Steve Lortz

Say, oldiesman, when I pointed out that Wierwille lied in PFAL about the content of Romans 9:4, didn't you choose to believe he did it out of incompetence rather than dishonesty? Why would you do that, oldies? Love, Steve

"Mike" doesn't give a tinker's toot about what Armstrong or anybody else has done. Even though Wierwille put his writings in the same catagory as those of other human writers, right there in the PFAL book, "Mike" twists the plain meanings of the words, and the plain grammar, to "Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." "Mike" can't even get PFAL right. Love, Steve

Admiral Rickover used to test officers when they applied to be part of the Nuclear Power Program. There are lots of funny, as well as horrifying tales. This was one of my favorites. Admiral Rickover asked the applicant if he was engaged. The applicant said "Yes." Rickover handed him the telephone and told him to call his fiancee and break off the engagement. The applicant did so. When he turned the phone back over to Rickover, the Admiral said, Get out of here, you !@#$%. I don't want a ^&*() like you in MY navy!" Back to TWI. Lightbearers was what broke me. For the first and last time, I willingly, knowingly manipulated a person to sign the green card. The coordinator had placed soooo much emphasis on how we HAD to sign people for the class. Then, when we got back to Gunnison, he told the people who hadn't signed anybody up that it wasn't really a big deal. I dropped out at the end of that block. Love, Steve

oldiesman - Just for reference's sake, did you ever experience L.E.A.D.? Love, Steve

"Mike" wrote, You see folks, it's a perfect illustration of Romans 1:28a, Mike willingly, with full knowing, accepted the lie, that PFAL is God-breathed. Mike deliberately surrendered his responsibility to judge the difference between true and false. As a result, "Mike" no longer has the freedom to recognize the difference between true and false. "Mike" HAS TO BELIEVE whatever his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him, no matter how contra-perceptive, no matter how illogical, unless he repents and receives deliverance from the Lord. The stuff "Mike" spouts tries to project a false-face of concern for people and regard for truth, but we've all seen that he just can't keep up the pretence for long. The deceit, the malignity, the despiteful pride, the boasting come "shining" through. Love, Steve

def59 - You wrote, Something like that DID happen, but not quite the way you propose. From about 300 BC to about AD 200, the Stoic cosmology was dominant in the Graeco-Roman world. Platonism was there, but it wasn't dominant. There were a number of catastrophes that befell the Roman empire in the 2nd/3rd centuries, and as a result, more and more people turned to neo-Platonism, until that cosmology came to dominate. The cosmology of the Old Testament and the Stoic cosmology did not teach natural immortality of the soul. To them, dead was dead. You weren't hanging around anywhere before you were born, and you don't go anywhere after you die. You just cease to exist. That's why the resurrection was such a big deal to believers of the first and second centuries. The Platonic and neo-Platonic view was that the soul is natually immortal in and of itself, with no beginning and no end. The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, but their views were influenced by Platonism. When Constantine had the bishops formulate an official version of Christianity, most of them were neo-Platonists. And they interpreted the words of the Bible through neo-Platonic lenses, substituting neo-Platonic concepts for the original meanings of many terms. The doctrine of the Trinity really does make sense, viewed in terms of 4th century neo-Platonism. Unfortuantely neither Paul, nor we ourselves, are 4th century neo-Platonists. When the punitive power of the state was turned to the task of enforcing orthodoxy, the formal neo-Platonic interpretation became set in cement. Not even the Reformers were able to recognize and break free from their neo-Platonic viewpoint. People were not politically free to consider other, perhaps more accurate, interpretations of the Scripture until the 1700s. The idea that people are not naturally immortal, while fairly recent in the long view, is not what we would consider a brand new idea. Without doing any intense reseach, I'd say its probably been around as long as Biblical Unitarianism. That would be what, 150-200 years? Love, Steve

Garth - you wrote, The truth is, that "Mike" doesn't really believe in PFAL. He believes only in the secret, hidden meanings his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit feeds him. "Mike" blindly violates both the letter and the spirit of PFAL as readily as he violates the letter and the spirit of the Word of God. Love, Steve

"Mike" wrote, WordWolf - Don't you realize that Jesus Christ has already appeared, has already come back, to "Mike" in the form of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit? Whenever "Mike" sits down to "master" PFAL, Jesus Christ is sitting down to "master" PFAL. "Mike" won't come straight out and say it in public. He knows that would be just too bizarre. But, that's what you'll find out, if you follow him far enough. Love, Steve

WordWolf - You posted, "Mike" will never see it, WordWolf. "Mike" can see only what his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit allows him to see. That's what happens when you surrender your ability to judge, by accepting an obvious lie as truth. That's what it means to have an "adokimos" mind. Love, Steve

WordWolf - Could it be because gymnasts competed in the buff? The material What The Hay presented referenced the word "sunagonizomai, to strive together in a contest". "Sunagonizomai" is the verbal cognate of the noun "agon", with the prefix "sun" which indicates "together with". The word "agon", believe it or not, was a Greek military term. When the Greeks would have a battle, the two sides would form their men in phalanxes ("stacks" or "piles" of men). They were drawn up in close order, that is, shoulder to shoulder and front to rear, usually about eight ranks deep. The two sides would charge each other. At the moment of collision, there would be a lot of thrusting and stabbing with spears, but then the opponents would be crushed together by the weight of the men behind them. After that, the battle turned mostly into a shoving contest, sort of like a rugby scrum, with whatever nastiness the two front ranks could improvise in the press going on between them. Everybody would be using his shield to shove against the back of the man in front of him, until the cohesion of one side or the other broke. Then the winners would slaughter a lot of the losers as they ran away. The shoving part of the battle was called the "agon". The sports terminology was derived from the military, even with this word. Love, Steve

Chuck - In a previous post I wrote that you responded to def59 with "unwarrented, emotionally driven outbursts" as well as information. If you found this hurtful, I am genuinely sorry. Mark Sanguinetti informs us that you have been condemned and tortured by people in your life and in your impressionable youth teaching hell fire. While I couldn't see anything written in this thread that might warrent such an outburst from me, I understand how triggers work with people who have been abused, and I can understand the vehemence of your feelings toward your perpetrators. There ARE times and places at GreaseSpot where it's appropriate to vent. This thread is as good a time and place as any to vent against the particular errors people operated to abuse you. Please just remember that most of us here are fellow-seekers who have not yet given this topic as much consideration as you have, and have patience with us. Love, Steve

oldiesman - If Wierwille was so imcompetent as to teach that Romans 9:4 says it is addressed to the Jews, in a section of PFAL dedicated to being "continually conscious" of "To Whom Addressed", then how could he consider himself competent to teach ANYTHING? How could he have plastered "THE TEACHER" on the end of PFAL? To say Wierwille was incompetent seems more damning, in view of the trust we gave him, than to say he was dishonest. I freely admit he pulled the wool over my eyes. Some people have not yet arrived at that truth. Love, Steve

TheEvan wrote, "I'm aghast at the tenor of 'discussion' here. Can you imagine Peter or Paul coming off with a smug 'I know it all you poor sap, and you don't' attitude?" I can only concur. I teach part time at a Christian classical academy. When the students reach seventh grade, we begin teaching them HOW to argue in a formal manner. The process is call "discourse". The first stage of discourse is for the participants to sound out each others' position, to come to agreement on terms and principles. They do this by asking probative questions of each other. After terms and principles are agreed upon, the participants can begin to present persuasive arguments. These arguments begin with each side giving a statement of its thesis, and presenting evidence in favor. Then each side gets to question the others' thesis, and to present evidence against. This process alternates. The discourse can go on as long as the parties are interested in the question. We encourage the students to use a passive voice placing emphasis on the logic, rather than the passion, of their agument. We teach them to avoid emotionally loaded words and phrases ( such as "BS"). We disallow ad hominem attacks, and comments about each others personalities. We discourage them from using absolute language by having them introduce their statements with phrases such as "it would seem that" or "it appears that". This prevents them from backing themselves into "either/or", I'm right/you're wrong", "do or die" corners. There seems to have been plenty of that in this thread. Concerning appeals to the Bible, while we all may or may not recognize that it contains absolute truth, none of us have an absolute understanding of the whole thing. We can present our understandings for consideration, and we can question each others' hermaneutics, but none of us can impose our interpretation simply by dictate. It appears to me that def59 was willing to entertain information concerning Biblical Universalism, and was asking probing questions to learn more. It also appears that Chuck took these probative questions as attacks on his position, and responded with unwarrented, emotionally driven outbursts, as well as information. While Chuck's information may be right, his outbursts seem counter productive. Instead of tending to persuade def59 to come around to his point of view, Chuck's outbursts would more probably harden def59 in his position. Mark Sanguinetti's posts appear to be models for dispassionate consideration of an issue that raises many people's hackles. Love, Steve

oldiesman - I can empathize with your attitude toward PFAL and Wierwille. I was involved with TWI for seven years in which I went WOW once, coordinated a twig for two years (where we put together and ran a PFAL class at the twig level), and spent the first two blocks in residence with the 16th Corps. During that time, I genuinely believed in PFAL and Wierwille. I defended them tooth and nail. I left in '87 when I found out about the adultery, but for years, I still defended the integrity of PFAL. I was involved for nine more years with splinter groups, trying to resuscitate the good old days. It didn't work. As I studied the things we had been taught in PFAL, and tried to track them through the Word for myself, I realized that most of what Wierwille TAUGHT can't be tracked, because it's simply not there. Wierwille PREACHED a lot of things that were right, but he taught a lot of things that were dead wrong. It was my own study of the material covered in PFAL that opened my eyes to the depth of error Wierwille perpetrated in that class. On January 26, '05, 11:23 (page 2, this thread), I wrote, ""oldiesman - How do you explain Wierwille's lie in PFAL about the content of Romans 9:4?" On January 26, '05, 13:47 (page 3, this thread), you replied, "Steve, perhaps this is not the topic for this thread, though I'm always open to giving your accusations an ear." I think my question is very much on topic. This thread is about Wierwille's attitude toward the Jews. The Christian congregation at Rome was having some difficulties because of attitudes the Jewish and the Gentile believers were exhibiting toward each other. Much of the book of Romans was written with this incipient conflict in mind, and Romans 9-11 addresses it explicitly. Yet Wierwille taught that Romans 9-11 was not addressed to Christians. On page 208 of the PFAL book, Wierwille quoted I Corinthians 10:32, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God" and went on a few sentences later, The sentence "The entire Bible is addressed to one or the other of these three groups" oversimplifies to the point of error. Parts of the Bible are addressed, not to "these three groups", but to individuals, and even subsets within these groups. On Page 212 of PFAL Wierwille wrote, On page 217 of PFAL Wierwille wrote, First, notice that Wierwille quoted from each verse he referenced except Romans 9:4. Let's look at Romans 9:2-5 all together, Wierwille wrote, "To whom is it addressed? Verse 4 says to the Israelites, the Judeans." That, my patient brother, is a lie. Verse 4 says the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises were addressed to Israel. It does not say anything about THIS section of Romans being addressed TO Israel. With all the verses Wierwille quoted directly, why did he NOT quote Romans 9:4? Perhaps because Wierwille taught that it said something other than what is actually written? Wierwille went on, "Paul wrote in chapter 10 verse 1, 'Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer for Israel is, that they might be saved.' This is still addressed to Israel." No, it is addressed to Paul's "brethren", his fellow Christians. There are two clues that tell us the "brethren" of Romans 10:1 are not the "brethren" of Romans 9:3. First, in Romans 9:3 Paul qualifies the word "brethren" with the phrase "my kinsmen according to the flesh". There "brethren" DID refer to Israelites. When Paul used the word "brethren" without any qualifiers in Romans 10:1, he was addressing his fellow brothers in Christ at Rome. Second, if Romans 10:1 was addressed to Israel, Paul would have written, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for YOU is, that YOU might be saved." This is still not addressed TO Israel. Remember, we must be continually conscious of the uses of "for" and "to". These two prepositions make the critical difference between truth and error. So, oldiesman, Wierwille taught something that was manifestly untrue, "Verse 4 says to the Israelites, the Judeans." He taught this in the middle of a section of PFAL dedicated to the importance of paying attention to the prepositions "for" and "to", and to getting "To Whom Addressed" correct. Did he do it out of incompetence of dishonesty? Love, Steve

oldiesman - How do you explain Wierwille's lie in PFAL about the content of Romans 9:4? Love, Steve

Mark - Thanks for your posts on this thread. Up to now, I didn't hold a Biblical Universalist view (?the right word for it?), but then, I hadn't given it much thought. When I lived on the submarine, we had a machine called the "8K". It was a distilling machine that extracted potable water from sea water, and it was called the "8K" because it had an eight thousand gallon per day capacity. Sometimes calcium scale would build up on the inside of the 8K, decreasing its efficiency. When that would happen, we would run a shot of cold water through it, and the thermal shock would cause the calcium scales to break loose. This process was called "chill shocking the 8K". In our USS Pogy dialect, the phrase "chill shocking your 8K" came to mean revealing information that might cause a paradigm shift. Your posts, Mark, have certainly chill shocked my 8K! Love, Steve

Wierwille's view of Judaism was also skewed by his dispensationalism. When Darby invented dispensationalism, it was to lend seemingly biblical support to his idea, that God was preparing two different groups of people to inhabit eternity in two different places: the Jews, a physical people on a physical earth; and Christians, a spiritual people in a spiritual heaven. To maintain this position, dispensationalists teach that the Church is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. The scriptural truth is that the Church consists of the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31, with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Jews, by grace through faith. This scriptural truth is set forth in Romans 9-11, which are actually addressed to the Christian believers in the congregation at Rome, and especially to the believers from Gentile backgrounds. The passage of PFAL where Wierwille stressed the importance of paying attention "To Whom Addressed" is a classic example of a technique stage magicians call "misdirection". While preaching "To Whom Addressed", Wierwille lied (and I can only surmise deliberately) about "To Whom" Romans 9 and 10 were "Addressed", and particularly about the content of Romans 9:4. Romans 9 and 10 are ABOUT the Jews, but they were not addressed TO the Jews. The Gentiles of Romans 11 were not unbelieving Gentiles, they were the Christians who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds. These chapters open up whole vistas of the relation between Jews and Gentiles in the Church that are vastly different from what Wierwille taught in PFAL. Love, Steve

Wayfer Not! - This is just off the top of my head. During the time of the gospels, there were a number of different forms of Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, etc. As Christianity originally developed, it was regarded as another branch of Judaism. All of these factions revolved to one degree or another around worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. This was called the Second Temple, as opposed to Solomon's Temple that had been destroyed by the Babylonians. The Temple had been partially restored in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, and then massively rebuilt by Herod. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, only two forms of Judaism survived; Christianity, which had the least dependence on the Temple, and the Pharisees. Christianity, as it moved out into the Gentile world, distanced itself from its Jewish roots. A number of Pharisee scholars got together in a council at Jamnia, and developed a way to maintain Jewishness without the Temple. That council was the beginning of what we call Rabbinical Judaism, or what we recognize as Judaism today. I don't know all the technical differences between Second Temple Judaism and modern Judaism, but that's how many of the differences came about. Love, Steve

What The Hay - Was your recent outburst (01/24/05, 12:37) directed at me? If so, what kind of burr got under your tail? How do you explain "Mike's" imperviousness to reason and the evidence of our senses (what's actually written in PFAL)? Love, Steve

A brief return to consideration of "Mike" and his affliction: "Mike" admits that his position rests, not on logic, but upon spiritual revelation; and that the spiritual revelation comes after agreeing to buy into the lie that PFAL is God-breathed. By deliberately choosing to believe a lie, abusing his God-given ability to think, "Mike" has freely given away his ability to think for himself. The "revelation" he receives from his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit over-rides the evidence of his God-given senses, and his God-given ability to reason. In order to keep God in our experiential knowledge, in order to know Him, as opposed to knowing about Him, we have to practice judgment: "...that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God"; "prove all things, hold fast that which is good"; "try ["dokimazo" = "to make trial, proof, to test] the spirits whether they are of God..." Because "Mike", in his aceptance of the lie that PFAL is God-breathed, abandoned his responsibility to test, he lost his freedom to test. Now "Mike" trusts an alien spirit, his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit, to do all his judging, all his testing, all his proving, all his critical thinking, for him. "Mike" DOES see visions of Jesus studying from PFAL books! "Mike" DOES get revelations about secret messages hidden in PFAL. "Mike" DOES receive assurances from spirits that he, "Mike", in place of Wierwille, now speaks for God. For "Mike", these experiences are just as real as anything that you or I believe to be real, and they will remain so, no matter what we argue, as long as he continues to put faith in the lie that PFAL is God-breathed. There's no need to get frustrated with "Mike's" intransigence. Until he repents of his foolishness, he can't be any other way. Love, Steve

WordWolf - Perhaps you can help me with this: In "Mike's" initial post on his new thread he wrote, "Well actually, I most definitely AM sensitive to Pawtucket's wishes, and his hint yesterday, hidden in a pretty good joke, has prompted the idea for me starting this thread." In his post of 01/20/05, 13:47, on page 1 of that same thread, Pawtucket responded, "I wasn't joking." (So much for "Mike's" sensitivity to Paw!) Obviously, there was some exchange taking place on another, earlier thread, but those of us who haven't been reading EVERYTHING have no clue as to what was going on. Can you shed any useful light for us, say, at least a reference to the thread and post where we can read Paw's original thought that "Mike", in his exquisite sensitivity, misapprehended as a joke? Thanks! Love, Steve

def59 - I hope my last post didn't come across as too harsh and critical. It IS stressful to consider that long held assurances might be erroneous. The confidence I have now of God's love for me through Jesus Christ is stronger than it has ever been, because my understanding of what's actually written in His Word is stronger. Love, Steve

def59 - You wrote, What should I make of this? Your first sentence reads like a question. I ask myself, "Does def59 ask this rhetorically? If so, then what is the point def59 is trying to make. Yet the sentence is punctuated as a statement, not as a question. What do you mean by "that all the Books of the Bible are written to believers for life and godliness"? You wrote, "...some of the O.T. rules no longer apply". What makes you think that? Which O.T. rules no longer apply, and which are still in force? How does the Bible explain that change? How do you derive "principles that point toward holiness" from what's written in the text? When the word "eternal" appears in the Bible, does it mean the same thing that WE mean when we use the word? Yes, our walk can be much less stressful when we ignore these questions, but then again, life was much less stressful when we simply accepted whatever Wierwille said as truth, smilingly said "Bless you!" and went about our business of "moving the Word". Personally speaking, I don't think the Old Testament was written to me, or anybody else except for one person, Jesus of Nazareth. He was the only one who HAD to understand it. He was the only one who could DO it. Can I learn a lot from the O.T.? You betcha. But not by snoozing along grooving on the easy parts. Was any part of the New Testament addressed specifically to me? No, not one word. Do I need the N.T. in order to be saved? Not necessarily. I can call on God in the name of the Lord without an intensive and exhaustive knowledge of what's written anywhere in any book. The Father has spoken to us in these latter days through His Son. Does a sharp knowledge of what's written in the New Testament help me understand how the first Christians understood their relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ? Does that help me understand MY relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ? Yes, it does. The Doctrinal Forum seems a strange place to downplay the discussion of doctrinal issues. Love, Steve

Here's one for the Invisible Dan - You wrote, "I would prefer... the idea that 'the Gospel of Matthew' was addressed [to] Jews or a Jewish-Christian audience, while the 'Gospel of Luke' was addressed to Gentiles or a Gentile-Christian audience." I have a copy of a book called "Paul on Trial" by John W. Mauck (2001, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, ISBN 0785245987). Mauck is a lawyer, rather than a theologian by trade, and he presents a very detailed and plausible case for Luke-Acts being the legal brief Luke prepared for Paul's defense at his trial. If that were the case, then Theophilus would have been the Roman magistrate assigned to hear Paul's case on Caesar's behalf, and we would have a gospel and another book (Acts) addressed to a specific Gentile. Mauck does an analysis of Unique Luke (Luke minus passages from Mark, minus passages from Q) that is very persuasive. If it were the fact that Luke-Acts was Paul's legal brief, it would put their composition, as well as the compositions of Mark and Q, at a relatively early date. Interesting, no? I think you would enjoy the book if you can find a copy. Love, Steve

I agree with Vertical Limit, that I Corinthians 10:32 is irrelevant regarding "to whom addressed". In truth, Wierwille and other dispensationalists abused the sense of I Corinthians 10:32 when they confused the use of "Gentiles" there with its use in Romans 11:13. In Romans 11:17,18,19 and 24 Paul says that these Gentiles had been grafted in among THEM, the believers from Jewish backgrounds. In Romans 11:20 Paul says these Gentiles stand by faith. In Romans 11:25 Paul calls these Gentiles "brethren". These Gentiles are not unbelievers. They are members of the Christian congregation at Rome who came to Christ from Gentile backgrounds. Romans 9-11 are as much addressed to Christians as Romans 8 is. Romans 11:30 ties together with Ephesians chapter 2. This truth raises some pertinent questions about Wierwille's free and easy view of grace, because Romans 11:22 says, "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell; severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." Wierwille posits that this verse cannot be addressed to Christians, because if it were, it would contradict Romans 8:38&39 These verses say "nor any other creature" will be able to seperate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, but they DON'T say I can't seperate MYSELF from the love of God. How? By works? I have heard people (and I have some specific ones in mind) preach "I wasn't saved by works, so how could I lose my salvation by works." Well, I don't think a person can. But Romans 11:20&21 say, These verses say that we believers from Gentile backgrounds stand on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace through faith: and that we need to respect this truth; that if we abandon our faith, then we can be cut off, just like unbelieving Israel. It's a sobering thought. It was meant to be. It was written to sober up the Roman Christians from Gentile backgrounds, who were boasting about their Christianity. Wierwille did not particularly enjoy sobriety, and he loved to boast. Should I judge whether or not another person is saved before the race is over? No. The ONLY, ONLY, ONLY person who is qualified to judge anybody's salvation is Jesus Christ Himself. If I presume to judge another person's salvation, I'm trying to take over the job of being boss, from the guy I'm supposed to be serving. Can I, and should I, judge people's actions? Definitely, including my own. All for this post. I imagine it will stir up a few hornets, as well as thoughts :-D Love, Steve