “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” (Matthew 15:11)

    It’s worth reading Colossians 3:1-17. Verse 14 in that chapter says, “Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony”. Love, then, is the biblical and Christian principle of unity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joan,

      You mention of Darby that "He often quoted Jeremiah 15:19 and 2 Timothy 2:19" -- and if I understand your point, it seems to be to demonstrate that JND had the wrong idea when it comes to separation.
      Do you have additional specific instances where he used these verses to support what you seem to feel was an un-scriptural view on separation?
      I have been reading the reference in Jeremiah, and on the surface of it in the old English, the meaning you have given it is not immediately apparent, however I find it provocative that some of the translations give the meaning that you have.

      Regards,

      Foundational Error...?

      Delete
    2. Dear Foundational Error ....?

      Thank you for your courtesy.

      If you go to the Stem Publishing web site and write 'precious from the vile' in the Search box you'll find a lot of references given. The same is no doubt true for 2 Timothy 2:19.

      I found a lot of the references to the Jeremiah verse a few years ago when I read through the three volumes of J N Darby's 'Letters'; and I remember being intrigued one day when I thought I had tracked down the source for his atomistic exegesis of the 2 Timothy verse - but that's for another time!

      It's worth using modern translations of the Bible because there have been so many textual discoveries since J N Darby's day. The NRSV is now widely used and many Christians like the NIV.

      I have the NRSV at hand. Here's Jeremiah 15:18-19 in its Anglicised (in contrast to American) version - it's introduced by one of the prophet's 'Woes' (verse 10):

      "Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Truly, you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail.

      Therefore thus says the LORD: If you turn back, I will take you back, and you shall stand before me. If you utter what is precious, and not what is worthless, you shall serve as my mouth."

      I hope this helps. Kind regards to you,

      Joan.

      Delete
    3. Joan,

      I went to Stem and put in as you suggested. It returned over 400 results in a tenth of a second... Not all of the results are the verse specifically, with some of them being nothing more than the letters vile found within the word privilege and the like.

      Neither were all of the results direct quotes of JND. Stem obviously has writings of other authors, but they may all be of brethren extraction, I don't know.

      In any case, it seems quite apparent that the underlying thought (among the writers on Stem) regarding that verse in Jeremiah about separating the precious from the vile is that it means something along the lines of separating between people.

      Now, for my part having been raised among brethren, I must say that I don't remember ever hearing that verse in any context whatsoever, but I must also say that it is not without some mild alarm that I note this verse and its attendant supposed meaning was apparently somewhat central to JND's thought process.

      This was troublesome enough for me to try discover if he and brethren had non brethren contemporaries who may have shared this view. Interestingly a quick search on Google, and I find Charles Spurgeon using this phrase unquestionably in the sense of separating between people.
      I am not sure whether to feel better or worse about that. -- I suppose it is clear enough that separation is in fact a scriptural principle in the sense of separating from people.
      In any case, if in fact the verse in Jeremiah has nothing to do with separating from people because they are "vile" it would in that case appear to me that it was mis-used, and if misunderstood while being a central doctrine, that is admittedly a potentially large problem.

      How do you understand the other phrase in the verse "let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them."..?

      Foundational Error..?

      Delete
    4. Dear Foundational Error..?

      Jeremiah 15:10-21 is a remarkable passage in that it shows that behind the apparently untroubled certainty of "Thus says the LORD" there were lots of unresolved questions. Here we observe how the prophet himself was in deep turmoil and how his calling to be a prophet of Yahweh was ripping him apart. He's anguished about the failure of his ministry, eaten up by anxiety and even bitterness against his opposers and angry with God who he thinks has betrayed him. All this during his ministry in the last forty years of the independent state of Judah, 627 - 586 BC, when he felt he was called by God to emphasise to his fellow Judahites the importance of the religious reforms of King Josiah (640 - 609 BC). (The "book of the law" - probably the law code of Deuteronomy - had been discovered in the Temple in 621 BC and King Josiah had sought to eliminate all non-Yahwistic practices and sanctuaries in the country and centralise the cult in Jerusalem where the Temple was.)

      I take it from this passage that Jeremiah is saying that God has told him to have a "precious" rather than a "worthless" ("vile") message and to call the people back to the Deuteronomic Covenant - and to be obedient to the requirements of the Jerusalem Temple cult. It's for the people to attend to their prophet, not for him to turn and share their neglect of their national religious obligations to Yahweh.

      Delete
    5. Dear Foundational Error...?

      In the Stem Publishing Web site I have found at least 25 instances of JND using Jeremiah 15:19 to support his views on separating from people and from denominations. He even says the Lord made that verse JND’s motto. But I have found not a single example in which JND uses the verse as Jeremiah did, to mean separating the precious from what is vile in his own ministry. So I think JND either misunderstood the verse or misapplied it.

      If you would like to see these examples, just say so. I have already copied and pasted them. They are too voluminous to post here, but I could post them on WikiPeebia if anyone wants to read them.

      Delete
    6. Ian,

      That would be nice if you could post them on Wiki.-- It took me a while to find this again on here as I couldn't remember which article it was under.
      I made a new topic over there, and perhaps you could put it there. I should like to be able to find this easily under my "new topics" area of which there are either non or very few!

      Foundational Errorr..??

      Delete
    7. Joan,

      I don't know if you will see this as this thread has gotten somewhat old but...
      You mentioned
      "and I remember being intrigued one day when I thought I had tracked down the source for his atomistic exegesis of the 2 Timothy verse - but that's for another time! "

      I would be interested in seeing what you came up with in this regard. -- Ian has posted some of JND's comments on the Jeremiah verse on wikipeebia. It does look to me like JND used that verse out of context for the duration of his life, and I wonder what it is that you have discovered on the Timothy verse.

      Foundational Errorr..??

      Delete
  8. Dear Dot [part1]

    It is my purpose to respond to your post 26 December 2014 at 10:35 in a spirit of true Christian understanding with no bitterness, because I know you hold these views about the “total separation of Good and Evil” as absolutely indisputable. You see, I was also in EB fellowship and I too was fully convicted that the true Christian ground, and foundation of the only universal Assembly position, was “total separation of light and darkness”, and that the practical maintenance of this separation demonstrated the light of real Christian testimony to the evil world around.

    Now even before being excluded from fellowship I perceived that the Gospels portrayed a Jesus who associated with mankind in a way which drew the outcasts and sinners to Himself. He also on many occasions and in no uncertain terms vehemently rebuffed the Pharisees and their doctrines. Read Matthew 23. Luke accompanied Paul on his journeys and was the only one with Paul at the end. It is of singular note that Luke includes in his Gospel, I believe encouraged by Paul’s teachings, narratives relating in a peculiar way to unmerited mercy not found in other Gospels such as, the Prodigal son, the Good Samaritan and the woman sinner in chapter 7. It is of note that each of these was aimed to contest the doctrine of the Pharisees and lawyers.

    In Luke 7 Simon the Pharisee’s pronouncement on the woman’s affectionate attention to the Lord was that, “This person if he were a prophet would have known who and what the woman is who touches him, for she is a sinner.” Simon’s thinking was (quoting you): “Common sense tells us two cannot walk together in unity unless they be in agreement.” This caused the Lord to read him a lesson about the comparative love of two debtors. The Lord then abraded him for his uncourteousness and said, “For which cause I say to thee, Her many sins are forgiven; for she loved much; but he to whom little is forgiven loves little. And he said to her thy sins are forgiven,” and then He says, “Thy FAITH has saved thee; go in peace.” Please note, the Lord said it was her FAITH that saved her, NOT the measure of her repentance – yes she WAS deeply repentant because she a had loving apprehension by faith of WHO Jesus was, and that through His love and by His goodness he could forgive her many sins. The Pharisee in his self-righteousness was blinded as to who Jesus was.

    Do you see Dot, that this account of Jesus’ conduct should form the pattern of our testimony to those around and not Pharisaic aloofness? I know it is said by you, “that we cannot do what the Lord did and that in our day we must be governed by Paul’s teachings”, etc. Now I draw your attention to Paul’s letter to the Galatians who had reverted to, “the principle of works of law … having begun in Spirit are you going to be made perfect in flesh?” Paul covers much ground as to why we are to live, as Abraham did, by the principle of faith (not law), and then he sums it up in chapter 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any force, nor uncircumcision; but FAITH working through LOVE.” Now Dot, the perfect exemplar of this is the woman of Luke 7 whose faith saved her because she loved! Our testimony to the world should be of a Saviour who loves and not that of a Pharisee who doggedly maintains in self-righteousness, “Does darkness have fellowship with light?” The Lord did have fellowship with sinners!

    Job [part 2 follows]

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Dot [part 2]

    I know it is said, “The pattern for us is that we don’t eat or walk together with those outside because after resurrection the Lord only moved amongst his disciples.” But have you considered that the conduct of Christians throughout the Acts totally contradicts this notion? I ask you, did the light of Christianity spread by total separation from the world as presently practiced by the EB? Oh but you will say, “This is a day of breakdown and we must show that Assembly light is shown best in total separation.” Since leaving the EBs I have come to see how absolutely false this is. You speak of, “total separation of light and darkness.” Yes, I did believe the light shines best by cutting ourselves off, but how can my “light shine before men, so they may see your upright works” if “I put it under a bushel”?

    All this you will say is Open Brethren thinking which departs from the absolute belief that, “Separation from Evil is God's principle of unity.” I too was convinced that this was so, but I have now come to realise the true unity derives from our links in Christ, and not in a mutual judgement of what’s wrong. As we share links in Christ would evil easily find a place amongst us?

    I just pray Dot, that you will begin to see there is much more positive reality in Christianity than maintaining a cloistered no-access ecclesiastical position based upon an assumed judgement of what’s negative and evil. I say ‘assumed’ because there is evil there which is not yet judged: the inexcusable behaviour of Jim Taylor with women – sorry to mention this, but it confirms to me the deplorable falseness of the EB position. Read Matthew 23:26-28.

    Remember, I’ve been exactly where you are and have come to see that is actually possible to think differently and clearly: like the woman sinner and not like Simon the Pharisee!

    Job

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Dot [part1]

    It is my purpose to respond to your post 26 December 2014 at 10:35 in a spirit of true Christian understanding with no bitterness, because I know you hold these views about the “total separation of Good and Evil” as absolutely indisputable. You see, I was also in EB fellowship and I too was fully convicted that the true Christian ground, and foundation of the only universal Assembly position, was “total separation of light and darkness”, and that the practical maintenance of this separation demonstrated the light of real Christian testimony to the evil world around.

    Now even before being excluded from fellowship I perceived that the Gospels portrayed a Jesus who associated with mankind in a way which drew the outcasts and sinners to Himself. He also on many occasions and in no uncertain terms vehemently rebuffed the Pharisees and their doctrines. Read Matthew 23. Luke accompanied Paul on his journeys and was the only one with Paul at the end. It is of singular note that Luke includes in his Gospel, I believe encouraged by Paul’s teachings, narratives relating in a peculiar way to unmerited mercy not found in other Gospels such as, the Prodigal son, the Good Samaritan and the woman sinner in chapter 7. It is of note that each of these was aimed to contest the doctrine of the Pharisees and lawyers.

    In Luke 7 Simon the Pharisee’s pronouncement on the woman’s affectionate attention to the Lord was that, “This person if he were a prophet would have known who and what the woman is who touches him, for she is a sinner.” Simon’s thinking was (quoting you): “Common sense tells us two cannot walk together in unity unless they be in agreement.” This caused the Lord to read him a lesson about the comparative love of two debtors. The Lord then abraded him for his uncourteousness and said, “For which cause I say to thee, Her many sins are forgiven; for she loved much; but he to whom little is forgiven loves little. And he said to her thy sins are forgiven,” and then He says, “Thy FAITH has saved thee; go in peace.” Please note, the Lord said it was her FAITH that saved her, NOT the measure of her repentance – yes she WAS deeply repentant because she a had loving apprehension by faith of WHO Jesus was, and that through His love and by His goodness he could forgive her many sins. The Pharisee in his self-righteousness was blinded as to who Jesus was.

    Do you see Dot, that this account of Jesus’ conduct should form the pattern of our testimony to those around and not Pharisaic aloofness? I know it is said by you, “that we cannot do what the Lord did and that in our day we must be governed by Paul’s teachings”, etc. Now I draw your attention to Paul’s letter to the Galatians who had reverted to, “the principle of works of law … having begun in Spirit are you going to be made perfect in flesh?” Paul covers much ground as to why we are to live, as Abraham did, by the principle of faith (not law), and then he sums it up in chapter 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any force, nor uncircumcision; but FAITH working through LOVE.” Now Dot, the perfect exemplar of this is the woman of Luke 7 whose faith saved her because she loved! Our testimony to the world should be of a Saviour who loves and not that of a Pharisee who doggedly maintains in self-righteousness, “Does darkness have fellowship with light?” The Lord did have fellowship with sinners!

    Job

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Dot [part1]

    It is my purpose to respond to your post 26 December 2014 at 10:35 in a spirit of true Christian understanding with no bitterness, because I know you hold these views about the “total separation of Good and Evil” as absolutely indisputable. You see, I was also in EB fellowship and I too was fully convicted that the true Christian ground, and foundation of the only universal Assembly position, was “total separation of light and darkness”, and that the practical maintenance of this separation demonstrated the light of real Christian testimony to the evil world around.

    Now even before being excluded from fellowship I perceived that the Gospels portrayed a Jesus who associated with mankind in a way which drew the outcasts and sinners to Himself. He also on many occasions and in no uncertain terms vehemently rebuffed the Pharisees and their doctrines. Read Matthew 23. Luke accompanied Paul on his journeys and was the only one with Paul at the end. It is of singular note that Luke includes in his Gospel, I believe encouraged by Paul’s teachings, narratives relating in a peculiar way to unmerited mercy not found in other Gospels such as, the Prodigal son, the Good Samaritan and the woman sinner in chapter 7. It is of note that each of these was aimed to contest the doctrine of the Pharisees and lawyers.

    In Luke 7 Simon the Pharisee’s pronouncement on the woman’s affectionate attention to the Lord was that, “This person if he were a prophet would have known who and what the woman is who touches him, for she is a sinner.” Simon’s thinking was (quoting you): “Common sense tells us two cannot walk together in unity unless they be in agreement.” This caused the Lord to read him a lesson about the comparative love of two debtors. The Lord then abraded him for his uncourteousness and said, “For which cause I say to thee, Her many sins are forgiven; for she loved much; but he to whom little is forgiven loves little. And he said to her thy sins are forgiven,” and then He says, “Thy FAITH has saved thee; go in peace.” Please note, the Lord said it was her FAITH that saved her, NOT the measure of her repentance – yes she WAS deeply repentant because she a had loving apprehension by faith of WHO Jesus was, and that through His love and by His goodness he could forgive her many sins. The Pharisee in his self-righteousness was blinded as to who Jesus was.

    Do you see Dot, that this account of Jesus’ conduct should form the pattern of our testimony to those around and not Pharisaic aloofness? I know it is said by you, “that we cannot do what the Lord did and that in our day we must be governed by Paul’s teachings”, etc. Now I draw your attention to Paul’s letter to the Galatians who had reverted to, “the principle of works of law … having begun in Spirit are you going to be made perfect in flesh?” Paul covers much ground as to why we are to live, as Abraham did, by the principle of faith (not law), and then he sums it up in chapter 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any force, nor uncircumcision; but FAITH working through LOVE.” Now Dot, the perfect exemplar of this is the woman of Luke 7 whose faith saved her because she loved! Our testimony to the world should be of a Saviour who loves and not that of a Pharisee who doggedly maintains in self-righteousness, “Does darkness have fellowship with light?” The Lord did have fellowship with sinners!

    Job

    ReplyDelete
  12. LJO a lot of people pussy foot around you here and make all sorts of allowances that have gone on for much too long. A lot of what you write is uninformed nonsense, is offensive to Christians, is deceitful and blasphemous. Even your leader Bruce Hales who probably directs you to correspond and may even pay you for it is far more intelligent than you and would never stoop to posting this misleading nonsense. Really would encourage you to get a life.

    ReplyDelete
  13. LJO,

    Your ability to succinctly state truth without ever quoting scripture is admirable. I have below reproduced a post of yours with some verses in quotes. Would these verses bear out what you had in mind?

    Joan is not qualified to say what God's will is for the PBCC. --“Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;”

    God's will includes obedience to his current word in our day. --“he that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies”
    “obedience is better than sacrifice, Attention than the fat of rams.”
    “Remember your leaders who have spoken to you the word of God; and considering the issue of their conversation, imitate their faith.”

    True, she might have known the PBCC for a very long time, but this does not come even close to being a member of the group.
    A certain something is missing.-- “And John answering said, Master, we saw some one casting out demons in thy name, and we forbad him, because he follows not with us.”

    They are humble, yet have a unique understanding and knowledge of the Bible and know how apply it in today's increasingly deceitful world.-- “not minding high things, but going along with the lowly: be not wise in your own eyes:”
    “Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on this side, and one on that side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.”
    Christianity is not static, it is current and is to be applied in such a way to combat the world as it is today.-- “hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.”

    Easy to cherry pick scriptures if one wants to avoid the ones which will humble you and cause real and lasting change to your life. Moreover, looking at scripture in full or correct context is not possible with those who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.-- “All the day long they wrest my words;”
    “Shall they escape by iniquity? In anger cast down the peoples, O God.”

    Turn on Hells Goggle Box and in an instant the news and corrupt views of the world will invade your room and your family is affected and damaged.
    The break-up up the family is due in most part to the corruption being channeled into millions of homes 24/7. As with many other groups of real Christians, the PBCC are determined to shut this evil out and keep the family intact.-- “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    1 2 Mini stry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear 1 2 Ministry or whatever nomenclature you next use.
      One scripture which should humble the Exclusive Brethren is Matthew 6 verses 1-3 (Be careful not to do your alms before men to be seen of them otherwise ye have no reward with your Father who is in the heavens. When therefore thou doest alms sound not a trumpet before thee as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets so that they may have glory from men)
      There has been a total silence from the EB when they have been asked to explain why for the last couple of years they have been self - promoting on their website their so called charitable acts when a truly humble person (or church) would not consider doing so.
      So no lectures on humility please! It is nauseating when coming from such a source.
      As for keeping the family intact the Exclusive Brethren have ruptured irreparably marriages and families. Why do the Exclusive Brethren promote divorce if they believe ""What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." ?
      Perhaps you could also comment on the corruption and blasphemy channelled into the meeting by James Taylor Junior on 25 July 1970 (and on other occasions as evidenced by your so called ministry). When some stood up against this they were summarily "withdrawn from".
      In my wife's case she was never able to enter her parent's home again. So please don't hypocritically pontificate about remembering your leaders who have spoken to you the word of God and considering the issue of their conversation imitate their faith. I remember only too well the conversation and manner of life of the leader I have mentioned and it is not something that the scriptures would suggest we imitate.
      Sad to say the present generation of Exclusive Brethren seem to be untaught and ill - established in the scriptures.which is unsurprising given the precedence that is given to so called authoritative ministry and the words and edicts of mere men whose views seem to change like the weather. It is impossible therefore for the EB to support their practices and behaviour from God's Word.
      Finally I find your comments about Joan to be insulting. She has provided on this and other blogs a greater insight into the life and teaching of JN Darby than most Exclusive Brethren will ever have.

      Delete
    2. 1 2 Mini stry.

      The difference between the EB/PBCC and the JW's and other Christianese Cults quoting Scripture is typically, as you do, they ignore context and relevance. Some of what you quote seems totally random, with no relevance to the phrase before it. Previously, in the few instances when the EB have quoted Scripture on these pages it's control phrases like 1 Cor 16:11 16 "But if any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God which I've seen quoted as a route to win an argument." The sad reality is, it seems you and the EB/PBCC do not know their Bibles anymore.

      The Bible needs to be read as a whole book, studied in context, studied with intelligent support, studied with cultural understanding and above all studied with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

      Delete
    3. I would like to think 1 2 Mini stry in his post of 28 December 2014 at 05:49 was being satirical or ironic, rather than blinkered and bigoted. I think his post, whether by accident or design, illustrates how the Brethren’s method of applying scripture can be used to justify almost anything you might want to do or believe, no matter how false or depraved it might be.

      Even if the Hales fellowship were to evolve into an overtly criminal organisation (which I hope does not happen) the same method could be used to assure the flock that they were “just going by scripture.”

      Suppose BDH decreed that any journalist trying to accost him should be killed, he could pretend to justify it by quoting Numbers 3:10. “And Aaron and his sons shalt thou appoint that they may attend to their priest's office; and the stranger that cometh near shall be put to death.”

      Suppose he said any stranger caught trying get into a meeting room should be killed, he could pretend to justify it by quoting Numbers 1:51 or 3:38 or 18:7.

      Suppose he decreed than any Brethren who refuse to obey his decrees in every detail should be killed, then he could pretend to justify it by quoting Joshua 1:18. “Every one that is rebellious against thy commandment and hearkeneth not to thy words in everything that thou commandest us, shall be put to death.”

      Suppose he decreed that the opposers should be kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered, then the Brethren could always say they were just going by Hebrews 13:17. “Obey your leaders, and be submissive; for they watch over your souls as those that shall give account.”

      I am not suggesting that any of these things is likely to happen. I am showing by extreme examples that a dictatorial leader, a fundamentalist doctrine and a cavalier and ignorant way of using scripture make an extremely dangerous combination. There are no depths of depravity to which you could not sink while innocently protesting that you are only going by scripture.

      Delete
    4. 28 Dec 2014 05:49
      1 2 Mini stry

      You say -
      “LJO,Your ability to succinctly state truth without ever quoting scripture is admirable”

      1 2 Mini stry -
      You will of course know if you are a real Christian who follows the Word of God that your comment is total nonsense. You only have to look at LJO’s posts further up this blog & the replies to LJO’s posts to see that LJO’s posts are a complete abuse & misrepresentation of the Bible & do not support the false teaching that PBCC EB practice

      You say –
      “Joan is not qualified to say what God's will is for the PBCC. --“Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;””

      1 2 Mini stry –
      You don’t give Biblical references for your quote, why ?, Are you trying to make it difficult for readers to check the verse. The verse you quote is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which you attempt to use to silence Joan.

      Yet, what you don’t acknowledge or provide references for, is that women clearly did pray & engage in prophecy as 1 Corinthians 11v5 tells us & there are plenty of examples in the Bible of women talking to men about Christ. Priscilla was involved in teaching Apollos in Acts 18:24-26. Romans 16 v1 also describes Phebe as a servant (I think the greek used is deaconess) of the church at Cenchrea. Romans 16 v3 speaks of Priscilla being a fellow worker in Christ. The woman in John 4 talked (gave testimony / preached) to the men of the city about the messiah v28-30 and in v39-42. There was Deborah the leader & prophetess in Judges 4 & 5 and I’m sure there are plenty other examples.

      What PBCC EB are unable to get the gain of, is that you cant just cherry pick a verse from the Bible to justify any behaviour or to silence debate. That is how cults operate!.

      Gods Word (The Bible), must be read, understood and practiced as whole & in context.

      If PBCC EB want to use 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to silence discussion from learned Christian women while ignoring other scriptures that explain women did teach & testify about Christ, it just confirms how PBCC EB spiritually abuse Gods Word & are therefore nothing to do with mainstream Christianity nor the Christian faith as Biblically taught.

      If PBCC EB use 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to silence women, then why do PBCC EB allow women to ‘give out’ hymns in a local assembly setting, in which they ARE excercising authority over men because they are telling the men which Hymn to sing ! ?

      Or in the case of Joan, is the use of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 all about silencing a women who clearly understands & has knowledge of the Holy Scriptures & Christian history far above anyone in the PBCC EB, so you are embarrassed at that & want to silence her ?

      R

      Delete
  14. 12 Ministry
    Your comment re Mark 9 verse 38 is most illuminating and provides an excellent example of how the Exclusive Brethren misuse scripture or ignore the context.
    If you had gone on to read verse 39 you would have observed that Jesus said "Forbid him not; for there is no one who shall do a miracle in my name and be able soon to speak ill of me; for he who is not against us is for us" [JND translation]
    This hardly supports your strange theology. Who is wresting scriptures to their own destruction?

    ReplyDelete
  15. You should all be very concerned about the attitude you take towards these gentle people chosen of God. The Elect Vessel, Bruce Hales will lead us through and we must humbly submit to, and follow, him. There is no other way.

    I entreat you, be wary. God will not have his servant mocked. The lake of fire beckons for those who do not heed this. Pray for strength for Mr Bruce as he shoulders this tremendous burden.

    Patmos

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patmos,

      In what sense are these gentle people chosen of God? Does that make them different from the rest of us? And how do you know? Did they tell you so?

      In what sense is Bruce Hales an Elect Vessel? Does that make him different from other religious leaders? And how do you know? Did the Brethren tell you so?

      In what sense does the lake of fire beckon for those who do not heed this? Do you mean that those of us (most of the human race) who do not recognise that BDH is anything special will finish up in Hell?

      I just want to be clear about what you are saying.

      Delete
  16. Patmos..........So why do PBCC commentators mock the clergy of the mainstream churches; does the lake of fire beckon towards such commentators do you think? They are God's servants and they usually serve without the excessive financial contributions given to "Mr Bruce". Most clergy are relatively poor, yet "Mr Bruce " is excessively rich. Is he serving two masters, would you say?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Patmos
    I am sorry I don't recognise "these gentle people chosen of God" that you are speaking of. Is this the same people who send solicitor's letters to those who dare to pass critical comment on their cult and who remove any mildly critical comment made to their website?
    By the way who elected Bruce Hales? Judging by the quality of his "ministry" which we worldies are privileged to receive snippets of from time to time would it not be advisable to hold another election? Perhaps you would tell us we are not spiritual enough to understand it!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hales would be a nonentity were he not in power due to his parenthood. He is ignorant and only works in the shadows. Does he actually exist? Has anyone seen him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the PBCC's attitude to ex-smoker, Australian Furniture Salesman Hales is called the 'Stockholm Syndrome' in the trade. He's just an obese chancer who laughably wear's silk boxers.

      With an allegedly gay son, who needs a transvestite leader? Take our money and run Bruce. you're running out of time.

      Delete
    2. Is it possible he was bumped off years ago by a rival, or a disgruntled member who stands to lose family, accommodation employment etc if he speaks out and follows his conscience. And so the spin doctors have hidden the fact to avoid disillusionment in the ranks? It seems impossible that the world's media (and interested ex-members) should have failed so miserably in catching up with this individual who lives in a normal suburban street and must go to and from his house from time to time. Not even a photograph over/through a fence? Yes, I have serious doubts over his existence. And anyone could sell furniture for him.

      RLS

      Delete