Review of YouTube video re: Guile & Other Forms of Deception

Questions and conversation about religious beliefs, Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy, and Creation 7th Day Adventism
David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

Review of YouTube video re: Guile & Other Forms of Deception

Postby David Aguilar » November 23rd, 2013, 7:42 pm

Earlier this week, Pastor “Chick” sent us a link to a video, which may be found below:

Adrian Ebens at the 2013 Tabernacles Camp Meeting

He has asked the members to watch it and share their thoughts, as it could become a sanctifying discussion, and one beneficial to us in terms of our discernment and growth.

Giselle and I both saw it on the afternoon of the day it was sent, and shortly thereafter we began to talk about it. It turns out that our initial impressions were essentially the same, and we will share them here, indicating where one of us has something specific to add from our individual impressions.

In an overall sense, we believe that the video is a beneficial one. The speaker had an impressive and earnest presentation style. He seemed to be sincere, and committed to his convictions. Many of the principles were quite useful, and in fact I (David) had to confess to Giselle that I saw the need for some refinement in my own speech in a particular area, which I immediately forsook and put away. We believe that there are things in this video that may speak to many of us, and therefore we would recommend it for viewing as a basis for discussion. There were a few issues, however, that we both identified individually and immediately, and therefore we would not suggest that a new CSDA member, or a non-member, view it without some conversation afterwards, or with the impression that the concepts are wholeheartedly embraced by the Church.

First, here are some specific benefits and right-principles that we believe were present:

1) There is certainly a need for enlightened sensitivity to the influences that exist around us. No matter how “advanced” we may consider ourselves spiritually, we can be affected in gradual ways by what we see and hear, and therefore, as the Spirit of Prophecy indicates, we are not safe for the space of even an hour without prayer. This was very powerfully, and effectively, brought to the forefront, and it is something that our members should consider very carefully.

2) Giselle was impressed by the concept that there is no true fellowship without vulnerability, which is the ability to share oneself with another, to be open, to reveal. Guile is an obstacle to this intimacy, and there is a connection between the lack of guile in the 144,000 and their being “as one.” This is also related to the idea that when we engage in a spirit of deception, portraying ourselves as something we are not, we invite deception rather than intimacy, and this was also well explained. It is certainly necessary that we share ourselves with one another, because when we know we are loved, despite where we have come from, or what we have learned in our pasts, we would not hesitate to engage with others, and to allow ourselves to be vulnerable (honest, open, intimate, etc.) with them.

3) With regard to how we speak, we must always be sure that we mean what we say. Even words spoken in “jest” have an influence on both the speaker and the hearers, and we agree with the speaker’s application of the term “guile” to much of what the world considers ordinary ways of speaking, which include exaggeration, misdirection, and subtle attempts to manipulate the emotions of those who hear us in potentially improper ways. The fact that the flesh finds satisfaction in confusing others, or enjoying their gullibility, is something for which the saints do need to watch. There is more on the issue of guile a little later, however.

4) As Giselle pointed out, the presenter seems to have a reasonable grasp of the concept of headship, as expressed in the idea that if Satan has access to or influence over the head of the family and takes him captive, he then has access to the entire family. The responsibility that Yah gives to the head of a household is very important, and to be guarded very carefully.

5) David appreciated the speaker’s mention near the end of a “different spirit” that attends Trinitarian worship as opposed to that found among those who have a more Biblical understanding of the Godhead. In fact, we have said similar things in our own approach to the issue – we do not consider it a test of fellowship (I am not sure if the speaker or his group would) – but we recognize that it is something worth discussing at appropriate times, because a lack of a clear “vision” of the Godhead (an issue that we actually talked about during last night’s Sabbath study) can make it more difficult for an individual to really grasp the concept of righteousness by faith, and the abiding of Christ in the converted heart BY His Spirit.

With regard to the problematic areas, we both came to the same conclusions with regard to the following:

1) The speaker does confess to a lack of victory in several places during the presentation, such as in one place where he said, “I can’t promise I won’t slip.” He also said something about needing a lot of “amplification” before Yahweh can get his attention (such as feeling a physical tap on the shoulder as an incentive to pray). While this does not discredit the true things he says, as Giselle worded it, there seems to be a lack of “balance” with regard to the speaker’s approach to a few things. She noted that he is learning to be careful about his surroundings, and those things that influence him, which is good... but where he does not find balance he goes to extremes, becoming fearful and speculating in order to cover up a feeling of vulnerability. Satan can also use this, and she said that when listening to him speak she got the impression that he had a lack of rest, and demonstrated some fear which led him to excessive caution.

2) With regard to the definition of “guile,” David pointed out that the speaker’s understanding of the term does not include a very important element; that is, the “intent” to deceive, the motive of the speaker. While we agreed with many of his applications of the term, we as a Church have often affirmed that the motive for an action is one of the factors in determining its righteousness. We believe that the presenter took things a step too far by considering even dramatic re-enactments to be guileful, even comparing those who participate in them to Lucifer, since this involves one individual pretending to be another. With regard to historical portrayals, there is no intent to deceive; rather, there is an attempt to demonstrate a principle, to teach a lesson, which sometimes cannot easily be communicated by the written word. In essence, they are parables in motion.

Just last night, we watched a short film on YouTube in which two families of Jews that had converted to Christianity saw the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, and fled according to the teachings of Christ a few years earlier. I (David) was powerfully affected by how closely their experiences paralleled that of early Adventists after the “great disappointment” when Christ’s anticipated return was not fulfilled in a visible way. Similarly, the Christians who fled Jerusalem at the first sign of trouble were initially very tempted by the fact that the city was not immediately destroyed upon their departure. It was clear, though, that (like Adam) the city had in fact “died” spiritually, and became very unsafe. The actual, physical destruction was only the natural result of what took place during that time period. Those who believed the warnings of Christ, remaining out of Jerusalem even when things seemed to be returning to normal, were spared the destruction when it DID come. The message was clear – even if Yah’s promises seem to delay, we must hold firm to what we know, remember always what He has told us, and walk by faith, not by sight.

This is just one example of how we may be blessed by spiritually edifying presentations, and we could not possibly accuse the actors of demonstrating “guile” (although, as Giselle correctly pointed out, actors who habitually portray worldly, evil characters tend to have chaotic, unhappy lives, so there is some cause-and-effect there). CSDAs have even shown some dramatizations, and documentaries that involve recreations of historical events, in the sanctuary of the Church during camp meetings, and used them to good effect. If the issue of “intent” is left out of our understanding of guile, then taking the argument to its logical conclusion, even allegories, even parables, would HAVE to be discarded. Parables do NOT actually represent facts in many cases. Allegories deliberately use one thing to represent another. While this is (by a broad definition) mis-representation, it is absolutely not an example of guile.

The speaker might stop short of including these, because “Christ did it,” and “They may be found in the Bible,” but this is a (typically Adventist) error of reading for specifics rather than principles. Is the use of non-deceptive allegories and parables okay when Christ does it, or does Christ (and prophets, and preachers, and authors like John Bunyan) do it because it is a useful and spiritually approved way of demonstrating a point?

We as a Church have also had a couple of discussions about Rahab’s “lie” to the soldiers of Jericho, when she protected the Hebrew spies. There is also the example of Michal, David’s wife, telling her father Saul that she did not know where he was, saving his life. These were clearly misrepresentations – and in fact there was even a deliberate attempt to deceive – but Rahab in particular is listed among the faithful figures of the Old Testament in the writings of not one, but two witnesses. (Heb 11:31, James 2:24)

I (David) have actually had to struggle with this idea at times, considering that I might have attempted to find a better way to save the spies, but I cannot truly put myself in the place of a woman who lived at that period of time, under very unique circumstances. In any case, any attempt I made in her place would have undoubtedly involved SOME form of misdirection (even if it were a lie of omission, such as, “I don’t know where they are.”). What is clear, though, is that the issue of guile is not something that we can afford to consider too simplistically, and therefore (without supporting any excuses for deception or falsehood) I find several differences between the definition used by the presenter, and what we have come to understand as a Church.

By the way, we later found out that the film mentioned above about the families leaving Jerusalem was actually published by Jehovah’s Witnesses through the Watchtower Society. Even though the message had a clear and powerful application to both early Adventist and we who live in the last days, these applications are there because the principles presented were true, not because of the religious views of the individuals who put the film together. Now, this is a fact that would no doubt trouble the presenter, due to the third issue we identified:

3) While we appreciated the spiritual connections that the speaker made between visible actions and invisible things, we believe that here again his lack of balance caused him to take things a step too far. For example, he describes one place where he was listening to some worship music, and this caused a number of misfortunes in his life, including misunderstandings with his wife, and – at one point – his jacket catching on fire.

Certainly, there are causes and effects, and we cannot always see the connections immediately, but his description at this point came across more as superstition than actual spiritual discernment. This was made particularly clear when he identified the “problem” as the fact that the music that appeared to bless him at first was actually written and performed by non-Adventists.

There are two issues here that identify this as superstition. First, Yahweh can (and has) used even the things of the world to bless His people. We do not drive cars built only by Adventists (or CSDAs), or eat food prepared only by other Christians. Some might say that there should be different rules when speaking about media as opposed to physical products, but each of us can think of a ready example of non-Adventist works that have blessed us or given us useful insights... and it is certain that Satan can take even “good” things and turn them to evil. The speaker apparently attempted to deal with objections like this by stating his ideas in the context of conservatism vs. liberalism, but we believe that this misses the point, and should really be stated in terms of the true conflict, that between balance and imbalance, since there are dangers on both sides of any given doctrinal “road.”

Second, and this is something that CSDAs in particular can appreciate... why is it that Conference-produced SDA music would have any special protection from evil influence, or blessings from Heaven? The speaker heavily implies, if not outright states, that if the music he had been listening to was produced and sung by Seventh-day Adventists, the “bad things” in his life would not have taken place. This is not an argument that anyone who understands the true state of the SDA Church could ever give any credibility. If the spiritual state of the musicians had a direct influence on how easily Satan could use the music we hear to disrupt our communications and set fire to our clothing (?), then we had best surrender the blessing of spiritual music altogether until we arrive in Heaven. We know that Pastor “Chick” has written a few songs, but we also sing hymns written by members of a variety of different religious traditions, and while the Spirit has instructed us to change a few lyrics here and there, we cannot accept that this practice is inviting any kind of a curse.

Giselle added a couple further thoughts about this point:

a) With regard to the speaker’s example of Zimri and the pagan woman whose name meant falsehood, she understood this to be referring to singing lyrics with false concepts and teachings, rather than the nature of the musicians themselves. She said that she agrees that certain rhythms in music are not inspired by Yah, and should be avoided, but that we can also appreciate a melodious voice given by the Father despite the singer’s background.

b) Even if it was a true principle that an Adventist singer and writer somehow made a song “safe,” the hearers would still not know the spiritual state of any one particular Adventist individual. The SDA Church, with no clear concept of victory, concedes that among its baptized members may remain “weeds,” terrible sinners, and so there would need to be some way to distinguish the “good” Adventists from the “bad” ones if we were to be as cautious as suggested. In a more general sense, accepting this just as it is presented could lead to people blaming “Satan” for the bad things that happen to them, rather than seeking to correct their own lack of responsibility regarding (for example) clearer and better communication.

These are our current thoughts on the material presented in the video link, and we look forward to seeing further discussion among the brethren.

Elyna
Posts: 39
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Review of YouTube video re: Guile & Other Forms of Decep

Postby Elyna » November 23rd, 2013, 11:31 pm

Thank you Pastor for sharing this speech /sermon with us.

I believe that this concept of guile expressed by Ebens is in line with the teachings of the our Church. However on the flip side of the coin, his negative spirit reveals his need of complete victory. He believes that he can and has been given that power but he has not taken full possession of it by declaring it and confirm it by his words and practices. He still believes as an SDA: «I don't promise you I won't slip». My heart cries out for him for he is not far from the kingdom. If there is any way he can be contacted, I would want to know that he be exposed to the complete Victory message. As to take the place of the pioneer CSDAs, he would need to accept that message of course and be proven by the whole truth of Yah.

This is what I gathered and think about his talk.

Yah bless.
Sis.Guerline

User avatar
Naraiel
Posts: 108
Joined: May 29th, 2012, 4:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Review of YouTube video re: Guile & Other Forms of Decep

Postby Naraiel » November 24th, 2013, 11:27 am

2) Giselle was impressed by the concept that there is no true fellowship without vulnerability, which is the ability to share oneself with another, to be open, to reveal. Guile is an obstacle to this intimacy, and there is a connection between the lack of guile in the 144,000 and their being “as one.” This is also related to the idea that when we engage in a spirit of deception, portraying ourselves as something we are not, we invite deception rather than intimacy, and this was also well explained. It is certainly necessary that we share ourselves with one another, because when we know we are loved, despite where we have come from, or what we have learned in our pasts, we would not hesitate to engage with others, and to allow ourselves to be vulnerable (honest, open, intimate, etc.) with them.


In the underlined part of the 2 paragraph, I wish to clarify something that can help us avoid going to another extreme, in our efforts to communicate better with others, in the world or in the Church.

Improving our communication skills with others does not mean that we will abuse our freedom of speech and start sharing or expressing any loose thought or idea that comes to mind, without taking any responsibility or accountability for the words we will say. For we are accountable before our Father for our words also.

The same principle applies in the Church, in our efforts to become more honest, open and intimate with one another, let's keep in mind that we also need to be responsible with the thoughts or ideas we are planning to share with others. We must process our thoughts first, and subject them in obedience to the mind of Christ. Therefore, it would be a great blessing to us and others if we pray to our Heavenly Father for help, so we can discern the perfect timing, place and audience to share the things we want to share with others. Now, if we care about the well being of others, and don't wish to become stumbling blocks to them or hurt them unnecessarily, we will be more careful with our words, and with the way how we express ourselves with others. This certainty requires constant prayer and vigilance, and wisdom from Above.

"Jesus did not keep back one word of truth, but He always spoke with love. He was gentle, kind, and thoughtful to others. He was never rude and never spoke more severely than necessary. He never hurt anyone. He did not scold people for their weaknesses. He told the truth, but always in love." Steps to Jesus, Page 6

This is something all the followers of Jesus (Yahshua) need to keep in mind. This is one of my personal goals I want to sanctify more and more by Yah's grace.


Yah bless
Giselle

User avatar
Pastor Chick
Posts: 80
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Location: Kisoro - Uganda
Contact:

Re: Review of YouTube video re: Guile & Other Forms of Decep

Postby Pastor Chick » November 24th, 2013, 2:13 pm

He did not scold people for their weaknesses.


This statement has puzzled me before, and especially when I read the following passage:

"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matt. 16:23)

Yes, I believe YAHSHUA had tears in His eyes as He spoke those words. He also knew that Peter understood the Savior's great love for him and that Peter was capable of taking the reproof.

If we are not balanced in our application of inspiration, we may become fearful of saying the very words that a soul needs to hear in order to be separated from error and sin.

We must trust that YAH will give us the necessary words at the exact time, as YAHSHUA has promised, "But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." (Matt. 10:19, 20)

If anyone speaks words to you that seem unpalatable to you, it is your responsibility to examine that in honest conversation with the speaker. YAH will bring forth the truth, and the truth shall set the sinner free.
Last edited by Pastor Chick on November 27th, 2013, 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Elyna
Posts: 39
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Review of YouTube video re: Guile & Other Forms of Decep

Postby Elyna » November 24th, 2013, 7:02 pm

[quote="If anyone speaks words to you that seem unpalatable to you, it is your responsibility to examine that in honest conversation with the speaker. YAH will bring forth the truth, and the truth shall set the sinner free."[/quote]

Amen.

User avatar
Pastor Chick
Posts: 80
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Location: Kisoro - Uganda
Contact:

Re: Review of YouTube video re: Guile & Other Forms of Decep

Postby Pastor Chick » November 27th, 2013, 11:41 am

I have not seen much participation on this thread, but I am thankful for the detailed analysis given by Br. David and Sis. Giselle. I noticed some of the same things myself.

In brief, my reaction was summed up in these words. During the presentation, I could see glimpses of the "power panel," but I was never directed to the "power on" switch. In that, I was disappointed.

The subject matter is very relevant, as the speaker noted. However, sinners can talk about what needs to be done, and they can sigh and cry over their failures, but only saints will enter the Heavenly realm. Christ says, "...My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it." (Luke 8:21)

Barbara
Posts: 77
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 2:07 pm

Re: Review of YouTube video re: Guile & Other Forms of Decep

Postby Barbara » December 7th, 2013, 9:59 am

Today I had opportunity to finally watch this video. After watching the video, I appreciate and understand the commentary made by others more than I did before.

Below are some points I would like to add:

1. Something that stood out to me is the speaker's emphasis on Cain's attitude. He said that while Cain stated, "my punishment is too great for me" (in Genesis 4:13), according to marginal reference, he also meant "I cannot be forgiven". The speaker sees this attitude in people that have not experienced the complete acceptance of Yah, and states that this lack of believing they are loved and accepted causes them to project an image of themselves that is different from what they really are, as they seek acceptance.

When this is done, intimacy is blocked and 'being in one accord in one place' is not possible.

Even though we, as CSDAs, know and experience Yah's acceptance, it is possible that some may still have traces of Cain's thinking, if Cain's attitude had been adopted previously (before conversion). If any one has previously felt, as the speaker said, that "If [others] know what is inside me, they won't really want to know me", then that individual needs to be sure that thought has been replaced with "Yah accepts me and I am valuable to Him, so my brethren do want to know me". Since we are dead and Christ is living in us, we cannot dare to think that 'what is inside me is bad - we and the bad are dead and it is Christ who lives.

Being sure that we have the correct thought will prevent this type of deception and give freedom to be open, share oneself with others, and enable us to be 'in one accord in one place'.

2. Considering what was said about guile, I agree with Brother David that it is important to consider intent. If intent is not considered, there is potential for one to become convinced he is guilty of guile when, because of the intent, he is not.

As has been said, when the intent is to save life, it has been justified or counted as a righteous act. In such a case, to believe oneself to be guilty of guile, would be to go into a ditch on one side of the road.

In order to avoid going into the ditch on the other side of the road, we need to consider in what situations intent rightly justifies deceit. If good intentions are used to justify all deceit, that would be going into the ditch on the other side of the road. It seems that there may be some unusual cases beyond 'intent to save life' where the intent would justify the deceit. However, I also recognize that extreme caution needs to be exercised here so that deceit is not justified when it is unrighteous, going into the ditch on the other side of the road.

3. I found this video to be a blessing as it helped me to understand more clearly what happened in some experiences in my life.

4. I hope to share some of the content (from notes) with those in Uganda, and pray it will be a blessing to all who hear.


Return to “Doctrine and Theology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests