Well, after 20 plus replies there ought to be a voice of dissent.
VP taught, both in God's Magnified Word and in the Lifestyle of the believer, that man's conscience is his servant, not his master. And that is true.
But we have all been brainwashed to believe that we should "let our conscience be our guide" (Jiminy Cricket from Pinnochio) and also check out the gold fish in Dr. Seuss's The Cat in the Hat. That fish is the self appointed conscience of that story.
Conscience is moral awareness, true, but it's still based 100% on what we've been previously taught. It's our habit patterns. In that film The Prevailing Word VP said that children will never lie to you until the adults teach them how. One show I watched was 'Judging Amy'. It's your basic liberal socialist propaganda show like others, but Amy is a juvenile court judge who can be brutally honest when rendering a judgement for other peoples' kids, but in dealing with her own child, a teenage girl, she refuses to be honest. She won't even admit that she (Amy) used dope when she was a child and young adult, so of course, her daughter frequently lies to her about stuff and Amy can't put 2 and 2 together to save her life. If you teach kids either verbally or by example that it's OK to lie they'll pick up on it and their consciences won't bother them for doing it.
But like I said, a conscience is a man's servant, not his master. We all know the scripture about someone's conscience being seared with a hot iron. This person's habit pattern was to do the word, then they do something they know is off the word the first time and their conscience bothers them a lot, but the more they do it, the less their conscience bothers them until finally it doesn't bother them at all.
What about the reverse of that? Instead of having your conscience seared with a hot iron, how about having it "cleared with cool living water"? Romans 8:1 says there is no condemnation. What exactly is this 'condemnation'? Judgement? Condemnation is more than just feeling a little pain once in awhile; it's part of the 'dead in tresspasses and sins' package we inherited from Adam. Our habit pattern, no matter what our background is, included much judgement and abuse based on the common expectation of death we all have, again inherited from Adam. So when someone says, "there is therefore now no condemnation", this is quite contrary to our habit pattern isn't it?
The first time you consider "no condemnation" your conscience literally bothers you: "No no, that can't be right. It's just too good to be true." But the more you consider that Christ paid for "no condemnation" and it's not dependent on your own works, the less it bothers you to think that "no condemnation" could actually be true, until finally, it doesn't bother you at all. THAT is renewed mind!
I don't speak for all, but I absolutely refuse to allow a group of self appointed prosecutors to blow off the good news of "no condemnation" just because VP was human. If your habit pattern is now to figure out every way possible that pfal was a scam, then you'll reap what you sew, and be second guessing every spiritual decision you ever make.
Bravo johniam!
This is a bump,because this thread is so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread.
Johniam said: What exactly is this 'condemnation'? Judgement? Condemnation is more than just feeling a little pain once in awhile; it's part of the 'dead in tresspasses and sins' package we inherited from Adam. Our habit pattern, no matter what our background is, included much judgement and abuse based on the common expectation of death we all have, again inherited from Adam. So when someone says, "there is therefore now no condemnation", this is quite contrary to our habit pattern isn't it?
I was NEVER taught that I was under judgement or condemnations UNTIL I was exposed to the cult of TWI. I was NEVER taught that I inherit ANYTHING from Adam. I NEVER had a "habit pattern" that "included much judgement and abuse" based on an expectation of death inherited from Adam UNTIL I was exposed to victor, PFLAP and twi.
When someone said, "there is therefore now no condemnation," I sad, "No $hit! Who are you arguing with?"
4 hours ago, Mike said:
Johniam said: The first time you consider "no condemnation" your conscience literally bothers you: "No no, that can't be right. It's just too good to be true." But the more you consider that Christ paid for "no condemnation" and it's not dependent on your own works, the less it bothers you to think that "no condemnation" could actually be true, until finally, it doesn't bother you at all. THAT is renewed mind!
No, I NEVER thought anything like, "No, no that can't be right. It's just too good to be true." Rather, I thought, "No $hit! You're just now figuring this out? Who are you trying to convince?"
That has nothing to do with renewed mind as I know it - as it has been revealed to me.
Well, after 20 plus replies there ought to be a voice of dissent.
VP taught, both in God's Magnified Word and in the Lifestyle of the believer, that man's conscience is his servant, not his master. And that is true.
But we have all been brainwashed to believe that we should "let our conscience be our guide" (Jiminy Cricket from Pinnochio) and also check out the gold fish in Dr. Seuss's The Cat in the Hat. That fish is the self appointed conscience of that story.
Conscience is moral awareness, true, but it's still based 100% on what we've been previously taught. It's our habit patterns. In that film The Prevailing Word VP said that children will never lie to you until the adults teach them how. One show I watched was 'Judging Amy'. It's your basic liberal socialist propaganda show like others, but Amy is a juvenile court judge who can be brutally honest when rendering a judgement for other peoples' kids, but in dealing with her own child, a teenage girl, she refuses to be honest. She won't even admit that she (Amy) used dope when she was a child and young adult, so of course, her daughter frequently lies to her about stuff and Amy can't put 2 and 2 together to save her life. If you teach kids either verbally or by example that it's OK to lie they'll pick up on it and their consciences won't bother them for doing it.
But like I said, a conscience is a man's servant, not his master. We all know the scripture about someone's conscience being seared with a hot iron. This person's habit pattern was to do the word, then they do something they know is off the word the first time and their conscience bothers them a lot, but the more they do it, the less their conscience bothers them until finally it doesn't bother them at all.
What about the reverse of that? Instead of having your conscience seared with a hot iron, how about having it "cleared with cool living water"? Romans 8:1 says there is no condemnation. What exactly is this 'condemnation'? Judgement? Condemnation is more than just feeling a little pain once in awhile; it's part of the 'dead in tresspasses and sins' package we inherited from Adam. Our habit pattern, no matter what our background is, included much judgement and abuse based on the common expectation of death we all have, again inherited from Adam. So when someone says, "there is therefore now no condemnation", this is quite contrary to our habit pattern isn't it?
The first time you consider "no condemnation" your conscience literally bothers you: "No no, that can't be right. It's just too good to be true." But the more you consider that Christ paid for "no condemnation" and it's not dependent on your own works, the less it bothers you to think that "no condemnation" could actually be true, until finally, it doesn't bother you at all. THAT is renewed mind!
I don't speak for all, but I absolutely refuse to allow a group of self appointed prosecutors to blow off the good news of "no condemnation" just because VP was human. If your habit pattern is now to figure out every way possible that pfal was a scam, then you'll reap what you sew, and be second guessing every spiritual decision you ever make.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Bravo johniam!
This is a bump,because this thread is so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread.
= == = = = = = = = = =
Grease Spotters, be forewarned –Mikesays this thread “is so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread” that was started for him – but I startedthisthoughtful thread and as a contributor on the aforementioned thread of free will / determinism – I can confidently say these two threads are polar opposites.
Mikeattempts to float these flaky theories of half-baked PFAL nonsense and pseudoscientific baloney on the free will / Determ. thread and thinks he’s got some great theories.
And another hilarious thing Mike quotesJohniam’spost (above) on the conscience like it’s the God-breathed truth – but you'll recognize Johniam is just spewing more garbage he learned and regurgitated from the # 1 cult-leader with a seared conscience – wierwille.
I was NEVER taught that I was under judgement or condemnations UNTIL I was exposed to the cult of TWI. I was NEVER taught that I inherit ANYTHING from Adam. I NEVER had a "habit pattern" that "included much judgement and abuse" based on an expectation of death inherited from Adam UNTIL I was exposed to victor, PFLAP and twi.
When someone said, "there is therefore now no condemnation," I sad, "No $hit! Who are you arguing with?"
No, I NEVER thought anything like, "No, no that can't be right. It's just too good to be true." Rather, I thought, "No $hit! You're just now figuring this out? Who are you trying to convince?"
That has nothing to do with renewed mind as I know it - as it has been revealed to me.
One standard technique, right from the conman's playbook, is to INVENT a problem and then SELL you the solution.
One standard technique, right from the conman's playbook, is to INVENT a problem and then SELL you the solution.
It's a form of gaslighting. I never felt so condemned and guilty in my life until I took the class and was taught just how guilty I was.
One hears it robotically repeated every day, one begins to beleeeve one was once under condemnation, but no more! And thanks to who? The teacher. Thank the teacher for teaching this wonderful kernel. Where would you be without this teaching? Still under condemnation, that's where!
Isn't that just wonderful! Bless your little hearts. Now, pay up!
It's a form of gaslighting. I never felt so condemned and guilty in my life until I took the class and was taught just how guilty I was.
One hears it robotically repeated every day, one begins to beleeeve one was once under condemnation, but no more! And thanks to who? The teacher. Thank the teacher for teaching this wonderful kernel. Where would you be without this teaching? Still under condemnation, that's where!
Isn't that just wonderful! Bless your little hearts. Now, pay up!
Another aspect is the sociopath who plays the victim card to make you feel guilty – we see that here sometimes. Below a few links on the conscience, you might like:
The act of eliciting pity from another unequivocally makes the elicitor something to be pitied, a victim, per se. It is human nature to aid the pitied. Hence, the pity play, or victim stance, stands to get the Sociopath what he or she wants easily and without being found out as a bad guy. This is manipulation. Manipulation is the tool of choice for smart criminal thinkers and, according to Dr. Stout, the Sociopaths amongst us. She says, "Sociopaths have no regard whatsoever for the social contract, but they do know how to use it to their advantage. And all in all, I am sure that if the devil existed, he would want us to feel very sorry for him."
I recently posted a form of this on the thread Why PFAL sucks
Reason # 102 of why PFAL sucks: Prolonged use of PFAL ideology develops a sedative to the conscience
One of the long-term side effects of applying PFAL teachings is that it sabotages our ability to distinguish right from wrong. Noble attributes like righteousness and sanctification that we should strive to live out – wierwille used them more like adeflector shieldto repel any criticism of his bad behavior.
This wouldn’t be such a murky area for most folks – but in my 12 years of involvement with The Way International, my mindset back then was salvation by grace – it’s a free gift and never gave any thought to bearing fruit that my life has changed because of the Gospel. SeeMatthew 3:8andGalatians 5….bearing fruit implies a process – it takes time!
What also comes to mind is the idea ofcheap grace. Maybe you’ve heard of it – check out this excerpt:
The phrase "cheap grace" is often associated with German theologian and minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer's book The Cost of Discipleship. In his book, published in 1937, he said that cheap grace was "the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ."
As defined by Bonhoeffer, cheap grace is an approach to Christianity that only emphasizes the good or easy parts without telling the truth regarding the difficult aspects of it. To leave out the more difficult aspects of repentance, church discipline, confession, discipleship, the cross, or the full story of Christ's life offers an incomplete, "cheap" view of God's grace.
In contrast, grace is not cheap but is a priceless gift. God sent His one and only Son to die as a sacrifice for our sins. Jesus endured the pain and the shame of the cross to offer us salvation by grace through faith in Him (Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 12:1-2; Ephesians 2:8-9).
Further, though salvation is a free gift of grace, the Christian life includes times and aspects of costly sacrifice. Paul, James, Jude, and Peter referred to themselves in their letters as a "servant" or "slave" of Christ Jesus. Jesus even referred to those who lived for Him as people who would take up their cross daily and follow Him (Luke 9:23).
Much debate often arises between those who emphasize salvation by grace as a free gift and those who emphasize the actions of a changed life that should result from a person who has been changed by Christ. For example, in the past century a debate arose between two views representing these ideas known as Free Grace and Lordship Salvation.
Both views believe salvation is available only by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. However, each position differs in other aspects. The Free Grace position emphasizes all that is necessary for salvation is to receive Jesus as Savior (John 1:12; John 3:16; Romans 10:9). The Lordship Salvation view argues that a person must receive Jesus as Savior and Lord to truly be saved and that genuine life change must be exhibited as a result (Luke 14:25-33; Romans 5:20-21; Ephesians 4:17-24; James 2:14-26).
A driving motivation in this debate has been the growth of what some have called "carnal Christians." These are people who consider themselves Christians yet show little or no difference in their lives than non-Christians. A Free Grace position would argue that many of these people are true believers who are living in sin while a Lordship Salvation view would argue these carnal Christians have never been saved at all.
In summary, the idea of "cheap grace" is one that was developed by Bonhoeffer and has had great influence within Christian thought over the past century. While the grace of God is a free gift available to all who will receive it, a disciple of Jesus Christ will also be willing to grow and endure hardship for the sake of the Gospel. Salvation is about transformation (2 Corinthians 5:17) and new life in Christ (John 10:10), not about a ticket to heaven. Our freedom came at great cost to Jesus (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Grace is free, but it is not cheap.
I heard a preacher say as we spiritually mature, we become more aware of our shortcomings. He abstracted that idea from the book of Timothy:
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. I Timothy 1:15
In my opinion as we cultivate the Christian lifestyle, we gain a greater appreciation of what Jesus Christ did for us while we were still unconverted creeps …and what often helps me pull out of a nosedive is that bigger sense of indebtedness to Jesus Christ whenever I have a relapse into my old creepiness …I think Paul had both situations in mind for him to say in apresent-tense-indicative-mood-to-state-a-fact-way "speaking of sinners Iamthe worst !"
Being involved with TWI for 12 years took a heavy toll on my soul…I had to identify…recognize the damage done to my faculties – one of which is the conscience . I believe it can be a trustworthy guide – more like a skylight that lets in the light rather than an independent source of light…so in that regard it’s rational associations based on one’s moral philosophy or value system. The topic of the conscience was one of the first big issues I talked about when I joined Grease Spot in 2006 – it still is !
Conscience exists as a faculty of the human soul. Conscience is fed and nourished, ordered and directed by what is presented to it in the rational ability of man to know objective moral truth — that is, to grasp what is truly good and what is truly evil. It does not exist apart from man’s intellect or free will. Contrary to some popular misconceptions, conscience is not the “source” of morality, but rather is its “servant.”from: Simply Catholic: what is the conscience?
Rationalizing is often the delivery system for anesthetizing any qualms we may have.
Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D., holds doctorates in English and Psychology – said there’s 4 chief methods for rationalizing—or even “moralizing”—our immoral behavior:
1. Reinterpreting Culpable Conduct
2. Obscuring Personal Agency
3. Disregarding or Distorting the Consequences of Immoral Action
4. Blaming and Dehumanizing the Victims of Evil Behavior
I know we all mess up at times and will do one or more of those 4 methods of rationalization...we have to do something to quiet that nagging voice in the back of our minds...but I think that's playing with fire...it's a dangerous undertaking with our conscience.
However, there is a simple solution when we struggle with a guilty conscience over sinful behavior- simple to say but not to execute.
The idea is "do good and you'll feel good" . I got that from Christian Counselor Jay Adams - it was a principle he abstracted from Genesis 4 God dealing with Cain. As the story goes God says to Cain "why do you look so down...if you do what is right, you'll feel accepted."...sometimes trying to NOT act like the world's biggest creep is the hardest thing for me to do...but when I do succeed, I feel pretty good about myself.
In the PFAL material wierwille spoke of certain spiritual realities as a “right” –a legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. That isPARTLYtrue. He was really big on teaching theory but he showed little concern for practice. Here’s how he definedsanctificationin the PFAL book, chapter 23, Knowing One’s Sonship Rights, page 338:
I Corinthians 1:30
But of him [God] are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption…
…The word “sanctified” means “to be set apart.” Before a man is born again of God’s Spirit, he is a man of body and soul, that’s all. But when he is born again, he is set apart by God for heaven and all hell can’t stop him from going...
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
In my opinion, wierwille's definition of "sanctification" is an incomplete thought. Consider thededicationof the Temple in I Kings 8 , I Kings 9 and II Chronicles 5ff
Thededicationmeantto set it apart for God’s use…to commit everything to a special purpose…It was not just the building itself that was dedicated for God’s use. It was the building, all the furniture, all the vessels, all the altars, and all the tools that were a part of this glorious Temple.
The way that wierwille taughtsonship rightswas like deleting the middle of a three-act play…1. there’s the setup – Jesus Christ previously achieved all this great stuff for us…but then heedits out act 2 – our confrontation – that’s us trying to live the Christian lifestyle in a corrupt world…so he skips that and goes straight to act 3 – the resolution – our struggles are over – we’re in heaven - we celebrate the victory.
I believe the sanctification of I Cor. 1:30 may be talking in terms of in principle but not fully realized yet – since in the passage it relates to the achievements of Jesus Christ; considering other passages on this topic, I lean toward the notion there might be two modes:
1. the immediate effect of what Jesus Christ already completed for us.
2. since we have His influence and the power of The Holy Spirit inside us - sanctification is also an ongoing process of becoming more like Christ, by purifying our hearts and minds, through repentance, prayer, and spiritual discipline. In the Bible, sanctification is mentioned frequently as a calling to align oneself with God's will and cleanse oneself from sin. As seen in the following passage:
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality I Thessalonians 4:3
I think on some topics, like this one – wierwille might have had a smidgen of the right notion – the idea of having stuff like righteousness , sanctification , redemptionof Jesus Christ – the theory, if you will – but it is only an abstracted practice. Whereas practice is applied theory. Like what I Thess. 4:3 was talking about – God wants us to ACT SANCTIFIED– in practice that means avoiding sexual immorality and other sinful behavior...We should ask ourselves how would Jesus Christ act in a situation? Certainly, His actions in the Gospels always exemplified holiness.
I thinkdoingrighteousactsis theory put into practice. According to Wikipedia righteousness is the quality or state of being morally correct and acceptable...that makes me think of the 2 great divine directives – love God and neighbor.
I heard a preacher say as we spiritually mature, we become more aware of our shortcomings.
I don't know who this preacher man is, but he might have to fist fight VPW over this beleef. I might be wrong, because I might be confusing righteousness with spiritual maturity.
"Whatis righteousness? Righteousness is the God-given justification whereby a person stands in thepresence of God without any consciousness of sin, guilt or shortcomings."
No one is a harsher critic of me than I. So, I don't need MORE awareness of my shortcomings. I'll take righteousness.
Edited by Nathan_Jr Snow, gloves... in that order.
I don't know who this preacher man is, but he might have to fist fight VPW over this beleef. I might be wrong, because I might be confusing righteousness with spiritual maturity.
"Whatis righteousness? Righteousness is the God-given justification whereby a person stands in thepresence of God without any consciousness of sin, guilt or shortcomings."
No one is a harsher critic of me than I. So, I don't need MORE awareness of my shortcomings. I'll take righteousness.
Yes - I can understand how wierwille’s redefinitions would help boost a hypocrite’s self-confidence
Not sure I understand how 1 Tim. 1:15 relates to "spiritual maturity."
What is MacArthur's definition of righteousness? What is victor's definition of spiritual maturity?
Book of Timothy was a later work of Paul - though by that time he would be considered an elder believer he stated humbly he was still a sinner.
I’ve never read a written definition of righteousness by MacArthur - I’m not a spokesperson for him - but I am somewhat familiar with his works - and he’s pretty much in line with conventional definitions of righteousness- and not to be repetitive- so if you refer to my long post above - just click on the hyperlinks for righteousness - there’s a Wikipedia def. and a Bible study def.
Book of Timothy was a later work of Paul - though by that time he would be considered an elder believer he stated humbly he was still a sinner.
I’ve never read a written definition of righteousness by MacArthur - I’m not a spokesperson for him - but I am somewhat familiar with his works - and he’s pretty much in line with conventional definitions of righteousness- and not to be repetitive- so if you refer to my long post above - just click on the hyperlinks for righteousness - there’s a Wikipedia def. and a Bible study def.
Rationalizing is often the delivery system for anesthetizing any qualms we may have.
Great post and to pull a sentence, well here we go. I put forth that the doctrines on sonship rights, etc, coupled with the wierd practices lived out by those in TWI go a long ways to desensitize our conscience to things we should be sensitive to. TWI's definition of righteousness pretty much numbed my conscience out. I mean I put that junk into practice for drum roll....12 years, like T-bone. Was in TWI from 96 to 2008. Amazing how much damage can be done in such a relatively short time. However let me give a few examples of desensitizing that happened while I was around:
- Dirty jokes told by the directors during any class having to do anything with sex - and I mean CRUDE jokes...guess that verse about coarse jesting didn't apply to the directors.
- Common practices in the way household such as condoning casual sex because God would want you to get your need met. Literally my first fellowship coordinator counselled me with exactly that advice.
- Cliches such as "loosen up"...Ive was told to loosen up quite a bit in my early years in TWI.
Personally, by the time I enetered the way internatinal I had been quite the hound dog already and was done having one night stands and such. I mean it gets old..it's not fulfilling and people always get hurt. The way pushes licence to sin and then tells you not to feel anything about it as long as nobody's believing is affected. So as long as everyone can live undisturbed in fantasy land then everything is ok.
Disclaimer: I understand that TWI put out a class called Living God's Word as a Family where they quoted scripture and rightfully stated that sex outside marriage is contrary to God's will. However, that is nowhere near enough to rectify all the damage that was done by VPW Craig and countless others who were whoring around every which way they could. Not to mention those practices are ingrained in TWI's various subcultures.
I don't speak for all, but I absolutely refuse to allow a group of self appointed prosecutors
Upon further analysis, just wanted to point out Johniam’s old post (May 3rd 2007! ) performs multi-duty:
Criticize those who’s conscience was victimized by wierwille’s hypocritical ideology; this is a typical strategy of abusers and those who come to the defense of abusers to blame the victim.
On 5/3/2007 at 8:23 AM, johniam said:
to blow off the good news of "no condemnation" just because VP was human.
This is the classic unrepentant sinful cult-leader’s rule - the old Isaiah 5:20 switcheroo call evil good and good evil – “no condemnation” of wierwille’s licentious behavior
the tu quoque or “you too” fallacy-this might work if Johniam were addressing a convention of serial rapists. But he’s addressing Grease Spotters – some of which may have been victims of his sexual predation and/or had their inner voice sabotaged – silencing one’s personal guide in rightness or wrongness of one's behavior
On 5/3/2007 at 8:23 AM, johniam said:
If your habit pattern is now to figure out every way possible that pfal was a scam,
Ahabit patterndoes not indicate motive. There are good habits and bad habits. It seems people like Mike and Johniam have gotten into a bad habit of defending to the hilt a plagiarizing, pathological liar, money-grubbing thief and sexual predator and his con game of PFAL.
On 5/3/2007 at 8:23 AM, johniam said:
then you'll reap what you sew, and be second guessing every spiritual decision you ever make.
This is an attempt to gaslightGrease Spotters - manipulate by psychological means into questioning their own sanity, analytical skills, decision-making ability, reality, etc.
On 11/7/2022 at 6:21 PM, Mike said:
Bravo johniam!
This is a bump,because this thread is so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread.
It is very telling that Mike would give a “bravo” to Johniam’s post…
…Mike had to go waaaaaaaay back to a May 3rd 2007 post to bump this thread up for attention – the reason he saysis it’s so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread – which I rebutted in a previous post- here - and is nothing more than a blatant attempt to act the part of a troll on this thread too.
Good Lord, don't say that j name three times....and the quote counts as the first...
That shonta would look similar...
I recognize that scene - Shonta-juice is explaining the greatness of PFAL to the guy on the right - who is now experiencing a sharp decrease in his cognitive abilities.
Edited by T-Bone Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice!
I recognize that scene Shonta-juice is explaining the greatness of PFAL and the poor guy on the right is experiencing a sharp decrease in his cognitive abilities.
Gotta watch that Shonta-juice, he's tricky!
The guy on the right is looking at the class coordinator like...this supposed to happen?
Class coordinator responds...hold your questions in abeyance until after the class!
…Mike had to go waaaaaaaay back to a May 3rd 2007 post to bump this thread up for attention – the reason he saysis it’s so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread – which I rebutted in a previous post- here - and is nothing more than a blatant attempt to act the part of a troll on this thread too.
Oh Pa Leeeeeze!
I went to this thread on your recommendation, if I remember right.
Then, afterwards, I was not so happy that I acted that impulsively without reading more of it first. So I backed off.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
49
25
15
Popular Days
May 7
29
May 5
22
May 4
19
May 3
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Jeaniam 16 posts
T-Bone 49 posts
Bolshevik 25 posts
another spot 15 posts
Popular Days
May 7 2007
29 posts
May 5 2007
22 posts
May 4 2007
19 posts
May 3 2007
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
You're misrepresenting, or, perhaps not understanding, the full scope of Wierwille's deception. Wierwille claimed to have taken his voluminous library to the dump and, instead, used the
Bolshevik
I think it was Himmler, kept a small book on his person, probably Mein Kampf. But he had to remind himself why he was doing what he was doing. (I'm searching for a source). I thought is was notewo
WordWolf
Hello. Your phrasing is somewhat awkward-unclear- here, so I will do my best to address what I THINK are your concerns. "I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrin
Mike
Bravo johniam!
This is a bump,because this thread is so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is categorically false.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I was NEVER taught that I was under judgement or condemnations UNTIL I was exposed to the cult of TWI. I was NEVER taught that I inherit ANYTHING from Adam. I NEVER had a "habit pattern" that "included much judgement and abuse" based on an expectation of death inherited from Adam UNTIL I was exposed to victor, PFLAP and twi.
When someone said, "there is therefore now no condemnation," I sad, "No $hit! Who are you arguing with?"
No, I NEVER thought anything like, "No, no that can't be right. It's just too good to be true." Rather, I thought, "No $hit! You're just now figuring this out? Who are you trying to convince?"
That has nothing to do with renewed mind as I know it - as it has been revealed to me.
Edited by Nathan_JrNot so fast!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
revision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
= == = = = = = = = = =
Grease Spotters, be forewarned – Mike says this thread “is so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread” that was started for him – but I started this thoughtful thread and as a contributor on the aforementioned thread of free will / determinism – I can confidently say these two threads are polar opposites.
Mike attempts to float these flaky theories of half-baked PFAL nonsense and pseudoscientific baloney on the free will / Determ. thread and thinks he’s got some great theories.
And another hilarious thing Mike quotes Johniam’s post (above) on the conscience like it’s the God-breathed truth – but you'll recognize Johniam is just spewing more garbage he learned and regurgitated from the # 1 cult-leader with a seared conscience – wierwille.
revision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
One standard technique, right from the conman's playbook, is to INVENT a problem and then SELL you the solution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It's a form of gaslighting. I never felt so condemned and guilty in my life until I took the class and was taught just how guilty I was.
One hears it robotically repeated every day, one begins to beleeeve one was once under condemnation, but no more! And thanks to who? The teacher. Thank the teacher for teaching this wonderful kernel. Where would you be without this teaching? Still under condemnation, that's where!
Isn't that just wonderful! Bless your little hearts. Now, pay up!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Another aspect is the sociopath who plays the victim card to make you feel guilty – we see that here sometimes. Below a few links on the conscience, you might like:
The act of eliciting pity from another unequivocally makes the elicitor something to be pitied, a victim, per se. It is human nature to aid the pitied. Hence, the pity play, or victim stance, stands to get the Sociopath what he or she wants easily and without being found out as a bad guy. This is manipulation. Manipulation is the tool of choice for smart criminal thinkers and, according to Dr. Stout, the Sociopaths amongst us. She says, "Sociopaths have no regard whatsoever for the social contract, but they do know how to use it to their advantage. And all in all, I am sure that if the devil existed, he would want us to feel very sorry for him."
From: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/take-all-prisoners/200912/your-conscience-the-sociopaths-weapon-choice
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I recently posted a form of this on the thread Why PFAL sucks
Reason # 102 of why PFAL sucks: Prolonged use of PFAL ideology develops a sedative to the conscience
One of the long-term side effects of applying PFAL teachings is that it sabotages our ability to distinguish right from wrong. Noble attributes like righteousness and sanctification that we should strive to live out – wierwille used them more like a deflector shield to repel any criticism of his bad behavior.
This wouldn’t be such a murky area for most folks – but in my 12 years of involvement with The Way International, my mindset back then was salvation by grace – it’s a free gift and never gave any thought to bearing fruit that my life has changed because of the Gospel. See Matthew 3:8 and Galatians 5 ….bearing fruit implies a process – it takes time!
What also comes to mind is the idea of cheap grace. Maybe you’ve heard of it – check out this excerpt:
The phrase "cheap grace" is often associated with German theologian and minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer's book The Cost of Discipleship. In his book, published in 1937, he said that cheap grace was "the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ."
As defined by Bonhoeffer, cheap grace is an approach to Christianity that only emphasizes the good or easy parts without telling the truth regarding the difficult aspects of it. To leave out the more difficult aspects of repentance, church discipline, confession, discipleship, the cross, or the full story of Christ's life offers an incomplete, "cheap" view of God's grace.
In contrast, grace is not cheap but is a priceless gift. God sent His one and only Son to die as a sacrifice for our sins. Jesus endured the pain and the shame of the cross to offer us salvation by grace through faith in Him (Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 12:1-2; Ephesians 2:8-9).
Further, though salvation is a free gift of grace, the Christian life includes times and aspects of costly sacrifice. Paul, James, Jude, and Peter referred to themselves in their letters as a "servant" or "slave" of Christ Jesus. Jesus even referred to those who lived for Him as people who would take up their cross daily and follow Him (Luke 9:23).
Much debate often arises between those who emphasize salvation by grace as a free gift and those who emphasize the actions of a changed life that should result from a person who has been changed by Christ. For example, in the past century a debate arose between two views representing these ideas known as Free Grace and Lordship Salvation.
Both views believe salvation is available only by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. However, each position differs in other aspects. The Free Grace position emphasizes all that is necessary for salvation is to receive Jesus as Savior (John 1:12; John 3:16; Romans 10:9). The Lordship Salvation view argues that a person must receive Jesus as Savior and Lord to truly be saved and that genuine life change must be exhibited as a result (Luke 14:25-33; Romans 5:20-21; Ephesians 4:17-24; James 2:14-26).
A driving motivation in this debate has been the growth of what some have called "carnal Christians." These are people who consider themselves Christians yet show little or no difference in their lives than non-Christians. A Free Grace position would argue that many of these people are true believers who are living in sin while a Lordship Salvation view would argue these carnal Christians have never been saved at all.
In summary, the idea of "cheap grace" is one that was developed by Bonhoeffer and has had great influence within Christian thought over the past century. While the grace of God is a free gift available to all who will receive it, a disciple of Jesus Christ will also be willing to grow and endure hardship for the sake of the Gospel. Salvation is about transformation (2 Corinthians 5:17) and new life in Christ (John 10:10), not about a ticket to heaven. Our freedom came at great cost to Jesus (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Grace is free, but it is not cheap.
From: Compelling Truth org: Cheap grace – What is it?
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
I heard a preacher say as we spiritually mature, we become more aware of our shortcomings. He abstracted that idea from the book of Timothy:
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. I Timothy 1:15
In my opinion as we cultivate the Christian lifestyle, we gain a greater appreciation of what Jesus Christ did for us while we were still unconverted creeps …and what often helps me pull out of a nosedive is that bigger sense of indebtedness to Jesus Christ whenever I have a relapse into my old creepiness …I think Paul had both situations in mind for him to say in a present-tense-indicative-mood-to-state-a-fact-way
"speaking of sinners I am the worst !"
Being involved with TWI for 12 years took a heavy toll on my soul…I had to identify…recognize the damage done to my faculties – one of which is the conscience . I believe it can be a trustworthy guide – more like a skylight that lets in the light rather than an independent source of light…so in that regard it’s rational associations based on one’s moral philosophy or value system. The topic of the conscience was one of the first big issues I talked about when I joined Grease Spot in 2006 – it still is !
Conscience exists as a faculty of the human soul. Conscience is fed and nourished, ordered and directed by what is presented to it in the rational ability of man to know objective moral truth — that is, to grasp what is truly good and what is truly evil. It does not exist apart from man’s intellect or free will. Contrary to some popular misconceptions, conscience is not the “source” of morality, but rather is its “servant.” from: Simply Catholic: what is the conscience?
Rationalizing is often the delivery system for anesthetizing any qualms we may have.
Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D., holds doctorates in English and Psychology – said there’s 4 chief methods for rationalizing—or even “moralizing”—our immoral behavior:
1. Reinterpreting Culpable Conduct
2. Obscuring Personal Agency
3. Disregarding or Distorting the Consequences of Immoral Action
4. Blaming and Dehumanizing the Victims of Evil Behavior
from: Psychology Today: 4 ways You Rationalize When You Act Against Your Conscience
I know we all mess up at times and will do one or more of those 4 methods of rationalization...we have to do something to quiet that nagging voice in the back of our minds...but I think that's playing with fire...it's a dangerous undertaking with our conscience.
However, there is a simple solution when we struggle with a guilty conscience over sinful behavior - simple to say but not to execute.
The idea is "do good and you'll feel good" . I got that from Christian Counselor Jay Adams - it was a principle he abstracted from Genesis 4 God dealing with Cain. As the story goes God says to Cain "why do you look so down...if you do what is right, you'll feel accepted."...sometimes trying to NOT act like the world's biggest creep is the hardest thing for me to do...but when I do succeed, I feel pretty good about myself.
In the PFAL material wierwille spoke of certain spiritual realities as a “right” – a legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. That is PARTLY true. He was really big on teaching theory but he showed little concern for practice. Here’s how he defined sanctification in the PFAL book, chapter 23, Knowing One’s Sonship Rights, page 338:
I Corinthians 1:30
But of him [God] are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption…
…The word “sanctified” means “to be set apart.” Before a man is born again of God’s Spirit, he is a man of body and soul, that’s all. But when he is born again, he is set apart by God for heaven and all hell can’t stop him from going...
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
In my opinion, wierwille's definition of "sanctification" is an incomplete thought. Consider the dedication of the Temple in I Kings 8 , I Kings 9 and II Chronicles 5ff
The dedication meant to set it apart for God’s use…to commit everything to a special purpose…It was not just the building itself that was dedicated for God’s use. It was the building, all the furniture, all the vessels, all the altars, and all the tools that were a part of this glorious Temple.
The way that wierwille taught sonship rights was like deleting the middle of a three-act play…1. there’s the setup – Jesus Christ previously achieved all this great stuff for us…but then he edits out act 2 – our confrontation – that’s us trying to live the Christian lifestyle in a corrupt world…so he skips that and goes straight to act 3 – the resolution – our struggles are over – we’re in heaven - we celebrate the victory.
I believe the sanctification of I Cor. 1:30 may be talking in terms of in principle but not fully realized yet – since in the passage it relates to the achievements of Jesus Christ; considering other passages on this topic, I lean toward the notion there might be two modes:
1. the immediate effect of what Jesus Christ already completed for us.
2. since we have His influence and the power of The Holy Spirit inside us - sanctification is also an ongoing process of becoming more like Christ, by purifying our hearts and minds, through repentance, prayer, and spiritual discipline. In the Bible, sanctification is mentioned frequently as a calling to align oneself with God's will and cleanse oneself from sin. As seen in the following passage:
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality I Thessalonians 4:3
I think on some topics, like this one – wierwille might have had a smidgen of the right notion – the idea of having stuff like righteousness , sanctification , redemption of Jesus Christ – the theory, if you will – but it is only an abstracted practice. Whereas practice is applied theory. Like what I Thess. 4:3 was talking about – God wants us to ACT SANCTIFIED – in practice that means avoiding sexual immorality and other sinful behavior...We should ask ourselves how would Jesus Christ act in a situation? Certainly, His actions in the Gospels always exemplified holiness.
I think doing righteous acts is theory put into practice. According to Wikipedia righteousness is the quality or state of being morally correct and acceptable...that makes me think of the 2 great divine directives – love God and neighbor.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DVD bonus features:
What does the Bible say about the conscience?
The making of "Conscience"
how to administer a sedative
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I don't know who this preacher man is, but he might have to fist fight VPW over this beleef. I might be wrong, because I might be confusing righteousness with spiritual maturity.
"What is righteousness? Righteousness is the God-given justification whereby a person stands in the presence of God without any consciousness of sin, guilt or shortcomings."
No one is a harsher critic of me than I. So, I don't need MORE awareness of my shortcomings. I'll take righteousness.
Edited by Nathan_JrSnow, gloves... in that order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes - I can understand how wierwille’s redefinitions would help boost a hypocrite’s self-confidence
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The preacher is victor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No - the preacher I heard speaking on the I Tim. 1:15 passage was John MacArthur.
the definition of righteousness that you quoted was from wierwille wasn’t it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Oh. Yes, righteousness as defined by victor.
Not sure I understand how 1 Tim. 1:15 relates to "spiritual maturity."
What is MacArthur's definition of righteousness? What is victor's definition of spiritual maturity?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Book of Timothy was a later work of Paul - though by that time he would be considered an elder believer he stated humbly he was still a sinner.
I’ve never read a written definition of righteousness by MacArthur - I’m not a spokesperson for him -
but I am somewhat familiar with his works - and he’s pretty much in line with conventional definitions of righteousness- and not to be repetitive- so if you refer to my long post above - just click on the hyperlinks for righteousness - there’s a Wikipedia def. and a Bible study def.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Great post and to pull a sentence, well here we go. I put forth that the doctrines on sonship rights, etc, coupled with the wierd practices lived out by those in TWI go a long ways to desensitize our conscience to things we should be sensitive to. TWI's definition of righteousness pretty much numbed my conscience out. I mean I put that junk into practice for drum roll....12 years, like T-bone. Was in TWI from 96 to 2008. Amazing how much damage can be done in such a relatively short time. However let me give a few examples of desensitizing that happened while I was around:
- Dirty jokes told by the directors during any class having to do anything with sex - and I mean CRUDE jokes...guess that verse about coarse jesting didn't apply to the directors.
- Common practices in the way household such as condoning casual sex because God would want you to get your need met. Literally my first fellowship coordinator counselled me with exactly that advice.
- Cliches such as "loosen up"...Ive was told to loosen up quite a bit in my early years in TWI.
Personally, by the time I enetered the way internatinal I had been quite the hound dog already and was done having one night stands and such. I mean it gets old..it's not fulfilling and people always get hurt. The way pushes licence to sin and then tells you not to feel anything about it as long as nobody's believing is affected. So as long as everyone can live undisturbed in fantasy land then everything is ok.
Disclaimer: I understand that TWI put out a class called Living God's Word as a Family where they quoted scripture and rightfully stated that sex outside marriage is contrary to God's will. However, that is nowhere near enough to rectify all the damage that was done by VPW Craig and countless others who were whoring around every which way they could. Not to mention those practices are ingrained in TWI's various subcultures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Upon further analysis, just wanted to point out Johniam’s old post (May 3rd 2007 ! ) performs multi-duty:
Criticize those who’s conscience was victimized by wierwille’s hypocritical ideology; this is a typical strategy of abusers and those who come to the defense of abusers to blame the victim.
This is the classic unrepentant sinful cult-leader’s rule - the old Isaiah 5:20 switcheroo call evil good and good evil – “no condemnation” of wierwille’s licentious behavior
the tu quoque or “you too” fallacy - this might work if Johniam were addressing a convention of serial rapists. But he’s addressing Grease Spotters – some of which may have been victims of his sexual predation and/or had their inner voice sabotaged – silencing one’s personal guide in rightness or wrongness of one's behavior
A habit pattern does not indicate motive. There are good habits and bad habits. It seems people like Mike and Johniam have gotten into a bad habit of defending to the hilt a plagiarizing, pathological liar, money-grubbing thief and sexual predator and his con game of PFAL.
This is an attempt to gaslight Grease Spotters - manipulate by psychological means into questioning their own sanity, analytical skills, decision-making ability, reality, etc.
It is very telling that Mike would give a “bravo” to Johniam’s post…
…Mike had to go waaaaaaaay back to a May 3rd 2007 post to bump this thread up for attention – the reason he says is it’s so closely aligned with the free will versus determinism thread – which I rebutted in a previous post - here - and is nothing more than a blatant attempt to act the part of a troll on this thread too.
Edited by T-Bonethe old and the bold
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Good Lord, don't say that j name three times....and the quote counts as the first...
That shonta would look similar...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I recognize that scene - Shonta-juice is explaining the greatness of PFAL to the guy on the right - who is now experiencing a sharp decrease in his cognitive abilities.
Edited by T-BoneBeetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Gotta watch that Shonta-juice, he's tricky!
The guy on the right is looking at the class coordinator like...this supposed to happen?
Class coordinator responds...hold your questions in abeyance until after the class!
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
If you’re concerned that someone you know may have guzzled down the Shonta-juice, the typical symptoms are cognitive dissonance and all-or-nothing thinking aka splitting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Interesting that splitting and narcissism go hand in hand many times.
She just finished her first fnc and appearently is ready for the motor coach the way Shonta-juice moved in on her after she split.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh Pa Leeeeeze!
Edited by MikeI went to this thread on your recommendation, if I remember right.
Then, afterwards, I was not so happy that I acted that impulsively without reading more of it first. So I backed off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.