Ok, I'd like to continue this discussion from a different angle.
That the 1942 "promise" was a poorly-written lie is evident beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
That vpw was, in reality, a conman looking for the best material to plagiarize, who made up the 1942 "promise" to assist in his con at useful moments is, again, beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
That pfal/twi materials contain a mix of plagiarized material of varying quality- some excellent, some nonsense, and some added by vpw who didn't understand what he was plagiarizing- is, again, beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
So, let us take all of that as GIVEN. We all know it.
Now, then, starting from a position that we know all that, I ask everyone......
What difference does it make?
If someone, by their free will, knowingly discard all warnings and all warning signs, and dogmatically clings to pfal as if it was of some actual consequence to God Almighty and to humanity as a whole, and focus their entire life around that by their own choice,
what of it?
Does this really harm the person at all? Is there some reason they should actually stop?
(I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you have to say on the subject.)
It may not cause further harm that person, if they've spent decades immersed in it and haven't come to grief so far (= haven't been misled into committing crimes, or harmed themselves physically).
It may cause a lot of harm to other people, if the person so immersed insists on foisting this fake material onto unsuspecting victims. Whilst many will have the sense to see it for what it is, there are always those who are more vulnerable for whatever reason, and who may fall for such claptrap. Maybe they won't fall for it as badly as we all did (to a greater or lesser extent), because there isn't the same reinforcing network of "twigs" to support and reinforce the con.
Ok, I'd like to continue this discussion from a different angle.
That the 1942 "promise" was a poorly-written lie is evident beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
That vpw was, in reality, a conman looking for the best material to plagiarize, who made up the 1942 "promise" to assist in his con at useful moments is, again, beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
That pfal/twi materials contain a mix of plagiarized material of varying quality- some excellent, some nonsense, and some added by vpw who didn't understand what he was plagiarizing- is, again, beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
So, let us take all of that as GIVEN. We all know it.
Now, then, starting from a position that we know all that, I ask everyone......
What difference does it make?
If someone, by their free will, knowingly discard all warnings and all warning signs, and dogmatically clings to pfal as if it was of some actual consequence to God Almighty and to humanity as a whole, and focus their entire life around that by their own choice,
what of it?
Does this really harm the person at all? Is there some reason they should actually stop?
(I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you have to say on the subject.)
Deep questions, WW.
I'm not done thinking about this, but here are my initial thoughts. If the ideology was consumed and practiced privately, the harm would only be localized, confined, private, like the racist old man down the street who never talks to anyone, but everyone knows he's a die hard member of the Klan - the hate consumes itself and he suffers alone until his death, all the while BELEEVING he's right.
HOWEVER, evangelizing and proselytizing are fundamental to victor's ideology - more converts, more rewards. The ideology promotes division among families and friends. It promotes willful ignorance and strife. So, by its nature, it's not a private affair. We all have experienced or witnessed the suffering this causes.
My simple moral compass is dialed to promoting well-being and reducing suffering. Victor's ideology is self-centered, and divisive - qualities that neither promote well-being nor reduce suffering.
Concerning wierwille’s claim of God speaking to him audibly - this intentional misuse of God’s name is a clear violation of the third commandment.
~ ~ ~ ~
Is this claim of direct communication from God necessary if we already have the completed canon of Scripture? An aspect of this was brought up on theNT canon thread
~ ~ ~ ~
Paul said to preach the Word of God - not stories about yourself:
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
I think it's cute that opposition to this thread is confined to "I refuse to read the thread or post a rebuttal on a thread whose subject interests me greatly, but I want to debate a factual point. Not any that actually matter, I want to call into question what year Mrs W said vpw first claimed the 1942 promise." Nothing on any significant point, not on anything that's beyond any reasonable refutation. Usually, that means the rest of the points are unassailable. Why else would someone FIXATE on the exact year vpw began expounding his lie, and not whether or not it was a lie, and why it's so obvious it's a lie?
But this way, someone can PRETEND they refuted something of substance, and flee the thread, never acknowledging the rather obvious point that they're now basing their life on something PROVEN to be a lie.
"I'd rather have an ugly truth rather than a pretty lie." - Me.
I think it's cute that opposition to this thread is confined to "I refuse to read the thread or post a rebuttal on a thread whose subject interests me greatly, but I want to debate a factual point. Not any that actually matter, I want to call into question what year Mrs W said vpw first claimed the 1942 promise." Nothing on any significant point, not on anything that's beyond any reasonable refutation. Usually, that means the rest of the points are unassailable. Why else would someone FIXATE on the exact year vpw began expounding his lie, and not whether or not it was a lie, and why it's so obvious it's a lie?
But this way, someone can PRETEND they refuted something of substance, and flee the thread, never acknowledging the rather obvious point that they're now basing their life on something PROVEN to be a lie.
"I'd rather have an ugly truth rather than a pretty lie." - Me.
I don’t see anything on it in Mrs W book from the 1942 chimes radio show incorporating to the 1951 Tulsa conference where he met both Stiles and BG Leonard main sources for PFAL. I don’t think she mentions it in her book at all. The promise or snowstorm.
If someone, by their free will, knowingly discard all warnings and all warning signs, and dogmatically clings to pfal as if it was of some actual consequence to God Almighty and to humanity as a whole, and focus their entire life around that by their own choice,
what of it?
Does this really harm the person at all? Is there some reason they should actually stop?
(I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you have to say on the subject.)
Yes - heretical doctrine can do harm to oneself and others.
Consider what Jesus said in Matthew – and note His concern for eternal consequences to the individual:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child to him and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
Here’s some interesting excerpts in a June 18th, 2020, article by the Lead Pastor Mike Leake at FBC Marionville in Marionville, Missouri – it’s fascinating how close these are to some of TWI’s deviations from mainstream Christianity:
According to dictionary.com, the following is a breakdown of the common definition of "heresy":
opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc…
Heresy is not the same as error.
Heresy is the choice to abandon the widely accepted teaching on an essential doctrine and embrace one’s own view.
Heresy is to “preach another gospel”, as Paul stated in Galatians 1:9: "As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
Technically speaking something is not a heresy just because the church deemed it so. It is heretical because it is a teaching which has abandoned the “pattern of sound teaching”.
Here are four heresies which aren't quite dead yet:
1. The Heresy of Judaizers: "Good deeds or efforts contribute to salvation."
One of the first groups of heretics were the Judaizers. Most heretics come from an attempt to tie together paradoxes in the Scriptures. They begin well-meaningly but take things further than they ought to go. The Judaizers began by asking the right question about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. When uncircumcised Gentiles began following Christ and claiming the promises to Israel, these life-long Jews wondered how the Old Testament laws applied to non-Jewish followers of Jesus. Did they have to become circumcised and follow Jewish customs in order to be equal members with the Jewish Christians?
This well-meaning question was addressed in Acts 15 by the Jerusalem Council. The answer was that Christ had fulfilled the Old Testament and was setting aside the old categories. As Paul summarized in Ephesians 2:15 God was “abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace…” It was union with Christ and not works of the law that qualified a person for the promises of God. The Judaizers did not accept this answer and gave Paul issues in all of his missionary travels.
The fundamental problem of this heresy:
Their fundamental problem was that they held that something other than union with Christ was necessary for salvation. According to a recent study by Lifeway and Ligonier, 36% of self-identified evangelicals believed that “by the good deeds that I do, I partly contribute to earning my place in heaven”. This is the same belief as the Judaizers held. Any belief which holds that our good deeds or efforts contribute to salvation is firmly in the same stream as the Judaizers.
~ ~ ~ ~
2. The Heresy of Docetism/Gnosticism: “Christ only appeared to be human.”
Another early heresy was Gnosticism. Though Gnosticism had various forms one of the most pernicious—and one that is still present today—is Docetism. Docetism was an early Christological heresy which taught that Christ only appeared to be human. The foundation of Gnostic philosophy was that all physical matter was evil and all things spiritual were good. Therefore it was unthinkable that God would actually take upon human flesh. This belief also led to either severe asceticism (punishing the flesh) or licentiousness (since the physical had no connection with the eternal).
Most believe the apostle John had a docetic form of Gnosticism in his sights in the writing of 1 John. The Bible is clear, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.”
Spiritual and Physical Importance
In our day it’s likely more common for people to deny the deity of Jesus than his humanity. Yet the dualism of Gnosticism/Docetism is alive and well. Christian Science and New Age have a strong bent towards Docetism, but the truth is, anytime we exalt the spiritual above the physical we too are falling prey to the dualism of these philosophies. Our bodies matter. This world matters. To deny this is to agree more with early Gnostics than the Bible.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Prosperity Gospel Heresy
The ancient form of this modern heresy didn’t really have a name, but it appears in 1 Corinthians 4:8-13. In this text Paul speaks tongue in cheek about those in Corinth who have “already become kings”. The Corinthians believed that they were living in the blessings that are reserved for the future. To steal a popular phrase the Corinthians believed that they were to begin living their best life now. They believed true things but applied them at the wrong time. They wished to acquire on earth what should be sought in heaven.
Thinking that’s only true in the age to come.
This quote from prosperity gospel teacher Kenneth Hagin would have been right at home with the Corinthians:
“I believe that it is the plan of God our Father that no believer should ever be sick…It is not—I state boldly—it is not the will of God my Father that we should suffer with cancer and other dread diseases which bring pain and anguish. No! It is God’s will that we be healed.”
The problem, as Paul taught the Corinthians, is that such thinking is only true in the age to come. There is no crown without a cross. This modern iteration of an ancient heresy is deadly. It harms those who are suffering, it detracts from the gospel and breeds cynicism when promises which God never made do not come true.
~ ~ ~ ~
4. The Heresy of Pelagianism: “God responds to us and not the other way around.”
“Look at that innocent baby”? I doubt we realize we are affirming heresy when we say such a thing. Likewise when 83% of evangelicals affirmed the statement, “A person obtains peace with God by first taking the initiative to seek God and then God responds with grace”, I doubt they intended to affirm heresy. But it’s true. Pelagianism is a heresy from the time of Augustine (and it’s other form Semi-Pelagianism) which refuses to die.
Pelagius was bothered by a quote by Augustine who said, ““Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire.” Pelagius believed that such teaching was leading to immorality. He believed Augustine was so exalting divine sovereignty that he was denying human responsibility.
The Flawed Logic of Pelagius
Pelagius’ logic was that if God commanded something then humans must have the ability to carry it out. He further taught there is no such thing as original sin. We are born with a clean slate, according to Pelagius.
Augustine did not deny that humans were created with freedom of will. Humans can do exactly what they desire. Yet, because of the fall of humanity, apart from grace, will always desire evil. Augustine turned to Philippians 2:12-13 to defend his view of grace. It is God who is at work in us “both to will and to accomplish”.
It wasn’t grace, per se, that Pelagius had a hard time with. It was necessary grace that he could not swallow. Therefore, Pelagius firmly believed that God responds to us and not the other way around. Apparently, 83% of professing evangelicals agree.
Yes - heretical doctrine can do harm to oneself and others.
Consider what Jesus said in Matthew – and note His concern for eternal consequences to the individual:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child to him and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
If the baby and bath water idiom was available to Jesus, he might have said:
If your water is polluted by a rotting corpse, throw out both the filthy water and the rotten corpse that pollutes your water, and fill your tub with fresh water.
If the baby and bath water idiom was available to Jesus, he might have said:
If your water is polluted by a rotting corpse, throw out both the filthy water and the rotten corpse that pollutes your water, and fill your tub with fresh water.
Never! Don’t do it…. Dooooon’t do it! It could be deadly.
You might pass out from boredom and drown.
great - just great !!!!
I was going more for the shock and awe thing
you've got a great plot for a murder-mystery. initially everyone thought the victim was killed by electrocution. but the smart detective who was an ex-TWI follower realized the TV monitor was still on the edge of the tub and playing the same session that he always fell asleep to.
you've got a great plot for a murder-mystery. initially everyone thought the victim was killed by electrocution. but the smart detective who was an ex-TWI follower realized the TV monitor was still on the edge of the tub and playing the same session that he always fell asleep to.
We could do with a haha bit at the side, not just arrows and hearts.
You know the more I look into it the less I even think TWI leadership believes the KoolAid snowstorm promise.
Mrs W left it out of her book.
Elena Whiteside’s hippy crush account is really the only written record of it, and TWI removed that from the bookstore.
So if there was no Kool Aid snowstorm promise, then all of VPs efforts really amount to plagiarizing the most stuff in the least amount of time that will get people hooked.
If they don’t believe he was a prophet to lead us thru 1st century KoolAid snowstorms, then what do they believe?
He was a motivated guy to start a cult? He assembled well? His copy skills were second to none?
Long ago after I escaped TWI, I was encouraged by Jo*n Ly*n not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." At the time, he was running a TWI offshoot group and recycling much of VPW's plagiarized biblical research.
That phrase stayed with me.
In 2009, I wrote the attached article after much discussion here about that topic, and it was posted here on GSC for a while (after the redesign, it disappeared). Today, I think it's relevant to this topic, so here you go.
Long ago after I escaped TWI, I was encouraged by Jo*n Ly*n not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." At the time, he was running a TWI offshoot group and recycling much of VPW's plagiarized biblical research.
That phrase stayed with me.
In 2009, I wrote the attached article after much discussion here about that topic, and it was posted here on GSC for a while (after the redesign, it disappeared). Today, I think it's relevant to this topic, so here you go.
The nostalgia described reminds me of how targets often claw their way back in an effort to reclaim the "idealization phase" of the narcissistic abuse cycle.
Long ago after I escaped TWI, I was encouraged by Jo*n Ly*n not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." At the time, he was running a TWI offshoot group and recycling much of VPW's plagiarized biblical research.
That phrase stayed with me.
In 2009, I wrote the attached article after much discussion here about that topic, and it was posted here on GSC for a while (after the redesign, it disappeared). Today, I think it's relevant to this topic, so here you go.
Long ago after I escaped TWI, I was encouraged by Jo*n Ly*n not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." At the time, he was running a TWI offshoot group and recycling much of VPW's plagiarized biblical research.
That phrase stayed with me.
In 2009, I wrote the attached article after much discussion here about that topic, and it was posted here on GSC for a while (after the redesign, it disappeared). Today, I think it's relevant to this topic, so here you go.
Long ago after I escaped TWI, I was encouraged by Jo*n Ly*n not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." At the time, he was running a TWI offshoot group and recycling much of VPW's plagiarized biblical research.
That phrase stayed with me.
In 2009, I wrote the attached article after much discussion here about that topic, and it was posted here on GSC for a while (after the redesign, it disappeared). Today, I think it's relevant to this topic, so here you go.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
17
16
20
Popular Days
Jan 5
24
Jan 9
16
Jan 10
16
Apr 30
14
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 27 posts
T-Bone 17 posts
Bolshevik 16 posts
chockfull 20 posts
Popular Days
Jan 5 2023
24 posts
Jan 9 2023
16 posts
Jan 10 2023
16 posts
Apr 30 2023
14 posts
Popular Posts
skyrider
When I got involved in the mid-70s.........the pitch was "This PFAL Class has the keys to understanding the Bible, God's Word. Dr. Wierwille has put this class together from decades of researching th
rubina
Probably not the place for this, but I've started to study church history lately and have found it very interesting. As a result, I've been growing more interested in the Orthodox Churches.
waysider
...but, first, burn all your bridges behind you.
WordWolf
Ok, I'd like to continue this discussion from a different angle.
That the 1942 "promise" was a poorly-written lie is evident beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
That vpw was, in reality, a conman looking for the best material to plagiarize, who made up the 1942 "promise" to assist in his con at useful moments is, again, beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
That pfal/twi materials contain a mix of plagiarized material of varying quality- some excellent, some nonsense, and some added by vpw who didn't understand what he was plagiarizing- is, again, beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
So, let us take all of that as GIVEN. We all know it.
Now, then, starting from a position that we know all that, I ask everyone......
What difference does it make?
If someone, by their free will, knowingly discard all warnings and all warning signs, and dogmatically clings to pfal as if it was of some actual consequence to God Almighty and to humanity as a whole, and focus their entire life around that by their own choice,
what of it?
Does this really harm the person at all? Is there some reason they should actually stop?
(I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you have to say on the subject.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
It may not cause further harm that person, if they've spent decades immersed in it and haven't come to grief so far (= haven't been misled into committing crimes, or harmed themselves physically).
It may cause a lot of harm to other people, if the person so immersed insists on foisting this fake material onto unsuspecting victims. Whilst many will have the sense to see it for what it is, there are always those who are more vulnerable for whatever reason, and who may fall for such claptrap. Maybe they won't fall for it as badly as we all did (to a greater or lesser extent), because there isn't the same reinforcing network of "twigs" to support and reinforce the con.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Deep questions, WW.
I'm not done thinking about this, but here are my initial thoughts. If the ideology was consumed and practiced privately, the harm would only be localized, confined, private, like the racist old man down the street who never talks to anyone, but everyone knows he's a die hard member of the Klan - the hate consumes itself and he suffers alone until his death, all the while BELEEVING he's right.
HOWEVER, evangelizing and proselytizing are fundamental to victor's ideology - more converts, more rewards. The ideology promotes division among families and friends. It promotes willful ignorance and strife. So, by its nature, it's not a private affair. We all have experienced or witnessed the suffering this causes.
My simple moral compass is dialed to promoting well-being and reducing suffering. Victor's ideology is self-centered, and divisive - qualities that neither promote well-being nor reduce suffering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Is Plato safe in his cave?
Is Plato safe to teach others about the cave?
If a spelunker falls to his death in a cave and there’s nobody around, does he make a splash?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
If a man says something and his wife isn't around to hear it is he still wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So, the person who insists on breathing and eating this ideology, is there any long-term and/or short-term harm to them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Ummm yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
#$%@ Im in dangerous territory....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This post was inspired by some things I read on Please Stop Saying “God Told Me” by JOSH BUICE
~ ~ ~ ~
The third commandment says
You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Deuteronomy 5:11
Concerning wierwille’s claim of God speaking to him audibly - this intentional misuse of God’s name is a clear violation of the third commandment.
~ ~ ~ ~
Is this claim of direct communication from God necessary if we already have the completed canon of Scripture? An aspect of this was brought up on the NT canon thread
~ ~ ~ ~
Paul said to preach the Word of God - not stories about yourself:
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
II Timothy 4:1-5
Edited by T-Boneplease stop editing me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think it's cute that opposition to this thread is confined to "I refuse to read the thread or post a rebuttal on a thread whose subject interests me greatly, but I want to debate a factual point. Not any that actually matter, I want to call into question what year Mrs W said vpw first claimed the 1942 promise." Nothing on any significant point, not on anything that's beyond any reasonable refutation. Usually, that means the rest of the points are unassailable. Why else would someone FIXATE on the exact year vpw began expounding his lie, and not whether or not it was a lie, and why it's so obvious it's a lie?
But this way, someone can PRETEND they refuted something of substance, and flee the thread, never acknowledging the rather obvious point that they're now basing their life on something PROVEN to be a lie.
"I'd rather have an ugly truth rather than a pretty lie." - Me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I don’t see anything on it in Mrs W book from the 1942 chimes radio show incorporating to the 1951 Tulsa conference where he met both Stiles and BG Leonard main sources for PFAL. I don’t think she mentions it in her book at all. The promise or snowstorm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes - heretical doctrine can do harm to oneself and others.
Consider what Jesus said in Matthew – and note His concern for eternal consequences to the individual:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
Matthew 23:15 Amplified
~ ~ ~ ~
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child to him and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
From: Matthew 18 NIV - The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven - Bible Gateway
~ ~ ~ ~
Here’s some interesting excerpts in a June 18th, 2020, article by the Lead Pastor Mike Leake at FBC Marionville in Marionville, Missouri – it’s fascinating how close these are to some of TWI’s deviations from mainstream Christianity:
According to dictionary.com, the following is a breakdown of the common definition of "heresy":
opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc…
Heresy is not the same as error.
Heresy is the choice to abandon the widely accepted teaching on an essential doctrine and embrace one’s own view.
Heresy is to “preach another gospel”, as Paul stated in Galatians 1:9: "As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
Technically speaking something is not a heresy just because the church deemed it so. It is heretical because it is a teaching which has abandoned the “pattern of sound teaching”.
Here are four heresies which aren't quite dead yet:
1. The Heresy of Judaizers: "Good deeds or efforts contribute to salvation."
One of the first groups of heretics were the Judaizers. Most heretics come from an attempt to tie together paradoxes in the Scriptures. They begin well-meaningly but take things further than they ought to go. The Judaizers began by asking the right question about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. When uncircumcised Gentiles began following Christ and claiming the promises to Israel, these life-long Jews wondered how the Old Testament laws applied to non-Jewish followers of Jesus. Did they have to become circumcised and follow Jewish customs in order to be equal members with the Jewish Christians?
This well-meaning question was addressed in Acts 15 by the Jerusalem Council. The answer was that Christ had fulfilled the Old Testament and was setting aside the old categories. As Paul summarized in Ephesians 2:15 God was “abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace…” It was union with Christ and not works of the law that qualified a person for the promises of God. The Judaizers did not accept this answer and gave Paul issues in all of his missionary travels.
The fundamental problem of this heresy:
Their fundamental problem was that they held that something other than union with Christ was necessary for salvation. According to a recent study by Lifeway and Ligonier, 36% of self-identified evangelicals believed that “by the good deeds that I do, I partly contribute to earning my place in heaven”. This is the same belief as the Judaizers held. Any belief which holds that our good deeds or efforts contribute to salvation is firmly in the same stream as the Judaizers.
~ ~ ~ ~
2. The Heresy of Docetism/Gnosticism: “Christ only appeared to be human.”
Another early heresy was Gnosticism. Though Gnosticism had various forms one of the most pernicious—and one that is still present today—is Docetism. Docetism was an early Christological heresy which taught that Christ only appeared to be human. The foundation of Gnostic philosophy was that all physical matter was evil and all things spiritual were good. Therefore it was unthinkable that God would actually take upon human flesh. This belief also led to either severe asceticism (punishing the flesh) or licentiousness (since the physical had no connection with the eternal).
Most believe the apostle John had a docetic form of Gnosticism in his sights in the writing of 1 John. The Bible is clear, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.”
Spiritual and Physical Importance
In our day it’s likely more common for people to deny the deity of Jesus than his humanity. Yet the dualism of Gnosticism/Docetism is alive and well. Christian Science and New Age have a strong bent towards Docetism, but the truth is, anytime we exalt the spiritual above the physical we too are falling prey to the dualism of these philosophies. Our bodies matter. This world matters. To deny this is to agree more with early Gnostics than the Bible.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Prosperity Gospel Heresy
The ancient form of this modern heresy didn’t really have a name, but it appears in 1 Corinthians 4:8-13. In this text Paul speaks tongue in cheek about those in Corinth who have “already become kings”. The Corinthians believed that they were living in the blessings that are reserved for the future. To steal a popular phrase the Corinthians believed that they were to begin living their best life now. They believed true things but applied them at the wrong time. They wished to acquire on earth what should be sought in heaven.
Thinking that’s only true in the age to come.
This quote from prosperity gospel teacher Kenneth Hagin would have been right at home with the Corinthians:
“I believe that it is the plan of God our Father that no believer should ever be sick…It is not—I state boldly—it is not the will of God my Father that we should suffer with cancer and other dread diseases which bring pain and anguish. No! It is God’s will that we be healed.”
The problem, as Paul taught the Corinthians, is that such thinking is only true in the age to come. There is no crown without a cross. This modern iteration of an ancient heresy is deadly. It harms those who are suffering, it detracts from the gospel and breeds cynicism when promises which God never made do not come true.
~ ~ ~ ~
4. The Heresy of Pelagianism: “God responds to us and not the other way around.”
“Look at that innocent baby”? I doubt we realize we are affirming heresy when we say such a thing. Likewise when 83% of evangelicals affirmed the statement, “A person obtains peace with God by first taking the initiative to seek God and then God responds with grace”, I doubt they intended to affirm heresy. But it’s true. Pelagianism is a heresy from the time of Augustine (and it’s other form Semi-Pelagianism) which refuses to die.
Pelagius was bothered by a quote by Augustine who said, ““Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire.” Pelagius believed that such teaching was leading to immorality. He believed Augustine was so exalting divine sovereignty that he was denying human responsibility.
The Flawed Logic of Pelagius
Pelagius’ logic was that if God commanded something then humans must have the ability to carry it out. He further taught there is no such thing as original sin. We are born with a clean slate, according to Pelagius.
Augustine did not deny that humans were created with freedom of will. Humans can do exactly what they desire. Yet, because of the fall of humanity, apart from grace, will always desire evil. Augustine turned to Philippians 2:12-13 to defend his view of grace. It is God who is at work in us “both to will and to accomplish”.
It wasn’t grace, per se, that Pelagius had a hard time with. It was necessary grace that he could not swallow. Therefore, Pelagius firmly believed that God responds to us and not the other way around. Apparently, 83% of professing evangelicals agree.
From: What is Heresy? 4 Examples Still Alive in the Church Today (crosswalk.com)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If the baby and bath water idiom was available to Jesus, he might have said:
If your water is polluted by a rotting corpse, throw out both the filthy water and the rotten corpse that pollutes your water, and fill your tub with fresh water.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
and as another safety tip
never watch the PFAL class while in the bathtub
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Never! Don’t do it…. Dooooon’t do it! It could be deadly.
You might pass out from boredom and drown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
great - just great !!!!
I was going more for the shock and awe thing
you've got a great plot for a murder-mystery. initially everyone thought the victim was killed by electrocution. but the smart detective who was an ex-TWI follower realized the TV monitor was still on the edge of the tub and playing the same session that he always fell asleep to.
Edited by T-Bonemade a TV show
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
You know the more I look into it the less I even think TWI leadership believes the KoolAid snowstorm promise.
Mrs W left it out of her book.
Elena Whiteside’s hippy crush account is really the only written record of it, and TWI removed that from the bookstore.
So if there was no Kool Aid snowstorm promise, then all of VPs efforts really amount to plagiarizing the most stuff in the least amount of time that will get people hooked.
If they don’t believe he was a prophet to lead us thru 1st century KoolAid snowstorms, then what do they believe?
He was a motivated guy to start a cult? He assembled well? His copy skills were second to none?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Long ago after I escaped TWI, I was encouraged by Jo*n Ly*n not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." At the time, he was running a TWI offshoot group and recycling much of VPW's plagiarized biblical research.
That phrase stayed with me.
In 2009, I wrote the attached article after much discussion here about that topic, and it was posted here on GSC for a while (after the redesign, it disappeared). Today, I think it's relevant to this topic, so here you go.
Happy holidays, Greasespotters!
Charlene
Nostalgia _TWI_CEdge.pdf
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Interesting article.
The nostalgia described reminds me of how targets often claw their way back in an effort to reclaim the "idealization phase" of the narcissistic abuse cycle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
thanks Penworks !
great article and the reading list at the end!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Excellent article with well developed thoughts and references. The things I refer to in slang about are referenced in footnotes here.
Yes I concur with your conclusions
1. TWI was never a research ministry
2. Fundamentalism is damaging
The body of Christ is much larger and less limited than the farm cult in Ohio worshipping a VP statue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thanks, just added it to my collection!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Clicked to the top again, because someone mentioned it again.
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.