Steve Lortz

"I have heard what the prophets say who prophesy lies in my name. They say, 'I had a dream! I had a dream!' "How long will this continue in the hearts of these lying prophets, who prophesy the delusions of their own minds?" Jeremiah 23:25&26 NIV Don't they even read the Bible anymore? But who would need to? If we want moral instruction, we can fix the flesh through the fleshly means instilled by Momentus. If we want to know God's will, we can have The Prophetess For Our Day And Time interpret our dreams, if we describe them in 25 words or less. Horrified? Yes. Saddened? Yes Surprised? No. This is a natural progression from things the leaders of CES were doing when I left ten years ago. More later. Love, Steve

I was deeply involved with CES from the late-'80s to the mid-'90s. I helped edit "Dialogue". I helped edit some of their early books. I attended and was taken for a brief time by the Momentus training. I love John, John and Mark as my brothers in Christ, and like them as people. They try to distance themselves from their involvement with TWI. They have drawn up a list of ways in which they differ from the Way. However, there are some attitudes so deeply engrained from their Way daze that they aren't even aware of them. These attitudes of mind are so habitual that their correctness is taken for granted and they remain unquestioned. Chief among these attitudes is the idea that we should NOT fear God. Wierwille went to remarkable lengths to "rightly divide" Romans 11:20 out of Paul's address to the Christians at Rome. After all, Wierwille taught that fear was believing in reverse, and always wrong. According to Jeremiah 17:9 and Proverbs 21:2 the heart is deceitful above all thing because a person feels that every intention coming out of his own heart is right. None of us have the ability, in and of our selves, to distinguish between good and evil in the thoughts and intents of our own hearts. According to Hebrews 4:12, the living Word of God is the critic of the thoughts and intents of our hearts. In order to recognize the evil in our own hearts, we must submit the thoughts and intents of our hearts to God's Word. We submit the thoughts and intents of our hearts, these things that seem so right, so innocent, so pure, so clean to us, to God's criticism out of the fear of God. A person who doesn't fear God can't tell the difference in his own life between what is right and what is wrong. When Wierwille got up on the main stage at the ROA and taught truth, he did it because it seemed in his heart the right thing to do. When he raped girls and women in his motorcoach, he did it because it seemed in his heart the right thing to do... and he did not fear God. Psalm 36:1-2 (NIV) reads, "An oracle is within my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:There is no fear of God before his eyes. For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much to detect or hate his sin." Wierwille flattered himself too much to be able to see his own sin because he did not fear God. John, John and Mark have flattered themselves too much to detect or hate the damage Momentus did to their followers, because they do not fear God. Any person who considers himself to be a post-TWI leader, who has not submitted himself to the truth regarding the fear of God is dangerous, not because he is intentionally out to hurt people, but because, without the fear of God, he can't tell the difference between good and evil in his own heart. Love, Steve

oldies - You wrote, "I believe what he taught should stand or fall on its own, regardless of anyone's arrogance, or lack thereof.Work it, and if it makes sense and works for you, you've got an answer." Do you still believe what Wierwille taught about "administrations"? It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't work, when compared with what's actually written in the Bible. Why did it seem to make sense when Wierwille taught it in PFAL? Could it have been the confidence he displayed while teaching lies? If that isn't arrogance, what is? Why did it seem to make sense to ME, when I used to teach it? It seemed in my heart to be right. How many of the things you learned in PFAL, oldies, still seem in your heart to be right? Does that mean they really ARE right? Were the things Wierwille taught about "man = body + soul + spirit" really right? How are you going to know if you're standing on a rock or quicksand, if you don't re-examine everything in detail that you were taught in PFAL. Why should you re-examine what Wierwille taught if, like Barry Goldwater, you know in your heart he's right? Love, Steve

I didn't choose any of the options listed. In my opinion, Wierwille inadvertantly lifted a few things that were right, mostly regarding the truth that the gift received on the Day of Pentecost WAS the Holy Spirit, though not everything Wierwille taught about that Spirit was accurate. The vast majority of things he taught were demonstrably inaccurate. Wierwille's "man = body + soul + spirit" anthropology directly contradicts Genesis 2:7. Everything he taught based on that anthropology, including Wierwille's definition of "salvation", was wrong. Everything Wierwille taught about "administrations" was wrong, as were the many inferences and conclusions based on that particular error. But... everything Wierwille taught... both good and evil... was TAINTED by the arrogance ("highmindedness") of Romans 11:20, an arrogance that Paul contrasted with fear of the Lord. I think Wierwille's arrogance may be what rascal perceived when she wrote "I think that is what made twi doctrine so wrong and so dangerous..." He wasn't just arrogant himself, he taught US to be arrogant as well. Wierwille taught that fear is always wrong, but the Word of God says that fear of the Lord is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom. Why should that be so? Why is the heart deceitful above all things? and Everything that comes out of a person's own heart seems right to that person. Every intention in a person's heart seems innocent to that person. No person can judge the contents of his own heart without an objective standard.What can we use as an objective standard when we ponder our own hearts? The living Word is the critic of the thoughts and intents of our hearts. The Lord ponders our hearts. The Lord weighs our spirits. And He will gladly help us clean them out if we are humble enough to accept His critique.But... what could possibly motivate a person to submit the contents of his heart... the things that seem so right... the things that seem so clean... the things that seem so innocent... to anybody else's criticism? How about fear? Don't we accept criticism from those we fear? The problem with not fearing God is that we won't accept His reproof and correction. Wierwille was so arrogant, he magnified his own interpretations above what was actually written in the Word of God. His arrogance infected EVERYTHING he taught, right or wrong.Love, Steve

I have received reports from two independent people who I trust, who, each in a hospital under potentially deadly circumstances, received what I can only describe as "visions" of the baptism of fire. It wasn't pleasant by any means, but it led to life changing decisions in each of their cases. When we find ourselves in the middle of that baptism, we will know what it is, and I believe none of us will mistake it for any of the things we're going through now. Love, Steve

Here's the best of my understanding, for whatever it's worth: Water baptism was originally part of the ritual a Gentile went through when he/she wanted to convert to Judaism. This raises an interesting question. Why was John the Baptist baptising people who were already Jews? By the first century, the Jewish people had split into a number of factions such as Saduccees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc. (apparently the only qualifaction was to have double letters in the name of your group :-) ) Some of these factions claimed to be the believing "remnant" of Israel. The Essenes, at least, used water baptism as part of a person's conversion/initiation into the believing remnant. I believe when John was baptising, people understood that they were being identified with the believing remnant of Israel. I think that's why Jesus had to be baptised, to become an official member of the remnant. On the Day of Pentecost, something was added... baptism in/with the Holy Spirit... but I don't think water baptism went away. This is how I think they did it in the first century churches. A non-Christian (Jewish OR Gentile) might decide to become a Christian. When the Christians accepted that person, he would receive baptism as part of the process. The person would take off his clothes while being exhorted to put off the old man. The person would be immersed if at all possible. The person would go down into the water confessing "Jesus is Lord" with his understanding, and come up out of the water speaking in tongues. The person would put his clothes back on while being exhorted to put on the new man. This process was originally accomplished in the home churches by the hosts (twig coordinators). I think that there was a power struggle in the late first century between the fellowship hosts (collectively the "elders" of the church in the city) and the metropolitan bishops (branch coordinators). The bishops disallowed any baptisms unless he or one of his recognized representatives conducted them. That way, rogue twig coordinators couldn't bring new people into the church. The bishops could control the water, but they couldn't control the Spirit, so baptism with water was emphasized. The importance of baptism with Holy Spirit was neglected and went out of practice. Being baptized in water is how you show that you want to join a group, and how the group shows that you are accepted. It's no more "mystical" or "spiritual" than session 12 of PFAL was. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is what makes a person a member of the believing remnant of Israel, and thus an heir to the promises God made to them. The gift of Holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance. Love, Steve

Greetings, game geeks! In the late '60s, there was a group of gamers who met in Dave Arneson's basement (still living with his mom and dad in St. Paul at that time). Those gamers mainly played Napoleonic miniatures. They included Dave McGarry, David Wesley, Ross Maker, and others whose names I don't recall. They went from individual battles to playing campaigns, and they came up with rules to decide what their generals were doing between battles. David Wesley took some of those rules and came up with what they called a "Brownstein". The tabletop represented the island of Brownstein, where the characters had their adventures. The setting was contemporary and the characters were James Bond types. Arneson took Wesley's ideas and translated them into the fantasy setting which he called "Blackmoor". Tactical Studies Rules of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, of which E. Gary Gygax was a principle, had published a set of medieval miniatures rules called "Chainmail". Since "Chainmail" included rules for fantasy characters such as orcs, elves and trolls, Arneson used the "Chainmail" rules for resolving combat in his "Blackmoor" campaign. There was a game club in the upper midwest called the "Castle and Crusade Society" sponsored by TSR, which also sponsored the convention known as GenCon (Lake Geneva Convention). Arneson brought his "Blackmoor" campaign to Gygax's attention in the early '70s, and Gygax decided to publish the game. Arneson and Gygax collaborated on the product published as "Dungeons & Dragons". Several months before "D&D" was published in the fall of '74, Arneson first took foundational PFAL. I took PFAL in the summer of '80. I was aware from a mention in a game-magazine article that Arneson was also involved with TWI. Almost immediately after I graduated from PFAL, I went to GenCon and introduced myself to Dave. We've been friends ever since, even through the split up of TWI. I worked for Adventure Games Incorporated for several years in the early- to mid-'80s, and Dave was one of my spiritual partners when I was in the Corps. In 1979, when TSR published "AD&D", they tried to shaft Arneson out of his royalties. Dave sued, and the lawyers went through "D&D" with a fine tooth comb. Each and every line was attributed to either Arneson or Gygax. In my opinion, David Wesley invented the concept of recreational role-playing as we understand it today. Arneson adapted Wesley's concept to a fantasy setting, and Gygax worked together with Arneson to elaborate and publish the game. TSR always built up Gygax contribution and down-played Arrneson's, for commercial reasons. Arneson was the only person involved with the original development of "D&D" who was also involved with TWI. In "D&D"'s hayday, Arneson was tithing in the five figures annually to the Way Int'l. The Trustees knew who he was, and when they were in the upper midwest, invited him to bashes that regular believers didn't get invited to. Then, behind his back, they would malign as devilish the game that was bringing in so many ABS dollars. Arneson was never in the Corps himself, but he sponsored many, many people. He went out WOW once. I think it was in '85. He is a good guy, and has moved on with his life. By the way, MiniCorpsConscript, I may have hung around Arneson's apartment with you back in the mid-'80s. Love, Steve

Sirguessalot's theory of spikes is as good an attempt at understanding Wierwille's "spirituality" as many. Ex10 contributes the viewpoint of one who actually knew him more personally than a lot of us did. Like she said, "paradoxes". Here is my current take on Wierwille. He did and taught some good things, he did and taught some bad things, because there were both good and bad thoughts and intents in his heart. His problem (a problem not limited to just him) was that he couldn't tell the difference. The heart is deceitful above all things because whatever comes out of a person's own heart seems right to that person, whether it really is right or not. If I can't tell the difference between what is right and what is not in my own heart, what am I to do? If everything that comes out of my own heart seems right to me, then what could possibly motivate me to submit what seems so right to the critque of ANYBODY, much less to the critique of God's Living Word? How about the FEAR of the Lord? Not the mindless fear of being hit by a lightning bolt or being chucked into Hell for some senseless, petty infringement, but respect for the truth that God knows more than I do, and I need to bring the thoughts and intents of my heart into alignment with His, not the other way around. What happens when a person doesn't fear God? Some people compare Wierwille's sinfulness with David's and ask what's the difference? I believe David feared God and changed. Wierwille NEVER taught a genuine fear of God, because he said fear was always wrong. I don't have any evidence that Wierwille feared God at the end, or that he changed. A subtle problem arising from involvement with TWI is that Wierwille taught us NOT to fear God. It's a difficulty whose consequences in my own life I am only now beginning to recognize. It is a major problem with all of the offshoots, including the current TWI itself. Love, Steve

I attended ROA '80-'87. The numbers people recount here seem to agree with my memories. I went out WOW in '82-'83, so I was one of the 3,200 or so. I remember a lot being made of "4000 for the 40th" until the actual number became apparent, then the phrase "4000 for the 40th" disappeared... as if it had never been. To the best of my understanding there were about 100,000 people who had taken PFAL, but there were never more than about 30,000 actually "standing" at any one time. I guess ROA turn out was always a pretty good indicator of the level of interest. Love, Steve

The showers at Gunnison were interesting too. Sort of like the ROA showers at 20 degrees below with two feet of snow on the ground. Talk about waking up! Love, Steve

Apart from school phys ed classes, my mass/public shower sensibilities were formed in bootcamp. The ROA showers seemed okay. The TWI showers that got me were the ones in Uncle Harry Hall at Emporia :-) Love, Steve

My3cents - In response to my statement, "That poison is bound up with the idea that we shouldn't fear God", you wrote, "...I think it was bound up in the idea that the bible is the word and/or will of God...". I agree with you to some extent. I've been carefully reading the first few chapters of PFAL and BTMS. Why was it important to Wierwille for the Bible to be "the Word and Will of God"? Because we have to KNOW that it's God's Will for us to have whatever we damn well please in order to operate the "law of believing". It was the KNOWLEDGE of "God's Word" that enabled us to crack the whip over Him. To Wierwille "the Word and Will of God" was just another instrument for bending God's power to himself. I think your observation is accurate, and goes right along with the thinking that has been formulating in my mind this past month. Love, Steve

HCW - Love your posts! Love hearing it straight from the horse's mouth (editorially speaking), not from the other end. The only thing I might add to your analysis of the statement on PFAL 83 is this: I think the "not all" of the sentence in question is a contrasting allusion to the "all" of II Timothy 3:16. Love, Steve OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclaim

Psalm 36:3a, "The words of his mouth are wicked and deceitful". Not only are a high-minded person's words wrong, they are stated in such a way as to disguise their error. There are any number of examples from PFAL where Wierwille hid his lack of substance in great billowing clouds of words. For instance: in the very first paragraph on the very first page of the very first chapter (p 5) of PFAL Wierwille wrote, "But to be logical and consistent, either the entire Bible is the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation or it is not the Word of God anywhere." To say "the entire Bible is the Word of God... or it is not the Word of God anywhere" is neither logical nor consistent. Wierwille is presenting one of the presuppositions of his logic, and then claiming it is a conclusion of logic. It can't be both. Wierwille liked to present his arguments as if they were logical. He set a great deal of store by the appearance of logic, but instead of using the language of logic to cut to the heart of a matter, he dressed his arguments in pseudo-logical camoflage, to slip them past the sentries of reason. Another technique: Wierwille would use a word in a certain way a number of times to establish a definition by context, then give a formal definition that agreed with the contextual definition he had already set up. He wouldn't give ANY objective support for his formal definition, but it still seemed right, because he had already trained us to understand the word the way he wanted it understood. The best example of this is on pages 218 through 224 of PFAL, where Wierwille discussed "administrations". After introducing the topic and quoting I Corinthians 9:17, Wierwille stated "The word 'dispensation' is entirely misleading, for an administration is accurately the administering of an entire era as in one of our government administrations." First, Wierwille claims not to be defining "administration", but to be correcting a mis-definition of "dispensation". Then he wrote "an administration is accurately the administering of..." This is what's known in logic as a circular definition, or defining a word in terms of itself. Circular definitions are wrong because they fail to define (set limits to what a word can mean). A circular definition can be used to make a word mean ANYTHING. "...the administering of an entire era..." Here Wierwille introduces the idea that an "administration" is a period of time. "...we must understand that these Biblical administrations have to remain within the confines in which God has placed them in his Word." Where in the Bible does God place any of these "administrations" within any sort of confines? Where? In any of the uses of the word "oikonomia"? Nope. The word "oikonomia" is never used with any qualifiers such as "first", "second", "new", "better", "old", etc. In fact, the word "oikonomia" is never even plural in the Bible. Wierwille went on to write, "As far as I have been able to study the integrity of the Word of God, there are...", and continued for about three-and-a-half pages describing the "confines" in which he thinks God places the "administrations". Is there any substance to those three-and-a-half pages? None dealing with the word "oikonomia" or "administrations". By the time Wierwille got to page 223 he could write, "This has been a brief analysis of the administrations which are encompassed in the Word of God. We must understand that the rules of life change in the various time periods so that we must see each administration within its distinct context." Finally, AFTER having completed his "analysis", Wierwille set forth his definition of "administrations" as "various time periods" distinguished by changes in "the rules of life". He quoted a lot of verses along the way. Did any of them have anything to do with deriving a biblical definition for the word "oikonomia"? No, not one. His words were wrong, and he did his best to obscure how wrong they were. He tried to make his circular definitions seem credible by spreading them out over several pages. If he interlarded them with enough excessive, high-sounding verbiage, maybe no one would notice his definitions and arguments were circular. If you think I am being "anal-retentive" in analysing Wierwille's take on "administrations", I challenge you to figure out how Wierwille derived his teachings on "the new birth" from what's actually written in Scripture. On PFAL page 229 Wierwille wrote, "Before we move into the depth of the new birth, we must realize some fundamental terms. When I speak of the "natural man" I speak of the man of body and soul, the man who is not born again of God's Spirit." What did Wierwille mean by "move into the depth" of the new birth? What did it mean to him to "realize" some fundamental terms? We know what "natual man" meant to him, but what did he mean by "body" and "soul"? What did he mean by being "born again of God's Spirit"? He used those terms in a definition, without defining THEM. As you will see, he used his definition of "natural man" to derive his definitions for "body" and "soul" and "born again of God's Spirit". Wierwille built his whole erroneous theory of who man is, and his whole erroneous theory of what salvation is, on this one great big, compound, circular definition. Not only were the words of Wierwille's mouth wrong, they were decietfully wrong. Love, Steve

If I remember my urban legends correctly, back in the early 20th century, young women were employed to paint glow-in-the-dark numbers on the faces of clocks, using radium in the pigment. These young ladies would use their tongues to repoint their brushes while they worked, and so ingested harmful quantities of radioactive material. Say one of those women delivered a baby and breast-fed it. There would be radioactive contamination in her milk. She would be nurturing her child, yet at the same time, unknowingly, poisoning her baby. Was there milk in PFAL? Some might say so. I did for a number of decades. But there was also a colorless, odorless, tasteless poison that I'm only now becoming aware of. That poison is bound up with the idea that we shouldn't fear God. Instead of teaching us WHY and HOW to fear God, PFAL taught us a pseudo-technique for manipulating God. Not good... not good... Love, Steve

Yes, Steve!... You heard it here... A former TWI leader :-D taking responsibility for what he did! Love, Steve

I believe God called me to participate in TWI. I also believe He took some blinders off my eyes when He wanted me to leave. I believe He had me there for a purpose, and when that purpose was finished, He called me to leave TWI. Love, Steve

This post is a side-bar to explore an issue of terminology. "What do you call a person who has a lack of the fear of God?" It sounds like the set up for a bad punch line, but this question has become very real to me. I'm getting tired of repeating the phrase "a lack of the fear of God". It's just too cumbersome. It's no wonder that I don't have any terminology from my stint in TWI to fall back on. The only way we payed attention back then to the phrase "fear of God", was to say, "It doesn't really mean 'fear', it means 'respect'." Beyond that, we didn't say ANYTHING. We didn't need to develop any language for a job that didn't exist. So... "the lack of the fear of God"... hmmmm. To "lack fear" is to be "fearless"... "the fearlessness of God"? Somehow, that seems to mean something quite different. Let's look at the tail end of Romans 11:20, "Be not high-minded, but fear". "To be high-minded" is "hupselophroneo" in this verse. "Phroneo" means to think or to be minded. "Hupselo" means "high". Notice that the word here isn't "huperphroneo". That would mean "over-" or "above-" or "super-minded". "Hupselophroneo" is more like "lofty-minded". So Romans 11:20 sets "high-mindedness" in contrast with "fear". I believe this is so because a person who doesn't fear God isn't willing to submit the thoughts and intents of his heart to the critique of the living Word of God. Surely, his thinking is far too lofty to be wrong! So, from now on, I may use the term "high-mindedness" to replace the phrase "lack of the fear of God". Love, Steve

Psalm 36:2 "For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much to detect or hate his sin." Was that the case with Wierwille? Had he flattered himself in his own eyes so much that he couldn't tell when something he was doing or saying was wrong? For me (it could be other things for other people), the most blatant lie in PFAL is the statement Wierwille made on page 217, "To whom is it addressed? Verse 4 says to the Israelites, the Judeans." Verse 4 contains the word "to" but it doesn't say Romans 9 is addressed to Israel. It says the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises pertain to Israel. It does NOT say Romans 9 is addressed to Israel. For the longest time, the existence of this error in PFAL led me to believe that Wierwille was a conscious, deliberate con man. How could he NOT have seen the error, in a section of PFAL dedicated to eliminating THAT VERY KIND OF ERROR!?! However, since I started examining the results of a lack of the fear of God, I am beginning to see that Wierwille COULD have been that blind. I think Wierwille flattered himself in his own eyes too much to be able to recognize when he was wrong. And there was NO critic big enough to get through to him. Yet more to come... Love, Steve

Steve! - I may have been the inadvertant cause of your discomfort at AC '84. I was taking it then for the first time, too, but they made me a twig coordinator. My twig was living in Uncle Harry Hall. Many of us were military veterans, so we decided it would be fun to march up to the class sessions, and chant along the way. Soon, other twigs were imitating us. It wasn't any official part of the class. It was just some spontaneous fun, veteran style. I don't know if TWI made it a part of the AC after '84, but I think it would have been stupid if they did. Please accept my humble apologies! Love, Steve OLG Extraordinaire of the United States By Popular Acclaim

One strand at a time... Did Wierwille flatter himself in his own eyes? Wierwille flattered himself when he used the title "Doctor", a distinction that he had not earned. Wierwille flattered himself when he palmed off Leonard's class as his own. Wierwille flattered himself when he called himself "The Teacher". He did not understand, nor could he explain, many of the ideas he plagiarized from Bullinger and others. Wierwille flattered himself when he told the story of snow on the gas pumps. Wierwille flattered himself when he mistook his biblical speculations for research. Wierwille flattered himself when he defined "apostle" in such a way that he alone fit the description. Wierwille flattered himself when he set himself up as the Man Of God Of The World For This Our Day And Time. Wierwille flattered himself that he was "spiritually mature" enough to sin without suffering any consequences. Wierwille flattered himself that he could be physically attractive to young women, and that he could minister "healing" to them. Love, Steve

Anybody familiar with "matryoshka" dolls? ...those Russian nested dolls? ...dolls within dolls within dolls? I think it would be best for me to back off from this thread for about a week. I haven't opened up a can of worms in my thinking... I've opened up a matryoshka full of worms, and I have some serious sorting to do. I WILL be back, God willing! Love, Steve

Well, if the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike, then why, in Wierwille's view, would a person want to become a Christian? A "sinner" can tap into the power of God through the law of believing, but a "saint" can bring forth more abundantly, because the "saint" has absorbed, through believing, some of God's power, and that power has become a part of the "saint's" OWN SELF. Wierwille was NOT concerned about a difference between God's power and his own. He thought that he had absorbed enough of God's power, through believing, that he no longer needed to reckon with God's own use of God's own power. It would seem that Wierwille did not fear God. As my Pop used to say, "So what! More to come. Love, Steve

Not to slight anybody else, but George, I love the perspective you contribute here! Love, Steve

Did Wierwille fear God? How did Wierwille habitually regard the difference between his own power and the power of God? Fear stems from a perceived difference in power. It motivates us to get into right relation with things that hold more power than we do. Is fear always wrong (PFAL pp 46&47)? Certainly not! About 99% of the time fear is the healthiest thing we've got going. I am afraid to drive in front of an onrushing diesel. Is that wrong? How healthy IS it to drive in front of a speeding freight train? I recognize the diesel has a HECK of a lot more power than I have, and I stay in right relation with it, by staying off the tracks. Should I fear God? You betcha! He's the One who CREATED onrushing diesels.He has a heck of a lot more power than THEY do. If I want to stay in right relation with one of those puppies, I definitely want to stay in right relation with GOD! Some people are foolish enough to ignore the fear of God, just as some people are foolish enough to ignore the fear of diesels, and try to beat them to the crossing. In order to successfully (?) ignore the fear of God, a person needs to fool himself, in his own eyes, into thinking that his own power is somehow equal to the power of God. Is that what Wierwille did? What did he think about the power of God? First let's look at a passage from page 11 of PFAL: One of the first things Wierwille did was to equate the power of God with the more abundant life. We need to keep that in mind as we read some of Wierwille's other statements. "To appropriate" means "to take to or for one's self; take possession of". In PFAL, Wierwille presented "keys" he thought had enabled him to take possession of the power of God. For Wierwille, "the law of believing" was the primary key for taking possession of the power of God. Wierwille separated God as a Person from His own power, and turned it into an impersonal, amoral force. In Wierwille's eyes, God didn't care to what ends His power was put. In Wierwille's eyes, God's power was amoral, unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong. So we see that Wierwille conceived of God's power as an impersonal, amoral force that he could take for his own possession by applying the "law of believing". There's more to this particular thought, but I'm out of time. Love, Steve