Steve Lortz

You nailed it, waysider. John "explained" what he meant because he thinks he's so much more clever than his readers, they will never appreciate his wit unless he spells it out. The problem is, that even though he has a line of patter like a stand-up comic (I almost said a "good" stand-up comic, but "stale" would be more appropriate), he doesn't have a grasp of the fundamentals of grammar or genuine logic. He says gawd-awful things, and then has no clue as to why people find them nonsensical and offensive. By the way, "living" IS a verb. It is the participial form of a verb, that is to say, it is a verb being used as an adjective. In English, "living" can also be a gerund, that is, a verb being used as a noun. There are no gerunds in Greek. Love, Steve

"I will trust the Lord Jesus to have my back, so that I do not exalt myself at the expense of others." What does it mean to "trust the Lord to have my back," John? What does it mean? Does it mean that Jesus is your Lord, or that Jesus is your JANITOR, cleaning up all the messes you leave behind? Who is the leader? You? Or the guy who has your back? This "commitment" says something very perverted about your view of the order of things, John. Is there any fear of God in the idea that Jesus "has your back"? How does trusting the Lord Jesus "to have your back" prevent you from exalting yourself at the expense of others? Why don't you just make the commitment, "I shall not exalt myself"? Is it okay to exalt yourself if it ISN'T at the expense of others? If it is okay, in your opinion, for a considerable percentage of your followers to suffer seriously deleterious effects as a result of their exposure to Momentus, should we trust your ability to judge what is and what is not "at the expense of others"? Wierwille was a hypocritical liar. Lynn's problem is that he actually believes the strange things that come out of his mouth. He has allowed himself to be deceived by his own heart. Love, Steve

I went and read the section entitled "Our Commitment to You". The first of seven "commitments" reads, "1. I will hold fast to the truth of God’s Word, and I fully agree with the TLTF Statement of Beliefs." Notice how conflicted this "commitment" is. The first part seems good enough, holding fast to the truth of God's Word, but stop and think about it... How can he hold fast to the truth of God's Word if he doesn't know what that truth is? The second part qualifies the first, and is instructive, "I fully agree with the TLFT Statement of Beliefs." The two parts are joined by "and", a conjunction that sets in correspondence. Lynn does not distinguish between his statement of beliefs and the truth of God's Word. John's "commitment" is to continue believing what he already believes. "Commitment" number five reads, "5. I will subjugate my own ego for the overall good of the team. I will give prayerful consideration to appropriate reproof and correction. I will trust the Lord Jesus to have my back, so that I do not exalt myself at the expense of others." Notice the middle part, "...I will give prayerful consideration to appropriate reproof and correction..." John has already committed himself not to deviate from what he already believes. That's why the qualifiers "prayerful" and "appropriate" are there. It's as if to say, "I will think about any reproof or correction I receive, and if God doesn't strike me down with a bolt of lightning, I won't pay any more attention to them than that." and "If the reproof or correction doesn't agree with what I already think, then it couldn't possibly be appropriate." The commitments "to put off my old nature," to "be kind, compassionate, forgiving. I will put off lying and speak truthfully to you," to "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit," to "subjugate my own ego for the overall good of the team," to "give prayerful consideration to appropriate reproof and correction," to "trust the Lord Jesus to have my back, so that I do not exalt myself at the expense of others," and to "consider your perspective" are ALL things at which John has failed... SPECTACULARLY... in the past. It's as if he were saying, "C'mon guys, gimme another chance. I won't do it again this time! Honest!" In commitment number six (What's the #6 supposed to mean? Isn't it the number of "man", the number of "imperfection"?), Lynn wrote, "I will stand up for my honest convictions even if they differ from yours..." Again John swears to continue believing what he already believes, and to "stand up" against you if you disagree. Notice Lynn qualifies his convictions as "honest". Just because someone honestly believes something, that doesn't make it accurate or right. To honestly believe that the good shepherd breaks the legs of his sheep so that they can't run off (Momentus) doesn't make it right to break the sheep's legs. And if John's convictions are "honest", what does that make YOUR convictions, with which he disagrees? Lynn's commitments are all fleshly rules. They are a commitment to NOT walk in accordance with the Spirit. All of his rules have to be qualified, otherwise he would be bound by the inexorable principles of Momentus to actually keep the promises he makes. In making all his qualified promises, John ties himself up in knots that only God can figure out. It is no wonder that Lynn's performance has been so eerily erratic. There's no indication from this website that his real problems have been corrected. Love, Steve

And it looks like he treats cancer with coffee enemas... A multi-dimensional quack... Love, Steve

Spiritualists have used this technique for a long time. When Wierwille mentioned "Mr. Fletcher" in PFAL, it was a reference to the "spirit guide" of Arthur Ford, a noted spiritualist. It has been documented that Arthur Ford used the technique you describe, Pete, to pull the wool over peoples' eyes. Love, Steve

"Let so-and-so do this or that" is an expression in English language of the third person imperative mood. Other languages have different forms of the verb to indicate third person imperative, But English doesn't. "...let no man put asunder..." is a command, not a statement of fact (indicative mood). I enjoy playing with language! Love, Steve

Amen! Love, Steve

I just went and found their website. It looked pretty good, but when I started poking around with the "calendar" and "events" buttons, I got error messages. hmmmmmm Love, Steve

I was throwing out some old papers the other day, and I came across some literature from Liberating Ministries for Christ International, formerly Believer's Bible Camp, run by Dale Sides, or as he prefers to be called "Dr. Dale". Sides left TWI before The Passing of A Patriarch, and set up a class called "Exercising Spiritual Authority". The last I heard, he was calling his group a "parachurch" ministry, and had changed his terminology so that it sounded trinitarian, even though all his definitions of the terms were aberrant. He talked about the importance of acquiring "denominational cover". He focused in a lot on "spiritual warfare", commanding angels and demons, etc. He struck me as having a folksy, friendly veneer, but underneath, he seemed to me to be just as jealous of staying the top dog as Wierwille ever was. Has anybody else here had any contact with Liberating Ministries for Christ International? Love, Steve

And there you would sit... like a dead duck! Love, Steve

I just want to thank you, Raf, for all the effort you put into the Actual Errors thread! It was instrumental for many of us in reaching some kind of agreement on what specifically was wrong with PFAL, and in re-adjusting our thinking accordingly. We recognize how frustrating it was to deal with certain parties participating in that thread, and we admire your persistence. Time to move on? Yes, indeed! But we can move on more surely thanks to the contributions you have made. Thanks, again! Love, Steve

I pretty much agree with OldSkool. My experiences with TWI & offshoots made some profound impressions on my thinking, and even now, 25 years after leaving, I still sometimes find myself recognizing ways in which I have been effected. My wife knows what it means, having gone through nearly identical experiences while in TWI (we became involved with each other only after we had each left), but to everybody else currently in my life, it's "So what?" The people at Greasespot make it a good support group. Love, Steve

II Corinthians 11:4 says, "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached..." The Way spun this out into a whole doctrine of "devil spirits" named Jesus. That's how poor ignorant Christians who haven't had Power for Abundant Living can get supernatural results when they pray in the name of Jesus, even though they don't know the sixteen keys or any other TWI bs. It's a devil spirit answering THEIR prayers, and we wouldn't want that! Since leaving TWI, I have come to realize God and Jesus are both capable of sorting mail, and they know who we are praying to, even when we don't. I think, if I were around a bunch of Wafers right now, I'd start calling Him "Hay-soos", just to see what kind of a rise I could get out of them! Love, Steve

I've been giving this some more thought. After I took Power for Abundant Living, I thought that I was a better Christian. Whether or not I really was is something for the Lord Jesus Christ to judge, but that's what I thought. I promoted PFAL because I thought it could help people be better Christians. I now realize how devilish that mindset is. If the class can make me a better Christian, that must mean that I am a better Christian than anybody who hasn't taken the class. A grad is by definition a better Christian than a non-grad. I think that's what I Corinthians 8:1 means when it says that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. John Schoenheit and John Lynn each believes in his own heart that he is the best Christian on the face of the earth, because he has the knowledge that others need to have in order to become better Christians. Not that they would say it that way. They would have some seemingly self-effacing way to say it, but it would mean the same thing. That's why Schoenheit can write, "It is our assertion that there are theological issues that we understand more correctly than most translators, and thus our translation will reflect that theology." In other words "I understand the Bible better than any other translator on the face of the earth." That's why John Lynn, in his much more wordy way can write, " ...How excited do you think Jesus was when, after God raised him from the dead, He told him “the Secret” He had kept to Himself from all eternity?” No doubt Jesus exclaimed, 'VERY COOL!'... That “Secret” is by far the most important truth in the Word of God, and very few Christians could tell you what it is. The true “Secret” is that Jesus Christ would diversify himself all over the world in a body of vastly diversified people, each of whom is equipped with the same power he used to bring God’s Truth, Love, and Power to mankind. Now the Lord Jesus can exert a life-changing influence in Jerusalem and Kansas City, as well as wherever YOU live. The Living Truth Fellowship is all about helping you walk in the fullness of what Jesus made available to you." In other words, "I know how to walk in the fullness of what Jesus made available to us better than anybody else on the face of the earth." Those guys have their whole identities invested in regarding themselves as being better Christians than anybody else. That's why they HAVE to do new translations and teach new classes, to validate the opinions they hold of themselves. The problem is, they AREN'T the best Christians on the face of the earth, and that truth is obvious to anybody who has not already bought into their error. Love, Steve

Soooo... the Old Testament, the Gospels, the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ have NOTHING to do with the existence or purpose of the Church?" How I would love to ask that question of one of those bozos! But none of them pay no mind to me nomore. Love, Steve

Some people say the problem with lying is that you can't remember all the lies you've told. You can't remain consistent. There's some truth to that, but the other problem with lying, as you so aptly point out, waysider,is that you start to believe the lie yourself. John Lynn and John Schoenheit really do believe that they have the greatest package of truth in the world today, even though it blows apart at the slightest whif of genuine exegesis, like a Hoosier double-wide mobile home in an EF5 tornado! Love, Steve

I think you hit the nail on the head, OldSkool, when you used the phrase "extreme highmindedness". Romans 11:20 says "Be not highminded, but fear:" Wierwille expressly taught in foundational PFAL that this verse was not addressed to Christians, when in truth, it WAS. Wierwille taught that we are not to fear God, but that we are to respect Him, the way we would respect an elderly uncle we are no longer expected to obey. Wierwille divorced the idea of obedience from the idea of respect for God. After all, obedience doesn't matter in this WONDERFUL AGE OF GRACE! In Psalm 139:23&24, David cried out, "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." That was an expression of genuine fear of God. A person who does not fear God mistakes every thought and intent of his own heart for TRUTH, because the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. People who do not fear God come to believe their own hype. At one time, CES' motto was "Speaking the truth in love." They arrived at a place where they believed the things they spoke were true and loving, just because they spoke them. Never mind what's actually written in the Word. They can't help deceiving people, because they have deceived themselves! Love, Steve

I was reading The Jesus Wars by Philip Jenkins, and I had it with me in class one day. My professor saw it and expressed some interest, so I loaned my copy to him when I was finished with it. A week or so later, he returned my copy, and told me he's going to start using it as a textbook the next time he teaches the class! One thing I noticed in the early days of CES was that John, John and Mark were willing to question their understanding of a topic only until they published something about it. Once they had put their position in print or on tape, it was set in stone, and could NOT be revisited. Real professional scholars are ALWAYS questioning and rethinking the things they teach. Each semester, the class is different, not because it was defective, but because the people, professors and students, are always growing and the cutting edge of the state of the art is always advancing. I have in my personal library a copy of Clarence Larkin's The Greatest Book on Dispensational Truth in the World. Yes! That is its real title! Originally published in 1918. It is full of curious, nearly manic diagrams depicting in stunning detail the most convoluted chronological and dispensational fantasies a person could imagine. The book sits there, like a time capsule of baroque theological error, the frozen relic of a bygone day. It strikes me that TLTF's The End Times will have pretty much the same effect. Love, Steve

Well, I went to the TLTF website and found out about their "The End Times" seminar (!?!), eight 40-minute segments on dispensationalism. I just finished two semesters of Constructive Theology, in which the high points were questioning the prof in class and engaging the other students. The prof often allowed us to take the discussion where we wanted it to go. The idea of sitting like a potato for five hours and twenty minutes listening to a TWI style indoctrination lecture just turns my stomach. I just spent about $39 dollars for 39 episodes from the first-season of Perry Mason back in 1957. A far more instructive investment. Everybody involved in it knew they were producing fiction, and they did a good job of it. Love, Steve

So, what's John promoting this time? Video classes? What's a person get for $39? A single pearl of wisdom, or the whole Power for Abundant Living/Introduction to God's Heart THING THAT WOULD NOT DIE! Love, Steve

As I read Schoenheit's commentary, I was impressed by his erudition. I think he has taken dispensational argument farther than Scofield did, and would be a widely recognized "scholar" if it weren't for the fact that he is anti-trinitarian. His work will never be more widely accepted in conventional Christian circles, and he doesn't have the charisma to attract a following like Wierwille did. Translation does not come from meaning, meaning comes from translation. That is one of the simplest and most fundamental principles for dealing with ANY language. It is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. John could have been a GREAT scholar, a giant in the field, if he hadn't committed his life to Wierwille's error. Love, Steve

"...what do the fragments... of CES teach about Holy Spirit? Is it still an individual seed planted in each believer, or is it a unitary spirit that operates like a nervous system in the body of Christ?" Regarding that question, with which I began this thread, I've learned some more, thanks to the links so many of you have kindly posted. I've been reading Schoenheit's commentary on the version of the New Testament STFI is publishing. What has been most instructive regarding this question has been Schoenheit's commentary on John 3:3, about the new birth. Apparently STFI still teaches that "the gift of holy spirit" is an individual seed planted in each believer at the moment she or he believes [gender neutral language added by me - Steve]. According to Schoenheit, when the New Testament refers to "one Spirit," it is referring to the resurrected Christ rather than "God the Giver" or "the gift of holy spirit." While this seems plausible within the dispensationalist scheme of things, it otherwise falls apart. According to Schoenheit, NO Old Testament prophecies can be applied to the spirit first poured out on the day of Pentecost, but Peter himself said it was the spirit prophesied in Joel. All for now! Love, Steve

"...we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly." I quoted this to my Greek professor this morning, and he laughed! No wonder they isolate themselves from genuine scholarship. Their methods make them laughing stocks! The meaning comes from the translation, not the other way around! That also goes for Wierwille's work itself, and the work of all the other offshoots. Love, Steve

Thanks for the heads-up, Rejoice! STFI is apparently publishing their own version of the New Testament: "We have worked to keep the REV as a literal translation whenever appropriate, like the ASV or King James. It is not a 'dynamic equivalent translation,' such as the NIV, although there are times when, to make good sense in English, we had to depart from a strictly literal translation. Our goal is to eventually have an 'essentially literal' translation of the Bible that more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market, and also one that is written in today's English. We think we can do that because we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly. Furthermore, one's theology always affects the way that person will translate the text. It is our assertion that there are theological issues that we understand more correctly than most translators, and thus our translation will reflect that theology." Schoeheit says that it is not a "dynamic equivalent translation," but he doesn't say it's a literal translation either. He calls it an "essentially literal" translation "written in today's English." That, my friends, is what is called a "dynamic equivalent translation." Schoenheit says that their translation "more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market." Is that accurate, or is it a result of buying into Wierwillean puffery? Can his claim be supported by dispassionate inquiry? Schoenheit is not qualified to say, because he refuses to discuss the issues with anyone who disagrees with him. Schoenheit says "...we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly." This is a description of the process of eisegesis or "reading foreign meanings into the text." If you decide you know what it means before you've translated it, you're almost certain to be wrong, as I've found to my sorrow in taking exams in my Greek class. I've always had a great deal of respect for Schoenheit, and I like him personally. It's a shame to see someone I would like to think of as a friend so twisted by Wierwille's arrogance. Love, Steve

Me... for one. In the submarine service, officers and enlisted trusted each other. Sometimes, new officers would come aboard with bad attitudes toward enlisted, and we had ways of making them change their attitudes real quick, or get off the boat. We couldn't frag anybody on the boat, but we sure could make their lives a living hell, all within the rules of the game. TWI style leaders wouldn't have lasted a week. Real leaders EARN the respect of their followers by behaving respectably! Love, Steve