TheEvan

Okay, I pulled out BG's book The Gifts of the Spirit The preface opens with a missive about fear: "There is no force in all the world whose presence is so to be deplored as fear. Fear is destructive. Fear breeds suspicion, jealousy & hatred. It is fear which sets men (and nations) at variance. It is fear, nothing less, that has kept the world at war, and has hindered progress through the years. In the spiritual realm, fear is our greatest foe, being Satan's most formidable weapon. Man, unsaved unregenerate man, is kept in bondage through the fear of death" He goes on to say that when you "reveive enlightenment concerning the things of the spirit, your fear of the supernatural will disappear, and as that fear goes it will be replaced by faith: faith in the things of God, faith in christ Himself and faith in the things that pertain unto His Gospel." No, there is no teaching here on the "law of believing". He goes straight into a preview of the validity & existence of the Gifts throughout the history of the Bible. How about, just for fun, I throw in the following, from Chapter One: WHAT IT IS The gift of tongues is the God-given ability to speak in other tongues at will. or how about, from Chapter Seven: WHAT IT IS The gift of faith, one of the nine gifts of the Spirit, is the God-given ability to believe for the fantastically impossible to come to pass (and that at your word) and the further ability to impart faith to others.

I truly don't know. I haven't heard his his definitive work on the subject, though I've heard it will be coming out in book form soon. I couldn't put it together from his mentions in the Gifts of the Spirit course...the Godhead not being the topic at hand. But he definitely denies his preexistence, no question.

Rafael, what to do with Mikey? Nothing. Or perhaps long-term institutionalization. BUT, since you brought it up, I think Leonard might fit the criteria you outlined: "As long as they believe no one else combines grace, salvation by faith, denial of the trinity, denial of the pre-existence of Christ, manifestations not gifts, dispensationalism (with 7 administrations) and denial of immediate life after death, their minds are made up." Leonard: grace-check salvation by faith-check denial of the trinity-check denial of the pre-existence of Christ-check manifestations not gifts-see above dispensationalism-check...though I doubt its conception is as rigid as Wierwille's denial of immediate life after death-check. However, neither this, nor proving errors, nor raising one from the dead will convince Mikey. I vote institutionalization.

Okay, I can say this is wrong. Leonard did not teach the trinity. I'm not sure I can correctly articulate his belief of the Godhead, but it seems to me to be close to that of Oneness Pentecostals in concept, though not in practical application. And though you are correct that Leonard calls them gifts (I'll side with him there), I believe Wierwille's distinction of gifts/manifestation is the result of his poor understanding of BG's teaching. And poor syntax, It was from Leonard he got 'in speaking in tongues what is the Gift? The Gift is your God-given ability to speak in tongues. What is the act (ie, manifestation)? Speaking in tongues.' This was copped from Leonard almost verbatim; I think Wierwille didn't understand the teaching correctly and put it out the format we see in PFAL.

I'll hasten to add that Wierwille didn't get all of PFAL from Leonard. That's just where it started. Over the years he added (Bullinger and others) and changed it for his own reasons. It makes me realize that Leonard's class had a profound impact on Wierwille. So profound, he decided to base an offshoot ministry on the concept, if not the exact content. The rip-off was so wholesale that he repeatedly omitted Leonard from references as to who he learned from. The only place you see it is in The Way Living in Love, wherein Wierwille gives the account of meeting Leonard & taking his class but in the end dismisses him with "he was great with experiences but not with the Word". He claims to have gone home & "put it all together with the Word" Yeah right. I was dumbfounded, and more than a little distracted, when I heard BG use Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup & Henry Boloco in his illustrations. And I became convinced that some of Wierwille's strange pronunciations were not from his corner of rural Ohio...he actually copped them from BG. I mean, that's WIERD. Maybe he smelled the potential following, fame, fortune when he saw BG's work. And being a lazy liar he took the shortest path to success in ministry...lying & stealing. What a legacy!

Dang Zix, if I thought that hard I'd fall over every time. I prefer going through life...thoughtlessly

Sorry all for the topic veer... Garth, I defend def's point about Wierwille's™ charcter vis-a-vis his teachings. Particularly his unique teachings. Though I suppose any erroneous teachings will fall on their own demerits. But you cannot completely separate the doctrine from the teacher...they were always inextricably united. Wierwille's© character alone was sufficient to justify this thread and others like it. Good work y'all, carry on!

oldies, you quoted quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of power and control. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, sure, this applies to all pastors....who indulge in such a serious ethical & moral breach. We weren't unerstanding each other. But then, it doesn't apply to those who have remained morally & ethically pure with their congregation. Seems simple enough. Were all the Way reverends hose monsters? Certainly not. I will venture there were more of them than in a typical group of mainstream ministers...simply because the system allowed for it and because of the example of the Man of Gawd & others. Just my informed guess...

Nobody alleged they were all serial predators. My recollection about serial predators only includes Wierwille© and Martindale®. Though I am quite sure a few of Wierwille's? understudies aspired to his level of debasedness. And the system was certainly in place for them to function unhindered. None of which stains the fine people who kept themselves clean from immorality while in the Gulag.

Respondez-vous Dot, eh Oldiesman? Wanna pooh-pooh her story? If you accept it, you must accept that hose-monster Wierwille? and his Way Ministry® were both a flim-flam piece of refuse. I'm mad! Not only was I in a cult, but it was a piece of crap cult. Dot, I'm sure you meant 'when the mantle was being passed to Craig' not Chris. Thank you for the additional detail I don't recall hearing. (Though I've heard enough of the same to make me want to ralph all over again, sorry Ralph). These were not sinners in "Gods Ministry©", this was the fabric of a corrupt organization, with a corrupt teaching, designed to USE people in the grossest, most uncaring manner possible. Wierwille was an incredibly cold fish, apparently unable to truly empathize or feel the pain he was causing. Oh Gross.

Doh Never mind :)-->

Ooooh, oh-oh-oh, I thunk of a 'nuther error! I know, late in the game. Wierwille claims, somewhere in da Klass, that the Old Testament contains over 900 laws. Completely unsubstantiated flip comment...a real misstatement meant to impress. Perhaps he was referring to Rabinnical law, the Talmud. In which are appended many laws & rules. But still nowhere near 900. Rently I finished a careful reading of the Pentateuch. Off the cuff I would say there aren't nearly 100 laws & rules. If I had to guess, I'd say around 50.

Mike, I hope you have a VErY large closet...you'll be soon running out of room. When the door will no longer close and it all come tumbling out on you, fear not. Consider it a matter of sudden enlightenment

VL, you hit on something that deserves elaboration. For the most part a person who bases his knowledge of God & subsequent teaching on Wierwille will be limiting his audience mainly to those who think Wierwille is or was ever worth listening to. A small and shrinking group, wouldn't you say. I refuse to listen to Wierwille, not because he never said anything true, but because his charater demands it. It's the same eason i wouldn't waste my time looking for truth with Jim Jones, David Koresh or the Baghwan Rajneesh. Why would i waste my time with Wierwille when I can learn more from those of sterling character, who modeled a living faith? How about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Augustine, Billy Graham?

socks...in a word, nope. But it wasn't even his own invention. He "put together" (read 'copped') the class immediadetly upon returning from BG Leornard's in Calgary.

Karl!!! HaHa, the "Man of the Book" returns! I have another one. Ridiculous & obvious. Wierwille taught that repentance is only for the unsaved and forgiveness for the saved to "get back into fellowship" (another stupid concept, imo). Good God, no wonder there were so many hard people in Stalag Weg...nobody could bring themselves to repent of sins.

I fall into Vertical's camp on the going to Jerusalem issue. I understand it's arguable. I do think their attitude was that, either way, God's will shall be done. But I have to go back to something Zix said... "Anyhoo, that was TWI's ultimate problem. When they came to something that they couldn't understand, they couldn't "just leave it." It's been brought up before that part of the problem with a "biblical research ministry" is the nagging need to churn out "new" research all the time--even if that "research" turns out to depend on stretching a single word so far out of context it was unrecognizable. As long as it was "new", it was pure money. ("Athletes of the Spirit" ring a bell? Oh, we're not "warriors", we're "athletes", and it's not a "shield", it's a "discus"....etc., etc. Blech.)" I wish I could think of a way to say this better but I can't. I think that is the essence of what was wrong with the Way in regards to the Bible.

I contend that Wierwille's ridiculous assertion that the Bible interprets "itself" is demonstrably wrong, IF the Bible is the standard, for Bible never breathes a WORD that it does anything remotely of the kind. It does NOT. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to interpret the Word to us. He said so. Nyah, nyah, nayh! I'm I doing Okay on the rational unemotional approach, Raf?

cya, your reply to Oakspear, though blessedly nice in tone (which I highly value, btw) invites no real discussion, and in a way browbeats. How? Because you say you decided to stick with "the Word". Implicit in this phrase is the Word of Way. You see, I decided to stick with "the Word" too and I came up with entirely different conclusions. I won't go into them here. I could summarize by saying that, in the main, Wierwille was Overwhelmingly Wrong. By the standard of your statement I didn't stick with the Word. Which gets my back up, just as it would yours if I accused you of ignoring the Word in favor of WierwilleŸ

Mike, one of your main premises, shared with Wierwille of course, is that the scriptures as we have them are notoriously unreliable. My, how convenient. They are unreliable and you need ME (hose-monster Wierwille) to tell you what theyr eally mean. This is the essence of it, isn't it? First of all, Wierwille knew Nothing of what he spoke in Greek. And I will venture respectfully, neither do you. or you would have a great deal more respect for the Recieved text. Men like Tyndale (one of my personal heroes) gave their lives willingly so that "the ploughboy" could have the scriptures to understand for himself. This in an age when the scriptures were interpreted to the layman only by those qualified. Wierwille and his text monsters have labored furiously to take us back to those dark days. Days when the common man could not read the Bible in his own language and understand for himself its clear & living message. When he needed to go to a professional MOG to tell him what it REALLY means. My teenaged children will come away with truth merely by reading the KJV bible with a meek and open heart while you stumble at textual criticism, of which you know little to nothing. Do you really believe there will ever be a man to do Jesus' works and greater in this world?

Hmm, you two gave me something to think about. I guess I won't go postal quite yet. How about UPS? Anyway, thanks bunches

Hmm, I've got '98 and I can not find such an option in control panel. My trigger finger is getting itchy!

This thing keeps popping up on me and I cannot figure out how to turn it off. If you can tell me how, you will be doing the world a great service by saving me from going postal and spraying bullets randomly at a Microsoft convention...

Relegating Jesus to a secondary position is basic to Wierwille's unfortunate "theology". In Wierwille's system, the Sermon on the Mount (perhaps the most profound of all Christian messages) becomes a curiosity of theoretical interest-not of critical applicable importance-because of his claim it is not wtitten to us. His teaching on "administrations" is patently wrong, it would be laughable were it not so harmful. If your DAILY Christian experience is not filled with Jesus, you have nada to do with the Father either, despite protestations to the contrary. Vertical, yours is a uniquely perceptive post. Wierwille's position on Jesus Christ can only lead to the kind of conclusion you jokingly offered. One shudders, eh?

Why Sudo, he was teaching some young thang, um, how to "love" with, you know, the "love of God".