Mark Clarke

Exactly. The Bible says repeatedly that the wicked will be destroyed, not endlessly tortured. And there are other very straightforward verses, such as, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23), and "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (I John 5:12). The Bible is really simple when we don't allow man-made ideas to complicate it.

Any theory that has to do with endless conscious torture misses the whole point of the Bible. For anyone to survive endless torture, God would have to grant them eternal life, since man is not inherently immortal. Only God is immortal and the gift of God is eternal life, given to those who confess Jesus as Lord. The confusion comes largely from the fact that the word "hell" the in KJV can be the translation of one of three Greek words: g'henna, the lake of fire where the wicked will be destroyed hades, the unconscious state of the dead to which everyone goes tartaros, the pit where the wicked angels from Genesis 6 are imprisoned It's also relevant that the Lake of Fire is in the future. It does not exist now, underground or anywhere else.

Yup, it's House! Long before that show, Hugh Laurie was half of a British comedy team with Stephen Fry. They seem to have been very much influenced by Monty Python too. Do a search for "Fry and Laurie" on YouTube for some great laughs.

Ever talk to people and find they just don't get it no matter how clear you make it? It feels like this classic Fry and Laurie sketch:

Actually, I didn't say you had to prove anything. I asked WHO - what sources - say that MacPherson's claims are manufactured, and how do they know? I ask this out of curiosity, as someone who knows practically nothing about what MacPherson claims.

Johann Sebastian Bach had twenty children. Apparently his organ had no stops.

This is why it's so often fruitless to go on "so-and-so said so" evidence. The next logical question would then be, "What sources say MacPherson's claims are manufactured, and how do they know?" And then, "Why are you inclined to believe it?" It gets very speculative, IMO.

I don't really have time right now, although at some point I wouldn't mind looking into it. Since you were so positive that what MacPherson writes is misinformation, I was wondering if you based it on other things besides that quote.

WordWolf, I haven't read MacPherson's book, but I've heard others refer to the supposed origins of a pre-trib rapture, and I'm sure there is more to it than that one quote you posted. What other sources have you read that convince you that what MacPherson said was misinformation?

It's a waste of time to argue who said what and when, as it is a waste of time arguing about whether an author did or didn't do or say something. I prefer to stick to what they wrote and determine if it fits with the Bible or not. Personal likes and dislikes for the writers aside, there are a number of books besides McPherson's exposing the fallacy of the pre-trib rapture. George Ladd's The Blessed Hope is one.

Like DWBH, I regret getting sucked into this argument. What is the point, what is the profit? It's not about trying to shut up the people who dare to speak up about wrongs. I haven't done that, nor will I. The bad things that went on or still go on, which are known about, should not be swept under the carpet. But on the other hand, it seems most people are going to believe what they want to believe, and will only hear what they want to hear. Their minds are already made up. This has already been seen in several posts on this thread alone. As DWBH said, it's a free country. I'll just leave you with the following. Prov. 18: 13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. Eph. 4: 31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. I Peter 3: 8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: 9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. 10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: 11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. God bless!

If you read that paragraph in his letter again, you'll see that he was not thankful for the false things that VPW taught or the evils that he did. But if even the worst sinner happens to teach me a few things about the Bible (especially at a time when I had no idea what a sinner he was) I can still take the things he taught me away with me and be thankful for them. Had he never said or done anything right in all that time, he never would have deceived anyone. During the early years of The Way, emphasis was placed primarily upon sound biblical principles such as the Word of God being the will of God, love for God and others as most important, complete dependency on and faith in God, and life should be lived today with a view toward the impending return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The doctrinal focus was regarding monotheism, the lordship of Christ, and the power of the holy spirit. I will always be thankful for Dr. Wierwille (the founder) and those early years in the ministry without which I don’t think I would have lived to see thirty. No matter how bad VPW was, many of us can still be thankful for having learned those things I highlighted. In addition to the line that has already been quoted ("I consider myself to have been a part of the problem and deeply regret the many things I did wrong") Vince also said in that letter, "We parted from The Way without bitterness or anger. In the long run, we had thankfulness for the good and repentance for that which we had done wrong. God gave us a clean new start." Does anyone have evidence that he did not repent? Lack of hearing from him in over 20 years is not evidence, since it is just possible he had no knowledge of how badly he hurt DWBH or others. He doesn't surf the net or read GreaseSpot and would have no knowledge of what's being discussed here were it not for the fact that I emailed him and told him about it. But just as I shouldn't have to defend him, I also shouldn't have to tell him someone has a problem. If DWBH feels he was hurt, does badmouthing him on the internet make it better? Shouldn't we all strive for peace?

First of all, NOBODY on this thread really knows what's "true" regarding VF since nobody but God knows what's in another man's heart (let alone what goes on in his life when they haven't been in contact for over 20 years). Second, even if it IS true, it doesn't mean it isn't gossip or backbiting. When an individual believer has a problem with another individual believer it should be dealt with between them, not talked about all over the internet by people who aren't involved. Jesus did not complain about the Pharisees behind their back - he confronted them face to face.

God doesn't cause the problems, but He does allow them, because He is God and He is in charge. That is comforting to me, because it assures me that nothing is beyond His control. But He doesn't allow bad stuff just to be mean. When He does, it's for a good reason, but we may not understand the reasons at the time. But many times He allows us to go through things so that we can relate to and encourage others with the same problems, like the doctor that WG mentioned. In TWI we were taught that martyrs died for their faith because they didn't or couldn't believe for deliverance. That contradicts Hebrews 11:39, though, which says, "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise." They didn't receive the promise in their lifetimes, but were confident that God would keep His promises, even if it meant raising them from the dead. They held fast to the same promise of blessings that were given to Abraham, who also did not receive it in his lifetime. When we see the "big picture" - that this life is just preparation for what's to come - even the worst of life's problems are nothing in light of resurrection and eternal life.

The following is from the thread about VF's Living Hope church. I am addressing it here to avoid getting into a doctrinal debate in that thread. Actually, he said he didn't know when he would return. And in several of his parables he described a period of time of undetermined length before the Kingdom was established on earth. The idea that he thought he was going to be coming within his generation is based on misunderstanding a couple of passages. The one where he said that some standing there would not die before they saw the Kingdom was referring to the fact they would see a vision of his coming in what we know as the Transfiguration (as Peter refers to in his epistle). The other couple of verses that mention "this generation" are most likely using the word "generation" in a different way, that is, not referring to a period of time so much as the moral character of this evil age. See this article for further dtails. We are certainly expected to live according to new standards which Jesus gave us. But it is not living "as though it had already arrived" since when it arrives we will be ruling with Christ over the nations, while in this life we will be persecuted and downtrodden at times.

I don't fully understand the record of A&S, but I wanted to comment on a couple of recent posts. It began with the event itself. If many cultures have accounts of it, doesn't that suggest that there is a common event behind all those accounts? That depends on your definition of "perfectly moral." Would it be "moral" to allow sin to go unpunished? (Again, I'm speaking in general here, not relating to the A&S record specifically.) I'm sure you know there are different Hebrew words used for "kill" depending on whether it's talking about murder or judicial killing (which only God has the right to decree, IMO). From what I've read (which admittedly is not a lot), Allah as presented in the Quran does not exhibit the mercy and grace to balance out the judgment that YHVH does in the Old Testament. Not to mention that Muslims do not believe Allah sent his son to die for our sins. What SHOULD prevent that (although sadly it doesn't always) is the fact that His children are told to be imitators of God in context of his love, mercy, and grace. It doesn't say we are to imitate Him in wrath and judgment. Unfortunately, failure to make this distinction does indeed fuel religious violence. Eph. 4:31 - 5:2: 31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. 1 Be ye therefore followers [mimetes, imitators] of God, as dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Geisha, In the writing you quote from, does Sproul go into why he does not hold that position? It seems to me the position that God predestines us based on His foreknowledge that we will believe the Gospel is a better fit with the Bible. Otherwise why would there be so much emphasis on believing the gospel? This isn't "arbitrary" or "whimsical" - it's God fulfilling what He said He would do, namely sending a Prophet like Moses, and charging us all to hear his words, which God put on his lips. I really like what you said in your other post, which I think hits the nail on the head: "No one likes trials. . . but we can be thankful for what they teach us. Very thankful and actually rejoice in them because we know God will deliver and teach. God is not the author of evil, but who says He can't use it for good?" And also this one: "Jesus feels WITH us not against us!! He is in this with us. These trials can be so that we will come to Him. Our confidence is in Him. The purpose of trials is to come to Him. . . . NOT ashamed. " I think that sums up the whole point as presented in Scripture.

DWBH, I find it amazing that you would claim you don't "desire to engage in mudslinging 20 years after the fact" after having just "slung" a significant amount of mud in the previous two paragraphs. What was the purpose of making such statements if you refuse to even accept that things could be different, let alone find out whether they are different? First of all, since you admit that the firsthand knowledge of his acts that you have is no more current than 1989, I have to assume that the extramarital sex you refer to was before that. So truthfully then, you don't really know if "Vinnie" or his "partners" have "fessed up" or resolved anything since then, especially since, as you say, you wouldn't expect them to do so in a public forum. Second, you say you don't wish to discuss his theology again, but you accuse him of developing "his own personal brand of religion" to keep his family fed, and his "congregation" sending in the money. But you have no idea what happened to change his doctrinal views. I can assure you it had nothing to do with feeding his family or getting money from his congregation. In fact it began in the late 1990s, with the biggest changes after 2000. Besides, if he wanted to make up a doctrine just to keep people happy, he would not have chosen such controversial ones. And speaking of his doctrinal views, you and several others still claim it's only slightly different from TWI, and lump it in with CFF and STFI. But as has been discussed at length here at GreaseSpot, much of the root of the problems in TWI were based in wrong doctrine, leading to sinful actions. Specifically the misguided "grace" idea, whereby we were taught that as long as we confessed Romans 10:9, we were saved, "heaven bound and all hell couldn't stop us" no matter what we did afterward. This was the rationalization behind much of the crap that happened in the old ministry, and still does in many of the offshoots. Far from holding to that idea, Living Hope, and Vince specifically, believes and teaches that our actions are indeed relevant, and are an indication of the faith we claim to have. So much so that if one continues to habitually practice sin unrepentantly, he will not inherit the kingdom. This point, especially, has caused many other TWI offshoots to question the validity of his doctrines. Now I don't want to get into a debate about the doctrine here. My point is that the people who keep saying they don't see much difference between Vince's doctrine and TWI's aren't understanding what he is teaching. And what he is teaching has been making changes in the lives of many people in his area, when they realize that this period of preparation for the Kingdom has its purpose, and it is not to "live a more abundant life and operate all nine all the time." It's one thing if people disagree with his doctrines (that can be handled in the Doctrinal Forum), but it's quite another to keep saying that what he is teaching is only slightly different from TWI, when that is certainly not the case. I don't wish to argue about who's church or offshoot is better. What I do want is for people to have their facts CURRENT before making a judgment on someone. That's only fair.

You mean like killing dissenters and heretics?

There aren't many churches that DON'T have classes, advances (except they call them retreats), home fellowships, tapes of services, a book store, 'special' get togethers, and a magazine or newsletter of some kind. Saying that makes them the same as TWI except for a few minor points like THE ENTIRE MESSAGE THEY ARE PROMOTING is like saying, "They have a building, and people come to it and talk about God and the Bible, so there's no difference between them and the Roman Catholic Church."

"Slight" variations? Have you been reading what I posted?

Nobody said they couldn't survive without him, but there is a particular function that a pastor has in any church. As he put it in his introduction, he "continued to work with those in the ministry who wanted my involvement." He never said anything about "replacing the absent Christ" (and Oldiesman is right that VP never did either). But he also didn't claim to have gotten special understanding or revelation from God as VP did, nor has he ever implied that he has all the answers and no one in the church can disagree with him. He functions as a pastor but not as "THE Man of God for our day and time" or any such exclusive title. "Pastors move on from churches and different groups to continue their education" when there is an organization already in place. But we are talking about a bunch of ex-Way people trying to do their best with what they had, and figure out what worked and what didn't in the Way's structure, since that was what they knew. Not to mention getting used to new doctrines (new to them, that is) which they had to search the Scriptures about, to see if they were right. All of this was a gradual growth process. In its early days its methods and structure may have resembled TWI more, but it has continued to grow and change since then, with the result that the organization that now exists bears very little resemblance to TWI from which it sprang. Is it perfect? Of course not. But is it just a copy of the Way? I don't think so.

Full Gospel Businessmen Fellowship has a "men's advance" - http://www.fgbmfi-ga.com/Site/Home/Home.html And lots of churches have "Family Camps" and even the Boy Scouts have "Campfires." Even "Devotion with Motion" was something TWI got from Camps Farthest Out, I believe, on which their Family Camps were based. There may be some similarity to TWI in terminology, which is just a helpful way of relating to people who are largely ex-TWI, but that doesn't mean the whole organization is the same. There are a great many differences in attitude as well as doctrine. There is more to the differences than just "several doctrines." The whole foundation of their doctrine is different. While TWI was founded on the supposed revelation to one man of God, Vince makes no such claim. And the whole focus of TWI's doctrine was on "operating power" to have what they considered a "more abundant life." In contrast, Living Hope teaches that the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God ruled by Jesus on earth is central. This foundation puts a different spin on many other things that TWI had wrong, not least of which is TWI's dispensational system of Bible interpretation. Really, about the only thing that Living Hope has in common with TWI now (other than basics like "there is a God" and "the Bible is divinely inspired") is the rejection of the Trinity and the belief that the dead are unconscious. As for the financial base being a core of faithful followers, that is true of nearly any independent, non-denominational church. A few top contributors provide the greatest percentage of gifts. But he does not hold the kind of control over members and small home fellowships that VPW did. There is none of the focus on him as a "man of God" as there was in TWI, nor is there any reference to VPW as a "past man of God" as there is in many other TWI offshoots. The closest he comes is when he says in his introduction on his website, "I will always be thankful for Dr. Wierwille (the founder) and those early years in the ministry without which I don’t think I would have lived to see thirty." I think this can be said of many of us. Despite what VPW turned out to be, the effect of God's Word on the lives of many troubled youths in those days literally saved their lives. But I know from personal conversations with Vince that he does not consider VPW to be the "Man of God" we once thought he was. But to go about enumerating VP's faults on his website would serve no purpose. Yet he goes on to say, "The downward spiral could be attributed to many things, with perhaps the most significant being wrong or incomplete doctrine, unqualified and immature leadership, and sinfulness. As a prominent leader in the ministry, I consider myself to have been a part of the problem and deeply regret the many things I did wrong." Far from being another "Man of God," there are a number of other teachers at Living Hope besides Vince, and they are not required to agree with what he teaches, as was the case in TWI. There isn't the emphasis on classes and money that TWI had either. Many of them are taught by others besides Vince. His newsletter is free. And rather than focusing the whole ministry on "running classes," some of them are available to buy as tape sets, and others are free online. DWBH said: "...all he's done, imho, is to effectively remove himself from the filthy legacy of the average twi offshoot..." I'd say that in itself is a good thing. "...and hitch his star to a different denonimination associated with atlanta bible college..." That is something TWI would never have done. They were always pushing the attitude of "we have the answers and everybody else is wrong." There is a lot more to the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith) than just their small college. The doctrines they teach go back to the 1800's, and rather than rejecting it out of hand because it disagrees with his doctrine (as many other offshoots have done) Vince and the others in his church looked into it and found it to be doctrinally sound. "...and maximize his former twi contacts to gain attention as some kind of church building "hero" within a segment of christianity that accepts his denial or rejection of his theological roots in exchange for financial and numerical increase." While he has a lot of contacts from TWI, not all of them have accepted his "new" doctrines, and none of them have accepted or rejected them on the basis of any financial or numerical increase. Those that accept them do so because they can see it for themselves in the Bible. Those that do not see it and prefer to hold to TWI dogma don't accept him or the doctrines. And there are even some in the same state who agree with the same doctrines but still maintain very TWI-like attitudes of "we have the truth and nobody else does" and "we must separate from those who disagree with us." Vince has rejected this kind of attitude, and maintains open communication with others from whom he is willing to learn. As for going back and getting "proper training," Vince's church began as an offshoot of TWI, and later evolved into something very different when it began to accept the teachings about the Kingdom of God. By that point it would not have been practical to say, "You guys are on your own; I'm taking four years off to get a degree." You have to work with a group where they (and you) are at. However, there are others in his church that are getting or have gotten degrees, including his son who is the associate pastor. And others are teaching and/or contributing in various ways. There is not, as I said, an emphasis on Vince as "The Man of God." The emphasis is on the Bible and its message. I am not a direct member of Vince's church, as I live on the opposite side of the country. I don't even agree with everything he teaches. But I do know that he has endured personal hardship and loss of fellowship for having the courage to embrace the doctrines that he has embraced. I don't know what went on between Vince and DWBH any more than DWBH knows what has gone on between Vince and other individuals. But to judge any person or group based on stuff that happened 20 or 30 years ago without knowing what's going on now seems unfair. And especially so when the "particular concern" is over who he aligned himself with way back then, even though he no longer aligns himself with Geer, Lynn, TWI, or anyone else with whom many of us mistakenly aligned ourselves at the time. But as DWBH said..... it's a free country.

Did you hear about the paranoid dyslexic? He kept thinking he was following someone.

I know he had a degree in math; did he ever have any degrees in Greek or other Biblical languages?