Geoffrey Pittman - Christian Fellowship Publishers
Another mistake by Geoffrey Pittman - confusing santification for consecration.
People should know things upfront, for where else are they going to know the truth? I am confident the Holy Spirit is doing a good work in exposing these problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey Pittman PM Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:07 pm @ CFP Forum
As for posting I wanted to mention a few things. Due to the nature of the website and the forum we are not able to have the type of forum which includes much debate.
Since the posts I gave are directly related to Watchman Nee's same claims (which would follow regarding women), to prevent it to me seems disingenuous, thus disallowing exposure of this need. My agreeing with Nee's same findings in the Holy Spirit, it would seem strange to arbitrarily censor this when it is vital. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit, so we must then see the underlying motivation.
Just so you know, when I post at CFP, I will post the same post at biblocality.com/forums because I am all too aware of the flesh that would hold certain valuable information down, so consider this documenting underlying motivations. I believe you have an underlying motivation because you know what Watchman Nee said about women, which is perfectly acceptable for that culture and time. This may be difficult for you to understand because you are committed to an idea about women. I am seeking to call a spade a spade here...
http://biblocality.com/forums/showpo...68&postcount=1
The question put to Stephen Kaung as well is being hidden too, but should be answered. It is wrong not to answer this question and be accountable to Christians. You know that I have asked this question before on several occasions with no reply.
I will continue to ask this question and keep asking it until one day it is answered. May Stephen Kaung thank me for doing so to cause him to realize what is important, not in having the most sermons on the Internet, but Biblical locality. Understand how the flesh operates. It remains coy when it is in power on an issue. It can be construed as a sin of silence.
Is anything I have said here really so unreasonable? This issues does not go away because of Stephen Kaung's refusal to answer honestly or that the forum posts to this point are disallowed.
To make these points about women, which is crucial, and Kaung's absence towards Biblical locality is never to debate, but to affect his and your conscience both on women and locality. Isn't this amazing to see? It's wonderful!
Quote:
I know that you are interested in discussion, and also that you do have some good questions. So I don't want anything to come across like we are limiting you or rudely cutting you off. I have deleted a number of your comments but have saved them myself to continue the discussion between us. Some of them seemed that they should be private emails rather than forum posts (in this type of forum that is). Please don't be offended, and I hope you will continue to post comments and questions.
I can understand the need to hold back on pressing issues on a forum if you don't agree with those teachings or if you don't deal with these issues elsewhere either, but is that right? I don't like people on my forum posting hoards of mistaken ideas about non-OSAS for example, without dealing directly with the evidence of OSAS. It would be wrong of them to avoid the overwhelming evidence of OSAS.
Quote:
Some disagreeable points may exist, and/or some questions may be there. Perhaps if you can form the disagreements in the style of a question it will work much better. Then if after there is an answer it is still not clear, that would be the time to bring up furthur questioning. This is a more tactiful way of fellowshipping in this setting. When person to person, if you are a more blunt person then that is different. Please understand it is mainly due to the nature of the forum here, not due to a "heavy hand" not wanting to accept other brothers or sisters who see things differently.
Is tactiful the objective here? It should be truth.
I don't believe I have a disagreement with the books of Watchman Nee, but I am making points in agreement with Watchman Nee's writings for he agreed by the Holy Spirit in what I have said. That you would remove the matter of locality and women would indicate that you are disagreeing with Nee's writings and the Holy Spirit, so that is why in my being aware of this, that I post these matters, as well as ask Kaung to address why he pursued a course of action after all these years still not towards Biblical locality? Since I posted this in the "style of a question it will work much better" for Stephen Kaung, why then do you ask that this be done that which was already done? This comes across to me as disingenuous.
I don't think asking this simple question of Kaung is any burden at all, but a simple question he can answer, but refuses to, for after all these months he would have answered and has not. You can see the problematic situation in which he places himself and your removing the post which had the question, even though you said it did not. It is not to the nature of the forum that you would do this [which are excuses to keep a false teaching], but more in keeping with the same issue undealt with [and by avoiding induces passivity].
The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit.
I have said these things to help you.
Quote:
Some questions you may have brought up I will try to put something up that has to do with them. If the questions are posted merely as questions I won't need to re-word them. If they are otherwise then I may need to take it off and reword it saying "This question came from one of our readers: ...."
You could have simply just answered the post instead of saying you are going to edit it. That defeats the purpose of a forum, and perhaps you need a more censoring vehicle such as no forum.
Do not construe this as being hard on you in anyway or in that I am rejecting you in fellowship, but it is for you to confront the matter.
Quote:
Instead of editing any of your comments myself on the forum (if the need comes up), I will send you a note with some suggestions about placing the comment. That way you can reword however you would like.
How about this. How about explain the reason you removed the matter of women and the question put to Stephen Kaung. You gave no specific reason and were coy.
Quote:
Please email me back on this so I can either clarify or know that you understand. Again please don't be offended by some of the comments being taken off. This doesn't mean they are not good, only that they are of a different style then this "fellowship forum". What is especially helpful is more of your sharing how the Lord has directly helped you in the word or through these books.
I am not offended as I am confident I know exactly why you have done what you have done. Don't think it is a matter of style, but it diabolically opposite teachings.
What is more helpful is in correcting these false teachings. Don't underestimate this spiritual truth. For as long as a false teaching is harbored there is where Satan has a foothold. We ought not falsely edify. Correction is needed.
The posts that were removed from CFP were:
Regarding women: http://biblocality.com/forums/showpo...68&postcount=1
Regarding Stephen Kaung: a post asking Stephen Kaung why he never pursued Biblical locality and instead preaches congregationalism, that is to say non-denom "I of Christ"? This divides the body of Christ falsely.
