Well Mark..all I can say is that the 'strength' of most of the people attending the Catholic church is reflected by the teachings of the church, very weak and ludicrously wrong.
Justify weakness..make excuses for 'feeling uncomfortable' about direct fellowship with God and His holy spirit.
Templelady..I know people who have been 'baptised' in the Mormon church who came out of the water s.i.t.
They were quickly told to cease doing this..again, going against what the Word says in 1Corinthians 14.."forbid not to s.i.t." This is done only because lds believe 'tongues have ceased'
Belle..we were taught that "just because you have/haven't experienced something doesn't mean it isn't true."
Evan..whether 'manifest' is a noun or not does not discount it 'becoming' a verb !!
Thankyou VPW for the good you did do..you weren't perfect, but we learnt from the good and that 'stays us'
for the rest of our lives.
Allen, don't be so foolish -
If the Roman Catholic Church is so "weak" and "ludicrously wrong" - why has she lasted all these centuries?
I'm hard pressed to imagine even remnants of the Way International lasting to the close of this century. Even the Mormons have demonstrated a certain longetivity and resiliance than I doubt will ever be repeated as a result of Wierwille's activity. For that matter, twi has hardly lasted into this present century. It's reached its peak, burned out early, and shows no signs of ever rising to it's former glory.
It seems to me that you may have more to learn and gain from the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church than they from you.
If the Roman Catholic Church is so "weak" and "ludicrously wrong" - why has she lasted all these centuries?
I'm hard pressed to imagine even remnants of the Way International lasting to the close of this century. Even the Mormons have demonstrated a certain longetivity and resiliance than I doubt will ever be repeated as a result of Wierwille's activity. For that matter, twi has hardly lasted into this present century. It's reached its peak, burned out early, and shows no signs of ever rising to it's former glory.
It seems to me that you may have more to learn and gain from the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church than they from you.
Danny
Danny,
Very well said, particularly the use of the feminine third person when speaking of the Church. That, in of itself, shows a dramatic amount of understanding and respect that I sincerely appreciate.
Sorry everyone. I did not mean to cause any heebie jeebies by using that phrase that starts with r.
Belle, I never purposely faked sit or interpretation/prophecy. The key word may be purposely.
Thanks Mark, Evan and others for some very good insights. I can definitely agree on the pressure! I made sure I spoke in tongues before that session of class so I was ready beforehand.
Having been visited by the Spirit of God; having conversed with angels, and having been spoken unto by the voice of the Lord; and having the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and also many gifts, the gift of speaking with tongues, and the gift of preaching, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the gift of translation;
Omni 1:25 Book of Mormon
And it came to pass that I began to be old; and, having no seed, and knowing king Benjamin to be a just man before the Lord, wherefore, I shall deliver up these plates unto him, exhorting all men to come unto God, the Holy One of Israel, and believe in prophesying, and in revelations, and in the ministering of angels, and in the gift of speaking with tongues, and in the gift of interpreting languages, and in all things which are good; for there is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord; and that which is evil cometh from the devil.
“Communicating by the Power of the Spirit,” Liahona, Oct. 1997
“We believe in the gift of tongues” (Article of Faith #7).
According to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the purpose of the gift of tongues is to preach the gospel “among those whose language is not understood” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [1976], 148–49).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve explained: “In their more dramatic manifestations [the gift of tongues and their interpretation] consist in speaking or interpreting, by the power of the Spirit, a tongue which is completely unknown to the speaker or interpreter. … Frequently these gifts are manifest where the ordinary languages of the day are concerned in that the Lord’s missionaries learn to speak and interpret foreign languages with ease, thus furthering the spread of the message of the restoration” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition [1966], 800).
“It is Given to Some to Speak with Tongues” (D&C 46:24)
Sister Rhonda Patten Grow experienced the gift of tongues in a way familiar to many missionaries. When her husband was called from the United States to be a mission president in Uruguay, she was afraid she couldn’t learn to speak Spanish. But gradually, with the help of members, she finally learned to bear her testimony in Spanish. She was amazed, however, at how much more she could say when under the influence of the Spirit. “In fact, the Spirit helped me so much when I spoke in meetings that the members usually assumed my Spanish was much better than it actually was.”
At one meeting, Sister Grow noticed a young woman signing for a sister who was deaf. When Sister Grow stood to speak, “it seemed as if the Spirit gave me utterance beyond my own abilities. I was filled with feelings of love for the people, and I especially noticed the smiling face of the young deaf woman looking up at me.”
Sister Grow learned later that when she began to speak, the deaf woman communicated that she no longer needed signing interpretation. She could understand Sister Grow’s message without it.
“Speak with the Tongue of Angels”
Another gift, related to the gift of tongues, is the ability to speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. “Angels,” Nephi wrote, “speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.” In this sense, those who speak by the power of the Spirit “speak with the tongue of angels” (2 Ne. 32:2–3).
Elder Carlos E. Asay, an emeritus member of the Seventy, shares an experience he had as a missionary with this gift. He and his companion visited a branch torn by divisions. His companion was asked to speak at the meeting held to deal with the conflicts. After fasting and prayer, his companion “stood with confidence and worked the miracle. He spoke with the tongue of an angel. That young, inexperienced elder’s words healed wounds festering in the hearts of men much older than he, prompted confessions, and literally saved a branch of the Church” (Ensign, April 1988, 17).
We may never experience the more dramatic expressions of the gift of tongues. But certainly, as we try to serve others, we can ask the Lord to help us speak with the tongue of angels.
But what I posted above has been my position even in TWI Speaking in an unknown tongue meant that someone out there understood it without an interpreter. They being the interpreter themselves
Just as in the Book of Acts where the apostles were heard to speak different languages by the hearer of same evewn thought they in fact were not
Some (good) points..however..Just why did the 1st century church with their beliefs and doctrine last maybe 100-200 years, YET the 'Catholic Church' 'grew' in power ?? I think much of the answer is dictated by history.
Evil persecutions, land grabbing, throne toppling, HUGE WEALTH accumulation, Jesuits, the martyrdoms of 'men of God' like Luther etc..
Mormons may have s.i.t. mentioned in their almanac, yet they believe it is only in a language that (someone)
else present will understand.
I think Joe Smith when he sat down to write that cr*p didn't realise the 'other benefits' associated with s.i.t
In fact when one reads the 'book of Moron' one can see that he wrote it only as far as he was able to 'interpret' his limited knowledge of the KJV at the time.
The rest he made up with his 'own interpretation' of verses like 'baptism for the dead', etc..
Some (good) points..however..Just why did the 1st century church with their beliefs and doctrine last maybe 100-200 years, YET the 'Catholic Church' 'grew' in power ?? I think much of the answer is dictated by history.
Evil persecutions, land grabbing, throne toppling, HUGE WEALTH accumulation, Jesuits, the martyrdoms of 'men of God' like Luther etc..
Mormons may have s.i.t. mentioned in their almanac, yet they believe it is only in a language that (someone)
else present will understand.
I think Joe Smith when he sat down to write that cr*p didn't realise the 'other benefits' associated with s.i.t
In fact when one reads the 'book of Moron' one can see that he wrote it only as far as he was able to 'interpret' his limited knowledge of the KJV at the time.
The rest he made up with his 'own interpretation' of verses like 'baptism for the dead', etc..
... the martyrdoms of 'men of God' like Luther etc..
*Ahem* I do believe that Luther was not martyred. ... Suggestion: next time review your history better. An elementary school kid can do better than you. ... At 2nd grade. :(
(Who is this guy? Smikeol's evil twin?? :blink: :wacko: )
My opinion is that we really don't know for sure whether the teachings of Jesus and the "First Century Church" were recorded faithfully and "accurately". Of course it's possible that they were, but the factional battles resulted in the writings and teachings of the dominant and most politically powerful faction becoming enshrined as the "canon of scripture". In my view, Joseph Smith's claim to unique revelation isn't any more silly than some of what is in what we know as "The Bible". What we call the New Testament was not handed down on stone tablets from Sinai, but collected and argued over for centuries before being declared "scripture".
Your opinion of what Christianity is, what truth is, is as as valid as anyone else's, and I hope it works for you, but there being so many views of what the truth is, even within the relatively small group of ex-wayfers still using Wierwille's "keys", that using your view as the truth as a platform to beat down and deride others' beliefs stands on very shaky ground.
Um, the first Century church lasted 100 years because well, thats how long one century is - 100 years.
Here's the problem though Alan. There really never was a unified "First Century Church". If you actually read your Bible you would know that. Schism began very early on. There was no "Catholic" church then
And BTW whats your real problem with the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church other than you think you have a corner on doctrinal correctness? In spite of doctrinal differences, I dare venture to say in the last 30 years that folks following these groups have probably done more for people and society in general than anything YOU have ever been involed with.
Let's discuss the heresies and problems of YOUR group shall we? Of coure we don't really know exacty what it is except that the things of Wierwille seems to set the standard. God, I hope you aren't in any kind of leadership position ..................
Um, the first Century church lasted 100 years because well, thats how long one century is - 100 years.
Here's the problem though Alan. There really never was a unified "First Century Church". If you actually read your Bible you would know that. Schism began very early on. There was no "Catholic" church then
And BTW whats your real problem with the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church other than you think you have a corner on doctrinal correctness? In spite of doctrinal differences, I dare venture to say in the last 30 years that folks following these groups have probably done more for people and society in general than anything YOU have ever been involed with.
Let's discuss the heresies and problems of YOUR group shall we? Of coure we don't really know exacty what it is except that the things of Wierwille seems to set the standard. God, I hope you aren't in any kind of leadership position ..................
Goey,
You are almost right. The first recorded usage of the term "Catholic Church" was by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, in 110 AD:
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Ignatius, letter to the Smyrnæans, Chapter 8, paragraph 1: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html )
The Catholic Church simply means the "Universal Church." That's all it meant then and that's all it means now.
Having said that, there obviously was no Vatican City, no Curia, none of the bureaucracy. There were individual bishops in charge of the Church in individual cities, as the Faith spread throughout the then-known world. It was not nearly as organized and as bureaucratic as it is now. But it was still the Catholic Church.
I have Allan on ignore, so I don't know what he has said, but has he ever refuted anything I said when I provided that analysis of I Cor 12:11 earlier? Or has he just done his usual screaming that a Catholic has no right to read the Bible, much less dare to talk about it in the same forum with a holy man of God such as himself?
I do remember hearing him say that one couldn't really say that Jesus is Lord, except by SIT --- but I never heard him say that if you didn't speak in tongues, that you weren't born again.
I do remember hearing him say that one couldn't really say that Jesus is Lord, except by SIT --- but I never heard him say that if you didn't speak in tongues, that you weren't born again.
And since confessing Jesus is Lord, is the foundation of salvation (being born again) not being able to give such confession would, it appears to me, to preclude salvation. Thus tying said confession to SIT would preclude salvation unless you could SIT. Or at least that is my take (and many others), on that teaching.
As to VPW saying the exact words "you aren't saved unless you SIT"-- you are correct those exact words never were spoken. I was alluding more to the statement you just quoted (that I didn't remember exactly)--the implication of Confession of Jesus as Lord, SIT and Salvation all being tied together in a neat little package
But yes those exact words were used by the leadership in Alaska at "piffle" of course one of those leaders was Rich Urquhart which speaks volumes (but I digress)------
I also do know that at least one person who couldn't SIT, and wouldn't fake it, was told that they were possesed and so were not "born again"
And that is where I received the understanding that SIT was essential to Salvation
You must confess that Jesus is Lord
You must SIT in order to be able to Confess Jesus is Lord
Back dooring, it most definitely -- but still there
I do remember hearing him say that one couldn't really say that Jesus is Lord, except by SIT --- but I never heard him say that if you didn't speak in tongues, that you weren't born again.
Again -- just curious.
FWIW (not meaning to interrupt here :) ), but I seem to recall him saying the only way you could prove you were born again was by speaking in tongues.
disclaimer: just because I remember him saying something is no endorsement of what was said.
You are correct, Mark. Again, so typical of TWI emphasis.
Proving one is saved by SIT, when on can do it all day and still be a sounding brass & tinkling cymbal. I hear lots of clanging & tinkling going on around here.
I prove it to myself and others by my changed life, a thing I was powerless to do without Christ. I spoke in tongues plenty when in TWI, but I question that I had a new birth...
Contrary to some I loved the worship manifestations. Yet I feel too much emphasis was put on you can't know they're born again unless they SIT. And that just ain't right. I knew I was born again about 25 years before I spoke in tongues.
Isn't "no one can really prove they're born again" the same thing as saying, "If you don't speak in tongues, you're not born again?" Maybe not in the logical, normal thinking person's vernacular, but, as with most things TWI... they DO mean the same thing as I was taught them.
My ex and I got into a fight about how "blessed" my parents were because of all the Biblical principle they operate and he (being the little lcm/moneyhands that he is) said that we didn't know that those blessing didn't come from the devil because my parents don't speak in tongues.
Maybe it's because of when I got in (1993) but I remember it being "common knowledge" that someone who didn't speak in tongues was most likely NOT born again and it behooved us to assume that they weren't.
Isn't "no one can really prove they're born again" the same thing as saying, "If you don't speak in tongues, you're not born again?" Maybe not in the logical, normal thinking person's vernacular, but, as with most things TWI... they DO mean the same thing as I was taught them.
Well, they don't mean the same...but as you say, they are applied in twi as if they did mean the same thing.
My ex and I got into a fight about how "blessed" my parents were because of all the Biblical principle they operate and he (being the little lcm/moneyhands that he is) said that we didn't know that those blessing didn't come from the devil because my parents don't speak in tongues.
Maybe it's because of when I got in (1993) but I remember it being "common knowledge" that someone who didn't speak in tongues was most likely NOT born again and it behooved us to assume that they weren't.
That's exactly the point. First, the error saying that if somebody spoke in tongues, they were born again [suppose somebody intentionally or subconciously 'faked it,' does that count?] Then, they affirm the consequent by drawing the conclusion you state! Sure, they may not have explicitly stated it, but we all remember what "believers" said if a "student" took the class and then didn't "manifest" at the end of session 12.
Allan, the bible has no formula for receiving salvation. If you have one (and I suspect you do and I know it well, havin sat through piffle more times than I can count), I will suggest that your formula, as taught by Wierwille, is misunderstood.
Without going into a big thing on it, with some Bible study I think you'll find Luther's "faith alone" to describe things quite well. You'll find "faith plus confession" to be unnecessary, biblically.
Mark might disagree. What I'm describing is simplified mainstream protestant theology.
Proving one is saved by SIT, when on can do it all day and still be a sounding brass & tinkling cymbal. I hear lots of clanging & tinkling going on around here.
I prove it to myself and others by my changed life, a thing I was powerless to do without Christ. I spoke in tongues plenty when in TWI, but I question that I had a new birth...
TheEvan, you and Mark have made some great points and I always enjoy reading Mo's posts. :)
I especially like this quote because it says so much about the "power" or lack thereof of SIT as TWI taught it. I can hear some arrogan SOB speak in tongues and have it not do a blasted thing for me, or I can experience the love and compassion of someone who doesn't speak in tongues and it's the latter who shows me the love of God.
If some get something out of SIT, then more power to them, but don't judge others because of whether or not they SIT and just because someone does SIT or someone *thinks* that's what they're doing, it doesn't necessarily mean they're born again. I can't tell a faker from the genuine and I suspect that most other people can't either. I know I was never questioned when I was in TWI. :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
14
15
13
Popular Days
Oct 19
15
Oct 15
13
Oct 22
13
Oct 17
12
Top Posters In This Topic
lovematters 9 posts
Allan 14 posts
TheEvan 15 posts
markomalley 13 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2005
15 posts
Oct 15 2005
13 posts
Oct 22 2005
13 posts
Oct 17 2005
12 posts
TheInvisibleDan
Allen, don't be so foolish -
If the Roman Catholic Church is so "weak" and "ludicrously wrong" - why has she lasted all these centuries?
I'm hard pressed to imagine even remnants of the Way International lasting to the close of this century. Even the Mormons have demonstrated a certain longetivity and resiliance than I doubt will ever be repeated as a result of Wierwille's activity. For that matter, twi has hardly lasted into this present century. It's reached its peak, burned out early, and shows no signs of ever rising to it's former glory.
It seems to me that you may have more to learn and gain from the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church than they from you.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Danny,
Very well said, particularly the use of the feminine third person when speaking of the Church. That, in of itself, shows a dramatic amount of understanding and respect that I sincerely appreciate.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
Sorry everyone. I did not mean to cause any heebie jeebies by using that phrase that starts with r.
Belle, I never purposely faked sit or interpretation/prophecy. The key word may be purposely.
Thanks Mark, Evan and others for some very good insights. I can definitely agree on the pressure! I made sure I spoke in tongues before that session of class so I was ready beforehand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Alma 9:21 Book of Mormon
Having been visited by the Spirit of God; having conversed with angels, and having been spoken unto by the voice of the Lord; and having the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and also many gifts, the gift of speaking with tongues, and the gift of preaching, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the gift of translation;
Omni 1:25 Book of Mormon
And it came to pass that I began to be old; and, having no seed, and knowing king Benjamin to be a just man before the Lord, wherefore, I shall deliver up these plates unto him, exhorting all men to come unto God, the Holy One of Israel, and believe in prophesying, and in revelations, and in the ministering of angels, and in the gift of speaking with tongues, and in the gift of interpreting languages, and in all things which are good; for there is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord; and that which is evil cometh from the devil.
“Communicating by the Power of the Spirit,” Liahona, Oct. 1997
“We believe in the gift of tongues” (Article of Faith #7).
According to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the purpose of the gift of tongues is to preach the gospel “among those whose language is not understood” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [1976], 148–49).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve explained: “In their more dramatic manifestations [the gift of tongues and their interpretation] consist in speaking or interpreting, by the power of the Spirit, a tongue which is completely unknown to the speaker or interpreter. … Frequently these gifts are manifest where the ordinary languages of the day are concerned in that the Lord’s missionaries learn to speak and interpret foreign languages with ease, thus furthering the spread of the message of the restoration” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition [1966], 800).
“It is Given to Some to Speak with Tongues” (D&C 46:24)
Sister Rhonda Patten Grow experienced the gift of tongues in a way familiar to many missionaries. When her husband was called from the United States to be a mission president in Uruguay, she was afraid she couldn’t learn to speak Spanish. But gradually, with the help of members, she finally learned to bear her testimony in Spanish. She was amazed, however, at how much more she could say when under the influence of the Spirit. “In fact, the Spirit helped me so much when I spoke in meetings that the members usually assumed my Spanish was much better than it actually was.”
At one meeting, Sister Grow noticed a young woman signing for a sister who was deaf. When Sister Grow stood to speak, “it seemed as if the Spirit gave me utterance beyond my own abilities. I was filled with feelings of love for the people, and I especially noticed the smiling face of the young deaf woman looking up at me.”
Sister Grow learned later that when she began to speak, the deaf woman communicated that she no longer needed signing interpretation. She could understand Sister Grow’s message without it.
“Speak with the Tongue of Angels”
Another gift, related to the gift of tongues, is the ability to speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. “Angels,” Nephi wrote, “speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.” In this sense, those who speak by the power of the Spirit “speak with the tongue of angels” (2 Ne. 32:2–3).
Elder Carlos E. Asay, an emeritus member of the Seventy, shares an experience he had as a missionary with this gift. He and his companion visited a branch torn by divisions. His companion was asked to speak at the meeting held to deal with the conflicts. After fasting and prayer, his companion “stood with confidence and worked the miracle. He spoke with the tongue of an angel. That young, inexperienced elder’s words healed wounds festering in the hearts of men much older than he, prompted confessions, and literally saved a branch of the Church” (Ensign, April 1988, 17).
We may never experience the more dramatic expressions of the gift of tongues. But certainly, as we try to serve others, we can ask the Lord to help us speak with the tongue of angels.
© 2005 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Sorry, had to run
But what I posted above has been my position even in TWI Speaking in an unknown tongue meant that someone out there understood it without an interpreter. They being the interpreter themselves
Just as in the Book of Acts where the apostles were heard to speak different languages by the hearer of same evewn thought they in fact were not
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Some (good) points..however..Just why did the 1st century church with their beliefs and doctrine last maybe 100-200 years, YET the 'Catholic Church' 'grew' in power ?? I think much of the answer is dictated by history.
Evil persecutions, land grabbing, throne toppling, HUGE WEALTH accumulation, Jesuits, the martyrdoms of 'men of God' like Luther etc..
Mormons may have s.i.t. mentioned in their almanac, yet they believe it is only in a language that (someone)
else present will understand.
I think Joe Smith when he sat down to write that cr*p didn't realise the 'other benefits' associated with s.i.t
In fact when one reads the 'book of Moron' one can see that he wrote it only as far as he was able to 'interpret' his limited knowledge of the KJV at the time.
The rest he made up with his 'own interpretation' of verses like 'baptism for the dead', etc..
Some (good) points..however..Just why did the 1st century church with their beliefs and doctrine last maybe 100-200 years, YET the 'Catholic Church' 'grew' in power ?? I think much of the answer is dictated by history.
Evil persecutions, land grabbing, throne toppling, HUGE WEALTH accumulation, Jesuits, the martyrdoms of 'men of God' like Luther etc..
Mormons may have s.i.t. mentioned in their almanac, yet they believe it is only in a language that (someone)
else present will understand.
I think Joe Smith when he sat down to write that cr*p didn't realise the 'other benefits' associated with s.i.t
In fact when one reads the 'book of Moron' one can see that he wrote it only as far as he was able to 'interpret' his limited knowledge of the KJV at the time.
The rest he made up with his 'own interpretation' of verses like 'baptism for the dead', etc..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
*Ahem* I do believe that Luther was not martyred. ... Suggestion: next time review your history better. An elementary school kid can do better than you. ... At 2nd grade. :(
(Who is this guy? Smikeol's evil twin?? :blink: :wacko: )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I think the big problem in TWI with SIT was VPW's skewed, IMO, interpretation ogf the whole Subject
First he taught that SIT was the outward mainifestation of the Indwelling of the Holy Sprirt
Never mind that the Bible says "by their fruit shall Ye know them"
From there he went on to promulgate the idea that if you couldn' SIT you didn't have the Holy Spirit.
and if, by extension, you didn't have the Holy Spirit you weren't saved---
This doctrinal nightmare caused anquish for many.
Speaking in tongues is just one of the Gifts, and fruit is something else entirely.
If you think about it--there is no reason anyone needs to speak in a different tongue if everyone present speaks the same language.
CAn it happen anyway--of course
Mnay sects outside of the LDS believe this.
I just don't accept the whole idea that those who don't SIT are somehow less in the eyes of God when stacked againt the totallity of their lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Allan:
My opinion is that we really don't know for sure whether the teachings of Jesus and the "First Century Church" were recorded faithfully and "accurately". Of course it's possible that they were, but the factional battles resulted in the writings and teachings of the dominant and most politically powerful faction becoming enshrined as the "canon of scripture". In my view, Joseph Smith's claim to unique revelation isn't any more silly than some of what is in what we know as "The Bible". What we call the New Testament was not handed down on stone tablets from Sinai, but collected and argued over for centuries before being declared "scripture".
Your opinion of what Christianity is, what truth is, is as as valid as anyone else's, and I hope it works for you, but there being so many views of what the truth is, even within the relatively small group of ex-wayfers still using Wierwille's "keys", that using your view as the truth as a platform to beat down and deride others' beliefs stands on very shaky ground.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Um, the first Century church lasted 100 years because well, thats how long one century is - 100 years.
Here's the problem though Alan. There really never was a unified "First Century Church". If you actually read your Bible you would know that. Schism began very early on. There was no "Catholic" church then
And BTW whats your real problem with the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church other than you think you have a corner on doctrinal correctness? In spite of doctrinal differences, I dare venture to say in the last 30 years that folks following these groups have probably done more for people and society in general than anything YOU have ever been involed with.
Let's discuss the heresies and problems of YOUR group shall we? Of coure we don't really know exacty what it is except that the things of Wierwille seems to set the standard. God, I hope you aren't in any kind of leadership position ..................
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Goey,
You are almost right. The first recorded usage of the term "Catholic Church" was by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, in 110 AD:
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Ignatius, letter to the Smyrnæans, Chapter 8, paragraph 1: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html )
The Catholic Church simply means the "Universal Church." That's all it meant then and that's all it means now.
Having said that, there obviously was no Vatican City, no Curia, none of the bureaucracy. There were individual bishops in charge of the Church in individual cities, as the Faith spread throughout the then-known world. It was not nearly as organized and as bureaucratic as it is now. But it was still the Catholic Church.
I have Allan on ignore, so I don't know what he has said, but has he ever refuted anything I said when I provided that analysis of I Cor 12:11 earlier? Or has he just done his usual screaming that a Catholic has no right to read the Bible, much less dare to talk about it in the same forum with a holy man of God such as himself?
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mo -- Please understand that I am no big fan of docvic, but did he really say that??
Just curious.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I do remember hearing him say that one couldn't really say that Jesus is Lord, except by SIT --- but I never heard him say that if you didn't speak in tongues, that you weren't born again.
Again -- just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
No VPW didn't say that..just another one of Mo's 'selective hearing'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
And since confessing Jesus is Lord, is the foundation of salvation (being born again) not being able to give such confession would, it appears to me, to preclude salvation. Thus tying said confession to SIT would preclude salvation unless you could SIT. Or at least that is my take (and many others), on that teaching.
As to VPW saying the exact words "you aren't saved unless you SIT"-- you are correct those exact words never were spoken. I was alluding more to the statement you just quoted (that I didn't remember exactly)--the implication of Confession of Jesus as Lord, SIT and Salvation all being tied together in a neat little package
But yes those exact words were used by the leadership in Alaska at "piffle" of course one of those leaders was Rich Urquhart which speaks volumes (but I digress)------
I also do know that at least one person who couldn't SIT, and wouldn't fake it, was told that they were possesed and so were not "born again"
And that is where I received the understanding that SIT was essential to Salvation
You must confess that Jesus is Lord
You must SIT in order to be able to Confess Jesus is Lord
Back dooring, it most definitely -- but still there
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
FWIW (not meaning to interrupt here :) ), but I seem to recall him saying the only way you could prove you were born again was by speaking in tongues.
disclaimer: just because I remember him saying something is no endorsement of what was said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
You are correct, Mark. Again, so typical of TWI emphasis.
Proving one is saved by SIT, when on can do it all day and still be a sounding brass & tinkling cymbal. I hear lots of clanging & tinkling going on around here.
I prove it to myself and others by my changed life, a thing I was powerless to do without Christ. I spoke in tongues plenty when in TWI, but I question that I had a new birth...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Contrary to some I loved the worship manifestations. Yet I feel too much emphasis was put on you can't know they're born again unless they SIT. And that just ain't right. I knew I was born again about 25 years before I spoke in tongues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Isn't "no one can really prove they're born again" the same thing as saying, "If you don't speak in tongues, you're not born again?" Maybe not in the logical, normal thinking person's vernacular, but, as with most things TWI... they DO mean the same thing as I was taught them.
My ex and I got into a fight about how "blessed" my parents were because of all the Biblical principle they operate and he (being the little lcm/moneyhands that he is) said that we didn't know that those blessing didn't come from the devil because my parents don't speak in tongues.
Maybe it's because of when I got in (1993) but I remember it being "common knowledge" that someone who didn't speak in tongues was most likely NOT born again and it behooved us to assume that they weren't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Well, they don't mean the same...but as you say, they are applied in twi as if they did mean the same thing.
That's exactly the point. First, the error saying that if somebody spoke in tongues, they were born again [suppose somebody intentionally or subconciously 'faked it,' does that count?] Then, they affirm the consequent by drawing the conclusion you state! Sure, they may not have explicitly stated it, but we all remember what "believers" said if a "student" took the class and then didn't "manifest" at the end of session 12.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Well Mark..usually because people confessed Jesus as Lord etcc..before they were led into s.i.t.
BTW Mark..what is the Catholic formula for getting people saved ?? Interested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Allan, the bible has no formula for receiving salvation. If you have one (and I suspect you do and I know it well, havin sat through piffle more times than I can count), I will suggest that your formula, as taught by Wierwille, is misunderstood.
Without going into a big thing on it, with some Bible study I think you'll find Luther's "faith alone" to describe things quite well. You'll find "faith plus confession" to be unnecessary, biblically.
Mark might disagree. What I'm describing is simplified mainstream protestant theology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
TheEvan, you and Mark have made some great points and I always enjoy reading Mo's posts. :)
I especially like this quote because it says so much about the "power" or lack thereof of SIT as TWI taught it. I can hear some arrogan SOB speak in tongues and have it not do a blasted thing for me, or I can experience the love and compassion of someone who doesn't speak in tongues and it's the latter who shows me the love of God.
If some get something out of SIT, then more power to them, but don't judge others because of whether or not they SIT and just because someone does SIT or someone *thinks* that's what they're doing, it doesn't necessarily mean they're born again. I can't tell a faker from the genuine and I suspect that most other people can't either. I know I was never questioned when I was in TWI. :)
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.