A note on forgiving

[WordWolf]

When someone REPENTS of something, it means they acknowledge what they did

was wrong, and they seek to make amends for it, to redress the greivances they incurred.

IF vpw repented, THEN he acknowledged what he did and sought to make amends.

We've asked throughout the years. Not ONE person has come forth claiming they

were wronged by vpw in any of the ways on that list, and he even APOLOGIZED,

let alone attempted to make amends. There was no "we will need to clean the morals

of the ministry, starting right here" attempt from vpw. All he would have needed to do

is say it any time he was at the microphone. People would have IMMEDIATELY taken

it as a dire warning needing IMMEDIATE action. There was no finding any of his

personal victims and asking forgiveness, or offering of amends.

There was no sign of ANYTHING that accompanies actually REPENTING of something.

What makes you suspect he MIGHT have repented them?

My answer to that question would be my own personal observation and fellowship with him. Along with his 40+ years teaching ministry, 15 of which I observed; I also have observed fruit of the spirit; love, joy, peace, gentleness, meekness, goodness, faith, etc. in my dealings with him. I've spent some very short time with him in 1973 and 1975; spent a whole month with him and Mrs. Wierwille in June of 1984 on a motorcycle trip. If he was the man *of the flesh* that some posters relentlessly portray of him, then I saw a different man when I spent time with him. I know him in a different way that contradicts the way he has been portrayed here. So yes, he certainly may have seen the error of those ways and asked God for forgiveness and moved on.

But even IF he didn't, I believe it still would not negate his standing as a child of God because of his belief in Jesus Christ, and I believe it wouldn't negate the truths he taught. The sins of a teacher do not negate the truths in the teaching. The teachings should be viewed separately and stand as truth or error on their own.

Luke 19:8.And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

I notice how you changed the subject from "this is what repentance is" and "when did you see repentance"

to "did you ever see vpw act like a nice guy?"

A) Whether he had a "40+ years teaching ministry" is a matter of opinion.

It could also be called a decades long embezzling, defrauding, raping ministry.

That tends to discount calling his actions IN BETWEEN them a "teaching ministry."

At least, to anyone except vpw fans, it does.

B) You weren't in among his intimates for 15 years. You saw him ON STAGE, and you saw

him as MANAGED in the corps. Anyone could put on a good show for all of that time.

According to lcm's own account, when the cameras were off, he was loud and petty.

C) You DID spent about a month with him June 1984. At that point, he was aware he was

going to die. He was also older, and may have learned some things about conduct.

Small surprise his act was cleaner. He also lacked the energy to rape women at that point.

He wasn't "a different man" one day raping one woman, then "a different man" the next

day at the pulpit talking about the love of God. He wasn't "one man" when he said he loved

people, and "a different man" the next MINUTE when he screamed because they didn't

put the plywood the way he wanted. He was ONE man who, some of the time,

evidenced the works of the flesh in LARGE amounts.

Hey-most of the time, JOHN WAYNE GACY was a pillar of his community.

He only OCCASIONALLY molested and killed young boys.

That's about the same standard you're pushing- most of the time, he was a nice guy,

and when people saw him, he was nice.

That's not a "contradiction", that's just doing LESS evil.

D) "He may have seen the error of his ways and asked God for forgiveness and moved on."

I saw this when discussing Jimmy Swaggart embezzling money.

"God has forgiven me-why can't you?"

"Makes sense. Send him Billy's college fund money."

Seems the whole "making amends if you actually MEAN you're sorry"

thing is outside your paradigm.

Without that, anyone can put on a convincing show of SUPPOSED repentance or being a nice guy.

E) If he taught the truth, his character is a non-issue there.

HOWEVER, if a man with an ulterior motive teaches something, his teaching is suspect.

A sensible person is careful reviewing vpw's work-since there's pitfalls to harm the unwary.

(Documentable ERRORS, too.)

F) As for whether or not he's a Christian, I've seen arguments for and against.

I started out thinking he WAS, but as the discussions have rolled on, I think a stronger

case can be made that he was a fraud from Day One.

I'm not CERTAIN either way.

But inheriting the kingdom of God, whatever that means, appears to be outside what

he'll get, according to Galatians 5.

So, in conclusion, you have seen nothing where he attempted to clean up the corruption

he sowed in twi with the lockbox and casual sex doctrines, or anything else,

and you never saw him approach victims to offer amends or blood money.

So, you saw no REPENTANCE.

What you saw was some occasional "being a nice guy."

Which can be faked.

Thanks for playing.

Edited February 25, 2008 by WordWolf

[rascal]

I think what you describe oldies, sounds like his *company manners* as I tell my teenagers, who are now falling in love, wanting to move out, get married etc.

It take a long time to see who and what is actually behind the facade that people want you to see.

I think that was why God gave us a clear list.

[Ham]

The apostle Paul also did awful things AFTER he got born again. Read Romans 7:16-25 if you don't believe me. He didn't write that before he got born again. He plainly talks about the "sin dwelling in him" there in Romans 7:20.

are you suggesting when he was under "spiritual pressure" he "fell of the wagon" a few more times.. persecuted christians, led them to their death? Held the garments while they were being stoned to death?

to me, that would make your argument a little more logical here..

[oldiesman]

What you saw was some occasional "being a nice guy."

Which can be faked.

Thanks for playing.

Wordwolf, you say your uncertain whether VP Wierwille was a born again Christian.

But what IS your definition of a born again Christian and how does one know for sure? Please define.

Take 3 people who you believe are born again and please tell me why you believe that.

Rascal, you mentioned fruit of the spirit in the past dozens of times.

Please describe what fruit of the spirit is, and how we can detect it.

You said in the past that it wasn't good works.

Take 3 people you believe manifest fruit of the spirit and please tell me how we detect that and what are the attributes.

Thank you.

Edited February 25, 2008 by oldiesman

[J0nny Ling0]

Oldies, I do think that those are reasonable questions. I look fwd to hearing the answers.

But I have a question to axe you: Why is your avatar a woman, who is she? You were a black dude for awhile, and now a woman. Wazzup?

Edited February 25, 2008 by Jonny Lingo

[Ham]

I don't think one should have to move heaven and earth.. have to finely dissect a "man"'s life to try to find love, joy, peace.. longsuffering.. gentleness, faith, meekness, and SELF CONTROL..

even on stage he "blew it" in a lot of instances.. I saw him go into a rage and throw a bible once..cursing and spitting..

I understand he was a hundred times worse in "real life".

"fruit" really should be a heck of a lot easier to detect.

What kind of redemption are we really talking about here? Does it have value? Or is it so worthless and powerless, that a man who supposedly receives it, or submits himself to it just goes on his merry way, and sins worse than before.

See.. he had an explanation for almost EVERYTHING.. "when one is born again, the MIND is NOT affected.."

obviously it didn't affect HIS..

the "I just sat there, and cried like a baby.." must have been just one more contrivance..

All this teaching about the spirit burning the "dross" like a fire.. must have been a contrivance as well.

[oldiesman]

Oldies, I do think that those are reasonable questions. I look fwd to hearing the answers.

But I have a question to axe you: Why is your avatar a woman, who is she? You were a black dude for awhile, and now a woman. Wazzup?

Thanks Jonny, but you know my avatar is Suzy Parker, you guessed her during the contest back in December.

How long will she be up there? who knows... but I like her looks don't you?

[doojable]

My answer to that question would be my own personal observation and fellowship with him.

I do believe this is faulty reasoning.

What you're saying, in effect is, "Hey he treated me well. When he was in my world he behaved. That's the standard, and it negates everything that all of you say."

I didn't personally hear it, but there is someone that heard the Mrs. say something about him being a mean man...

Certainly she knew him better than you did.

And... shouldn't "the fruit" of a man's life be fairly consistent? I mean, the "works of the flesh" shouldn't be so overwhelming as to obscure the "fruit of the Spirit," should it?

I'm just wondering here, but if VP was drunk while he was teaching - does one trump the other?

If he was longsuffering while he was being adulterous? How much peace did he have when he was shouting at the top of his lungs in a non-longsuffering way? Do you think he was gentle about it? How much joy did that ministry really bring him afterall? If he envied or hated while he was faithfully seeking his next motorcoach victim...?

Tell me...do you really believe that when he was doing these things he was being led by the Spirit? Perhaps there is the answer right there... because if he wasn't being led by the Spirit, then one could make the argument that he was under the law.

But I'm just thinking here.... carry on.

[J0nny Ling0]

I remember now that someone guessed her as Suzie Parker, but not me. I don't know who Suzie Parker is. I will google her.

But yes, she does look rather nice...

And yes, I do believe that your questions to Word Wolf and rascal are very reasonable, so I am looking fwd to hearing their answers...

[oldiesman]

I do believe this is faulty reasoning.

What you're saying, in effect is, "Hey he treated me well. When he was in my world he behaved. That's the standard, and it negates everything that all of you say."

Well, I'm entitled to make a judgement about the man based upon my experiences with him, just as someone else is entitled to make a judgment based upon theirs. Seems reasonable to me.

[Ham]

I personally wouldn't want that cheap of a redemption..

I had more "fruit of the spirit" than that when I was designated a stinking unbeliever..

[doojable]

Well, I'm entitled to make a judgement about the man based upon my experiences with him, just as someone else is entitled to make a judgment based upon theirs. Seems reasonable to me.

Of course you're entitled to make a judgment based on your experiences - that doesn't mean that your reasoning is sound. What seems reasonable to you isn't the issue.

Oh and what about the rest of the post?

Edited February 25, 2008 by doojable

[T-Bone]

vp was big on "assurance" via cheap grace…The TWI mindset sedated the conscience, which not only gave followers a false sense of security – but also increased the likelihood of self-deception…Whereas, Scripture has much to say about how Christians ought to be routinely reflective of their ways - examine themselves if they be in the faith [iI Corinthians 13:5] comes to mind, right off the bat, along with the verses in I John that challenge us to be honest [like I John 1:6 – if we claim we have fellowship with Him but walk in darkness, we lie and do not walk in truth; verse 10, if we claim we have not sinned we make Him a liar]. It seems to me now, that the only reason vp ever spoke about the work of Jesus Christ, emphasizing anything we did was of little consequence - was so folks wouldn't see how hypocritical he was. vp's idea of "grace" was a license to do whatever he wanted.

Dietrich Bonhoefer's definition of cheap grace – which seems very appropriate for this thread right about now:

"Cheap grace," writes Bonhoefer, "means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything, they say, and so everything can remain as it was before....Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."

[from http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2638 ]

Edited February 25, 2008 by T-Bone

[bowtwi]

It appears that my lengthy post with quotes and comments here disappeared into cyberworld somewhere. I haven't time to go back and redo it all, so here's the short version.

Oldies - you accused rascal of being a liar back on page 29 or so of this thread. Wordwolf proved you wrong in your jumping to that conclusion and graciously showed the posts to back it up. You then came in (on a Sunday, no less, very unusual for you) and went on as if none of that was posted.

Please go back and read at least posts 585,586, 589, and 591 BEFORE you come asking rascal to answer anything for you, especially a question that asks her to repeat things she's already clearly said at least a few times that I know of.

At the very least you owe her an apology for calling her a liar when she clearly did not lie.

Wordwolf - Thank you for your evenhanded clear explanations. Your posts are nothing short of brilliant.

Edited February 25, 2008 by bowtwi

[oldiesman]

Tell me...do you really believe that when he was doing these things he was being led by the Spirit?

At the same time? No. It says in Galatians that when a Christian walks in the spirit, they won't fulfull the lust of the flesh, and vice-versa.

Do you really believe that if a Christian fulfills the lust of the flesh one day, or one week, or one month, that that means a Christian can't walk in the spirit another day, another week or another month? If so, please provide the scriptures.

Of course you're entitled to make a judgment based on your experiences - that doesn't mean that your reasoning is sound. What seems reasonable to you isn't the issue.

Oh and what about the rest of the post?

What seems reasonable to me isn't the issue? To me it is.

My answer to the rest of your post is above.

[doojable]

At the same time? No. It says in Galatians that when a Christian walks in the spirit, they won't fulfull the lust of the flesh, and vice-versa.

Do you really believe that if a Christian fulfills the lust of the flesh one day, or one week, or one month, that that means a Christian can't walk in the spirit another day, another week or another month? If so, please provide the scriptures.

This is the question I put forth for consideration:

And... shouldn't "the fruit" of a man's life be fairly consistent? I mean, the "works of the flesh" shouldn't be so overwhelming as to obscure the "fruit of the Spirit," should it?

So day by day... I'd say that there is room for error. We are but dust after all. BUT - if the mix of "fruit" and "works" is so entangled, I'd be more prone to say that the fruit isn't really that, but is really just works put on for show.

[oldiesman]

It appears that my lengthy post with quotes and comments here disappeared into cyberworld somewhere. I haven't time to go back and redo it all, so here's the short version.

Oldies - you accused rascal of being a liar back on page 29 or so of this thread. Wordwolf proved you wrong in your jumping to that conclusion and graciously showed the posts to back it up. You then came in (on a Sunday, no less, very unusual for you) and went on as if none of that was posted.

Please go back and read at least posts 585,586, 589, and 591 BEFORE you come asking rascal to answer anything for you, especially a question that asks her to repeat things she's already clearly said at least a few times that I know of.

At the very least you owe her an apology for calling her a liar when she clearly did not lie.

Bowtwi, you are incorrect, I didn't call anyone a liar. Rascal accused me of misquoting her, which I didn't, and then I provided the exact quote I used. She said I misquoted her by deleting *after the new birth*. I didn't misquote her. I didn't delete *after the new birth*. I used a quote of hers from several months ago that didn't have *after the new birth*. So if anyone should apologize it should have been Rascal for jumping to conclusions.

Rascal hasn't clarified her point about fruit of the spirit and how it can be detected. I believe this is important to understand what her theology is all about, so I'd like to get clarification on that.

[oldiesman]

So day by day... I'd say that there is room for error. We are but dust after all. BUT - if the mix of "fruit" and "works" is so entangled, I'd be more prone to say that the fruit isn't really that, but is really just works put on for show.

But a case is attempting to be made that Dr. Wierwille was not a Christian. So then what is a born again Christian? What is your definition of one? Please give 3 examples of folks who you believe to be born again, and explain why you believe they are. Thank you.

[doojable]

But a case is attempting to be made that Dr. Wierwille was not a Christian. So then what is a born again Christian? What is your definition of one? Please give 3 examples of folks who you believe to be born again, and explain why you believe they are. Thank you.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone that wants to be your student.

I didn't make the claims you seem so interested in. I simply commented on the obvious contradiction of a life led by the Spirit as opposed to delving into works of the flesh, and being under the law - and even then it was done in a pondering fashion.

Sorry but I'm not accepting assignments from you.

[Ham]

It seems that it is much easier to claim, or actually prove one is NOT supposedly born again, than to prove one IS supposedly born again..

maybe the moral of the story here.. don't give several thousand people GOOD REASON to think you are NOT. Your name just might find itself rightfully smeared in a place like this even while you're still alive..

and don't leave a trail of carefully hidden dead bodies for them to find twenty years later either.

:)

Maybe it's like a scam artist.. a seller of snake oil..

easier to show that he is a scam artist, a seller of snake oil, than to show an honest person is really honest..

these mogster types just made the job easier..

[oldiesman]

You seem to have mistaken me for someone that wants to be your student.

I didn't make the claims you seem so interested in. I simply commented on the obvious contradiction of a life led by the Spirit as opposed to delving into works of the flesh, and being under the law - and even then it was done in a pondering fashion.

Sorry but I'm not accepting assignments from you.

There's no need to have an attitude ... all I'm asking for is clarification of some beliefs and theological positions.

[rascal]

Don`t believe it Dooj, you just didn`t fall into the little verbal snare he was attempting to bait and lead you into :)

[oldiesman]

Rascal,

Asking for clarification on one's theology is a snare? I don't think so.

You still haven't clarified your position about what fruit of the spirit is and how we can detect it.

Please give examples. Understanding your theological position is important.

Thank you.

[What The Hey]

It seems that it is much easier to claim, or actually prove one is NOT supposedly born again, than to prove one IS supposedly born again..

I don't think so. The proof someone is born again is simply that they speak in tongues. Of course, it doesn't prove - and that alone certainly isn't enough proof they are a disciple of the Lord and that one can open their heart and trust them with everything. There's a lot of people I know who S.I.T that I don't trust - because they haven't proven or shown me they are truly a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, a lot of them have tried. They faithfully attend church, they put on a spiritual show and go through a lot of 'spiritual shinanigans - some have even gone so far as to serve inside the church, but simply becoming a "church mouse" doesn't prove and isn't enough to prove to me someone is a disciplined follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

...

[rascal]

SURE I have oldies, many times....you just chose to ignore what galatians 5 so clearly clearly states.

There are fruit listed manifested by a man of the flesh, there are fruit listed that are manifested by a man of the spirit. The lists are precise and clear.

All sin, all seem to have works, some good some bad... but all sin and all works are not necessarily fruit either way.