Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Those who witnessed this repentance by WL, and could "feel the pain in Brother Lee’s heart and be touched by his genuine repentance," never understand for what or to who WL repented. The repentance was purposely left so general and so vague that it could be interpreted any way one desired ... and it has. This to me is the real heart of the problem.
WL said "we, in the past, were wrong!" Wrong about what? About "receiving people?" What does that mean, receiving people? This is like having a heartfelt, sober repentance about how we "loved people." Who repents for that? And then, who tells the entire audience that "we, in the past, were wrong!" How was I wrong? How were you wrong? How does one even begin to repent for such a vague "conviction?"
How much more profitable if WL had confessed what exactly the Spirit had convicted him for. What did the Spirit shine on? What did he do?
|
Re-reading this again brings out what is being repented? When repentance is general, it is not effective. Reminds me of King Saul's repentance in 1 Samuel.
As Ohio asked, How does one even begin to repent for such a vague "conviction?"
In Psalms 51 there is an example of an effective confession. A confession that is specific. A confession claiming accountability. There is no room left for speculations what the repentance is for.