Steve Lortz

You're right, JumpinJive! It goes deep and back a long way. One of the things I've found reading different peoples' perspectives on Pentecost is that they agree one of Luke's main concerns in the book of Acts was "salvation," but none of them actually examine what Luke's definition of "salvation" was. Mainly because Luke never defines what he means by "salvation" in the book of Acts. Luke defines "salvation" in Luke 19:18-30 and 20:27-36. "To be saved" means "to receive the Spirit of resurrection life in the age to come." When God raised Jesus out from among the dead, Jesus received the promise of the Father, the Spirit of resurrection life (Ezekiel 37:14). This enabled Jesus on the Day of Pentecost to pour out the promise of the Father (Joel 2:28-32),the EARNEST of the Spirit of resurrection life in the age to come. This is not going to be an easy paper to write... Love, Steve

You're right that I was overstating my case about completeness. What I should have said was that I want to draw out as many of the implications of Acts chapter 2 as possible and show how they relate. I am currently reading Baptism in the Holy Spirit by James Dunn and Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views which contains Reformed, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Wesleyan and Catholic responses to Dunn's position. It seems to me that all of them regard "the gift of the Holy Spirit" to be something other than the Spirit that was first poured out in Acts chapter 2. I think this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding as to WHAT salvation actually is. Thanks, JJ! Love, Steve

It was probably best that you wrote your Corps paper on "mercy" and not on "grace". Your conception of grace would not have matched the official ministry line, because your idea of "faith" would not have, and the two are too intertwined in reality to separate. Love, Steve

You're welcome, excathedra! I think the reason you have always felt this is because you listened to Him when the Lord was teaching you. God bless you, in the very least trite sense of those words! Love, Steve

This interpretation puts the kibosh on Wierwille's whole "law of believing" hogwash. There is NO power in faith. It's the GRACE of the giver that delivers the blessing. Faith is passive. And there it was, right in front of our noses the whole time, in black and white! Love, Steve

I woke up in the middle of the night last night, and couldn't get right back to sleep, so I read for a bit in James Dunn's Baptism in the Holy Spirit. In a section dealing with Ephesians 2:8 I came across this quote: "Their becoming Christians is summed up by the two words -- charis and pistis -- grace on God's side, faith on man's... It is the interaction of these which effects salvation..." The word "interaction" triggered some thinking. The process of receiving salvation is interactive. It is a DANCE! Ephesians 2:8 reads, "For by grace [chariti = charis in the instrumental dative = "by the instrument of grace" or "by means of grace"] are ye saved through faith [dia pisteos = "through faith - in one side of faith and out the other"]; and that not of yourself: it is the gift [doron = "gift"] of God:" It is as if faith were a door of your house. Jesus is outside the door offering you the gift of salvation by speaking the gospel. You decide to open the door (faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God). When you open the door by believing the gospel, Jesus MOVES the gift, the doron, into your house. Jesus' MOVEMENT of the gift, the doron, is charis or grace. The upshot of all this is that "the gift of Holy Spirit" should not be considered a charism or charisma. It is the doron, the gift itself. When Jesus moves a Christian through the Holy Spirit to perform some spiritual function for another person or people, that's a charisma type of "gift". Hope this ain't too cornfyoozing! Love, Steve The only problems are, this interpretation blows both Reformed and Charismatic thinking out of the water! Love, Steve

Doing it! Love, Steve

The Church of God Reformation Movement (Anderson, Indiana) grew out of the Wesleyan Holiness movement of the late 1800s. The movement's "selling point" was that denominational divisions are man-made and disruptive of the one body of Christ, the Church of God. In the last 130 years or so, the movement has divided a number of times, and come to a more realistic assessment of its own status as a denomination. The movement has avoided creeds and statements of faith, producing a unique attitude toward the Bible... a conservative respect for the Bible, but the movement has never been fundamentalist, and does not agree within itself as to biblical inerrancy. The last kerfluffle over that issue was around 1980, and everybody agreed to disagree. Some of the professors still active were involved with that controversy, so a person needs to get to know where his professors stand on various things, because they don't all agree. There was a controversy over speaking in tongues back around 1960. I've talked with some of the profs who were young pastors back then. The School of Theology does not officially hold with Pentecostal doctrine, but there are congregations within the movement that DO practice speaking in tongues. And there are individual ministers who hold just about every opinion possible. It seems to me that the attitude of Christianity in general to the gift of Holy Spirit is a lot like the blind men and the elephant: The Blind Men and the Elephant John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a WALL!" The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, "Ho, what have we here, So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a SPEAR!" The Third approached the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a SNAKE!" The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee "What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain," quoth he: "'Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a TREE!" The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a FAN!" The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope, Than seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope, "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a ROPE!" And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! I think everybody is partially right in their interpretation of the gift of Holy Spirit, but none of them are complete. That is something I intend to correct in my thesis. Love, Steve

Part of the confusion over what is and what is not a gift has resulted from the King James translators using "spiritual gifts" to translate the Greek word pneumatikos (= "spirituals" or "spiritual matters") in I Corinthians 12 and 14. The KJV seems to indicate that certain things are "gifts" when the Bible doesn't really say any such thing. Another factor comes from the use of the word charisma, seemingly as a term of art exclusively by Paul. Charismatics seem to use charisma indiscriminately as a synonym for doron. I believe "the gift [doron] of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38 is, indeed, the Spirit itself that was first poured out when the Day of Pentecost had fully come, but not that the gift was the same thing, nor poured out for the same reasons, as Wierwille taught. Love, Steve

Hi, Nate! Hope to meet you soon, but I'm laying out of school this coming semester recuperating from a massive overdose of potassium I inadvertently underwent trying to reduce my blood pressure. I don't know if any ex-wafers have done any studies on the person and work of the Holy Spirit since leaving TWI, but I am studying it as part of the preparation for my thesis. I am currently re-reading Baptism in the Holy Spirit by James D.G. Dunn in an effort to help get my brain back up to speed (mental therapy, when I first got out of the hospital, I would get ocular migraines when I tried to read), and when I'm done with that, I'm going to read Perspectives on Spirit Baptism which includes Reformed, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Wesleyan and Catholic responses to Dunn's analysis. Wierwille taught that Adam was originally a three-part being: body, soul and spirit. When Adam sinned, his spirit died. Since then, human beings have been born merely body and soul. Salvation consists of God planting a new spirit seed in a person, and that spirit seed is "the gift of holy spirit". Wierwille taught that we are to draw a distinction between the Holy Spirit, simply another name for God the Father, and the gift of holy spirit, the seed of a new spirit planted by God in a person. This doctrine was often abbreviated as "the gift and the Giver." According to Wierwille, there are as many different "gifts of holy spirit" as there are Christians, because each one is an individual gift to an individual person, but each gift is the same thing, the seed of a new spiritual life. The "manifestations," as waysider listed them, were taught as things that evidenced outwardly in the "senses realm" the internal reality of the presence and power of the "gift of holy spirit." More later... Love, Steve

Romans 8:26&27 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. Love, Steve

To the best of my understanding, praying is simply a person having a conversation with God about the things that are on the person's heart. Praying isn't for God's benefit. He knows what's on our hearts far better than we do. Praying is for OUR benefit. It's a chance for us to get honest with God about what's on our hearts so He can help us understand what to do with it. People who think they can use prayer to operate God like a vending machine are fooling themselves. I think Paul's letters indicate that he prayed in the Spirit for people. I think the people who received those letters understood what he meant from the personal example he set while he was with them. But he didn't give a detailed explanation of what he meant in the letters. We can't know for certain. When people ask me to pray for them, I do. Usually a brief request that God bless them in whatever way they need to be blessed. Sometimes I speak in tongues for the person in my private prayer life, but I don't try to use mental imagery to pray for anything specific, unless they've asked me to pray for some particular aspect of their life, and even then, I don't try to "get clear and concerned." It seems to me that speaking in tongues is just about ALWAYS an expression of heartfelt gratitude. So that's the attitude I try to develop when I speak in tongues. I hope this helps you, excathedra! If you've got more questions, ask away! Love, Steve

In PFAL Wierwille taught that there are two realms, the senses realm and the spiritual real, and that the laws of the spiritual realm supercede the laws of the physical realm. Therefore, if you know how to take advantage of the spiritual laws, you can make what you want to happen in the senses realm. That's what the advanced class was supposed to be all about. Of course, it was all a bunch of baloney. The Bible does NOT teach that there are two separate realms. It got to the point where leaders could say something that didn't make any sense (like,"adultery is okay"), and if anybody raised any issues with it, the leaders would just say those people were not "spiritually" mature enough to understand. TWI spiritual wisdom is simply BS. Love, Steve

"Arrogance" is the operative word. At some point in his young life, Wierwille realized he was smart enough to get away with a lot of things. Subsequently he decided he was smarter than God and able to get away with anything. In doctrine and practice, that's what he taught his followers. Wierwille never raised up leaders. He surrounded himself with yes-men and women, who couldn't help but fail once Wierwille was dead. Love, Steve P.S.- I agree with waysider...

I just had a very close encounter with just how short a time I might personally have had left (minutes, not likely hours without drastic intervention), and I'm with you, O, nutcracker! I'm with you on this one! Love, Steve

I don't agree with Raf's contention that every one of us was faking all of the time, but I can't and won't argue against the fact that most of us were faking at least part if not most of the time. That's what we were taught to do in the excellors' sessions. There were two things about TWI's interpretation and prophecy that seem bogus to me looking back. First, in none of the genuine instances that I remember did God ever come out and announce that He was the one doing the talking. Second, in none of the genuine instances I experienced did God ever use any extra-special, pseudo-biblical language. Part of the CULTure of TWI was the "insider" language used by "grads" of the classes. I think the "knowledge of scripture or scripture-related phraseology" required to produce approved manifestations (faked) was part of the insider language. Love, Steve

I haven't voted in the poll, because my opinion is not listed. My answer would be they are real, I have heard and done tongues and prophecy. I can't say for sure I've ever done interpretation as described in the New Testament. I don't think ANYBODY has an accurate doctrine about how they work. I think the Word talks about the mind and the heart. The mind is the organ of conscious thought. The heart is the repository of thought on which the mind no longer has to focus attention. It's like learning to drive a car. When you are first learning how, you have to pay very careful attention to when and where you place your right foot, operating the gas and the brake pedal. But after you've driven for a while, you no longer need to pay attention to what you're doing with your right foot. You have "internalized" the process. Then, one day you are riding in a car driven by your friend, and you come to a situation where you would brake, but she doesn't. Immediately, without thinking, you stomp your right foot on the passenger-side floor. We build our attitudes of heart by what we make a habit out of paying attention to. There are always things to be anxious about. There are always things to be thankful for. If we spend more time thinking about the things we have to be anxious about rather than the things we have to be thankful for, we will have anxious, griping, bitter attitudes of heart. If we spend more time thinking about the things we have to be thankful for than the things we have to be anxious about, then our attitudes of heart will be more peaceful and confident and grateful. So... we pattern our attitudes of heart by paying attention to our habitual thoughts and controlling them. Next step: The love of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit He has given to us. If our attitudes of heart are crummy, we don't recognize the love of God. If our hearts are receptive to gratitude, we DO recognize specifically the love that God is pouring into our hearts. Final step: Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. We speak out the love that God is pouring through our hearts, without using our minds to censor it, and God speaks through us the things that the listeners need to hear in order to know that God is real, He knows what's going on in their hearts, and He cares about them. This happened to me a number of times before I ever heard about TWI or PFAL. It happened to me a number of times while I was involved with TWI (though not usually in the approved setting for manifestations), and it has knowingly happened to me a number of times at the School of Theology. Love, Steve

It seems to me that one of the things Paul taught was that people could now walk by the Spirit rather than by the flesh. Under the New Testament (the testament written on our hearts rather than on stone), doing the right thing did not depend on following a bunch of fleshly rules and regulations that the Pharisees had made up, but rather on moving as the Spirit directs. And not only that, walking by the Spirit is in NO WAY compulsory! Now the Lord (Jesus Christ) is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. The intermediate class was nothing more than a set of fleshly rules and regulations put together and modified by 20th century Pharisees. Wierwille was wrong in his very definition of interpretation. If we read the New Testament carefully, we find that the content of tongues is thanksgiving, praise and worship directed TOWARD God. Genuine interpretation of genuine tongues would then also be thanksgiving directed toward God Yet Wierwille taught that interpretation should be a message from or for God in the language of the people present, which was also Wierwille's definition of propecy. I may disagree with Raf that we were ALL faking tongues ALL the time, but I think the interpretations delivered in the excelors' sessions were either prophecy (in a very few cases), or faked (in most). And I used to run excelors' sessions. The fact that some people are defending Wierwille's doctrine and practice would seem to indicate they need to come to a recognition of the difference between the Spirit and Wierwille's phoney, non-scriptural, pharisaic rules and regulations. Love, Steve

Monty Python and the Holy Grail... I had it at "I fart in your general direction!" Love, Steve

Is the cult something local, or are there odds that we also might encounter followers? Love, Steve

Thank you, excie! I'll put some more stuff up on the doctrinal forum in a day or two. I'm tempted to post more here in order to get the thread up to 100 pages. What other threads have gone this far? "The"? Love, Steve

It seems to me that most people would consider "W.O.W. Ambassador" and "L.E.A.D." to be damaged goods as far as trademark value goes, but then I wasn't named "Victor Wierwille." Love, Steve

This summer I'm taking a class called "Research and Design," beginning the process of working on my thesis regarding Acts 2. One of the first decisions I made was that I would NOT try to make any linkage between what the New Testament called "speaking in tongues" in the first century and what people call "speaking in tongues" today. I don't think there's any valid scholarly way to make such a linkage, and my adviser agreed. I personally believe that what I do is genuine. I don't believe that means what WEIRWILLE did when he was teaching PFAL was genuine. I don't believe it negates the decision Raf has made about his own experience. I don't think whether or not a Christian speaks in tongues today can hamper the Spirit of God from working in or through that person. I think being honest with Him and with ourselves is one of the things God most wants us to do. Love, Steve

waysider is right, Groucho... you are a good man! It seems that out in the wider world, TWI is getting the respect and attention it deserves, which is miniscule if not zero. It looks like some of the offshoots are doing a better job than the "root", but it's just repackaging. The "studio audiences" in some of their recorded classes are even more paltry than the Sunday services at"HQ", consisting of a few oldsters "keeping the Word alive" and their kids who are not yet out on their own. In terms of legitimate theological advancement, neither Weirwille not the group he ramrodded produced ANYTHING of substance. TWI is going the way of Cyrus Teed's hollow earth cult, only Wierwille's was a hollow age of grace (license to sin) cult. Love, Steve

If I had read that blog article a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have known what to make of it. As it is now, I can say "Hey! I recognize some of those words!" and I know how to look things up in grammars, etc. Am I correct in remembering that you yourself had only a tangential exposure to TWI, Nate, or am I thinking of someone else? Love, Steve