TheEvan

Danny! :D--> LOL

On your first point...good point. You're right. As to the rest, I call it a difference of opinion. That's all. We disagree, I am sure, on "important" points of doctrine. But I don't have a low opinion of you based on your beliefs. Not at all. People who downtalk others with differing views are simply ill-mannered. I don't consider it some manifestation of evil due to "wrong believing" or some such thing. One can refute or otherwise argue points with tremendous vehemence without resorting to vituperation, or without assigning inner motives to another one doesn't even know.

Nice sentiment Mark. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this from the same post seems to run counter to the sentiment: It's not possible Def came by his convictions by honest study? Just as you did yours?

Tom, one of my favorite verses in this regard is: Psa 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other Ultimately, I think this is true in Christ (The law came through Moses, but grace & truth came through Jesus Christ)

Leonard was not a trinitarian. But he certainly taught Jesus was God. His conception of the Godhead was unique as far as I know, but it was most similar to that of Oneness Pentecostals.

Yeah H, as a cult, TWI was fairly major at its peak. What I was addressing is a point you didn't raise, but that I've heard people make in the past: that Wierwille influenced the church to a great degree. Some have claimed that the church was largely social gospel, non-biblical in focus, and like, nobody even jogged or did health food seriously until the Way brought it out. I reject that completely. Even the way's great growth period was more a function of the times than some great thing our fave little cult was doing at the time. Wierwille's genius was apparent, though, in seeing the potential in the Jesus movement in SF and glomming on to that. He tapped the angst & rebellion of a generation and they came streaming in. Scantily clad babes didn't seem to hurt, either...

Some good points in HCW's lost post a few above. Wait, which long post? :)--> But this isn't one of them: I'm pretty sure he hasn't. VP & The Way were an extremely minor outpost on the Christian landscape of the day. The only thing Wierwille was read for was to prepare an anti-cult blurb. Even then, he wasn't read too well by most. Mercifully, Wierwille's influence was minor to none on the wider body of Christ. My take

I recently read an old book about the origins of the Jesus movement in Haight Ashbury. Sonofagun but what Ted Wise, Doop & Heefner were the progenitors of the movement. From which all sorts of things branched off: Calvary Chapel in SoCal (out of which later came Vineyard), the birth of "Contemporary Christian Music", etc. I don't understand Jim returning to the Way, honestly. 'Course, I don't understand ME coming back after I left it in '71. But I did.

As will I, def.

Welcome Jim. You were the first face outside of our little group in Wichita I ever saw & met. You were en route to HQ for summer school as I recall. You made quite an impression. At any rate, welcome to this place and hang on for a wild ride.

Okay, now I get it. I mean, now I don't get it. What I mean is, Mike, you're saying nobody has done it right yet. You mean, of the what, 90,000 folks who took The Class™, nobody has properly understood & applied it yet? Dang. Guess that secret decoder ring really is secret!

On another thread, HCW said I don't believe you can. And I know the differences between good and bad parenting. How many parents have raised their kids essentially the same way and have them make different choices? The kids themselves are free moral agents making choices of their own. Nay?

That's a beautiful explanation, Sunesis, and I come down solidly on your position. That said, some groups who do the "saved by grace/kept by works thing" solidly affirm, abetted by voluminous spriptural backup (of course) that the only way for Christ's nature to manifest in a person is by the inworking of the Holy Spirit bringing out the new & different nature of Christ, not by changing the person. So, they've come to a place of harmonizing their beliefs with grace. Now, to me, if there are works involved, grace is no longer grace. But it is a big book, and the honestly I look at it, the less I realize I know. But I will say that, practically, for me, dying to the old self & yielding to Christ (and having Him live through me) has been the most satisfactory & reliable path for me to walk the way I hope to.

Yeah that's my response as well, danny. Ain't that the truth Jerry! Not to put too fine a point on it, but not so much in the middle as the truth lies in both positions. Reminds me of the conundrum (and fight) between the doctrine of election/predestination Calvinists & the staunch freewill Arminians. I've come to the conclusion that their conradictory positions are both right, in a way, but each is only looking at the picture from one angle. This thread is a perfect microcosm of biblical doctrinal wrangling. Everybody pulls out their dueling Bibles and starts firing scriptures at each other. "See (dummy) that's what BieBull says." I love it when people start saying "MY Bible says...". As an aside, HCW, the author of I John was the Lord's brother? I always thought it was John, the brother of James the Elder (the one Herod killed), aka, St. John the Divine.

Garth, now I remember why I quit sparring with you long ago. Your style of communication is, well, not communication. 1. You know nothing of the Masai. But that doesn't stop you from ascribing to them all sorts of wishes, traits, etc. 2. Now you've somehow divined that I somehow imply you must be spurchul to get my posts. I think you need to work on your divination, dude. Carnac you're not. Greek said it best. Man is altogether vanity. In fact our freedoms are based in part on the recognition of man's depravity. One could, I suppose, call this a fear. Then, based on this "fear", our forefathers put in place a system of oppositions that we call checks & balances. And to bring this semi-circle, the doctrine of man's depravity is (sharp intake of breath here) calvinist. Of course, I don't consider it Calvin's doctrine; I consider it the Bible's take on man.

I trust the Africans I know, particularly the Masai I know, more than Americans. It isn't even close. Case made. And you don't even want to know how regimented & authoritarian Masai society is. Nor how serene and, in a very real sense, free. You sure ascribed lots of things to me, Garth. As alfa pointed out, a reeeel champeeeen mahnd reeeder. Of course they are as false as your bankrupt ahhhdeeers.

Okay, so you don't like that portion of the Bible, Garth. Fine. Nevertheless, fear of consequence is a moderating behavior for everybody. The fear of the Lord is a higher thing. I think it's difficult for Americans to grasp, never having had a sovereign, and having lost, to a great extent, the elements of respect I see so prevalent in other societies. For example, in africa, your conversational style would be considered so rude as to likely get you killed. I predict you would moderate your style in the interest of self-preservation. After awhile, you may see the beauty of a subtler and more respectful communication style and actually begin adopting it. Then again, maybe not.

Oh, and theyr'e way more generous, both in volunteering & giving. Way more

History has proved that the outcome cannot be predicted. That said, stats also show that religious people, taken as whole, tend to live longer, healthier & crime free lives. FWIW.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Does that apply?

In one sense he did, Garth, according to the reading I did. The local reactions to servetus' burning is considered by some to be the beginning of a tolerance movement that swept through the reformation. A bit oblique, I admit, but I'm just repeating what I read.

I googled up this very interesting article on servetus by a Unitarian hisroical society http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html According to the article, the Genevan council actually saked the opinion of 4 other sister cities concerning Servetus. It was their concensus that he should be executed. Servetus' doctrine is an interesting mix of offbeat theology. servetus article

Good post, Trefor. You make good points, both about the times and about the nature of things when an unchecked theocracy bears rule. No, neither Calvin nor Luther lived entirely above the mode of their times. Nor did St. Thomas More, Bloody Mary or Mary Queen of Scots. I suppose the same even could be said about my personal Reformation hero, Tyndale, in that he spent much of his study time in the pub with his students.

I'm not sure "corpse" is meant as an insult in this case, HCW. It was coined on these boards long ago, probably by a corpse, errrr, corps person. Just part of the general lunacy of this place. I certainly take no offense. My take on the cork is that there were good & bad people, as you point out. And that the program was fatally & irreversably flawed.

Garth, I have no problem with the link you provided, "papist" though it may be. (Though they sure bungled the doctrine of predestination in the link they provide) I just have a problem with your rhetoric. And no, I really don't have a horse in this race. Incidentally, I've come to think that Calvinist's embraced a stringent religious & civil legalism because of their so-called covenant view of God's dealings with man. In reformed theology, there is only one covenant and only one church. This puts essentially no difference between the Old & New Testaments. The upshot of this is fairly predictable. The history of the reformed movement post-Calvin, has been in one sense, a story of gradual moderation.