oldiesman

Awesome! Except for no pets. I like pets.

What is the truth?

Yes, which is all the more reason why I rejoice having been taught an anti-legalistic doctrine in twi. The religion of my youth, a.k.a. the Roman Catholic Church, teach that one must obey all of the Roman Catholic Sacraments to have a chance at salvation. They deny salvation by grace alone. In fact, according to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the declarations of which are still in force, the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the biblical doctrine of faith alone and grace alone. Consider the following declarations of Trent: Golly, I continue to thank God for groups like TWI who continue to propound Justification and Salvation by Grace alone! (A portion of the preceding statement was excerpted from Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.) :o :D

There are scripture verses for the above, does the bible promote oppression? I believe it all depends on the mindset of the person making the decision. Your idea of oppression may not be someone else's. A person in twi or any other religion probably does not see that as oppression. A monk probably doesn't see it as oppression. If you do, you are entitled to your opinion. OK then, according to Christian' writers idea about legalism, TWI does not engage in legalism since twi always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ alone, as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors. By the way thanks for mentioning this, wasn't it great to be part of a non-legalist religious group?

Well golly, if we go by the above definition, then TWI wasn't / isn't engaging in legalism since they always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors. But if acceptance of those laws or principles is not being viewed as a method to "earn" or "preserve" salvation, this is not really related to the specific concept of legalism. It is entirely possible for a religious group to reject even any or all of the Ten Commandments, but to substitute for them a list of forbidden activities such as card-playing or dancing, and still be proponents of a legalistic system. Thanks Potato

1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice> 2 : a legal term or rule According to the above definition, legalism could be stopping at every red traffic light. Legalism could comprise a wide variety of things; from the strict conformity to traffic signals or the ten commandments, or anything in between. If that's the definition, yeah, twi engaged in legalism. And so does much of the entire universe.

The definition you used wasn't the whole dictionary definition as I quoted it; you apparently deleted some words that, taken as a whole, would change the entire meaning. Legalism is much more than adherence to a set of religious code. The word itself connotes a disparaging, pejorative, improper devotion. Thanks for your opinions.

Very good definition! It's all between the ears. Then again, if we are slaves to the Lord Jesus Christ, would it be legalism?

To me, the definition "literal religious code" is way too simplistic. Under that definition, requiring the service to start on time would be legalism since it adheres to a literal religious code. To some, yes, that is legalism. But what I believe would be a more accurate understanding of legalism would be an "improper" or "burdensome" conformity to a religious code. And that, I think, is defined by the individual. For example, what is proper for you may not be proper for me, What is a burden for me, may not be a burden for you, and so forth. You and I might think a monk is living in legalism. The monk, however, may disagree. Thanks for your opinion.

But who defines what "excessive conformity" is? I think each person has their own idea of what it is; that is why its difficult to have an answer to this question. As I see it, the individual making the decision decides what for him/herself what is "excessive conformity". Thus, the individual decides for himself whether it is legalism or not. For instance, there are some folks who thought (or think now) that praying, reading the word, working with believers, starting fellowship on time, most of Christianity etc. is excessive conformity. Others think different. Some of those who are not engaged in a religion may feel that those who are, are engaged in legalism. Others may think different. Who's correct? Everyone is! Everyone has their own ideas, everyone's ideas are right in their own eyes, and those ideas may vary at various times. I once thought that the religion of my youth was full of legalism and bondage. Today, I have a different opinion, although for someone else that might not hold true. Thanks for your opinion.

IF one CHOOSES to conform, is it legalism? Here's the definition of legalism from Merriam Webster online: 1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice> According to the definition it is legalism if it restricts free choice. So again, what if the person CHOOSES to conform? Is it legalism?

I think it's too general a question. For instance, some people think that praying and reading the bible is a chore, and being asked or encouraged to do so is legalism. Seems to be up to the individual to define it.

My experience has been that when I allowed others to control my life and agenda, my life and agenda was controlled by others. However when I decided not to let others dictate my day to day (or week to week or month to month) actions, (i.e. most of my time in twi) none of my actions were dictated or controlled by others. The exceptions for me were WOW and CORPS. At those times, I voluntarily and willfully relinquished my will to others and went with those programs as best as I could.

I would say, generally, in the mid-1990's when you couldn't go to the grocery store alone because of the 2 by 2 rule. :D Contrast this to January of 1976 when in the six corps, I asked Craig if I could hitchhike ALONE from headquarters to Emporia because my hitchhike buddy and I didn't get along. (Hitchhiking in twos was required.) He agreed to it, and took practically 1/2 the time for me to get back (18 hours as opposed to over 30 hours getting there.) I also think legalism can be in the mind of the beholder if one defines it that way. I was once accused of being legalistic by a twig coordinator, when in the early 1990's shortly before my departure from twi, I insisted that my fellowship start on time instead of 1/2 hour later to get mellow and wait for everyone to arrive. It wasn't legalism I was insisting on it was honesty. You say you're starting at 10:00 then start at 10:00. But they called it legalism.

Perhaps because the word "murder" can mean intent to kill. Here there was no intent, therefore no need to use the word murder, let alone alleged.

Excellent! Thank you Pawtucket and the moderators!

I didn't read Mrs. Wierwille's book , simply asking the question if there's a book that documents the alleged doctrine of the Way International, of spousal beating.

Skyrider, Yes by all means let's post facts. Accordingly, to the best of your knowledge, do any of the books written about the Way (I'm thinking of two offhand -- "The Cult that Snapped" and Mrs. Wierwilles book -- but ANY other expositive book about the Way as well) assert a Way International doctrine condoning the physical beating of disobedient wives by their husbands?

1Peter 5:7 "Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you."

Yes I think we shouldn't ignore WD posts and again I'd like to remind posters that WhiteDove hasn't called anyone a liar. I think the essence of what he believes is this: When someone invokes the "This was Way Doctrine" belief, WhiteDove is merely asking for verifiable and documentable proof that the belief has some teeth. Peoples OPINIONS about it vary and its a very serious allegation that the Way International teaches wife beating. That is why it is and should be thought of as an opinion only, for everyones sake. Let me be clear on where I stand on this one: If someone was in a meeting where they said that a Way leader said in the meeting that it was ok for a husband to administer a physical beating to a disobedient wife, I would consider that a fact. They were there. It happened. However if someone then said that as a result of their experience, they believe that wife beating was Way Doctrine, I would consider that statement to be an OPINION. If someone wants to say unequivocally that the Way International taught that wife beating was acceptable and ok, I think one really is asking for some serious disagreement by a lot of folks. That'd mean among other things that we all tolerated wife beating! You can't throw out that allegation and expect folks to shut up and blindly agree. Let's get real. To sum up MY belief, it is my opinion that not every statement or concept was approved by the Trustees, and I can't imagine in my wildest dreams them approving and teaching as ministry doctrine that wife beating is ok.

Happy Hannukah, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwandza to all :)

I can't tell by their fruit because they manifested both good and bad fruit. I only know that Gods promise in his Word, that those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved, apply to everyone including VP and LCM.

Tom, I was taught from The Way that if you had a problem with management, you discuss it with the management. Accordingly, I have a stack of letters from hq , part of my Way Memorabilia file, that answers the questions I had with Way doctrines and policies. I needed clarification and got it, and btw, NOT ALWAYS to my satisfaction. If I had been in the room where it was spoken that the husband is entitled to beat a disobedient wife, you can bet that I'd have questioned that directly with the Trustees. And I know folks who would have probably done exactly the same, being extremely sensitive to and experiencing first hand spousal abuse issues.

I don't see WhiteDove calling anyone dishonest. His opinion is "peoples opinions are not the same as Way doctrine from The Way International" and "just because one was involved with the Way does not mean they always spoke on their behalf." It would appear that WhiteDove's opinion which he is fully entitled to is, that just because a leader of the Way may say something, doesn't make it "Way Doctrine and Policy". I didn't see where he said that the statement by the leader was not made, or that the person recollecting the statement here at GS was lying about what they heard.

JeffSjo, As I see it, WhiteDove (or anyone else) should not be guilted into being quiet because he's not helping an angry or hurt someone get through a problem. That is not necessarily the purpose of the forum, to help someone. The forums are for rendering opinions, by anyone, and sometimes there will be huge disagreements about those opinions. I think a proper response is to challenge the opinion if you wish; rather than issuing an ultimatum to "help people or be quiet."