troubledwine

powerful comments too gray --- good show

I would put money down that you could trace a streak as wide as a 8 lane LA freeway through the history of TWI showing all the little half truths and mostly trues that were told over the years. I know I have seen some of them. The problem that I see is justifying it instead of correcting it. I don't see it as much of a stretch and it has been discussed here before that they think lying in the name of God is ok. I know for a fact because a top national leader was confronted for being dishonest and she EXPLAINED WHY IT WAS OK!!!!!!! Right before my very eyes. This was paid salary waycorps well before they went full time. I was too stupid to see it for what it was. UUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH -- yet another charlie brown miss at a field goal for me.... Would it be a stretch to document the following: -they don't think underlings are mature enough to handle the "deeper" things of the ministry - David acted crazy (lied) to escape the king - therefore we can lie too when needed - the new testament minister is the ot king and has all the priveledges and "flexibility" the king had -their thought that lying be revelation happened all the time in the ot Strange strange strange positions for sure

2 cents: I think the appearance of evil comment has a lot of merit. I keep going back to the thought that I haven't EVER read or heard of a teaching that was done on adultery even after the stuff come out publicly. I mean the PR man RM couldn't even make a statement that the ministry does not condone it?? Your "answer in the face of accusation" is "we are not prepared to make a statement at this time... we will be releasing a statement in the near future..." ?!?!?!?! Where is the "clearing of yourselves"?? I can't fathom how some claim to be so "spiritual" and can not uphold the BASIC precepts of godly sorrow. For the sake of those in the ministry they should have done that if not for the principle itself. Seriously, how many still in hang in doubt of them to this very day because they haven't really taken a stand against it?

weout1200 can you explain this "The "ministerial insurance" lie..." quote? I don't follow. BTW I agree wholeheartedly about a lack of christ in TWI

Guys check this out! Evan Posted: Wow, do i have a quote for you: as written on page 92 Born again to serve Dorothea Kipp Wierwille copywrite 1996 american christian press Wow, talk about VPW being FULL OF HIMSELF when Elena interviewed him !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After reading the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse book and particularly thinking about the last few chapters about how or when to make a break or stay for awhile to make a difference I decided not to be hasty and make an emotional decision. Not because emotions are wrong or anything like that but just because I wanted to do what I could to help (if that were even possible) and give myself time to process my options. By staying in for a little while now, i have been able to listen to their teachings for once and actually be objective (like VPW said to be from day one btw) and was surpised at how milky they really were. As far as it being hard to leave; it depends on your ties I guess. I have a family so that is part of the consideration. My course of direction was to look at the doctrine. At first I approached it from a let's prove them wrong on one point but Goey advised me to just approach studying from a neutral point of view and then I would be able to see both sides and letthe research do the talking. That has been helpful. Part of the twisted scriptures thread I started is just some of the things they have taught that i noticed on this little quest. I am entertaining writing a research paper on my findings or at least a good thread. Perhaps I am overly concerned about what some way believers may say about me or what not but I refuse to be labeled a heretic or possesed or let them push me into saying "i don't want the word anymore" -- this is their tactic so that they can wash their hands of you. I prefer to either just leave quietly or with a quiet discussion where I expose the biblical blindness on certain key issues. But I frankly could care less about writing the "bod" about my "concerns". TWI has had 70 years now to clarify certain doctrines and they HAVE NOT DONE IT. What fool would actually think he could write them a research paper that they would give them credit for and implement??? Look what happened to hope and john and napklinlady and MANY MANY OTHERS. I do care about people I have known for all these years and i would prefer to handle myself wisely to at least give myself an opportunity to discuss certain issues. Not with leadership (check out theemerson quotes about the paid preacher) mind you but with my friends. I don't think I will put this off for long though. I already have no interest in their teaching direction of collateral rehash. My spouse has been giving them every opportunity to make a positive impact but they are coming up empty. I guess, i am trying to proceed to the nearest emergency exit in a calm an orderly manner...

Isn't this a great thread? I just wanted to add another idea about the pleroo concept of taking something to the uttermost of its capacity. It would be a fascinating study to contrast how Jesus Christ got to the intent behind the law BUT the religious leaders after Malachi corrupted away to the point where they wore book on the fingers and heads instead of keeping the word in their actions and heads / hearts. There are many such examples in the Gospels. The classic "strain out a gnat and swallow (gulp down whole) a camel" comes readily to mind. I bring this up because of JBarrax insightful comments about standing approved before God. Dare I ask did Wierwille's teaching creep ever so close to this type of thinking / religion?

I agree with what Oldiesman said Was it Steve Lortz who pointed out how Wierwille clearly states that Rom 9,10,11 are a parenthetical statement? But he makes one hell of a case that they are absolutely not. I bring this up because the part several parts: So is this to say that Acts is not written to us either? Even if you held this position you would have to admit it is the one and same theophilis -- beloved of god I believe is the interpretation. VPW taught that acts was a transtion book from the Old to New testaments. I would like to put forward the idea that the Gospels are the transition books that most fundamentally teach HOW to get your mind from the letter of the law to the intent / spirit behind the law - namely walking in the love of God. We know that Jesus Christ came to fufill the law It seems pleroo does not just indicate to just keep those laws because the example of JC was so much more than just keeping but fulfilling to the utermost or pushing something to the limits of its capacity. And also to reiterate the teaching that was done before: It just does not hold up to scrutiny that we are some seperate body from the believers than Israel or that what God gave us is not the eternal purpose which he had in christ. Of course it wasn't fully revealed because Paul had to receive revelation to understand it. But it says we are grafted onto the same tree. Paul makes the case that the Israel of God is them that believe -- like the father of faith Abraham. We know that Paul cannot be referring to rejecting his gospel because ISRAEL was rejecting Jesus Christ's message even as he was giving it. There are things in the gospels I don't understand like Oldiesman was saying as well. Perhaps they are yet future but that doesn't mean the book isn't written for "our learning" which is doctrine (I think Goey pointed that out). And who did Jeses come for??? Was it all the sheep of Israel or the "lost" sheep? And the words he spoke -- were they for all of Israel or him that had ears to hear? And who continues to hear him today? We know we get the spirit by the "hearing of faith". And who does it say we are builded on?? Does it not seem like a continuation starting with Jesus Christ? Just a little more fuel for the fire of number 9 I guess. [This message was edited by troubledwine on January 31, 2003 at 6:21.]

Rafael, Pertaining to number one Faith vs. Believing I hope you at least include before THE faith came portion we all discussed because that is the ROOT of his problem. He doesn't believe there was faith in the old testament so he has to make up an advanced theology to cover. but the definite article is in the text -- it is not faith in the abstract.

Jerry's response to Mike brought up some incredibly interesting insights. Since we are discussing "the image of God" and body soul spirit I would like to offer an interesting article that sheds light on the uniqueness of ALL humans. (I am not advocating any particular doctrine by posting such.) I think this relates to the topic of the idea that the image of God is more than just spirit and offers some scientific background as well. Sorry for the loooonnnnngggg post. One angle that I am looking at a little more closely is that this "spirit of / from God" may be the icing on the cake / the catalyst that energizes the realationship / that which allows mankind to personally interract with God and works towards the purpose of revealing the image of God in man. On a side note could the image of God also relate to the ever confusing "fruit of the spirit" topic? If we haven't menitoned that one I think that is a definite error as well. This is a huge topic and maybe deserves its own thread but here is the article that discusses this uniqueness:

This paragraph is one of the most moving I have ever read here:

Erick, I admire you for stating your beliefs strongly. It takes balls to tell people how you feel and let it all hang out. But I think that most things in life are like a pendulum and most of us swing back and forth between extremes. Moderation is key. The Word you quote to reprove others and others quote to reprove you has elements of truth in it. But are all the words in this thread "fitly spoken" and in "due season" to each of the readers? What the proper season for some of these words is to one person may be the improper season to another. Words that you say to help may not have that effect and vice versa. This may be exactly why there is a verse that says "weep with them that weep and mourn with them that mourn." Would anyone here say forgiveness is an invalid concept? Of course not, but people will differ as to who and when to forgive according to the Word (or not the Word if that is their postion). To set forth a biblical survey of how and when to give forgiveness to men in these extreme circumstances is quite an endeavor. Even God has requirements for His forgiveness (according to the Bible.) Are men to have NO requirements for their forgiveness? I do not have a complete understanding of the Bible on this topic so I cannot say much else. Part of your message is to seek God but also to "get over it". The seeking God can be very rewarding for many but the getting over it can be very difficult for just as many. If you study the human grieving process you will find that each person grieves in different ways. For some it may be writing or "typing" a message expressing the anger and hurt of betrayal. For some it is denial that the hurtful event even happened. It is a complex process that can be quite different for each individual. Encouraging people to discuss and talk about it has been shown to be one of the most KEY elements in recovery. If people can express their deepest feelings it may help them to make sense of what they are going through and perhaps find a way to cope / deal with / resolve / or perhaps even put behind them what has happened to them. But allow me to put forward the position that even in the Bible the Tresspass offering has an element of restoration back to the wronged party which was typically 20% - so when a man tresspassed against some one and even though it was "in the holy things" of the Lord he still had to make it good. The point was the WRONGED party ended up not just being evened up with but getting MORE than they were tresspassed against. So to God (if I am reading my Bible correctly) forgiving the trespasser was not the only issue. An integral part of the process was SATISFYING the wronged or injured party. You could very well argue the forgiveness to the trespasser was not completed until the restoration happened to the wrong. Perhaps these verses take on additional meaning: I found great inspiration in your story of how you spoke out against the abuse and found yourself fighting though all the "spiritual lightning rod" propaganda in your mind. I would encourage you to keep speaking but also to remember both sides of this story.

The absurdity of all this is they just got done with last years theme of speaking (i.e. living) the truth in love. AKA Truthing It.

Well you are up against a lot. REv. R*pp just ended his last STS teaching with "And by our works we prove that we are Christ's." This is where this things is headed. When they asked back in late december if every one attending was into doing a count they really weren't asking. Telling and asking how you feel about it is much different than dialogue. The truth is I have witnessed to more people in the couple weeks since I started coming here than I have in the last 3 years. Once you start getting the funk out of your mind and get back to what does the Bible really say YOU WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT. I don't give a darn about "getting someone to a fellowship". The point of getting "someone to a fellowship" is for them to hear the word. That can be done in a variety of contexts as proven by J.C. You can argue one way or the other about the "best" place to learn - and most would agree the best place to learn is where there is a willing student and a willing teacher --- (Philip and the Eunuch on the chariot ring a bell?) You can try to go the legislating spirituality route but demanding works to prove you are spiritual to me is the equivalent of requiring me to be circumsized. Now believing without works is dead but works with out love are dead before they get off the ground also. So which is it with TWI??? If they stress performance of works OVER the grace god gives to all of us and our response to god's love then it is wrong IMO. [This message was edited by troubledwine on January 29, 2003 at 13:04.]

sounds all too familiar