oldiesman

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.

Very good definition! It's all between the ears. Then again, if we are slaves to the Lord Jesus Christ, would it be legalism?

To me, the definition "literal religious code" is way too simplistic. Under that definition, requiring the service to start on time would be legalism since it adheres to a literal religious code. To some, yes, that is legalism. But what I believe would be a more accurate understanding of legalism would be an "improper" or "burdensome" conformity to a religious code. And that, I think, is defined by the individual. For example, what is proper for you may not be proper for me, What is a burden for me, may not be a burden for you, and so forth. You and I might think a monk is living in legalism. The monk, however, may disagree. Thanks for your opinion.

But who defines what "excessive conformity" is? I think each person has their own idea of what it is; that is why its difficult to have an answer to this question. As I see it, the individual making the decision decides what for him/herself what is "excessive conformity". Thus, the individual decides for himself whether it is legalism or not. For instance, there are some folks who thought (or think now) that praying, reading the word, working with believers, starting fellowship on time, most of Christianity etc. is excessive conformity. Others think different. Some of those who are not engaged in a religion may feel that those who are, are engaged in legalism. Others may think different. Who's correct? Everyone is! Everyone has their own ideas, everyone's ideas are right in their own eyes, and those ideas may vary at various times. I once thought that the religion of my youth was full of legalism and bondage. Today, I have a different opinion, although for someone else that might not hold true. Thanks for your opinion.

IF one CHOOSES to conform, is it legalism? Here's the definition of legalism from Merriam Webster online: 1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice> According to the definition it is legalism if it restricts free choice. So again, what if the person CHOOSES to conform? Is it legalism?

I think it's too general a question. For instance, some people think that praying and reading the bible is a chore, and being asked or encouraged to do so is legalism. Seems to be up to the individual to define it.

My experience has been that when I allowed others to control my life and agenda, my life and agenda was controlled by others. However when I decided not to let others dictate my day to day (or week to week or month to month) actions, (i.e. most of my time in twi) none of my actions were dictated or controlled by others. The exceptions for me were WOW and CORPS. At those times, I voluntarily and willfully relinquished my will to others and went with those programs as best as I could.

I would say, generally, in the mid-1990's when you couldn't go to the grocery store alone because of the 2 by 2 rule. :D Contrast this to January of 1976 when in the six corps, I asked Craig if I could hitchhike ALONE from headquarters to Emporia because my hitchhike buddy and I didn't get along. (Hitchhiking in twos was required.) He agreed to it, and took practically 1/2 the time for me to get back (18 hours as opposed to over 30 hours getting there.) I also think legalism can be in the mind of the beholder if one defines it that way. I was once accused of being legalistic by a twig coordinator, when in the early 1990's shortly before my departure from twi, I insisted that my fellowship start on time instead of 1/2 hour later to get mellow and wait for everyone to arrive. It wasn't legalism I was insisting on it was honesty. You say you're starting at 10:00 then start at 10:00. But they called it legalism.

Perhaps because the word "murder" can mean intent to kill. Here there was no intent, therefore no need to use the word murder, let alone alleged.