T-Bone

Great post, Groucho!!!!! You've got me thinking of something Jesus said about the doctrines of men and how it relates to Juedes' great article: Matthew 15:1-9 NKJV 1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5 But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ' These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" The law of believing as taught in PFAL is based on an assumption of how things work – and superimposes erroneous concepts onto the simplicity of the Bible. People focus on their own believing, on what they want, on the steps to receive anything from God, on studying Release from Your Prisons just one more time. That is the traditional way most PFAL grads address a problem… And what a person focuses on – they are drawn to – sort of like driving a car. How much of that has anything to do with looking to God...of having faith in God? Acts of faith in the Bible always revolve around the power of God! I guess we could cut out every reference to "God" in the Bible –and put "the law of believing" in its place. That would work – then the doctrines of men would fit like a hand in a glove - with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision.

Hmmm…I think an interesting study would be how Jesus was received in His day – and more importantly – what was the message He presented that called for a response. Was His ministry all sweet and positive? The same man who taught about faith in God, prayer, love, humility, forgiveness, the priority of the kingdom of God and His righteousness also spoke of the hypocrisy, lies, deception and predatory nature of certain religious leaders, the dangers of self-deception, and the punishment of hell for the willful disobedience of evil workers. Such a study may offer a more comprehensive idea of what Jesus' ministry was all about. Those same topics are talked about by those who received Jesus in the New Testament – i.e. they are mentioned in the epistles…Maybe God is pleased with folks who tell the whole story.

In your objective and honest opinion, what specifically should vpw be given credit for?

I wish I had known ahead of time that WordWolf was going to start this thread – I would have been better prepared . Great posts, everyone! Lots to think about! I read an interesting book on the subject: What does God know and When does He know it? The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowwledge by Millard Erickson, Zondervan, 2003. On page 12 & 13 he notes four major viewpoints in the divine foreknowledge controversy: 1. Simple foreknowledge. God simple "sees" at it were, the future. Generally, this view is allied with God as atemporal, that is, standing outside of time. 2. Middle Knowledge. On this basis, God knows not only all that will be, but all the other possibilities in every possible world. Out of these possibilities, He chooses to bring into existence one possible world, a world in which each person will freely choose to do what God has chosen for the person to do. 3. Calvinism. God knows everything that will happen because He has chosen what is to occur and thus brings it about that it actually happens. This makes God's knowledge of the future a function of His will. He works in relationship to the person's will in such a way that the person chooses what God has decided. This is compatibilistic freedom, the freedom to do as one chooses, but that choosing is not pure spontaneity or ability to act in ways inconsistent with one's character. 4. Open theists. A challenge to the conventional view. God has a complete and perfect knowledge of the past and that he also has an exhaustive and accurate knowledge of all present truth. He even knows part of the future. However, there are other future events that God does not know, and these are those that involve free human will. In most cases, God does not know what a given human is going to do until that person actually decides and acts. Erickson says on page 15, "historically there have been several views of how God knows the future, but there has been basic agreement among advocates of simple foreknowledge, middle knowledge, and Calvinism that God does know the future." Whereas, to the open theist there are limitations to His foreknowledge. I hold to the simple foreknowledge view. What I found in reading this book are some issues on both sides – traditional and open theist. Like on pages 23, 24: "…2 Kings 20:1-20. In this passage, King Hezekiah is ill and anticipates dying. He reminds God of his past faithfulness to God, and God decides to increase his life by fifteen years. This is a key passage leading Boyd to the open theist position [Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000, page 8]. It seems clearly to represent a change in what God is going to do because in v. 1 Hezekiah is told to prepare himself, since he will not recover from the illness and will die. The original declaration would not have been made if God knew that Hezekiah would cry out as he did. Here again, however, a feature of the narrative presents a problem for the open theist position. Bruce Ware in particular points out that Jehovah does not just tell Hezekiah that he will extend his life. He is much more specific: his life will be extended by fifteen years. Ware says: 'Does it not seem a bit odd that this favorite text of open theists, which purportedly demonstrates that God does not know the future and so changes his mind when Hezekiah prays, also shows that God knows precisely and exactly how much longer Hezekiah will live? On openness grounds, how could God know this? Over a fifteen-year time span, the contingencies are staggering! The number of future freewill choices, made by Hezekiah and innumerable others, that relate to Hezekiah's life and well-being, none of which God knows [in the openness view], is enormous.'" [bruce Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, Wheaton Ill.: Crossway, 2000, page 95-96] End of Excerpts In regards to practical issues, Erickson says the open theist has fewer problems addressing prayer and the problem of evil. But on guidance, he says the traditional view has the advantage [page 253, 254]…Sorry if I've bored everyone – thought I would mention a few books if anyone was interested in extra credit…It could come in handy – you never know when WordWolf will throw a pop quiz.

I'm not talking about whether or not vpw was saved. I don't think that's something we can figure out – we can't play God. Look at the context of Matthew 7: Matthew 7:15-23 NKJV 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' According to the above passage - identifying a bad tree [false prophets, wolves] IS something our Lord said we can do. Only the Lord knows if someone shall enter the kingdom of heaven! vpw's salvation has never been an issue with me. I don't want to damn anybody to he11. Only God knows what's really going on in a person's heart… I've said it before – I believe he was a good man at some point – until he let his sins dominate his life. Our God-given responsibility as Christians is to be on the lookout for false prophets, wolves – so as to protect God's flock. I'm not interested in getting philosophical – can a Christian be a bad tree? I dunno....So many things to think about. That's not the issue here. Can a Christian spot a bad tree? I think it's possible for one who is armed with the criteria of Scripture.

I would have to look at the Greek Text on that – I'm at work right now…But I think it could work both ways – "Christ in you" – "Christ among you." And perhaps the latter is more applicable due to the context…The passage in John 14 is at a much more personal level – not addressing the "Christ collective" . I'm also thinking of the personal aspect that Paul mentions in Galatians: Galatians 2:20 NKJV I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I like your spatial reference, Another Dan - in your post # 1722 - that He transcends location…My itty bitty pea brain tries so hard to understand how God works. We're given very little specific details on how – none really. We're just assured that God will commune with us. That leads me to think it is a very subjective, personal thing – this communion…it would be different for each person then, wouldn't it? We humans are trapped in a certain space and time. God inhabits eternity…some physicists working with super-string models/theories suggest there may be at least eleven (?) dimensions – I'm only aware of three [four, if you include time]. Imagine the capacities of a being who is not bound by any dimension [however many there really are] and with no temporal limitations.

Oh, I recognize the "good fruit" alright. That's part of the Christian facade he propped up for folks to see. Ya know, a wolf has got to wear something that LOOKS like a sheep's.

Since you put it that way – affording me some leeway – I can state emphatically and specifically – I don't know . Seriously though – I'm thinking it echoes the communion mentioned in the John 14 passage: John 14:23 NKJV Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." Colossians 1:27 NKJV To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. I don't think I can appreciate this communion aspect enough – or that my love for Him or obedience to Him is capable of opening this treasure chest. I guess that's where the Holy Spirit's role comes into play: John 16:5-15 NKJV 5 But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, 'Where are You going?' 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. 12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

You have an interesting point with the new commandment in John 13. It seems Jesus is raising the standard - by now setting His sacrificial love as a model...But then you've got me confused with your later statement.

Bulwinkl, I sure hope you stay. Realize some posters are here to sucker folks into fights – maybe with the express purpose of getting a newbie so frustrated they'll leave Grease Spot and never hear the other side of the story nor tell their own.

Ah, but were you really joking when you posted that? Thinking about the points in my post # 1678, especially from Bruce's Jesus: Lord and Savior – of God bestowing unreserved honor upon His Son, giving Him a name above every name, the Lord's Prayer means a lot more to me now – as expressed by Edmund P. Clowney in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, editors T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D.A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy, page 695 under Prayer: "…Jesus taught his disciples to pray in the [very brief] 'Lord's Prayer'. We pray to our Father to hallow his name in his Son, and to bring in his rule in the kingdom of his Son…" As I mentioned in post # 1587, it appears Paul's prayer in II Corinthians may be to the Lord Jesus Christ, if the "My strength" is associated with "the power of Christ" in verse 9: II Corinthians 12:7-10 NKJV 7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. "Strength" and "power" in verse 9 are the same Greek word dunamis [strong's # 1411]. The following is from Systematic Theology: AN Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem, pages 380 & 381: "…Though there is a clear pattern of prayer directly to God the Father through the Son [Matthew 6:9; John 16:23; Ephesians 5:20] there are indications that prayer spoken directly to Jesus is also appropriate. The fact that it was Jesus himself who appointed all of the apostles, suggests that the prayer in Acts 1:24 is addressed to him: "Lord who knows the hearts of all men, show which one of these two you have chosen…" The dying Stephen prays, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit" [Acts 7:59]. The conversation between Ananias and "the Lord" in Acts 9:10-16 is with Jesus, because in verse 17 Ananias tells Saul, "The Lord Jesus…has sent me that you may regain your sight." The prayer, "Our Lord, come!" is addressed to Jesus, as is the prayer in Revelation 22:20, "Come, Lord Jesus!" And Paul also prayed to "the Lord" in II Corinthians 12:8 concerning his thorn in the flesh." Moreover, the fact that Jesus is "a merciful and faithful high priest" [Hebrews 2:17] who is able to "sympathize with our weaknesses" [Hebrews 4:15], is viewed as an encouragement to us to come boldly before the "throne of grace" in prayer "that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need" [Hebrews 4:16]. These verses must give us encouragement to come directly to Jesus in prayer, expecting that he will sympathize with our weaknesses as we pray…" End of excerpts How did the first recipients of these epistles understand references of prayer to "The Lord" ? Is it possible they can be applied to the Lord Jesus Christ - our faithful high priest...who sits at The Father's right hand - vested with the Father's authority and power - and as such He is authorized by the Father to co-reign.

Waysider, I just got around to reading this thread - and want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for bringing sunshine, lollipops and rainbows to this thread.

You're assuming all the members of a visible church are also members of Christ's invisible church. Why are there passages that warn of false prophets, false teachers, wolves in sheep's clothing, wolves coming in not sparing the flock? What rules are you talking about? What plan B? What about the sovereignty of God? Do you think what Adam and Eve did threw God a curve - Oh my gosh, I didn't anticipate this - now what do I do? What does that say about the counsel of the Lord? Like Bliss said - God's plan - His only plan - is His will! That does go against vpw's words of "wisdom" circumstances changed so the revelation changed. Speaking of "rules", Jesus summed up the entire written Word of God available in His day by saying everything revolved around two laws - love God and neighbor...Paul and James echo the same thing in the epistles: Romans 13:9, 10; 15:2; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8...I don't think anything has negated the moral standards God set up that show us how we're to live. True, there was no body of Christ while Jesus walked the earth. But His directive to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness is a common theme - even in the Old Testament, fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of man, Ecclesiastes 12:13. vpw's philosophy took license with the grace of God. He translated - we're not saved by works - into the flesh is of little or no consequence - it doesn't matter what you do now! Rules? We don't need no stinking rules! I put equal value on every book in the Bible.The importance of the gospels lies in the fact that they contain the teachings of my Lord [teachings conveyed in word and deed!]. And according to John 14 - it is our loving obedience to His teachings that in part facilitates the communion of Father and Son with us - which does not even address the imperceptible work of the Holy Spirit also mentioned in that passage...

Actually, I think we can infer from the two great commandments [love God and neighbor] that you putting a stick in my eye or praying to moon men - would violate these commandments. That would lead me to think that what you're suggesting is forbidden. It does not specify in John 14 how this communion works. And I don't think I have suggested how it should work...I believe God can do a lot more than what vpw gave Him credit for - like his assumption behind the Great Principle - "God can only speak to what He is - which is Spirit."

The beatings will cease when morale improves.

So, do you mean being unsympathetic comes natural to you then? For that matter, are arrogance and self-righteousness a pre-existing condition or are they the tenth and eleventh manifestations of the TWI-mind games? From the trend I see in your posts - it seems like you have issues with lots of things: When people criticize TWI, vpw, PFAL. When people tarnish the image of vpw. It seems contradictory for someone to talk about Jesus healing the broken-hearted while attacking folks you assume aren't able to "get over it." What's with making "current followers" real big – and then denying you are one? Well, remain mysterious and aloof – it doesn't matter to me. But you might want to note the mission statement following the phrase you quoted: It seems your mission is to denigrate those telling the other side of the story about TWI and its trustees.

Thanks, I'm glad you brought that up! Your post inspired me to review that Psalm, a New Testament reference to it by Jesus, Lenski's commentary on Matthew, and F.F. Bruce's Jesus: Lord & Savior – and thought there was some post worthy stuff: Psalm 110:1 NKJV The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." Matthew 22:41-46 NKJV 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" They said to Him, " The Son of David." 43 He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying: 44 ' The LORD said to my Lord, " Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"'? 45 If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?" 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore. R.C.H. Lenski comments on the Psalm/Matthew passages in The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, pages 888-891: "…"The Lord said" is more expressive in the Hebrew: ne' um Yahweh, "communication of Jehovah," …the recipient of the communication is added…"to my Lord," 'Adonai. The fact that this is David's future son is understood by all concerned, is placed beyond question by Jesus himself, and is accepted by both Jewish and Christian exegesis. Yet this his own son David, who as the king had only Yahweh above him, calls "my Lord," and the kind of 'Adon or "Lord" he has in mind is brought out by the description of him given in this psalm: he is one who sits at Yahweh's right hand, one whose enemies are made his footstool…No wonder David called this son of his "my Lord."… …This is the Messiah, the God-man, and thus even King David's "Lord." Note that Yahweh is here distinct from 'Adon; a clear revelation in the Old Testament of the persons of the Godhead. Here one divine person speaks to the other…The Jews' sole objection was due to the fact that Jesus, the lowly man of Nazareth, called himself the Son, and that men received him as such. David was a prophet who by the illumination and the inspiration "in the Spirit" wrote as he did… …Here divine exaltation is predicated of David's son, the Messiah…Yahweh's right hand is his divine power and majesty, therefore also it is called "the right hand of power." Compare the parallel passages on God's right hand. To be sitting at God's right hand is to exercise this power and this majesty to the fullest extent. This invitation to sit is thus the divine exaltation of Christ's human nature…When the Son assumed our human nature he communicated all his divine attributes to that nature. Just as a king who marries a humble maiden by virtue of that marriage makes her a queen so that she shares in all his royal prerogatives, so the Son did when he wedded our human nature… …The terrible error of the Pharisees is here exposed. Their conception of the Messiah was that he was David's son and only David's son, a mere human Messiah, however great and mighty he might be in his human glory and power. His deity was a closed book to their blind reading of Scripture. They dared not say that he was not to be David's son; they knew that he would be. They dared not deny David's inspired word that the Messiah would at the same time be David's Lord and thus very God. Yet the Pharisees would not admit the Messiah's deity…" End of excerpts And from Jesus: Lord & Savior by F.F. Bruce, pages 200-204: "…in the resurrection narratives of the Gospels Jesus is called 'the Lord' or 'my Lord' much more freely. This is consistent with Peter's declaration on the day of Pentecost that, by raising him from the dead and exalting him to his right had, God has made the crucified Jesus 'both Lord and Christ [Acts 2:36]…If the resurrection made no difference to his identity, it made a difference in the promulgation and recognition of his identity. Peter based his declaration that the crucified Jesus was now 'both Lord and Christ' on the opening words of Psalm 110: 'The Lord says to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand…" This oracle, in its original setting, was addressed by the God of Israel to the king of Israel, the Lord's anointed. As Peter applies the oracle, 'the Lord' who speaks is God the Father; 'my Lord' to whom he speaks is his Son, the Messiah… In the Hebrew text of the psalm there is a clear distinction between the speaker and the one spoken to, for two different words are used: 'An oracle of Yahweh to my 'adon.' But when the Hebrew scriptures were translated from Hebrew into Greek, one and the same noun did service in both capacities: 'The kyrios said to my kyrios.' It is as kyrios that the risen Christ is invited to be enthroned at God's right hand… …More than once we have referred to the hymn in praise of Christ's glory which is incorporated in Philippians 2:6-11…Therefore God in turn has highly exalted him and given him the name above every name, That at Jesus' name every knee should bend…And every tongue confess, 'Jesus Christ is Lord!...In response to Jesus' unreserved acceptance of a life of humble service, culminating in his vile and degrading death b crucifixion, God has bestowed unreserved honour on him. The hymn includes echoes of Isaiah 52:13, where it is said of the submissive Servant of the Lord that, after his rejection and suffering, 'he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high, and also Isaiah 45:23, where the one true God swears by himself: 'To me every knee shall bend, every tongue make solemn confession.' But in the Christ-hymn it is this same God who decrees that every knee shall bend at Jesus' name and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. It is this same God, moreover, who declares in that part of the book of Isaiah , 'I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I give to no other' [isaiah 42:8]. But now he shares his glory with the crucified Jesus by exalting him to universal supremacy and bestowing on him the name which is above every name – his own incommunicable name, 'The Lord.'… …The possibility was suggested…that when the words 'The Lord said to my Lord' were read in the Greek Bible by people who had no access to the Hebrew text [where two different nouns are used] they might have been encouraged to equate the one Lord with the other. But in the Christ-hymn it is not a matter of inadvertently equating them: it is deliberately affirmed that God has conferred his own name, with the unique dignity attaching to it, on Jesus. It might not be appropriate to reword 'Jesus Christ is Lord' as 'Jesus Christ is Yahweh'; but nothing less than this is involved…" …When the Apocalypse calls Jesus 'Lord of lords and King of kings' [Revelation 17:14] or 'King of kings and Lord of lords' [Revelation 19:16], there may be an echo of Deuteronomy 10:17, 'the Lord your God…Lord of lords', or of Daniel 2:47, where Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges that Daniel's God is 'God of gods and Lord of kings'… …These New Testament writers, Paul and the others, were monotheistic Jews by upbringing and instinct. What possessed them to transfer to Jesus of Nazareth titles and activities which belonged to God alone? Nothing but the assurance that God himself had set a precedent by so highly exalting Jesus. He had declared his good pleasure 'that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father' [John 5:23]. The ascription of such divine honours of Jesus cannot be put down to the New Testament writers' adoption of a strange technique of Old Testament interpretation. It must be put down rather to the impact made by the Jesus of history not only on those who saw and heard him and remained in his company during his ministry, but also on others who had never met him in this way but first came to know him as the risen Christ…" End of excerpts

Talk about seeing what you want to see and jumping to erroneous conclusions! Fitting for this thread, though – here's a "great" thing folks learn taking PFAL – malleable logic. Let's compare apples to oranges. You can't?! Sure you can! Both are sort of round, about the same size…they have color…uhm…they're both fruit – yup, things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Thank you, PFAL! Jesus said to identify the - - - TREE - - - by the fruit! Matthew 7:15-20 NKJV 15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. According to Jesus, a false prophet is a bad tree. A bad tree can only produce one thing…bad fruit. He's NOT talking about the amount of fruit produced or the quality of fruit. He's talking about the TYPE of fruit! You don't go to a thorn bush to gather grapes or go to thistles to gather figs. I wonder why Jesus gave such a warning. Perhaps the sheep's clothing is such a good disguise that it was necessary to issue criteria to spot them – spiritual profiling, if you will. We're to look at the type of fruit to determine the genus of the tree. For Jesus to expect us to make such an unequivocal judgment – the fruit must be easy to spot. From experience, I would say so – once I removed the wool pulled over my eyes by the wolf. Until then I was just as much fooled by the man-o-gawd facade as the next TWIt. Once you start looking past the talk - and look at the walk - the blinders come off. Corps were so acclimatized to vpw's ungodly behavior - due to his "spiritual spin" on everything - they never gave this type of fruit a second thought. The mental block most TWIts have is from ignorance of the gospels. "They're not addressed to you - so don't waste your time." Most TWIts expect God to reveal to them any spiritual trouble, banking on revelation, operating the knowledge manifestations...or perhaps the gift ministry they're following will steer them clear of trouble...That's too hard for dumb ol' sheep like me. That's why I like the gospels. My Shepherd lays things out nice and clear..."Well I don't know about adultery. you know it says all things are permissible to me"...Well, that's why I like the Gospels. Jesus said if you're even thinking about adultery it's wrong...I like that. Sure it's tough - but I ain't a nansy pansy . Can the Christian fruit be counterfeited? John 13:34,35 NKJV 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. Sure. Like anything else. A smart wolf will dress up in Fruit-of-the-Loom sheep's clothing. Yes, this type of wolf is an excellent actor...I imagine ol' Judas had everyone fooled – but Jesus. Interesting too, that the love of many growing cold follows the rise of false prophets. Matthew 24:11-14 NKJV 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. We've gone full circle – coming back to the theme of Matthew 7, talking about those who deceive…Hmmm…very interesting – used the same passages as your post – but without the PFAL-colored glasses.

I'm dying here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks, Excathedra!!!!!!!!! I could tell that woman had a sincere desire to translate. What believing! What boldness! What the he11 was she saying?!?!...Ya know...I think she was in a practice session at one of our twigs...anyway, she did better than me... [edited to have universal language appeal]

I feel the same way, Oak – there's some convoluted, paradoxical and assumptive issues in Trinitarian/Unitarian doctrines that are challenging to wade through. And speaking of doctrines in general – we're touching upon a process that sometimes is mysterious, elusive and even invisible – how someone organizes the biblical data. It's unfortunate the Bible is not the God-breathed textbook. Everything would be arranged by topics in neat chapters with lots of God-breathed charts and diagrams for explaining the complicated stuff. If God had inspired the Bible to be written this way - there would be no question as to what/how certain passages related to each other and of course, which ones were relevant to a particular topic – and by the exclusion of all other passages would deem those as irrelevant to the topic. I've made reference to an analogy on the With Apologies to Jesus and the Trinity thread – but I think it's very appropriate for a thread on PFAL doctrine. The following excerpt is from Understanding Doctrine: What it is – and Why It Matters by Alister McGrath, Zondervan Publishing House, 1990, pages 28, 29: "A helpful way of thinking of the relation of doctrine to Scripture, probably suggested by a growing Victorian public interest in botanical gardens, was put forward by the nineteenth-century writer Thomas Guthrie. Guthrie argued that Scripture is like nature, in which flowers and plants grow freely in their natural habitat, unordered by human hands. The human desire for orderliness leads to these same plants being collected and arranged in botanical gardens according to their species, in order that they can be individually studied in more detail. The same plants are found in different contexts – one of which is natural, the other of which is the result of human ordering. Doctrine represents the human attempt to order the ideas of Scripture, arranging them in a logical manner in order that their mutual relation can be better understood." End of Excerpt When I first read the above excerpt, many of the PFAL doctrines came to mind, especially the law of believing. I see doctrine as a tool – a useful tool at times – but its strength lies in the criteria used to organize the data. Reflecting on my "doctrinal garden" after leaving TWI - the law of believing passages stuck out like a sore thumb. In my opinion, vpw organized certain passages by focusing on people experiencing the power of God instead of the power source – God! Instead of attributing the experience to God's power, vpw focused on the power and how to control it – suggesting it was something anyone could tap into – that it worked for saint and sinner alike. Therefore, this section of PFAL's doctrinal garden had passages grouped together that featured a word like "faith" or "believe" or noting a sequence of actions [believe is a verb, a verb connotes action] that produced a result. This "doctrinal garden paradigm" can be a useful tool for studying Scripture, and perhaps even help us identify questionable doctrines as we develop our critical thinking skills. Some topical passages, however, are very malleable – turning on a viewpoint. Eschatology, Charismata, Baptism, Trinitarian, and Unitarian doctrines - just to name a few – contain elements adaptable to various viewpoints. Take for instance, my current doctrinal garden section that covers "God". It's one section with three sub-categories [Father, Son, Holy Spirit]. A Unitarian's doctrinal garden would have three distinct sections: Father, Son, holy spirit. It is always critical to see how doctrine influences practice – on Trinitarian/Unitarian doctrine I find no significant practical consequences. So, on this issue - I'm not concerned with who has the "correct" doctrinal garden on this – since the grouping works either way – I prefer my grouping. That's why I believe it's wise for students of the Bible to develop critical thinking skills – a never-ending process of raising the intellectual bar in order to do our clearest thinking. I think being aware of this "artificial" substructure of doctrines is a good thing, in that we're more apt to distinguish our perception from the actual thing – the raw biblical data. It's being aware of the influence of your own viewpoint. Oak has a great thread along these lines, PFAL-Colored Glasses, PFAL limiting our research: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?s=&showtopic=11073&view=findpost&p=259360 And if you think about it – we all have some kind of filter through which we interpret things. That's one of the reasons I come to Grease Spot. I love the variety of belief systems here. I've become more aware of the distinction between my viewpoint and the issue on the table and can even explore it from another angle - if I temporarily adopt someone else's viewpoint…A big thing I learned about PFAL – it's an ideological box that is only so big with some questionable elements to boot! I've ignored the writing on the walls - "you can't go beyond what you're taught" – and decided to leave the room.

Have a good one !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Golly gee, I apologize for being remiss – all your questions are very important! I've got my top researcher handling them right now – even as we speak. While intense research is being conducted, everyone have a great Labor Day weekend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point of my referencing the passages was to show instances of calling on the name of the Lord – i.e. prayer – are applied to both…You still are confused on Trinitarian doctrine – I'm not saying God the Father and Jesus the Son are the SAME person. It does appear to be some overlapping roles, one facilitating the other…I don't know…I'm not God…I don't pretend to have the inside scoop on how God works. I am amused at the nitpicking arguments you throw out. Not worth my time to respond. Except for this one point here – because it really exemplifies the PFAL-mindset. The John 14 passage I referred to, doesn't give any details on how this communion occurs. If you're so adamant on specificity you ought to find a passage that indicates the standard communication format God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit uses.

Ladies and gentle peoples. Me thinks presentation tis the problem. Be it known to all PFAL grads I am resorting to a semi-PFAL/TWI format for the remainder of this post in an attempt to confuse the unconfusable, refuse the unrefusable, and to use the unusable. Welcome to the first session of Power for Overcoming the Power of the Power for Abundant Living Class. First of all, I would like to thank Pawtucket and the board of Grease Spotters for making it possible for me to share my heart on this post in this day and time and hour and format. In this first session of Power for Overcoming the Power of the Power for Abundant Living Class I am going to show you one of the keys for overcoming the power of the PFAL class. I'm not going to show you all the keys – that is not the purpose of this post. Have you ever wondered what is the greatest power available to the human mind? You ask the average PFAL grad in your community and you'll more than likely hear something about the law of believing. [T-Bone stands up and walks over to a statuette of Elvis…licks lips…acts real natural] You know…after I first took the PFAL class I thought that was true. For years my wife and I were in TWI doing the things were thought would get the desired results. But somehow we lacked the intelligence…the reasoning…good ol' common sense if you please, to realize we were spinning our wheels. Then one day a miracle happened. [pauses for effect] It had been a little while after I left TWI and was mulling over this problem – when it happened. It was an audible voice – as clear and distinct as if you were reading the words of this sentence out loud, right now [cue for the person running the class to lead every Grease Spotter into reading the last sentence out loud]. "Maybe this law of believing is a bunch of baloney." There…I said it! And when I opened my eyes, there was a baloney sandwich and Tea sitting in front of me. Tonto is so sweet - she had made that for me the night before…I was so busy thinking about this problem that I forgot to eat. And what color do you think the napkin was? White? Oh no it wasn't! It was fire engine red! We've been using leftover napkins from a Ho Ho Relo party. As I ate my baloney sandwich and tea [sometimes when I'm very hungry I'll order a pack of gum] – I figured out that the greatest asset I have is the power to think. And the greatest secret at Way World today is that you can't go beyond what you're taught.