I have explained it all before mike, to you n oldies both add nausium....and if I really thought for one instant that you or oldies were even remotely interested in my reasoning, or considering, or learning to think beyond your tiny little religious cocoon.....I`d do it all again.....
I`ll chose to whom I answer, and when, IF I feel so motivated :)
Its a notable point, but doesn't address my question to Rascal about detection of fruit.
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.
First off, I said COMPANY, as in guests that you wish to impress....big difference their bud.
Secondly, I`ll paste my answer from the other thread.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Seems a pretty straight forward way to identify to me.
As are the previous verses ....
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In Mathew 7....it describes who and what I believe vpw`s actions and fruit define him as.
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them.
As far as I am concerned...I personally think that after examining the evidence of the fruit in his life, that this will be the fate of wierwille
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If I make it myself, judging from these scriptures....I really don`t expect to see wierwille or his ilk there.
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.
snip
On the contrary, Oldies
According to Wierwille himself, the only way to have fruit of the spirit is to operate the manifestations "much".
His behavior certainly does not seem to depict someone who is operating the manifestations "much".
As far as the *genuine christians I have met?? They are easy to spot by the fruit in their lives. The peace, joy, patience kindness, goodness, faithfullness....I have seen it, people really can act this way...It isn`t just some lable they wear...and something they do occasionally if the mood strikes them.
I have met genuine christians in twi, I have met them in our little country methodist church, also in the big metro baptist church in town. I met folks in the Catholic church and the mormon church that would fit these descriptions ...so I don`t think what religious flavor you chose seems to be much of a factor.
They live *love God and Love your neighbor* and the fruit in their life is evidence that it is genuine and real.
Why is it that they CAN live the two great commandments...and they DO manifest the fruit of the spirit that identifies them as brothers and sisters in Christ...But the greatest biblical research and teaching in the world seems to allow, enable, breed some of the cruelest most self centered, viscious, self centered perverts it has been my misfortune to interact with?? Personally?? I think that this lends strong evidence to their sure fire formulas and understanding being flawed.
Seems like biblical reasearch ala wierwille is simply knowledge that breeds arrogance, and an excuse why one is not only unable to follow the most basic of christian tenants, but the justification of why it is not necessary.
Personally?? I`d say that would be the difference between the genuine and the counterfit.
Most TV and Radio Stations know that if x number of people go to the bother to say something in writing, then there must be 1000x number of OTHER people thinking the same way who don’t write.
--------------------------
Your source, please?
---------------------------
I think the pressure is on rascal to disclose her rating system's methods, the names of all the other people she has files on, what she has found out on them, and when she found it out.
*******
-----------------------------------------
I don't recall Rascal stating she had some kind of "filing" system.
Even if she did, why would she be under any obligation to reveal their contents to you?
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Seems a pretty straight forward way to identify to me.
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.
They live *love God and Love your neighbor* and the fruit in their life is evidence that it is genuine and real.
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.
According to Wierwille himself, the only way to have fruit of the spirit is to operate the manifestations "much".
His behavior certainly does not seem to depict someone who is operating the manifestations "much".
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.
Well that is the way I see it and why I believe it....If you can`t see it, I guess that you can`t, that in no way invalidates the point.
On your side of the argument you have a scum bag lying adulterous alcoholic drugging and raping his flock claiming to be a man of God....shrug ... I that is complete contradiction to what scriptures tell us is necessary to qualify as a man of the spirit.
Well - I'd say that the fallacy was that operating the manifestation of SIT (since according to vp that one mani was the only one you could choose to do when and where you wanted) was prerequisite to fruit of the spirit. Being "led by the Spirit" seems to have more to do with choosing to live a certain way that includes excluding certain things (those 17 works of the flesh.)
There's that passage in Rom 6 that speaks about the choice between continuing in sin or not.
(KJV)
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?...
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Interestingly enough - verses 21 and 22 mention (ta da!) fruit! (At least in the KJV)
KJV:
20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The New International Version:
20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.
21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!
22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now Gal 5:16-18 makes a lot more sense:
16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Then we're back to the difference between choosing the 17 (!) works of the flesh that are cited as being absolutely NOT able to support being led by the spirit - which would produce fruit of the spirit.
SO - what is the proof of fruit of the spirit? Again - we know what it's not. I'd say that's a good place to start.
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.
so we have this "fruit of the spirit" that is undefined, fleeting and nebulous, and like the Cheshire cat, once one turns the back and looks again, it is gone..
so, on a practical level, Christianity is no different than any other religion. And cannot be differentiated from other religions, except for some perhaps a few unique beliefs? Is that what you are saying?
That the "exclusive" salvation that is enjoyed by it's adherants give them the freedom to "do as thy will", and in the end let karma, the universe, or whatever is there figure it out?
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.
It's not a case of "just looking at his sins." It is a case of looking at the 17 (SEVENTEEN) different works that mark a life of making decisions that are not inclusive of being led by the spirit.
I think you're minimizing the scriptures that you claim to hold.
Wow I lay low for a few weeks and lo and behold this thread goes nutso...great for squirrels but..
I don't want to throw too many dogs out into the fight but I had to point this out as it is becoming a distraction from the topic. Both OM and Mike have repeatedly asked Rascal to "define" her doctrine. They also asked some others to define their issues. To WW this was said by OM concerning his doctrinal "take" on things.
Even if we don't agree, it's good to hear folks clarify their position about it.
And yet when Rascal did clarify her position she got this reply from OM:
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.
Isn't it interesting that when Rascal quotes a section of scripture that seems fairly straight forward and has been hashed and rehashed in this thread and many others it is considered "more hot air" by Om? Yet others have pointed out the same obvious points concerning these verses time and again just in the last few pages, (WW and Dooj come to mind) and the same comment is not made to them.
Am I the only one that is recognizing a personal attack here? Perhaps Rascal should just read for a while and see if OM and Mike have anything that they would like to address from other posters? Just a thought from the couch...
Eyesopen--I've thought the same thing about certain posters and Rascal, many times. SHe posts, they froth, others post the same thing, no froth. For some here she's a target..
Actually, most Christians I know manage just fine refraining from:
"adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like."
Really? Just what fantasy world are you living in? In Matthew 5:28 Jesus said, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath commited adultry with her already in his heart." I'm sure this must also be one of your favorite pet verses that you use to condemn VPW and others you don't like, but amazing how all the verses you come up with and use to condemn VPW (and those you don't like) just don't apply to any of those 'most Christians' (I imagine this would also include yourself) that you are referring to.
...
IF vpw repented, THEN he acknowledged what he did and sought to make amends. We've asked throughout the years. Not ONE person has come forth claiming they were wronged by vpw in any of the ways on that list, and he even APOLOGIZED, let alone attempted to make amends. There was no "we will need to clean the morals of the ministry, starting right here" attempt from vpw. All he would have needed to do is say it any time he was at the microphone. People would have IMMEDIATELY taken it as a dire warning needing IMMEDIATE action. There was no finding any of his personal victims and asking forgiveness, or offering of amends. There was no sign of ANYTHING that accompanies actually REPENTING of something.
What makes you suspect he MIGHT have repented them? The closest he got was, in his final few days, claiming he was trying to figure out where he missed it-where his believing was off. That's nowhere near even admitting he did ANY of the things any NEUTRAL observer would object to.
Who are we to judge him? We are Christians who believe the Bible- and therefore, we exercise our senses
that's probably an accurate asssesment - since you are merely using your flesh to determine spiritual things, but do not use spiritual things to discern spiritual things
to discern good and evil. [The only possible outcome and conclusion: One's assessment of what constitutes good and evil is therefore flawed when they choose to exercise their senses (their flesh) to evaluate spiritual matters.]
If a man performs evil-and makes a POLICY of it- the man is evil, and we can discern that.
And if a man performs good and makes a POLICY of it (I assume what you really meant to say was "habit" and not "policy") - then that makes the man good? According to the logic you are presenting --- it would. Funny though. God's Word states, "There is no one who is good - except God Himself". (Matthew 19:17) Jesus Christ himself didn't even claim to be "good" because he also said in that verse -- "Why callest thou me good"?
NOW IF ANYBODY HAD THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO BE TOTALLY GOOD, CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF ... but he didn't even claim that for himself!
Yet the scriptures also state that Jesus Christ was tempted in all things. I guess Jesus must have committed adultry then himself, because back in Matthew 5:28 he said if a man looketh on a woman to lust after her he had already committed adultry in his heart - and Jesus Christ himself was tempted in all things. Therefore I don't buy your assesment of what constitutes good and evil, namely because it is based on one's own exercising of 'the senses'. Based on ones "exercising of their senses" to determine good and evil, I'd say one will always come up on the short end - or miss the mark greatly as we can likewise accuse Jesus himself of falling short of being a "good man" --- based soley on what we believe constititutes good and evil from our own "exercising of the senses".
So the only conclusion, by the senses, would be the same conclusion the disciples of Jesus also came to in v.25 ... "When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? (v.26)
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
----
==========
A) The only reason anyone says Romans is "foundational" compared to Galatians is that vpw said it. You have failed to establish his credibility on this. Therefore, your claim Romans is more "foundational" is unsupported.
I didn't claim Romans was 'more' foundational than Galatians. It is only foundational in the sense it establishes (as stated in Romans 5:13) For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Therefore in order for one to recognize sin, one must likewise recognize the law. HOWEVER the latter part of v.20 of Romans 5 is interesting to note: "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." So which of these two is therefore the greater, the law (by which one can only recognize sin) or grace?
B) I believe that we SHOULD spend some time in Romans.
So do I, but back up to chapter 5 of Romans first before you head on into chapter 6, because Grace is what abounds - not the law.
Romans 6:
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Logically, this verse is telling us this abundance of grace does not come by continuing in sin, but through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which has been established in chapter 5 of Romans.
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
We are dead to sin because of the work of Jesus Christ, for Christ is the end of the law to all those who believe.
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Funny, how you skipped right over verses 22 and 23 of Romans 6 and purposely left them out and proceeded right into chapter 8 all the while leaving Romans 7 completely out of the picture. Maybe because v22 of Romans 6 says this:
v22 "But now being made free from sin [maybe the reason you choose to leave this out is because you don't like the fact that VPW was also made free from sin because of the accomplished works of Jesus Christ?] and become servants to God [it doesn't say servants to Men] ye have your fruit [there's the mention of fruit again] unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
v23 For the wages of sin is death [and man is still paying that wage today - not just VPW] but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"
You'll have to read Roman 7 here ... because it talks about those who only know the law, and how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth. v1 of Romans 7. Then verse 5 talks about how when we were in the flesh, which was by the law, it only did work in our members to bring forth fruit [there's the mention of fruit again] unto death. Then v6 says, BUT NOW [not sometime in the future - but NOW] we are delivered from what --- grace? NO! We are delivered from the LAW, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit, --- and not in the oldness of the letter. (That would be the law of course.)
Of course, conveniently leaving these verses out of Romans 6 and also leaving out chapter 7 of our study of Romans by WW altogether only ends up stripping this study of Romans of what? GRACE! I guess Professor WW figures that you will only take his word, and not bother reading the Word of God yourself.
Romans 8:
12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Of course, were not just skipping over verses from chapter 6 of Romans, and chapter 7, but also verses in Chapter 8. Verses that tell me that there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus (v1) and that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death (v2).
According to Romans, we have the grace of God.
AND CONDUCT COUNTS. WE ARE TO AVOID SIN.
It seems more to me like what has been purposely avoided here is GRACE by WW and not sin. I've already shown the verses in Romans he purposely left out to avoid having to deal with God's Grace. Maybe because God's Grace is far bigger than his own condescending, condemning mindset?
Thanks Eyes and Bramble. Truly, I have wondered...honest to goodness it isn`t my mission to be a class A pia....I have to figure that I just don`t articulate myself as well as the guys who don`t draw the fire...
Well bless your heart, wth. You have to consider that you are using the doctrine manufactured by a man of the flesh to excuse the fruit that condemned him and his ministry.
Wierwille was able to come up with doctrine and the scriptures to back it up that enslaved. His doctrine excused adultery, fornication, drunkeness, etc.
The point I am trying to make is that you can make ANYTHING ok by wierwille logic. Scripturally, that is untrue.
Really? Just what fantasy world are you living in? In Matthew 5:28 Jesus said, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath commited adultry with her already in his heart." I'm sure this must also be one of your favorite pet verses that you use to condemn VPW and others you don't like, but amazing how all the verses you come up with and use to condemn VPW (and those you don't like) just don't apply to any of those 'most Christians' (I imagine this would also include yourself) that you are referring to.
WTH - I need you to please clarify some things here.
"Looking on a woman to lust after her"... Are you defining this as, "Man she's pretty!" or "Wow! She's hot!" or "Hubba, hubba!" or "I want to do the horizontal tango with that cutey!" of "I will have that woman - NOW." ...???
I mean - since we're talking about "committing adultery in one's heart," we might as well define what leads up to this. Was JC only talking to married men? Were they only looking at married women? Adultery implies that at least one person is married.. doesn't it?
I for one think it's fitting that you chose the phrase "fantasy world," because I believe that this is what is being referred to.
And if adultery in one's heart is bad - what about adultery in the flesh?? I mean, there are none of the questions concerning what's in anyone's heart when it's two bodies. Presumably to get to the second, the first must have been a driving force. I'd say you're making an argument against vp and not for him... but that's just me.
And again, the crux of the matter is habit and lifestyle. I don't see the same warning concerning the other 16 works spoken about in Gal 5:19-21.
And... I've never seen a convincing argument made concerning any wrong when the main point is, "Well everyone does it."
Oh, and if I'm not mistaken....a big concern of Rom 7 and 8 is choosing to live under grace and not sin....Hmmmmm....
As long as we are clarifying things I wonder what professional data we have to support the alcoholic comment in post #684 ? Was some evaluation performed that I missed ?
Has anyone besides me ever considered that Mat. 5:28 may be symbolic in nature?
Maybe it isn't talking about something that, for the most part, is a natural function of the male mind.
If men waited until they were married before they had sexual thoughts involving women---------------Well, there would be a whole lot more single men because sexual attraction is a natural part of the process, both for men and women.
Like Frank said, the first century was a long time ago.
We really don't understand what it was like to live in that culture.
So, by trying to understand that verse in the context of our current culture(and the meanings of the words in that verse) we fail to explore the possibility that it is not talking about what we seem to think is so obvious.
Rascal I and many others do not seem to have any trouble understanding you. You are quite clear. So the reason that others do not understand you can be for two reasons that I see...either they simply cannot understand for some unrelated reason or they choose to simply not understand because of some unrelated and personal reason. Either way there is little you or anyone else can do about it.
And to WTH...all I can say to your post is What the Hey! Wow! After all this time and you still cling to a man and his erroneous doctrines. I'm just shaking my head here in utter disbelief or rather in sheer wonder.
Eyesopen--I've thought the same thing about certain posters and Rascal, many times. SHe posts, they froth, others post the same thing, no froth. For some here she's a target..
Rascalian Theology is the target, not Rascal. It isn't personal.
Rascal I and many others do not seem to have any trouble understanding you. You are quite clear. So the reason that others do not understand you can be for two reasons that I see...either they simply cannot understand for some unrelated reason or they choose to simply not understand because of some unrelated and personal reason. Either way there is little you or anyone else can do about it.
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.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
128
169
106
102
Popular Days
Feb 19
54
Feb 26
50
Feb 22
47
Feb 25
40
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 128 posts
Mike 169 posts
Ham 106 posts
waysider 102 posts
Popular Days
Feb 19 2008
54 posts
Feb 26 2008
50 posts
Feb 22 2008
47 posts
Feb 25 2008
40 posts
Posted Images
rascal
I have explained it all before mike, to you n oldies both add nausium....and if I really thought for one instant that you or oldies were even remotely interested in my reasoning, or considering, or learning to think beyond your tiny little religious cocoon.....I`d do it all again.....
I`ll chose to whom I answer, and when, IF I feel so motivated :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Which would be bout now I guess :)
First off, I said COMPANY, as in guests that you wish to impress....big difference their bud.
Secondly, I`ll paste my answer from the other thread.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Seems a pretty straight forward way to identify to me.
As are the previous verses ....
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In Mathew 7....it describes who and what I believe vpw`s actions and fruit define him as.
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them.
As far as I am concerned...I personally think that after examining the evidence of the fruit in his life, that this will be the fate of wierwille
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If I make it myself, judging from these scriptures....I really don`t expect to see wierwille or his ilk there.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
On the contrary, Oldies
According to Wierwille himself, the only way to have fruit of the spirit is to operate the manifestations "much".
His behavior certainly does not seem to depict someone who is operating the manifestations "much".
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
As far as the *genuine christians I have met?? They are easy to spot by the fruit in their lives. The peace, joy, patience kindness, goodness, faithfullness....I have seen it, people really can act this way...It isn`t just some lable they wear...and something they do occasionally if the mood strikes them.
I have met genuine christians in twi, I have met them in our little country methodist church, also in the big metro baptist church in town. I met folks in the Catholic church and the mormon church that would fit these descriptions ...so I don`t think what religious flavor you chose seems to be much of a factor.
They live *love God and Love your neighbor* and the fruit in their life is evidence that it is genuine and real.
Why is it that they CAN live the two great commandments...and they DO manifest the fruit of the spirit that identifies them as brothers and sisters in Christ...But the greatest biblical research and teaching in the world seems to allow, enable, breed some of the cruelest most self centered, viscious, self centered perverts it has been my misfortune to interact with?? Personally?? I think that this lends strong evidence to their sure fire formulas and understanding being flawed.
Seems like biblical reasearch ala wierwille is simply knowledge that breeds arrogance, and an excuse why one is not only unable to follow the most basic of christian tenants, but the justification of why it is not necessary.
Personally?? I`d say that would be the difference between the genuine and the counterfit.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
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.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
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.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well that is the way I see it and why I believe it....If you can`t see it, I guess that you can`t, that in no way invalidates the point.
On your side of the argument you have a scum bag lying adulterous alcoholic drugging and raping his flock claiming to be a man of God....shrug ... I that is complete contradiction to what scriptures tell us is necessary to qualify as a man of the spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Well - I'd say that the fallacy was that operating the manifestation of SIT (since according to vp that one mani was the only one you could choose to do when and where you wanted) was prerequisite to fruit of the spirit. Being "led by the Spirit" seems to have more to do with choosing to live a certain way that includes excluding certain things (those 17 works of the flesh.)
There's that passage in Rom 6 that speaks about the choice between continuing in sin or not.
(KJV)
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?...
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Interestingly enough - verses 21 and 22 mention (ta da!) fruit! (At least in the KJV)
KJV:
20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The New International Version:
20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.
21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!
22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now Gal 5:16-18 makes a lot more sense:
16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Then we're back to the difference between choosing the 17 (!) works of the flesh that are cited as being absolutely NOT able to support being led by the spirit - which would produce fruit of the spirit.
SO - what is the proof of fruit of the spirit? Again - we know what it's not. I'd say that's a good place to start.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
so we have this "fruit of the spirit" that is undefined, fleeting and nebulous, and like the Cheshire cat, once one turns the back and looks again, it is gone..
so, on a practical level, Christianity is no different than any other religion. And cannot be differentiated from other religions, except for some perhaps a few unique beliefs? Is that what you are saying?
That the "exclusive" salvation that is enjoyed by it's adherants give them the freedom to "do as thy will", and in the end let karma, the universe, or whatever is there figure it out?
I smell the scent of Aleister Crowley here..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
There was a song in "A Chorus Line" called "T**s and Azs" in which one of the main opening lines is"
"That ain't it, Kid... That ain't it, Kid"
Some things are so hard to define that they can only be stated in terms of what they are not...
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
It's not a case of "just looking at his sins." It is a case of looking at the 17 (SEVENTEEN) different works that mark a life of making decisions that are not inclusive of being led by the spirit.
I think you're minimizing the scriptures that you claim to hold.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Wow I lay low for a few weeks and lo and behold this thread goes nutso...great for squirrels but..
I don't want to throw too many dogs out into the fight but I had to point this out as it is becoming a distraction from the topic. Both OM and Mike have repeatedly asked Rascal to "define" her doctrine. They also asked some others to define their issues. To WW this was said by OM concerning his doctrinal "take" on things.
And yet when Rascal did clarify her position she got this reply from OM:Isn't it interesting that when Rascal quotes a section of scripture that seems fairly straight forward and has been hashed and rehashed in this thread and many others it is considered "more hot air" by Om? Yet others have pointed out the same obvious points concerning these verses time and again just in the last few pages, (WW and Dooj come to mind) and the same comment is not made to them.
Am I the only one that is recognizing a personal attack here? Perhaps Rascal should just read for a while and see if OM and Mike have anything that they would like to address from other posters? Just a thought from the couch...
Carry on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Eyesopen--I've thought the same thing about certain posters and Rascal, many times. SHe posts, they froth, others post the same thing, no froth. For some here she's a target..
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Thanks Eyes and Bramble. Truly, I have wondered...honest to goodness it isn`t my mission to be a class A pia....I have to figure that I just don`t articulate myself as well as the guys who don`t draw the fire...
Well bless your heart, wth. You have to consider that you are using the doctrine manufactured by a man of the flesh to excuse the fruit that condemned him and his ministry.
Wierwille was able to come up with doctrine and the scriptures to back it up that enslaved. His doctrine excused adultery, fornication, drunkeness, etc.
The point I am trying to make is that you can make ANYTHING ok by wierwille logic. Scripturally, that is untrue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
WTH - I need you to please clarify some things here.
"Looking on a woman to lust after her"... Are you defining this as, "Man she's pretty!" or "Wow! She's hot!" or "Hubba, hubba!" or "I want to do the horizontal tango with that cutey!" of "I will have that woman - NOW." ...???
I mean - since we're talking about "committing adultery in one's heart," we might as well define what leads up to this. Was JC only talking to married men? Were they only looking at married women? Adultery implies that at least one person is married.. doesn't it?
I for one think it's fitting that you chose the phrase "fantasy world," because I believe that this is what is being referred to.
And if adultery in one's heart is bad - what about adultery in the flesh?? I mean, there are none of the questions concerning what's in anyone's heart when it's two bodies. Presumably to get to the second, the first must have been a driving force. I'd say you're making an argument against vp and not for him... but that's just me.
And again, the crux of the matter is habit and lifestyle. I don't see the same warning concerning the other 16 works spoken about in Gal 5:19-21.
And... I've never seen a convincing argument made concerning any wrong when the main point is, "Well everyone does it."
Oh, and if I'm not mistaken....a big concern of Rom 7 and 8 is choosing to live under grace and not sin....Hmmmmm....
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
maybe the bible has to be applied in ones culture?After all the 1rst century is preety long gone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
As long as we are clarifying things I wonder what professional data we have to support the alcoholic comment in post #684 ? Was some evaluation performed that I missed ?
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Has anyone besides me ever considered that Mat. 5:28 may be symbolic in nature?
Maybe it isn't talking about something that, for the most part, is a natural function of the male mind.
If men waited until they were married before they had sexual thoughts involving women---------------Well, there would be a whole lot more single men because sexual attraction is a natural part of the process, both for men and women.
Like Frank said, the first century was a long time ago.
We really don't understand what it was like to live in that culture.
So, by trying to understand that verse in the context of our current culture(and the meanings of the words in that verse) we fail to explore the possibility that it is not talking about what we seem to think is so obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Good point Waysider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Rascal I and many others do not seem to have any trouble understanding you. You are quite clear. So the reason that others do not understand you can be for two reasons that I see...either they simply cannot understand for some unrelated reason or they choose to simply not understand because of some unrelated and personal reason. Either way there is little you or anyone else can do about it.
And to WTH...all I can say to your post is What the Hey! Wow! After all this time and you still cling to a man and his erroneous doctrines. I'm just shaking my head here in utter disbelief or rather in sheer wonder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rascalian Theology is the target, not Rascal. It isn't personal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
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.
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.