oldiesman

DWBH, I thought it was relevant by your own critique. Here you criticise Clapp for choosing to stand with twi with full knowledge of all the sins committed, when it appears you yourself chose to do the same. The thing that struck me most about your 37-page letter to the Trustees in February of 1987 was the vagueness of it all. NOTHING SPECIFIC was mentioned about adultery, fornication, plagiarism, rape, alcoholism, etc. And this was some 2-3 years after you knew about what was going on. If you were fighting in the midst against all the sins that hurt folks and ruined the ministry, what better way to reprove and correct with SPECIFICS rather than vague generalities about how the Trustees needed to change? On top of that, continual praises and quotations of Dr. Wierwille's teachings. It doesn't matter who wrote what parts of that letter. You signed it. And so my feeling is, if you're going to criticize Clapp for not standing up against the Kool Aid, perhaps you should consider your own actions at the time. I PM'd DWBH years ago under his former GS name, asking several questions and requesting a dialogue, but never got a response. I again PM most recently and didn't get a response. I would LOVE to talk with DWBH but it's kind of hard to talk with someone who won't talk back. Sue Pierce's name was not on the letter that I have. I received this letter from dmiller a couple of years ago, and as I recall, offered to send it to anyone by PDF if they wanted. The offer still stands, and I wish Paw would put this letter on the GS site for all to see it and make their own judgement about it.

I do believe that the ministry Dr. Wierwille was given and entrusted with was of God despite his sins. I see that from the fruit. I can't say whether he was a holy man of God in the biblical sense ... only God knows, but many folks were blessed and thankful to be a part of twi at one point. Sometimes God gives great forgiveness and mercy for greater causes. Another character from history, Saul of Tarsus, was on the road to Damascus to imprison and murder more and more Christians. Think about how family members who Saul abused were grieved and hurt due to Saul's works of the flesh. He already consented to Stephens death. Yet, despite Sauls sins, God saw fit to work with Saul to bring great spiritual revelations to the church. Jesus appeared to and God forgave Saul, a man of the flesh, before he repented. God intrusted a man of the flesh with spiritual things. This makes me think that God's grace and mercy is so much bigger than mens sins. BTW Stephen asked God not to charge his murderers (who didn't ask for repentence first) for their crime.

I certainly do believe this and lack evidence to the contrary. I've seen this over and over in twi and elsewhere in life. One strong example from history, King Solomon, was a holy man of God reputed to be the wisest man in the world. Yet he also was an idolator, baby killer and sex addict.

Rascal, you said that I saw works of the flesh. Now you seem to be changing that to "simply works" and not making any distinction between good works or bad works, i.e. they are all of them works of the flesh whether good or bad. Also I don't quite understand your distinction between fruit and works and ask for clarification. For instance, how do you know a person has fruit of the spirit, unless their actions accompany that with good works? Is it just a feeling, a look? If fruit is not behavior, what is it? I know a person has gentleness when they are gentle with me. I know a person has love when they walk in love towards me. I know a person has patience when they are patient with me, etc. To a person who is born again and believes in Jesus, I would equate those actions with "fruit of the spirit". Conversely, I know a person has hate when they have hatred toward me. They could be born again, but their actions in that instance indicate they are walking by the flesh rather than by the spirit. So perhaps if you would clarify your usage of "fruit" vs. "works" we could at least be on the same page with our definition of terms, regardless of whether we may agree or disagree. Thanks.

I shared with the people here that I saw works of the flesh? I think you may have me mixed up with another poster. yes no that's nice to know. I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

Well golly, it sure is. Hey Jeff, What do you think about one poster (Rascal) telling another poster (oldiesman) what he saw in twi? i.e. "Naw oldies...what YOU saw was works...works of the flesh." Do you have an opinion on that?

Not so... actually I didn't see these *works of the flesh* some posters refer to.

You're telling me what *I* saw? How can you do that? Are you God Almighty?

Well I have to vehemenently disagree with that one. I witnessed fruit of the spirit from most all the leaders I saw; Vic, Craig, Ermal, Uncle Harry, Don, Howard, Vince F., Ralph D., Bo Reahard, on and on down the line...

The sins of the messenger doesn't negate the truth in the message.

And I suppose there are a whole lot of others who fall in between who recognize that both good and evil occurred and desire to hold fast to the good and withdraw from the evil.

If DWBH is excused by reason of insanity then CFF should be as well. :)

I respect DWBH, but let's be clear about something: upon DWBH's leaving the ministry he did it with a very respectful outlook of Dr. Wierwille. In fact, upon his resignation from his ministry responsibilities in the 37-page letter to the Trustees, when these folks (John & Pat Lynn, Thomas M. Reahard, Ralph A. Dubofsky and Robert Belt) announced their resignations if the Trustees wouldn't change, Dr. Wierwille was highly praised on and on in both teaching and leadership manner. Practically the whole letter to the Trustees wasn't condemning the evils of Dr. Wierwille but was about praising him, how he handled things superbly, and how the Trustees were screwing things up because they weren't following Drs. example It is worth noting that NOTHING was mentioned THEN what DWBH mentions NOW about Dr.'s lifestyle of a narcissist, his alcoholism, sociopathic adultery and fornication etc. This was as late as February of 1987, when DWBH had PLENTY OF TIME before then to see and experience these things firsthand. Dr. Wierwille died in May of 1985 and DWBH is still praising him in and after February of 1987. Here are a couple (among many) of quotations from the February 1987 letter to the Trustees, praising Dr. Wierwille:

Soundzgood to me. Also, having to be in bed by midnight offsets possible sleep depravation. I believe they had that rule for corps as well ...

Jonny, I like the idea that Victor Paul Wierwille wants to move the Word. I think his grandfather would be very proud.

SIT is not the gift, but a manifestation of that gift of holy spirit. But remember that if you don't manifest the gift, doesn't mean you don't have the gift. Think back before you first spoke in tongues, did you confess Jesus as your Lord and believe God raised him from the dead? If you did that, the bible says "thou shalt be saved". The end. Period. It is a very simple promise of God based upon faith, not works.

You forgot to include corps sponsors, who in large part paid for "the product."

I thought that statement was awesome. They seem to be saying right up front that the participant will be very busy and therefore the experience is not for lazy people whose comfort zone will be challenged.

Awesome! Except for no pets. I like pets.

What is the truth?

Yes, which is all the more reason why I rejoice having been taught an anti-legalistic doctrine in twi. The religion of my youth, a.k.a. the Roman Catholic Church, teach that one must obey all of the Roman Catholic Sacraments to have a chance at salvation. They deny salvation by grace alone. In fact, according to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the declarations of which are still in force, the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the biblical doctrine of faith alone and grace alone. Consider the following declarations of Trent: Golly, I continue to thank God for groups like TWI who continue to propound Justification and Salvation by Grace alone! (A portion of the preceding statement was excerpted from Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.) :o :D

There are scripture verses for the above, does the bible promote oppression? I believe it all depends on the mindset of the person making the decision. Your idea of oppression may not be someone else's. A person in twi or any other religion probably does not see that as oppression. A monk probably doesn't see it as oppression. If you do, you are entitled to your opinion. OK then, according to Christian' writers idea about legalism, TWI does not engage in legalism since twi always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ alone, as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors. By the way thanks for mentioning this, wasn't it great to be part of a non-legalist religious group?

Well golly, if we go by the above definition, then TWI wasn't / isn't engaging in legalism since they always taught that a person receives salvation by faith in Christ as opposed to carefully following a list of expected behaviors. But if acceptance of those laws or principles is not being viewed as a method to "earn" or "preserve" salvation, this is not really related to the specific concept of legalism. It is entirely possible for a religious group to reject even any or all of the Ten Commandments, but to substitute for them a list of forbidden activities such as card-playing or dancing, and still be proponents of a legalistic system. Thanks Potato

1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice> 2 : a legal term or rule According to the above definition, legalism could be stopping at every red traffic light. Legalism could comprise a wide variety of things; from the strict conformity to traffic signals or the ten commandments, or anything in between. If that's the definition, yeah, twi engaged in legalism. And so does much of the entire universe.

The definition you used wasn't the whole dictionary definition as I quoted it; you apparently deleted some words that, taken as a whole, would change the entire meaning. Legalism is much more than adherence to a set of religious code. The word itself connotes a disparaging, pejorative, improper devotion. Thanks for your opinions.