Well....all I can say is that judging from the fruit in the lives of folks promoting speaking in tongues as a big ol hairy deal...I gotta wonder how effective or truly important it really is.....
The people who committed the most vile acts against christians that I have ever witnessed....people who`s actions brand them as *of the flesh* were the one who insisted that their ability sit is what made them such spiritual hot shots.....l...and that the rest of Christiandom was some how sub par because they didn`t.
Yet when you look at the rest of Christianity, that is where you see so many folks manifesting the fruit of the spirit.
I do not think our understanding of sit or it`s importance can be considered reliable....given the lives of the men who touted it as how to be spiritual.....it didn`t help them to not be cruel and destructive to the flock.
If someone did not SIT, they were no better than an animal and certainly not considered to be born again.[/color]
No better than an animal biologically, yes, because the natural man of body and soul is spiritually dead. But I still have a problem with twi supposedly teaching that someone is "not considered to be born again", when the teaching was so clear on how to get born again.
I do not have a copy of "Way of Abundance & Power" and do not wish to buy a copy just to prove my point, but if anyone wants to check their copy and quote what Craig wrote about "how to get born again/saved", it would be helpful here. I would be flabbergasted, stunned, if he wrote something demonstrably different than what I remember VP teaching, which is referenced below:
Romans tells how it is possible for a man who is dead in trespasses and sins and without God and without hope to be made alive.
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
What faith? The faith of Jesus Christ. This faith comes when the man of body and soul hears the Word of God and believes.
Romans 10:9:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
What is it to "confess it with thy mouth"? It is to say it. Does one have to say it at an alter? Romans 10 does not say that. But, could one confess Jesus as his Lord at an alter? It does not say where one has to confess Jesus as Lord: the Bible simply says to confess. Does a person have to say it out loud? Romans 10 does not say so; it is possible to confess the Lord Jesus Christ silently without making an audible sound.
"Confess with thy mouth" does not say confess one's sins. If it had said "confess your sins," salvation would be of works; and we are not saved by works, but by grace. A man does not confess his sins; he confesses the Savior from sin, the Lord Jesus Christ.
I wonder how many thousands of people believe that they are born again of God's spirit but are not. They may have a feeling on the inside that they are saved, but a feeling does not save them. A person is saved by being born again of God's Spirit. Feelings may come and go, but the Word of God lives and abides forever. I could go to an altar, cry out all my sins, and get a good feeling. But a person can get that same good feeling on a psychiatrist's couch. We are not saved by feeling, we are saved by doing what The Word says. It says "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus." That is, say, "Jesus, you are Lord in my life." Who has been lord as long as a person is just body and soul? The person himself. But now that person is going to change lordships when he confesses with his mouth a new Lord -- Jesus Christ.
That is what is says, but that is not all. Romans 10:9 further says, "and shalt believe in thine heart." The heart is the seat of the personal life; today we would say, "Believe with all your mind, all your strength, every ounce of your being." What is a person to believe? That Jesus Christ is the greatest prophet of all time? No. The Word says, "believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead." One must confess with his mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in the innermost part of his being that God raised Him from the dead; then a man shall -- absolutely, unquestionably -- be saved. When? Not when he dies, but right when he confesses Jesus as Lord and believes that God raised Him from the dead.
Of all the great religious leaders there is only one who has been raised from the dead and that is Jesus Christ. This is the proof that He is God's only begotten Son. Do you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead? Do you believe that He is your Lord? Have you confessed it with your mouth? The Word says that you are saved.
Romans 10:10:
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
The moment I fulfill these two requirements, I am born again of God's Spirit. This is eternal life. This is such a tremendous truth that it is almost unbelievable; but I do believe it because God's Word is true and abides forever. Now I am His son for I have confessed with my mouth the Lord Jesus and I have believed that God raised him from the dead.
The moment a person confesses with his mouth Jesus as Lord that person is converted, saved, born again. A man can be a natural man of body and soul one minute; but as he hears the Word of God and believes to the point that he says, "Jesus is Lord of my life and I know God raised Him from the dead," he is born again of God's Spirit. That person has instantly changed lords; he is now on the way to heaven and all hell cannot stop him from going because he is a son of God having Christ in him. He has eternal life. He is no longer a natural man because he has received the spirit from God.
Victor Paul Wierwille
Power for Abundant Living Book
Part IV -- The New Birth
Chapter 19 -- Born Again of Incorruptible Seed
Pgs. 295-98
I also have a pic from the syllabus that I can upload tomorrow.
OM, I posted all the quotes I had time for at the time including my notes on aspects of the teaching as craig was talking. I stand behind my post and ask how many times you took WAP and the subsequent classes.
I answered your questions in my post #19 above - Post 19
I also reiterate that craig did NOT teach exactly the same things vee pee taught at all times. There are many things he taught that vee pee did not and many things he took to even further extremes than vee pee did - one example is his teachings in the WAP class on "epiluo".
I furthermore reiterate "JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT TAUGHT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T TAUGHT" You were in another TWI than most of us and you certainly didn't experience the things that many of us experienced. We accept YOUR experiences and recollections; why, oh, why can't you give us the same respect?
Belle, a couple of those quotes that caught my eye-
Page 29 - Segmet 6
More fuel for worshipping the Bible:
"God's Word is as much God as God is God."
I believe it's completely possible for a person to replace the desire to try and know a living God with recognizing a written god, because it's much easier. But it could be very wrong too if a person stops there.
It sounds like LCM took this up a notch (BAM!), although this was taught by VPW, and it's one of the more confounding statements to come down the pike. I can clarify to an extent what VPW meant, because I asked him while in the corps, but no idea what LCM may have meant. VPW based it on the word "logos". In the bible, God is "the logos". The Word of God, written is logos. (Jesus Christ was also the logo, the "living logos").
In overall context, that's all true on face value. But taking it and forcing the above statement out of the usages of the word logos is - well, now I'd say it's naive and even at that time, seemingly contradicting PFAL in other places at to how to interpret the bible, which was why I asked him about it.
God's "word" isn't God, anymore than my word is me. Semantically it makes no sense. There are various usages of the word logos and the usages in context point to the meaning. It would be correct I think to say that God can be known by "His Word" and that it's occurence indicates the presence of God's intentions, but not "is" God. Christians "fellowship" around "the Word" and are involved with "the things of God", presumably as given by Him.
"The Living Word", Jesus Christ is essential to Christian life, as Christ makes known to us God and how God is. The closest thing the bible talks about to "being" God is Jesus Christ, in that He Himself said "I and my Father are one" and, "He that has seen me has seen the Father". But God also said "put no other gods before me".
This is interesting too:
The Word of God is our ONLY standard of believing and action.
With other denominations - it's leaders and then tradition and then maybe the Word of God.
RC religion has been around longer than the Word of God.
The Way progressively developed it's version of the "R" word, religion, with a pope ("The man of God) who had the power to draw down "present truth" as excathedra as any pope ever did. It developed rituals and customs like twig orders of service, bookstore set up and other agendas that had to be obeserved consistently without deviation. Rules for punctuality and dress that supposedly displayed how loving and respectful a person was, fetishes for detail and cleanliness that produced a true godly environment. The list could go on and on.
It always fascinated me how in PFAL VPW denigrated churches for caring more about the flowers on the altar and having everything "just so" but not caring for the the bible. Yet in a few short years those very kinds of things were as important as anything a person did with the bible, because those things supposedly were external indicators of how much you really believed.
The result was the same thing - ultimately, if you didn't have all your ducks in a row doing the cha-cha just right, the whole night would fall to pieces and the "Word of God coudn't live tonight peo-pul" because someone didn't "think it through". Never mind that most peo-pul never had a chance to see let alone miss the mints in his little dish that weren't there, or the coffee that was cold, and no one gave a hoot about any number of other things that were so "essential".
(It's always good to do the best job you can for others. It's in bad taste for those people to throw it in everyone's face in public if they thought you could have done better. Sooner or later they're going to rebel. Can I say "Martha Stewart" :P :D ).
Thanks, Socks. Ya know, I'm trying really hard to remember how craig taught this, but for the life of me I can't remember. I still have all the class syllabuses (i?) out by the laptop at home, so I'll have to look it up.
I do remember the big "revelation" teachings about John 1 - or maybe it was just "big" to me since it was relatively new. I think, though, that it was a ministry-wide big deal for some reason. Paul Bro*ks taught it at the Densm*re's house and circulated through all the fellowships in the area teaching it to everyone. From what I remember, the WC were doing this all over the US.
He spent a lot of time on "together with yet distinctly independent of" being the definition of pros.
However, as was so common in TWI in the 90's and 00's, what was taught vs. what was expected were two different things. (e.g. we were taught to listen to that "still small voice" but we couldn't hear it for all the yelling and orders from leadership and if leadership's desires conflicted with our "still small voice" we were to follow leadership instead). So many times we were given Bible verses for why we should/should not do some things and we were expected to laud whatever teachings and scriptures were thrown at us over any common sense conclusions we were to come to on our own (e.g. buying a home).
The Bible and what TWI said the Bible said took precedence over anything God might have said to us or worked within us. Growth without compulsion was taught, but not allowed.
I hope this makes sense. It does in my brain, but it's so hard to describe to people who weren't there how you can read something or hear something taught and have it make sense, but not be able to do anything along the lines of what was taught, nor believe it simply the way it was taught. It's all in HOW it was taught and what the practical application of the teachings really were - which were very seldom the application actually taught.
However, as was so common in TWI in the 90's and 00's, what was taught vs. what was expected were two different things. (e.g. we were taught to listen to that "still small voice" but we couldn't hear it for all the yelling and orders from leadership and if leadership's desires conflicted with our "still small voice" we were to follow leadership instead). So many times we were given Bible verses for why we should/should not do some things and we were expected to laud whatever teachings and scriptures were thrown at us over any common sense conclusions we were to come to on our own (e.g. buying a home).
The Bible and what TWI said the Bible said took precedence over anything God might have said to us or worked within us. Growth without compulsion was taught, but not allowed.
I hope this makes sense. It does in my brain, but it's so hard to describe to people who weren't there how you can read something or hear something taught and have it make sense, but not be able to do anything along the lines of what was taught, nor believe it simply the way it was taught. It's all in HOW it was taught and what the practical application of the teachings really were -which were very seldom the application actually taught
Belle, one technique in the induction of an altered state of consciousness is the induction of a mild ‘daze.’ This is somewhat comparable to the transfixion we experience when driving an auto for long distances & then being ‘unable’ to recall a significant amount of the trip. Some academics term this as a somnambulistic tendency as ‘eyes wide open’ trance induction with heightened susceptibility to ‘suggestions.’
One manner in which a cultic exploiter might induce this daze of reverie and transfixion is via what is termed naturalistic, conversational trance induction, which utilizes certain styles of speech to pace and lead the victim, with indirection, implication, and anchoring.
Within the context of this pacing & leading method of induction is the presentation of information as though it were logical when it obviously is not logical. This generates a mental conflict in the victim leading to a mildly bedazzled alteration of consciousness as noted above, once again with heightened suggestibility. This mental conflict also induces an anxiety state such that the victim feels compelled to seek a rapid resolution, even if the resolution is not in the victim’s best interest, which typically it is not, because the exploiter’s purpose to get 'you' to act rashly & in the implied manner that the cultic exploiter has designed just for you.
The whole culture of teach teach teach, listen listen listen rolled like a snowball, quickly picking up speed and buik over the years. Of course there was "do do do", too. But if all your time is spent in listen mode, when do you "do"? :huh: Well, there's always teach teach teach. :blink: It's a cycle of activity that's self rewarding, aggrandizing and self supporting. Not a lot else gets done.
It's not hard to understand that isn't going to work for very long, and it didn't in the form it was set in.
Well this thread has taken some interesting turns since it's approaching page three I thought maybe a update of what we have learned in regard to the original question was in order.
B.A. Robinson article is posted
Oldies posts this section as untrue.
This would imply that Christians who do not speak in tongues are not actually saved. Virtually the entire 33 million membership of the Southern Baptist Convention, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Presbyterian Church (USA) are not saved because speaking in tongues is rarely seen on those denominations.
Belle posts that it is true!
Oldies offers the record from PFAL Acts19 as proof that they did not teach this.
Dmiller agrees that oldies is correct.
Morgan thinks
What was taught to large audiences and what was taught to smaller ones were often not quite the same.
Wordwolf does not remember being taught this but can't say for sure it was not during Craigs years.
Templelady says it is a direct quote from session 12
12th session PFAL
My class
Direct Quote
"If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved"
Socks offers some quotes from various PFAL Books as to what was taught none support that the quote was correct.
Goey agrees that he never heard that taught and offers a fine explanation of don't and can't and the difference.
Whitedove asks templelady for a date and class teacher for her class
Whitedove post some quotes from Receiving the holy spirit today as to why they did not teach this.
dmiller again confirms from his class that they did not teach this. and offers some more examples from PFAL. also says he has no idea what was taught in Craig's class.
Belle agrees with dmiller and posts many quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class.
(informative but none were the direct quote or were proof that that was taught.)
WW says she heard it for years (what she heard exactly was not said)
Whitedove again asks for a page reference for the direct quote.
Lifted Up agrees with Goeys logic of can't and don't
Digitalis agrees there was taught a difference between being saved and speaking in tongues.
Belle shares a story of a woman who was unwelcome to attend fellowships because she did not speak in tongues.
Rascal offers her comments on fruit and how the rest of Christianity is manifesting the spirit.
Oldies again confirms his view and offers more quotes from PFAL to prove his point.
Belle again references the quotes from her earlier post.
Summation:
TWI
I. 1973 and before
II. 1974 to circa 1987
III. 1987 and after
TWI I & II - The majority of posters agree that it was their recollection that quote was not taught.
from the book references and class sessions presented it confirms that they are correct nowhere is that quote documented. abundant evidence to the opposite is offered and none to support it was found.
Session 12 tape of VPW class is checked at no place is that quote present .
Conclusion from the evidence - Since the recollections of most posters as well as the many PFAL materials and finally the class tape itself all concur that the quote in question is not there and was not taught we can find that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that the article quote was not true. No evidence to support the claim was found or offered.
TWI III - Templelady offered no response to support her claim.
While some posters offered some quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class none were the direct quote in question or none proved that the Way taught that "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved"
This week Whitedove checked with some people that have been and are still in the Way during this time and they confirmed that they have never heard this taught in a class or during any other teaching.
Conclusion from evidence - no proof for the quote being taught was presented. Due to the lack of evidence in that not one documentation in any syllabus,tape,book or other form is found we can conclude that this was not the position of the Way during this period either. To date it looks like Oldiesman is correct on this one.
Conclusion from the evidence - Since the recollections of most posters as well as the many PFAL materials and finally the class tape itself all concur that the quote in question is not there and was not taught we can find that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that the article quote was not true. No evidence to support the claim was found or offered.
WhiteDove,
Although I don't recall it being taught as a formal doctrine, I do recall from the classes we ran and the classes I attended, the distinctly condescending tone toward people who did not, in fact, speak in tongues at the conclusion of Session 12. "She didn't manifest"....and then the elongated "OOOOHHHH" on the part of the others. (We don't know FOR SURE if she isn't a seed girl) The implication was that the person was somehow less of a human being than the rest of us who had received that "secret decoder ring" and had been given the "secret handshake." Such a person was treated with charity (so we thought), but was never really good enough.
So, to my recollection, you are correct that it wasn't directly taught in the piffle class, it sure was strongly implied...but of course it's been a long, long time (thank the Lord) and my memory may be sort of faulty.
In all my years of classes Mark I can recall only one time that a student did not SIT by the end of the class. In that instance the rest of the class was not aware and it was resolved in a one on one situation The person did want to, but had some ideas to overcome to be comfortable with it. Much like being scared to stand up in public and speak.
You are correct the issue at question is what was taught not what someone thought was implied. A person can decide about anything was implied from some words but that does not make it true that it was taught. I think Socks posted about the best recollection so far. Here are some of the things he had to say . I agree with his recollection. Remembering the question was What Was Taught? not the right or wrong of it was the question at hand.
Quotes from Socks pg1
The overwhelming message of PFAL, whether it be right or not, was that many believers - those already born again of God's spirit - have no idea of the "power of God" available to them. That is, they're already "sons of God", "born again" and "saved" in that they are redeemed through belief in Christ.
Two types of "receiving" were defined by usages of the words dechomia and lambano. One was to receive inherently, to have it, as in holy spirit dwelling within. "Going to heaven and all hell can't stop you", as quoted in PFAL. The second receiving was to receive into manifestation, that point where a person, by believing, brings into physical evidence the inner holy spirit. PFAL presented that in the last 3 sessions of teaching as to speak in tongues, a basic fundamental operation of the holy spirit within, available to every believer.
Chapter 19 deals with The New Birth:
"The moment a person confesses with his mouth Jesus as Lord that person is converted, saved, born again. ... to the point that he says "Jesus is Lord of my life and I know God raised Him from the dead," he is born again of God's spirit. That person has instantly changed lords: his now on the way to heaven and all hell can't stop him from going because he is a son of God having Christ in him. He has eternal life. He is no longer a natural man because he has received the spirit from God". ... The man of body and soul can so easily believe and receive eternal life, which is the greatest gift that God has ever given to man at any place, at any time".
I don't ever remember hearing VPW imply that a Christian that didn't speak in tongues wasn't "saved". Rather that a Christian who didn't wasn't operating the power of God, the "abundant life" of John 10:10 in this "administration" to it's fullest potential.
I don't doubt people may have come up with that, in some esoteric logic, even more esoteric than PFAL itself, but I'd have to question that being based on any of the PFAL based teachings I heard. Second, third hand maybe. "This is what VPW really meant", maybe. "Well, they're born again and saved, but they aren't really WALKING in power, Yes.
You know, honestly, White Dove, I don't remember enough specific detail from TWI classes anymore to be able to honestly discuss it with anybody. I do remember some 'people'-type details, but that's that. So I'll have to take your word for it one way or the other.
I will agree though that I only saw a very small minority who didn't SIT by the end of session 12.
WhiteDove, I think, like OM, you aren't going to believe anything you don't want to believe no matter what proof is presented to you. Besides that, you keep talking about vee pee and another TWI than the one I was involved in. vee pee was a nobody and hardly ever even referred to, much less mentioned, during my involvement.
I AM looking for more proof for you, but I actually have a life outside of GSpot AND I can hardly bear to re-read the quotes, notes and information from these classes. There may or may not be a written quote, "If you don't speak in tongues you aren't born again" but you surely know that many things are taught and put together to make a point without documentation that can later be brought back to prove to those who doubt you.
For me, the fact that my ex-husband, who was a diligent disciple of craiggers and moneyhands, refused to admit that my family was born again because they never spoke in tongues and the fact that that dear, sweet lady was M&A for not speaking in tongues is evidence enough of what was taught, but - whatever.
Here are some quotes from the Intermediate Class of craig's that show the distaste for those who don't speak in tongues and all these teachings in addition to the ones in the AC and the STSs build to one lesson regarding SIT and being born again.
Page 40
He spends at least an hour on "Be Not Ignorant" of spiritual matters.
Pausing on 1 Cor 12:1 -
This is the fourth admonition to not be ignorant in the epistles
Four always has reference to all that is created - the number of material completeness
The spirit of God is the light of God in concretion. God, who is light, broke that essence down in spirit, and then put spirit in mankind. He put it in a category that mankind could house in the body - in the mind.
1 Cor 12:2
Know - oida - you have a clear picture in your mind that you were (past tense) gentiles. he's reminding the believers, and indeed us, "Remember what you used to be before you belonged to God" - body-soul
dumb = inanimate
idols = what makes a dumb idol able to attract and conduct away people is the spirit energy and life that associates itself with it. Every genuine idol had a devil spirit(s) associated with it. That's what draws people to it.
Eph 2:11-14
"in the flesh" = body-soul
1 Corinthians is reproof; it corrects practical error. Paul focuses their attention to spiritual matters, "it's God's passionate, intense desire that you're not ignorant, notvoid of understanding concerning spiritual matters." He's confronting them, "Why have you fallen back into this false teaching?"
1 Cor 12:3
Wherefore - Indicates a practical application of a preceding truth which is in verse 2. He's saying to them to stay humble and meek and to get moving again.
"Spirit of God" - gift in manifestation
"accursed" = anathema. Unbelievers had been teaching - to counter the great movement of the Word in the first century - that when they spoke in tongues, they were cursing Jesus Christ - which is an absolute lie.
"can say" = can really say the text reads
say = eipon - to utter definite words; to enunciate words; to speak or utter words successively. It's to speak in tongues.
(page 42)
"no...[one] can [really] say that Jesus is the Lord, but by...[holy spirit]" - an idiom.
idioma - a colloquial phrase in the culture, meaning, "No one can affirm from the heart that Jesus is lord but by speaking in tongues." It's a figure of speach; it means it's emphatic.
My note: This is where a lot of the foundation for us regarding the worthlessness and beginning disdain for those who SAY they are Christians but don't fellowship with TWI or have been heard to SIT are not
really
born again. Romans 10:9-10 say that you have to confess Jesus as lord to be born again - hence, if you can't REALLY say Jesus is lord without speaking in tongues, then you aren't REALLY born again.
People who weren't paying close attention or hanging on every word of craig may have missed these kinds of things. My ex and I were die-hards and have a whole library of transcripts of his teachings. We didn't miss much. :mellow:
Further into the syllabus (I guess this is the equivalent of "scripture build up" via the syllabus:
Page 48
1 Cor 12:27 is speaking of the long suits that each believer - as he wills to manifest - can develop, and how all that contributes and works together in the functioning household of God.
Members of the Body Counterfeit Teachings:
1 - A mamber has only one or two gifts of the spirit
2 - Secular occupations
3 - Ecumenical unity Baptist, Methodist, etc. - Not denominations
The context is "spiritual matters". Members refer to those born again who are functioning, willing to operate the manifestations according to the Word. This is referring to a healthy "body".
"drink into one Spirit" - we've all manifested power from on high by speaking in tongues.
Page 49
1 Cor 12:14-19
"as it...pleased him" - We know what pleases God; He energizes all in all. Believeing pleases God. So as that member wills to believe to manifest, that pleases God, and God opens the door for that person's long suits in the Body - that felloowship - to function and contribute.
1 Cor 12:20,21
"I have no need of you" - We should never think less of any functioning believing believer in the Body. And no functioning believer is any more important than anyone else in the household. It takes all of us in the household to keep the Body healthy, vital, alive.
My quote of craig in my notes: This is a warning to US today - NOT REFERRING TO COP-OUTS.
If you're a functioning believer - you're very important and necessary to the ministry.
Page 53
1 Corinthians 13 sets the apex in renewed-mind heart of the walk of a believing believer and the pinacle of the walk of the household together.
This is where he teaches the new definition of Agape as the love of/for God in our renewed mind in manifestation in the household of God.
He furthermore emphasizes that to love God is to obey his Word - obeying his word includes speaking in tongues - therefore, if you don't speak in tongues, you aren't obeying God and you're lying about really loving him.
I have another quote note from craige: "We have to keep it in perspective, everyone THINKS they love"
Page 54
1Cor 13:1
"tinkling" - clanging. The speaking in tongues is genuine, but the individual - that doesn't do it because he loves God and therefore wants to manifest that love in the renewed mind in the househodl of God - IS WORTHLESS. It is a figurative way to say his life is worthless.
If someone who genuinely speaks in tongues can be "worthless" how much less must we have been taught to think of those who don't speak in tongues at all.
John 15:1-6
"nothing" - that means worthless
"burned" - because they are worthless
1 Cor 13:2
"the gift of" - a treacherous addition. Scratch it out.
"I could remove mountains" - exaggeration to get our attention as to how important our mind-set is as we operate the gift that God has given us.
"nothing" - worthless
1 Cor 13:3
"bestow all my goods" - share everything you've got with the household
"profiteth...nothing" - meaning the impact of the energizing of that manifestation of of that ministry will profit the individual and the household immediately.
Page 55
1 Cor 13:4
"is kind" - We are kind because God first loved us, so we love him back by being kind to the faithful in the household. In the senses realm people are kind with a motive. What most people call love is based on expediency: At best, that's human love, brotherly love - phileo
This is all I have time for right now. But I'm still looking, I don't know why, to prove to you that we are not hallucinating or creating some alternative reality about what we learned in TWI II.
I have no doubt that the teachings in TWI 3 changed from that of TWI I & II.
But unlike you I am not willing to accept anyone's word for facts. The reason being that it is not necessarily the truth. People say lots of things for lots of reasons. To find the truth you have to dig through the muddle. Most often it's been because it has been 10,20,30 years since the fact and people forget, sometimes people think that they heard what someone said but they did not really, that happens all the time at work. And sometimes because people are just angry they just plain make $*@! up.
None of these things counts for truth. It is important to check things out honestly the reason why people swallowed Craigs line of $*@! in the first place is because they failed to check it against truth.
You challenged Oldies post and templelady said it was a direct quote. I say fine show me the quote and I will be happy to accept it. So far I have not seen it, that's generally the case call people out and then rather than offering hard proof it becomes that's what I remember or you weren't everywhere or offering some quote that has nothing to do with the one in question and that somehow proves the other wrong. It does not! It has been well established by all the other posters that was not the teaching in TWI 1 & 2 To depart from that teaching would be a huge thing. For that to happen and not have it documented somewhere on tape, CD, book, print ,Syllabus or Video would be unbelievable.
That I choose not to believe...... I don't always agree with Oldies but the truth is on this one I believe the facts show he is right. Honestly many times just because it's him a certain group of people will take up the opposite side. I say fine but have some proof to offer when you call someone out. Then we have something to believe.
unlike you I am not willing to accept anyone's word for facts. The reason being that it is not necessarily the truth. People say lots of things for lots of reasons.
That plus most of us, with some exceptions, don't really know each other; just as internet handles.
Ok now i'm going to really go out on a limb and repeat my favorite pet peeve that started back right before TWI was on the was down. i think this kind of thinking still prevails - but i'm not sure.
I was talking to a branch coordinator's wife. She had been 6th corps, wife of a limb coordinator, and had lived at International a loooooong time. She was referring to another person and called them a rank unbeliever. I had had it. How did she know that this wasn't a carnal Christian? O one who wasn't fully instructed? I asked her if she had had any revelationt that this person wasn't born again - any visions of a black heart? - No? well them she couldn't be sure and should refer to them as a person. No boxes, no labels. I began to hate the jingoistic attitude that prevailed in TWI.
We all started to think of ourselves as the only Christians on earth. WE were the Body of Christ! OMG how many important members of the true body of Christ had we dismissed as useless? - THAT is just how sick the Body was.
It occured to me once I became a parent that when my kids fight I don't really care who's right or wrong - I HATE the fighting!!!! It breaks my heart! If one kid treats another badly it really doesn't matter if she is in the right or not - she's wrong for her wrong action.
God must surely feel the same way. If we being evil can hate injustice - God must LOATHE it. I don't tell people anything about myself other thatn I am a Christian if they ask about my "religion" Why does "brand name " matter?
I recall a class on Biblical research in which one of the teacher pointed out that Bullinger had a following that loved research and their downfall was their legalism and their mistreatment of people. - sound familiar?
During counselling sessions with Moneyhands before our wedding he referred to BOTH of our families as "unbelievers" - despite the fact that my ex's parents are devout Catholics and my parents are devout Southern Baptists, have taught Sunday School and are very active in the church and local charities. I corrected him on this once, but he said that if they haven't spoken in tongues it's best to assume that they aren't born again, no matter how "nice" they were. Then he'd give his famous little smirk.
Fine if you don't want to believe me and the others who have also verified this. We already know that people heard different things and that teachings were perverted and exaggerated. We know that not everything that was taught was written down.
I'm not so stupid as to believe everything I read on here and I resent the implication that I am.
Fine if you don't want to believe me and the others who have also verified this.
That would be fine if it were true but no one has verified anything. You have simply said it is true because I said so try that in a court it would not fly there nor does it with me. To believe you need to have something to believe.
We know that not everything that was taught was written down.
If it were a direct quote I suppose it would be recorded somewhere now would it not and written down. Due to the lack of any evidence other than "I said so" I stand by my conclusion to date.
TWI III - Templelady offered no response to support her claim.
While some posters offered some quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class none were the direct quote in question or none proved that the Way taught that "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved"
This week Whitedove checked with some people that have been and are still in the Way during this time and they confirmed that they have never heard this taught in a class or during any other teaching.
Conclusion from evidence - no proof for the quote being taught was presented. Due to the lack of evidence in that not one documentation in any syllabus,tape,book or other form is found we can conclude that this was not the position of the Way during this period either. To date it looks like Oldiesman is correct on this one.
PERZACKLY!!! Remember that craiggers took everything to an extreme; got rid of as much of vee pee's influences as he could and taught some pretty off the wall things....
For example: Page 27 - Segment 5 of craiggers class....
How may books are in the Bible?
56 - according to craiggers - This way he can utilize his "spirituality of numbers"
Page 29 - Segment 6
More fuel for worshipping the Bible:
"God's Word is as much God as God is God."
The Word of God is our ONLY standard of believing and action.
With other denominations - it's leaders and then tradition and then maybe the Word of God.
RC religion has been around longer than the Word of God.
The 2nd part are quotes from my notes during the class.
Segment 10 - page 48
"The focal point of creation - makind.
The focal point of man's allegiance was to be loving and fellowshipping with that great God, our heavely Father, the Creator of the heavens and earth.
You can not fellowship with that great God if you don't speak in tongues.
last sentence from my notes
page 98 - Segment 18
Regarding 1 Corinthians 2:14 and "natural man" -
"It can also apply to people that are born again that don't obey, don't hear, don't do anything with the Word."
According to craiggers - if you aren't deemed "worthy" according to TWI then you are considered "natural man" - no better than an animal - just body & soul.
Page 110 - Segment 20
Regarding Eph 2:18,19
"We're in the family when we get born again. We're in the household when we live according to the stadards of the house."
Page 112 - Segment 20
"To make Jesus lord in your life starts with obeying the Word. And the Word says that speaking in tongues is how we build up ourselves, which is how we keep ourselves i the love of God and keep ourselves from falling."
Page 113
"Speaking in tongues is the proof that you're born again."
"It bears witness that you're a son of God, a joint heir; it gurarantees that you're born again, you have eternal life."
Page 112, 114, 115, 116
No man can TRULY say he is born again - no man can TRULY say Jesus is Lord except by speaking in tongues.
Page 116
"Speaking in tongues is a necessity if you want to please God."
"If you want to walk in the household, if you wat to keep yourself in the love of God and keep yourself from falling, you need to be strengthened spiritually - your body, mind and spirit have to be built up to walk in alignment and harmony."
Page 117
One purpose of speaking in tongues is to declare Jesus is lord in your life - 1 Cor 12:3
And don't even get me started on the Eve - Lesbian teaching.....
Craig didn't always teach the same things vee pee taught - and furthermore - he didn't always write it down. Because we had to listen to the STS teachings over and over, teach on them in fellowship and read about them in the way rag - these lessons were pounded into our brains.
There were also those famous "read between the lines" teachings and admonitions that we received.
Perhaps we should clarify in our discussions whether we are referring to TWIt 1 or TWIt II or TWIt III teachings.
It was NOT ACCEPTABLE to NOT speak in tongues in TWI. That alone should speak loudly.
We had a woman in my first fellowship who came all the time - hardly ever missed a meeting. She always volunteered for things and gave generously in every way possible. Sweet, personable, tender, encouraging and just oozed love. This woman had taken the foundational class (vee pee's) but never spoke in tongues.
She "was allowed" to continue coming to TWIt functions until after I had been there about a year - so this was around 1993 - 1994. She was called into a meeting and told that if she did not speak in tounges she was not able to prove that she was saved and unwelcome to come to any more fellowships because she was just taking and not giving.
I knew it was total b.s. and the HFCs did too, but they did what they were told to do. I can't remember if it was J0hn Shr0yer or Moneyhands who was the LC/RC at the time, but it was one of them. So, I understand what you in TWI 1 say that you were taught and I understand that not all things were written down - especially some of the more illogical things from craiggers reign of terror, however, SIT was considered a non-negotiable area of spirituality in TWI II. If someone did not SIT, they were no better than an animal and certainly not considered to be born again.
OM, I posted all the quotes I had time for at the time including my notes on aspects of the teaching as craig was talking. I stand behind my post and ask how many times you took WAP and the subsequent classes.
I answered your questions in my post #19 above - Post 19
I also reiterate that craig did NOT teach exactly the same things vee pee taught at all times. There are many things he taught that vee pee did not and many things he took to even further extremes than vee pee did - one example is his teachings in the WAP class on "epiluo".
I furthermore reiterate "JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT TAUGHT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T TAUGHT" You were in another TWI than most of us and you certainly didn't experience the things that many of us experienced. We accept YOUR experiences and recollections; why, oh, why can't you give us the same respect?
WhiteDove, I think, like OM, you aren't going to believe anything you don't want to believe no matter what proof is presented to you. Besides that, you keep talking about vee pee and another TWI than the one I was involved in. vee pee was a nobody and hardly ever even referred to, much less mentioned, during my involvement.
I AM looking for more proof for you, but I actually have a life outside of GSpot AND I can hardly bear to re-read the quotes, notes and information from these classes. There may or may not be a written quote, "If you don't speak in tongues you aren't born again" but you surely know that many things are taught and put together to make a point without documentation that can later be brought back to prove to those who doubt you.
For me, the fact that my ex-husband, who was a diligent disciple of craiggers and moneyhands, refused to admit that my family was born again because they never spoke in tongues and the fact that that dear, sweet lady was M&A for not speaking in tongues is evidence enough of what was taught, but - whatever.
Here are some quotes from the Intermediate Class of craig's that show the distaste for those who don't speak in tongues and all these teachings in addition to the ones in the AC and the STSs build to one lesson regarding SIT and being born again.
Page 40
He spends at least an hour on "Be Not Ignorant" of spiritual matters.
Pausing on 1 Cor 12:1 -
This is the fourth admonition to not be ignorant in the epistles
Four always has reference to all that is created - the number of material completeness
The spirit of God is the light of God in concretion. God, who is light, broke that essence down in spirit, and then put spirit in mankind. He put it in a category that mankind could house in the body - in the mind.
1 Cor 12:2
Know - oida - you have a clear picture in your mind that you were (past tense) gentiles. he's reminding the believers, and indeed us, "Remember what you used to be before you belonged to God" - body-soul
dumb = inanimate
idols = what makes a dumb idol able to attract and conduct away people is the spirit energy and life that associates itself with it. Every genuine idol had a devil spirit(s) associated with it. That's what draws people to it.
Eph 2:11-14
"in the flesh" = body-soul
1 Corinthians is reproof; it corrects practical error. Paul focuses their attention to spiritual matters, "it's God's passionate, intense desire that you're not ignorant, notvoid of understanding concerning spiritual matters." He's confronting them, "Why have you fallen back into this false teaching?"
1 Cor 12:3
Wherefore - Indicates a practical application of a preceding truth which is in verse 2. He's saying to them to stay humble and meek and to get moving again.
"Spirit of God" - gift in manifestation
"accursed" = anathema. Unbelievers had been teaching - to counter the great movement of the Word in the first century - that when they spoke in tongues, they were cursing Jesus Christ - which is an absolute lie.
"can say" = can really say the text reads
say = eipon - to utter definite words; to enunciate words; to speak or utter words successively. It's to speak in tongues.
(page 42)
"no...[one] can [really] say that Jesus is the Lord, but by...[holy spirit]" - an idiom.
idioma - a colloquial phrase in the culture, meaning, "No one can affirm from the heart that Jesus is lord but by speaking in tongues." It's a figure of speach; it means it's emphatic.
My note: This is where a lot of the foundation for us regarding the worthlessness and beginning disdain for those who SAY they are Christians but don't fellowship with TWI or have been heard to SIT are not
really
born again. Romans 10:9-10 say that you have to confess Jesus as lord to be born again - hence, if you can't REALLY say Jesus is lord without speaking in tongues, then you aren't REALLY born again.
People who weren't paying close attention or hanging on every word of craig may have missed these kinds of things. My ex and I were die-hards and have a whole library of transcripts of his teachings. We didn't miss much. :mellow:
Further into the syllabus (I guess this is the equivalent of "scripture build up" via the syllabus:
Page 48
1 Cor 12:27 is speaking of the long suits that each believer - as he wills to manifest - can develop, and how all that contributes and works together in the functioning household of God.
Members of the Body Counterfeit Teachings:
1 - A mamber has only one or two gifts of the spirit
2 - Secular occupations
3 - Ecumenical unity Baptist, Methodist, etc. - Not denominations
The context is "spiritual matters". Members refer to those born again who are functioning, willing to operate the manifestations according to the Word. This is referring to a healthy "body".
"drink into one Spirit" - we've all manifested power from on high by speaking in tongues.
Page 49
1 Cor 12:14-19
"as it...pleased him" - We know what pleases God; He energizes all in all. Believeing pleases God. So as that member wills to believe to manifest, that pleases God, and God opens the door for that person's long suits in the Body - that felloowship - to function and contribute.
1 Cor 12:20,21
"I have no need of you" - We should never think less of any functioning believing believer in the Body. And no functioning believer is any more important than anyone else in the household. It takes all of us in the household to keep the Body healthy, vital, alive.
My quote of craig in my notes: This is a warning to US today - NOT REFERRING TO COP-OUTS.
If you're a functioning believer - you're very important and necessary to the ministry.
Page 53
1 Corinthians 13 sets the apex in renewed-mind heart of the walk of a believing believer and the pinacle of the walk of the household together.
This is where he teaches the new definition of Agape as the love of/for God in our renewed mind in manifestation in the household of God.
He furthermore emphasizes that to love God is to obey his Word - obeying his word includes speaking in tongues - therefore, if you don't speak in tongues, you aren't obeying God and you're lying about really loving him.
I have another quote note from craige: "We have to keep it in perspective, everyone THINKS they love"
Page 54
1Cor 13:1
"tinkling" - clanging. The speaking in tongues is genuine, but the individual - that doesn't do it because he loves God and therefore wants to manifest that love in the renewed mind in the househodl of God - IS WORTHLESS. It is a figurative way to say his life is worthless.
If someone who genuinely speaks in tongues can be "worthless" how much less must we have been taught to think of those who don't speak in tongues at all.
John 15:1-6
"nothing" - that means worthless
"burned" - because they are worthless
1 Cor 13:2
"the gift of" - a treacherous addition. Scratch it out.
"I could remove mountains" - exaggeration to get our attention as to how important our mind-set is as we operate the gift that God has given us.
"nothing" - worthless
1 Cor 13:3
"bestow all my goods" - share everything you've got with the household
"profiteth...nothing" - meaning the impact of the energizing of that manifestation of of that ministry will profit the individual and the household immediately.
Page 55
1 Cor 13:4
"is kind" - We are kind because God first loved us, so we love him back by being kind to the faithful in the household. In the senses realm people are kind with a motive. What most people call love is based on expediency: At best, that's human love, brotherly love - phileo
This is all I have time for right now. But I'm still looking, I don't know why, to prove to you that we are not hallucinating or creating some alternative reality about what we learned in TWI II.
During counselling sessions with Moneyhands before our wedding he referred to BOTH of our families as "unbelievers" - despite the fact that my ex's parents are devout Catholics and my parents are devout Southern Baptists, have taught Sunday School and are very active in the church and local charities. I corrected him on this once, but he said that if they haven't spoken in tongues it's best to assume that they aren't born again, no matter how "nice" they were. Then he'd give his famous little smirk.
Fine if you don't want to believe me and the others who have also verified this. We already know that people heard different things and that teachings were perverted and exaggerated. We know that not everything that was taught was written down.
I'm not so stupid as to believe everything I read on here and I resent the implication that I am.
Folks' individual notes don't prove what twi taught, ... all it proves is one's own perception, on what was taught.
Perceptions may differ from person to person.
I would still like to see, from Craig's book "Way of Abundance" or other written document from Craig, what he wrote about "how to get saved/ born again."
Folks who took his class should be able to provide this please.
That would be fine if it were true but no one has verified anything. You have simply said it is true because I said so try that in a court it would not fly there nor does it with me. To believe you need to have something to believe.
No, there were quotes from lcm's wap class.
If it were a direct quote I suppose it would be recorded somewhere now would it not and written down. Due to the lack of any evidence other than "I said so" I stand by my conclusion to date.
There were quotes from lcm's wap class.
While some posters offered some quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class
I thought you just said it was "because I said so" and there were no direct quotes.
Now you're admitting there were lcm quotes.
none were the direct quote in question or none proved that the Way taught that "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved"
In your opinion. It made a substantive case, if you weren't looking for those EXACT words,
but found the identical CONCEPT sufficient.
This week Whitedove checked with some people that have been and are still in the Way during this time and they confirmed that they have never heard this taught in a class or during any other teaching.
One person quoted directly from lcm's class.
Another claims some people told him those quotes don't exist.
Since the first person is quoting directly (and has the burden of proof, which they provided),
and the second person lacks access to said evidence,
and never looked into EXACTLY WHAT WAS CITED
(session, page, etc.)
which person should the logical reader believe made a stronger case?
Style is not equivalent to evidence OR logic.
Folks' individual notes don't prove what twi taught, ... all it proves is one's own perception, on what was taught.
Perceptions may differ from person to person.
I would still like to see, from Craig's book "Way of Abundance" or other written document from Craig, what he wrote about "how to get saved/ born again."
Folks who took his class should be able to provide this please.
Doesn't matter if lcm himself posts and admits to it,
complete with RealVideo clips and RealAudio clips from it
and pdfs of the pages from the books,
you still will find an excuse to disbelieve it.
Folks who've tried to reason with you should be able to confirm this.
The following is a picture from the PFAL syllabus and is what twi has always taught on how to get born again:
Congratulations!
You proved that one page from the PFAL syllabus-which no one ever disputed-
said that.
Have an egg cream!
Now, if you want to show what twi "ALWAYS taught",
Doesn't matter if lcm himself posts and admits to it, complete with RealVideo clips and RealAudio clips from it and pdfs of the pages from the books, you still will find an excuse to disbelieve it. Folks who've tried to reason with you should be able to confirm this.
Well I suppose a video clip of Craig himself would suffice. :P
But seriously, if someone, anyone, quotes something published by twi, showing that SIT is a requirement for salvation, I will believe twi changed their teaching regarding salvation.
Craig does NOT have a "book" for WAP. There is only a syllabus!
In my pea brain- what my "perception" was........" look at those poor church goers who DON'T SIT, they don't really know if they have eternal life".
So yes, implication, read between the lines, my perception, notes, who your fellowship leader was, how you interpret, all come into play in this subject.
I don't know if the Way would say they taught it this way, probably not, but how others perceived it being taught is a whole other story.
No written proof, but a whole lotta wrong thinking and application goin on!!!!!
Maybe the Way needs to take a poll from all their innies to see what they "think" about this issue.
That way they can ''clarify" what they said, and believe.
I won't hold my breath.
Belle, you are sharing what you heard and were even taught to some degree. But I am sure it wasn't a direct quote in a class, just on a local level and how we all interpreted it. No sweat, looks to me like it happend ALL THE TIME!
Most of the stuff on GS is how one perceived it or was even taught by a leader. That is what makes the Way so stinky.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
15
22
11
Popular Days
Dec 21
49
Dec 5
17
Dec 20
17
Nov 24
14
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 21 posts
Belle 15 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
dmiller 11 posts
Popular Days
Dec 21 2005
49 posts
Dec 5 2005
17 posts
Dec 20 2005
17 posts
Nov 24 2005
14 posts
rascal
Well....all I can say is that judging from the fruit in the lives of folks promoting speaking in tongues as a big ol hairy deal...I gotta wonder how effective or truly important it really is.....
The people who committed the most vile acts against christians that I have ever witnessed....people who`s actions brand them as *of the flesh* were the one who insisted that their ability sit is what made them such spiritual hot shots.....l...and that the rest of Christiandom was some how sub par because they didn`t.
Yet when you look at the rest of Christianity, that is where you see so many folks manifesting the fruit of the spirit.
I do not think our understanding of sit or it`s importance can be considered reliable....given the lives of the men who touted it as how to be spiritual.....it didn`t help them to not be cruel and destructive to the flock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
No better than an animal biologically, yes, because the natural man of body and soul is spiritually dead. But I still have a problem with twi supposedly teaching that someone is "not considered to be born again", when the teaching was so clear on how to get born again.
I do not have a copy of "Way of Abundance & Power" and do not wish to buy a copy just to prove my point, but if anyone wants to check their copy and quote what Craig wrote about "how to get born again/saved", it would be helpful here. I would be flabbergasted, stunned, if he wrote something demonstrably different than what I remember VP teaching, which is referenced below:
Victor Paul WierwillePower for Abundant Living Book
Part IV -- The New Birth
Chapter 19 -- Born Again of Incorruptible Seed
Pgs. 295-98
I also have a pic from the syllabus that I can upload tomorrow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
OM, I posted all the quotes I had time for at the time including my notes on aspects of the teaching as craig was talking. I stand behind my post and ask how many times you took WAP and the subsequent classes.
I answered your questions in my post #19 above - Post 19
I also reiterate that craig did NOT teach exactly the same things vee pee taught at all times. There are many things he taught that vee pee did not and many things he took to even further extremes than vee pee did - one example is his teachings in the WAP class on "epiluo".
I furthermore reiterate "JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT TAUGHT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T TAUGHT" You were in another TWI than most of us and you certainly didn't experience the things that many of us experienced. We accept YOUR experiences and recollections; why, oh, why can't you give us the same respect?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I respect you Belle.
I just don't believe everything I read on the internet.
Do you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Belle, a couple of those quotes that caught my eye-
Page 29 - Segmet 6
More fuel for worshipping the Bible:
"God's Word is as much God as God is God."
I believe it's completely possible for a person to replace the desire to try and know a living God with recognizing a written god, because it's much easier. But it could be very wrong too if a person stops there.
It sounds like LCM took this up a notch (BAM!), although this was taught by VPW, and it's one of the more confounding statements to come down the pike. I can clarify to an extent what VPW meant, because I asked him while in the corps, but no idea what LCM may have meant. VPW based it on the word "logos". In the bible, God is "the logos". The Word of God, written is logos. (Jesus Christ was also the logo, the "living logos").
In overall context, that's all true on face value. But taking it and forcing the above statement out of the usages of the word logos is - well, now I'd say it's naive and even at that time, seemingly contradicting PFAL in other places at to how to interpret the bible, which was why I asked him about it.
God's "word" isn't God, anymore than my word is me. Semantically it makes no sense. There are various usages of the word logos and the usages in context point to the meaning. It would be correct I think to say that God can be known by "His Word" and that it's occurence indicates the presence of God's intentions, but not "is" God. Christians "fellowship" around "the Word" and are involved with "the things of God", presumably as given by Him.
"The Living Word", Jesus Christ is essential to Christian life, as Christ makes known to us God and how God is. The closest thing the bible talks about to "being" God is Jesus Christ, in that He Himself said "I and my Father are one" and, "He that has seen me has seen the Father". But God also said "put no other gods before me".
This is interesting too:
The Word of God is our ONLY standard of believing and action.
With other denominations - it's leaders and then tradition and then maybe the Word of God.
RC religion has been around longer than the Word of God.
The Way progressively developed it's version of the "R" word, religion, with a pope ("The man of God) who had the power to draw down "present truth" as excathedra as any pope ever did. It developed rituals and customs like twig orders of service, bookstore set up and other agendas that had to be obeserved consistently without deviation. Rules for punctuality and dress that supposedly displayed how loving and respectful a person was, fetishes for detail and cleanliness that produced a true godly environment. The list could go on and on.
It always fascinated me how in PFAL VPW denigrated churches for caring more about the flowers on the altar and having everything "just so" but not caring for the the bible. Yet in a few short years those very kinds of things were as important as anything a person did with the bible, because those things supposedly were external indicators of how much you really believed.
The result was the same thing - ultimately, if you didn't have all your ducks in a row doing the cha-cha just right, the whole night would fall to pieces and the "Word of God coudn't live tonight peo-pul" because someone didn't "think it through". Never mind that most peo-pul never had a chance to see let alone miss the mints in his little dish that weren't there, or the coffee that was cold, and no one gave a hoot about any number of other things that were so "essential".
(It's always good to do the best job you can for others. It's in bad taste for those people to throw it in everyone's face in public if they thought you could have done better. Sooner or later they're going to rebel. Can I say "Martha Stewart" :P :D ).
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, Socks. Ya know, I'm trying really hard to remember how craig taught this, but for the life of me I can't remember. I still have all the class syllabuses (i?) out by the laptop at home, so I'll have to look it up.
I do remember the big "revelation" teachings about John 1 - or maybe it was just "big" to me since it was relatively new. I think, though, that it was a ministry-wide big deal for some reason. Paul Bro*ks taught it at the Densm*re's house and circulated through all the fellowships in the area teaching it to everyone. From what I remember, the WC were doing this all over the US.
He spent a lot of time on "together with yet distinctly independent of" being the definition of pros.
However, as was so common in TWI in the 90's and 00's, what was taught vs. what was expected were two different things. (e.g. we were taught to listen to that "still small voice" but we couldn't hear it for all the yelling and orders from leadership and if leadership's desires conflicted with our "still small voice" we were to follow leadership instead). So many times we were given Bible verses for why we should/should not do some things and we were expected to laud whatever teachings and scriptures were thrown at us over any common sense conclusions we were to come to on our own (e.g. buying a home).
The Bible and what TWI said the Bible said took precedence over anything God might have said to us or worked within us. Growth without compulsion was taught, but not allowed.
I hope this makes sense. It does in my brain, but it's so hard to describe to people who weren't there how you can read something or hear something taught and have it make sense, but not be able to do anything along the lines of what was taught, nor believe it simply the way it was taught. It's all in HOW it was taught and what the practical application of the teachings really were - which were very seldom the application actually taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jkboehme
Per Belle:
***************************************************************
Belle, one technique in the induction of an altered state of consciousness is the induction of a mild ‘daze.’ This is somewhat comparable to the transfixion we experience when driving an auto for long distances & then being ‘unable’ to recall a significant amount of the trip. Some academics term this as a somnambulistic tendency as ‘eyes wide open’ trance induction with heightened susceptibility to ‘suggestions.’
One manner in which a cultic exploiter might induce this daze of reverie and transfixion is via what is termed naturalistic, conversational trance induction, which utilizes certain styles of speech to pace and lead the victim, with indirection, implication, and anchoring.
Within the context of this pacing & leading method of induction is the presentation of information as though it were logical when it obviously is not logical. This generates a mental conflict in the victim leading to a mildly bedazzled alteration of consciousness as noted above, once again with heightened suggestibility. This mental conflict also induces an anxiety state such that the victim feels compelled to seek a rapid resolution, even if the resolution is not in the victim’s best interest, which typically it is not, because the exploiter’s purpose to get 'you' to act rashly & in the implied manner that the cultic exploiter has designed just for you.
:o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I think it's very understandable Belle.
There was, in a phrase, "too much teaching".
The whole culture of teach teach teach, listen listen listen rolled like a snowball, quickly picking up speed and buik over the years. Of course there was "do do do", too. But if all your time is spent in listen mode, when do you "do"? :huh: Well, there's always teach teach teach. :blink: It's a cycle of activity that's self rewarding, aggrandizing and self supporting. Not a lot else gets done.
It's not hard to understand that isn't going to work for very long, and it didn't in the form it was set in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well this thread has taken some interesting turns since it's approaching page three I thought maybe a update of what we have learned in regard to the original question was in order.
B.A. Robinson article is posted
Oldies posts this section as untrue.
This would imply that Christians who do not speak in tongues are not actually saved. Virtually the entire 33 million membership of the Southern Baptist Convention, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Presbyterian Church (USA) are not saved because speaking in tongues is rarely seen on those denominations.
Belle posts that it is true!
Oldies offers the record from PFAL Acts19 as proof that they did not teach this.
Dmiller agrees that oldies is correct.
Morgan thinks
What was taught to large audiences and what was taught to smaller ones were often not quite the same.
Wordwolf does not remember being taught this but can't say for sure it was not during Craigs years.
Templelady says it is a direct quote from session 12
12th session PFAL
My class
Direct Quote
"If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved"
Socks offers some quotes from various PFAL Books as to what was taught none support that the quote was correct.
Goey agrees that he never heard that taught and offers a fine explanation of don't and can't and the difference.
Whitedove asks templelady for a date and class teacher for her class
Whitedove post some quotes from Receiving the holy spirit today as to why they did not teach this.
dmiller again confirms from his class that they did not teach this. and offers some more examples from PFAL. also says he has no idea what was taught in Craig's class.
Belle agrees with dmiller and posts many quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class.
(informative but none were the direct quote or were proof that that was taught.)
WW says she heard it for years (what she heard exactly was not said)
Whitedove again asks for a page reference for the direct quote.
Lifted Up agrees with Goeys logic of can't and don't
Digitalis agrees there was taught a difference between being saved and speaking in tongues.
Belle shares a story of a woman who was unwelcome to attend fellowships because she did not speak in tongues.
Rascal offers her comments on fruit and how the rest of Christianity is manifesting the spirit.
Oldies again confirms his view and offers more quotes from PFAL to prove his point.
Belle again references the quotes from her earlier post.
Summation:
TWI
I. 1973 and before
II. 1974 to circa 1987
III. 1987 and after
TWI I & II - The majority of posters agree that it was their recollection that quote was not taught.
from the book references and class sessions presented it confirms that they are correct nowhere is that quote documented. abundant evidence to the opposite is offered and none to support it was found.
Session 12 tape of VPW class is checked at no place is that quote present .
Conclusion from the evidence - Since the recollections of most posters as well as the many PFAL materials and finally the class tape itself all concur that the quote in question is not there and was not taught we can find that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that the article quote was not true. No evidence to support the claim was found or offered.
TWI III - Templelady offered no response to support her claim.
While some posters offered some quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class none were the direct quote in question or none proved that the Way taught that "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved"
This week Whitedove checked with some people that have been and are still in the Way during this time and they confirmed that they have never heard this taught in a class or during any other teaching.
Conclusion from evidence - no proof for the quote being taught was presented. Due to the lack of evidence in that not one documentation in any syllabus,tape,book or other form is found we can conclude that this was not the position of the Way during this period either. To date it looks like Oldiesman is correct on this one.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
WhiteDove,
Although I don't recall it being taught as a formal doctrine, I do recall from the classes we ran and the classes I attended, the distinctly condescending tone toward people who did not, in fact, speak in tongues at the conclusion of Session 12. "She didn't manifest"....and then the elongated "OOOOHHHH" on the part of the others. (We don't know FOR SURE if she isn't a seed girl) The implication was that the person was somehow less of a human being than the rest of us who had received that "secret decoder ring" and had been given the "secret handshake." Such a person was treated with charity (so we thought), but was never really good enough.
So, to my recollection, you are correct that it wasn't directly taught in the piffle class, it sure was strongly implied...but of course it's been a long, long time (thank the Lord) and my memory may be sort of faulty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
In all my years of classes Mark I can recall only one time that a student did not SIT by the end of the class. In that instance the rest of the class was not aware and it was resolved in a one on one situation The person did want to, but had some ideas to overcome to be comfortable with it. Much like being scared to stand up in public and speak.
You are correct the issue at question is what was taught not what someone thought was implied. A person can decide about anything was implied from some words but that does not make it true that it was taught. I think Socks posted about the best recollection so far. Here are some of the things he had to say . I agree with his recollection. Remembering the question was What Was Taught? not the right or wrong of it was the question at hand.
Quotes from Socks pg1
The overwhelming message of PFAL, whether it be right or not, was that many believers - those already born again of God's spirit - have no idea of the "power of God" available to them. That is, they're already "sons of God", "born again" and "saved" in that they are redeemed through belief in Christ.
Two types of "receiving" were defined by usages of the words dechomia and lambano. One was to receive inherently, to have it, as in holy spirit dwelling within. "Going to heaven and all hell can't stop you", as quoted in PFAL. The second receiving was to receive into manifestation, that point where a person, by believing, brings into physical evidence the inner holy spirit. PFAL presented that in the last 3 sessions of teaching as to speak in tongues, a basic fundamental operation of the holy spirit within, available to every believer.
Chapter 19 deals with The New Birth:
"The moment a person confesses with his mouth Jesus as Lord that person is converted, saved, born again. ... to the point that he says "Jesus is Lord of my life and I know God raised Him from the dead," he is born again of God's spirit. That person has instantly changed lords: his now on the way to heaven and all hell can't stop him from going because he is a son of God having Christ in him. He has eternal life. He is no longer a natural man because he has received the spirit from God". ... The man of body and soul can so easily believe and receive eternal life, which is the greatest gift that God has ever given to man at any place, at any time".
I don't ever remember hearing VPW imply that a Christian that didn't speak in tongues wasn't "saved". Rather that a Christian who didn't wasn't operating the power of God, the "abundant life" of John 10:10 in this "administration" to it's fullest potential.
I don't doubt people may have come up with that, in some esoteric logic, even more esoteric than PFAL itself, but I'd have to question that being based on any of the PFAL based teachings I heard. Second, third hand maybe. "This is what VPW really meant", maybe. "Well, they're born again and saved, but they aren't really WALKING in power, Yes.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You know, honestly, White Dove, I don't remember enough specific detail from TWI classes anymore to be able to honestly discuss it with anybody. I do remember some 'people'-type details, but that's that. So I'll have to take your word for it one way or the other.
I will agree though that I only saw a very small minority who didn't SIT by the end of session 12.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
mark
yes most people did sit
but how many of them just babbled and made it up?
i think i did
but i still do it in my private prayer life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
WhiteDove, I think, like OM, you aren't going to believe anything you don't want to believe no matter what proof is presented to you. Besides that, you keep talking about vee pee and another TWI than the one I was involved in. vee pee was a nobody and hardly ever even referred to, much less mentioned, during my involvement.
I AM looking for more proof for you, but I actually have a life outside of GSpot AND I can hardly bear to re-read the quotes, notes and information from these classes. There may or may not be a written quote, "If you don't speak in tongues you aren't born again" but you surely know that many things are taught and put together to make a point without documentation that can later be brought back to prove to those who doubt you.
For me, the fact that my ex-husband, who was a diligent disciple of craiggers and moneyhands, refused to admit that my family was born again because they never spoke in tongues and the fact that that dear, sweet lady was M&A for not speaking in tongues is evidence enough of what was taught, but - whatever.
Here are some quotes from the Intermediate Class of craig's that show the distaste for those who don't speak in tongues and all these teachings in addition to the ones in the AC and the STSs build to one lesson regarding SIT and being born again.
Page 40
He spends at least an hour on "Be Not Ignorant" of spiritual matters.
Pausing on 1 Cor 12:1 -
This is the fourth admonition to not be ignorant in the epistles
Four always has reference to all that is created - the number of material completeness
The spirit of God is the light of God in concretion. God, who is light, broke that essence down in spirit, and then put spirit in mankind. He put it in a category that mankind could house in the body - in the mind.
1 Cor 12:2
Know - oida - you have a clear picture in your mind that you were (past tense) gentiles. he's reminding the believers, and indeed us, "Remember what you used to be before you belonged to God" - body-soul
dumb = inanimate
idols = what makes a dumb idol able to attract and conduct away people is the spirit energy and life that associates itself with it. Every genuine idol had a devil spirit(s) associated with it. That's what draws people to it.
Eph 2:11-14
"in the flesh" = body-soul
1 Corinthians is reproof; it corrects practical error. Paul focuses their attention to spiritual matters, "it's God's passionate, intense desire that you're not ignorant, notvoid of understanding concerning spiritual matters." He's confronting them, "Why have you fallen back into this false teaching?"
1 Cor 12:3
Wherefore - Indicates a practical application of a preceding truth which is in verse 2. He's saying to them to stay humble and meek and to get moving again.
"Spirit of God" - gift in manifestation
"accursed" = anathema. Unbelievers had been teaching - to counter the great movement of the Word in the first century - that when they spoke in tongues, they were cursing Jesus Christ - which is an absolute lie.
"can say" = can really say the text reads
say = eipon - to utter definite words; to enunciate words; to speak or utter words successively. It's to speak in tongues.
(page 42)
"no...[one] can [really] say that Jesus is the Lord, but by...[holy spirit]" - an idiom.
idioma - a colloquial phrase in the culture, meaning, "No one can affirm from the heart that Jesus is lord but by speaking in tongues." It's a figure of speach; it means it's emphatic.
Page 48
1 Cor 12:27 is speaking of the long suits that each believer - as he wills to manifest - can develop, and how all that contributes and works together in the functioning household of God.
Members of the Body Counterfeit Teachings:
1 - A mamber has only one or two gifts of the spirit
2 - Secular occupations
3 - Ecumenical unity Baptist, Methodist, etc. - Not denominations
The context is "spiritual matters". Members refer to those born again who are functioning, willing to operate the manifestations according to the Word. This is referring to a healthy "body".
"drink into one Spirit" - we've all manifested power from on high by speaking in tongues.
Page 49
1 Cor 12:14-19
"as it...pleased him" - We know what pleases God; He energizes all in all. Believeing pleases God. So as that member wills to believe to manifest, that pleases God, and God opens the door for that person's long suits in the Body - that felloowship - to function and contribute.
1 Cor 12:20,21
"I have no need of you" - We should never think less of any functioning believing believer in the Body. And no functioning believer is any more important than anyone else in the household. It takes all of us in the household to keep the Body healthy, vital, alive.
My quote of craig in my notes: This is a warning to US today - NOT REFERRING TO COP-OUTS.
If you're a functioning believer - you're very important and necessary to the ministry.
Page 53
1 Corinthians 13 sets the apex in renewed-mind heart of the walk of a believing believer and the pinacle of the walk of the household together.
This is where he teaches the new definition of Agape as the love of/for God in our renewed mind in manifestation in the household of God.
He furthermore emphasizes that to love God is to obey his Word - obeying his word includes speaking in tongues - therefore, if you don't speak in tongues, you aren't obeying God and you're lying about really loving him.
I have another quote note from craige: "We have to keep it in perspective, everyone THINKS they love"
Page 54
1Cor 13:1
"tinkling" - clanging. The speaking in tongues is genuine, but the individual - that doesn't do it because he loves God and therefore wants to manifest that love in the renewed mind in the househodl of God - IS WORTHLESS. It is a figurative way to say his life is worthless.
If someone who genuinely speaks in tongues can be "worthless" how much less must we have been taught to think of those who don't speak in tongues at all.
John 15:1-6
"nothing" - that means worthless
"burned" - because they are worthless
1 Cor 13:2
"the gift of" - a treacherous addition. Scratch it out.
"I could remove mountains" - exaggeration to get our attention as to how important our mind-set is as we operate the gift that God has given us.
"nothing" - worthless
1 Cor 13:3
"bestow all my goods" - share everything you've got with the household
"profiteth...nothing" - meaning the impact of the energizing of that manifestation of of that ministry will profit the individual and the household immediately.
Page 55
1 Cor 13:4
"is kind" - We are kind because God first loved us, so we love him back by being kind to the faithful in the household. In the senses realm people are kind with a motive. What most people call love is based on expediency: At best, that's human love, brotherly love - phileo
This is all I have time for right now. But I'm still looking, I don't know why, to prove to you that we are not hallucinating or creating some alternative reality about what we learned in TWI II.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Belle
I have no doubt that the teachings in TWI 3 changed from that of TWI I & II.
But unlike you I am not willing to accept anyone's word for facts. The reason being that it is not necessarily the truth. People say lots of things for lots of reasons. To find the truth you have to dig through the muddle. Most often it's been because it has been 10,20,30 years since the fact and people forget, sometimes people think that they heard what someone said but they did not really, that happens all the time at work. And sometimes because people are just angry they just plain make $*@! up.
None of these things counts for truth. It is important to check things out honestly the reason why people swallowed Craigs line of $*@! in the first place is because they failed to check it against truth.
You challenged Oldies post and templelady said it was a direct quote. I say fine show me the quote and I will be happy to accept it. So far I have not seen it, that's generally the case call people out and then rather than offering hard proof it becomes that's what I remember or you weren't everywhere or offering some quote that has nothing to do with the one in question and that somehow proves the other wrong. It does not! It has been well established by all the other posters that was not the teaching in TWI 1 & 2 To depart from that teaching would be a huge thing. For that to happen and not have it documented somewhere on tape, CD, book, print ,Syllabus or Video would be unbelievable.
What if I told you that Paw never started the Greasespot Café it was someone else. Would you just say gee ok I believe you. I doubt it. If I were to say that, within minutes people would bring up facts or old posts to prove me wrong. Rightfully so, then you would not accept my words as truth. I expect the same. It's not a question of not wanting to believe something it's about believing truth not error. Show me the facts and I'll believe. The other posters on the thread produced proof of their points I accepted that it made sense. Anyone can pop in and say oh yeah it's a direct quote and leave without producing any proof.
That I choose not to believe...... I don't always agree with Oldies but the truth is on this one I believe the facts show he is right. Honestly many times just because it's him a certain group of people will take up the opposite side. I say fine but have some proof to offer when you call someone out. Then we have something to believe.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
That plus most of us, with some exceptions, don't really know each other; just as internet handles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Excerpts from Doojable on the Sickness thread:
During counselling sessions with Moneyhands before our wedding he referred to BOTH of our families as "unbelievers" - despite the fact that my ex's parents are devout Catholics and my parents are devout Southern Baptists, have taught Sunday School and are very active in the church and local charities. I corrected him on this once, but he said that if they haven't spoken in tongues it's best to assume that they aren't born again, no matter how "nice" they were. Then he'd give his famous little smirk.
Fine if you don't want to believe me and the others who have also verified this. We already know that people heard different things and that teachings were perverted and exaggerated. We know that not everything that was taught was written down.
I'm not so stupid as to believe everything I read on here and I resent the implication that I am.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
If it were a direct quote I suppose it would be recorded somewhere now would it not and written down. Due to the lack of any evidence other than "I said so" I stand by my conclusion to date.
TWI III - Templelady offered no response to support her claim.
While some posters offered some quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class none were the direct quote in question or none proved that the Way taught that "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved"
This week Whitedove checked with some people that have been and are still in the Way during this time and they confirmed that they have never heard this taught in a class or during any other teaching.
Conclusion from evidence - no proof for the quote being taught was presented. Due to the lack of evidence in that not one documentation in any syllabus,tape,book or other form is found we can conclude that this was not the position of the Way during this period either. To date it looks like Oldiesman is correct on this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The following is a picture from the PFAL syllabus and is what twi has always taught on how to get born again:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Folks' individual notes don't prove what twi taught, ... all it proves is one's own perception, on what was taught.
Perceptions may differ from person to person.
I would still like to see, from Craig's book "Way of Abundance" or other written document from Craig, what he wrote about "how to get saved/ born again."
Folks who took his class should be able to provide this please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No, there were quotes from lcm's wap class.
There were quotes from lcm's wap class.I thought you just said it was "because I said so" and there were no direct quotes.
Now you're admitting there were lcm quotes.
In your opinion. It made a substantive case, if you weren't looking for those EXACT words,but found the identical CONCEPT sufficient.
One person quoted directly from lcm's class.
Another claims some people told him those quotes don't exist.
Since the first person is quoting directly (and has the burden of proof, which they provided),
and the second person lacks access to said evidence,
and never looked into EXACTLY WHAT WAS CITED
(session, page, etc.)
which person should the logical reader believe made a stronger case?
Style is not equivalent to evidence OR logic.
Doesn't matter if lcm himself posts and admits to it,
complete with RealVideo clips and RealAudio clips from it
and pdfs of the pages from the books,
you still will find an excuse to disbelieve it.
Folks who've tried to reason with you should be able to confirm this.
Congratulations!
You proved that one page from the PFAL syllabus-which no one ever disputed-
said that.
Have an egg cream!
Now, if you want to show what twi "ALWAYS taught",
you'll need to post the image from the wap class.
What?
You don't HAVE it?
Then this business about what twi "ALWAYS taught"
is actually what PFAL said and nothing else,
and your claim that it's what was "ALWAYS taught"
is specious to say the least.
(And a bald-faced lie to say the most.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
But seriously, if someone, anyone, quotes something published by twi, showing that SIT is a requirement for salvation, I will believe twi changed their teaching regarding salvation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Craig does NOT have a "book" for WAP. There is only a syllabus!
In my pea brain- what my "perception" was........" look at those poor church goers who DON'T SIT, they don't really know if they have eternal life".
So yes, implication, read between the lines, my perception, notes, who your fellowship leader was, how you interpret, all come into play in this subject.
I don't know if the Way would say they taught it this way, probably not, but how others perceived it being taught is a whole other story.
No written proof, but a whole lotta wrong thinking and application goin on!!!!!
Maybe the Way needs to take a poll from all their innies to see what they "think" about this issue.
That way they can ''clarify" what they said, and believe.
I won't hold my breath.
Belle, you are sharing what you heard and were even taught to some degree. But I am sure it wasn't a direct quote in a class, just on a local level and how we all interpreted it. No sweat, looks to me like it happend ALL THE TIME!
Most of the stuff on GS is how one perceived it or was even taught by a leader. That is what makes the Way so stinky.
love and peace
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.