oldiesman

That's perfectly fine with me. :) Iron sharpeneth iron. Who said I ONLY address Rascal's arguments? My point was that the THEOLOGY is being targeted, not the person. This isn't about personal attacks; do you ever hear me whining that folks are ganging up on me? Please quit playing the victim card.

Eyesopen, if you saw love in a person, joy in Christ, peace in Christ, gentleness, goodness, etc. and Rascal who wasn't even there said it was a counterfeit; I think you too may be asking many questions and seeking specific clarification of that position. The bottom line is, and I'll say this as nice as I can: Rascal doesn't know what the heck she's talking about with respect to my experiences.

Rascalian Theology is the target, not Rascal. It isn't personal.

Oklahoma, do you believe that unless a person believes that Jesus is God, they are not saved? That's what I believe concerning Dr. Wierwille, because I saw him walk the talk of a born again Christian.

Waysider, I agree in part with you. I do think he operated the manifestions much in his life but would agree that his lustful behavior didn't seem to depict that. In that sense one needs to look at all the evidence of his life, including his good points, what his children have to say about him, and the benefit of his teaching ministry on folks who appreciated it, those who state they learned great truths about God and Christ from him; and not look just at his sins.

Rascal, it isn't straight forward when you say someone is viewing a counterfeit and you are viewing the genuine. You haven't explained how to detect the genuine. All you did here was list fruit of the spirit from scripture without showing how to identify that fruit. Until you do, its more hot air. Loving God and loving your neighbor are in the category of good thoughts and good works, and you said previously that good works are not fruit of the spirit. Are good thoughts? Moreover, non Christians have the ability to love God and love your neighbor as well. I'm thinking of Jews, Hindus, and Moslems, etc., and all religions have that potential. Therefore this is not evidence of Christian fruit of the spirit, or how to identify it.

BTW, here's another question for you Rascal: Was the fruit that Jesus was speaking of the same as the fruit of the spirit in Galatians? When Jesus spoke those words about fruit, pentecost had not yet come. Please explain.

This verse was addressed to Christians, warning them that if they walked by the flesh, there would be no rewards, no inheritance in the kingdom of God. It does not say these folks shall not "enter" the kingdom; it says they shall not "inherit" the kingdom. What about a Christian's sonship, what about God's forgiveness, what about Jesus as the lamb of God to take away the sin of the world, what about God's promise of everlasting life to those who believe in Jesus? I believe you're communicating false doctrine about that verse. Rascal, until you define how to recognize fruit of the spirit, I think your words are meaningless. Please explain how you recognize fruit of the spirit in your "genuine Christian" friends. How do you know they're not just being nice and displaying good manners? Unless you explain yourself, I think you're just blowing hot air...

Rascal, what is your definition of a "genuine" Christian? Is it a born-again Christian?

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

Doojable, if Mrs. Wierwille said that I can understand why ... he WAS mean to her. He cheated on her. That's mean. But does Mrs. Wierwille say he was not a Christian or doesn't KNOW he was, like some here say? NO.

Its a notable point, but doesn't address my question to Rascal about detection of fruit. I would add, that works of the flesh do not negate the fruit of the spirit. It goes back to my question to you about time. Are you saying that if a Christian sins, walks by the flesh one day, it's not possible they can walk in the spirit the next? or the next week? or the next month or year? I say they can, and believe they do. Rascal said I saw "corporate manners" in VPW and not fruit of the spirit. So how does Rascal detect genuine fruit of the spirit then is my question? She said she knows "genuine" Christians, and suggests I saw a counterfeit. So all I'm asking for is clarification on how to detect the genuine.

BTW, you folks who are so concerned about staying on topic; have you noticed that this thread is chock full of off-topic postings? Yet not a word of reproof was said to these postings, especially those of DWBH who veered off topic early on in post #37, and again and again in posts #50, #72, #84, #200, #425 and #520. On and on about the evils of CFF and other off-topic stuff and not all that much about forgiveness. He's not the only one, there are others. Please, if you're going to engage in reproof about staying on topic, at least be even handed about it with all posters, not just the ones you don't like? Thank you.

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

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

Wordwolf, you may have me confused with another poster... I never said that these sins don't matter, and there is no penalty or accounting for them. Galatians 5 says that Christians who practice the works of the flesh will receive no rewards at the gathering. This is what I believe the bible teaches; I think Rascalian Theology about this issue is false. BTW, this is what TWI taught as well, (no rewards at the gathering). Twi DIDN'T teach there was no penalty. You may have been absent when they taught these things. I would ask you to please define "born again Christian" as you see it. Its important to clarify your position since you're not sure about Dr. Wierwille being born again. Rascal says she doesn't think so. It's certainly important and raises a whole host of other questions about sonship. If you don't know what born again means, you don't know. If you do, please clarify. Even if we don't agree, it's good to hear folks clarify their position about it. Also would like to hear how you identify and detect fruit of the spirit. You obviously think that I don't know how, since you characterize my personal experience with Wierwille as him simply "being a nice guy". Rascal characterized it as "corporate manners". Assuming that's true and he's a counterfeit, how does one detect the genuine? If you know the counterfeit you should also know the genuine. Rascal said she knows the genuine so I'd like to hear from you both. Thank you.

Rascal, You still have not clarified how to detect genuine fruit of the spirit. I stated that I saw genuine fruit of the spirit in Dr. Wierwille; but you said that was "corporate manners". Wordwolf said it was him "being a nice guy". Assuming you and Wordwolf are correct, then please explain how we detect genuine Christian fruit of the spirit. If you really know the counterfeit then you must really know the genuine too. Tell us how to detect it. Give some examples of peoples lives. People you know. Thank you.

Rascal, Asking for clarification on one's theology is a snare? I don't think so. You still haven't clarified your position about what fruit of the spirit is and how we can detect it. Please give examples. Understanding your theological position is important. Thank you.

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

But a case is attempting to be made that Dr. Wierwille was not a Christian. So then what is a born again Christian? What is your definition of one? Please give 3 examples of folks who you believe to be born again, and explain why you believe they are. Thank you.

Bowtwi, you are incorrect, I didn't call anyone a liar. Rascal accused me of misquoting her, which I didn't, and then I provided the exact quote I used. She said I misquoted her by deleting *after the new birth*. I didn't misquote her. I didn't delete *after the new birth*. I used a quote of hers from several months ago that didn't have *after the new birth*. So if anyone should apologize it should have been Rascal for jumping to conclusions. Rascal hasn't clarified her point about fruit of the spirit and how it can be detected. I believe this is important to understand what her theology is all about, so I'd like to get clarification on that.

At the same time? No. It says in Galatians that when a Christian walks in the spirit, they won't fulfull the lust of the flesh, and vice-versa. Do you really believe that if a Christian fulfills the lust of the flesh one day, or one week, or one month, that that means a Christian can't walk in the spirit another day, another week or another month? If so, please provide the scriptures. What seems reasonable to me isn't the issue? To me it is. My answer to the rest of your post is above.

Well, I'm entitled to make a judgement about the man based upon my experiences with him, just as someone else is entitled to make a judgment based upon theirs. Seems reasonable to me.

Thanks Jonny, but you know my avatar is Suzy Parker, you guessed her during the contest back in December. How long will she be up there? who knows... but I like her looks don't you?

Wordwolf, you say your uncertain whether VP Wierwille was a born again Christian. But what IS your definition of a born again Christian and how does one know for sure? Please define. Take 3 people who you believe are born again and please tell me why you believe that. Rascal, you mentioned fruit of the spirit in the past dozens of times. Please describe what fruit of the spirit is, and how we can detect it. You said in the past that it wasn't good works. Take 3 people you believe manifest fruit of the spirit and please tell me how we detect that and what are the attributes. Thank you.