Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
  • Announcements

    • GT

      Log in changes   08/07/2016

      With the upgrade there is no longer separate login ids and display names.  Your login ID is now your display name.
Rejoice

Another STFI split...an offshoot of an offshoot.

Recommended Posts

He’s been posting on Facebook regarding his differences with $Choenhei7 regarding “Once Saved Always Saved”. He produced a 114 page document supporting his position which is “Continue In Faith”. 

He said it’s written in their bylaws that if there’s a disagreement among board members over doctrine that the disagreeable member MUST resign. So that’s what he did. 19 years on the job. 

Laughable. 

Edited by JayDee
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 4:09 PM, Rejoice said:

He's reversing on what he's taught for years.

I had this same question, and had done research of my own on it.  It didn't make sense to me that someone could be born again and then just do whatever they want and still be saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Taxidev said:

I had this same question, and had done research of my own on it.  It didn't make sense to me that someone could be born again and then just do whatever they want and still be saved.

In the Jehovah's Witness organization, they had this problem where some of their doctrinal teachings in the book of Revelation on 144,000 from Rev. 14:1 and they somehow identified that with a certain group in their organization when it was about that size.  After this, it grew larger, and those deemed "the 144,-000" had noted examples of them living doing basically whatever they wanted and exploiting that status.   They had to change the "revelation" and instruction with their group to avoid image problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of truthful envy – I’ve been thinking about starting an offshoot myself…actually, it’s an offshoot OF  myself…well, technically it’s an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot of myself…and honestly there’s probably a few more “offshoot of an offshoot” in there cuz it’s hard keeping track of how many times I’ve changed my mind on things since I left The Way International…and it’s not about the money, folks…I don’t care if you send me your old golf clubs, used cars or mint condition LPs – it’s definitely not just about the money, so get off my case why dontcha !

I have produced an 115 page paper with well over 115 words (that might be a little over a word and some fraction of a word per page) describing my position while I wrote it (I was seated most of the time – though there were a few attempts at automatic writing while I struggled to assume the down-and-out-in-Rome-City Yoga position ) and it’s yours for free – no purchase necessary – just a small minimum required donation…anything really …like old golf clubs, used cars, mint condition LPs, or a 70’s series Fender Jazz Bass…ya know, whatever – I’m not picky…to receive your copy of “Continue Being Fake” just write me “The Leecher”.

 

 

Edited by T-Bone
wonder what you should say to your people at a time like this- I don’t.just keep those minimum required donations rolling in folks, until eternity.meka leka hi if your Lo Shonta’s gone low.buy-hi-sell-lo-bidnuss-school-dropout
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I received the complete document from Dan Gallagher.  I haven't read it yet, nor even opened the file.  But I am looking forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post is more doctrinal, but I just can't resist posting. IMHO, just how good, is good enough? What sins did Jesus not cover under the cross? My antenna's go up when I hear this kind of stuff, because I know I'm a no good stinky sinner and I need a savior. Under the old covenant, the law was made to show that we cannot keep it. If I break one law I break them all. 

There is this talk show lady, June Hunt, who asks people when they call in for advice. "Are you a GENUINE Christian?" She means that if they are still actively sinning in some area, sex, alcohol, drugs, whatever...they can't possibly be born again. Christians twist things to say that of course we are saved by grace, but if we really are saved, we wouldn't be sinning "as much" anymore. Well,  I have to call BS on that. People are only fooling themselves. If anybody has a problem with seeing sin in themselves, just ask somebody else. They'll be able to point out what you can't see as clearly as they can. The  Holy Spirit is sinless in us, and that's what God sees when He looks at us. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RottieGrrrl said:

My post is more doctrinal, but I just can't resist posting. IMHO, just how good, is good enough? What sins did Jesus not cover under the cross? My antenna's go up when I hear this kind of stuff, because I know I'm a no good stinky sinner and I need a savior. Under the old covenant, the law was made to show that we cannot keep it. If I break one law I break them all. 

There is this talk show lady, June Hunt, who asks people when they call in for advice. "Are you a GENUINE Christian?" She means that if they are still actively sinning in some area, sex, alcohol, drugs, whatever...they can't possibly be born again. Christians twist things to say that of course we are saved by grace, but if we really are saved, we wouldn't be sinning "as much" anymore. Well,  I have to call BS on that. People are only fooling themselves. If anybody has a problem with seeing sin in themselves, just ask somebody else. They'll be able to point out what you can't see as clearly as they can. The  Holy Spirit is sinless in us, and that's what God sees when He looks at us. 

I agree heartily- but need to add something.  There's a "false bifurcation" in effect. There's people who keep claiming one or another POLAR OPPOSITES and using the other position as a "strawman".  That is, since one extreme is ridiculous to believe, I must accept the other extreme is true.  NO.

Ok, righteousness never came from the law because it couldn't- and our conduct could never match up- as in humanity's conduct in any century, any country.  So, "incorruptible seed" that was a "gift of eternal life."   Can't suffer corruption (rot), can't end (eternal), can't be earned (gift).    Ok, that's clear enough, as far as it goes.

Then there's people like vpw who say "since I can't lose eternal life, I can sin all I want, and if I cover my tracks on Earth, I'm golden because God won't punish me for it."  Ah, no. There's lots of notices for us to TRY to conduct ourselves as best we can- with clear instructions on how to do that. We're expected to put forth an honest effort, and not just do whatever because we're saved. 

I'm confident God has it covered- lesser rewards for those who did little, and actual penalties for those who did absolutely nothing or did poorly because they counted on unkillable salvation to insulate them from the consequences of their freewill actions.   Come on.  If I can come up with systems that cover it (and I can), I'm sure God Almighty can-and did- come up with specifics that are effective and sufficient.

So, I reject "do as you fool well please" because it's unBiblical.   I reject an ending to "eternal" , a corrupting of "incorruptible" again, because it's unBiblical.  As far as I'm concerned, most of what I've heard on the subject, from a lot of sides, is all either rephrasing of that, or just posturing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DWBH Thank you! If you are who I think you are I have a friend who thinks very highly of you. :)

WW!!! Thank you for replying! I agree whole heartily with YOU. Though I had to look up what bifurcation meant. (division, lol) And you wrote 100 times better than what I could have. I absolutely do believe there are consequences for sin. Scripture is quite clear on that. James 4:17 says anybody who knows the good they should do, but doesn't do it is sinning. We are ALL guilty of that!  But yes, sinning  is putting yourself in danger, and I do believe has consequences either in this world, or the next, or both. The people who take it to the extreme are hard hearted fools. But I have to be careful because I've been there. And still am, in some ways. But yeah, you make a great, great point. As usual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WordWolf said:

So, I reject "do as you fool well please" because it's unBiblical.   I reject an ending to "eternal" , a corrupting of "incorruptible" again, because it's unBiblical.  As far as I'm concerned, most of what I've heard on the subject, from a lot of sides, is all either rephrasing of that, or just posturing.

Agreed, though maybe not so much with the "just posturing" aspect of it.  'Cause from the pulpit it can be (and is incessantly) used by so many as a means of control - which goes far beyond making your own self look more knowledgeable or spiritual.  Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that unless (or until) it's known or understood or beyond the limitations of personal reward(s), it all too easily results in works that are mere wood, hay and/or stubble - not to mention the small sliver of uncertainty that can rear its ugly head at the most awkward, stressful or otherwise inopportune times in life.  In other words, once we are Christ's, the life we live now is not for ourselves - in any sense of the word (future inclusive) - even if we don't know or believe it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't it 'the Doc' that said one can make the Bible say anything they want ?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Allan said:

Wasn't it 'the Doc' that said one can make the Bible say anything they want ?!

Yes. He showed how to quote Psalms "The fool saith in his heart, 'There is no God' " to say it technically says "there is no God."  He also used I Corinthians to tell Jim D that God Almighty was ok with orgies. His rationale:  Where it says "It is good for a man not to touch a woman", it's acceptable because the verses says that's "good" but not required, and that it would say "BEST" if God had issues with that, therefore God Almighty was fine with orgies- according to vpw in private.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone read the 114 page paper Dan wrote on his position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not, but I know that Vince Finnegan reached the same conclusion after I dropped out of his offshoot in the late 1990s.

It seems to me that the Apostle Paul would not warn about using grace as a license to sin if he felt losing your salvation was a possibility.

It does appear, obviously, that VPW and TWI did use grace as a license to sin in practice, and to a lesser extent in doctrine.

I think many sincere Christians believe salvation cannot be lost, and many other sincere Christians believe it can. That this should be the case with TWI and its offshoots should come as no surprise.

Personally (and I'm going slightly off-topic and into doctrinal/questioning faith territory here) I think it's because the New Testament writers were not in agreement with each other. The gospel writers quote Jesus saying he who endures to the end will be saved. Paul at the very least implies once-saved-always-saved. Whoever wrote Hebrews seems to think that salvation can be obtained once and lost once but never regained. Dispensationalism can smooth over the differences between Jesus and Paul, but (to quote Spock) it takes a feat of "linguistic legerdemain" to make the writer of Hebrews say salvation cannot be lost.

My opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 7:19 PM, OldSkool said:

Anyone read the 114 page paper Dan wrote on his position?

I started reading it, but it is so full of rhetoric that it is not easy to get through.  I know the gist already, and I agree with his findings, but my own research is just a few pages and without the fluff.  It could take weeks before I get completely through his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Taxidev said:

I started reading it, but it is so full of rhetoric that it is not easy to get through.  I know the gist already, and I agree with his findings, but my own research is just a few pages and without the fluff.  It could take weeks before I get completely through his.

I started to ask Dan for a copy but (knowing Dan) assumed it would be loaded with rhetoric. Can u summarize his position in a few words? Thanks either way. I disagree with losing salvation based on the logic Wordwolf laid out. But i am curios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2018 at 7:48 PM, WordWolf said:

Yes. He showed how to quote Psalms "The fool saith in his heart, 'There is no God' " to say it technically says "there is no God."  He also used I Corinthians to tell Jim D that God Almighty was ok with orgies. His rationale:  Where it says "It is good for a man not to touch a woman", it's acceptable because the verses says that's "good" but not required, and that it would say "BEST" if God had issues with that, therefore God Almighty was fine with orgies- according to vpw in private.

If I may adapt a couple of familiar phrases (knowledge is power and power corrupts ) to wierwille’s licentious lifestyle - - I would say that perverted knowledge has the power to corrupt the conscience.

 

In light of his knack for twisting scripture I think wierwille’s doctrine and practice had some virulent strains of dualism and Gnosticism in his hodge podge of theology.

 

Dualism: wierwille may have held to an extreme literal interpretation of Romans 7 - the spirit is perfect but the flesh is totally corrupt - and  I am tempted to think he had an attitude of  “and never the two shall meet” so why even be concerned about what’s done in the flesh...I believe Paul - in Romans 7  as well as in many other passages and by other writers as well - clearly shows there is a war often raging on WITHIN us - and that rather than give up, we are to fight against temptations and all manner of personal weaknesses .

 

Gnosticism: wierwille sold folks the idea of a special knowledge that would supposedly enable them to unleash the power of god in their lives. “What power we have if we only knew it”. That is one of the essential underpinnings in PFAL, the Advanced Class and all the other pointless classes in between :spy:  - . wierwille’s go-to phrases for justifying any of his immoral behavior reflect his “gnostic “ confidence- the supposedly deep and mature knowledge he had of “the word” - -  things like  “I’ve so renewed my mind that this is not sin to me” , or “unto the pure all things are pure” , and “the love of god thinketh no evil.” That is the “power” of perverted knowledge - ( or the perversion of knowledge if that makes more sense) it supposedly trumps the moral dictates of scripture and becomes a powerful sedative to the conscience.

Edited by T-Bone
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OldSkool said:

Can u summarize his position in a few words?

While there is nothing that can take us from salvation, we can take ourselves from salvation by our own attitude of heart.  It isn't mistakes we make, but a change of attitude, in effect a turning away from God, even though we've been born again.

I found the same concept in Romans: Rom 11:18  Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 
Rom 11:19  Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 
Rom 11:20  Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 
Rom 11:21  For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 
Rom 11:22  Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

It's a topic I'm still working on, but I'm now pretty much convinced that we can mess it up for ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

While there is nothing that can take us from salvation, we can take ourselves from salvation by our own attitude of heart.  It isn't mistakes we make, but a change of attitude, in effect a turning away from God, even though we've been born again.

I found the same concept in Romans: Rom 11:18  Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 
Rom 11:19  Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 
Rom 11:20  Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 
Rom 11:21  For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 
Rom 11:22  Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

It's a topic I'm still working on, but I'm now pretty much convinced that we can mess it up for ourselves.

Thanks for the answer. I dont think being cut off is the same as losing eternal life, which is what im saying is encompassed within the umbrella of salvation. Israel cut themselves off from the new covenant by unbelief. They rejected the Messiah, Yeshua, and paved the way for God to turn to the gentiles, who Paul is clearly addressing in Romans 11.

Once a person is born again they are no longer gentile or jew but a new creation and the Church of God. Yet, if anyone confesses Jesus is Lord and believes God raised him from the dead they are saved whether gentile or jew. If that salvation (eternal life) could be rejected once received via the new birth i think God woild have given a stern warning the way he did Adam with thou shalt surely die. There is no such warning for the Church of God.

 Yet the consequences of walking in the old man nature can be quite severe, including loss of reward, and penalty incurred, that is not the same as eternal death aka the second death of the judgements. Rejecting salvation for the born again would by default place one in the great white throne judgments in revelation, i guess....lol

I could go on, but then would be even more into doctrinal than i am. Plus, im not trying to say you are wrong Taxidev. There is a lot i have to learn on the subject. I appreciate the summation, you saved my 114 pages of Gallagher rhetoric that i have no desire to sift through. Cheers!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Taxidev said:

While there is nothing that can take us from salvation, we can take ourselves from salvation by our own attitude of heart.  It isn't mistakes we make, but a change of attitude, in effect a turning away from God, even though we've been born again.

"attitude of heart".  

Sounds like a bunch of crap for one person to judge another.  attitude of heart vs. attitude of mind.  error of heart vs. error of judgment.  one more way to establish a breeding ground for Pharisees, and have people set themselves as their intermediaries between you and God and leave Jesus Christ out.

No amount of my sin can render His blood insignificant or inadequate to recompense.

Thanks for summarizing the 114 pages Taxidev.  I don't have the connections to see it myself.   

God is just and can sort out the next heaven and earth including rewards and lack of them to satisfy all.  But i'm sure another shipwreck splinter of faith from Jesus ship floating around is exactly what we need to sort this out and get to the bottom of it LOL   Jesus foretold of this IMO with some of his comments about millstones and talking about people saying "Lord, Lord" and the response being "I never knew you".

I recall coming across a denominational split in the Presbyterian church over what happened to young children who had not yet had the chance to be saved.  

 

Edited by chockfull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s just another STFI tempest in a teapot. Jesus taught us to recognize and identify people by their FRUIT, not their words, or their Bible teachings, interpretations, interpolations, and personal opinions. This cult of Stiffy has shown what kind of FRUIT exactly??

let’s see....in it’s first iteration under the 3 1/2 musketeers, Jalvis Lynn, professor Ludwig von schoenheit, and Mark and the witch of Endor Graeser.....we started off with the melding of cults....CES plus Momentus! Wow! What a great cult that was for awhile! Then there was Jalvis’ sex-romp itineraries.....you know, just like his itineraries for TWIt.....lotsa schmaltz, comedy, hustling and marketing 20 different classes, seminars, books, events, gross, sarcastic, horestooth grins, in a nice suit, and good at professional begging. Oh yeah....he was able to really bless Karen in NC, and Bob’s sister in NC, and got so good at that his fellow stiffy trustees fired his ass for moral turpitude. 

Then there was the great earth-shattering promulgation of something they called “personal prophecy”! Yeah....that was as good as Momentus! LOL! After Jalvis could not convince his fellow stiffies to make him full-time headcheese again, and support his great desire to be “with god’s people” by imposing himself on people around America so he could share his grand ego, use them for every free meal, ski trip, or beach trip he could hustle from them, and then still hit em up for cash, cash, cash, and buying the stiffy library of rightly-divided books. So, in his own inimitable manner, Jalvis starts yet another cult of HIS OWN, with himself in charge of course, and tries yet once more to re-incarnate dictor Paul wierwille and his dead 1960s cult! Another fantastic failure.

So, now....professor von schoenheit, is finally all on his own, with a dead, static, stuffy, stiffy Church with nothing to do any more! Big Dan, who has hijacked cults before, does it one more time for the “glory of god and his rightly-divided word”! And here we are again....1987 RE-visited. The stiffy boys have travelled a long, tawdry, miserable road to wind up right back where they started.....out of Egypt with all the gold! What an incredible, Shakespearean farce for them, and tragedy after tragedy for their foolish followers. May god have mercy on their souls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×