A note on forgiving

[waysider]

Ya know---

I'm startin' ta think this whole debate of whether he was born again, whether he produced fruit, whether he spoke in tongues and on and on and on is just a diversionary tactic to take the focus off the heart of the issue.

Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, whatever the heck he was, he scammed us!!!

He played us for fools to satisfy his own depraved idea of "the abundant life".

He used my money and yours to keep himself in a rather constant state of inebriation.

He used my money and yours to buy an airplane, a motorcoach, a fleet of classic cars, a fleet of expensive motorcycles, expensive guns and hunting equipment, expensive hunting dogs, prime real estate, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Along comes somebody who says they spent a month with him when he was out on a public relations driven tour and at a stage in his life when his health probably curtailed a good bit of his extreme activity.

We're expected to disregard the testimony of people who spent YEARS with him when he was at the height of his depravity.

I'll bet there are people who, to this day, could tell us all kinds of stories about how they spent time with Ted Bundy and found him to be a totally charming and wonderful individual.

VPW was mentally ill.(IMO)

I don't need to forgive him for that any more than I need to forgive my kid for getting the chicken pox.

The thing is, he used that illness in a manner that hurt a whole lot of people instead of seeking help for himself.

So, personally, I don't really care if he was "born again" or "produced fruit in his life" or "spoke in tongues" till the cows came home or secretly worshiped sea monkeys in the BRC.

I do care, though, that he lied, stole, bullied, and abused people with what seems to be a total disregard for anyones' well-being aside from his own.

That's what we are really being asked to forgive him for.

[doojable]

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

Attitude? I simply drew a boundary. I posed some questions, as I've done more than once and you've ignored more than once, with other posters as well as me.

I'm not about to define the new birth. Whatever I believe is sure to be partly right and partly wrong, just as it would be for anyone else. It's not my game so I don't get to make the rules.

I was simply looking at the overarching habits of a life.

Interestingly enough, in Galatians the works of the flesh are contrasted with fruit of the spirit. All works produce fruit (according to my understanding of the verses) but what fruit is produced depends on the nature of the works. If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.... conversely, what happens if you are not led by the Spirit? You are under the law?

Works of the flesh ====> might this indicate a person putting themselves under the consequences (fruit) of the law? I dunno. Just thinking here...

Works led by the Spirit ====> fruit of the spirit - the result of being led by the Spirit.

I have many more questions than I have answers. I do know that when I see poor logic it jumps out at me and screams. I had to point that out. :)

Edited February 26, 2008 by doojable

[T-Bone]

Ya know---

I'm startin' ta think this whole debate of whether he was born again, whether he produced fruit, whether he spoke in tongues and on and on and on is just a diversionary tactic to take the focus off the heart of the issue.

Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, whatever the heck he was, he scammed us!!!

He played us for fools to satisfy his own depraved idea of "the abundant life".

He used my money and yours to keep himself in a rather constant state of inebriation.

He used my money and yours to buy an airplane, a motorcoach, a fleet of classic cars, a fleet of expensive motorcycles, expensive guns and hunting equipment, expensive hunting dogs, prime real estate, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Along comes somebody who says they spent a month with him when he was out on a public relations driven tour and at a stage in his life when his health probably curtailed a good bit of his extreme activity.

We're expected to disregard the testimony of people who spent YEARS with him when he was at the height of his depravity.

I'll bet there are people who, to this day, could tell us all kinds of stories about how they spent time with Ted Bundy and found him to be a totally charming and wonderful individual.

VPW was mentally ill.(IMO)

I don't need to forgive him for that any more than I need to forgive my kid for getting the chicken pox.

The thing is, he used that illness in a manner that hurt a whole lot of people instead of seeking help for himself.

So, personally, I don't really care if he was "born again" or "produced fruit in his life" or "spoke in tongues" till the cows came home or secretly worshiped sea monkeys in the BRC.

I do care, though, that he lied, stole, bullied, and abused people with what seems to be a total disregard for anyones' well-being aside from his own.

That's what we are really being asked to forgive him for.

Yeah Waysider – it's all about whitewashing…i.e. trying to preserve that man-o-god persona…Maybe some folks need to pick up this handy little item:

Use Tarn-X ! Instantly tarnish is gone from sterling silver, silver plate, platinum, copper, gold, and idols!

Edited February 25, 2008 by T-Bone

[oldiesman]

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.

Rascal,

You still have not clarified how to detect genuine fruit of the spirit.

I stated that I saw genuine fruit of the spirit in Dr. Wierwille; but you said that was "corporate manners". Wordwolf said it was him "being a nice guy".

Assuming you and Wordwolf are correct, then please explain how we detect genuine Christian fruit of the spirit.

If you really know the counterfeit then you must really know the genuine too. Tell us how to detect it.

Give some examples of peoples lives. People you know.

Thank you.

[doojable]

We do know what fruit of the spirit is not...

I count at least 17 works that will not produce that fruit...(Gal 5:19,20)

"...so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." (Gal 5:17)

Hence my comment on the overarching habit of a man's life.

Edited February 26, 2008 by doojable

[wing]

Is this about forgiving? I'd like to ask a question: What are you (oldiesman, wth. . .) saying? Are you trying to vindicate vp? Do you want it to be basically ok, and we should sing koom-by-ah?

I'll admit to some good memories of twi-life. I have friends who remind me that " some of it was good". That does not make forgiving easier (but ephesians 4:32 does help). Still, none of those memories bring me today before the Almighty God. Instead they lead away from the heart of God. That is my problem with trying to vindicate it. I don't think that twi needs to be revived.

That's a scary thought. Been there, done that, threw out my T shirt.

Scary 2 is the remembering of vp so often requesting that valter find him a text that would support what he already "knew" the word was really saying. (And we thought that was a good thing?) More recently, while looking at twi words in Bible dictionaries, I am shocked to find many words he simply changed the meanings to in order to support his views. And now we have these dicusssions about some of those words, but he did such a thorough job of convincing us.

IMO we are left with tremendous problems to deal with, things that should agonize us. And there is much to unlearn. After all, we were drilled to hold fast the word. Those repetitions, and the imposed drive of guilt to not lose that word. But what if that foundation is really sand (or swamp)?

If we believe in God at all, we should fear Him. (yeah, I remember what vp taught about that word, but look at your dictionary anyway; it is a good word, especially as it applies towards God.) God is Holy. He is Awesome. the twi-speak of grace (over behaviour) and forgiveness may not make Him smile the way that vp told us all that it would. May God forgive us all. . .

wing

[waysider]

Great post, Wing!I don't know if I have said "welcome" yet so here is some Little Wing.(Yeah, I know, it's off-topic.)

[wing]

Thankyou Waysider.

One of my favorites from Jimi. (SRV too)

wing

[frank123lol]

You aint never going to get away from John 3:16

For God so loved.!John4:7,8 God is love,Legalism and God not being forgiving

Ya can say what ya want I still think it is the grace time,

god holds his judgement on us all

Vpw is dead next stop for him the return,Then his works will be made known to all,Same as yous and mine

Now for us the living?Dam@ straight we ought to set some things right

Petwoey on a vengeful God though

[WordWolf]

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.

First, WTH tried to say any lives vpw ruined didn't matter, and are a non-issue,

since WTH THINKS that vpw MIGHT have had some sort of "death-bed regret"

which completely negated the harm he did in the lives of others.

So, he raised the trick question, "what makes you think he DIDN'T repent?"

I pointed out what repentence includes (the acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and attempts

to make amends for it), and asked him when he saw any of that.

You replied by ignoring both acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and attempts to make amends,

and instead said "I saw him be a nice guy some of the time. That's repentance."

Which, of course, it's nothing of the kind.

Then YOU brought up the non-issue of "well, if he's born again, it doesn't matter

if he ruined the lives of other people."

I indulged the nonissue by pointing out a strong case could be made either way-

as if it makes a difference in whether or not he ruined the lives of others.

I know a "rank unbeliever" who's spent a lot of his life doing his best to help others.

He's kept his life, for the most part, morally straight, even by Scriptural standards,

and NOBODY can say he's ruined their lives.

I know a guy-let's suppose he's a "born-again believer" who spent at least 1/2 his

life using Christianity as a tool for money, comforts and sex, who put on a pious

display in between PRIVATELY being a man who practiced-regularly-the works of

the flesh.

If God doesn't account for that in the SECOND case but "throws the book at"

the unbeliever in the FIRST case, there's a LOT of people who are going to consider

God "unjust". And they'll be able to cite verses to prove He is being unjust.

This whole "define 'born-again for me' adds nothing to a discussion on

FORGIVENESS, and, as I see it, is an attempt to needlessly overcomplicate whether

or not someone did wrong in the first place, and needs to be forgiven.

What I've been hearing is "he doesn't need any forgiving the rest of us don't need",

which, to those of us who have refrained from the works of the flesh, rings hollow.

I've been hearing "being born again is a free pass and there's no penalty for

sinning after that and God doesn't have an accountability for it",

which vpw taught, and doesn't that strike you as amazingly convenient that all

the arguments that absolve this wrongdoer from DOING wrong all come from

his own teachings, and are unique in Christianity?

From Scripture, I see God telling me to live correctly and not sin.

I've also been hearing "holding people responsible for wrongdoing is bad for them

and comes from religion", which, considering people have been quoting Scripture

to support their claims, was either poorly-considered, or intentionally false.

Now someone wants to discuss definitions.

I don't think this is an HONEST attempt to get closer to the truth in this.

I'm reminded of attempts to debate the meaning of the word "is".

[WordWolf]

Is this about forgiving? I'd like to ask a question: What are you (oldiesman, wth. . .) saying? Are you trying to vindicate vp? Do you want it to be basically ok, and we should sing koom-by-ah?

I'll admit to some good memories of twi-life. I have friends who remind me that " some of it was good". That does not make forgiving easier (but ephesians 4:32 does help). Still, none of those memories bring me today before the Almighty God. Instead they lead away from the heart of God. That is my problem with trying to vindicate it. I don't think that twi needs to be revived.

That's a scary thought. Been there, done that, threw out my T shirt.

Scary 2 is the remembering of vp so often requesting that valter find him a text that would support what he already "knew" the word was really saying. (And we thought that was a good thing?) More recently, while looking at twi words in Bible dictionaries, I am shocked to find many words he simply changed the meanings to in order to support his views. And now we have these dicusssions about some of those words, but he did such a thorough job of convincing us.

IMO we are left with tremendous problems to deal with, things that should agonize us. And there is much to unlearn. After all, we were drilled to hold fast the word. Those repetitions, and the imposed drive of guilt to not lose that word. But what if that foundation is really sand (or swamp)?

If we believe in God at all, we should fear Him. (yeah, I remember what vp taught about that word, but look at your dictionary anyway; it is a good word, especially as it applies towards God.) God is Holy. He is Awesome. the twi-speak of grace (over behaviour) and forgiveness may not make Him smile the way that vp told us all that it would. May God forgive us all. . .

wing

Hebrews 10:30-31

"30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. "

Don't worry, wing, there's always one justification or another, so some people will

QUICKLY say this doesn't mean that the judgement of God on His OWN people

is something the mere THOUGHT of should be enough to get one to refrain from

works of the flesh.

You began your post summing things up nicely. For some of us, it's ALL about

VINDICATING vp. It was ONCE about claiming he never ruined people's lives,

or did the works of the flesh. Since that failed, NOW it's about "Well, he did it,

but that's ok. He's still the man of God for his day and time, and he really

DID hear from God and taught things new that weren't current for nearly 2000

years."

It's true of VERY few of us. For example, I don't think Johnny Lingo makes those

claims. (I may be wrong, but if he believes that, he's being more tactful on the

subject, at the very least.)

Even when I was a twi-er, I believed it was an improvement to take everything

we could learn in twi, and could learn from other Christians, filter out error from BOTH,

and take all of that to another level. Some people are clear that other Christians

just don't have much "truth", and if it wasn't vpw and twi- or sources they

endorsed like Bullinger- then there's no point even cracking a book open.

"Stop saying those things about vpw. Let me say nice things about him only..."

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..

[WordWolf]

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.

This is perhaps the first time in history that a MAN has interrupted

a conversation with a WOMAN to quote back something she said six

months ago without providing the context. I'm familiar with WOMEN

pulling out an old argument to refight it, hopefully after he's forgotten

all the details. (Had it pulled on me EXACTLY ONCE, too. When she

realized I could recite the incident back from memory, give the

context, and show she misrepresented it, she never tried it again.

Later, a friend warned me that would happen, and when I told him

how I handled it, he toasted me and bought the next round.)

So, oldies went OUT of this conversation, to pull a statement out of its context,

and made it look like rascal JUST said that. He didn't MISQUOTE rascal,

he intentionally MISREPRESENTED rascal, by making it look like she said NOW

in THIS discussion what she said LAST YEAR in a DIFFERENT discussion.

Naturally, he thinks this was perfectly fine, and anyone who thinks this is

unfair unless he represents the comment as having been PREVIOUS

has a meritless complaint.

Oldiesman owe someone an apology? He'd have to have REGRET and

REMORSE. Oldies' doctrine claims having EITHER and being born again

is WRONG because he's born again and that's a free pass to do ANYTHING.

That IS what we're discussing.

Interesting, no?

[WordWolf]

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.

If all it takes to convince YOU that someone is born again-

and, presumably, free to sin like all-get-out without consequences-

is to see someone lucid begin to speak in a language you don't recognize-

then, brother, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you,

and it's on sale this week.

The Screen Actor's Guild in the US has over 120,000 members, all performers.

That's not counting all the actors in Actor's Equity Association,

or any actor not in either union.

Counting only the members of SAG, nearly every one of them should be able

to convincingly portray "speaking in tongues" to a degree that should satisfy

you. Certainly, they'd be able to exceed the examples used in the filmed class,

where the same handful of syllables CONSISTENTLY kept coming up.

(Doesn't that ring a 'suspicion bell' anywhere?)

Ya know---

I'm startin' ta think this whole debate of whether he was born again, whether he produced fruit, whether he spoke in tongues and on and on and on is just a diversionary tactic to take the focus off the heart of the issue.

Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, whatever the heck he was, he scammed us!!!

He played us for fools to satisfy his own depraved idea of "the abundant life".

He used my money and yours to keep himself in a rather constant state of inebriation.

He used my money and yours to buy an airplane, a motorcoach, a fleet of classic cars, a fleet of expensive motorcycles, expensive guns and hunting equipment, expensive hunting dogs, prime real estate, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Along comes somebody who says they spent a month with him when he was out on a public relations driven tour and at a stage in his life when his health probably curtailed a good bit of his extreme activity.

We're expected to disregard the testimony of people who spent YEARS with him when he was at the height of his depravity.

I'll bet there are people who, to this day, could tell us all kinds of stories about how they spent time with Ted Bundy and found him to be a totally charming and wonderful individual.

VPW was mentally ill.(IMO)

I don't need to forgive him for that any more than I need to forgive my kid for getting the chicken pox.

The thing is, he used that illness in a manner that hurt a whole lot of people instead of seeking help for himself.

So, personally, I don't really care if he was "born again" or "produced fruit in his life" or "spoke in tongues" till the cows came home or secretly worshiped sea monkeys in the BRC.

I do care, though, that he lied, stole, bullied, and abused people with what seems to be a total disregard for anyones' well-being aside from his own.

That's what we are really being asked to forgive him for.

Someone stayed on topic! Imagine that...

[WordWolf]

Rascal,

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

Matthew 22:15-18

15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

Matthew 22:35-40

35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

[oldiesman]

...

Then YOU brought up the non-issue of "well, if he's born again, it doesn't matter

...

I've been hearing "being born again is a free pass and there's no penalty for

sinning after that and God doesn't have an accountability for it", which vpw taught...

Wordwolf, you may have me confused with another poster... I never said that these sins don't matter, and there is no penalty or accounting for them. Galatians 5 says that Christians who practice the works of the flesh will receive no rewards at the gathering. This is what I believe the bible teaches; I think Rascalian Theology about this issue is false.

BTW, this is what TWI taught as well, (no rewards at the gathering). Twi DIDN'T teach there was no penalty. You may have been absent when they taught these things.

I would ask you to please define "born again Christian" as you see it. Its important to clarify your position since you're not sure about Dr. Wierwille being born again. Rascal says she doesn't think so. It's certainly important and raises a whole host of other questions about sonship. If you don't know what born again means, you don't know. If you do, please clarify. Even if we don't agree, it's good to hear folks clarify their position about it.

Also would like to hear how you identify and detect fruit of the spirit. You obviously think that I don't know how, since you characterize my personal experience with Wierwille as him simply "being a nice guy". Rascal characterized it as "corporate manners". Assuming that's true and he's a counterfeit, how does one detect the genuine? If you know the counterfeit you should also know the genuine. Rascal said she knows the genuine so I'd like to hear from you both. Thank you.

[oldiesman]

18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

Wordwolf, if you're suggesting I'm here to tempt you , please lighten up. All I'd like is clarification on some theological positions.

[WordWolf]

Wordwolf, you may have me confused with another poster... I never said that these sins don't matter, and there is no penalty or accounting for them. Galatians 5 says that Christians who practice the works of the flesh will receive no rewards at the gathering. This is what I believe the bible teaches; I think Rascalian Theology about this issue is false.

Why is it when I discuss Galatians 5, I quote the verses, THEN discuss them,

but when YOU discuss the verses, you just announce what they "say"?

BTW, this is what TWI taught as well, (no rewards at the gathering). Twi DIDN'T teach there was no penalty. You may have been absent when they taught these things.

The reason WTH and you keep dragging this in is to ameliorate or palliate penalties

vpw would face for his works of the flesh.

Don't insult my intelligence and claim it's not.

I would ask you to please define "born again Christian" as you see it. Its important to clarify your position since you're not sure about Dr. Wierwille being born again. Rascal says she doesn't think so. It's certainly important and raises a whole host of other questions about sonship. If you don't know what born again means, you don't know. If you do, please clarify. Even if we don't agree, it's good to hear folks clarify their position about it.

Request denied.

The topic for discussion on this thread is "forgiveness."

Being born again or not is NOT part of that-

despite WTH and you pushing otherwise.

I'm NOT getting off the topic.

Also would like to hear how you identify and detect fruit of the spirit. You obviously think that I don't know how, since you characterize my personal experience with Wierwille as him simply "being a nice guy". Rascal characterized it as "corporate manners". Assuming that's true and he's a counterfeit, how does one detect the genuine? If you know the counterfeit you should also know the genuine. Rascal said she knows the genuine so I'd like to hear from you both. Thank you.

You look at people,and subtract the ones who are making the works of the flesh

an ongoing concern of theirs.

From there on, I leave the matter to God, who neither told me I had to worry about

anyone being born again, nor gave me a barometer.

He told me to watch out for those who do the works of the flesh- and THAT he gave

me a barometer for.

A "born again" who screws up people's lives for his lusts is to be avoided,

as is a "rank unbeliever" who screws up people's lives for HIS lusts.

THAT I'm supposed to watch out for.

As to the rest,

please note I am confident this entire line of questioning is in the same vein

as the Pharisees trying to trip Jesus up. I have answered you anyway-

TO A POINT.

I do NOT intend to remain off-topic and engage in Sophistry used to obfuscate

the issues.

In other words, I've given you all the answer NOW on the subject I intend to,

and plan on hewing to the actual TOPIC.

Wordwolf, if you're suggesting I'm here to tempt you , please lighten up. All I'd like is clarification on some theological positions.

Matthew 22:15-16.

15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

[oldiesman]

Wordwolf, saying you're not sure Dr. Wierwille is saved says something about your belief system, which I'm trying to clarify. OK, don't answer. I guess I'll just have to continue to ask for clarification as these issues arise until the question is answered. I have patience.

[waysider]

If all it takes to convince YOU that someone is born again-

and, presumably, free to sin like all-get-out without consequences-

is to see someone lucid begin to speak in a language you don't recognize-

then, brother, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you,

and it's on sale this week.

The Screen Actor's Guild in the US has over 120,000 members, all performers.

That's not counting all the actors in Actor's Equity Association,

or any actor not in either union.

Counting only the members of SAG, nearly every one of them should be able

to convincingly portray "speaking in tongues" to a degree that should satisfy

you. Certainly, they'd be able to exceed the examples used in the filmed class,

where the same handful of syllables CONSISTENTLY kept coming up.

(Doesn't that ring a 'suspicion bell' anywhere?)

Having served an apprenticeship in Actor's Equity many years ago, I can verify that faking a foreign language is a common exercise in many improvisational classes. Of course, in improv. class, it would be expected that one could go beyond a rudimentary short list of words.

Whether or not he was "born again" or whether his "tongue" was genuine is not really the crux of this discussion.

(IMO)

[oldiesman]

BTW, you folks who are so concerned about staying on topic; have you noticed that this thread is chock full of off-topic postings? Yet not a word of reproof was said to these postings, especially those of DWBH who veered off topic early on in post #37, and again and again in posts #50, #72, #84, #200, #425 and #520. On and on about the evils of CFF and other off-topic stuff and not all that much about forgiveness. He's not the only one, there are others.

Please, if you're going to engage in reproof about staying on topic, at least be even handed about it with all posters, not just the ones you don't like? Thank you.

Edited February 26, 2008 by oldiesman

[doojable]

Oldies - Concerning Gal 5:

Attitude? I simply drew a boundary. I posed some questions, as I've done more than once and you've ignored more than once, with other posters as well as me.

I'm not about to define the new birth. Whatever I believe is sure to be partly right and partly wrong, just as it would be for anyone else. It's not my game so I don't get to make the rules.

I was simply looking at the overarching habits of a life.

Interestingly enough, in Galatians the works of the flesh are contrasted with fruit of the spirit. All works produce fruit (according to my understanding of the verses) but what fruit is produced depends on the nature of the works. If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.... conversely, what happens if you are not led by the Spirit? You are under the law?

Works of the flesh ====> might this indicate a person putting themselves under the consequences (fruit) of the law? I dunno. Just thinking here...

Works led by the Spirit ====> fruit of the spirit - the result of being led by the Spirit.

I have many more questions than I have answers. I do know that when I see poor logic it jumps out at me and screams. I had to point that out. :)

Later you addressed Rascal with:

Rascal,

You still have not clarified how to detect genuine fruit of the spirit.

I stated that I saw genuine fruit of the spirit in Dr. Wierwille; but you said that was "corporate manners". Wordwolf said it was him "being a nice guy".

Assuming you and Wordwolf are correct, then please explain how we detect genuine Christian fruit of the spirit.

If you really know the counterfeit then you must really know the genuine too. Tell us how to detect it.

Give some examples of peoples lives. People you know.

Thank you.

To which I replied:

We do know what fruit of the spirit is not...

I count at least 17 works that will not produce that fruit...(Gal 5:19,20)

"...so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." (Gal 5:17)

Hence my comment on the overarching habit of a man's life.

One thing about those 17 works - they indicate not being led by the spirit... so at the very least, the MOG spent a lot of time in this state.

And - one month spent with a man when compared to a marriage where his spouse was quoted as saying "he was a mean man" is a drastic contrast. Couple that with the testimony of more than a few people who saw a vp that does not line up with your experience, and you have a man who at the very "best" preached one thing and practiced another, and at the worst was not born again and therefore incapable to be led by the spirit. (No accusations, just following a line of reasoning to the ultimate ends of the spectrum.)

Perhaps that is why he said that he wished he was the man he knew to be.

Edited February 26, 2008 by doojable

[oldiesman]

Its a notable point, but doesn't address my question to Rascal about detection of fruit.

I would add, that works of the flesh do not negate the fruit of the spirit. It goes back to my question to you about time. Are you saying that if a Christian sins, walks by the flesh one day, it's not possible they can walk in the spirit the next? or the next week? or the next month or year? I say they can, and believe they do.

Rascal said I saw "corporate manners" in VPW and not fruit of the spirit. So how does Rascal detect genuine fruit of the spirit then is my question? She said she knows "genuine" Christians, and suggests I saw a counterfeit. So all I'm asking for is clarification on how to detect the genuine.

Edited February 26, 2008 by oldiesman

[oldiesman]

And - one month spent with a man when compared to a marriage where his spouse was quoted as saying "he was a mean man" is a drastic contrast.

Doojable, if Mrs. Wierwille said that I can understand why ... he WAS mean to her. He cheated on her. That's mean.

But does Mrs. Wierwille say he was not a Christian or doesn't KNOW he was, like some here say? NO.

[doojable]

Its a notable point, but doesn't address my question to Rascal about detection of fruit.

I would add, that works of the flesh do not negate the fruit of the spirit. It goes back to my question to you about time. Are you saying that if a Christian sins, walks by the flesh one day, it's not possible they can walk in the spirit the next? or the next week? or the next month or year? I say they can, and believe they do.

Rascal said I saw "corporate manners" in VPW and not fruit of the spirit. So how does Rascal detect genuine fruit of the spirit then is my question? She said she knows "genuine" Christians, and suggests I saw a counterfeit. So all I'm asking for is clarification on how to detect the genuine.

Let's see, there's a difference between being drunk and being an alcoholic. One is much harder to just stop - not impossible - but harder.

Hence why I keep saying that you have to look at the bigger picture of a man's life. I don't believe a well-defined habit of drunkenness, drugs, adultery, and fornication can be just turned on and off. Is it impossible? I dunno. Is it hard? Yes!

And then you have that pesky Gal 5:17 that says that "these things are contrary one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things ye would." Which basically puts you in a downward spiral. Even if the claim could be proven that vp was born again, (again, I'm not putting a dog in that fight) his lifestyle prevented him from being led by the spirit. IMHO

[oldiesman]

Another point, Mrs. Wierwille didn't say her husband wasn't a Christian, didn't say her husband didn't walk by the spirit, and didn't say to throw out his teachings or regard them as false. Quite the contrary.