Steve Lortz

On this thread, Mike has been contending that Wierwille's writings contain a ubiquitously hidden teaching regarding what Mike calls the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit, which is, according to Mike's own definition, a spirit different from the gift of holy spirit. Mike says that our understanding of the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit "depends heavily" on understanding "the Natural/Factual versus Spiritual/True dichotomy". If our acceptance of the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit is so crucial, and if our acceptance depends so heavily on our understanding of the "Natural/Spiritual dichotomy", then I would expect Wierwille's statement about the supercession of the worlds to make real sense and to be explainable. I contend that the Word of God does not present a "senses realm/spiritual realm" dichotomy, that Wierwille's statement does not make any real sense, and cannot be explained. Mike admits that he can't explain it, but he doesn't want to make a "rush to judgment" that could cause him to question the validity of the strange conversion he experienced five years ago. Wierwille's original statement was this, "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world." My question is this, "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?" In other words, Wierwille is purporting in this statement to be teaching us something about the supercession of worlds. Exactly *what* does it teach? Can you answer that, Mike? Or seaspray? or cyasurfin? Since the book of Hebrews appears to be resuscitated from among the tattered remnants, let's look at Hebrews 5:12-14, 12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 "For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." To put it into the vernacular, "For truly, when you aught to be teachers by this time, you need somebody to teach you again what are the primary elements of the Word of God. You need to go back to drinking milk instead of eating solid food. For everyone who can only drink milk is unskilled in the Word of Righteousness, because he's just like an infant. But solid food is for the fully grown, those who on account of practice have their 5-senses exercised toward discrimination of good and of evil." What's interesting about these verses is the truth that they are the only place in the Word of God where the word we would translate "5-senses" occurs. We know from Peters' "Greek Philosophical Terms" that "5-senses world" comes from "kosmos aisthetos" (we can't know from the Word of God because the phrase "5-senses world" doesn't occur in it). The word "aistheterion" occurs in Hebrews 5:14, the one and only time it, or any of its cognates, appears. One use, and one use only, of "5-senses". And what do we learn from this one and only use? Do we learn that there is a "5-senses world"? No. Do we learn that everything that comes to us through our 5-senses is "factual" instead of "true"? Nope. The words "fact" and "factual" never even appear in the Word of God. Do we learn that the 5-senses are *always* unreliable? Quite the contrary. We learn that it is by exercising our 5-senses through practice toward telling the difference between good and evil that we mature as Christians! We don't become capable of eating the solid food of the Word by trusting an alien spirit who tells us that there is a "spiritual" meaning that contradicts the 5-senses meaning of the words as written. We become capable of eating the solid food of the Word by building a habit of using our 5-senses to distinguish between what's good, and what's evil. The word "good" in Hebrews 5:14 is "kalon", the same as the word "good" in I Thessalonians 5:21. We are to use our 5-senses to "prove all things". Love, Steve P.S. - The Word of God never uses the word "oikonomia", translated as "stewardship" or "administration", to indicate "a period of time"

dizzydog - You wrote, "You [Mike] have a yardstick that you are measuring EVERYONE else with called PFAL." When Mike talks about "PFAL", he isn't really talking about the class presented by Wierwille. Mike is talking about the misinterpretations fed to him by his "advanced Christ formed within" spirits. Mike admits that there is a spirit, other than holy spirit, that has been "born" and is "growing" in his mind. This spirit gives Mike "spiritual understandings" of PFAL which often contradict the plain meaning of what Wierwille actually wrote. The yardstick Mike uses to condemn everyone else is a sliderule, in the worst sense of the word. Love, Steve

Dittos to what Mark said, except I reserve the right to continue backing your advanced Christ formed within "spirit" into any corner appropriate. My experiences with demons and their influence came long before my exposure to PFAL. They came because I was trying to explore the astral plane to find the akashic record. God delivered me when I reached the end of my rope and, out of desperation, called on the name of the Lord. When I did that, I was alone, not involved *any* kind of active Christianity. You yourself described the advanced Christ formed within "spirit", Mike. All I did was call a spade a spade. Love, Steve P.S. - I notice you've derailed your own thread again. If you had spent the time you've been gassing about Dr's (a lie in itself) authority and Paul's authority on winnowing your 80 or so supporting passages, you might have found at least one to post by now.

Mike - You wrote, "We can meet on the phone or in person anytime." No, Mike, we will keep our discussion public, where everyone can witness what transpires. You also wrote, "I am not a devil nor do I have one." Your description of the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit fits demonic influence to a "T". And remember, Mike, you yourself wrote, "You're definitely onto something. Remember that the Pentecost stuff is only a token." Yes, but a token of what? The Word of God says it's a token of the spirit of resurrection life in the age to come, not a token of "advanced Christ formed within" demonic influence. Mike wrote, "If you are able to temporarily don this set of beliefs, and do as Dr suggests and master PFAL, then many difficulties will disappear." If you are able to temporarily don this set of beliefs, and do as "Dr" suggests and "master" PFAL, then you too can open your mind up to "advanced Christ formed within" demons, who will gladly whisper sweet nothings in you ear, and tickle your fancies of becoming super-Christians... better yet, even, Christ himself! Not only will you will be blinded to many difficulties, you'll also be blinded to the light of the glorious gospel of Christ. Praise God for His mercy and goodness! Praise God for His glory and grace! Love, Steve

Everyone - I have to admit, I haven't paid as much attention to what Mike has written as I should have. This morning, I was reading through things he has posted concerning the "Christ formed in you/perfectly renewed mind" business, and I came across this beaut of a passage (April 28, 2003, 19:48, about half-way down page 13 of this thread). ********** "I describe this topic as 'advanced' for a few reasons. One is that this 'Christ' within (a la Gal. 4:19) is NOT the same as the familiar foundational topic 'Christ in you the hope of glory.' The Col. 1:25 type of 'Christ in' is pneuma hagion, holy spirit, the gift that does not affect the mind, because this 'Christ in' is in the spirit catagory, while the mind is in the soul catagory. "'Christ in you the hope of glory' is a free gift requiring believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and that God raised him from the dead. Prior to this believing, people received this gift with a nautili [sic - Steve] man's mind. After this believing it's STILL a natural realm oriented mind. This Christ is created in a man. "Christ FORMED within the mind is something spiritual happening in the natural realm. This Christ is formed and grows in a renewed mind according to the accuracy of God's Word. This Christ formed within is the new man, the self like Jesus Christ, It's Jesus Christ like, it's a love self, a Jesus Christ self, and it's found only in Jesus Christ men and women. This Christ is FORMED within a man's soul. "This new man is advanced. He's God's REAL masterpiece. From the 5-senses perspective, receiving pneuma hagion where there was none before is a masterful stroke of grace on God's part. But the 5-senses view cannot contain the advance Christ Formed. From God's perspective, the REAL masterpeice is this Christ formed in the soul. It's the NEW spirit mentioned in the 'Are You Limiting God?' chapter in the Blue Book. "The advanced Christ formed within fits well (while Christ in the hope does not) with this phrase from Part I of 'The Love Way' posted last week: 'Your spirit must have the privilege of meditating in the Word.' This indicates that it's not 'pneuma hagion' Dr is talking about, but the 'spirit of God' that's born into the SOUL catagory, a different, later process from that created spirit we were first taught. This spirit is capable of 'meditating' in the Word, a mental process, not in the spiritual catagory of holy spirit. This advanced Christ formed within is the NEW man and the NEW spirit. It's one notch away from the spiritual body. "Notice also from Part I of 'The Love Way' above that the REAL man is described as 'your spirit.' Again this can't be pneuma hagion, but something even bigger. This spirit is fed by the Word, not SIT." ********** Well, what can we learn from this? First, Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" is a spirit, but it isn't the gift of holy spirit. It never even claims that it IS holy. Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" is "God's REAL masterpiece", not that puny Pentecost stuff. It makes one a NEW man, a self like Christ, Jesus Christ like, a love self, a Jesus Christ self. It will make one a superman, an ubermensch. One of the devil's first lies was "...ye shall be as gods." Now he's up-graded to "...ye shall be as Jesus Christ." But it's not for everyone. Ordinary Christians don't have the "advanced Christ formed within." It's found only in "Jesus Christ men and women." Do you see how the spirit dwelling in Mike's mind inspires his noted air of condescension? Christ in you, the hope of glory, is a free gift. Not so, the "advanced Christ formed within." Mike describes receiving this other spirit, "...it's not 'pneuma hagion'... but the 'spirit of God' that's born in the SOUL catagory, a different, later process from that created spirit we were first taught." There is a process involved with receiving the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit that is different from, and comes later than does the process of receiving holy spirit. Mike doesn't give the specifics of this process, but he does write, "This Christ is formed and grows in a renewed mind." A person receives the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit by mentally committing himself to a particular way of thinking. Mike wrote, "This spirit is capable of 'meditating' in the Word, a mental process not in the catagory of holy spirit... This spirit is fed by the Word, not SIT." From some of Mike's postings on earlier threads, we know that his conception of "meditation" does not include the use of critical thinking. One gets comfortable and quiet and allows the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit to whisper its interpretations, bizarre interpretations with only tenuous connections to reality. It appears to have an aversion to holy spirit and speaking in tongues. I believe Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit is a demon or demons, exercising influence over those who accept their twisted interpretations. But it's still not too late, Mike. If you turn back to God's truth through the Lord Jesus Christ, and stop playing around with those demons' perverse ideas, they will have to leave you, in the name of Jesus Christ! Love, Steve

Mike - Please calm down! You wrote, "Your badgering me in the past has proved to be myopic, but you seem not to have learned from that incident. You started a whole thread to try and beat something out of me, and in the end you looked pretty shabby." I saw a place where you were in error, and I set out to explore what it would take to get you to see/admit it. *You* seem not to have learned from that incident. In the end, you *did* admit that you were wrong. If you had been forthcoming about the whole thing, I wouldn't have needed to "beat" it out of you. Shabbiness is in the eye of the beholder. You wrote, "You said that you had studied PFAL years ago, and I'm proving to you either did a partial job, or some has leaked out, or both." I have studied PFAL off and on for the past 23 years. The most recent stint began when I realized Wierwille was wrong about his "administrations". Since then I have participated in Jerry Barrax' and Rafael Olmeda's review threads. I have the books, and I have referred to them frequently during my discourses with you. I am basing my discussions with you on the written materials, so the resources at my command are not partial or leaky. You wrote, "Keep reading PFAL and you'll have no problem understanding those pages..." Right now, I'm having a problem understanding the sentence where Wierwille set forth his simile of the supercession of the worlds. I know that I'm not going to gain anything by glossing over Wierwille's failure to communicate a coherent idea, basing my understanding of other areas of PFAL on this error. You wrote, "Do you want to understand them, or do you want to tear down understanding of those pages." I understand them only too well. I can separate truth from error, and I see plently of both all over PFAL. When I see one of Wierwille's "understandings" that stands between me and a more accurate knowledge of God through His son, Jesus Christ, I will most heartily and most joyfully tear that "understanding" down. Love, Steve

On June 01, 2003, 05:21, regarding Mike's interpretation of Wierwille's "not all" sentence, Goey wrote, "That is one of the most dishonest twistings of language that I have ever seen." Mike replied in part, "That one word 'necessarily' sets up a local contra-context, from which you feel the twist. It's a tiny island where the context is exactly reversed." Surprise, surprise! There *are* words in English that function like Mike's "local contra-contexts". They are conjunctions of contrast such as "but" and "however". There actually is one in the sentence under consideration, "...but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." Unfortunately for Mike's position, "necessarily" is *not* a conjunction of contrast. By placing his own writings, along with the works of Calvin, et al., on the other side of the "but" from "the Scriptures", Wierwille himself lumps his own writings together with theirs, and sets all in contrast with the God-breathedness of the Scriptures. Love, Steve

Mike - All I am proving, with your very able assistance, is that you are wrong in your assessment that PFAL was God-breathed. It isn't hard to do. Love, Steve

Here are a few more thoughts about the sentence, "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." Shazdancer pointed out that, by using the phrase "not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts", Wierwille was saying that their works were in the same catagory as his own writings. Mike replied, "I see those names handled differently on that page 83 of PFAL." On page 60 of "The Handbook of Good English" (Facts On File Publications, 1982) Edward D. Johnson wrote, "Parenthetical constructions are often called nonrestrictive, because they do not restrict the meaning of the word or words they relate to but instead expand on that meaning; they could be removed from the sentence without changing the basic meaning." So we see that the construction in Wierwille's sentence, far from setting the works of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham and Roberts in contrast to his own, expands the meaning to *include* their works along with Wierwille's in the basic meaning of the sentence. Love, Steve

Wierwille wrote, "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world." Mike included this statement in his introduction to the topic of this thread, and also wrote concerning "Christ Formed In You", "This teaching depends heavily on an understanding of the Natural/Factual versus the Spiritual/True." Since Mike has founded his thesis on our understanding of this quote from Wierwille, I asked the question "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?" In a post of May 28, 2003, 03:47, Mike attempted an answer to my question. In a post of May 29, 2003, 16:48, I pointed out how Mike's answer failed on three counts, it was incomplete, it was circular, and it defied diagramming with the use of Euler's circles. To date, Mike has not made another attempt at answering my question. Instead, he has tried to shift his burden onto me, demanding that *I* find passages in PFAL to support *his* position. What a curiously perverse demand, indeed! Currently, Mike is in the process of winnowing down his purported 80 or so supporting passages. Here is a criterion that will help him narrow the field. Mike, if a passage doesn't bear on answering my original question, "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?", then you can discount it. I certainly will. I hope this helps speed your return to dialogue on this question. Love, Steve

EWB - Thank you for your kind words. As for your P.S., I don't think Mike was trying to give us incentive to "search the Wierwille". I think he was trying to put me on the defensive. Unfortunately for him, his offense is just as weak as his defense. As Mrs. Slocumb would say on "Are You Being Served", "Weak as water!" Goey - I agree with you that Wierwille's use of language was far, far from the precision we would expect from a genuine scholar, but sometimes we have to get into the details to show just how imprecise Wierwille's language really was. I personally think he *did* write deliberately to give the impression he was inspired by God, but it's a willfully perverse misreading of the passage from PFAL pg. 83 to contend it claims God-breathed status for Wierwille's writings, as opposed to the Bible. Love, Steve

On May 27, 2003, 16:43, (page 16 of this thread) I wrote, "In the real world, when a person puts himself forward as a candidate for mastery in some particular field of knowledge, he isn't just required to write a thesis. He is also required to defend his thesis before a hostile jury. If the candidate can successfully defend his thesis, he is considered to have mastered the material. Evasion of questions and rationalizations of error are signs that the candidate has not mastered the material, and cannot successfully defend his thesis." Mike - When you demand of me, a member of the hostile jury, that I produce citations to support your thesis, you are admitting that you haven't mastered the material enough to defend your own thesis yourself. Do your job, Mike. It's *your* responsibility to bring in "those many other passages". If you can't, just say so. Love, Steve

Mike - I see you can't address the points I brought up regarding "not all", since you are trying to deflect attention back to your failure to explain Wierwille's simile of the supercession of the worlds. You wrote, "Why do you want to focus totally on that one passage in the Blue Book, when I've repeatedly told you there are many more passages to consider? My question is why are you so silent on bringing in those many other passages." Why are *you* so silent about giving specific citations for "those many other passages"? Could it possibly be because there aren't any? I don't find any other place in PFAL where Wierwille explains his simile of the supercession of the worlds. If you do, then please give me specific citations. Please bring up any other citations you care to, and we'll examine them in detail also. But you can't legitimately accuse me of not bringing up other passages when you can't bring up any other specific passages yourself. Love, Steve

Shazdancer, Gooey, WordWolf, et.al. - You've done an excellent job of addressing the errors in Mike's interpretation... and it *is* just Mike's interpretation... of Wierwille's statement from page 83 of PFAL. I've got only a few minor observations to add to what you've already posted. First, regarding the "not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts" construction. The ellipsis is not primarily of the adverb "necessarily", but of the verb "will be". Not only does the adverb "necessarily" modify the missing "will be", it is *embedded* within the verb; "will necessarily be". We can't resupply the verb without also resupplying the adverb. In his post of June 02, 2003, 02:21, on this thread, Mike wrote, "I see those names handled differently... There's no use of the word 'necessarily' associated with them." Mike, you were wrong. Second, in the analysis Mike posted on page 17 of this thread, on May 31, 2003, 21:04, he wrote, "The sentence is: 'Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.'" Mike's quote is inaccurate. The sentence is actually "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." Now the phrase "nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts" is a nonrestrictive parenthetical construction, and as such, can be left out without effecting the basic sense of the sentence. However, the second independent clause, "but the Scriptures - they are God breathed" is an integral part of the sentence which cannot be ignored. Later on, we'll see how this effects Mike's misinterpretation. Third, Mike makes an error in excluding the meaning "None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." The phrase "not all" implies three possibilities; "all", "some" and "none". Of these three possibilities, the phrase "not all" excludes only one, and that is "all". Mike wrote, "The second sentence [None that Wierwille writes will nessarily be God-breathed.] is rather strained grammar and logic." It might be a little more euphoneous if the sentence had been stated "None of what Wierwille writes..." rather than "None that Wierwille writes...", but there is nothing wrong with the grammar or logic of Mike's second sentence. Putting Mike's second sentence into its original setting, we get "None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." The purpose of the sentence is to contrast Wierwille's writings, which may or may not be God-breathed, with the Scriptures, which are definitely God-breathed. Mike's erroneous interpretation sets exactly what Wierwille wrote on its head. Fourth, Mike presented two possible interpretations: "Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." "None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." Mike went on to write "It [the second sentence] also radically contradicts what Dr. wrote on page 34 of the Green Book: '...you will find that every word I have written to you is true.'" What Mike fails to realize is that the *first* sentence radically contradicts "Dr." also. If "every word I have written to you is true" is true, then to say that only "some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed" would have to be false. If only "some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed" is true, then "every word I write to you is true" would have to be false. The only way Mike could make the two quotations consonant would be to restate the first as "All that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." However, this is the one construal excluded by the phrase "not all". Batters up, Mike. Love, Steve

Everyone - Notice how slippery Mike deflected attention away from the truth that he can't explain Wierwille's simile of the supercession of the worlds? The truth of the matter is, Mike can't explain the simile because it doesn't make any real sense, as it would if it had been God-breathed. Mike would rather discuss Wierwille's use of "necessarily", a departure from the topic of this thread, than pursue the truth to its inevitable conclusion, that PFAL is not God-breathed. Love, Steve

WordWolf - Thank you very much! You said it much more cogently, and much more politely, than I was inclined to put it. Mike - You wrote, "If I'm correct, and God had His hand in their [PFAL texts'] writing, then His Word will speak for itself better than I could." If you are correct, and God wrote "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world", then one would expect for it to speak for itself by making sense. Especially since it is such a foundational concept. Grads were discouraged from answering questions during the course of a PFAL class because the new students weren't "spiritually mature" enough to receive the answers. Yet we allowed *prospective* students to read the Blue Book. It shouldn't require much "spiritual maturity" to understand Wierwille's sentence from the Blue Book. Certainly a prospective student wouldn't be expected to glean an understanding of Wierwille's simile from his knowledge of the rest of the class, because he hasn't even taken it yet! This sentence is one of the most basic statements in PFAL. You yourself quoted it in your post of April 01, 2003, 00:19, (page 2), wherein you introduced the topic of this thread. In your post of April 13, 2003, 16:13, (page 6), before launching into an exposition of "Christ Formed In You" you wrote, "This teaching depends heavily on an understanding of the Natural/Factual versus Spiritual/True." This simile is *foundational*, yet the truth is, you cannot explain it. You can't explain it because it doesn't make any real sense. It has an appearance of meaning, but there is no substance. Wierwille's words *do* speak for themselves. God *did not* have His hand in writing this simile. You are *not* correct. Love from a certifiable OLG, Steve

Mike - Are you admitting that what Wierwille wrote doesn't make sense to you either, and you can't explain it? Love, Steve

Mike - You wrote, "May I suggest this? Instead of your plan to 'explore more deeply your [MY] interpretation of the simile Wierwille drew...' might you explore more deeply exactly what Dr. wrote." This is exactly what "Dr." wrote, "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world." I asked, "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?" You replied, "The plant kingdom has growth life (body). The animal kingdom has growth life plus soul life. The kingdom of man has body, soul and spirit. The kingdom of God is where the 'Christ Formed In You' teaching posted on an earlier page on this thread, comes into play." So you see, my friend, we cannot explore what *you* say about PFAL without exploring *your interpretation* of what Wierwille wrote. Your interpretation of Wierwille's simile falls short in three ways. First, you interpret the supercession of the kingdoms as a progression from "growth life" to "soul life" to "body, soul and spirit" to "Christ formed within". However, you don't demonstrate how this progression teaches us anything about the supernatural world superceding the natural world. Second, by injecting your ideas about "Christ formed within" into your interpretation, you've created a circular explanation. In your introduction to the "Christ Formed In You" teaching (posted April 13, 2003, 16:13, on this thread) you wrote, "This teaching depends heavily on an understanding of the Natural/Factual versus the Spiritual/True." We can't understand "Christ formed within" without understanding the supercession of worlds. We can't understand the supercession of worlds without understanding "Christ formed within". Do you see how you've caught your own tail in a recursive loop? Third, your explanation doesn't make any sense on the face of it. If the kingdom of man includes spirit (as in "body, soul and spirit"), then at least part of the spirit world is a subset of the kingdom of man. If the kingdom of man is a subset of the natural world, then how can the spiritual world supercede the natural world? So... what meaning exactly are we to come away with, when we read exactly what Wierwille wrote? I'll probably be off line until early next week. See you then! Love, Steve

Mike - Thank you for your prompt and concise answer. Your thinking makes much more sense to me now. Looking back, I see you've said the same thing over and over, but the parts were scattered through so many lengthy and complex postings, I didn't see how they fit together. I want to explore more deeply your interpretation of the simile Wierwille drew to illustrate how the spirit realm supercedes the natural realm, but, since your understanding is conditioned by your interpretation of his "Christ Formed In You" teaching, I want to study that teaching more deeply before proceeding. I think I'll be ready to pick up again early next week. Love, Steve

EWB - I also was involved with spiritualism when I first took PFAL. I had reached a stage where I realized that the spirits would tell me whatever they thought I wanted to hear. The question on my heart was, "How can I find out what's true, if they're only going to say what they think I want to hear?" PFAL convinced me that the Word of God really is an objective standard for judging the truth of spiritual matters. For years of my involvement with TWI and for years afterward, I unthinkingly accepted TWI's explanation of spiritual matters. It's only been within the past couple of years that I've begun to question the whole spiritual/senses dichotomy taught in PFAL. The spirits are real, and they have some abilities that we cannot at present duplicate, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are just as much a part of the "natural" cosmos as we are. I no longer think that it's necessary to interpret the Word of God to mean that there are two realms, one natural and another spiritual, and that "spiritual" laws supercede "natural" laws. I still regard the Word of God as the objective standard for judging spiritual truth, but I no longer regard PFAL as a standard for judging the Word of God. From now on, if anybody comes up to me and tells me that there is an invisible world, and that they are the only ones who can open it up to me, I'm going to do regard them as frauds until they prove otherwise, and not with stage-magicians' conjuring tricks, either. Mike - Welcome back. The kitchen hasn't been the same without you. I hope you can stand the heat a little longer this time In the real world, when a person puts himself forward as a candidate for mastery in some particular field of knowledge, he isn't just required to write a thesis. He is also required to defend his thesis before a hostile jury. If the candidate can successfully defend his thesis, he is considered to have mastered the material. Evasion of questions and rationalizations of error are signs that the candidate has not mastered the material, and cannot successfully defend his thesis. With those things being stated, in your post of April, 01, 2003, 00:19, on this thread, as part of your thesis, you quoted extensively from pages 23-25 of "The Bible Tells Me So". You included the following sentence in that quote. "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world." My first question is this, in what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world? Love, Steve

Everyone - I'm going to have to go off-line for a few days. I'm looking forward to getting back, because I think this has become a profoundly interesting discussion. See you real soon! Love, Steve

CoolWaters - Good point! The Word of God contrasts walking according to the spirit with walking according to the flesh. Wierwille contrasted walking according to the spirit with walking according to the senses. We didn't learn *anything* about what the Word of God means when it uses the word "flesh". More very good food for thought. Thanks! Love, Steve

Mike - You wrote, "There are two arms of flesh I feel you still have too much respect for. One is the scholarly team that has attempted to reconstruct the original scriptures. The other is your own reasoning ability to work with the tools that scholarly team has provided." The Word of God says that God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. Rationalization of error is not the product of a sound mind. It may be the product of a deceiving mind. It may be the product of a deceived mind. But rationalization of error is *never* the product of a sound mind. Love, Steve

mj412 - It appears from what you write that you have drawn lessons from your experiences with demons similar to the lessons I've drawn from my own exposures. I found your post very interesting. laleo - You wrote, "You mentioned that you found peace with Jesus Christ after reading Matthew 11:28-30. When I read those verses, I see a paradox..." That's not exactly what happened. I wrote "When I renounced my commitment to the error I had been taught... The noose I had constructed of my own commitment was gone." The deliverance came when I made the decision to turn away from the foolish commitments I had made, commitmnents to promoting error. I quoted Matthew 11:28-30 in my post to contrast the nature of laboring for the Lord with the nature of laboring for error. When a person is drawn away from the Word of God by his own over desires, demons can dangle bait in front of that person. If the person goes for the lure, he doesn't actually get what he's going after, he gets his head caught in a figurative noose. The demons keep the bait just beyond reach. The harder the person strives to reach the bait, the tighter the noose becomes. Laboring for error is working for diminishing returns. The harder you work, the more difficult it becomes. It brings frustration, disappointment and bitterness. It burns a person out. The thing around the persons neck is a noose, not a yoke. Laboring for the Lord isn't always a cake-walk, but He never puts a task before us that we cannot do, if we pull together with Him. Yoking a pair of oxen together allows them both to pull, and actually get something done. More later. Love, Steve

laleo - You wrote, "Figures of speech are pictures painted with words that create images in the reader's mind which bypass reason to evoke emotion." That's one valid definition of figures, but it isn't the only one. There are rules of language. For instance, when giving a list with three or more elements, all of the elements are connected by commas, except for the next to the last and the final elements, which are connected with a conjunction. "The woods were full of dangerous animals; lions, tigers and bears." (You have to imagine this sentence being read in the monotones of a middle-school lit class student.) To write the sentence "The woods were full of dangerous animals; lions, tigers, bears." would be a violation of the rule, but it is the valid figure of speech "asyndeton" or "no ands". It doesn't draw attention to the danger presented by the particular animals, it just illustrates that there are animals and they are dangerous. If we were to write "The woods were full of dangerous animals; lions and tigers and bears." this also would violate the rule (picture Judy Garland delivering this line in "The Wizard of Oz" Oh my!). However, this is a use of the figure "polysyndeton" or "many ands". It draws attention to each of the particular animals, and that animal's particular danger. So, figures of speech can be apparent violations of the rules of grammar, even though they are actually valid uses. The author of the Word (God, if you are so inclined to believe) included figures to draw attention to the things HE wanted emphasized. Now to the "laws of nature". Physics is a description of human experience stated in the language of mathematics. Newton didn't "discover" gravity. He invented (and/or developed, depending on your point of view) calculus, which he used to describe the "action at a distance" of gravity guiding the motions of the planets. The culture of the time found this very profitable, because calculus could also be used to describe the motion of cannonballs. A useful art indeed! Newton's laws, which are called "classical" physics, were "deterministic". That is, there was an unbroken chain of cause and effect that linked every entity in the universe into an unalterable, predictable, lock-step dance, from the creation of the universe to its destruction. There was no room under Newtonian mechanics for God to influence anything after He initially set the universe in motion. This gave rise to the theology known as deism that viewed God as a clockmaker who doesn't interfere with the operation of His creation. The occurance of actual miracles became inconceivable. Eventually theologians could declare that "God is dead." Yet, in the early- to mid-twentieth century, classical physics was displaced by quantum mechanics, which are *not* deterministic. Rather, the new "laws" are probabilistic. When a system changes its quantum state, there is *no* single pre-determined outcome. There is instead a set of possible outcomes with probabilities attached to each. Miracles are not "violations" of the laws of nature. They are instances where systems experience highly improbable outcomes to changes of state. I believe God causes miracles, apparent violations to the "laws" of nature, in order to draw attention to things in our experience that He wants us to particularly observe; the same way He uses figures of speech, apparent "violations" to the rules of grammar, to draw our attention to particular things in His Word. I no longer believe that miracles are the result of "spirit-realm laws" superceding "senses-realm laws". More tomorrow. Love, Steve