Jbarrax

Thanks for posting that WTH. That brings back childhood memories. "Noah" is one of my favorite Bill Cosby recordings. (From "Bill Cosby is a Very Funny Fellow" if I remember correctly) :-) But back to the topic at hand: Irish, good point! I think most Churches who teach tithing don't understand (or choose to ignore) the example of the First Century Church. The monies collected after Pentecost weren't used to provide lavish offices, and build private schools for Peter & John Ministries, Inc. The purpose of the collection was to ensure that each believer had his or her needs met. This was the Apostles and Holy Spirit's response to the threats of the Pharisees and Saducees. The threats were intended to stop the believers from preaching Christ. In order to keep the follower's focus on preaching the gospel, the collection was initiated. And the stewardship thereof was intended to keep the people from having to worry about worldly issues so that they could focus on the work of the Lord. Acts 4:31 -35 How marvelous a day it would be if the modern Church could recapture that truth and practice it!! Not everyone has a knack for running a business or selling insurance. Some of us are more suited to other things. But in our culture, it's every man for himself, so those who can make lots of money keep it or give some to the Church, while those who can't are forced to give up our opportunities to work in the Lord's fields because we have to work overtime to provide for our families. Meanwhile the fields are white, the harvest rots on the vine, and the work of the Kingdom goes undone. Paul also refers to this in II Corinthians chapter 8:12 -15. Again we see that the collection was not a tithe, was not compulsory, and was not intended to generate gobs of money to support the apostles and prophets. Verse 15 sums up the purpose of the collection. So the First Century Church didn't collect money from the followers so they could "fund outreach". The outreach was accomplished by the believers preaching the gospel. I wasn't around back then, but it seems to me that part of the witness of those common folks talking to their friends and neighbors about the Lord was the fact that they didn't have to worry about how they were going to survive because the ekklesia took care of itself. In our modern socioeconomically tainted brand of conservativism, it's anathema to suggest such a practice because Good Republicans know that's communism and communism is equivalent to atheism. Better dead than red Fred! So rather than contribute what we don't need to meet the needs of them who don't have enough, those who have an abundance are encouraged to tithe so that wealthy people can get more wealth and their favorite evangelists can live like wealthy people. Meanwhile those who don't have enough are encouraged to tithe, even though they can't afford to, so that God will miraculously pour goods and services upon their heads. But don't ask us to help brother, the Lord will provide. Hog--I say, HOGWASH! I tithed faithfully for over ten years and all it got me was deep into debt. I finally woke up and re-read the Scriptures and realized I was giving away what God had sent to supply our needs. By tithing, I was creating lack from God's supply. And of course, when I needed something, there was rarely any miracle money sent through the "windows of heaven". So I borrowed. and I borrowed. and then dang it, I had to borrow some more. Finally, after I realized the New Testament doesn't support all this tithing nonsense, I stopped it and began saving money instead. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. Now some of you will argue and say that you tithe and it works for you. That's nice. I'm happy for ya. But here's what I've learned over the past 25 years of praying and working and believing. Money is a man-made invention and God doesn't have any. The only way to acquire money is to get it from other people. And if we're going to recognize that basic truth, why not go all the way and follow Paul and Peter's example and encourage Christians and Christian leaders who have plenty of it to share it with the People of the Lord, for whom Christ died? Think about it JerryB

Looks like everyone's having a sweet time. Sorry I couldn't make it. Is that Rafael Olmeda in one of those pictures?

My wife and our old friend Lynda C listen to Joyce Meyers and enjoy her. I've never had much patience for her myself; She seems to self-centered to me. Sort of the Christian Oprah. But not having had any particular interest in her, I've never been motivated to do any in=depth research. plink pli My one and a half cents worth. Peace JerryB

Well I'm very sorry to say I will not be able to attend after all. We have some financial crunching going on and are cutting expenses, so the travel funds for the bbq are not going to be availalble. I'll be thinking of you..or as they say in Pittsburgh, youns guys. have a great time!

Bramble, I understand that youre feelings are hurt because you perceive me as calling you evil, but that's an unsubstantiated charge. I can find plenty of joy in my faith just from having fellowship with Christ. But if I have joy in Christ, I would be selfish to try to keep it to myself. So I want others to know and have the same joy and peace I have. Therefore, I am motivated to share the gospel. But I came to know that joy by also realizing that there are two sides to the spiritual dimension; good and evil. This line of thinking may not work for you, but here's how I approached the Devil issue back when I first got involved with the ministry. It may be nonsensical to you, but it worked for me. On a purely logical level, it makes no sense to believe and accept that there is an invisible, intangible being who is the ultimate source of good and who is vitally interested in influencing people but to reject the belief that there is also an invisible, intangible being who is the ultimate source of evil and who is vitally interested in influencing people. In other words, having come to believe that God exists and has a will and an agenda for man, and having come to this conclusion largely without concrete evidence, it is illogical for me to reject the belief that the Devil exists and has a will and agenda for man, just because I haven't seen him and don't want him to exist. Anyway, that's how I came to grips with the idea of believing in both God and Satan. Since then, I have had experiences that support both beliefs, but that's a topic for another thread.

No it's not. Being evil and being deceived by evil forces are two different things. A good person who is deceived by and evil entity is still a good person unless and until exposure to that entity corrupts the person.

Hi Bramble. Don't misunderstand me. Again, I haven't taken the position that pagan people are knowingly evil therefore I'm not saying all pagans are to be feared. But the underlying influence of paganism is something to be feared, a deceptive force that draws people away from Christ. The thing "to be feared" is not necessarily the pagan people, but the end of that lifestyle, which is separation from God and Christ because of having been deceived. The Christian evangelical's goal is to preach the gospel to every creature; to offer everyone has an opportunity to accept salvation and redemption. If we accept the worldview that we're all okay and none of us needs salvation, we fail in our mission and those around us will suffer the consequences eternally. Peace JerryB

Well, I've just finished the Wright article and found it interesting. I appreciate Belle's presenting the other side of the debate, but I must admit, I tend to see pagans as the enemy camp as does Wright. We can agree on the fact that they are inclusive of many different doctrines, that some are quite generous, good citizens, etc. but I don't think that's the heart of the matter The heart of the matter is what Paul wrote in I Corinthians 10:20. But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils If this statement is truth, it doesn't matter how inclusive, how generous, or how nonjudmental pagan people or peoples are. The crucial question is; are they worshipping devils or aren't they? Paul does not say that they are knowingly worshipping devils. I think Belle and those who defend Wicca are inferring that Wright and those like him charge pagans with doing so. In fact, a review of the beginning of I Corinthians 8, the subject matter of the article implies the opposite. Paul said "we know that we all have knowledge". The "we" spoken of does not include the pagans of Corinth. Those who have gnosis are the mature Christians. As mature Christians, we can see beyond the face of paganism and discern its true nature. Wiccans may be good people deceived by demons working through culture and religion with the knowledge that they can lure more converts with honey than vinegar. I guess what I'm trying to say is, we should consider that Wright may be right about the nature of pagan worship without assuming that pagan worshippers are willfully evil. I think it somewhat ironic that people who in large part agree that we were well intentioned followers of a group that was lead by deceptive and evil men rule out the possibility that the same thing may happen in other religions. Or, perhaps, because we were deceived by VP & company, we tend to view most Christian scholars--I should say genuine Christian scholars with undue skepticism. Imo, this is the real and most long-lasting damage we have suffered. Having been deceived and abused by a man posing as a Bible-believing Christian scholar, we tend to view all such men with deep distrust. Perhaps I don't speak for most of you, but I am still wrestling with issues of cynicism and uncertainty regarding not only other theologians, but the Bible itself (especially the mixed messages of the Pauline epistles). I know nothing of Wright or his other Wrightings (sorry), so I will take it with a grain of salt and consider the righteousness issue as well, (thanks Cynic for that information. I'll look into it.) But, as someone who has not read much theological writing partly because of the TWI influence, I appreciate these brief views of what real biblical scholars think about Paul and practical Christianity...or Christology. Thanks Dan.

Likewise, I've decided to attend, but my wife Deb has other commitments, so I may have to come solo.

PS. By the way, doesn't the Ephesians 3:20 teaching contradict the "needs and wants parallel" teaching? During the needs and wants parallel segment, he said that if your needs are low and your wants are high you'll "never get an answer" (to that prayer). He taught that praying for something you want, but don't need will not work. But if God's ability equals his willingness, then Ephesians 3:20 means God is willing to do exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think! I can ask or think quite a bit above what I need! Following Doojable's example, (and because I am a motorhead)... I need reliable transportation. I have a perfectly good 2001 Oldsmobile Aurora, but I'd really rather have a Lexus LS460! ;) So on one hand, we're encouraged to pray and "believe for" whateve we want because God is able-and therefore willing--to make it happen. On the other hand, we're told that if you don't need it, you won't get it? Did anyone find this confusing back in the day? Peace JerryB

It never did. The needs and wants parallel "key" was always the weakest and hardest to explain. Not only is its Scriptural foundation weak, VP had a hard time even communicating it in the class. At one point he actually said "...you parallel it off, like!" Oh, thanks that clears it up. Part of the problem is the incorrect (imo) use of the word parallel. Parallel depicts two lines running side by side. What I think he meant was balanced, as in the two arms of a balanced scale. But the deeper problem with this...that is, the part of this whole topic that bugs me the most...is his claim that in each record of deliverance in the Bible all five of these keys are mentioned. After he made that statement, he referenced Mark chapter three and story of the man with the withered hand. Nowhere in that passage does the Bible say that the man had his "needs and wants parallel" or anything of the kind. Nowhere does it say that he knew that God's willingness was equal to his ability. So for VP to make the claim that every record of deliverance in the Bible has all five keys in it, and then use this passage was either pretty bold or pretty stupid. It clearly disproves his statement. But we went along with it because we didn't know any better. (at least I didn't). No wonder so few ministers ever sat through the entire class. They could see that VP was building a house of cards. By the way, that thing about God's abilitiy being equal to his willingness is another example of VP making a statement that is not based on '40 years of biblical research'. I think the best face we can put on this is his attempt to undercut the traditional teacihng that God may be able to heal someone, but not willing. Many Christians believe that only if it is God's will for you to receive something, will it happen. They become passive about receiving answers to prayer or claiming the Bible's promises because they dont' know if it's God's will for them to be healed, prosperous, etc. Weirwille declared in PFAL "...what God is able to do, he's willing to do and what he's willing to do, He's able to do!" He wanted people to read Ephesians 3:20 and think that God is willing do do exceeding abundantly above all that (I) ask or think! So VP's "key" seems to work if applied to that verse. But if we broaden our perspective and take VP's statement as absolute truth, then what do we do with Matthew 3:9? If VP is right, then God is not only able, but willing, of those stones, to raise up children unto Abraham. Is that really God's will? If God has to raise up children to Abraham from a field of stones, that presumes that all mankind has rejected his Promise. Is that really what God wants? I tihnk most would say the opposite is true. So here again, we see that one of VP's "keys" is nothing more than his attempt to do an end-run around a traditonal belief by extrapolating a 'law' from one verse of Scripture. Well intentioned perhaps, but far from the exhaustive biblical research he claimed the class was based on. Like his poorly expressed "needs and wants parallel" the "God's ability equals his willingness" doctrine is just a pseudo-intellectual trick to coach people into positive thinking. The critical question is, does the end justify the means? Peace JerryB

LOL. God wants a relationship with us?? Oh such HERESY!! :) But seriously, that God-is-my-ATM attitude has spread far and wide among charismatic Churches. The underlying message of almost every praise and worsihp service I've attended is, if you praise God and give money, he'll make your life a parade of miracles and everything you need and want will fall on your head. (loose translation). Believing is the proper response to what God initiates for us, but I think the principle of believing is being blown out of proportion in many more places than our former cult. Good post Dooj

Well if VP started it, he's the root of the problem. Just one more aspect of his legacy we need to work to eradicate. :-)

Shifra has a great point. One of the best things that happened to me after the POP was when our Limb leader taught us the same thing. He said we had completely screwed up the concept of believing God by talking about believing FOR this or that. Biblically speaking, you can only believe FOR sometihng if God has given you specific revelation that it's going to happen. This may have been the context when whoever first said this, but, as usually happens with new phrases, people began to parrot it out of context and it took on an entirely different meaning. To say you're believing to get a new job means you have received revelation and you're acting on it. Unless you've received revelation you shouldn't say that. What happened when we started talking casually of believing FOR is, as Shifra eloquently stated, it shifts the emphasis, from God's promise to our will. If what you're "believing for" doesn't come to pass the natural result is condemnation. If what you're "believing for" does come to pass, you get the credit. God gets left out and we become a little more carnal. The biblical way to do tihs, absent revelation, is to claim a specific promise in the Scritpure, such as "by his stripes ye were healed". Then you focus on that promise, keep it in your mind and heart and, when it comes to pass, God is glorified because He has fuflilled His promise. Our limb coordinator applied this to VP's Bluebook article about the camera. it was kind of a square peg in a round hole job because there were problems in the article he didn't want to address (at that time), but the result was, it got me to stop trying to picture things I wanted and to focus instead on a specific Scripture. Instead of picturing myself healthy, I would simply recite in my mind "By whose stripes ye were healed" repeatedly. until it came to pass. It sounds simplistic, but it works. I have even received healing in the midst of severe allergic reactions this way, on several occasions. But the bottom line is, believing for something is groundless unless you have a promise from God. Faith is a positive or obedient response to a promise from God. Peace JerryB

I think we have been taught to take this verse out of context. This is one of those verses that just about every minister quotes, but few "rightly divide". Weirwille and other fundy preachers have taught us to think the thief of John 10:10 is the Devil or Satan. The Devil may be a thief, but This passage isn't talking about him. The context inidcates that the thief is a false messiah. Verse 8 says, "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them." The thief who steals, kills, and destroys, is a false messiah, one who pretends to be annointed of God and leads sincere people to destruction. I'm sure many here would put Craig and VP in this category. That's rather ironic, in my opinion. According to the context, we have more abundant life when we are able to discern the voice of the Lord from those of the impostors. I wonder how many of us have been able to make that distinction and how many are still being stolen from...

lol. Such tragedy! No more pink flamingoes. What IS the world coming to? :) Well the WOW's that were sent to Cleveland in `83 were, I believe, part of the Way's "Ebony Outreach". Most were black and were sent to the urban areas of the city. The neighborhood to which Deb and her sisters were sent was a high crime area beset by crack dealers. There was an incident on her street involving a bereaved man standing in the middle of the street shooting into a house trying to kill a crack dealer who had caused a relative of his to OD. ....I don't know exactly how that all fits with your statement, but I thought it might somehow be relevent. :-) And finally this travel note. If you're planning to visti Cleveland, January is perhaps the worst time of the year to go--unless you love arctic winds and lake effect snow. :) Peace JerryB

Perhaps he has had an epiphany and is quietly reconsidering his positions. We can only hope.... :)

Hi Dancing. Sorry for the delayed reply. I'd forgotten about this thread til this morning. Well Wordwolf explained it pretty well. But the basic premise comes from the gospels. Jesus told his audiences to believe him for the works' sake. In other words, the miracles he did were to be seen as God's stamp of approval and authenticity on what he said. Or to paraphrase Mark chapter 16, when "the gospel" is preached and someone believes it, signs will follow. I have been told that this happened in TWI. People to whom I witnessed told me that they saw signs that confirmed for them that they should believe what I told them. Some of these "signs" were purely subjective. Others, like the instance of miraculous healing I referred to, are not. Deborah, my then-fiancee now-wife of 22 years and 2 days, healed me from sudden onset ashtma. I grew up suffering from many allergies (most of which I still have) and sudden onset asthma. An ashtma attack could be triggered by just about anything and last for days. I would have to just lie in a lounge chair wheezing for days on end. No fun. Anyway, I had one of these attacks when I went to visit Deborah who was at the time a W.O.W. in Cleveland. She ministered to me, and, as she was praying, it was like someone put a bellows to my mouth and pumped fresh air into my lungs. The attack ceased immediately. That was the fist time an asthma attack stopped suddenly,and it was the last time I had one. That was in January of 1983. Now if I wanted to be an absolutist, I could cling to those experiences and reason that since God had delievered me from asthma by the hand of a W.OW., and since other people claim they had signs confirming what I told them, that God has annointed TWI and I should never doubt their doctrine or leadership. That of course would be foolish. But some people continue to think this way. That's why there are so many Weirwillites who, to this day, think PFAL is the greatest thing to hit the Christian Church since the Pauline epistles. What I see is that God honored the hearts of some good people who got involved in a not-so-good organization and did what good he could despite the rottenness at the top of the tree. On balance TWI did more good than harm for a while. At some point that changed and, in my opinion, it began to do more harm than good. That's when it began to split and collapse. But that's all ancient history. The point is, there are some who are unable to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to a group's doctrine, and, if they receive salvation or any additional deliverance from that ministry, will, as WW said, confuse correlation with causation. Many of us did this for years. And some of us continue to do so. Peace JerryB

If we're going to discuss what made TWI popular in its golden days, we must acknowledge that it wasn't all about the doctrine. Back in the 70's and even the early 80's many people got some real deliverance via TWI. So its appeal wasn't only what they taught, but what happened in people's lives as they accepted the Way doctrines and lifestyle. Leanring to speak in tongues for instance. Getting miraculously healed. Both of those happened to me and I perceived them as powerful endorsements of the "rightness" of the doctrine. Now I have reexamined and rejected much of that doctrine, but I have grown to the point where I can continue to believe on the God who healed me, and worship him in spirit, without being afraid to admit that the people who got me started on this path taught a lot of stupid stuff.

Hope you all have a grand time.

Afraid I have to cancel as well. Can't convince me missus to make the trip. Y'all have fun down there. :-)

I saw it in college while I was running around with the Marshall University Science Fiction Society. I remember being stunned as I exited the theatre. I didn't know it was even legal to put that kind of stuff on a movie screen. "Sweet transvestite from transexual trasylvania? OMG!! I haven't seen it in years, and will not go out of my way to watch it. I like Tim Curry and certain parts of the film I would probably enjoy, but I don't care for the "homo promo" aspect of the movie. Or the implied Cannibalism. Just because I a guy's stage name is Meatloaf doesn't mean you can carve him up and serve him at a banquet. YUCK!! Not my cup of tea.

As crazy as some of TWI got, I must admit that, when I read Connerron's first post, I found it hard to believe. Maybe somebody just trying to add to the legend of VP...or damage the credibility of the GSC. Perhaps the username is a clue to the author's intent. <_<

priceless. But the Beverly Hillbillies were from Tennessee, not Texas :)

Dooj and Rummy, You guys are a hoot. :) Re; "Cackle and OInk" Yes I thought the same thing when I saw it. 'What a dive!" But hey the food's pretty good, so what's in a name? It's a classy joint though. The wall to the restrooms is covered in graffitti and there are signed dollar bills pinned to the ceiling. :-)