Wordwolf you need to read my posts more carefully I never said that no quotes were offered just that the quotes offered did not prove that the Way taught that "people were not saved if they did not speak in tongues" That was the quote in question that is the issue.
One can not just offer a random quote as proof that another is right otherwise I could just say The Word of God is the Will of God and that makes anything I say right cause I gave you a quote,never mind that it has nothing to do with anything.
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
How prey tell do quotes like this prove the point. They don't thats the problem when you are caught without any proof of your claim, you can't just post a flurry of unrelated quotes and that makes it ok.
QUOTE
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.
You seem to have left out the additional things I listed also. My conclusion was not based only on that. I checked to be nice since they seemed to not be able to find the quote that they were so sure of but no one else remembered it that way either. Just an additional reason it is suspect.
Here is the rest of what I said
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.
They are the ones who made the claim the burdon of proof is on them. Let's see the proof..... If it's a direct quote from session 12 it should be easy to find.
12th session PFAL
My class
Direct Quote
"If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved"
Implication, read between the lines, my perception, notes, who your fellowship leader was, how you interpret, all come into play in this subject
These things are driven by emotion not truth how you feel, perceive is dependant on your attitude toward The Way if you are angry and bitter then you could percieve that everything was taught wrong. One could asume anything that he wanted from a quote that does not mean that the one saying it taught it that way or meant it that way.
I'm reading between the lines of Belles quotes and my perception is that she loves the the Way and wishes she was still in. It's true you see because I said so and you were not everywhere now were you and by the way here is a quote to prove it The Word of God is the Will of God. What do you think the odds are that I'm wrong? About the same I'd say as that her quotes prove that the Way taught that if you did not speak in tongues that you were not saved.
From the WAP Syllabus and a previous post of miner
QUOTE
(page 42)
"no...[one] can [really] say that Jesus is the Lord, but by...[holy spirit]" - an idiom.
idioma - [b\]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.[/b]
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.
Belle I read your quotes THEY ARE NOT THE ONE IN QUESTION But since you posted them Look!! at the quotes. You are reaching......
The quote proves just what it says no one can affirm! that means from Webster( to declare positively)It does not teach that they are not saved just that you can not declare it positively. That means they could or could not be no one knows. This teaching is consistent with TWI 1 & 2
Actually I'm giving you the benefit of accepting that this is talking about being saved really it is talking about making him Lord in your life one could be saved and not hold Him as Lord in their life.
Your note that you wrote is assuming something that was not stated . Your note does not make it so that The Way Taught that it means that you perceived ,guessed,assumed that was so. The words speak for themselves when you look up the meanings.
Not sure when I am heading back to the attic. Hubby just put all my syllabi up there, and I don't think he's in the mood to get back up there..(it's quite small and hot)...
Maybe when he goes to put the Christmas stuff away :huh: lol
Well seeing my syllabus wasn't stuck in the attic--and it was near the Christmas tree that I had to get anyway, I went and looked it up.
Segment 19 covers the new birth. Segment 20 covers speaking in tongues. In segment 20, pg 112 of FNC WAP syllabus says,
"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 in the love of God and keep ourselves from falling."
Make Jesus as lord = obey Word = speak in tongues.
I find it odd that segment 19 doesnt really address what making Jesus lord would actually take. It says in print that all it takes to make him lord is to agree with the Word on what it says Jesus is.
Back on topic:
During the live classes which ran for 5 years? (I think) the local corpse used the syllabus but often elaborated on its different points. Many things were said that cannot be officially documented. Especially with corpse that were around longer and more confident in their ability and knowledge (ex Moneyhands.)
Side note material questions - "What is The Way?" and "What does it mean to be taught by the Way?".
Addendumb - "What is an authorized representative of the Way"?
Extra credit - question: If a Way leader sneezes in the woods and there's nobody there to hear it, is he still catching a cold?
When people of the Way who present themselves as leaders offer insights into the bible, a case can certainly be made that the Way "taught it". I've come to realize this about my own business, er, I mean Personal-Improvement and Growth Ministry, which is why I only offer my own great insights when I'm really really sure, such as the material contained in my next book "Everything You Wanted to Know But Didn't Want to Pay to Learn". It's available completely free of charge, as all my books are for a nominal handling fee of...okay, that's getting tired.
Belle, I think what you're pointing out is that the collective material of what is taught officially in a class like WAP by a person of mediocre communication skills and what is retaught and rehashed to support and expand on it forms a total message, the meaning of which can be vague and fluid.
The Way has slowly developed a doctrine over many years that the space between a person who is "born again" and a person who knows the "accuracy of the Word" AND stands with the Way on it AND is born again is huge. It's gotten wider and wider, IMO. There is, by the sounds of it, still a thin fragile thread between the two and God but it's not worth much if you don't walk in the Present Truth being taught by the Way, whatever that is (and I'd bet a taco right now they're not even sure what that is but they're anxiously waiting for it to be announced at lunch).
That has to be true, otherwise they wouldn't single out those who don't accept their teaching word for word when they find them and kick them out. If you go along quietly, you're fine but they seem to want to keep the official blood line clean. Small, and incestuous, but clean by their standards. (pass the soap).
I would offer gently that if people got the impression that it was true that S.I.T.'s was an essential component for salvation in Christ, it came from somewhere, something said, something considered. I'm sure that isn't what VPW taught, but he taught a lot of stuff over the years as did everyone else who took his material and uh, "worked" it. A lot of things came down the pike as gospel.
If a person was in a "limb" and heard primarily the people who came to that limb teach and that was the Way doctrine for them, they're qualified to speak about what the Way taught, certainly whatever classes they took as well as everything else they heard. It may be vague, it may be a rehash, it might be of local invention that wasn't even really documented but it still could have happened.
My 2 cents. Worth 1.00 towards my new book if you believe it now!!! (okay, I'm leaving)
I would offer gently that if people got the impression that it was true that S.I.T.'s was an essential component for salvation in Christ, it came from somewhere, something said, something considered.
I haven't read every word of this thread so someone may have already covered it, but am I the only one who sat through session 12 when Wierwille repeated over and over
"No man can REALLY say .....No man can REALLY say...No man can REALLY SAY Jesus is Lord... but by Speaking in tongues" ?
Not sure when I am heading back to the attic. Hubby just put all my syllabi up there, and I don't think he's in the mood to get back up there..(it's quite small and hot)...
Maybe when he goes to put the Christmas stuff away :huh: lol
Please Bliss, tell him it is very important. ;) :lol: :D
I haven't read every word of this thread so someone may have already covered it, but am I the only one who sat through session 12 when Wierwille repeated over and over
"No man can REALLY say .....No man can REALLY say...No man can REALLY SAY Jesus is Lord... but by Speaking in tongues" ?
No, of course you weren't the only one. He was of course referring to I Corinthians 12 and "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." His emphasis of "really"was a reference to his comment about how anyone can say. "Jesus is Lord" with his/her mouth. I agree that he taught that SIT is the only way you know that "You're heaven bound, and all hell can't stop you." , but to me it was rather clear that his emphasis on the knowing part made it clear that the event (being saved) had already happened (dechomai & lambano, etc). The same idea was used earlier in reference to Romans 10:9,10, where the emphasis was on "believe in thine heart that God has raised Him from the dead".
mstar, cookies alone could never drag me from a PFAL session. Cookies and COFFEE, maybe.
Speaking in tongues was taught as being a manifestation of holy spirit. It's axiomatic - now there's a word that you don't hear everyday - that holy spirit has to be present at the time of the manifestation. If a person doesn't have the holy spirit they won't be able to "operate" any of the manifestations the PFAL series taught about. A person "gets" born again, receives holy spirit (the gift) and then learns what's available and how to receive it. In the case of speaking in tongues a person learns what is is from the bible, that they can "operate" it as a spiritual manifestation of their new life and then they believe and speak in tongues. Session 12 "led" people into speaking in tongues.
PFAL taught that speaking in tongues is perfect prayer, perfect praise and worship to God. For "private" personal prayer life of a believe who was born again. In PFAL only a person born again with holy spirit could pray perfectly in the manner that Corinthians speaks about. The quote, with the addition of the "really" is from I Cor. 12:3 as you know - Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
When speaking by the spirit, no one curses Jesus and in addition to that no one can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.
Paul's the one who makes the distinction I think. Reading it a person could easily think, hey, I can say Jesus is Lord right now. Jesus is supreme. There. I said it.
Paul makes a distinction about saying Jesus is Lord. No one can say he's Lord but by the Holy Ghost.
Whatever it means it doesn't seem to mean that I can't say it, because I can. Jesus is Lord. Anyone can say it regardless of whether they believe Jesus is Lord or not.
A person who's accepted him as a redeemer and messiah, who's considered and believe that Jesus was killed and then raised from the dead is said to be "born again" when they believe that and choose to follow Jesus Christ in a new life. That person receives holy spirit, something new, something different happens in that person's life as they proceed on.
Saying Jesus is Lord by the Holy Ghost takes all of that into consideration I think. Paul does seem to be saying that fwhen a person speaks by the Holy Ghost they wil be saying "really" that Jesus is supreme in their life and it's more than just a tacit or superficial recognition of Him. In the context of 12 Paul's talking about spiritual things, gifts, "manifestations", whatever.
I don't think Paul meant that if you don't speak in tongues you're never really born again. Put another way it might read "When a person speaks by the Holy Ghost his speaking will be a recognition that Jesus is Lord, His Lordship will be recognized". The "really" isn't even necessary.
Y'all are correct - PFAL did teach it that way and, Socks, I believe you are correct in what Paul probably meant, but I'm not talking about how vee pee taught it - I'm talking about "scripture build up" / "WAP and TWI build up" if you will. Craig's administration. Craig's compounding of scriptures to build and drive home the manipulative, hateful mindset that he had and expected of us. Craig's cronies, like Moneyhands, fueling and expanding on that hate and disgust.
Craig got to the point where all we heard were that everyone outside TWI was part of the egg-sucking world and that even the cop outs were tinkling and clanging bells to God. Furthermore, those who "said" they were born again weren't considered to be born again unless they spoke in tongues.
I have provided the quotes and the processional process of his teachings to lead one to that conclusion. Anyone outside of TWI was worthless and no better than a "natural man" - even those who had been involved with TWI at one time....actually, ESPECIALLY those who had been involved with TWI at one time and were now considered "cop outs" or M&A.
We were taught to hate and that hate included considering those who didn't speak in tongues as animals and not REALLY born again.
We know that TWI often taught one thing on paper and another thing in the verbal arena, as well as among the different "circles" and hierarchies within TWI.....for one example, the "if you're spiritual enough you can handle it" teachings among those who were physically abused. It's all over the place and throughout the history of TWI. I just don't get why it's so hard to see how these teachings on SIT aren't any different.
I totally agree. Many TWI teachings, whether via design or ineptitude, exhibited a great difference in the version in the syllabi as opposed to the oral teachings. Is TWI hapless or disingenuous?
I understand Belle. And one of the things you've reminded me of is that in the Way there were worse things than never hearing their teaching and that was believing it and than changing your mind and not believing it.
People who chose to do that were always considered to be the biggest losers in the world. Quite literally, that God was going to be unable to tolerate you let alone love you and that you were nothing more than an accident waiting to happen at best, and an active agent of the "Adversary" at worst. Or both just for good meaure. That completely devalues a person and it isn't based on "God's Word" at all. So, you'd get bible quotes about Paul and how he looked at those who disagreed with him but still preached the gospel, but in action there was little of that in evidence in the Way when it came down to cases.
We know that TWI often taught one thing on paper and another thing in the verbal arena, as well as among the different "circles" and hierarchies within TWI.....for one example, the "if you're spiritual enough you can handle it" teachings among those who were physically abused. It's all over the place and throughout the history of TWI. I just don't get why it's so hard to see how these teachings on SIT aren't any different.[/color]
Belle,
Absolutely-damn-straight.......that's the way it was......and probably still is today.
Just like politicians, it depended on WHO the audience was at the time.
We were taught to hate and that hate included considering those who didn't speak in tongues as animals and not REALLY born again.
Absolutely Bell, I had more than one tc refer to anyone who didn`t speak in tongues as *spiritual empties* also one would very nastily declared that as far as HE was concerned, they (those who didn`t sit) were just breathin HIS air...
You are correct, it was assumed in twi if you didn`t sit, you were not born again, nor were you of any value.
Twi's teaching on "how to get born again" is very clear, and again referenced below.
If Craig's teaching on "how to get born again" differs from VP's teaching referenced below, please provide.
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.
Of COURSE that was what was written....that certainly wasn`t what was practiced.
If the doctrines that were practiced in twi were actually written down where people could see it before they were deemed *spiritual* enough.... nobody would have become involved.
You are a spiritual *empty* no better than animals if you don`t sit
Good lord, I can see reading *all the women in the kingdom belong to the king* doctrine
or the *fetus is just a parasite that interferes with your commitment* teaching
or the *abortion is a noble and nnecessary thing to do rather than let a baby interfere with your commitment or ability to move the word*
or the *all things are lawfull to them which are in Christ* teaching....
We all know there is a vast discrepancy between what the *public* was allowed to see, and those who were more spiritual.
Something so basic and fundamental as "how to get born again", was/is clearly understood.
And if by some slim chance there was a change from VP's teaching only to be believed by the "inner sanctum", there are plenty of ex- inner sanctum folks who, given the chance, would have exposed twi's "real" so-called teaching on "how to get born again", if there ever was one that was different than VP's.
Twi always taught that we are saved by grace, via adherence to Romans 10:9, not of works.
I am willing to believe otherwise, only if I see written proof from twi that they changed that teaching.
Y'all are correct - PFAL did teach it that way and, Socks, I believe you are correct in what Paul probably meant, but I'm not talking about how vee pee taught it - I'm talking about "scripture build up" / "WAP and TWI build up" if you will. Craig's administration. Craig's compounding of scriptures to build and drive home the manipulative, hateful mindset that he had and expected of us. Craig's cronies, like Moneyhands, fueling and expanding on that hate and disgust.
Good differentiation. I wouldn't mind seeing some examples myself, but I know the craig I knew as corps coordinator in the '70s was not the same Craig who was TWI president in the "90s.
Something so basic and fundamental as "how to get born again", was/is clearly understood.
And if by some slim chance there was a change from VP's teaching only to be believed by the "inner sanctum", there are plenty of ex- inner sanctum folks who, given the chance, would have exposed twi's "real" so-called teaching on "how to get born again", if there ever was one that was different than VP's.
Twi always taught that we are saved by grace, via adherence to Romans 10:9, not of works.
I am willing to believe otherwise, only if I see written proof from twi that they changed that teaching.
"Oh, would you like to be born again,
have God's spirit living within,
and be better off than you've been....
....Or would you rather be a jug?
A jug is a human being with nothing inside.
He's cracked but he's covered up with pride.
He dresses flashy in the latest style
But he's just an empty on the rubbish pile
So if you let Satan use you for a rug,
you may grow up to be a jug.
...Or would you rather be a snake?
A snake is a child of the father of lies.
Someday he'll be getting a surprise.
He looks as righteous as an Eagle Scout
but the wrong seed's in him and it won't come out.
So if you like swimming in a firey lake,
you may grow up to be a snake.
....Or would you rather be a goat?
A goat is a guy who says he don't need 'the class'.
When we go to twig, he goes to Mass.
He worships idols but he serves himself.
His good news Bible's sitting on the shelf.
So if religion has got you by the throat,
you may grow up to be a goat."
This was the second song off an album
released in the early 1980s.
The album has a recorded opening
intro/teaching by The Big Forehead
himself. Oldies, you'll still find your copy
in your tape library (or I'll be disappointed
in you.)
You've listened to this tape before,
I'm pretty sure.
What words of outrage did you direct
to people concerning the casual dismissal
of all other Christians,
and all non-Christians?
All Christians were dismissed with
"he worships idols but he serves himself",
while many Christians don't even have
statues of ANY kind,
let alone idols.
As for serving himself, how was he different
from twi members?
Oh, that's right-they served lcm, which was
a more noble calling.
Finally, all other Christians skip reading
their Bibles?
Didn't get around much...
How about the non-Christians who were
"just empties on a rubbish pile?"
lcm ENDORSED the contents of this tape, specifically.
He called the songs "thought-provoking" and
"spiritual satire".
He outlined what each song was about, and demonstrated
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
21
15
22
Popular Days
Dec 21
49
Dec 20
17
Dec 5
17
Nov 24
14
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 11 posts
oldiesman 21 posts
Belle 15 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
Popular Days
Dec 21 2005
49 posts
Dec 20 2005
17 posts
Dec 5 2005
17 posts
Nov 24 2005
14 posts
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
if you didn't sit you were $*@!
period
that's why lots of folks faked it
i repeat
if you didn't sit you were unworthy
bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Wordwolf you need to read my posts more carefully I never said that no quotes were offered just that the quotes offered did not prove that the Way taught that "people were not saved if they did not speak in tongues" That was the quote in question that is the issue.
One can not just offer a random quote as proof that another is right otherwise I could just say The Word of God is the Will of God and that makes anything I say right cause I gave you a quote,never mind that it has nothing to do with anything.
How prey tell do quotes like this prove the point. They don't thats the problem when you are caught without any proof of your claim, you can't just post a flurry of unrelated quotes and that makes it ok.QUOTE
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.
You seem to have left out the additional things I listed also. My conclusion was not based only on that. I checked to be nice since they seemed to not be able to find the quote that they were so sure of but no one else remembered it that way either. Just an additional reason it is suspect.
Here is the rest of what I said
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.
They are the ones who made the claim the burdon of proof is on them. Let's see the proof..... If it's a direct quote from session 12 it should be easy to find.
These things are driven by emotion not truth how you feel, perceive is dependant on your attitude toward The Way if you are angry and bitter then you could percieve that everything was taught wrong. One could asume anything that he wanted from a quote that does not mean that the one saying it taught it that way or meant it that way.
I'm reading between the lines of Belles quotes and my perception is that she loves the the Way and wishes she was still in. It's true you see because I said so and you were not everywhere now were you and by the way here is a quote to prove it The Word of God is the Will of God. What do you think the odds are that I'm wrong? About the same I'd say as that her quotes prove that the Way taught that if you did not speak in tongues that you were not saved.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
From the WAP Syllabus and a previous post of miner
QUOTE
(page 42)
"no...[one] can [really] say that Jesus is the Lord, but by...[holy spirit]" - an idiom.
idioma - [b\]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.[/b]
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.
Belle I read your quotes THEY ARE NOT THE ONE IN QUESTION But since you posted them Look!! at the quotes. You are reaching......
The quote proves just what it says no one can affirm! that means from Webster( to declare positively)It does not teach that they are not saved just that you can not declare it positively. That means they could or could not be no one knows. This teaching is consistent with TWI 1 & 2
Actually I'm giving you the benefit of accepting that this is talking about being saved really it is talking about making him Lord in your life one could be saved and not hold Him as Lord in their life.
Your note that you wrote is assuming something that was not stated . Your note does not make it so that The Way Taught that it means that you perceived ,guessed,assumed that was so. The words speak for themselves when you look up the meanings.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Bliss,
Do you know if the syllabus has a section or place saying anything about "how to get saved/born again"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Or if in session 12 there is any Direct Quote that say's
"If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved"
Oh and another thing I forgot Wordwolf You know this How?
Never play your cards before the end of the hand I learned, give a person enough rope and they will hang themselves I reckon......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Oldies,
Not sure when I am heading back to the attic. Hubby just put all my syllabi up there, and I don't think he's in the mood to get back up there..(it's quite small and hot)...
Maybe when he goes to put the Christmas stuff away :huh: lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
Well seeing my syllabus wasn't stuck in the attic--and it was near the Christmas tree that I had to get anyway, I went and looked it up.
Segment 19 covers the new birth. Segment 20 covers speaking in tongues. In segment 20, pg 112 of FNC WAP syllabus says,
"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 in the love of God and keep ourselves from falling."
Make Jesus as lord = obey Word = speak in tongues.
I find it odd that segment 19 doesnt really address what making Jesus lord would actually take. It says in print that all it takes to make him lord is to agree with the Word on what it says Jesus is.
Back on topic:
During the live classes which ran for 5 years? (I think) the local corpse used the syllabus but often elaborated on its different points. Many things were said that cannot be officially documented. Especially with corpse that were around longer and more confident in their ability and knowledge (ex Moneyhands.)
Edited by penguinLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Side note material questions - "What is The Way?" and "What does it mean to be taught by the Way?".
Addendumb - "What is an authorized representative of the Way"?
Extra credit - question: If a Way leader sneezes in the woods and there's nobody there to hear it, is he still catching a cold?
When people of the Way who present themselves as leaders offer insights into the bible, a case can certainly be made that the Way "taught it". I've come to realize this about my own business, er, I mean Personal-Improvement and Growth Ministry, which is why I only offer my own great insights when I'm really really sure, such as the material contained in my next book "Everything You Wanted to Know But Didn't Want to Pay to Learn". It's available completely free of charge, as all my books are for a nominal handling fee of...okay, that's getting tired.
Belle, I think what you're pointing out is that the collective material of what is taught officially in a class like WAP by a person of mediocre communication skills and what is retaught and rehashed to support and expand on it forms a total message, the meaning of which can be vague and fluid.
The Way has slowly developed a doctrine over many years that the space between a person who is "born again" and a person who knows the "accuracy of the Word" AND stands with the Way on it AND is born again is huge. It's gotten wider and wider, IMO. There is, by the sounds of it, still a thin fragile thread between the two and God but it's not worth much if you don't walk in the Present Truth being taught by the Way, whatever that is (and I'd bet a taco right now they're not even sure what that is but they're anxiously waiting for it to be announced at lunch).
That has to be true, otherwise they wouldn't single out those who don't accept their teaching word for word when they find them and kick them out. If you go along quietly, you're fine but they seem to want to keep the official blood line clean. Small, and incestuous, but clean by their standards. (pass the soap).
I would offer gently that if people got the impression that it was true that S.I.T.'s was an essential component for salvation in Christ, it came from somewhere, something said, something considered. I'm sure that isn't what VPW taught, but he taught a lot of stuff over the years as did everyone else who took his material and uh, "worked" it. A lot of things came down the pike as gospel.
If a person was in a "limb" and heard primarily the people who came to that limb teach and that was the Way doctrine for them, they're qualified to speak about what the Way taught, certainly whatever classes they took as well as everything else they heard. It may be vague, it may be a rehash, it might be of local invention that wasn't even really documented but it still could have happened.
My 2 cents. Worth 1.00 towards my new book if you believe it now!!!
(okay, I'm leaving)
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I haven't read every word of this thread so someone may have already covered it, but am I the only one who sat through session 12 when Wierwille repeated over and over
"No man can REALLY say .....No man can REALLY say...No man can REALLY SAY Jesus is Lord... but by Speaking in tongues" ?
He said it about five or six times,
Were you all out of the room gettin cookies?
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Please Bliss, tell him it is very important. ;) :lol: :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
No, of course you weren't the only one. He was of course referring to I Corinthians 12 and "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." His emphasis of "really"was a reference to his comment about how anyone can say. "Jesus is Lord" with his/her mouth. I agree that he taught that SIT is the only way you know that "You're heaven bound, and all hell can't stop you." , but to me it was rather clear that his emphasis on the knowing part made it clear that the event (being saved) had already happened (dechomai & lambano, etc). The same idea was used earlier in reference to Romans 10:9,10, where the emphasis was on "believe in thine heart that God has raised Him from the dead".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
mstar, cookies alone could never drag me from a PFAL session. Cookies and COFFEE, maybe.
Speaking in tongues was taught as being a manifestation of holy spirit. It's axiomatic - now there's a word that you don't hear everyday - that holy spirit has to be present at the time of the manifestation. If a person doesn't have the holy spirit they won't be able to "operate" any of the manifestations the PFAL series taught about. A person "gets" born again, receives holy spirit (the gift) and then learns what's available and how to receive it. In the case of speaking in tongues a person learns what is is from the bible, that they can "operate" it as a spiritual manifestation of their new life and then they believe and speak in tongues. Session 12 "led" people into speaking in tongues.
PFAL taught that speaking in tongues is perfect prayer, perfect praise and worship to God. For "private" personal prayer life of a believe who was born again. In PFAL only a person born again with holy spirit could pray perfectly in the manner that Corinthians speaks about. The quote, with the addition of the "really" is from I Cor. 12:3 as you know - Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
When speaking by the spirit, no one curses Jesus and in addition to that no one can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.
Paul's the one who makes the distinction I think. Reading it a person could easily think, hey, I can say Jesus is Lord right now. Jesus is supreme. There. I said it.
Paul makes a distinction about saying Jesus is Lord. No one can say he's Lord but by the Holy Ghost.
Whatever it means it doesn't seem to mean that I can't say it, because I can. Jesus is Lord. Anyone can say it regardless of whether they believe Jesus is Lord or not.
A person who's accepted him as a redeemer and messiah, who's considered and believe that Jesus was killed and then raised from the dead is said to be "born again" when they believe that and choose to follow Jesus Christ in a new life. That person receives holy spirit, something new, something different happens in that person's life as they proceed on.
Saying Jesus is Lord by the Holy Ghost takes all of that into consideration I think. Paul does seem to be saying that fwhen a person speaks by the Holy Ghost they wil be saying "really" that Jesus is supreme in their life and it's more than just a tacit or superficial recognition of Him. In the context of 12 Paul's talking about spiritual things, gifts, "manifestations", whatever.
I don't think Paul meant that if you don't speak in tongues you're never really born again. Put another way it might read "When a person speaks by the Holy Ghost his speaking will be a recognition that Jesus is Lord, His Lordship will be recognized". The "really" isn't even necessary.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Y'all are correct - PFAL did teach it that way and, Socks, I believe you are correct in what Paul probably meant, but I'm not talking about how vee pee taught it - I'm talking about "scripture build up" / "WAP and TWI build up" if you will. Craig's administration. Craig's compounding of scriptures to build and drive home the manipulative, hateful mindset that he had and expected of us. Craig's cronies, like Moneyhands, fueling and expanding on that hate and disgust.
Craig got to the point where all we heard were that everyone outside TWI was part of the egg-sucking world and that even the cop outs were tinkling and clanging bells to God. Furthermore, those who "said" they were born again weren't considered to be born again unless they spoke in tongues.
I have provided the quotes and the processional process of his teachings to lead one to that conclusion. Anyone outside of TWI was worthless and no better than a "natural man" - even those who had been involved with TWI at one time....actually, ESPECIALLY those who had been involved with TWI at one time and were now considered "cop outs" or M&A.
We were taught to hate and that hate included considering those who didn't speak in tongues as animals and not REALLY born again.
We know that TWI often taught one thing on paper and another thing in the verbal arena, as well as among the different "circles" and hierarchies within TWI.....for one example, the "if you're spiritual enough you can handle it" teachings among those who were physically abused. It's all over the place and throughout the history of TWI. I just don't get why it's so hard to see how these teachings on SIT aren't any different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jkboehme
Belle,
I totally agree. Many TWI teachings, whether via design or ineptitude, exhibited a great difference in the version in the syllabi as opposed to the oral teachings. Is TWI hapless or disingenuous?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I understand Belle. And one of the things you've reminded me of is that in the Way there were worse things than never hearing their teaching and that was believing it and than changing your mind and not believing it.
People who chose to do that were always considered to be the biggest losers in the world. Quite literally, that God was going to be unable to tolerate you let alone love you and that you were nothing more than an accident waiting to happen at best, and an active agent of the "Adversary" at worst. Or both just for good meaure. That completely devalues a person and it isn't based on "God's Word" at all. So, you'd get bible quotes about Paul and how he looked at those who disagreed with him but still preached the gospel, but in action there was little of that in evidence in the Way when it came down to cases.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Belle,
Absolutely-damn-straight.......that's the way it was......and probably still is today.
Just like politicians, it depended on WHO the audience was at the time.
Keep posting. I love your posts.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
:wub:
Thank you, Skyrider, and I yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Absolutely Bell, I had more than one tc refer to anyone who didn`t speak in tongues as *spiritual empties* also one would very nastily declared that as far as HE was concerned, they (those who didn`t sit) were just breathin HIS air...
You are correct, it was assumed in twi if you didn`t sit, you were not born again, nor were you of any value.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Twi's teaching on "how to get born again" is very clear, and again referenced below.
If Craig's teaching on "how to get born again" differs from VP's teaching referenced below, please provide.
Victor Paul WierwillePFAL
Part IV -- The New Birth
Chapter 19 -- Born Again of Incorruptible Seed
Pgs. 295-98
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Of COURSE that was what was written....that certainly wasn`t what was practiced.
If the doctrines that were practiced in twi were actually written down where people could see it before they were deemed *spiritual* enough.... nobody would have become involved.
You are a spiritual *empty* no better than animals if you don`t sit
Good lord, I can see reading *all the women in the kingdom belong to the king* doctrine
or the *fetus is just a parasite that interferes with your commitment* teaching
or the *abortion is a noble and nnecessary thing to do rather than let a baby interfere with your commitment or ability to move the word*
or the *all things are lawfull to them which are in Christ* teaching....
We all know there is a vast discrepancy between what the *public* was allowed to see, and those who were more spiritual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Something so basic and fundamental as "how to get born again", was/is clearly understood.
And if by some slim chance there was a change from VP's teaching only to be believed by the "inner sanctum", there are plenty of ex- inner sanctum folks who, given the chance, would have exposed twi's "real" so-called teaching on "how to get born again", if there ever was one that was different than VP's.
Twi always taught that we are saved by grace, via adherence to Romans 10:9, not of works.
I am willing to believe otherwise, only if I see written proof from twi that they changed that teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Good differentiation. I wouldn't mind seeing some examples myself, but I know the craig I knew as corps coordinator in the '70s was not the same Craig who was TWI president in the "90s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Oh, would you like to be born again,
have God's spirit living within,
and be better off than you've been....
....Or would you rather be a jug?
A jug is a human being with nothing inside.
He's cracked but he's covered up with pride.
He dresses flashy in the latest style
But he's just an empty on the rubbish pile
So if you let Satan use you for a rug,
you may grow up to be a jug.
...Or would you rather be a snake?
A snake is a child of the father of lies.
Someday he'll be getting a surprise.
He looks as righteous as an Eagle Scout
but the wrong seed's in him and it won't come out.
So if you like swimming in a firey lake,
you may grow up to be a snake.
....Or would you rather be a goat?
A goat is a guy who says he don't need 'the class'.
When we go to twig, he goes to Mass.
He worships idols but he serves himself.
His good news Bible's sitting on the shelf.
So if religion has got you by the throat,
you may grow up to be a goat."
This was the second song off an album
released in the early 1980s.
The album has a recorded opening
intro/teaching by The Big Forehead
himself. Oldies, you'll still find your copy
in your tape library (or I'll be disappointed
in you.)
You've listened to this tape before,
I'm pretty sure.
What words of outrage did you direct
to people concerning the casual dismissal
of all other Christians,
and all non-Christians?
All Christians were dismissed with
"he worships idols but he serves himself",
while many Christians don't even have
statues of ANY kind,
let alone idols.
As for serving himself, how was he different
from twi members?
Oh, that's right-they served lcm, which was
a more noble calling.
Finally, all other Christians skip reading
their Bibles?
Didn't get around much...
How about the non-Christians who were
"just empties on a rubbish pile?"
lcm ENDORSED the contents of this tape, specifically.
He called the songs "thought-provoking" and
"spiritual satire".
He outlined what each song was about, and demonstrated
a knowledge of their contents.
(Go ahead-replay it.)
lcm also didn't consider this "offensive".
He thought there were ways to use these songs
(which includes that one) as a prelude to a
teaching on its specific subject.
In this particular case, that would have meant
a teaching that explained how non-Christians were
"empties on a rubbish pile."
This was not "inner sanctum".
I'd say almost all twi-ers who had ANY music
tapes back then-which was more than 1/2, I'd say-
had this in their collection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Just checking back to see if anyone had SEEN THIS direct quote yet?
Direct Quote
"If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved."
Guess not.....................
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.