markomalley

Big if...

Nowadays, me too!

I already stated my position in this post, earlier in the thread. I do not 100% agree with Piper, the author of the article. However, I do believe that he comes close to recognizing the truth (even though he doesn't fully capture it). I see him as skirting around the issue. On the other hand, what I am stipulating is that Christ called all of us to take up our cross and follow him. Whatever that cross consists of. And, according to the scriptures I cited above, your endurance has merit, regardless of what it is that you are enduring. What that particular cross is. IMHO, he's trying to find the merit. I will agree that he is going around it the wrong way. But he is trying to resolve those very difficult verses in the Pauline epistles with his life. BTW, (and this is a SEPARATE -- related but separate -- issue) what do you think about Hebrews 12:1-13? (If you'd like to read, click on the link) -- please don't given the ultradispensationalist brush-off to those verses, either. I am sort-of curious. The subject of suffering (of whatever variety) and endurance, along with their clearly Biblically indicated merits is something that I believe TWI, along with several, but not all, parts of Protestantism miss altogether. Tom, I'm not at all. I also don't have issue with what George said. I just hate seeing people condemn something out of rote -- without honestly examining the issue. I think this issue is one of the most insiduous ones that folks get from the theology of TWI.

You know, I've had a nice, long post set up. And I just erased it. Why? Why not? I have heard a lot of people say "this is sick" -- "this is disgusting" etc. I have seen literally none of you refute what the man has actually said. And when I mean refute, I mean to show where he has misinterpreted scripture and what the correct rendering of those scriptures are. This thread has been moved down to the doctrine basement, so it's now OK to cite chapter and verse. I don't fully agree with the man and I've done so already. The rest of you are in pile-on mode though. I feel this way. I feel that way. He's wrong. He's sick. Throw a kick, throw a jab, but you don't, in fact, show what is right instead. If he's so sick and so wrong, break it down. Sentence by sentence...What did the man say that is wrong. How is it wrong. Prove that it's wrong. And show what's right. (and the miraculous part about all this is that I, as a dyed in the wool Catholic, am defending a Baptist...whom I don't even 100% agree with...but you all are being plain wrong-headed about this stuff) Oldies, I am glad you posted that link, but that study doesn't totally impact what the man is talking about. It appears to me that you're trying to bottle him up in a PFAL lesson, when that's not even what he's talking about. Oh, well. Some lessons in Christianity are too tough to learn, I guess...

I believe if you closely read the article, you'll find out that the author does not disagree with you. It will not do to say that God only uses our cancer but does not design it. What God permits, he permits for a reason. And that reason is his design. If God foresees molecular developments becoming cancer, he can stop it or not. If he does not, he has a purpose. Since he is infinitely wise, it is right to call this purpose a design. Satan is real and causes many pleasures and pains. But he is not ultimate. There is a difference between "giving us" something and "allowing" something.

Ricky, Good to hear from you. Glad you are enjoying your college fellowship! I hope everything works out well for you.

Well, since this is not the 'doctrinal' forum, I'll hold most of what I'd say, but it comes pretty close to what Rascal says. Christ, throughout the gospel accounts, repeatedly stated "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." The apostle Paul repeatedly spoke about enduring the sufferings of the flesh for the sake of the church. For example, he said in 2 Cor, For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer." Again, in Colossians, Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: It becomes clear that his sufferings were made profitable by God for the good of the church. It is obvious that this pastor recognizes this. It is also evident that he recognizes the temporal nature of the flesh. Again, as Paul stated in 2 Cor, For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison... And so his response (or at least the response he is trying to make) is one of thankfulness. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God. And, always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father. As George said, To me it sounds like very typical religious nonsense. And, it is. Unless and until you look at things with some slightly different eyes than what are normally used. BTW, I do have a parent who has endured years of pain and who, somehow, has managed to keep cheer, even as he knows that his only relief from the constant pain will be death. I have also had friends who have suffered with cancer and have managed to keep grace and peace, even when all efforts have failed and they have the "opportunity" to go through their purgatory on earth. So, yeah, I've seen it myself.

Clay, I understand what you're saying. But, as I said in that post:

Clay, I would call that consistency. Seriously. Anything said by anybody on a board should be taken with a very serious grain of salt. Taking anybody's word for anything without independent verification (and then validation of the independent source) is, again, imho, not a wise move. Why? Because somebody can be seen as "speaking honestly from the heart" but could be also be consistently crafting a well-constructed tale. Not to sound suspicious and certainly not to accuse somebody here of that at all, but a person is foolish if he doesn't keep that in the back of his mind. Again, imho and ymmv. And I realize that many on gsc know each other personally (unlike most message boards), but with the exception of very, very, very few here, that's not the case with me. My complete knowledge of the vast majority of folks is from the electromagnetic residue they leave on the hard disks of the server farm contracted to host this site. Thus I don't assume honesty or automatically reject an assumption of honesty. All I can do is take somebody at his word. If his words are consistent then I can say he is consistent. If his words line up with independently verifiable reality, then I can say that he is either experienced or has done his homework. So if a person says he graduated from the Way in 1985, who am I to doubt his word? And if he said he graduated from Family XX in 1985, who am I to doubt his word? On the other hand, why should I take him at his word? All I can do is say that his posts are consistent (or not), that his story lines up with other stories I've seen (or not), or that his story is consistent with independently-verifiable reality (or not). But to beleive (or disbelieve)? That's a different story altogether. You suggested earlier that he might be a troll or a plant. Based upon my experience, I would reject a plant, because a plant would likely be more cautious to ensure his story was consistent with others. A troll? That, frankly, seems more likely to me, but still rather unlikely. Taking him at his word seems to be the most likely. Consider this: Parents graduated from WC or College Program in mid 80s. Worshipped the ground VP walked on. VP died. POP read. Parents freaked. For "purity sake" left shortly thereafter. Held true to the doctrine and the VP-worship and raised a son. If consistent with everything else, father may have started a window-washing business and so on. Son was raised flitting from school to school...and never had enough time to develop a long term relationship and so grew up to be only semi-literate. Raised with VP teachings and with the "rod of correction" (i.e., the wooden spoon), he had inquisitiveness beaten out of him from the early days (and so is unable to think critically or independently). - Evidences of the above: -- All of his posts are practically unreadable due to poor grammar -- Demonstrated rhetorical skills are not any farther advanced than "Oh yeah" -- "My dad taught me the truth" -- Virulent anti-Catholicism, but no logic or facts included with that anti-Catholicism (anti-Catholicism is a mark of VP's teaching) -- Links to sites advocating anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories (read "The Thirteenth Tribe" thread on this forum) -- uncritical in examining them...even when their flawed logic is pointed out...(in other words, those sites contain nothing out of the ordinary...just a recounting of facts -- i.e., the Illuminadi) (anti-Semitism and fear of the "grand conspiracy" are also marks of VP's teaching) So, as for me, rather than advocating the provocateur or plant theories, I find it easier to simply analyze what's been written and understand it based on itself. Credibility? Naw...But I also have no reason to believe that he doesn't believe his own words.

A person on a message board has credibility? I figure that a person can either respond, for fun, or not feed the troll...but as long as he doesn't violate the forum rules, fantasyland or a twisted version of reality is his business and his business alone. In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant. Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area. All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum.

God can and will save us...either from our infirmities or through our infirmities. Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: -- Col 1:24

Ken, Welcome to gsc. I was never an employee of TWI, Inc. I was never fired. I was not M&A'd. I left, voluntarily, and without notice to anybody, in 1989. I held onto TWI theology for about 7 years after that point (I thought it was a good thing that went bad). I started questioning TWI theology in 1996. I abandoned TWI theology in 1999. I had seen a little bit of anti-TWI stuff by that time, but hadn't seen other than the usual anti-cult garbage until after that point -- and so really was confirmed in the fact that it had gone bad under LCM. So I, without influence of GSC or Waydale, etc., figured it out on my own (with the assistance of the Holy Spirit). So your premise is in error. But you do sound like a good dad who's trying to do the best for his kid. So: Stick around -- get your own handle -- and feel free to show me where I'm wrong down in the doctrinal basement!

You are partially right...and partially wrong. The sacrament of reconcilliation consists of three distinct phases: - The first 'phase' is called Contrition. During this phase, the penitent examines his conscience thoroughly, meaning that he reflects upon his actions in light of the Word of God. The penitent then becomes aware of where he has fallen short. (If you'd like to discuss the difference between mortal and venial sin, I'd be happy to but won't right now so as not to prolong the post). The goal of this phase (which, ideally, is a continuing thing) is to gain sorrow for those points at which you have fallen short. In addition, because of the fact that the penitent has this sorrow, he also must make a resolution not to fall into that trap of sin again. - The second 'phase' is called Confession. During this phase, the penitent confesses his sins (1 Jo 1:9). Ideally, this confession is done sacramentally before one of the successors of the apostles (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18, John 20:23) or one appointed and deputized to assist those successors. However, in the event that a sacramental confession is not available in that fashion, and if one has perfect contrition (sorrow for the sins due to the fact that they are offensive to God and out of pure love for God), that confession can be made in the silence of one's own heart. A sacramental confession should still be made. The reason being is that the successors to the apostles, and by extension, those empowered by those successors, have been given the power of binding and loosing (see the vv cited above). - The third phase (and, CWF, this is what you were talking about) is called the "satisfaction." In this phase, where possible, the penitent is encouraged and charged with making right the wrong. If he stole something, he's encouraged to return it. If he lied, he's encouraged to go back and set the record straight. If he's damaged something, he's encouraged to repair it. And so on. And yes, certain prayers are also prescribed (go pay the man for the window you broke and say three Hail Mary's and two Our Fathers). The reason for the prayers being prescribed is in an effort to heal the spiritual damage done. By turning one's heart toward God in prayer, it makes a way for God to heal the internal damage that sin does to each of us. Am I trying to say that this is the way that it goes all the time? No. Am I trying to say that all "penitents" take it seriously and understand what they're doing? Hardly. Am I saying it's taught properly all the time? Of course not. But it is one of the greatest graces that Our Lord left His Church.

I also believe (not intending to invoke Godwin's law here) that Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao were all sincere, as well. At least in the beginning. In other words, at least in the beginning, I think he believed his own stuff. That is not to say that by the time PFAL film came out and later that he wasn't just perpetuating the fraud that it was, knowing full well it was a fraud.

Let's see... Car #1, A Chevy Vega -- 1971 (I know, I'm a young sprout) Car #2, An Opel Kadett (Remember when they used to sell Opels in this country?) -- 1969 I was taking a night school class on telecommunications a few years ago and had this kid (adjunct professor) try to explain the ancient history of the Internet to a largely early to mid 20s class. He only knew what was in the books and had no clue what the book was talking about. So I had to get up and explain it because I was there... I had to pick up my kid from a school dance the other day (remember, she goes to a Catholic school). The last song the DJ played was an old retro song from the 70s. YMCA by the Village People. Neither she nor any of the other kids had the slightest clue who the Village People were and she was absolutely horrified when she found out what the song YMCA was about! I pulled out my old VIC-20 a while ago... Do we remember how horrified we were during the first Arab Oil Crisis when gas went all the way up to 55 or 60 cents a gallon? Does anybody remember what Motel 6 rooms used to cost? Remember back when Vegas was relatively cheap (except for the gambling)? Remember when party lines were an fact of life and not a 900 number? Remember when you didn't need a degree in computer science in order to tune up your car?

I'll say this much... I believe that VP was sincere, at least in the very (1940s-1950s) beginning. However, what did he say about sincerity?

An interesting subject...as there are those who would have you believe that we no longer need to confess anything (declare any of our sins and express regret for the same) anymore because of Christ's actions. However, a study would quickly show that Christ's passion and death had little to do with the need for confession, but rather provided the real propitiation -- payment -- for the sins, as the sacrifice of animals alluded to, under the mosaic law.

Some quotes from the Wash Post article: "Billy Graham is just one of many false teachers," says Darwin Fish, who swears that his real name is Darwin Fish and who flew in from Los Angeles, where he is a member of something called A True Church. He is holding a cardboard placard, attached to a pole, that says "Graham Leads to Hell," which is a pretty nervy position in any context but an especially nervy one here, on the first night of a three-day event, one expected to draw as many as half a million faithful. ... A hundred yards away, a woman named Shirley Phelps-Roper is holding a pair of placards, one reading "Thank God for 9/11," the other "America Is Doomed." She and her family, who hail from Kansas and who apparently picket pretty much full time, believe the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as well as the death of every American soldier in Iraq, are God's retribution for tolerance toward -- see if you can guess -- gays. That's right. Stop coddling homosexuals -- she uses a more derogatory term -- and this country has a chance. Phelps-Roper will explain the liturgical basis for this, which has something to do with dog references in the Good Book, but you ask for clarification at your peril. The Procinwarn site home page teaches us:Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith, promotes contemplative and Catholic rituals... Movie about martyred Christian missionaries stars a homosexual Edmund Burke was a Freemason Evangelicals Prostituting Themselves with Roman Catholicism Another phase of global brainwashing is upon us... - Promise Keepers - Purpose Driven - Lord of the Rings - Passion of the Crucifix Of course, there is a page giving us EDUCATION FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER atruechurch.info has a much better message. They, at least, don't talk about evil conspiracies. However, it appears, to them, that everybody is going to hell but them. In addition to lambasting Graham, they condemn just about everybody else to hell, as well. If you are involved with the kind of Christianity that views the "church of Christ", or Billy Graham, or Rick Warren, or James Dobson, or Pat Robertson, or John MacArthur, or Tony Evans, or Greg Laurie, or Charles Stanley, or Chuck Smith, or Fred Price, or J. Vernon McGee, or Charles Blake, or Chuck Swindoll, or T. D. Jakes, or David Jeremiah, or Charles Spurgeon, or Dave Hunt, or David W. Cloud, or Perry F Rockwood, or Neil Anderson, or Robert Schuller, or Jack Hayford, or Benny Hinn, or Miles McPherson, or Ray Comfort, or Chuck Colson, or C. S. Lewis, or Pope John Paul, or Hank Hanegraaff, or Paul Chappell, or any of the like (or any of the likes on "Christian" TV or radio) as godly men, you are not saved. Why? Because, you are on the broad way (Matthew 7:13; 2 Peter 2:2; 2 Timothy 4:3). You have not the characteristic of Christ's sheep (John 10:5). And, men such as these are wells without water (2 Peter 2:17). Of course, they correctly say that Catholics and Orthodox are going to hell. But did you realize, according to these folks, that Valley Baptist, Valley Bible, Weigh Down Workshop, Stine Road Baptist, Seventh Day Adventists, New Wine Christians, Promise Keepers, New Life Center, etc., are all going to hell as well? That's pretty tough! (The question I'd have for them is -- what if they, for being such Pharisees -- end up being the only ones going to hell??) Christian Media Research has some good information, too.They tell us the following: Under basic New Testament doctrine, the Jewish people are not the so-called “chosen people” — but that’s hardly the point. The point is, the present American policies will only serve to perpetuate another round of the Pit and the Pendulum. Each military incursion against an oil-producing Islamic nation can only be viewed by the rest of the world as an opportunistic attempt at gathering the oil riches that are held by the Arab and Islamic peoples. Indeed, most observers outside of the United States see these efforts as the cynical mercenary acts of a military power that is clearly acting in concert with a politically ambitious Zionist agenda. And the backlash is building. They also let us know the true nature of the conspiracy: Another factor inhibiting a complete understanding of the movement supporting the Antichrist is the 'conspiracy within a conspiracy' aspect of the Babylonian system. I previously noted that the Council on Foreign Relations has an inner circle associated with the Trilateral Commission; even as the Trilateralists are hostage to a smaller circle of conspirators several observers have identified as Freemasons. There is, however, within Freemasonry, another inner circle known as the Illuminati. First taking root in Bavaria under a leader "...indoctrinated into Egyptian occultism in 1771," 15. this secretive group is now believed to be in full control of the global Masonic movement. According to Robert Macoy (1815-1895), a Mason of high rank, an effort was begun by "...the originator of the llluminati to engraft his system upon the Masonic rite." 16. This infiltration implies "...that the Illuminati, with their Masonic front organization (are) actually a secret society within a secret society." Seriously, I have a hard time taking these kind of folks seriously. No offense, and I'm not telling you to doubt them...I just don't buy it, sorry.

With due respect, can you find some more credible sites than these two? I get really incredulous when I start reading material from sites that include such information as: Monsanto is at fault for Mad Cow disease US mind control technologies highlighted An ancient jewish conspiracy "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" that explains where we are today Although I am sure there are some who would be happy to believe the above type of information, to me it sounds like oh-so-much conspiracy theory...just like what the "Patriots" of days gone by were pushing. And a site that publishes that kind of stuff loses a lot of credibility with me. So if you don't mind, I'd really prefer to see different sources cited to back up your point. Because old conspiracy theory stuff just doesn't work for me...

You are absolutely right with what you say here (OK, you can get up off the floor...I did agree with you twice in one day!). Latreia (adoration/worship) is due to God only.

What kind of skill sets do you have? What kind of contacts do you have? What kind of startup money do you have? What kind of other capital (property, resources, etc.) do you have? Love to give advice, but need some more information in order to base that advice? BTW, welcome to gsc

No offense taken, Evan. As long as we can disagree about relatively minor points, with respect on both sides and without invective being thrown, it's a minor consideration. BTW, I also really enjoy Romans, as well. Although I'd imagine that we might come up with slightly different conclusions when reading it...those conclusions might be more nuanced than you'd think.

Legit question. First, not everything the Pope says is ex cathedra. In fact, most of what the Pope says is not ex cathedra. "Ex cathedra" only applies to matters of faith and doctrine. It cannot apply anything outside of that. For example, the Pope could declare that the Iraq war is immoral (in fact, JPII was opposed to it). That is his conisdered opinion. Out of personal respect for the man, I do consider that. But I am not obliged to agree with him on that issue. He can show the reasoning for his decision and can make a serious case that, in accordance with estabished doctrine, this is the only logical conclusion, but that's the limit. "Ex cathedra" doesn't even apply to all statements on faith and morals. They don't just all of a sudden invent doctrinal matters, contrary to what a lot of folks would allege. Usually, an ex cathedra proclamation happens when there is a major controversy about an issue and something needs to be done to stem a growing heresy. For example, the last profound ex cathedra statement I can think of was back in the 1960s with Paul VI declaring that the use of artificial contraceptive methods to for the purpose of inhibiting the procreative purposes of sex was sinful. But if you were to read the document, Humanae Vitae, you would see that he shows the chain of logic in making that decision. And, yes, he did apply precedent and logic in making that pronouncement. Although the "natural law," scriptures, and tradition have consistently taught that the use of artificial contraception was wrong, this was the first definitive statement that explicitly bound Catholics. The vast majority of papal documents restate and repackage already existing doctrinal principles or, perhaps, apply those principles to new situations and are not made infallibly. Having said that, they still bear consideration...but are not new, infallible declarations. There is a difference. Most major doctrinal prouncements have come as the result of ecumenical councils, where all the bishops, as successors to the apostles, meet collegially to consider matters of concern to the Church. The Pope typically only acts in areas of interpretation or in areas of great urgency. (In fact, although there was historical precedent, the doctrine of 'papal infallibility' was confirmed by such an ecumenical council...) As to the deference applied to members of the Church hierarchy, frankly, in many cases you are correct. We do give respect and deference to the bishops, including to the Pope. I believe the abuse of MOG-worship bit is what enabled the clergy sex abuse scandal. Fortunately, not everybody has that attitude. And, even more fortunately, the vast majority of those to whom such reverence was given have never abused that reverence. But MOG worship, whether it is through TWI, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, or whoever, is a matter of spiritual laziness on the part of the worshipper. Turn the brain off and let somebody else drive. A lot of Catholics are guilty of what you say...doesn't mean that it's right... (And, again, I can think of a lot of Protestants who are that way, as well) -- I'd challenge somebody to show me in an official Catholic document where one is supposed to turn his brain off when listening to a member of the clergy...to include the Pope. I can only speak for myself here, but the dererence I give is due to the respect for the sacrament of Holy Orders (the "Ordination" of the people involved). As to whether or not I have respect for the person filling the office: well, the person in the office has to earn that respect and that deferrence from me. I have met many priests who have managed to earn that degree of personal respect. I have met many whom I respect for the collar, but have little personal respect for. The same applies to the bishops that I am familiar with: some are truly men of God; many others are worthy of only ceremonial deferrence. I am very glad that none of the Popes that have served in that position have earned my scorn. (I think of Paul IV...whose idiocy spurred the Protestant reformation...as an archtype of that). Sometime you should go over to Free Republic and check out some of the "Catholic" threads on the "Religion" forum...the scorn heaped on the US bishops is intense and obvious. It shows that there are several very "orthodox" Catholics who are hardly guilty of MOG-worship.

Mike, I think you make a good point. And I think that is something that is not restricted to TWI. In reality it is something that, if you look at it, is a form of idolatry. Commonly known as MOG worship. Unfortunately, as I say, something that is common in many churches and many ministries. (Note to all: what separated TWI from "many churches and many ministries" was the degree of the worship, not the worship, itself).

Think nothing of it. Sorry you had a bad day.