Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Born Again????


Noni1974
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote: The addition of a third (or more) choice includes the possibility of being mistaken.

There is no 3rd choice. The 2 are either it happened or it didn't. You chimed in with "it didn't happen but you thought it did". That's from man's point of view. In reality, it still either did or didn't happen, regardless of who thought what.

Initially I posted in response to your statement that there is no feeling, it either happened or it didn't. There are plenty of people who "feel" things that don't exist, but that they hope for.

I'm not assuming that what people think happens when they get "born again" is real. If it's not real, if it didn't happen, that does not preclude people from believeing that something did happen, to have a "feeling" about something that just isn't there.

But when I'm dealing with spiritual things, like salvation and eternal life, I want my choices to be simple.
But perhaps they're not, despite what you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when I'm dealing with spiritual things, like salvation and eternal life, I want my choices to be simple.

But perhaps they're not, despite what you want.

A classic fact that is lost on a good many 'spiritual' people, who often make the mistake that if its simple, then it must be true.

Ie., it relieves them of the burden of thinking.

<_<

Edited by GarthP2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this not talking and speaking of now while we yet live?

What good is it if it's talking about after we die in th flesh and body?

34Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

35But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

36Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

37And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

57But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Initially I posted in response to your statement that there is no feeling, it either happened or it didn't. There are plenty of people who "feel" things that don't exist, but that they hope for.

I'm not assuming that what people think happens when they get "born again" is real. If it's not real, if it didn't happen, that does not preclude people from believeing that something did happen, to have a "feeling" about something that just isn't there.

vpw himself said as much.

He derided people feeling something as a barometer.

He pointed out some people feel better after "sitting on a psychiatrist's couch!"

So, vpw acknowledged that people can have "a feeling" or even "an experience",

but that either that feeling or experience may not be what they were expecting

or calling it.

It's only fair to use the same measure on his OWN material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belle:

"Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?"

Johniam:

"C'mon, you're a pfal grad. God never oversteps man's freedom of will. I'm glad the 12 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 'cared to SIT' ".

WordWolf responds:

"John, are you aware that you didn't answer her question? Any plans on actually answering it?"

I diagrammed it for ease of answering:

A) do you believe that one has to speak in tongues?

(i.e. -Is speaking in tongues required of God?)

B) If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again?

C) How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?

(Do you consider Christians as born again if they do not plan to sit at any point,

or are they not born again on that basis?)

============

Johniam:

"As already discussed, no, SIT is not a requirement for salvation, it's an option after salvation. A very good option, IMO."

=========

Belle:

"Are ya gonna answer my questions? ;)"

====

Johniam:

"Belle: Hello! I already did. If not, please specify."

========

WordWolf responds:

*checks diagram*

One might work out what you'd say to her questions, but you didn't address

them directly. Since they're diagrammed for ease of address,

you might try directly answering them.

I included them in this post, and broke them down by letter.

Otherwise, one might think you had some reason you were avoiding

just answering the questions, and chose to post AROUND them instead.

(This takes longer than just answering them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote: But perhaps they're not, despite what you want.

And perhaps they ARE despite what YOU want.

:asdf:

I expresssed no preference for simplicity or complexity. You presented simplicity as "the way it is" apparently because that's what you prefer. Who wouldn't want everything to be simple and easy to understand? That's no guarantee that that's the way it's going to be.

Before you respond, at least make an attempt to understand what I'm saying.

Edited by Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynic, sorry, but that's just too long and I'd rather "discuss" the topic than merely be given something to read on a topic. I am glad that you had the discussion and that you're open-minded enough to change it because of a discussion. :)

David, they are just questions - I've asked this question a few times on here and, yes, during the 90's, a person was considered to not really be born again if they did not speak in tongues. :) I believe that it may have been more "enforced" (for lack of a better word) in some areas than in others, but in my area, Bob Moynihan kicked a lady out of my fellowship because she wouldn't speak in tongues - she didn't want to and didn't believe in it. He, furthermore, called my parents and my ex husband's parents "unbelieving" because they don't speak in tongues.

My purpose for asking was not to derail the thread or to change the discussion to SIT specifically. I was just curious as to what Johniam thinks based on his previous post.

I think Johniam believes the same as me on this topic and he already answered it. SIT is not a requirement for salvation (getting born again). We believe that, and that is what twi taught, even in the '90s. If not, prove it, show us when and where twi taught that SIT is a requirement for salvation. And by proof, I ask for what twi actually publically taught .... not someone's perception, not someone's erroneous thinking.

Any proof from the last 50 years from a twi book, a twi magazine, the whole array of various classes, or a twi teaching service tape will suffice.

Alternatively, I can find clear published teaching from twi that the only requirement for salvation, is the believing of Romans 10:9.

Bob Moynihan kicked a lady out of fellowship because she wouldn't speak in tongues and called others "unbelieving" because they don't speak in tongues. But, did he say these folks were unsaved, were not born again? According to twi doctrine, the best he could say is, "I don't know whether these folks are born again because I didn't hear them speak in tongues, I don't know, because SIT is the manifestation of that spirit." Or else God would have to tell him by revelation that these folks are not born again, did Moynihan say that?

Who says Moynihan meant "not saved" or "not born again" when he said "unbelieving". Could he have meant "unbelieving believer" which is a term of twi? Could he have meant "carnal Christian"? That was another term used in twi.

Why not call Moynihan and ask him what he actually meant instead of possibly misrepresenting his position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Johniam believes the same as me on this topic and he already answered it. SIT is not a requirement for salvation (getting born again). We believe that, and that is what twi taught, even in the '90s. If not, prove it, show us when and where twi taught that SIT is a requirement for salvation. And by proof, I ask for what twi actually publically taught .... not someone's perception, not someone's erroneous thinking.

And by "what twi actually publicly taught",

he means "only that which was stated directly at an STS or as written in the waymag."

"Someone's perception" includes "teachings by regional coordinators and limb coordinators"

as well as "lcm at the microphone at lunchtime",

and "anything passed thru channels but not to the rank-and-file."

And if there's the tiniest wiggle-room, it didn't count.

Any proof from the last 50 years from a twi book, a twi magazine, the whole array of various classes, or a twi teaching service tape will suffice.
And any OTHER twi source will be inadmissable (deniable) as proof.
Alternatively, I can find clear published teaching from twi that the only requirement for salvation, is the believing of Romans 10:9.

Bob Moynihan kicked a lady out of fellowship because she wouldn't speak in tongues and called others "unbelieving" because they don't speak in tongues. But, did he say these folks were unsaved, were not born again? According to twi doctrine, the best he could say is, "I don't know whether these folks are born again because I didn't hear them speak in tongues, I don't know, because SIT is the manifestation of that spirit." Or else God would have to tell him by revelation that these folks are not born again, did Moynihan say that?

Who says Moynihan meant "not saved" or "not born again" when he said "unbelieving". Could he have meant "unbelieving believer" which is a term of twi? Could he have meant "carnal Christian"? That was another term used in twi.

Why not call Moynihan and ask him what he actually meant instead of possibly misrepresenting his position?

Dear Moneyhands:

You kicked that dear woman out on her ear because she wouldn't speak in tongues.

Please explain the reasoning behind this decision.

Love, Loyal Peon.

Dear Loyal Peon:

Her refusal to speak in tongues had nothing to do with it.

During the nights we didn't have fellowship,

she would drink the blood of widows and orphans.

Therefore, it was my responsibility to see her gone.

This is therefore a dead issue, and further discussion

will be punished. God bless you.

Love, Bob Moneyhinds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously there was much more discussion about the situations. I just didn't want to post a dissertation - especially since it was merely an example and not meant to become a topic in and of itself, or to generate questions of my integrity. :rolleyes:

Bob Moynihan kicked a woman out of TWI because she refused to speak in tongues. Because she refused to speak in tongues, it was a violation of TWI doctrine and she wasn't "officially" born again. Why would we want an "empty" - just body & soul hitchhiker taking up our breathing space? There were several meetings privately and with the whole fellowship regarding this decision.

Bob Moynihan called our parents "unbelievers" many times during our pre-marital counselling and the conversations were very clear as to what Bob meant.

Second guess me all you want, but I know what I'm talking about. I was there!! There is no question as to what Bob meant. Ask my ex - ask the folks who were in my fellowship at the time - he11, ask anyone from my limb what Bob's position on SIT was. It's not a secret. :asdf:

Bob is notorious for dragging dirty laundry of people before the whole branch in my area. That's how I learned about a man cheating on his wife.... details - who he was screwing, where they were screwing, how often they were screwing..... how effed up the guy is..... how he deserves to burn in hell but won't because he's 'born again'...... all of this said in front of his wife and kids..... Believe me, Bob Moynihan is not one to mince words.

If someone thinks I'm wrong, HE should contact Bob. I'm very certain of my statements and stand behind them.

Edited by Belle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we expect to find documentation?-------Probably for the same reason people buy lottery tickets. We should never lose sight of the fact ,though, that the odds are set by those running the scam----er ---I mean the game........PS. I still buy a ticket from time to time.nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we expect to find official documentation of how some doctrines were twisted and abused?

Good point Oakspear. And if Belle said that she thought Moynihan twisted and abused twi doctrine, golly, there would be no argument.

What happens if one experiences a twi leader who does or says something that misrepresents the official twi doctrine or position?

I think the best way to handle that scenario is to ask for clarification from hq, or from the leader, or both. I have done this in the past.

That accomplishes at least two things ... correction of the error of the leader if correction is warranted, and, correct understanding and communication of exactly what the twi doctrine/position might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Oakspear. And if Belle said that she thought Moynihan twisted and abused twi doctrine, golly, there would be no argument.

What happens if one experiences a twi leader who does or says something that misrepresents the official twi doctrine or position?

I think the best way to handle that scenario is to ask for clarification from hq, or from the leader, or both. I have done this in the past.

That accomplishes at least two things ... correction of the error of the leader if correction is warranted, and, correct understanding and communication of exactly what the twi doctrine/position might be.

And others have attempted the same, and NOT gotten "correction of the leader"

nor "clearer communication."

Two immediate examples:

One person asking for clarification when they were sent the Spring 1989

"I fired all your leadership because they were self-serving" letter was sent

a response.

The letter was boilerplate and differed only in the names of the people fired.

The response sent was boilerplate and said that leadership was not going to go

into specifics (which it couldn't since there WERE none beyond

"refusal to swear an oath equals self-centering")

and that the questioner's job was to now follow along without question.

Another was someone who spoke directly to lcm after receiving the 1989

"corps must swear loyalty" letters that preceeded this.

He asked lcm over the phone if this meant he wanted blind loyalty-

whether this meant he expected the corps to follow along without question.

lcm told him that he had already been doing this all along.

MOST people who tried to correct error-or even asked the wrong question

at the wrong time-

faced "sanctions".

Those included firing, shoving off-grounds, "mark-and-avoid", and so on.

Some people are quite familiar with hq punishing questions, or blowing them

off.

A third, of course, sent a list of problems to the CURRENT head, and how

practices and doctrine had gone off course, and were harming people.

The response ignored all the questions,

and invited him to visit hq and look around.

Just because Oldiesman got a good response-and, I'd expect, SOME people

got good responses in certain places and certain times-

in no way suggests that ALL or even MOST people didn't face punishment

for questioning-

and that's the CURRENT state of affairs at der way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that there were lower echelon leaders who intentionally misrepresented official doctrine or unintentionally got it wrong becuause they didn't understand it themselves, but I'm equally sure that there were differences in what was written down and what was informally taught that were condoned by those at the top.

In my experience and in my observations over the years, I never saw a high-level leader take sides with a "peon" against a lower level leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everyone...

I just discovered that I have had a brand new car that someone gave me back in 1975...it's been sitting around for all that time...imagine?

A brand new car...what a gift!

It has power everything in it also...fully equipped!

It was mine all the time and I didn't even know it!

Yep...that's the medic's car alright, it belongs to him...now the next thing I am going to do, is sit down inside it and manifest the power that is in that gift when I received it.

Catch my drift y'all?

Keep it simple!

Love y'all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well oldies, rather than recieving an explanation or clarification from hq, every one ELSE could expect to recieve centure, punishment and even banishment as has been shown to be the case when others question policy in twi.

Edited by pawtucket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that there were lower echelon leaders who intentionally misrepresented official doctrine or unintentionally got it wrong becuause they didn't understand it themselves, but I'm equally sure that there were differences in what was written down and what was informally taught that were condoned by those at the top.

When it comes to what twi taught all along on "how to get born again", I doubt that very much.

TWI's teaching on salvation is and always has been very clear and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...