TheEvan

And in Leonard's work I find a thing that is utterly original. I don't agree with everything he taught, or some of his approaches. But still, his body of teaching had an integrity and a cohesiveness that Wierwille's never had. He taught it more convincingly because the material was his. Leonard was a master in the field of healing (among many others). I'll say it plainly. What he taught works. The reason Wierwille's didn't, by and large (the results were always, at best, spotty) is because of the changes he made where he deemed Leonard "inaccurate". But I don't think it's accuracy, per se, that gives a spark to a person's ministry. It is, rather, their integrity and honesty with people and before God. If a person has a genuine call of God and walks it out this will be evident to others. One can argue whether Wierwille had a genuine call or not. But I can definiteively say he did not walk it out. His behavior gave ample proof of that

Wierwille didn't write it. It was a team that came up with the conclusions that Wierwille mandated. Hence, the writing seems better than Wierwille's plaigarized works. I theorize that Leonard had some influence in this regard insofar as he didn't believe in the Trinity. But he wasn't a source for the book, I'm confident. Wierwille still believed in the Trinity in the early 60's, long after his exposure to Leonard. Saw it in an old way mag. Leonard's conception of the Godhead is, I think, quite similar (though not the same as) Oneness Pentecostals.

Doesn't anybody remember the Great Fore Head going vein-popping spit-spraying potty-mouthed apoplectic at a Corps Week about a certain region leader taking Leonard's Gifts of teh Spirit? He portrayed it as treasonous and worse...

--> --> -->

I was amazed that we were able to fill two large trash cans just with audio cassettes. We tossed all of the Wierwille stuff about 10 years ago or so. Only because we were lazy. And dang it if we didn't run across another stash of the tapes. A few hundred more old Wierwille tapes. YOU CAN"T HAVE THEM! HAHAHA! We are throwing them away, too. There's much better out there. Wierwille's stuff is poison.

Trefor, very well put & my feelings exactly. What's the big deal. NEITHER side can present an air tight system. So what results is duelling Bibles. The combatants always lose. I've long maintained that 1. the Godhead is bigger than man's feeble attempts to pin it down, and 2.

Dan our little demo/concert was with the very same Clara Rockmore. She was, even then (around 1962-3), announced as the worlds' foremost virtuoso on the instrument. Those were very good days for public education in California. In 7th grade we got a lecture & impromptu performance by jazz trumpet great Clark Terry. This was not an assembly, mind you, just for the kids in band/orchestra class!

Oh, Theramin! Didn't know the name. As in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. We were given the coolest demo of the Theramin, including a mini-concert, when I was in 4th grade.

Theremin, Dan?

Classical guitar here. There are a number of reasons for the tuning (in fourths except for that one pesky third interval) but suffice to say that if it were tuned in fifths like a mandolin (or violin), chord fingerings would be so large & spread out as to render it unplayable. The guitar is very easy to play poorly, very difficult to play well. A friend of mine recently sent me a ukulele from Hawaii, and i am having a blast. bought a book and have already learned the 30's classic "Don't get Around Much Anymore"

I have a guitar being built for me that has a spruce top from Switzerland. This supplier will only cut his selected trees under a full moon. After his set of incantations. By hand. Did I say he does it naked? My luthiers buys spruce from him because of the excellent quality & the reasonable price. Funny that in an era of greatly increased knowledge, superstitions are becoming pervasive...

If you'd like the Mother Lode, oldies, get a copy of Leonard's The Gifts of the Spirit Now, lots of years separate the two works these days & due to editions & revisions they've drifted significantly apart. Still, the format (What it is Not, What It IS, etc) and the definitions will set you back on your heels. It will prove tou you, once and for all, that Wierwille's work is merely derivative at best. And certainly not better! Leonard's writing, meantal grasp, power of expression and complete scope of the subject makes Wierwilles' work look like the hackneyed piece of excrement it really is.

Mother Teresa, that's the one that always gets me. Sheesh.

Of course, some answers make more questions than they answer. Which is as it should be, I suppose. To take a more simplistic stab at it, let me say that the reason there is no forgiveness is there is no repentance. Should an unrepentant repent, well, they're no longer unrepentant, are they? What i am trying to say is the "God is able to save to the uttermost", even those who are recalcitrant unrepentants...if & when they repent.

johniam, rather than post what some popular commenataries say about this, I'll post the following link, already set for Matthew 12. You can then select the commentaries & study Bibles one at a time and read as you see fit. Just select one, then scroll down to the commentary on v31-32: http://www.ccel.org/wwsb/Matthew/12.html I'll just make a few remarks that reflect the consensus of what you'll read there: (Besides I'm about to get busted for posting this here...I suppose we should sneak off to the hairy armpit of the forums, the Doctrinal section!) The context is specifically the sin of the Pharisees, who hardened their hearts to Jesus and wilfully rejected the proofs of who he really was. They were so convincing themselves against Him as to harden themselves against ever repenting. SHOULD they never repent, they would then die unredeemed & unforgiven. That's it. It's good to know that Paul says in Timothy that we are not to be judges of such things...such judgement belongs only to the Lord. Clearly, Wierwille & Martindale were Pharisees in this regard. From another commentary: That the Pharisees obstinately attributed Christ's charcter and works to the devil, works that could ONLY be wrought by God (which they knew full well) is evidence of such a hard heart and is the essence of blasphemy. Note that the unforgivable sin is explained in Mark 3:28&29 followed in v.30 by "BECAUSE they said, He hath an unclean spirit". I don't feel qualified to address 'neither in this world or that which is to come'. The commentaries handle it a number of different ways...some dispensational (neither in this *age*, etc) some otherwise. Hope that helps. Wierwille's explanation may seem to make sense in a vacuum...taken solely on its own merits without regard to what the Bible says. But as soon as you bring in the scriptures it falls apart, becoming almost like Greek mythology in comparison. His explanation utterly divorces what Jesus said from its context.

Whatever the terminology...cult, closed society, etc...The Way was quite in a 'nuther category from mainstream denominations. The Way separated people from the wider society by using an inside lingo, replete with MANY unique definitions of common words, a unique & separate culture. 3 Cents nailed the problem in his post. Mainstream denominations avoid using inside-only loaded language. They communicate using accepted meanings for common words. If somebody doesn't want to call this "cult', that's fine with me. Whatever you call it, it is vERY different from mainstream denominations, clubs, groups, etc.A closed society, no matter how beneficient on the surface, is ultimately destructive. God is about relationships and His redemptive work is for the whole world........

There was no baby. Not to be morbid, but there were detached baby parts, but no living baby. Lots of effort has gone into stitching together the disparate parts. And great effort went into animating the Frankensteinian result. But it wasn't a living breathing baby.

johniam, there's nothing in the Matthew record regarding the "unforgivable sin" that ties it to other records that mention children of the devil or similar. In other words, to commit the unforgivable sin is not to become a child of the devil. There is zero biblical support for that idea. Many mainstream commentaries make a simple & unambiguous case that the "unforgivable sin" of matthew is simply to reject Christ. Okay, I can hear your objections to that. There is nothing that indicates that one is ever "born of Satan's seed". That's an invention of Wierwille that doesn't enjoy biblical support. Satan has no such creative or reproductive power, being darkness & parasitic. Any place it refers to 'child of the devil', 'sons of disobedience', etc, it is metaphoric, even as you and I were both children of disobedience...we belonged to Satan. But that didn't make us his "spawn" and we remained, as all are, fully redeemable by the blood of Christ. Christ's offer is to all, whosoever...including the Christ-rejecters. The rejecters who accept Christ aren't rejecters after all, are they? Another angle to view Wierwille's strange doctrine is the horrendous fruit it bore. The suspicion & naming of people as "seed of the Devil", the focusing on the Deeeevil, ugh. All people, "believer" or "unbeliever" are precious in God's sight and loved by Him equally. Christ's sacrifice was & is effectual to save to the uttermost....

Well, if you're going to be THAT way about it, Plot, how about headphones for Jimi Hendrix's sublime (?) And the Gods Made Love ?

The opening of the first movement of Mahler's Symphony #1. 4th interval meanderings peek through the mist, becoming ever more clear and defined until the whole thing bursts into a sunshine of melody & optimism.

It fits their M.O. Rafael. Kind of the "car-up-on-blocks-with-dog-on-heavy-chain" of ministries. Never destined to be mass-market, that's for sure. Agree or disagree with Leonard, there was never any question about his integrity...

try http://www.come.to/ctc-of-texas click on "books, tapes on a donational basis only"

And just to confirm to Rafael concerning Jesus' pre-existence (or lack thereof) I submit the following (same book): "The average Christian visualizes the incarnation somewhat after this fachion: God and Jesus Christ, two persons, inhabiting the Eternities together, finally decided to quit playing marbles; and they invented a world, (with all the pieces of eight that make up a world), climaxing everything by bringing man into existence. Man, however, fouled up the works, and, centuries later, God decided to send Jesus Christ, His Son, FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH to die for man's sin. Rubbish! There was no Jesus Christ till Bethlehem! God, and God alone, inhabited the eternities!"

I'm browsing this book, seeing if I can get a better handle on Leonard's take on the Godhead. In the process I found this: Thus in the Beginning, man was MADE. He was FORMED; Man also was CREATED. (each phrase is interjected with supporting verses). "When one makes anything, substance is required, of which the thing made consists." Almost word for word in Piffle. Although BG doesn't indulge in the tortured "logic" Wierwille uses in lining up the 3 words with body, soul & spirit (thank God), nor does he artificially separate "formed & made", he does equate Adam's death with God's likeness, spirit, dying.

Oh, I was just looking at the title page of Leonard's work on the Godhead The Water in the Bottle and noticed it was first published in 1952 by.... Canadian Christian Press ! For grins (this has nothing to do with Wierwille's ripoffs) I'll share the entire preface: It happened when I was campaigning in Turkey. I was in Istanbul at the time and had been taking into custody for preaching. Arraigned in a Moslem court, it was not long before I was asked: "How many Gods do you have?" "One", I responded, "for there is only one God, and He is a Spirit." "What about your Jesus Christ?" was the next question. By way of reply I took up the bottle of water which, my interpreter having ordered it for me, was at my right hand, and preached an abridged version of this, my favorite message. My I present it now, in fuller form, to you? Classic, eh?