Posted by Dave Kenady, et al on 12/27/2001, 10:10 pm

Posted by Dave Kenady on 10/28/2001, 7:48 am In digging back through the archives, I have found some interesting things that would be worth revisiting. In a conversation in July 1999, Tee (a new spouse of a Chapelite) asked the following: I'm really relieved that you have rejected this false doctrine [connections]. It's hard for me, who never went through what you all did, to understand what seems glaringly obvious to me as gross deception. This is in no way meant to be critical of any of you. Some of my struggle through the years has been reconciling in my mind the wonderful revelation with the gross deception. In other words, it has been hard for me to describe the Chapel like so many on the outside (a cult, an abusive church, etc.) because there was a lot of good that has stuck with me until this day. I don't lose any sleep over it anymore, but there was a lot worth holding on to. I think the biggest problem for me has been that I have felt like the reputation of the Chapel should be defended for the good that was there. And perhaps it would be nice if I just let that go. The Chapel is gone and I don't see any banners in heaven defending or explaining it. It has simply been forgotten, except inside of us. ------------- Posted by Steve B. on 10/29/2001, 8:13 am , in reply to "Golden Oldie: A question from Tee" I identify with what you say, Dave. The problem for me (having gone a lot further than yourself in the conclusions I have drawn about the significance of the Chapel's collapse) is in hearing the Chapel criticized for all the wrong reasons. Most of the people who were against the Chapel at the time were reacting out of a gut instinct. They did not have a grasp of the real issues. Your struggle was in "reconciling in [your] mind the wonderful revelation with the gross deception." This in itself helps illuminate a few things for me. I'm not doubting the accuracy or sincerity of your observation, but it made me realize that I myself was never there for the "wonderful revelation." I was there because the Chapel taught the Word of God (meaning the Bible) more straight-forwardly than any other church I had yet encountered and was attempting to make it the center of daily life. I liked the practical aspects of its approach, such as making the time and space available for prayer before and after church services. I liked the availability of Bible college and the opportunity to sit in class every day studying the Word of God. I liked the high level of commitment of everybody there and daily life in a church community among people like that, seeking to live together in the Word and in the Spirit. I miss those things a lot. In fact, looking back on it, I was always a little uneasy about a lot of the "wonderful revelations" I heard being batted around. There seemed to be a lot of fuzziness about what was, and was not, the Word of God. As time went on this seemed to get worse and worse, and it began polluting the purity I thought I had found at the Chapel. One might almost say that I have come to see the "wonderful revelations" as being the same thing as the "gross deception" that brought down the Chapel. Sincerely, Steve Born email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- wonderful revelations Posted by lanny on 10/30/2001, 10:37 am , in reply to "Re: Golden Oldie: A question from Tee" I considered this to be the same as the teaching from the Bible and the Bible College. I might add that I am currently teaching both in church and in a Bible College and am more a seeker of "wonderful revelations" than ever. Lanny ---------- More about "wonderful revelations" Posted by Steve B. on 10/31/2001, 7:54 am , in reply to "wonderful revelations" Lanny, I think the matter of the Chapel's "wonderful revelations" comes pretty close to the core of my present view of what went wrong there. Even at the time, there was a fairly clear distinction in my mind between biblical teaching and revelations from Don and others that were said to be supported by the Bible but were not explicitly found in it. I think the degree to which people allowed this distinction to become blurred in their minds was directly related to the degree they were hurt or confused by the Chapel. This is not to say that I think no new revelations about what the Bible means are impossible, but that I think in the Chapel's case, it was decisively shown that several of its revelations were false and had a negative impact on the lives of the people who accepted those revelations as being from God. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Pat on 11/3/2001, 12:27 am , in reply to "More about "wonderful revelations"" Steve, Lanny, Would you give examples of "wonderful Revelations" so that we might see the central facts of the debate? Definitions of Biblical terms would also be helpful. Possible examples: 1. Connections 2. Man-child 3. nature of God 4. Rapture ---------- My thoughts on this Posted by Steve B. on 11/4/2001, 12:52 pm , in reply to "Re: More about " Pat, A good question. A revelation should always come by the Spirit through the Word—it is simply seeing for the first time, with God's help, the truth of something contained in the scriptures. The Word is the Spirit's instrument of truth. But because of human pride and demonic opposition to the gospel, it is possbile to think one sees things in the scriptures that aren't really there, or of embellishing a part of some truth found there with mistaken additions from one's own imagination or from an inaccurate knowledge of other scriptural teachings. This is what I think happened at the Chapel in several areas. But to be specific, I would say that at least the first three items on your list fit into the category of things claimed to be "wonderful revelations" at the Chapel, yet which are really teachings inadequately supported by the scriptures. But #2 and #3 are not unique to the Chapel, and #4 (the rapture doctrine) is not even unique to Pentecostalism. Except for connections, however, the things on your list were not really what I had in mind. Connections are the chief thing that I had in mind. I claim that unless one were relying on some form of extra-scriptural revelation, one would never come up with something like them. Therefore, I think that they were clearly not from God. Another example that you may remember, is Don's teaching that "Jesus did not have a conscience." That may have been the first indicator I can remember that the teaching at the Chapel was a little bit out of kilter. Sincerely, Steve