Carl Stevens taught, and as evidenced by Guest300, GGWO still teaches triple compound discipline. The general concept is that if you bring up somebody's sin that's forgiven, God won't judge them, but will judge you and will add the judgment the other person would have gotten.

This is another gospel.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1)

If you are in Christ, God is not going to judge you. Carl Stevens even taught that the bema seat is not a judgment. And if God is judging you, putting the other person's sin on you - then are you really saved? You cannot have sin imputed to you and be saved, can you? So triple compound discipline contradicts eternal security.

Romans 8:29-30 tells us that those whom God foreknew and then justified WILL be glorified. No one gets kicked out along the way. "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

Fundamental to the doctrine of eternal security is that you cannot unsave yourself any more than you can save yourself. Schaller, Scibelli, and Love repeat variations on this whenever eternal security comes up on The Grace Hour. Here they are correct.

Triple compound discipline serves to control those who attend GGWO - and even those who used to attend. It creates a fear that you could do something to cause God to judge you. But the Bible says, "For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
and if children, then heirs -- heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together." (Romans 8:15-17)

Hodeuon

Triple compound discipline,
sounds to me like Teflon sin.

GGWO


(My homage to Burma shave.)

Hodeuon,

CHS was not talking about eternal judgement, but chastisement. It was still heresy, but it was not a contradiction of eternal security. IMO, it was designed to protect the reputation of CHS by preventing the congregation from listening to "evil reports". It was also probably a way for CHS to think he could get off scot-free from any chastisement for his secret sins.

The way it went as I recall was:
1. I get judged for judging.
2. If the person is guilty of what I judge him for, then his judgement is removed form him and placed on me.
3. Pastors are entitled to double honor so if I judge a pastor, the discipline is doubled.

There may be a little more to it that I have forgotten.

Anyone who reads the verse that says the purpose of chastisement is to yield fruits of righteousness would have to conclude that God is unjust if He uses triple compound discipline. If I sin and you judge me, it would be unjust and unloving of God to deny me the fruits of righteousness by removing chastisement from me just to punish you.

That's pretty much the way I heard it taught as well and I agree that it's a control element designed by carl to disengage any questioning of his behaviour.
Keep in mind his statement that he would be accountable to no one after he was sent fleeing from Wiscasset for his adulterous affair.
Most of his control doctrines feed off that desire to be unaccountable to anyone.

Brad (guest 300) has bought into this wholeheartedly.

Guest2,

I agree with you that Carl said he wasn't talking about eternal judgment.

But as 300 has shown us, people who believe what Carl said claim that when you judge someone, you impute sin to them. Christ's sacrifice removes the imputation of sin for the believer, so if any sin is being imputed, Carl & company are saying the person isn't saved at the same time that they insist they're just talking about chastisement. It's a contradiction built into Carl's theology.

There's probably room for a discussion of whether imputing a person's sin after salvation affects the new nature. This is where the question of whether Christians have an old sin nature or an old man becomes very important in Romans 6. (The NIV says old nature but the Greek does not.) In other churches, this question is primarily academic and literally a matter for debates and papers & such. But given Carl's theology it has tremendous practical significance.

Ah, the pastor being worthy of double honor - that's what makes it "triple". Thank you. I knew I'd forgotten something. In the context of 1 Tim 5:17-18, double honor really has to do with paying the pastor.

I am convinced you are correct that triple compound discipline was intended to let Carl do what he pleased while silencing anyone who would protest.

Romans 4:7-8 quotes David as saying blessed is the man whose lawlessness is forgiven, whose sins are covered, to whom God does not impute sin. David was speaking in Hebrew, and a major feature of Hebrew poetry is parallelism. It doesn't have rhyme or meter but likes to restate things in similar terms. So forgiveness, covering, and not imputing sin are synonymous or nearly so. Not only does this show that Carl's claim that imputation of sin is chastisement is false but also shows that Carl's view of covering is false. (There is a difference here for us in this age, as our sins are forgiven so that there's no need for God to cover them whereas when David first wrote those words, _God_ covering sin was in light of Christ's anticipated sacrifice which would provide the forgiveness.)

Hodeuon

Thieme used this doctrine based on MT. 7:3. CHS used Romans 2:1 - He said you get the one discipline fror judging, double discipline is the sin you judged about (whether true or not) and triple discipline is self-imposed misery for doing the above two.

Here is a link to a detailed study by Theime on Chrisitan suffering/discipline
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:Sltht...lnk&cd=10&gl=us

Just for grins, I googled a few different terms which are used almost exclusively within Christianity. "Absolute proof" of nothing, but an interesting exercise. e.g.: if someone offered to sell you a car you'd never heard of, you might google it to learn more about it. Google knows about and has indexed multiple billions of web pages. If there's info about the subject in the world's collective pool of common knowledge, you can find it on Google!

Conversely, if there's a serious shortage of information on a subject which someone alleges is of vital importance -- is it really that important? If there was something of great importance for all Christians to know, just how impotent is God if no one knows about it except a small store front church in Baltimore with a handful of affiliated churches around the world? Does God hate the 2+ billion Christians who aren't part of gg and that's why he's not telling them these things?

Carl regularly told us he was teaching things "you won't hear taught anywhere else." Mainly because he was making up stuff. Or, as with this "doctrine," he plagiarized it from R.B. Thieme, who simply isn't all that influential.

Results of my little experiment:

492,000 hits for propitiation
3,070,000 for atonement Jesus
2,010,000 for sanctification
862,000 for soteriology
2,490,000 for eschatology
6,090,000 for ecclesiastical
65,300,000 for christianity
37,800,000 for biblical
43 (yeah, forty three) for "triple compound discipline" (and several of those are from old FN therads about gg!)

Hodeoun,

I have also noticed that guest300 likes to use the word "impute" a lot. I don't think he knows what the word even means.

Triple compound discipline is simply a man made doctrine that Carl used to scare his critics and potential future critics into silence. This was one of a number of false teachings that Carl used to silence people and keep them under tight control. People were getting scared into thinking that severe suffering would fall upon them for ever challenging, exposing, or disagreeing with Carl who claimed to be the supposedly infallible superapostle of modern times. Carl coupled this teaching with others like absolute delegated authority being given to the pastor and touch not the anointed (pastor) to keep people from challenging him in any way. His teachings about discipline here were about a vengeful punishment from God just for failure to blindly obey and serve himself (Carl). This teaching was also used to protect other pastors serving under Carl from accountability or exposure.

Interesting that Carl would teach about this kind of discipline for his dissenters when he basically preached a false doctrine of grace without room for corrective discipline or accountability in the body of Christ. Carl repeatedly taught that peoples' sins were covered under the "finished work" and that those sins were not supposed to ever be mentioned or brought up again even for the purposes of corrective discipline when those sins were being commited over and over again as an ongoing thing. But Carl and his men sure didn't live by those teachings themselves. They felt free to publicly air the sins of others whenever they saw it to be to their personal advantage, especially when it came to exposing sins of those challenging them. These men even would make up stuff about people to discredit them and turn others against them. Then they would turn right around and claim that all their sins were covered so that nobody had a right to confront them about any of this. While GGWO teaching basically denies discipline in the body, it leaves plenty of room for vengeful "discipline" and abuse against anyone that the leaders don't like.

I recently wrote the following to a friend of mine. A civilian, who had never heard of bs/gg before meeting me...

Many aberrant groups, including the one I was with, develop elaborate conspiracy theories. These teachings become a corner stone of EVERYTHING they do and say. It serves several purposes all such groups need in order to survive:

1. No matter how normal they can appear at first glance, in truth, they're usually REALLY weird and WAY outside the mainstream. Adherents eventually begin to realize this. But all along, they've been taught how "special" and "unique" the group is. Like the Blues Brothers, they're on a mission for god. Soon as you begin realizing "this place is WEIRD," that realization seems to dovetail with the "we're special" teaching, so, you ignore all the red flags.
   
   
2. Eventually, the member begins to hear from outsiders (friends, family, co-workers, the media, other religionists, etc.) just HOW weird or aberrant the group is. The adherent smiles condescendingly, thinking, "oh yeah, they WARNED me that the enemies of our work would say this!" Instead of the news being a wake-up call, it merely helps solidify the felling of "wow, I really AM doing a special thing for god!"
   
   
3. From time to time, a member actually escapes the clutches of the group. Flees the cave, and begins to live life in the clean pure air of freedom. The machine goes into over-drive now, decrying EVERYTHING the ex member might say as "the work of satan" and the bitter ranting of a disgruntled former member. The conspiracy theory was really fine tuned to deal with this eventuality. Those remaining "in" must now decide: do I continue to believe and "submit" to the teachings of the group? Or do I listen to my spouse, parent, children, sibling or life long friends who have left? I've seen numerous examples of every one of those relationships destroyed by such teaching.

I agree. You can not use "Donny", "Brad C" etc. as an example of what GGWO teaches. What you hear from the tapes on the Grace Hour and directly from the horses' mouths are "the doctrine", but even that can be denied tomorrow, because GGWO has no theology in written form except the main doctrines they keep advertising internationally.