As I recall Paul went to Jerusalem to teach them Christ. That is making amends and teaching and doing forgiveness.
On the other hand. VPW knew he was wrong, set up a doctrine to continue his wrongs, knowing it was wrong. If VPW was truly sorry he would have burned down TWI before he died, and he could have too. But he didn't, knowing that Craig was doing the same wrongs he was doing and more. And it was widespread adultery, rape and forcing abortions. It continued throughout his ministry and got worse as more and more "leaders" participated.
So NO VPW didn't repent or was he sorry for the wrongs committed by the EVIDENCE that is very clear.
VPW should have gone over session 3-the integrity of the Word a bit. VPW had no integrity of his word. He was a liar and a thief who stole peoples lives and used them for his own self gratification. Not caring for the consequences of those lives he ruined and of the some who took their own lives.
There is no excuse for his actions no matter what he taught-right or wrong. And most-I'd say 95% of what he taught was not Truth, but an oppurtunity to gain and exploit his followers.
1 Corinthians 11-it is a shame for a man to have long hair. It is a shame for a man to have such a following of people. Instead of teaching them the Word of God to the point that they could handle it themselves, VPW kept everyone following him and not the Word of God. That is evidence right there that he was not teaching the truth or the new birth.
The woman, representing the spirit of God is to be followed, that's why it says it's a glory for a woman to have long hair. There you have a little bit of the truth of what GOD wants and not what man wants. Nature itself teaches the Word to those LISTENING.
Forget apologizing to specific individuals, VPW and LCM never admitted they did anything wrong in the first place.
True, Mo.
I vividly remember listening to craig when he was on that tape saying that he was stepping down as president and thinking - geeze, he doesn't sound the least bit sorry about it - he sounds mad, angry and annoyed at the whole situation - in fact - he used the words annoying situation. Like it was going to all blow over and everyone would be kissing his ring and licking his boots again soon. :blink:
I, respectfully, request that folks NOT respond to the dust mite unless he actually contributes something of value to the discussion, but I think he's valued out already. I'd like to keep the topic on track even if it means it dies a quick death for lack of response.
the only reason anyone would ever even consider this matter up for discussion is because you've allowed yourself to be talked out of common human decency. and common sense, to boot.
give me a break. you don't need reams of scripture to tell you that you should apologize when you've wronged someone.
You're right OM - that was the original point comparison--the deeds, not the people. It doesn't surprise me that a new thread was started on this topic because there are some that just want to argue which is the case here. The Bible doesn't say Paul apologized after he got born again. If all that were known were written there would not be enough books to contain the information so God wrote what was necessary for mankind to know and apparently the apology issue wasn't necessary for a person's walk or He would have made sure it was written about...but praying for your enemies and forgiveness were written about. The point was the deeds done and after realization the evidence of the walk--not when. Everyone keeps harping on Craig knew what he was doing. How do you "know" what Craig knew and why he knew it or if he swallowed it like everyone else and maybe swallowed more as VP's protege (sp). How do you know what was in his mind and heart? Only God knows a man's heart and only God can proclaim what was and is in Craig's heart. He was taught just as everyone else and maybe, just maybe he thought he was doing the right thing and more and more went off the deep end. But that is Craig's problem to justify with God. I know you all will have a hay-day with that one I'm sure. But the Lord is Judge and jury. If it is so mightily important to some or all of you for an apology from Craig, why don't you start praying for the man and maybe that would be the key for God to work in him to apologize to you. Would the apology satisfy you? Make you a better person? Make your walk different? Or just satisfy a need for revenge? I still stand with my original post and will not respond again although I'm sure you'll tear this apart too. I believe in what I wrote and stand by it and do not need to nor will I defend it.
It would be very interesting to know what the social traditions were in Paul's time. Whether a man in a leadership position was expected to offer apoligies or make restitution for wronging people. Whether Paul was held accountable for what his unbeliever self did. The Bible really doesn't tell us much about what *must* have been a very tense social situation. Personally, I have problems understanding the whole picture and I can't see any answers.
Back to modern times, it seems to me that there wasn't a place for apology anywhere in the TWI structure. VPW, Craig and clergy tended to blame any failing on lack of believing, the advisary or failing to "renew your mind". No need to apologize there. For Joe and Suzie believer, there was confrontation and threats to get your act together or else. No need to apologize there either. Now I know lots of sweet-hearted believers that would apologize if they had hurt someone, but no TWI doctrine that might have mandated it.
Keep in mind that the 50's through the 80's were an era of no corporate or government admission of wrongdoing. That something was done wrong just wasn't admitted. I think that TWI in general and VPW in specific followed that philosophy wholeheartedly.
If it is so mightily important to some or all of you for an apology from Craig, why don't you start praying for the man and maybe that would be the key for God to work in him to apologize to you. Would the apology satisfy you? Make you a better person? Make your walk different? Or just satisfy a need for revenge?
I just don't know where to start
So we are to pray to God that LCM says he is sorry, knowing adultry, coersion and rape are wrong doesn't take insight from GOD, the laws and mores of our society say they are worng
Would the apology satisfy you? yes
Make you a better person? help ease some of the pain that still lurks in a corner of my heart
Make your walk different? probably, things of God, heartfelt repentance being one of them, has a ripple effect
Or just satisfy a need for revenge? News falsh, apologies are not a form of revenge for the one wronged, they are the start of healing both for the one wronged and the person who wronged
If all that were known were written there would not be enough books to contain the information so God wrote what was necessary for mankind to know and apparently the apology issue wasn't necessary for a person's walk or He would have made sure it was written about...
Or maybe it's just such common sense that God didn't feel it was even necessary to mention. :blink:
Everyone keeps harping on Craig knew what he was doing. How do you "know" what Craig knew and why he knew it or if he swallowed it like everyone else and maybe swallowed more as VP's protege (sp). How do you know what was in his mind and heart?
He knew enough to know to keep it quiet and covert.....isn't that a sign that someone knows that what they are doing is wrong? Or is it enough that he kicked people out who confronted him on it? Or is it enough that folks who also knew it was wrong covered for him instead of doing something about it?
At what point does someone decide that drugging, raping and setting up rapes of women is RIGHT?? <_<
It seems to me that even TWI expects an apology and change of action when someone has done something wrong…..based on scripture, nonetheless....where’s the example in craig’s life?? In the lives of those who facilitated, encouraged, enabled and covered for him?
From TWI’S OWN TEACHING ON GODLY SORROW:
“Mourning” indicates the Corinthians were lamenting their wrongs and errors or their mistakes. They expressed a genuine remorse and grief regarding those things Paul confronted them on.
“Fervent mind” is from the Greek word zealos. ….demonstrating… a passion toward Paul and the other apostles. Rather than holding on to their hurt feelings, justifying their error, and complaining about how they were confronted. These Corinthians had a passion for the truth that Paul represented and spoke.
2 Cor 7:11 - ….ye sorrowed after a godly sort….what carefulness…what clearing of yourselves….indignation…fear…vehement desire….zeal….revenge! ….clear in this matter.
This verse shows the aggressive mindset of the Corinthians as they took believing action to restore themselves to alignment and harmony with God and HIS HOUSEHOLD. Looking at all these qualities listed above will help us recognize the characteristics and attitudes indicating that change is actually happening in a person’s life after he has been confronted.
“carefulness” is the Greek word “spoude” – diligence, emphasizing no delay or waste of time in putting forth effort in whatever one is doing in his service to the Lord.
So, there should be an immediate, eager response by the confronted individual to the end that there is “serious purpose” to correct his error. This is not merely an outward, happy, enthusiastic response. When a person has godly sorry, he responds by finding the scripture that addresses his hneed. Then he speaks, thinks and acts according to the word of God with immediate diligence. The desired changes can take place right away. And even with behavior patterns that may take more time to establish, this immediate, eager response initiates the process. We should not have to strain to see this; it should be evident!
You're right OM - that was the original point comparison--the deeds, not the people. It doesn't surprise me that a new thread was started on this topic because there are some that just want to argue which is the case here.
The Bible doesn't say Paul apologized after he got born again.
An argument from silence. The fact that the Bible doesn't specifically say it doesn't meant he didn't do it.
Imagine Paul, after his conversion, going into a town to preach/teach. A young woman comes up to Paul as says, "You had my brother killed, in Jeruslaem you murderous SOB".
What does Paul do? I know, he says "I asked God for forgiveness and he gave it to me. I don't give a damn what you think and I don't really care if you forgive me or not. I was only doing what I thought was right. I am teaching the Word now aren't I ? - I don't see anywhere in the scriptures where I have to apologize to you. You want closure? Just forgive me and move on with your life. You've got sins too you know!" Hey, I was led down that path by Gamaliel anyway, it's not really my fault. BTW, why are you so bitter and angry? You just want revenge and you are thinking evil. It's grace now. Praise God.! See, I could kill some more Christians tomorrow morning and then ask God to forgive me and He would. Then I could go right back into the synogogue tomorrow evening and teach some hot Word, and guess what? Just becase I murdered someone in the morning, doesn't mean what I teach in the evening will be wrong. Hmm, maybe I should write a book .... Get over it will ya. Be ye imitators of me."
Yeah, thats what Paul probably told them .......Right Oldies? Sogwap? CK ?
My take - somehow I don't see the "Paul" that's writen about in Acts, and the author of the N.T. epistles, as being a person who would ignore recognizing what he'd done. He clearly states he recognized himself as "least" amongst his brethren.
Why would he say a thing like that? A false, smug rightousness? I don't think so.The impression I get of Paul is a person who really, really, had a weird hair day on the day he had the vision of Jesus on his way to Damascus. It had a huge, personal and deep impact on him.
It seems to me the he did/he didn't argument is mostly an academic twirling of a few scriptures to prove a point, as if -
because there's no verse that says "Paul said he was sorry to Bob and Sally and Mary" etc. etc. or "Paul was blessed in that he never had to say he was sorry to anybody for trying to kill their families" is proof positive that nobody ever has to say they're sorry for anything they ever do and it's not a requirement to be a Certified Christian in Good Standing.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but if you need a verse to tell you to breathe, or take a leak, or eat when you're hungry, or make a wrong right if you can - you may need to get outside more.
Call me Old School, but everything in the bible tells me that Paul was penitent, sorry, and remorseful for what he did. He had many years that aren't fully accounted for after his Road Trip experience. The fact that Luke doesn't record much about it in Acts is no big deal. There's a lot he obviously doesn't cover. Paul's epsitles, such as they are, give every indication that Paul would have been MORE LIKELY to have dealt directly and lovingly with the people he'd hurt than not. If he never had opportunity to do anything about it, I'd be hard pressed to think he made up a doctrinal argument to ignore what he'd done. That makes no sense whatsover. He said "don't use grace for a license to sin". That's pretty clear.
because there's no verse that says "Paul said he was sorry to Bob and Sally and Mary" etc. etc. or "Paul was blessed in that he never had to say he was sorry to anybody for trying to kill their families" is proof positive that nobody ever has to say they're sorry for anything they ever do and it's not a requirement to be a Certified Christian in Good Standing.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but if you need a verse to tell you to breathe, or take a leak, or eat when you're hungry, or make a wrong right if you can - you may need to get outside more.
Socks, remember that a lot of TWIts still think WWPD instead of WWJD.... Paul is the one person they worship outside of the Bible - not God, Not JC, but Paul and "the word"..... If it's not written then it's not important.
WWJD? Damn if that perfection thing rules out what would he do. Something about going through life without never having to say I screwed up and am sorry. But then the truth Paul was a horrible person before the new birth and guess what geniuses, Paul wrote about him being a murderer and that was circulated through the churches and I think that may qualify as at least admitting before Jesus came into his life he was scum, before JESUS CAME INNNTOOOOOO HIS LIFE!
Now I love what Radar points out, Paul=scum before new birth, unfortunately VPW and LCM scum after new birth. How'd that happen? Ya think the modern day Paul would at least get a few basics down! But, it's the doctrine that allows the evil practices as far as the doctrine of all the women in the kingdom and Me MOG, ME KING! ( no wonder Christ had to be absent, not enough room for 2 kings in the kingdom)
Did VPW get it right with the big guy before the big check-out? Don't ya think he might have pointed out to LCM, hey doing all the wimmin ain't cool in the big dudes eyes, I mean if he was getting "it" right ya think he would have gotten his replacement straightened out, rather than slapping him on the rear and a hearty go get-em son!
Pathetic if your spiritual life and knowledge of the scriptures has to rely on adulterers.
There is a fundamental issue that I don't think has been adequately addressed here: Saul, the one who persecuted Christians, versus Paul, the apostle. Saul was not baptized. Paul was (Acts 9). In baptism, your sins are washed away and your old man is reckoned dead with Christ (Rom 6). That makes a HUGE difference. And that, as others have pointed out, is a major distinction between any comparison of VPW/LCM/other TWI leaders and Saul's persecutions.
I hear what you're saying Belle. That being the case, there's a serious loss of context in the understanding of Paul's life.
Arguiing that Paul didn't "apologize" after his conversion is childish. It's like saying "love is never having to say you're sorry".
Like in marriage, there are spouses who are so assured of their mate's undying love, understanding and forgiveness that they never say they're sorry for anything they do and assume that the other person will always be able to absorb any hurt caused by their own shortcomings and failings iand that all wil be covered by the other person's bountiful measure of love for them.
Whatever Paul did for people after his conversion, it is definite that he pleased God. That's what's important. This idea that you have to apologize to every person you've ever offended is just another way of being conformed to this world. It gives the one demanding the apology control over the relationship. I personally don't want a forced or coerced apology from anyone. It's got to be their idea or it isn't genuine.
As for Paul, I think it's significant that his ministry was to the gentiles. He didn't go around killing any of them. His conversion happened in Acts 9. The first gentile believers were in Acts 10. So for Paul to minister to the gentiles would eliminate any baggage from relatives of whoever he had tortured and killed.
People are human; you can't expect relatives of those Paul abused to ever fully forgive him to the end of supporting his ministry. If Paul would have made a point of apologizing to everybody 1) he wouldn't have had time to do what God needed him to do and 2) many of those people would have just used Paul's guilt to abuse him and take revenge. That's just people.
For those of you who are into demanding apologies consider Ahithophel, one of David's counsellors in the OT. He was Bathsheba's grandfather and he obsessed over what david did to her and Uriah the Hittite, her husband. So much so that he was instrumental in advising Absalom to take over the kingdom and kill David. Nothing David could have done would have satisfied Ahithophel. He wanted revenge, not peace. Any demand for an apology was a facade. Be careful.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
14
12
5
Popular Days
Apr 17
49
Apr 18
15
Apr 19
1
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 5 posts
oldiesman 14 posts
Belle 12 posts
Tom Strange 5 posts
Popular Days
Apr 17 2006
49 posts
Apr 18 2006
15 posts
Apr 19 2006
1 post
Belle
Sounds like a good idea for a thread, OM - how's about jumping off this one and starting your own with that very question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
As I recall Paul went to Jerusalem to teach them Christ. That is making amends and teaching and doing forgiveness.
On the other hand. VPW knew he was wrong, set up a doctrine to continue his wrongs, knowing it was wrong. If VPW was truly sorry he would have burned down TWI before he died, and he could have too. But he didn't, knowing that Craig was doing the same wrongs he was doing and more. And it was widespread adultery, rape and forcing abortions. It continued throughout his ministry and got worse as more and more "leaders" participated.
So NO VPW didn't repent or was he sorry for the wrongs committed by the EVIDENCE that is very clear.
VPW should have gone over session 3-the integrity of the Word a bit. VPW had no integrity of his word. He was a liar and a thief who stole peoples lives and used them for his own self gratification. Not caring for the consequences of those lives he ruined and of the some who took their own lives.
There is no excuse for his actions no matter what he taught-right or wrong. And most-I'd say 95% of what he taught was not Truth, but an oppurtunity to gain and exploit his followers.
1 Corinthians 11-it is a shame for a man to have long hair. It is a shame for a man to have such a following of people. Instead of teaching them the Word of God to the point that they could handle it themselves, VPW kept everyone following him and not the Word of God. That is evidence right there that he was not teaching the truth or the new birth.
The woman, representing the spirit of God is to be followed, that's why it says it's a glory for a woman to have long hair. There you have a little bit of the truth of what GOD wants and not what man wants. Nature itself teaches the Word to those LISTENING.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I don't start threads I jump on them like a dust mite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
True, Mo.
I vividly remember listening to craig when he was on that tape saying that he was stepping down as president and thinking - geeze, he doesn't sound the least bit sorry about it - he sounds mad, angry and annoyed at the whole situation - in fact - he used the words annoying situation. Like it was going to all blow over and everyone would be kissing his ring and licking his boots again soon. :blink:
I, respectfully, request that folks NOT respond to the dust mite unless he actually contributes something of value to the discussion, but I think he's valued out already. I'd like to keep the topic on track even if it means it dies a quick death for lack of response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Adam did that and look what happened ... got us all in the soup.
Oops sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
you know nothing, oldies, about what Adam did
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
the only reason anyone would ever even consider this matter up for discussion is because you've allowed yourself to be talked out of common human decency. and common sense, to boot.
give me a break. you don't need reams of scripture to tell you that you should apologize when you've wronged someone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
"I would respectfully ask that no-one respond to the dust mite...."
There you go again Belle..stomping your foot again, trying to tell everyone else what to do.!!
Sorry gal..but just to remind you, a fruit salad isn't just made up of tarts and gooseberries !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Or like a troll .... Here's you Merit Badge - You've earned it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
HA HA HA!!!
Love it, Goey!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Too bad they can`t afix it too their avatar....It must make you SO proud
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Even then you never stick to the topic. You get boxed in an try to move on to something else. Its an indirect
way of crying uncle.
Edited by diazbroLink to comment
Share on other sites
sogwap51
You're right OM - that was the original point comparison--the deeds, not the people. It doesn't surprise me that a new thread was started on this topic because there are some that just want to argue which is the case here. The Bible doesn't say Paul apologized after he got born again. If all that were known were written there would not be enough books to contain the information so God wrote what was necessary for mankind to know and apparently the apology issue wasn't necessary for a person's walk or He would have made sure it was written about...but praying for your enemies and forgiveness were written about. The point was the deeds done and after realization the evidence of the walk--not when. Everyone keeps harping on Craig knew what he was doing. How do you "know" what Craig knew and why he knew it or if he swallowed it like everyone else and maybe swallowed more as VP's protege (sp). How do you know what was in his mind and heart? Only God knows a man's heart and only God can proclaim what was and is in Craig's heart. He was taught just as everyone else and maybe, just maybe he thought he was doing the right thing and more and more went off the deep end. But that is Craig's problem to justify with God. I know you all will have a hay-day with that one I'm sure. But the Lord is Judge and jury. If it is so mightily important to some or all of you for an apology from Craig, why don't you start praying for the man and maybe that would be the key for God to work in him to apologize to you. Would the apology satisfy you? Make you a better person? Make your walk different? Or just satisfy a need for revenge? I still stand with my original post and will not respond again although I'm sure you'll tear this apart too. I believe in what I wrote and stand by it and do not need to nor will I defend it.
Edited by sogwap51Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
It would be very interesting to know what the social traditions were in Paul's time. Whether a man in a leadership position was expected to offer apoligies or make restitution for wronging people. Whether Paul was held accountable for what his unbeliever self did. The Bible really doesn't tell us much about what *must* have been a very tense social situation. Personally, I have problems understanding the whole picture and I can't see any answers.
Back to modern times, it seems to me that there wasn't a place for apology anywhere in the TWI structure. VPW, Craig and clergy tended to blame any failing on lack of believing, the advisary or failing to "renew your mind". No need to apologize there. For Joe and Suzie believer, there was confrontation and threats to get your act together or else. No need to apologize there either. Now I know lots of sweet-hearted believers that would apologize if they had hurt someone, but no TWI doctrine that might have mandated it.
Keep in mind that the 50's through the 80's were an era of no corporate or government admission of wrongdoing. That something was done wrong just wasn't admitted. I think that TWI in general and VPW in specific followed that philosophy wholeheartedly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I just don't know where to start
So we are to pray to God that LCM says he is sorry, knowing adultry, coersion and rape are wrong doesn't take insight from GOD, the laws and mores of our society say they are worng
Would the apology satisfy you? yes
Make you a better person? help ease some of the pain that still lurks in a corner of my heart
Make your walk different? probably, things of God, heartfelt repentance being one of them, has a ripple effect
Or just satisfy a need for revenge? News falsh, apologies are not a form of revenge for the one wronged, they are the start of healing both for the one wronged and the person who wronged
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
He knew enough to know to keep it quiet and covert.....isn't that a sign that someone knows that what they are doing is wrong? Or is it enough that he kicked people out who confronted him on it? Or is it enough that folks who also knew it was wrong covered for him instead of doing something about it?
At what point does someone decide that drugging, raping and setting up rapes of women is RIGHT?? <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
It seems to me that even TWI expects an apology and change of action when someone has done something wrong…..based on scripture, nonetheless....where’s the example in craig’s life?? In the lives of those who facilitated, encouraged, enabled and covered for him?
From TWI’S OWN TEACHING ON GODLY SORROW:
“Mourning” indicates the Corinthians were lamenting their wrongs and errors or their mistakes. They expressed a genuine remorse and grief regarding those things Paul confronted them on.
“Fervent mind” is from the Greek word zealos. ….demonstrating… a passion toward Paul and the other apostles. Rather than holding on to their hurt feelings, justifying their error, and complaining about how they were confronted. These Corinthians had a passion for the truth that Paul represented and spoke.
2 Cor 7:11 - ….ye sorrowed after a godly sort….what carefulness…what clearing of yourselves….indignation…fear…vehement desire….zeal….revenge! ….clear in this matter.
This verse shows the aggressive mindset of the Corinthians as they took believing action to restore themselves to alignment and harmony with God and HIS HOUSEHOLD. Looking at all these qualities listed above will help us recognize the characteristics and attitudes indicating that change is actually happening in a person’s life after he has been confronted.
“carefulness” is the Greek word “spoude” – diligence, emphasizing no delay or waste of time in putting forth effort in whatever one is doing in his service to the Lord.
So, there should be an immediate, eager response by the confronted individual to the end that there is “serious purpose” to correct his error. This is not merely an outward, happy, enthusiastic response. When a person has godly sorry, he responds by finding the scripture that addresses his hneed. Then he speaks, thinks and acts according to the word of God with immediate diligence. The desired changes can take place right away. And even with behavior patterns that may take more time to establish, this immediate, eager response initiates the process. We should not have to strain to see this; it should be evident!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posted by Sogwap:
An argument from silence. The fact that the Bible doesn't specifically say it doesn't meant he didn't do it.
Imagine Paul, after his conversion, going into a town to preach/teach. A young woman comes up to Paul as says, "You had my brother killed, in Jeruslaem you murderous SOB".
What does Paul do? I know, he says "I asked God for forgiveness and he gave it to me. I don't give a damn what you think and I don't really care if you forgive me or not. I was only doing what I thought was right. I am teaching the Word now aren't I ? - I don't see anywhere in the scriptures where I have to apologize to you. You want closure? Just forgive me and move on with your life. You've got sins too you know!" Hey, I was led down that path by Gamaliel anyway, it's not really my fault. BTW, why are you so bitter and angry? You just want revenge and you are thinking evil. It's grace now. Praise God.! See, I could kill some more Christians tomorrow morning and then ask God to forgive me and He would. Then I could go right back into the synogogue tomorrow evening and teach some hot Word, and guess what? Just becase I murdered someone in the morning, doesn't mean what I teach in the evening will be wrong. Hmm, maybe I should write a book .... Get over it will ya. Be ye imitators of me."
Yeah, thats what Paul probably told them .......Right Oldies? Sogwap? CK ?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
My take - somehow I don't see the "Paul" that's writen about in Acts, and the author of the N.T. epistles, as being a person who would ignore recognizing what he'd done. He clearly states he recognized himself as "least" amongst his brethren.
Why would he say a thing like that? A false, smug rightousness? I don't think so.The impression I get of Paul is a person who really, really, had a weird hair day on the day he had the vision of Jesus on his way to Damascus. It had a huge, personal and deep impact on him.
It seems to me the he did/he didn't argument is mostly an academic twirling of a few scriptures to prove a point, as if -
because there's no verse that says "Paul said he was sorry to Bob and Sally and Mary" etc. etc. or "Paul was blessed in that he never had to say he was sorry to anybody for trying to kill their families" is proof positive that nobody ever has to say they're sorry for anything they ever do and it's not a requirement to be a Certified Christian in Good Standing.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but if you need a verse to tell you to breathe, or take a leak, or eat when you're hungry, or make a wrong right if you can - you may need to get outside more.
Call me Old School, but everything in the bible tells me that Paul was penitent, sorry, and remorseful for what he did. He had many years that aren't fully accounted for after his Road Trip experience. The fact that Luke doesn't record much about it in Acts is no big deal. There's a lot he obviously doesn't cover. Paul's epsitles, such as they are, give every indication that Paul would have been MORE LIKELY to have dealt directly and lovingly with the people he'd hurt than not. If he never had opportunity to do anything about it, I'd be hard pressed to think he made up a doctrinal argument to ignore what he'd done. That makes no sense whatsover. He said "don't use grace for a license to sin". That's pretty clear.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Socks, remember that a lot of TWIts still think WWPD instead of WWJD.... Paul is the one person they worship outside of the Bible - not God, Not JC, but Paul and "the word"..... If it's not written then it's not important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wingnut
WWJD? Damn if that perfection thing rules out what would he do. Something about going through life without never having to say I screwed up and am sorry. But then the truth Paul was a horrible person before the new birth and guess what geniuses, Paul wrote about him being a murderer and that was circulated through the churches and I think that may qualify as at least admitting before Jesus came into his life he was scum, before JESUS CAME INNNTOOOOOO HIS LIFE!
Now I love what Radar points out, Paul=scum before new birth, unfortunately VPW and LCM scum after new birth. How'd that happen? Ya think the modern day Paul would at least get a few basics down! But, it's the doctrine that allows the evil practices as far as the doctrine of all the women in the kingdom and Me MOG, ME KING! ( no wonder Christ had to be absent, not enough room for 2 kings in the kingdom)
Did VPW get it right with the big guy before the big check-out? Don't ya think he might have pointed out to LCM, hey doing all the wimmin ain't cool in the big dudes eyes, I mean if he was getting "it" right ya think he would have gotten his replacement straightened out, rather than slapping him on the rear and a hearty go get-em son!
Pathetic if your spiritual life and knowledge of the scriptures has to rely on adulterers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
There is a fundamental issue that I don't think has been adequately addressed here: Saul, the one who persecuted Christians, versus Paul, the apostle. Saul was not baptized. Paul was (Acts 9). In baptism, your sins are washed away and your old man is reckoned dead with Christ (Rom 6). That makes a HUGE difference. And that, as others have pointed out, is a major distinction between any comparison of VPW/LCM/other TWI leaders and Saul's persecutions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I hear what you're saying Belle. That being the case, there's a serious loss of context in the understanding of Paul's life.
Arguiing that Paul didn't "apologize" after his conversion is childish. It's like saying "love is never having to say you're sorry".
Like in marriage, there are spouses who are so assured of their mate's undying love, understanding and forgiveness that they never say they're sorry for anything they do and assume that the other person will always be able to absorb any hurt caused by their own shortcomings and failings iand that all wil be covered by the other person's bountiful measure of love for them.
They're called "ex's"
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Whatever Paul did for people after his conversion, it is definite that he pleased God. That's what's important. This idea that you have to apologize to every person you've ever offended is just another way of being conformed to this world. It gives the one demanding the apology control over the relationship. I personally don't want a forced or coerced apology from anyone. It's got to be their idea or it isn't genuine.
As for Paul, I think it's significant that his ministry was to the gentiles. He didn't go around killing any of them. His conversion happened in Acts 9. The first gentile believers were in Acts 10. So for Paul to minister to the gentiles would eliminate any baggage from relatives of whoever he had tortured and killed.
People are human; you can't expect relatives of those Paul abused to ever fully forgive him to the end of supporting his ministry. If Paul would have made a point of apologizing to everybody 1) he wouldn't have had time to do what God needed him to do and 2) many of those people would have just used Paul's guilt to abuse him and take revenge. That's just people.
For those of you who are into demanding apologies consider Ahithophel, one of David's counsellors in the OT. He was Bathsheba's grandfather and he obsessed over what david did to her and Uriah the Hittite, her husband. So much so that he was instrumental in advising Absalom to take over the kingdom and kill David. Nothing David could have done would have satisfied Ahithophel. He wanted revenge, not peace. Any demand for an apology was a facade. Be careful.
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.