Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: "the rpna(gm)" Scandal

Expand Messages
  • Gus Gianello
    Dear Sir, Are you a charismatic? Does God appear to you in visions. You dont think that what you assert is blasphemy? Really, do you know ANYTHING about
    Message 1 of 47 , Apr 6, 2007
      Message
      Dear Sir,
      Are you a  charismatic?  Does God appear to you in visions.  You dont think that what you assert is blasphemy?  Really, do you know ANYTHING about the principles of Presbyterianism?  I know this is rather strong medicine, but give me a moment of your mind.  "Come let us reason together, saith the Lord"
       

      (Mat 26:14)

      Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests.

      (Mat 26:15)

      And he said to them, What will you give me, and I will betray Him to you? And they appointed to him thirty pieces of silver.

      (Mat 26:16)

      And from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.


      Mat 26:22

      And grieving sorrowfully, they began to say, each one of them, Lord, not I am the one
      ?

      Mat 26:23

      And He answered and said, He who dips his hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray Me.

      Mat 26:24

      The Son of Man goes, as it has been written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.

      Mat 26:25

      And answering, the one betraying Him, Judas, said, Master, Not am I the one? He said to him, You said it.


        Luk 22:3

        And Satan entered into Judas, surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the Twelve.

        Luk 22:4

        And going, he talked with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them.


        Luk 22:21 But, behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table.

      Luk 22:22 And truly the Son of Man goes, as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!

      Luk 22:23 And they began to inquire among themselves which of them it was that should do this thing.


      Joh 13:18-28

      I do not speak of you all; I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "He who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me." (19) From now I tell you before it
      comes, so that when it happens you may believe that I AM. (20) Truly, truly, I say to you, He who receives whomever I send receives Me. And he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. (21) When Jesus had said this, He was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, Truly, truly, I say to you that one of you shall betray Me. (22) Then the disciples looked upon one another, wondering of whom He spoke. (23) But there was one of His disciples leaning upon Jesus' bosom, the one whom Jesus loved. (24) Simon Peter therefore signaled to him to ask whom it might be of whom He spoke. (25) And lying on Jesus' breast, he said to him, Lord, who is it? (26) Jesus answered, It is he to whom I shall give the morsel when I have dipped it. And dipping the morsel, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. (27) And after the morsel, then Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to him, What you do, do quickly. (28) But no one reclining knew for what reason He spoke this to him.


      Joh 17:12

      While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those that You have given Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.


      Christ knew who his betrayer was. This He knew by virtue of his deity and/or limitless infilling of the Holy Spirit---ie. by virtue of his messianic office.  Either way it was by divine revelation. 
      John 2:24-25 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all (25) and did not need that anyone should testify of man. For He knew what was in man.
      • When he knew is uncertain but THAT he knew, before his betrayal, IS certain.
      • That HE did not act upon it, is also certain.
      • The reason He did not act upon Judas' intention is also known.

        Gal 4:4-5

        But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, coming into being out of a woman, having come under Law, (5) that He might redeem those under Law, so that we might receive the adoption of sons.
      • He did not act because in His perfect passive obedience to the Law of God, IF he would have acted, he would have broken God's Law.  It is useless to contend that He did not act to expose Judas and safeguard himself, because Judas was predestinated, or because prophecy must needs be fulfilled.  Both of those objections have to do with the decretive will of God, not the prescriptive will.  Because of the divine prescriptive will Christ would have been required to act if by so doing the law of God, would have been maintained.  Does not the Law require us to defend ourselves?

      Question

      99: What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?

      Answer

      : For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: That the law is perfect, and binds everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. That it is spiritual, and so reaches the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. That: What God forbids, is at no time to be done;: What he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. That: What is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. That in: What is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in: What is forbidden them.

      Question

      134: Which is the sixth commandment?

      Answer

      : The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

      Question

      135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

      Answer

      : The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

      Question

      136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

      Answer

      : The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
      • The reason that His acting to defend himself would have been a violation of the law, is because the Law forbids action on the basis of sincerity or lack of it.  Only God can see the heart, and we must never judge a man by that which is ONLY inward, but we must judge by the outward ONLY.  Proof of this is as follows: 

      Php 1:15-18 Some indeed even preach Christ because of envy and strife, and some also of good will. (16) Those, indeed, preach Christ out of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds. (17) But these others preach in love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel. (18) What then? Nevertheless, in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached. And I rejoice in this. Yet, also I will rejoice.

      Notice Paul's attitude concerning those who preach out of envy or jealousy.  The INWARD attitude is indifferent to Paul, as long as Christ is preached.  Their INTENTION does not matter to him, all that matters is that the truth be preached.  Their sincerity is completely ignored, it is the accuracy of their preaching that matters to Paul.  In verse 18, the "what then?" is rhetorical, and implies that Paul does not care as long as Christ is preached whether in pretense (hypocritally) or inb truth (sincerity).
       
      Because the law forbids taking motive into account, when acting for or against an individual whether privately or publically, notice the following Scriptures:
       

      1Co 13:5

      does not behave indecently, does not seek her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil.  

      1Th 5:22

      Abstain from every appearance of evil.  

      1Ti 6:4

      he is proud, knowing nothing. He is
      sick concerning doubts and arguments, from which comes envy, strife, evil speakings, evil suspicions,
       We are to even avoid the appearance of evil, so that none may become suspicious.  We are to think no evil of our brothers, but if we take offense we are to personally confront them (lovingly), and see if any sin occured. NO sin or even charge of a sin is to be acted upon unless witnesses by two or three.  Even then, a charge is not an admission of guilt, it is only the first step in establishing guilt, and no opprobrium ought to attach to being charged.  In fact, in the case of leadership, charging and disciplining people without the proper process is proof of arrogance, because it is Satanic behaviour.  Satan accuses, but his accusations are false, thus they are slander.  Such a person demonstrates that he is NOT qualified (at present) to be in authority but is a "neophyte" or worse. Notice that we are no where in Scripture told to avoid the intention of evil, or insincerity, because the Bible acknowledges that ALL men are tempted to be hypocrites--we are commanded instead to resist the Devil and He will flee.  Christ himself was tempted with hypocrisy---bow down to me, Satan said.
      Therefore to claim that insincerity has anything to do with official judicial action is characteristic of mystics, charismatics and Roman Catholics.  All three claim a type of magisterial power, rather than ministerial power.  Christ provided us an example, of what it means to walk according to the Law of God, so if our master would not have Judas excommunicated, by informing the other apostles of his disloyalty, but rather tolerated his hypocrisy, until it was confirmed by his actions, how can we act any different.
       
      Whether the excommunicated folks acts sincerely, or insincerely, they were excommunicated for WHAT they did.  What did they do?  They REFUSED to sign an oath.  Therefore they were excommunicated for OBEYING THE LAW of GOD.

       

      22:3

      Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act; and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth (
      Exo_20:7
      ; Jer_4:2
      ). Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform (Gen_24:2
      , Gen_24:3, Gen_24:5, Gen_24:6, Gen_24:8, Gen_24:9). Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority (Exo_22:7-11; Num_5:19, Num_5:21; Neh_5:12).

      22:4

      An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation (
      Psa_24:4; Jer_4:2). It cannot oblige to sin: but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt (1Sa_25:22, 1Sa_25:32-34; Psa_15:4). Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels (Jos_9:18, Jos_9:19, with 2Sa_21:1; Eze_17:16, Eze_17:18, Eze_17:19).

      • It is a SIN to avouch an oath where the recipient is not fully persuaded that what he avouches is the truth.  Therefore to bind people to an oath, of which they are not fully persuaded that it is scriptural, needful, and given by lawful authority, is serious blasphemy, because it is using the name of God in vain.  Is is sinful to act where there is no faith.
      • It is a sin to refuse an oath concerning anything good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.  But one DOES NOT sin, if he is NOT convinced that it is good, just, and given by lawful authority.  Would you swear an oath in an Iranian court by Allah and the Koran?  IF you do, you utter the highest blasphemy.
      • No oath may be taken with mental reservation, or with intentional evasion.  In other words it MUST be taken in sincerity.  How can someone take an oath to do something, that he is not convinced in his conscience is sincere?
      • Though a legitimate oath binds to performance even to a man's own hurt, it is for this very reason that ALL oaths are to be challenged and only taken when there is firm persuasion thereof.
      Your American presbyterian ancestors understood all of this, though you sir, do not---acting more like a Romanist.  That is why in a court of law, a man may refuse to swear an oath, or swear the oath, "..so help me God", and yet not incriminate himself.  Besides all this, consider the following:
      1.  Can you prove that church courts which MUST not deal with crimes, may impose oaths?  I am not convinced they can.  Vows yes, for we take vows when we marry, but an oath?!  The context of this passage is historically that Anabaptists did not admit the right of civil/criminal courts to impose oaths in order to guarantee truthfulness in trials.  Section 22:4 attacks the Romanist evasion of oaths, whereby they were taught by the Jesuits to lie in court, because by mental reservation and evasion, they had an ultimate loyalty to the Papacy.
       
      IF as I suspect Chapter 22 is in reference ONLY to secular/civil/criminal courts (Rom. 13:1) then your elders first sinned, in acting on suspicious of sincerity, and then compounded that sin by taking upon themselves the right to adminster oaths they could not lawfully proceed to do.
       
       
       
      Gus Gianello
       
       -----Original Message-----
      From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben Hart
      Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 5:33 PM
      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: "the rpna(gm)" Scandal

      Susan,

      Right, that's a fair and fairly obvious question. After all,
      everyone was excommunicated for not taking an oath imposed on them by
      the Session for charges the accused had yet to hear. In that sense,
      your suspicions are confirmed - my expose was irrelevant to the
      excommunications. It seems that the only thing relevant in a strict
      sense is that they refused to take an oath that was imposed on them.
      However, there is an important sense in which it is related, since it
      helps to make better sense of what happened prior and subsequent to
      their excommunications. But this looser sense of being relevant is
      quite important still.

      Where I see the Effort's involvement relevant (in the broader sense)
      to the excommunications is that the Charitible Inquiry--the document
      they drafted as a group--was submitted as a sincere bunch of
      questions from people sincerely seeking answers. My purpose (or
      perhaps one of them) in exposing the Effort was to show the claim
      of "We're just asking sincere questions" to be false. They were not
      sincere questions - they were leading questions. They were not
      sincere people - they had their minds made up that unless the RPNA
      (GM) change its ways, the Session was in obstinant sin. The reason
      they could not take the oath of membership (i.e. that for which
      they'd been excommunicated) is because they'd come to the decision
      that the Session was unlawful. So much for 'sincere questions.'

      Thus, my expose served a dual purpose - first, it gave everyone
      involved information that I thought was helpful for them to better
      inform their consciences (see my previous email and the expose
      itself). Second, it showed the duplicity of the claim that the CI
      was an inquiry. It was not - it was an assertion in the form of an
      inquiry, and this kind of behavior is what we all swore that we'd
      refrain from doing when we joined the church. In fact, before every
      Lord's Supper, as part of our examination, we are asked 'Have you
      knowingly published anything contrary to the teachings of this
      church?' Understanding the history of the Effort as it led up to the
      drafting of the CI gives a context necessary to assess the sincerity
      of the CI and the people who wrote it. It shows an explicit breach
      of one of the terms of communion (term of communion in the sense of
      what we agree to right before coming to the Lord's Table.)

      Something else that bears emphasis is that members of the Effort were
      publically making claims that I was once part of their group, and I
      was uncomfortable with that association, especially as it came with
      no elaboration or qualification. Therefore, making the nature of my
      involvement public, along with my disagreement with their subversive
      M.O. was what I felt was necessary to clear my name. I wanted to
      distance myself from the claims that they made, and in so doing,
      their sins became public.

      Notwithstanding my position on the Effort's existence and their
      excommunication, I do appreciate some of the questions they raise in
      their paper (along with what Stan B. has written.) However, in
      short, they infer way too much from the evidence. Much of the most
      plausible things they say are of the general form:

      Session is guilty of being inexpedient/ imperfect/ lacking judgment,
      etc. Therefore they're either in sin, or are unlawful.

      One could agree with the premise and still deny the conclusion. My
      point in bringing this up is simply this: the fact that I disagree
      with certain things the Effort has said/done doesn't entail that I've
      found their entire project (i.e. line of inquiry) worthless and
      without merit. I do hope to see administrative changes in the RPNA
      (GM). But the irony of the situation is this: I'm not alone in
      that. The elders want to see things normalized as soon as is humanly
      possible, and as far as I can tell, they're doing what they can to
      realize that goal. My hope is that the Effort people will moderate
      their claims, reassess just how much can be drawn from their
      evidence, and see that things aren't really as bad as they say they
      are.

      I hope that helps to clarify what I did even if it does not satisfy
      you as being reasonable.

      Thanks for your question.

      Vale!
      Ben

    • Salaam Alaykoum
      Thank you Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Gianello. ~Samantha ... From: Gus Gianello To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com Sent:
      Message 47 of 47 , Apr 29, 2007
        Thank you Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Gianello.

        ~Samantha

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Gus Gianello <dr.gus.gianello@...>
        To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:48:41 PM
        Subject: RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Resource for those grieved by recent events

        A very useful review of this book is inserted below
        The Barnabas Ministry
        Book Review


        Healing Spiritual Abuse: How to Break Free from Bad Church Experiences
        Ken Blue (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. 1993.) 166 pages.

        In Healing Spiritual Abuse, Ken Blue offers a well-researched and insightful analysis of the dynamics of spiritual abuse. Books of this genre often focus on practical, behavioral aspects of abuse, and Blue definitely addresses this. For example, Blue offers this list of characteristics of an abusive church:

        1. Abusive leaders base their spiritual authority on their position or office rather than on their service to the group. Their style of leadership is authoritarian.
        2. Leaders in abusive churches often say one thing but do another. Their words and deeds do not match.
        3. They manipulate people by making them feel guilty for not measuring up spiritually. They lay heavy religious loads on people and make no effort to lift those loads. You know you are in an abusive church if the loads just keep getting heavier.
        4. Abusive leaders are preoccupied with looking good. They labor to keep up appearance. They stifle any criticism that puts them in a bad light.
        5. They seek honorific titles and special privileges that elevate them above the group. They promote a class system with themselves at the top.
        6. Their communication is not straight. Their speech becomes especially vague and confusing when they are defending themselves.
        7. They major on minor issues to the neglect of the truly important ones. They are conscientious about religious details but neglect God's larger agendas.

        If your church rates high on these negative indicators, it is significantly spiritually abusive. Now something must be done. You may choose to stay and fight for change. Bear in mind, however, that most abusive religious systems are very well rationalized and well-defended. Abusive leaders are unlikely to respond well to your rational objections and constructive criticisms. Spiritual abuse is never the result of confused thinking. It is caused by a lust for power (p. 135).

        However, Blue excels at discussing the phenomenon of spiritual abuse from a theological and Scriptural point of view. The book is loaded with pastoral insights that are well founded and well expressed. A few excerpts illustrate this clearly:

        In Luke 12:42 Jesus gives a picture of true spiritual authority in the form of a parable. He asks, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time?" True leaders are not necessarily profoundly gifted or conspicuously talented; they need no exalted office; they need no titles to validate their words; they need no seat of Moses to support their effectiveness. All they need to do is be faithful and wise, serving food to their followers as it is needed (p. 32).

        Both Ezekiel and Jesus condemned one fundamental error in the shepherds: they used the sheep rather than than served them. They acted as if the sheep existed to meet their needs rather than the other way around. When shepherds today look out over their congregations and see their people as church growth statistics, tithing units and workers in their programs, they follow the pastoral style that Jesus and Ezekiel prophesied against (p. 41).

        The modern "yeast of the Pharisees" is what we call legalism. The term legalism covers any variation on the notion that if we do the proper Christian disciplines well enough and long enough, God will be pleased with us and will reward us. It is the idea that if we do more and try harder, we can make a claim on God's favor so that we need not rely totally upon his mercy and grace.
        Legalism is the great weapon of spiritual abuse. Multiplying religious rules to gain control over followers is authoritarianism' s primary tool. Legalism is an expression of leaders' compulsion to seek security and predictability. If they can enforce an exhaustive list of dos and don'ts, they think, they will gain that security and predictability they crave (p. 44).

        Jesus promises rest for all who are weary of trying to please religious leaders. He offers an easy yoke to all those laboring under a load of spiritual performance. If your religion is wearisome and burdensome, God's answer is not a longer quiet time, a firmer commitment, attendance at one more conference or one more trip to the altar. God's solution for spiritual tiredness is rest-- rest in the loving acceptance of Jesus and his perfect load-carrying work for you (p. 59).

        False shepherds will always give lip service to this mercy and grace, but will then undermine it in the body of their teaching and in their actions (p. 60).

        A more common version of the same story is the pastor who berates the church, blaming them for low attendance at services or poor support for the church programs. Rather than look at the defects in his or her own leadership, the pastor focused attention on the flaws of the congregation. Such a person is more interested in keeping up appearances than in discovering what is actually wrong (p. 71)..

        To sum up, I would say that if abuse is minor and rare, we should probably shrug it off. If it is significant, we should confront the perpetrator. If it is systemic, ongoing, unrelenting and well defended, we probably need to leave (p. 96).

        So when we assess the integrity of a Christian leader or group, we do not look first at its motives, its aims or its moments of kindness. We look first and last at its fruit. If leaders constantly root their authority in an office rather than in servanthood, if they do everything for show, if they demand special privilege or titles, if they use words deceitfully, if they major on minors to the neglect of real pastoral needs, and if this behavior tears people down rather than builds them up, then such leaders must be confronted and changed-- or abandoned (p. 99).

        We have to be clear that if we are to have anything like Christian fellowship with those who have hurt us, they must at some point acknowledge their sin and repent of it. No true relationship between Christians can exist without this cleansing. We can forgive without their repenting, and this will free us from the bondage of ongoing bitterness, but we will not have a reconciled relationship with them until they repent (p. 100-101).

        He (a former spiritual abuser) explained how in his first church he quickly gathered about him those parishioners who met his needs, those who supported him uncritically. "In time," he said, "I established a class system, with my supporters at the top and those who posed a threat to my leadership at the bottom. This system aided me in the delusion that I was doing the right things (p. 110)."

        The second classic type of spiritual abuser is the heroic, grandiose or messianic narcissist who is obsessed by a desire to be someone great or to do something unprecedented for God. Carrying out this fantasy requires the cooperation of others and access to their money. Like the first type, this leader may not consciously wish to hurt anyone; but other are hurt as they are used for the leader's and God's "higher purposes (p. 111)."

        In order to achieve the public support he needs, these leaders make extraordinary claims for themselves or have others make them in their behalf. Such claims may include a special anointing, unusual personal sacrifice, unprecedented encounters with God, unique training, a singular teaching or leadership gift, a revelation of truth that is not available to others, or secret knowledge of God's end-times purposes. These and other claims imply that God has a special calling on this leader, and so it is the "unspecial" people's duty to admire and follow him, which they often do in droves (p. 113).

        A most effective means of control for a messianic leader is to convince his followers that they are on an extraordinary mission with him. If a leader successfully convinces his followers that he is the unique instrument of God, that makes them unique by virtue of their support of him. This group may say or imply such things as "We are a special move of God," "We are the only group proclaiming truth," "We are the faithful remnant," "We are God's cutting edge for this generation," or "We are in training for God's end-times army."
        Once this attitude is rooted in a group, the combination of pride and fear keeps followers in formation. Everyone wants to feel special, and some get hooked on the exhilaration of being part of an elite. Others fear leaving lest they miss God's will and be accused of deserting his special calling (p. 114).

        Many Christians say they have heard, understood and believed the gospel. But when they continue to subject themselves to the legalistic manipulation of spiritual abusers, we must assume that the Good News has not yet sunk in fully. For some this takes time. So we must continually reinforce the truth that we have in fact died to the law and are no longer obligated to it. Meditating on biblical passages which assure us of the radical nature of our acceptance by God through Jesus can be helpful (p. 127).


        Healing Spiritual Abuse is recommended as an insightful and helpful resource in understanding and breaking free from unhealthy church situations.
         
        The book is available at Amazon.com but not at Amazon.ca
         

         


        Quantity: 

        or
        Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
         
          
        More Buying Choices

        52 used & new from $6.48

        Have one to sell? Sell yours here
         
          
        Tell a Friend

        Healing Spiritual Abuse: How to Break Free from Bad Church Experiences
         
         

        Healing Spiritual Abuse: How to Break Free from Bad Church Experiences (Paperback)
        by Ken Blue (Author) "A televangelist is tried, convicted and sent to jail for defrauding his followers... " (more)
        Key Phrases: New Testament, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit (more...)
        (14 customer reviews)    
        List Price:$15.00
        Price:$10.20 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
        You Save:$4.80 (32%)



        Availability: In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.



        Only 2 left in stock--order soon (more on the way).

        Want it delivered Wednesday, April 25? Order it in the next 16 hours and 28 minutes, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details

        52 used & new available from $6.48
        Find books, Bibles and more in our new Christian Books store.

        Keep connected to what's happening in the world of books by signing up for Amazon.com Books Delivers, our monthly subscription e-mail newsletters. Discover new releases in your favorite categories, popular pre-orders and bestsellers, exclusive author interviews and podcasts, special sales, and more.

         
         
        Christian love to all,
         
        Gus Gianello
        -----Original Message-----
        From: covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:covenantedr eformationclub@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Tim Cunningham
        Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:06 AM
        To: covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com
        Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Resource for those grieved by recent events

        I commend to those who have been grieved by recent events a remarkable
        Biblical study of Christ's teaching on spiritual abuse.

        The book "Healing Spiritual Abuse" by Ken Blue and it is an exegetical
        and historical study of Matt. 23 and shows how the problems exemplified
        by the Pharisees and confronted by Christ still bedevil Christians
        today.

        While Blue is neither Presbyterian nor Covenanter, his exegesis of the
        Scriptures is good and his applications are exemplary. But he is
        especially good at helping those who have may or may not have suffered
        spiritual abuse to biblically analyze their situations and how they may
        recover from truly abusive situations.

        Blessings
        Tim Cunningham




        Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.