Goey

Maybe a better question would be, how much tweaking would it take to make it a valid and effective form of Christianity.

Married twice - Divorced Twice. I remain happily divorced, which does not mean that I don't like the ladies. I most certainly do. I think women are precious, I just don't think I am cut out for marriage. The problem is, at 52, I find that am not cut out for casual relationships either. -- Go figure. Unless a miracle happens I'll probably never marry again.

"For our learning " This comes from Romans 15:4 and VPW's interpretation of it represents one of his bigger theological blunders. Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. ( KJV) "Learning" is from the Greek word - didaskalian. This is the same Greek word that is translated "DOCTRINE" all throughout the New Testament. So this verse could just as well be translated "for our doctrine". I guess VP missed that - or he conviently ignored it. Regardless, it blows gaping hole in VPW's teaching that the OT does not "apply" now and is is only "for our learning". VPW made a sharp distinction between doctrine and learning, whereas the scriptures do not. Didaskalia, is what is taught, or instruction as it is translated in many other versions.

Yes, I can. Didn't TWI's leaders rebuke the WC/staff underlings in public quite often? And many times for trival stuff -- Was that a circus? I find it quite interesting that the underlings, while edifying the spirit by speaking in tongues much, did not publically rebuke the higher ups for the non-tivial stuff they were responsible for -- especially considering the public rebuking example set for them by those leaders.

Yes, on more than a few occasions. I saw people reproved, rebuked and corrected, but never kicked out. (1976-1982)

So If I say I get blessed by slain in the spirit, you take my word for it ? That's good to know. Oh, but I do "analyze" the Bible critically, but even moreso TWI's interpretations of it. But now I am more of a bible believer than a PFAL/Wierwille believer. Yet, I find it even more odd that you do not critically "analyze" the glaring defects in wierwillian theology. I get the feeling that If you did, maybe you would become a more of a bible believer than a Wierwille believer.

Yup, there were lots of rules which led to lots of pressure on everyone. It had to be perfect. Once, in a tape class, I was responsible for queing up the cassette tapes and I accidently misqued one. That got me a good butt chewing, but even worse -- I also got that ominous glare from the local leader that said, "you let Satan in here to disrupt this class." Yup, the old bird and his gang always showed up at PFAL classes -- trying to misque tapes, influence folks to ask questions ( or answer them), unline the chairs, or possess the new students with a "spirit of slumber". See, if he can get someone to sleep through one of VP's jokes, or delay a session for 15 seconds while a tape is being requeued, or short out a coffeepot -- the whole class would fall to pieces. God knows what would have happend if someone had actually answered a question. -- I shudder at the thought.

Once again you missed the point. The point there was not so much the genuineness, but rather the effectiveness in doing what TWI says it does. Does it work as advertised? Does it do all that TWI says it does? --- For example, is speaking in tounges really a "requirerment" for receiving relevation from God, as TWI taught in the Advanced Class? That would mean that God could not give relevation to anyone unless they spoke in tongues much and edified the spirit first. Is this really true? But since you brought it up, the fact that the first century church had schisms and divisions does not say anything about the geniuness of tongues back then or today. I assume that what was practiced during Paul's time was genuine since it is in scripture. Even so, it did not prevent the divisions or discord, so we at least know one thing that it does not do. But, to correlate first century tongues with todays tongues, particularly as TWI taught it, one must first show that the tongues practiced today is the identical to what was practiced then. Can that be done? How would you know? Strawman -- No one said or even implied that SIT was "part of all that sinning". Missed the point again. But VPW did claim to speak in tongues much, yet his life is a witness to the fact that SIT much does not help control the flesh. So we know another thing that SIT does not do. Possibly it can be an aid to those things, but TWI's history and the the behavior of many of its most staunch adherents does not lend any evidence to that. Any evidence to that is purely subjective is it not? Person A SITs much and is generally kind and loving, and always willing to help someone in need. Person B SITs much, and is generally rude, unkind, abusive and is mostly self-serving. Person C does not SIT is generally kind and loving, and always willing to help someone in need. Person D does not SIT is generally rude, unloving, abusive and is seldom helpful . I have seen all 4 types. What this tells me is that SIT is probably not much of a factor in these things at all. SIT is certainly not "necessary" to manefest those things, is it? This is evidenced by the many folks that have never SIT, yet they still manage to demonstrate those "fruit of the spirit" abundantly. This belies the notion that to have the fruit of the spirt, you must operatate the manifestations of the spirit. Oldies, where in the scriptures is the practice of "praying in tongues for someone" ever mentioned? My somewhat casual observation is that those who speak in tongues much, as TWI taught, are no more spiritually edified (built up), are no more loving, are no more spiritually "tapped in" and seem to have no spiritual advantage over those who do not. Can you offer any evidence to suggest otherwise?

I think you missed the point Oldies. Danny did not say "throw away" but rather, "reassess". Danny's reasoning is actually quite good IMO. On the other hand I find your reasoning pretty much non-existant. If SIT (as TWI taught it) is all that TWI said it was, then explain what happened with TWI. Did the "sins of a few" negate all the collective SIT and the spiritual edification and sharpness that should have accompanied it? While "edifying the spirit" with much SIT, folks were either oblivious/unaware to the "sins of a few", or powerless to to do anything about them. And those "few" who did the sinning, "spake in tongues more than ye all" and even ran the show. I think this speaks loudly as to what SIT (TWI style) is not good for, regardless what they said - and is reason enough to reassess what TWI taught concerning SIT. If TWI experience/observation means anything at all, it suggests that SIT ( as TWI taught & practiced it): Does not make a person honest Does not make a person compassionate Does not make a person loving Does not make a person tolerant Does not make a person patient Does nothing to prevent "sin". In a nutshell, SIT (as TWI taught it) does not necessarily make a person more Christ-like. Yeah, maybe it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but like VPW said, you can get a good feeling on a psychaiatrist's couch.

Conneron, Welcome to GS. While I question TWI's teaching and application of speaking in tongues, I doubt that it is or was demons. It was too "decent and in order" demons IMO. Seems more like learned behavior to me. Which is not to say that the genuine is not avaliable. However, I also accept the possibility that tongues "may" have ceased. It "seems" to have ceased in practice in the first century sometime, since after the BIble, it is not mentioned much, in church writings/history until it was rediscovered in the late 1800's/early 1900's. Maybe do a google search on "glossalia".

Here is the original thread Eagle started on this stuff. From 2004 Click Here

I tend to agree. TWI took about every verse that says "in the spirit" and made that equal to "speaking in tougues". In this verse they make "groanings too deep for words" equal to "speaking in tounges". If Paul meant speaking in toungues, then why didn't he just say that? Tongues is not even in the context. In both cases I have seen nothing actually presented to justify these interpretations. It seems to be declared by fiat with no good explanation. In the case of "groanings too deep for words", isn't tongues made up of words? If so, then how could it be refering to speaking in tounges? Furthermore, the word for "cannot be uttered" is the Greek "alaletois" a form of "laleo" . According to TWI's definition, speaking in tongues is "laleoing". Therefore by TWI's own definition of tongues, this verse in Romans CANNOT be refering to speaking in tongues, because these groanings cannot be "laleoed". Once again, TWI theology contradicts itself.

Oldies, Suda, What other prospectives or teachings have you earnestly studied, tried or experienced? -- Any others at all? What TWI "says" about other prospectives doesn't count. If you haven't actutally studied the other teachings objectively, how could you possibly know if TWI's is the best or not?

I see GreaseSpot Cafe as a vehicle through which people communicate. I am glad it is here. I have gained a lot through GSC over the years. On the flip side, it has also been a source of distraction for me (when I allow it). Sometimes I should be doing other things, but I find myslef logged into GS for some reason. Habit I guess. Anyway, if GSC weren't here I am sure that folks would find an alternate means of communication. Life would certainly go on, although it may be a change for us GS junkies. Sorry Roy, that is a false dillema. --- It is neither.

HI Eagle, I take it that these hard-hitters are die hard Wierillites. I don't know what it is about these folks, but it seems that VPW/PFAL fans can be some of the most obnoxious people around when it comes to their doctrines. They also seem to be the least able (or willing) to rationally defend or discuss them. Doc Vic said it and that settles it. -- Whatever. Anyway, The doctrinal forurn can get pretty tough sometimes. While it is possible that one of our resident VPW/PFAL defenders couild lob a grenade at you, I still think it is worth discussing those kind of things. Flamed? Maybe. But lately, some of what folks call flaming is nothng more than having an idea disagreed with or challenged. I wouldn't be too concerned about it. Civilized disagreement / debate can sharpen us. It might can also show us where we might have missed something. For what it's worth, I also disagree with VPW on several of those those items - others I haven't looked into very much but I would certainly like to see how you came to youir conclusions. See ya in doctrinal some time I hope.

And she was bascially correct. The main "relationship" between these two schools is geographical and incidental. They are located in the same town and share the name Princeton. This Princeton stuff can be confusing. Wierewille went to Princeton Theological Seminary not Princeton University. Princeton Theological Seminary and Princeton University are indeed two separate entities. Always have been. Princeton Theological Seminary never was or never has been a part of Princeton University. History of Princeton Theological Seminary History of Princeton University The "ties" referred to on the Wiki site are that these two separate schools share in certain educational and extracurricular activities since they are located in the same town. They are still very much separate entities and separate schools. They have completely separate boards and separate campuses. Princeton University is an Ivy League school. Princeton Theological Seminary is not. In no way is degree from Princeton Theological Seminary the same as one from Princeton University. Although Princeton Theological Seminary is not an Ivy League School with the same Ivy League clout as PU, it is still very much respected as a School of Theology.

.

Wierwille's doctorate carries about as much weight as an ordination from the Universal Life Church. This phoney, mail-order doctorate speaks loudly as to his dishonest and deceptive character, but not so much as to what he actually taught. His teachings stand or fall on thier own merit. However, the indictment against his character by his phoney doctorate, his plaigarsim, and his abusiveness is certainly grounds to question and critically examine what he taught. It would be foolish not to IMO

Didn't expect you to.

Deleted

Only a fool would plant more seeds than he could tend to. On the other hand, it is naive to think that a loving married couple can naturally control their sexual desires. Most folks just simply aren't that "spiritual". It may sound good in theory, but in practice it is unrealistic. Kinda like expecting and demanding clergy to be unmarried and celibate. It denies natural human desires. The RCC needs to get in touch with reality on this stuff.

Well, there are born-again or evangelical athesits, as well as the garden vatrieties. The former is consciously and continually aware of his atheism, and many times wears it kinda like a TWI name tag. When the topic of God, the bible, or anything spiritual come up, even within or among a group of theists, he usually feels the need to inject some kind of anti-theism into the conversation. The garden variety atheist probably doesn't gives his atheism much thought at all. This kind of atheist wouldn't even know he was an atheist, except for the theists around him. This kind of atheist, wouldn't be interested at all, in for example, a doctrinal discussion among Christians. When born-again, evangelical atheists harangue and hassle theists for their beliefs, atheism becomes a "religion" of anti-theism. When they organize, congregate and proselytize, it becomes even more of a religion.