oldiesman

Some folks won't because of VPW sins. Me, I'd like to have all the sessions on my iPod for present and future reference. :o :D

You appear to be suggesting that CFS was an open invitation for the student to live immorally, since it did not contain passages against adultery and fornication. I disagree on two points, (1) there was no invitation or doctrine in the CFS class that taught people to live immorally, and (2) the absence of key scriptures against adultery and fornication does not promote adultery and fornication in and of itself. It has been inferred, but I think the greater cause of adultery and fornication is that people CHOOSE to live immorally because they want to, because of the sin nature, walking by the flesh; regardless of whether or not we are taught something. I agree that the absence of those key scriptures did not help matters. But also doesn't mean that the class was false because some folks choose to live immorally. Also, if bad fruit = bad theology, what about those folks who choose to live morally, who bore good fruit? Should we say that CFS was a magnificent success because of many who live morally? That'd mean good fruit = good theology.

I disagree with that premise. The application of doctrine is contingent and controlled solely upon the person making the decision to apply it, either appropriately or inappropriately. The same doctrine can be used for ill purposes and twisted, or used for honorable purposes. That is why, the behavior of the one performing the application of theology does not prove one way or the other that the theology is truth or error. If that's the case, that'd mean truth is contingent upon someone's behavior at a certain point in time. Truth is truth, behavior is behavior.

Tzaia, thank you for acknowledging the point I am making. I respect your view that you no longer believe in the administrations teaching based upon its own merit or lack thereof.

So you think this is changing the subject? Did you read Dr. Juedes article in its entirety? I did. Dr. Juedes opened the door by inferring that core twi doctrine (which includes the seven administrations and body soul and spirit) is FALSE BECAUSE OF IMMORAL BEHAVIOR. That is pertinent to this thread of which the article is based. Had he simply stated that twi doctrine was used to excuse immoral behavior, without speaking about the truth or error of the doctrine itself, I would have agreed with that opinion. BUT that is not enough, he wants to show that because of the immoral behavior, the doctrine must be wrong too. Sorry, I don't buy it. As pointed out above, somebody can teach the doctrine and extract an exact opposite meaning, which I think means that the core doctrine (like seven administrations, body/soul/spirit) is IRRELEVANT when it comes to immoral behavior!

I get what you are saying, but that is not what Dr. Juedes said. He wrote "the fact that core Way teachings can so easily be used to promote immorality is a good indication that those Way teachings are false, too." He is saying that because someone uses, for example, the seven administrations to excuse adultery, that the seven administrations teaching is false. Folks, that is asinine, ridiculous logic! The seven administrations teaching should stand or fall on its own, irrespective of how it is used, or the behavior of those who use it! Conversely, here is an example of the seven administrations teaching being used to show that adultery in the grace administration is wrong. It is from John Schoenheit's adultery paper "Appendix A." John shows from the seven administrations teaching that believers in the Grace Administration are not allowed to have more than one wife, and they are not allowed to "sleep around" either. So if the seven administrations are false based upon the immoral behavior of some, or encourage adultery, how would you explain the above??

He is ALIVE in us via the holy spirit. "It's Christ in you, the Hope of Glory". Do you remember that teaching? I do. I'd say that qualifies as fellowship but you can believe what you want!

This is ridiculous. It purports to infer that those who believe Christ is absent or dead cannot have a practical relationship with God. So what about Jews, Hindus, Muslims? What is more, TWI taught that Christ is alive and resurrected and seated at God's right hand, is our Lord and Savior, makes intercession for us, has fellowship with us, etc. Cherry picking one statement by VP out of its context is fraudulent and misleading.

Quote from the article: I disagree in part with this premise. It purports to infer that if immorality is present, the theology is false. What it fails to mention is that immorality likely will be present whether or not the teachings are true or false. I do agree that twi failed to adequately teach that adultery and fornication is sinful... which likely helped along the increase in these sinful practices; but this does not mean or equal that the teaching on the seven administrations was evil or false. That is folly, and flawed logic. Where did VP get the seven administrations from, Bullinger? So since Bullinger was of good moral character, shall we say that it was the fruit of the seven administrations teachings? After all, good fruit or morality indicates a good root of theology? Not really. I think the two should be separated. Accordingly, I think the teachings should stand or fall on their own, irrespective of the behavior of the students. The sins of the students do not negate the truths (or errors) in the teachings.

I think it depends on the state laws. To the best of my knowledge, most states have no law against slandering the dead, so a lawsuit of this nature likely would be a big waste of time and money even if the allegation is false. What'd be interesting is if VPW were alive and someone would sue for sexual harassment/rape. Logically, Craig got sued, so its not crazy to think someone would sue and end up receiving a financial settlement.

Congratulations Raf and family. :)

If anyone is interested, you may download a free monthly podcast from STFI HERE. I have been downloading them for months and they are pretty good. Fear not. Nothing about spiders and boogie men.

Also, "all men are liars" the "all" must be interpreted "all with distinction". "All without exception" men are NOT liars, Jesus being the distinctive exception.

Good point Raf, thanks for clearing that up.

Which was proven erroneous when he faked it. I agree with you on that error in PFAL.

Which proves that if a person wants to engage in a fake, they may do so. Doesn't mean the genuine is fake though.

I tend to agree with the last sentence; that seems logical. But I disagree with the prior paragraph. Comparing what someone thinks is speaking on tongues in 1100 B.C. to what occurred on the day of Pentecost and beyond is folly. That happens when a secular definition of speaking in tongues is made, then someone assumes that all without exception occurrances of speaking in tongues is exactly the same (i.e. essentially meaningless) without taking into consideration that the biblical occurrance of SIT on the day of Pentecost and beyond was totally different and in a totally different context than what occurred in 1100 B.C.

They allowed it up until the early 70's but sometime in the middle-70's quit allowing it. I have a letter from Bo Reahard somewhere in my Way Memorabalia file that explains it.

Quote from the article: I wish this couple well. But folks who pay out lets say $1000 a month for rent, have shelled out about $240,000 in 20 years, with NOTHING to show for it except helping to pay someone else's mortgage. Conversely folks who have a mortgage will pay a little more month to month for maintenance but have offset that with tax deductibility issues, and more importantly, have something to show for it in the end of 20 years. I would say that may make one a better steward of God's money. I wouldn't say it makes you a better citizen, but smarter. Hell yeah.

The premise is false and misleading. TWI written documents from PFAL say: God = The Word Jesus = The Word in the Flesh Bible = The Word in Writing There was nothing about PFAL=The Word. Accuracy is important!

That's not what Skyrider said. His false premise is based on the idea that PFAL=The Word. Not PFAL=An Inroad to The Word. Had he said that from the beginning, I probably would have agreed with him.

I disagree with the premise that TWI promoted PFAL as the god breathed word. Having hung around for 17 years I would have picked that one up for sure. Seems to be just another feeble way to label them as kooks, which I think is unnecessary and unchristian. I still believe there are lots of biblical goodies in PFAL; still believe twi promoted PFAL as keys to unlock the word, but not the word itself. I will say this: I believe that when and where VPW rightly divided the word, we got the true word; but when and where he wrongly divided the word, we got error.

Whatever descriptive word one uses to trash VPW's teachings because of his alleged conduct (pick a word: negate, taint, poison, cancel out, etc.) the thought is pretty clear that the idea is conveyed that the teachings are "**********" because of his sins. This is no strawman because it is at the heart of some folks' belief and feelings. But truth is truth. If VPW said "Jesus is the Son of God" and Mother Theresa said "Jesus is the Son of God" the message that Jesus is the Son of God is not tainted because VPW said it. If one feels differently, one is entitled to ones feelings; but the truth is not "tainted."

I believe differently. Whether or not it is tainted is a subjective conclusion based upon feelings and emotions; not logic and truth. If sin taints truth, I suppose there'd be no bible, no teaching, no preaching as well because all have sinned.