Cynic

Ahhh. You were using "Apologists" in a pejorative sense.

I'm a mere occasional armchair e-pologist. If the LSG fellows can't step up and handle me, their eisegetical guns probably would quite markedly fail to clear their holsters against a first-class apologete such as James White.

Billy, Those who agree with LSG teachings that raise antithesis against such truths as the eternal existence and deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit and God's exhaustive knowledge of future events have unbelieving assumptions rather than Scripture-based doctrinal commitments. http://new.wavlist.com/movies/194/ojw-business.wav

Bumping this thread up to the top.

Although I know very little about Momentus, I am confident the ostensible psycho-pietistic scheme would generally elicit contempt from doctrinally informed and irritable Calvinists. In the context of Wayfers, ex-Wayfers and CES-types, however, the doctrinal statement at the Mashiyach Ministries website ( http://www.momentus-mashiyach.org/momentus...ch-doctrine.htm ) shines quite brightly. It is a theologically and Christologically orthodox profession-by-reference of the statements of the Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and the Definition of Chalcedon. I have no complaints about the profession, although I do have some questions: 1. Is MM board of directors member Bo Reahard now a Trinitarian who believes and affirms Chalcedon Christology? 2. Are non-ex-TWI MM figures genuinely orthodox Trinitarian and Chalcedon Christians who somehow deem Trinitarian theology and Chalcedon Christology nonessential issues regarding fellowship, collaboration and ministry office? 3. Has there been opposition by MM figures to the Unitarian/Socinian dogmas and polemics of Lynn/Schoenheit/Graesser? I hope MM's public averring of Nicene/Athanasian/Chalcedon Christianity has arisen out of something much more substantial than a need to say something about one's orthodoxy after fraternizing with orthodoxy's Unitarian/Socianian foes (e.g. CES).

I likely will be unable to post for a few days. If any LSG entity shows up, don't wear him out before I get back. If a ruckus breaks out, SAVE THE THREAD PAGES before some moderator can get to them.

Following is the version of satori001's deleted post (posted August 01, 2004 23:12) that is on the saved-thread page on my computer: ***** quote: Originally posted by dmiller:You're out of the loop, satori, and are engaging in those circuitous reasonings that you accuse "LSG" of being so proficient of. Where? You are _so locked into_ a mentality of "they can't be right", that you are now making absurd accusations/ observations/ whatever-you-want-to-call-them, against folks who happen to differ from you. I said, "...probably be along the lines of..." That has nothing to do with right or wrong. I'm saying Schoenheit would very likely dismiss the question with the same arrogance that VPW once spoke of (referring to himself) relating a personal story in PFAL. He would never get around to being either right or wrong. He wouldn't bother answering. I have yet to hear any one of "LSG", or anyone in CES for that matter, say "I've forgotten more about the bible, than you will ever know". You know what??? Those words, in that particular sequence is not now, nor has ever been, in our vocabulary. I would never be so presumptuous as to even think such a thing, and in the 15 plus years I have hung out with CES, I have never heard anyone else say them either. Did I mention this? I spoke to Schoenheit face to face, and while he didn't use those words, he dismissed my question out of hand. It reminded me of Wierwille's own arrogance, spouted by a sophmore. And by the way, it was a good question, but the subject wasn't part of Schoenheit's little program, so he brushed me off. On that particular day, he was a self-important little prima donna, dmiller. Maybe he's grown since, but I have a hunch he's only grown more ripe. I don't doubt your experience is different. You seem inclined to challenge nothing they put forward.

How many posts have been deleted from this thread? I occasionally save pages of some threads with which I am involved. I have a saved version of this page that ends with Satori's deleted post, which followed UncleHairy's previous post. Was there some ruckus involving other deleted posts sparked by Satori's post? It is difficult to see why that post was deleted. I hope details of this post-deleting affair reach the light of day.

What is "IIRC"?

Satori, Didn't you have a post responding to dmiller's post on page 1, mentioning you had once asked the S member of LSG something? I don't see that post now.

Have there been posts deleted from this thread? I think Satori had a post that is now gone. How many are missing?

I'm more optimistic about JAL responding.

Raf, My point #1 involved making the point that the above comment is inapplicable to me.

Raf, 1. Look at the end of my first post. That ain't your name there. 2. I think JAL did dismiss a portion of the 9th chapter of Romans on CES' old message board. 3. Due to the heat on this forum for big-weenie ex-TWI figures, some other forum might be better for the discussion.

I am going to try not to let myself get distracted by Garth's banal interjections and obstructionist tactics. ***** John Lynn, Should you, S or G wish to respond to my comments, merely post a short indication to that effect in this thread. I will then begin a new thread, reissuing my first post of this thread.

UncleHairy, What you think about the conduct of your particular little life is of less global significance than truth and error concerning the God of Scripture and his eternal Son Jesus Christ. If you disdain theological debates and apologetic challenges, stay away from them.

http://rushmidi.com/wavs/good-bad-opening.wav

John Lynn, I consider the Lynn/Schoenheit/Graesser effort to be the most visible and ambitious among the various heirs of Wierwille's errant teaching ministry. In addition to the rather public pursuit and promotion of its Socinian/Unitarian cause and various wares, a distinctive of the LSG effort has been expanding on Wierwille's errors to include open theism. Despite LSG posturing, however, what you three fellows have been doing does not constitute possessing, exalting, or promoting "truth" over and against mere "tradition." In fact, the LSG effort has involved an attitude and significant efforts of negation towards that which Scripture indicates and declares. It is my recollection that you, for instance, dismissed a portion of the ninth chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans as being something that was uninspired by God. Why would you do such a thing? Ostensibly, because Paul's declaration of the God who is sovereign over the election and reprobation of men is utterly incompatible with your views about how an ideal god should and must be, and how such a should-be-must-be god should conduct salvific affairs with men. Your criteria for theological "truth" obviously involve metaphysical assumptions that successfully demand a more ultimate commitment from you than does the testimony of Scripture. A willingness to negate scriptural testimony that one neither understands nor will acknowledge, however, is not an aberration among LSG personalities. In "The Day of the Lord is Near," John Schoenheit asserted that the Kingdom of God clearly has not come. In asserting his position, Schoenheit blatantly dismissed a portion of Jesus' eschatological statements as error. Schoenheit maintained that Jesus had mistaken chronological beliefs concerning his return and spoke in error when he said "Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28 - ASV). The significance of Schoenheit's problem is much more in his Christology than in his ignorance concerning realized/unrealized eschatology. He just does not believe that Jesus unfailingly spoke in his declaratory speech that which he had been informed of by the Father (John 12: 49-50). It seems trivial to point out that if Jesus did not engage in making presumptuous declarations about future events, Mr. Schoenheit should be dismissed as a pretentious and incompetent exegete who wields the low Christological assumptions of a false teacher. Well, so should you all be dismissed. The flagship distinctive of the LSG effort is, of course, its flaunted dismissals -- embellished with much more sophistry than the preceding examples -- of scriptural statements indicating Christ's pre-incarnate existence and deity as flowery figurative language ultimately empty of propositional truth. You are one of three fellows who should not, in a positive sense, be taken seriously by theologically orthodox, informed and thinking Christians. Mark C. Bowles ("Cynic")

Did TWI begin teaching that the unsaved will cease to exist rather than eternally suffer torment? If so, when did such a teaching emerge?

I don't have any personal issues about John, CES, or Momentus. So, as things start unfolding, I figure I'll be getting myself a few showers and a few shaves, and sitting in a chair munching on a four-pound bag of pistachios and watching the initial goings on. After some opposers unload various issues they are carrying, some supporters reminisce and coo, some moderates say something conciliatory or supposedly profound, and a couple or more foul-mouthed posters spew, I'll possibly be coming into the forum to do my Trinitarian and soteriologically Reformed amateur apologete's part in this. http://rushmidi.com/wavs/good-bad-maintheme.wav

http://rushmidi.com/wavs/good-bad-maintheme.wav

Tom, Thanks, but I'm looking for the thread at GSC that preceded it.

What was (and where is) the GS thread that sparked the subject JWO thread?

LLPOF: There have been witnesses who have posted about being sexually targeted by Wierwille for his use. Due to a particular excuse some of them reported Wierwille used in propositioning them, there is agreement among their testimonies. Which category -- that category, other categories, all categories -- of accusation concerning Wierwille are you denouncing as false? You have railed presumptuously. You have appealed to the judgment of God in a vain and pompous display. How DARE you raise the fact that there were false witnesses who rose against Christ in objection to the posthumous dragging of the false teacher, merchant of heresy and gray-haired penetrator of teenage girls named V. P. Wierwille into the light of public exposure!

Clarification: It was George, of course, whom I was referring to as "the anti-theist curmudgeon."